The Forerunner

by **jcr4runner** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:29 pm

In my argument that the Gospels are in fact authentic writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I want to focus on four lines of argument:

1. Internal evidence
2. Pagan historical records
3. Writings by the first century Church Fathers
4. Writings the second century Apologists
5. Recently uncovered documentary evidence
6. Affirmation by modern critics

My goal is to provide enough data and evidence to show that compared with the criticism of other ancient writings, the authenticity of the New Testament can be shown to be reasonably good. It isn't possible to prove it in the face of scientific skepticism or in a legal sense, but that is not how literary criticism and historical investigation is usually done. I prefer to present all the corroborating data in favor of authentic authorship and let the serious inquirer decide.

I think most will find that there is a lot more data in favor of authentic authorship than is usually supposed and no real hard data opposed except for the conjecture of higher critical hypotheses.

I will deal with the authorship of Acts, the Epistles and Revelation as part of my argument.

I will also attempt to construct a New Testament time-line from the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod to the birth of Jesus and the growth of the church to about 200 AD.

I welcome all rebuttals.

by **jcr4runner** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:09 pm

Before getting into the internal evidence for the Gospels authenticity, I want to examine the question as to HOW the Gospels were written. Many people debate the "when?" and the "who?" but not the "how?" Is it plausible that Jesus' disciples Matthew and John could have written the accounts they did? How did Mark and Luke compile their material?

First, was it possible for first century Jews to accurately record the acts and sayings of Jesus later arranging the stores and teachings into a set order which accurately reflects Jesus' words and the events of His ministry?

The Sayings of Jesus

I want to lay out a scenario for this beginning with the sayings of Jesus.

Jesus was a peripatetic rabbi, which literally means a "teacher" who "walked around." Many rabbis were based around a synagogue and they would have taken on a group of disciples. The disciples would memorize the sermons of their teacher and would be trained to repeat them and answer rigorous sets of questions. All men above the age of 30 were required to be able to read from the law in both Hebrew or Greek and expound on its passages. He was also required to teach his sons to read and teach his family the law. This took place in the confines of both synagogue and home. If a man had an apprentice son, they would rehearse the law and repeat it's expositions and teachings while at work during the day -- in the same way that various catechisms are taught today. The average Jew was a synagogue member could read in at least three languages, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Most could not write well because parchment was expensive and the job of a scribe was a specialized profession. However, each rabbinical school had trained scribes who would copy the book of the Law and it's extra-canonical teachings. We see such a community at Qumran, the site of the Dead Sea scroll discovery. This community collected parchment scrolls in three languages and probably had scribes who were responsible for copying.

The Scribe was a trained professional writer and an expert in the Law. His job was to know every "jot and tittle" of the Law. Scribes had to memorize entire books of the Old Testament.

When the Scribes and Pharisees came to "test" Jesus, they were asking him questions to see if he agreed with the teachings of their most famous teachers from the rival rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai. Jesus most often agreed with Hillel, but sometimes He gave answers that defied expectation. Often the Gospel writers recorded that the hearers were astonished that He spoke as one with authority and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at his teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

It is easy to understand why Jesus was not tied to one synagogue or one rabbinical school. As a perepatetic rabbi, He would essentially walk in a circle, returning to the same villages and synagogues every few weeks. Sometimes he taught at parties in people's homes. Often the crowds were in the thousands, so he preached outdoors, as we see with the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, and the passages about the miracle of the loaves and fishes, which record different crowd sizes.

Like most itinerant preachers, Jesus had a collection of sermons that were repeated. What we see in the Gospels are parables and teachings that the disciples heard on a daily basis for over three years. In the original language, which was probably Aramaic, they had a lyrical quality. Memorizing a parable or sermon was much the same as knowing all the lyrics to a hit song in our day. There were hooks, catch phrases and well known sayings, as well as the typical Hebrew thought parallels that were an aide to memorization.

What is commonly misunderstood is that Jesus had hundreds of disciples, not simply twelve. At one point, He sends out 70 disciples to preach and at another point 120. The were taught to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. This included everything that Jesus had taught and said up to that point. The disciples had probably memorized some version of the Sermon on the Mount and most of Jesus parables. It must have sensationalized the crowds who were used to hearing the same rote sermons that had been taught for years in their synagogues -- the same expositions of the Law that had been passed down by the Pharisees for generations.

Into this setting, the Gospel was first preached. Both the modern liberal and conservative view is to understand that the sayings of Jesus were first arranged into "pericopes" (pronuounced: pa-RIK-a-pee) during Jesus life when they were rehearsed daily. These were initially not a word for word tradition, but an oral tradition that varied slightly with each telling. However, the basic ideas and semantic content was identical.

Let's also suppose that out of the hundreds of disciples who followed Jesus there were a few dozen scribes. Matthew Levi, who is identified as a tax collector, was in all likelihood a customs officer employed by the Romans. He was responsible for handling documents related to customs and trade. Out of the twelve Apostles, Matthew was likely the only one with the tools of writing. However, the Gospel accounts also mention that Jesus' message of forgiveness, regeneration, repentance and saving faith attracted a large number of "publicans," therefore it is possible that up to ten percent of Jesus' followers knew basic arithmetic, could write well and were proficient at copying manuscripts.

So when were Jesus' sayings first written down? One biblical scholar and papyrologist, Carsten Thiede, said the following in an interview:

Modern critical theologians would say they were all put together decades after the event, basically invented from scraps of information here and there. Anyone taking classical history seriously would ask why anyone should make that assumption. If we believe that there was an individual, Matthew Levi, who also was a disciple and who was a tax official in Galilee, we know that such a person would be capable of writing shorthand. This was part of his professional skills. People like him at this time in Galilee, Palestine, Egypt, Rome and Greece knew shorthand. The most probable scenario is that Matthew was there, an eyewitness who made shorthand notes of what Jesus said.

This is one possibility and no matter how radical it may sound to the liberal mindset, it was in keeping of the practice of various rabbinical schools at that time to write down the teachings of their masters. Would being a perepatetic rabbi inhibit this literary process? The answer is both yes and no. One would imagine that constantly being on the road and out of doors would prohibit such an early literary effort. However, when we look at maps of where Jesus began to preach, we see that in the first year of His ministry He was focused around Galilee. He took at least four circuitous trips between Nazareth, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tiberias, most often basing His preaching around Capernaum where His initial disciples were from. It is likely that the disciples returned to their own homes often. They are pictured several times working as fishermen and sailing on the lake during the ministry of Jesus. Matthew is from the same region and would have had the ability to return to a home and record the teachings of Jesus as was the responsibility of disciples of rabbis who were scribes.

But whether Jesus' words were recorded on the spot in shorthand, in a home from memory, or memorized and practiced orally, it is likely from what we know about the culture of the Jews , that this itinerant rabbi's preaching was preserved in some way when His voice was still ringing in His students' ears.

Let's suppose though that Jesus words were memorized and repeated for a number of years until they were finally written down. How accurately did the disciples record Jesus' words as they were being repeated and memorized?

As a high school English teacher, I teach a short unit on the King James Bible before we read from The Inferno and Paradise Lost each year. In one of the lessons, I played a CD recording of "The Parable of the Good Samaritan." It is two minutes long. My students were required to listen to the parable six times, taking notes and writing what they heard. After this was done, they worked in groups of three and four to compete for extra credit to see which group could compile a manuscript that would come closest to the original wording. In almost all cases, each group came very close to the original wording, sometimes with one or two differences. The differences were along the lines of what we see in the synoptic Gospels. The point of this lesson was not to tell my pubic school students that they have to believe the Gospel, but to show them that it is possible to preserve an oral tradition accurately.

If we extrapolate and take this same exercise over a period of three years, with the parables being told hundreds of times, in the context of a culture that was steeped in oral tradition, we can have some confidence that the words recorded in the Gospels are the words of Jesus.

There are very few sayings of Jesus that could not have been repeated dozens of times. Even His words at the Last Supper, recorded at lengthiest by John; and the Mount Olivet Discourse, which was given at the end of Jesus' ministry, could have been repeated more than once sometime during Jesus' ministry. These sayings were then arranged by the Apostolic church after the resurrection of Jesus into a narrative which included the acts of Jesus. But there is no reason to suppose that the sayings of Jesus were told only once or a few times.

As John wrote:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

At the end of the Gospel of Luke we are told that Jesus spent 40 days with the disciples after His resurrection expounding the teaching concerning the messiah and left them with the command to preach these things.

"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Aramaic to Greek

Another possibility that critics don't often deal with is the likelihood that a common oral or written Gospel was preserved for many years in Aramaic or Hebrew until it was finally written in Greek. The translation of a common Aramaic or Hebrew source would account for most of the minor differences we see between the Synoptic Gospels.

by **jcr4runner** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:40 pm

The Book of Acts picks up with the commandment by the resurrected Christ shortly before He ascended to heaven. The commandment is repeated in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke as the Great Commission. The disciples are commanded to "preach the Gospel" to the ends of the earth.

The question we should ask here is: "Which Gospel?"

In the Great Commission Jesus gives to His disciples to preach the Gospel to all the earth. Each of the four Gospels and Acts contain a version of this commandment. In Acts 1:1-3,8, there is an interesting definition given as to what this "Gospel" consisted of.

The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.... "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

This forty day period consisted of Jesus rehearsing with His apostles the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. We also have the account of Jesus teaching His disciples on the road to Emmaeus shortly after the resurrection. From this we see the importance of the relation of Old Testament prophecies in preaching the Gospel.

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:27).

The role of the Holy Spirit in bringing to mind the Gospel -- "everything Jesus began to say and do" -- is not to be downplayed. The Gospel was told under the verbal inspiration of God.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you (John 16:12-15).

The "Gospel" then is the Gospel of the kingdom which Jesus began to preach, everything Jesus began to say and do, the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled concerning His birth, life, death and resurrection.

But this still does not address how the Gospel was preached before it was written. To see this we can look at the account of sermons preached in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

Peter's Sermons 30 to 35 AD

In the book of Acts, we have Peter's sermons. It would be redundant for Luke to have repeated word for word the Gospel account he had previously related to Theophilus. So it's likely these are outlines or summaries of what Peter preached.

Some critics like to point out that this "Gospel" that Peter preached is only a proto-Gospel, so they assume, because none of the Gospels could have been written at this point. I agree that this was certainly an oral Gospel preached "off-the-cuff" -- so to speak -- by Peter. However, the structure shows that this was a sermon that was probably preached more than once. It probably is a summary hitting the highlights of a sermon that must have lasted more than just the two or three minutes that it takes to read Acts 2:14-29. In fact, the next verse explicitly says:

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”

The "Gospel" preached by Peter only 10 days after the ascension of Christ. Without quoting the whole sermon here, Peter makes the following points.

The next few chapters of Acts record that the Apostles are preaching day by day on Solomon's porch, which was an outer part of Herod's Temple, several Old Testament prophecies are recorded here. An essential part of preaching the Gospel in the early days of the Church was proving from the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah. They assumed their hearers knew something of the life of Jesus and that He was crucified in Jerusalem around 30 AD. Therefore, we see that the narrative included a summary of Jesus' acts and then proofs from scripture that He is the Christ.

By the time of Stephen's sermon it is thought that several years had passed. By now it is about 33 AD. Stephen's sermon consists only of a recounting of Old Testament history pointed toward the Sanhedrin who were responsible for crucifying Christ. He ends with the testimony of Christ's ascension and plenipotentiary rule from heaven:

“Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

At this point, Stephen is stoned and a vicious persecution break out against the church. James the Apostle is also killed shortly after this time. The thousands of Jews and God-fearers who were added to the church in the early years are now scattered to the nations. Presumably, the nations mentioned in Acts 2, now have ambassadors of the Gospel of Jesus Christ returning to their own cities. It is useful to look at a map of the cities mentioned in Acts chapter 2, Judea, Galilee, Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Minor, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, Arabia -- in other words every known nation in the world.

See the map of "Roman Provinces at the TIme of Christ."

http://www.lngplants.com/RomanProvincesTimeofChrist.html

These men would have returned to their cites and established communities of believers among the Jews and Gentile God-fearers who would hear the Gospel preached in their synagogues. It is useful here to show a map of where these early congregations would be. There were now believers who were well-versed in a proto-Gospel that was absorbed from daily teaching.

We can presume that the earliest Christians heard a "proto-Gospel" made up of the five points outlined above. It is doubtful that this was a consistent chronological narrative, but probably a collection of sayings and doings of Jesus that demonstrated the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the Messiah. A call to repentance and salvation would have been made to whoever believed the Gospel of the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Some of the deacons of the early church who were ordained with Stephen go into neighboring regions such as Samaria and Syria and begin to preach and establish congregations there. Antioch, the capital of Syria on the border of Cilicia, becomes the main center of activity.

In Acts 8:35, the Apostle Philip meets an Ethiopian Eunuch on the road from Gaza to Jerusalem. Apparently, this man was either a Jew of the Diaspora or a Gentile God-fearer who now had an important place in the government of Ethiopia --Queen Candace's treasurer -- what we think of as the secretary of the treasury today. He was trying to understand a messianic prophecy form Isaiah.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

We ought to assume here that the Eunuch knew nothing of Jesus and needed to be told something of the story. Philip being one of the Apostles would have spent the proper amount of time with him. We can only imagine what the Eunuch did upon returning to Ethiopia as a high ranking government official. The church father Irenaeus wrote:

But again: Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the month? [...] But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken away from the earth." [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.12.8).

At about 33 to 35 AD, Saul of Tarsus, is converted while traveling from Damascus to persecute a Christian congregation that had arisen in Syria. Initially, Paul stays in Syria in the region of Damascus and preaches in all the synagogues. We do not know what the content of his message was. We only know:

... he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.

Shortly after this, Paul escapes death at the hands of the Jews by being brought to Jerusalem by Barnabas to see the Apostles. This account dovetails with Paul’s recollection in Galatians:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me. (Galatians 1:16-24).

What did Paul talk to Peter and James about during those 15 days? We don't know. However, it can be inferred that Paul was instructed about the life of Jesus. Paul already understood the Law and the Prophets and had undoubtedly heard sermons preached by the early church leaders when he was having them bound and dragged off to court. Some have thought that Paul had become convicted of the truth during this time, but that his conversion experience did not occur until he was seeking against him goading of the Holy Spirit to bring legal action against "the followers of the Way" who had spread to Syria. But undoubtedly Paul knew the Gospel both through direct revelation by the Holy Spirit and through having heard it preached in Judea and Syria. After this short period of instruction we are told in Acts 9:29,30 that Paul

... spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.

This brings us up to about 37 AD. Then the persecution of the churches ceases for a time.

Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.

The Book of Acts then picks up with the story of Peter, who went up to Cornelius's house in Caesarea to preach to a congregation of Gentile God-fearers who had received the Gospel either from John the Baptist about ten years prior or from disciples of John who had traveled to that region. We are told simply that they had received "John's baptism."

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:35-43).

The strong possibility is that this is not the entire sermon, but a summary provided by an author who was not present at the time. Note the following elements of the "Gospel":

Here in simple outline is the sermon that later became known as the Gospel of Mark. Perhaps it was missing some elements ad it may have varied from the written version, but there is no doubt that here are bare bones of the Gospel being preached around 37 AD.

Although it is not recorded anywhere in the book of Acts and the New Testament, according to the Church Fathers, the Apostles began to leave Jerusalem around 10 to 12 years after the Resurrection of Jesus to preach the Gospel abroad. This would be about 40 to 42 AD. At about the same time, Paul receives a calling to go to Asia Minor to preach among the Gentile nations.

It is told in Acts 11 that the Apostles were in communication with Christians who had been scattered as far as "Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch" preaching the Gospel to Jews only. However, this is not an all inclusive listing, since later we see that when Paul travels to Cilicia, Asia Minor and Italy, nations mentioned in Acts 2, he meets believers in synagogues from those regions.

After this, a new persecution erupts, this time by the civil ruler Herod Agrippa I. The focus of the Book of Acts shifts toward Antioch where Barnabas sends for Paul to return from Tarsus to preach in the churches surrounding Antioch. According to the author of Acts, Luke this happens "in the days of Claudius" who history tells us began his reign in 41 AD. Paul preaches in Antioch for a few years until he is sent with Barnabas to Asia Minor. The historical marker for this is the death of Herod who "was eaten by worms and died" -- the historical marker for this puts us now in 44 AD.

Paul's Sermon in Pisidian Antioch c. 45 AD

“Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.

“After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.’

“Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’

And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:
‘ I will give you the sure mercies of David.’

Therefore He also says in another Psalm:
‘ You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’

“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
‘Behold, you despisers,
Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you’” (Acts 13:16-31).

Note that Paul's sermon is similar to Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 and Peter's in Acts 10. Again, we should not assume that this was the sermon verbatim. But it was probably based on Paul's "Gospel" preaching. I was probably compiled by Luke with the help of Barnabas and others who had heard Paul preach. It has the following elements:

The first missionary journey of Paul takes place sometime between 45 to 47. We then see Paul returning to Antioch.

From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had completed. Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. So they stayed there a long time with the disciples.

What is meant by "a long time" is not known, but a period of three years is likely, because then we see Paul once again in Jerusalem in about 51 AD, which is exactly 14 years after Paul's meeting with Peter and James shortly after his conversion in about 37 AD.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.... and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do (Galatians 2:1,2-9,10).

Even thought here has been some modern controversy over this issue, as early as Irenaeus, expositors of the New Testament have recognized that the events of Acts 15 are described by Paul in Galatians 1 and 2.

If, therefore, anyone shall diligently scrutinize from the Acts of the Apostles the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, they will find those years which were mentioned by Paul concurring. Thus the announcement of Paul is consonant with and is, as it were, identical with the testimony of Luke also concerning the apostles (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.13.3).

In this meeting, we have James, Peter, John and Paul, we have the collected authors or supervising editors of all, but 2 of the 27 books of the New Testament, only Matthew and Jude are directly attributed to other authors. We will see shortly that this gathering of a Council of the Apostles was tantamount in what would have been the first books of the New Testament. Paul's authority to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles was affirmed by the other Apostles. It is also clear that Paul begins to correspond in writing with the churches he has founded after this point. The Epistles of Paul take on the immediate authority as and Apostle of Jesus and one who has received the verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If the account of Acts is true, then we have a summary of a Gospel preached by the Apostles in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Of course, this begs an obvious question.

How do we even know the account of Acts is true?

It was written to and delivered to eyewitnesses.

The account of the Book of Acts, if it was written any time in the first century (even allowing a late date of 85 AD favored by many liberals) was read by Christians in the very cities mentioned in Acts 2. The Book of Acts was written to Christians in cities where Peter and Paul had preached. This is one of the internal bibliographic evidences for the authorship of the Book of Acts. The writer of Acts mentions to his audience, Theophilus (a name meaning simply any "friend of God") that he had previously written an account of "all that Jesus began to do and teach."

In Acts 2:22, Peter begins to deliver a message about Jesus who the elders from Judea gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost are already familiar with "... as you yourselves also know." The entire account of Acts was delivered to churches who would have either accepted or rejected the account based on the accuracy of the book's history. We also see the book of Acts being quoted and alluded to by the Church Father Clement of Rome, who lived from about 35 to 96 AD. Thus the idea that Acts could be a late first century or second century pseudonymous work ought to be discounted on the basis of external evidence.

To read a summary of the case for the authenticity of Acts, I recommend Dan Wallace’s writings:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1226

Another popular conjecture often made by liberals is that no written Gospel could have preceded the first of Paul's letters since Paul does not quote from the Gospels. There are several things wrong with this statement.

First, the accounts of Gospel preaching in Acts shows a narrative that corresponds to the written Gospels. We read in Acts 13, the sermon of Paul in about 45 AD in Pisidian Antioch. This sermon includes a quotation of John the Baptist:

“Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.”

The question becomes, "Where does this quotation come from if not a written Gospel?" Some might counter that this is an interpolation by the author who had previously recorded the same event in the Gospel of Luke. However, if we compare the language, we see one is not simply copied from the other.

Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose" (Luke 3:15,16).

If Luke is simply interpolating here, then why didn’t he simply copy more directly from what he had written before? However, if this is a true account of what Paul preached, it is then either a paraphrase of what Paul said, or it is Paul’s Gospel that differs slightly from the language of the four Gospels. If this was an authentic sermon by Paul preached in 45 AD, then that indicates that a developed narrative had existed for several years.

There are other indicators that there was a Gospel that predated Paul’s letters. Many believe that some of Paul’s writings are actually quotations from early Christian hymns or creeds. One of these is in Philippians 2:5-11:

… though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form
he humbled himself
and became obedient unto death,
even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him
the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth
and under the earth,
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Timothy 3:16 is also thought to be an early Christian hymn that summarizes the essence of the Gospel.

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

Further, Paul shows familiarity with the words of Jesus in 1 Corinthians, which is thought to have been written by 57 AD. He begins a discourse on the doctrine of the resurrection with this remarkable statement:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand (1 Corinthians 15:1).

The question we should ask once again is: "Which Gospel?"

Some have supposed he is simply declaring his mission. However, we read earlier in the letter:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25).

Compare this with the language of the Gospel of Luke:

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19,20).

1 Timothy 5:18 was written from Rome to Timothy a few years later, by the best chronology, in 59 AD.

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Paul here has two quotes. The first one is a quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is a quote from Luke 10:7.

… for the laborer is worthy of his wages.

The phrase, “For the scripture says,” is important. It shows that Paul considered the phrase, “The laborer is worthy of his wages,” was considered to be scripture. A skeptic might counter that this may have been a popular phrase of the day. Yet this does not explain what “scripture” Paul is referring to.

There are a few possibilities that can explain this familiarity with the Gospel of Luke.

Note that in any of these cases, it establishes that there was some type of early Gospel, either written or memorized, that took a standard form.

by **jcr4runner** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:03 pm

One of the great misconceptions of modern New Testament scholarship is that the so-called "Synoptic Problem" was solved long ago by 19th century German critics. The Synoptic problem attempts to explain why the first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are so similar in places and so different in others. Was there a common source, popularly called Quelle or "Q" in German? Is it a settled issue that Mark came first? This Synoptic issue is far to broad to cover in this section, however, a few facts should be examined up front.

According to several early sources.

There is a growing movement toward Matthean priority or independence even among liberal scholars who are examining the Synoptic problem. Several of the major New Testament and Old Testament scholars of the 20th century who held to the liberal view later became convinced of a pre-70 AD dating for all four Gospels, some of the most notable being Eta Linneman, F.F. Bruce, Millar Burrows, William Foxwell Albright, Sir Frederic Kenyon and John A.T. Robinson. The testimony of the Church fathers unanimously places Matthew first among the four Gospels and have Matthew being written in Hebrew within ten or twelve years after the resurrection.

One of the modern pioneers in challenging both late-dating and Marcan priority was Dr. John Henry Ludlum, who published a series of articles in Christianity Today in the late 1950s arguing that evangelicals ought to question this hypothesis. I recently obtained an unpublished manuscript by Ludlum that I will summarize here. He sets forth the Matthew priority argument with relevant data.

Now to consider Gospel Source Criticism. When and how did it begin? Well, we may say one thing at once. Judging by what the books tell us, Source Criticism of the Gospels began around the time of the American Revolution. I do not know of any efforts that were made along this line prior to the year 1775, or perhaps a bit later. If a reference to an "authority" is desired, see Abbott, Edwin A., article "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th. He gave years to the study of the Gospels. Here is what he wrote:

For fourteen centuries the church was content to follow Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum, i.4) in believing that Mark was "as it were the humble companion (pedissequus) and abridger" of Matthew. Towards the end of the 18th century this dogma was shaken, and two different hypotheses were put forward:

1. That the evangelists had borrowed from one another, either Matthew from Mark, or Mark from Luke, or even (so capricious and baseless were the hypotheses which now started into existence) Matthew and Mark from Luke.

2. That all the three Gospels depended upon an original and common Gospel.

The first of these hypotheses may for convenience be called the "borrowing" hypothesis; the second may be called the "traditional" hypothesis. Eichhorn was the first to systematize the "traditional" hypothesis. Abbott was a competent scholar maintaining (in 1794) that the original tradition was a written Aramaic Gospel, known to the three synoptists, but afterwards (in 1804) so far modifying his views as to recognize that the Aramaic tradition had been translated into Greek, and passed through several documentary stages, before it assumed the form preserved in the triple version of our synoptists.

Thus far, Abbott, whose information comes from Holtzmann. We give this quote not so much to prove what the beginnings of Source Criticism really were. Our purpose is only to show you the common view of when it began.

Next we may ask, how did it begin? How did it connect up with what went before? Here is the situation. A certain view was held for 1700 long years after the Gospels were first written and read. It was, of course, the view of the church. It was also the view of the scholars. And it was likewise the view of unbelievers. It is important to note this fact. Down the ages there were millions of unbelievers, who of course rejected the message of the Church. They naturally refused to believe many of the alleged facts recorded in the Gospels. Still, apart from Faustus the Manichaean, who insisted that Matthew could not have written Matthew, because if he had, he could never have referred to himself in the third person, there is no record that before Source Criticism arose any unbeliever questioned the view of the church that Matthew wrote our first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke the third.

The view was this: the first three Gospels were written by three men, namely, Matthew, Mark and Luke. They were three men of recognized standing in the church of the very earliest days. It was this view that Source Criticism was to question. Let us just make it very clear how things stood for 1700 years before Source Criticism began its work.

The first Gospel, we have said, was believed to have been written by Matthew. His qualification to write was that he was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Whether or not he personally saw and heard the things which his Gospel relates is not the critical point. The critical point in regard to Matthew is that he was considered to have had a certain official standing in the church as one of twelve original apostles. He was therefore at least in a position to learn and to verify any things that are related in his Gospel; that is, in addition to those which he had himself seen or heard.

It was stated by early writers that Matthew had written a Gospel especially designed for the Jews who had believed. In these notes our only purpose is to nod in passing at a few of the best known and most readily accessible comments of ancient writers and of scribes of Gospel manuscripts.

"Indeed Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, also bore forth a writing of the gospel, Peter and Paul evangelizing in Rome and founding the church" (Irenaeus).

Editor's note: Here some translations of Irenaeus have "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the church." Unless there was an earlier unrecorded missionary trip of Peter to Rome, then this interpretation would put Peter in Rome about 65 to 67 AD during the Neronic persecutions when, according to Church tradition, Peter was crucified and Paul beheaded. Some have taken it to mean that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome. However, that is not in keeping with the history of Acts, which was known to Irenaeus. The simplest rendering should be that Matthew's Gospel was written among the Hebrews in their own language establishing the church among the Jews, while Peter's Gospel (according to Mark) and Paul's Gospel (according to Luke) were written in Rome establishing the church among the Gentiles. This is more conistent with other testimonies that has Matthew's Gospel written first.

Continuing with Ludlum's comments:

"As learned in tradition concerning the four gospels, which even alone are not spoken against in the church of God under heaven, that the first written that according to the one who was once a publican, but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for those from Judaism who had believed, ordered together in Hebraic letters" (Origen).

"As learned in tradition concerning the four gospels, which even alone are not spoken against in the church of God under heaven, that the first written that according to the one who was once a publican, but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for those from Judaism who had believed, ordered together in Hebraic letters" (Eusebius).

"These things therefore are recorded by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew he says these: Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect ordered together the oracles, and each one interpreted them as he was able" (Eusebius).

"...of whom one also was Pantaenus, and it is said that he went to the Indians, where word has it he found that the gospel according to Matthew had preceded him among some there who had known Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached and left them the writing of Matthew in letters of the Hebrews, which was even saved unto the time mentioned" (Eusebius).

"In the Hebraic gospel according to Matthew it has thus: Our bread for tomorrow give us this day, that is, the bread which you will give in your kingdom give us today" (Jerome).

"Matthew, who is also Levi, the ex-publican apostle, first composed in Hebraic letters the gospel of Christ in Judea on account of those who had believed from among the circumcision; who afterward translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. Furthermore, this Hebraic [text] is held even until today in the Caesarean library which Pamphilus the martyr studiously put together. There was an opportunity for me from the Nazaraeans to copy this volume, which is used in Beroea, a city of Syria. In which [gospel] it must be noted that, wherever the evangelist, whether from his own person or from the Lord and savior, makes use of testimonies of the old scriptures, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but the Hebrew. From which things two are: From Egypt did I call my son, and: For he shall be called a Nazarene" (Jerome).

"First of all is Matthew, a publican with the cognomen of Levi, who published a gospel in Judea in the Hebrew speech, especially on account of those who had believed in Jesus from among the Jews, and with the shadow of the law in no way succeeding he served the truth of the gospel" (Jerome).

"At last Matthew, who wrote the gospel in Hebrew speech, puts it thus: Hosanna barrama, that is: Hosanna in the highest" (Jerome).

"Matthew, from Judea, just as he is placed first in order, so wrote the gospel first in Judea" (The Latin Prologues)

Such are the statements of ancient authors. Accordant therewith are informations given in the subscriptions, colophons, prologues, lives, and so forth, which Gospel manuscripts contain. These are almost always ignored, as if they were unquestionably worthless. Very few books even mention their existence.

I have never been able to learn why their existence should be so completely ignored. They are mostly simple, matter-of-fact, and short. They seem to me in the main to be solid and trustworthy. I would like to hear what can be alleged against them. I should certainly like to see a complete presentation of their contents in such a form that I and others could form our own independent judgments as to their value or lack of value.

It is always stated, when language is mentioned, that Matthew wrote in the speech of the "Hebrews." This is generally, and I think rightly, taken to mean that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. It has, of course, been maintained that one or more Gospels were written in Biblical Hebrew. However, the significant point does not lie in any decision one might make as to whether Aramaic or Hebrew was meant. The great point to watch is the alleged fact that Matthew did not write in Greek. Whichever of the Semitic languages was used, if any one of them was used, then, in such a case, one or more translations would have to be made into Greek, Latin, Coptic, and possibly Syriac. Of course, the Gospel could also later have been translated into any one of the languages mentioned from any of the others.

In what I have just said, perhaps the word "later" ought to have been left unspoken. I myself would think that wherever a missionary went he would take whatever gospel he had in his own language and would translate it into the language of his hearers, whoever they might be. This is the only realistic view of the matter I can take. I know that there is a widely held view that the early church did not use writing to any extent. But I think the evidence and commonsense judgment on the basis of experience are against that view. And this suggestion I have made as to what a missionary would do, moreover, is specifically asserted to have been the actual case in reference to Matthew's Gospel. That is to say, what experience and knowledge of missionary practice in every age would lead one to expect, we are told did in fact occur. This is exactly what the earliest statement on record, as far as we know, tells us about the first Gospel. It says: "Matthew therefore indeed composed the Logia in Hebrew, and each one translated them as he was able." By "the Logia" no one doubts that Papias, and Eusebius who quotes him, meant the first Gospel as we know it. It is possible to think either that he was wrong or that he was right, while still agreeing on what he wrote and what he meant by it.

This statement and others, which the subscriptions in the manuscripts of Matthew contain, and which point the same way, if we let them make their natural, easy, and full strength impression on us, suggest to us a situation somewhat as follows. In the early days of the church Matthew wrote a Gospel which the first apostles and missionaries carried with them into the world.

How early?

Subscriptions in manuscripts of Matthew say that he wrote his Gospel eight years after the ascension of Christ. Eusebius tells a story that he had heard, or seen, about Pantaenus, a globe-trotting missionary, who became the head of the famed catechetical school in Alexandria. Pantaenus made a journey to India. The journey was not to the south Arabians, as Meyer thought probable; nor did "India" mean "the Bosphorus region," as Good¬speed has it. I can find no lexical warrant for either of these oddly divergent suggestions. "Eis Indous" I should take to mean "to the Hindoos," that is, to the people of the region of the Indus River. As a matter of fact, such a long journey corresponds exactly with what Eusebius tells us of Christians in Pantaenus' day. Telling of the reason for Pantaenus' journey, he said:

Because there were -- yes, even as late as that time -- there were very many missionaries of the Word, who exerted themselves to show an inspired zeal, in imitation of that of the apostles, for the expansion and upbuilding of the divine Word. And of these men Pantaenus was one (Eusebius, Church History, V. x. 2).

Now the story Eusebius has heard or read is this. Pantaenus went in his travels to India. There he found "among some of those there who had known Christ, the Gospel accord¬ing to Matthew, which had preceded his own coming. To them Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and he had left with them the writing of Matthew in the script of the Hebrews. This had been preserved until the time mentioned" (Eusebius, op. cit., V. x. 3).

I have heard this story described as "pure bosh." I must admit, however, that as I read it, it does not in the least impress me as "bosh." It simply states that a couple of men did what we know others have done many times within the past century. In so doing, their paths crossed. There was a lapse of 150 years, at the outside, between their journeys. The later traveller found the results of the ear¬lier's presence. I do not see how such an intelligent and educated person as Pantaenus was had to be in error on two simple points, namely, the identity and language of a book he is said to have found at his journey's end. We are also told by Jerome that Pantaenus brought the book back to the west with him on his return.

Apropos of this subject, I cannot forbear introducing a case of mistaken identity which may also serve as a healthy warning to any young scholar who may chance to read these notes. Goodspeed, op cit., pages 94f., writes:

A Gospel of Bartholomew is spoken of by Jerome ... But it is possible he was making a loose use of Eusebius' statement (Church History, v. 10. 3) that Bartholomew on his mission to "India" (meaning the Bosphorus region) found there an Aramaic form of the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps Jerome knew no more than this about a Gospel of Bartholomew.

Checking references is of the utmost necessity. If an expert "gloveman" like Goodspeed can "bobble the ball" in this fashion, let all of us beware, both when we read and when we write. You see! He gives the reference correctly. But, talk about Jerome making a loose use of Eusebius' statement! It is certainly a most hypothetical misuse that is suggested. The suggestion is not at all generous! There is nothing hypothetical, however, about the loose use of the statement we have from Goodspeed. For it was Pantaenus, not Bartholomew, who found the Aramaic Gospel according to Matthew. Bartholomew did not find it; he had left it there years before. This plus the surely ill-judged suggestion already noted above, that "India" meant the "Bosphorus region." Recollection will play all of us false. It is best to check every least quotation.

Then, in different places, different Greek translations, different Latin translations, different Coptic translations, perhaps also different Syriac translations, and so forth, might often come into existence independently of one another. In one and the same language there might well be more than one independently made translation of a Gospel such as Matthew's. Everything would depend, of course, upon the needs and necessities of various situations.

Simply to confine our attention to well known matters, it is well worth pondering the fact that in Latin from earliest times different forms of the text of the Gospels were to be found in very many places. Various independently made translations of Gospels into Latin would account better than any other possible explanation for the varying forms of texts. This situation made it necessary for a Pope to ask Jerome to prepare a new text, the Vulgate, in order to end a situation where there were so many different texts in use in various churches.

There is no reason at all to think that the Greek Gospel of Matthew may not have had exactly the same kind of origin, as we have suggested possible for the so-called "Old Latin" Gospels. An examination of thousands of textual variants in Legg's edition of Matthew has led me to attempt to keep an entirely open mind on this question. I mean this. My mind is open to consider the possibility that the common opinion that Matthew was originally written in Greek may very well be in error. You ought, I think, always to keep in mind the possibility that the different Greek manuscript texts of Matthew, far from being so many corruptions from one original Greek Matthew, might easily be independent translations from an Aramaic original. If so, then in the critical texts now in vogue we do not have an extremely close approximation to the earliest attainable form of the original text. What we have, in such a case, is only a mass of independently made translation-texts (versions) artificially spliced together into a patchwork of no value whatever. In such a case we would think we had a critical text; we would really have a Piltdown Man, so to speak. In other words, try to keep an open mind to the possibility that the simple, natural explanation, which the early sources state to have been the actual case, may well turn out to have been the real state of things.

As a general principle to follow, in studying such matters as these, I would suggest the following. We should make it our constant aim to keep an open mind to the possibility of any developments which the needs and necessities of any special situation may seem to suggest. Besides this, there are simple general considerations most decidedly not to be overlooked. For example, who can doubt that the existence of an apostolic record would meet a need wherever missionaries went, if they had available to them any such record? And further, if they had any such record, translations of it into any and every language would meet a need, not to say a necessity, almost anywhere. So that the real question is simply whether a development of many translations (the various early versions), which no one doubts actually took place before the end of the second century, could not just as easily and with the same natural inevitableness have been in process all through the last half of the first century, perhaps beginning even a few years earlier than that time.

It is necessary for serious students of the Bible to keep an open mind on such a question as this. It may be that you cannot point out any of the "leading scholars" who do so. Nevertheless, scholars or no scholars, however that may be, the plain fact is that what we have modestly put forward as a possibility deserving of serious attention is distinctly affirmed to have been the actual case by the ear¬liest statements that historians can find to work with. They, those earliest statements, state explicitly that our suggested possibility was the actual course which unfolding events took. To ignore the possible correctness of such statements, to fail to keep an open mind towards what the evidences (as distinct from hypothetical speculations) state -- that would be the perfect betrayal of all that is deservng of the name of science.

by **jcr4runner** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:52 pm

Second was Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter and first bishop of the church of Alexandria, who did not actually see the Lord savior for himself, but narrated rather those things which he had heard the master preaching according to faith rather than in the order of events (Jerome).

The second Gospel was universally believed by the church fathers to have been written by Mark. His qualification to write was not that of an eye-witness or ear-witness. Neither was he qualified to write a Gospel because he had been one of Jesus' twelve apostles. What follows is part of Dr. John Henry Ludlum’s lecture, “A New Comprehensive View of the Gospels.”

The critical point in the case of Mark is that he was considered to have had a most intimate share in the lives and labors of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter. It was especially his acquaintance with Peter that qualified him to give the church a Gospel. He was believed to have been Peter's partner in missionary work at Rome. They had worked together as a team. Peter preached. Mark interpreted for him. And it was the supposedly constant and faithful service at Peter's side that had made him fully equipped to take pen in hand and write a Gospel.

The question might be asked, "Why did he write?" Or the same question may be asked, and usually is asked, in a form of words which implies that Mark's Gospel never would have been written at all if the accepted view of the church in regard to the first Gospel were correct.

It may be asked, "What reason under the sun could there have been, supposing the first Gospel were everywhere received in the churches, for anyone to produce a much shorter Gospel like Mark, omitting most of the sayings of Jesus given in the earlier Gospel, while at the same time telling over again the very same narratives as the first contained?"

The form of the question is loaded to make the very idea sound silly. The most natural and thoroughly sensible answer to this question is given by Clement of Alexandria as information which had come down in the church from the original elders. Here our chief desire is merely to take a swift glance at the best known comments of ancient authors. We also adduce a few easily verifiable comments found in manuscripts of the Gospel mentioning Mark's relation to Peter, or the authority of Peter for what Mark's Gospel states.

And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them (Papias).

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example (Latin Prologues).

Indeed Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, also bore forth a writing of the gospel, Peter and Paul evangelizing in Rome and founding the church. But after the exodus of these men Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also delivered to us in writing the things preached by Peter (Irenaeus).

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge (Clement of Alexandria).

No origin for Mark's Gospel could be more natural than that which Clement asserts. He asserts it, and says it was an information handed down from the original Elders.

We just said that no explanation of the origin of Mark's Gospel could be more natural than that given by Clement on the authority of the earliest Elders. It is equally natural even on the not unlikely assumption that the very ones who requested Mark to write a Gospel may have had in their hands the Gospel according to Matthew. The reason for this is as follows. An exact comparison can be made between stories of Jesus as told in the first Gospel and the same stories as told in the second. Such a comparison would show Mark's form of each story is nearly always longer, perhaps always so. In some cases it is nearly twice as long as Matthew's. Mark's stories are longer, because of lively details, added bits of information, which are interlarded into almost every verse. The result is that the stories of the same events in Mark are far more vibrant with life than they are in Matthew. To me it is no wonder at all that men would desire to have in writing the stories of Jesus as Peter gave them in addition to having them as they were to be found in Matthew's Gospel. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the very features of Mark's Gospel which appeared so striking to the German critics nearly 1800 years later were the ones which would have been most likely to prompt the original demand, the popular demand, which caused Mark to write a Gospel.

It may also be mentioned in passing that Peter may have had Matthew's Gospel in his hand, while preaching at Rome. Or, Mark may have had it open on a table before him as he wrote his own Gospel. In a word, there may have been the closest imaginable relation between the first two Gospels. This close relation is conceivable without in any way detracting from the independent apostolic authority of both. Let this be perfectly clear. A very close literary relation between the first two Gospels, in itself, need in no way detract from the value of both or either as independent witnesses to the same set of facts. A close literary relation between any two Gospels can only be used to cast doubt upon the value of the dependent Gospel when the conditions under which the dependent Gospel is written are known (or, imagined) to justify its devaluation.

We now take up the threads where they were dropped and give other comments on Mark's relation to Peter. “And second that according to Mark, who made it as Peter led him, whom he confessed also as son in the catholic epistle, through these words: She who is in Babylon, elect with you, greets you, as well as Mark my son..” (Origen).

Eusebius says nothing of this in his own name. He merely gives the statements of Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen.

Second was Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter and first bishop of the church of Alexandria, who did not actually see the Lord savior for himself, but narrated rather those things which he had heard the master preaching according to faith rather than in the order of events (Jerome).

It is an explanation which has explained the writing of thousands of other books. It ought, in our estimation, to satisfy any one. However, should it not seem a satisfactory explanation one thing must be remembered. It is this. We are often able to be sure of facts, whether such-and-such a thing was done or not done. At the same time we know very well that things can be done for reasons and motives which impel others but seem in our judgment to be entirely devoid either of force or plausibility. The big question here is: Who did what? It is relatively unimportant whether our research can or cannot penetrate to the motives which led an evangelist to put a Gospel in writing.

But to go on with our discussion of Mark.

It was further stated by early writers that Mark had written a Gospel for the use of Italian Christians. The scene of the writing of the second Gospel is given as Rome.

Egypt is also mentioned as a place connected with Mark's Gospel. Two statements connecting it with Egypt may be found in subscriptions to the manuscripts. Some connection with that country would be natural enough in view of the fact that Mark is supposed to have labored there. The early writers certainly credit him with being the first Bishop of the church in Alexandria. The connection is natural and need involve no contradiction of a Roman origin. But we will drop the matter here, saying no more about it, since it is uncertain what the statements mean.

Ancient writers give us the following impressions as to the scene of Mark's literary efforts.

The Marcan Prologue says:

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example.

The Lucan Prologue has:

… when the gospels were already written down … that according to Mark in Italy.

The words of Clement are:

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge (Clement of Alexandria).

While not giving positive statements, Irenaeus suggests Rome in his immediate context, and Origen suggests it by quoting explicitly 1 Peter 5:13, where "in Babylon" is commonly taken to be a reference to Rome. Papias and Eusebius do not mention a definite place.

Neither does Jerome in the Preface to his Commentary on Matthew. Elsewhere, however, he writes:

Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter according to what he heard Peter relate, wrote a brief Gospel as requested by the brothers in Rome.When Peter heard, he approved and ordained it on his authority for reading in the churches, just as Clement wrote in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, and Papias the Hierapolitan bishop. Peter also mentioned this Mark in the first epistle, under the name of Babylon figuratively signifying Rome: she who is in Babylon chosen together with you, sends you greetings and so does Mark my son [1 Pet. 5:13].

And so, he took the gospel which he put together and proceeded to Egypt. First proclaiming Christ in Alexandria, he founded a church with such teaching and self-control in life that she compels all followers of Christ to her example. Further, Philo, the most brilliant of the Jews, upon seeing the first church of Alexandria when it was still Jewish, wrote a book about their dealings as if in praise of his own people, and he handed down a remembrance of what he saw was done in Alexandria under the instructor Mark in the same manner that Luke relates that the believers of Jerusalem had everything in common. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero [emperor 54-68] and was buried in Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him. (Jerome).

Another question is that as to the language in which Mark wrote. The original language of the second Gospel is rarely mentioned. Whenever it is mentioned, as far as I have been able to learn, it is always said to be Latin.

Papias, Marcan Prologue, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome mention no language. Clement clearly implies that Mark's Gospel would be in the language of Peter's audience, who urged that his words be written for them. Would that be Greek or Latin? Either or both would be possible. Which would be the more probable?

The following statement directly contradicts what I have stated about the language of Mark (Meyer, A.A.W., Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch uber die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Vierte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Gottingen. 1860. Page 10.) This says:

Mark wrote Greek, as the Fathers unanimously partly presuppose, partly attest explicitly.

Just what this means is a question. Does he mean that when ante-Nicene writers cite Mark they give his words in Greek? Or does he mean, as we would naturally interpret his words, that Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and so on, unanimously presuppose or expressly state that Mark wrote in Greek? In any case, I am content to let my statements stand until I have seen the statements, whatever they are, of which Meyer speaks. "The whole assertion is only an over-hasty inference from the presupposition that Mark had written at Rome and especially for Romans." So says Meyer.

This may come to you as a surprise, as it also did to me.

Several years ago there was a time, when for about the period of a year, I had been asking different friends to keep an open mind towards the possibility that Mark had written in Latin. My reason for doing this was that I had read hundreds, probably thousands, of the variant textual readings in Mark. What could be the key, I asked, that would explain these readings in some natural and easy way? The character of the variant readings in Mark appeared so like the nature of those in Matthew that I suspected they might have some explanation similar to that which I suggested possible in the case of Matthew.

That is to say, I kept my mind open and urged others to do the same to the possible explanation that the different Greek manuscript texts of Mark, far from being corruptions from one original Greek Gospel, might easily prove to be independently made translations from a Latin original in the case of our second Gospel.

After reaching such a standpoint, then, but not before, I discovered that whenever language is mentioned regarding Mark it is always said to have been written in Latin. A bit later still a good friend and I were together in a library. He was skimming through a learned volume, and ran on quite a long argument in favor of the Latin original for Mark. Three chapters were given over to stating textual data and analyzing it in order to show the likelihood of a Latin original for Mark. The book is Codex B and Its Allies by H. C. Hoskier, London, Bernard Quaritch, 1914, 2v. The three chapters are the fourth, fifth and sixth. The fourth chapter is titled: "Concerning the Latin Version of St. Mark." I would copy the entire first page, page 126, into this footnote, if it were not aside from our main purpose to do so. The fifth chapter is titled: "Two or More Greek Recensions of St. Mark." It is described in the table of contents as follows: "Selected examples of varieties of readings and renderings throughout the Gospel." Chapter six is titled: "Concerning the Latin base of St. Mark."

Editor's note: Codex B and Its Allies can be read in its entirety at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.toc.html

The important point to watch is the alleged fact that Mark did not write in Greek. If he used Latin, then, in such a case, one or more translations would have been made into Greek, Coptic, and Syriac. And of course the Gospel could also have been translated later into any one of the languages mentioned from any of the others. It could also have been translated back again into Latin.

As in the similar case of the first Gospel where an Aramaic original was a possibility, so also here. It is very desirable if possible to keep an open mind for the possibility that the common opinion that Mark was originally written in Greek may well be in error. In such a case, if the Greek manuscript texts of Mark were not corruptions of an original Greek Mark, but instead represented independently made translations into Greek, then, in that case, the so-called critical texts now in fashion would not be close approaches to the earliest form of the text of our second Gospel. They would, in the supposed case, be the result of a misguided attempt to fuse independently made secondary versions into a previously non-existent unity. Instead of finding the original stock, the critical text would be an artificially produced hybrid entirely unrelated to the original stock because the artificially produced text would not even be in the right original language.

We have mentioned these matters because they are possibilities inherent in the basic nature of the study of the Gospels as far as textual criticism is concerned. And not only so. But we give them a place because in the case of both Matthew and Mark the actual statements that have come down to us out of antiquity contradict the whole of our modern approach. Anyone who will not try to keep an open mind on these points cannot well be dismayed should he prove to have missed the right way. In such a case he has but his own forgetfulness to thank for his misspent toils.

It is not my desire to repeat again the general remarks I have regarding Matthew. I shall only say here me that it seems to me that what is most helpful is to take a realistic view of missionary work based on experience. Any one who needed to, or any translation and could or would, might take any Gospel he had in his own language and translate it into the speech of his audience almost regardless of who they might be. What we have outlined as possible (and what could was directly asserted by the ancients to have happened) in the case of Matthew, could equally well have happened with of Mark: the early apostles and missionaries, if they had it, might have taken it with them into any part of the world. St. Augustine wrote as follows:

Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith, every man who happened to gain possession of a Greek manuscript and who imagined he had any facility in both languages, however slight that might be, dared to make a translation (De Doctrina Christiana, II.11.16).

To which we may add that it seems to us that what is asserted by Augustine to have happened in the production of Latin translations may likely have happened in other cases. Everything would naturally depend upon the needs and requirements of various situations.

Another matter is the question as to when Mark was written. The subscriptions in the manuscripts give a date far earlier than you have ever, probably, heard suggested. Ten years and twelve years after the ascension of Christ are the dates given. Your first tendency might be to feel that such dates are so early as to be almost impossible. For my part I refuse to disallow the suggestion. We know far too little to reject these dates outright as sheer impossibilities.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius, 25).

What is the date of this decree? How, if at all, did it affect Christians? If it affected Christians, how long before the decree was a church in existence at Rome? All these matters are involved in great uncertainty and there have been ardent proponents of every possible answer to the questions raised.

The whole question is interesting, but aside from our real purpose, and therefore we may well pass over it and go on to a matter of more vital importance.

That more vital question, of course, is the question as to the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the accounts given in Mark. The earliest known statement of an ancient writer concerning Mark is that of Papias, who relates what the Elder told him. The whole point of that statement is to affirm the trustworthiness of Mark. It affirms that Mark's whole effort was to write down exactly what Peter had said, adding nothing and leaving nothing out. The only thing you need to remember; the Elder told Papias, is that while Mark is absolutely to be depended on for all he gives, he did not attempt to put down the events in the strict order of their actual occurrence. Why not? Because it was Peter's custom to give the information in the course of his teaching, as needs arose and required! Peter was not at pains to give the actual order of events, and therefore it does not come out in Mark's gospel.

This criticism of Mark is repeated in substance by Jerome. What it may be worth is hard to decide. It could of course easily be correct. But on the other hand it might have arisen simply because in places Mark's order of events did not exactly coincide with Matthew's. Fault may have been found with it because it differed from an accepted authority. The mere fact of difference could have been interpreted as a defect. It might also be an improvement. Who can say? It certainly happens often enough in real life that the greatest virtues, the true strong points both in men and books, are plausibly explained as defects. Two things make me hesitate to accept the criticism of Mark's order without reservation. For one thing, the position of Matthew's conversion in the first Gospel makes it likely that he became a follower of the Lord after a good many of the things he describes had already happened. Another thing to remember is that Matthew was not one of the little circle of three or four (Peter, James, John, and Andrew) who alone were present with Jesus when a good many things happened of which the Gospels tell. Therefore my feeling is that it is surely at least possible that what came on Peter's authority, though different, may well have been more accurately ordered than an earlier account even if written by Matthew. The point is not very important. What is important is whether Mark is substantially correct in what he tells. On that point the early church had no doubts.

The statements in early writers, especially those of Clement and those given in the subscriptions, if we let them make their natural, easy, and full-strength impression on us, suggest a situation somewhat as follows. In the early days of the church Mark wrote a Gospel because the brothers at Rome urged him to do so. It had the authority of the apostle Peter behind it. Indeed it was thought to give Peter's actual words, for Mark was regarded as Peter's interpreter. By interpreter they meant translator, just what we have in mind when we see a photograph of a missionary at work preaching on the foreign field. The missionary speaks. No one understands. At his side stands another, who sentence by sentence, or even phrase by phrase, puts into the listeners' speech the message of the alien gospeller. Everything Mark remembered, he wrote down. He was careful to add nothing and to leave nothing out. The written Gospel therefore had both an unusual value (it being the Apostle Peter's witness) and a popular appeal (the lively way in which the stories of Jesus were told). It would certainly be well deserving of the name by which Justin describes the books which were read in the early Christian meetings -- "The Recollections of the Apostles," or, "The Records of the Apostles." The repute of Peter and the vivid forms of the stories would work together to insure the circulation of the new Gospel among the churches. Whenever need required, it would be translated from the original Latin into one or more Greek versions, Coptic versions, Syriac versions, and so forth.

The question was early raised as to whether the second Gospel could be trusted, its order of events being for some reason questioned. From the same early times the assurance was unequivocally expressed that the very point with which fault was being found was due to Peter's way of working. All that has already been said about the impression as to how Matthew seems to have been taken up and used would apply in full force to Mark also. There is no need to repeat all over again what was said before. For missionary work Mark would be just as useful as Matthew was. I find it so even now. Nineteen hundred years ago it would probably have been the same.

by **jcr4runner** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:50 pm

Before discussing the patristic testimony concerning the Gospel of Luke, I wanted to turn some attention briefly to the Nativity story of Jesus as described by both Matthew and Luke.

In debates about the reliability of the Gospels, I am often given the challenge that there was no worldwide census in 4 BC (the date of Matthew’s nativity) when Quirinius was the ruler of Syria (as described in Luke’s Gospel). Historical records tell us that Qurinius served as governor of Syria in 6 AD when he conducted a census. As one recent correspondent put it:

I am more than familiar with the apologetic hurdles attempted by those who try to make 4 BCE the same as 6 CE.

Or to put it another way, the Wikipedia entry on the Census of Quirinius has:

… the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus with this historical census [6 AD], while the Gospel of Matthew places the birth at least a decade earlier [4 BC], during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts; most modern scholars … regard this as an error by the author of the Luke Gospel.

In dealing with these objections, I realize that the hardened cynic needs to put forth the worst case scenario and assume that Luke thought Jesus was born in 6 AD. Therefore, his solution is to have Luke’s Nativity in 6 AD and Matthew's account in 4 BC. The more objective skeptic will opt for the lesser gaffe in that Luke simply mistook when Quirinius was ruling Syria -- perhaps confusing "Publius Sulpius Quirinius" who was governor of Syria from 6 to 12 AD with "Publius Quintilius Varus" who was governor from 6 to 4 BC.

The Gospel of Matthew 2:1 has simply, “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king” and goes on to explain that this birth location is a fulfillment of prophecy.

Luke explains why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem in the first place and not in their home in Nazareth.

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered (Luke 2:1-6).

What is meant by the “first” registration?

There are several explanations for this. The fourth century Greek version of the Codex Siniaticus has a different word order than what we have in our modern translations of Luke 2:2.

Haute apographo egeneto prote hegemoneuontos tas surias kureniou. -- Codex Siniaticus

This registration took place first (or "before") the governing of Syria by Quirinius.

However, other manuscripts moved the word order so we have a modern translation that reads:
“This registration first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria” (NKJV).

Depending on which version you accept, the sense of the Greek here (from the little I understand of Greek) could be rendered one of three ways:

Some have suggested the first rendering is correct and that Luke meant to convey that this was the first registration (around 4 BC) that occurred before Quirinius was governor of Syria from 6 to 12 AD. Whether this rendering is correct is a moot point because in any of the three cases, Luke speaks of a “first” registration. This registration took place prior to the one in 6 AD at which time Quirinius ordered a census for taxation causing an uprising in Judea. Luke mentions this census in Acts 5:37:

After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.

This was not the worldwide registration mentioned in Luke's Nativity account. In fact, Luke makes no attempt to link the census of 6 AD described in Acts with what he describes as the “first registration” in his Gospel account. So it’s evident that Luke has two registrations. The first is a worldwide registration for the swearing of an oath of loyalty in about 5 BC. The second is a local census of Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea administrated in 6 AD.

This “first” worldwide census has several attestations in ancient literature. It was not for the purpose of taxation, but to count and register the number of men in the world loyal to Caesar Augustus. On February 5, 2 BC, Augustus was given the title pater patriae, or "father of the country" in a ceremony that marked the 25th year of his reign. The men of the Empire were required to sign their names to an oath pledging that they would fight to defend Augustus and the Roman Empire in time of war. It is likely that the census took months to carry out. There are records of the oath of allegiance being taken in various parts of the world beginning in 5 BC and extending until the ceremony for Augustus on February 5th, 2 BC.

Was this a taxation or a census?

Some translations of Luke 2:2 have the word “taxed” for the Greek word apographé, a word that comes from the Greek verb meaning to enroll or to register. What Luke actually wrote is not that Joseph came to Bethlehem “to be taxed,” but that he came “to register” in a census. In the ancient world, a census was often used to assess the amount of able-bodied males eligible for military service.

According to ancient historians, this census was for a renewal of loyalty in the form of an oath of allegiance to Caesar Augustus. In order for the oath to be taken, all adult men had to be registered and actually sign their names to the oath of allegiance.

Josephus states, “The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod] …” He adds that “above 6000 Pharisees refused to swear.” Based on Josephus’ writings, this oath was sworn in about the year 5 B.C. The fact that Josephus knew the number of Pharisees who did not take the oath indicates that some sort of record was made of who did and did not take the oath. This too, seems to prove that a registration or census took place.

This was the census for the taking of the oath to which Luke refers. The beginning of the census may have begun in late 5 or early 4 BC, which is in accord with most reliable dates for the time of Christ’s birth and stay in Bethlehem.

Other ancient historians note that the census took place in other parts of the known Roman world as well. An inscription was found in Paphlagonia (a region in North Central Asia Minor) dated to 3 B.C. stating that an oath of obedience was “taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them.” The oath itself is found in an inscription and begins as follows:

I swear by Jupiter, Earth, Sun, by all the gods and goddesses, and by Augustus himself, that I will be loyal to Caesar Augustus and to his children and descendants all my life in word, in deed, and in thought, regarding as friends whomsoever they regard, and considering as enemies whomsoever they adjudge; that in defense of their interests I will spare neither body, soul, life, nor children, but will in every way undergo every danger in defense of their interests (Paphlagonian Oath of Allegiance to Augustus, 3 BC).

The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, stated that the native sources he had available showed that in the year of Abgar, king of Armenia in 3 BC, a census brought Roman agents “to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple.”

The same oath was taken as far west as Spain and even in Judea, where sacrifices in the Jewish Temple were made on behalf of the safety of Augustus. The oath of allegiance appears to be part of a consolidation of loyalty from nations subdued by Augustus’ generals in Asia Minor, as well as nations far to the east and west. Some accounts have this oath being taken as early as 5 BC – around the time that Joseph and Mary came to Jerusalem to register. The enforcement of this oath occurred at the time when many Jews sought to overthrow Herod through various messianic uprisings.

In what year was Jesus born?

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Herod was governor of Judea when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Since Luke is consistent on every other date in the chronology, a birth date of 6 AD is out of the question.

Luke has some other markers that would preclude 6 AD as being the birth date. Jesus is seen as entering the ministry in about 27 AD when he was “about thirty years of age.”

... in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea; Herod being tetrarch of Galilee; his brother Phillip the tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1).

And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age... (Luke 3:23)

If Jesus was born in the fall of 5 BC or winter of 4 BC, then he could have been “about 30 years of age” anytime after fall of 26 AD.

A Jewish man customarily could not become a rabbi until after age 30, so Jesus’ ministry probably lasted from the fall of 27 to the Passover in 30 AD, a period covering the three Passovers mentioned in the Gospels.

So according to this way of reckoning, the 15th year of Tiberias Caesar is about 27 AD. This is when Luke writes that John the Baptist began to preach. John’s 30th birthday would be in the spring or summer of 26. Jesus' 30th birthday six months later in the fall or winter.

Tiberius’ reign began on August 19, AD 14. Luke may have been using any of several methods to define the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. One thing is certain, the year isn’t computed correctly by adding 15 to 14 AD – this would be 29 AD. This does not add up to 30 years from either 4 BC or 6 AD (as the hardened cynic supposes).

Since Luke could certainly add and subtract, what then is the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar?

In eastern provinces [of the Roman empire] ...years were reckoned from the accession of the reigning emperor, the second beginning on the first New Years day after the accession, and the date on which this occurred varied from one province to another (Encyclopedia Britannica).

If Tiberias was installed before the New Year, it is likely that Luke and his audience of Greek speaking Christians in the east counted the accession year twice. The year 14 AD, from our modern reckoning, contained Tiberias' first and second year. The year 15 AD was his third year, and so on until 27 AD, which was his 15th year.

Since John and Jesus were already 30 years old by 26 AD, they could have entered the ministry in early 27 and late 27.

Little is known about Lysanias. There was another Lysanius, a ruler who was executed in 36 BC. Of course the cynics try to confute Luke’s historical accuracy here, but this first Lysanias is not to be confused with the later Lysanius for two reasons:

After this Caesar [Claudius] sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from Chalcis unto a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanae, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed (Josephus, War).

In whatever manner Luke is numbering the years of Tiberias’ reign, he indicates a period of about two years for the beginning of Jesus ministry – no earlier than 27 and no later than 29 AD.

Ancient chronologies are riddled with problems. If we can reconcile the biblical account with other ancient chronologies to within a two year window, this is still close enough to the target date to regard it to be accurate by such standards.

Was Quirinius the governor of Syria in 3 BC?

The difficulty is not the date of the worldwide census or the date of the death of Herod. The real question is whether Quirinius was actually a governor of Syria in 3 BC, when the oath of allegiance was sworn. As I mentioned, some have seen fit to alter the timeline by two years. While I agree that this is one possible answer, I believe that the correct solution is the simplest and most elegant one.

First, here are the governors of Syria according to the traditional timeline:

4-1 BC Unknown

Luke has Quirinius’ rule over Syria and the census taking place at the same time. His account matches Matthew here except for the fact that Matthew never mentions who is governor of Syria, but deals with Herod only. The governor of Syria actually had jurisdiction over the region of Judea as well. Herod, the King of Judea, was actually a lesser ruler.

A few have attempted to rework the timeline and put the death of Herod in early 2 BC to solve the question of how Joseph and Mary could have come to Bethehem when both Herod and Quirinius were rulers. Their arrival prior the spring of 4 BC would have Varus, not Qurinius, as governor of Syria.

However, this was a worldwide campaign to compel allegiance to Augustus in the outlying areas of the Empire. According to all accounts, the census took place over two years, so a timespan or 5 to 3 BC fits Luke's account.

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.

Caesar Augustus issued a decree prior to the death of Herod, but then the census then was completed over a two year period in various places in the world. Luke's account only necessitates that Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem after the decree of Caesar Augustus, not necessarily during the reign of Qurinius. Luke only states that Qurinius was a ruler in Syria while the census was being conducted.

According to the traditional chronology, we don’t know who was governor of Syria in late 3 BC. Some historians have termed 4 BC to 6 AD as a “dark decade” because there are some huge gaps in the historical record. So the question remains, could Quirinius have been governing Syria in 3 BC?

In 12 BC, Quirinius was named consul, which qualifies him as a “ruler” since the same word in Greek, derived from hegemon, is used generically for any ruler -- “governor,” “king,” “procurator” and even “emperor.” Although the exact years are not known, Quirinius led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 to 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. A legate is a military officer who has civil authority. Most likely he held the title of legatus propraetor, or an ex-consul who was given the governorship of a Roman province with the magisterial powers of a praetor, which would have given him command of four or more legions.

According to Josephus, the last few years Herod the Great's reign were marked by frequent conspiracies and messianic uprisings by the Jews who wished to overthrow him. "King" Herod was the first Gentile king of Judea since the time of King David. The Jews prided themselves with the notion that the king of the Jews was God's anointed and to them, the presence of a Roman ruler was blasphemous. Prior to the time that Herod died, he had committed numerous atrocities against the Jews.

Herod's rule ended during a time when according to the prophet Daniel, the messiah was soon to appear. There were frequent uprisings among the Jews. According to Josephus, in 5 BC, a Roman census required an oath of loyalty to Augustus, the imperial dictator who claimed to be divine, was refused by 6000 Pharisees.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the account of the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem pales in comparison to other accounts of the cruelty of Herod. In fact, Bethlehem was probably a village of about 1000 people. We call this a "massacre" and imagine the slaughter of hundreds if not thousands of children. But in reality the number of boys killed in this small village may have amounted to 25 to 50 infants.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men (Matthew 2:16).

It’s also useful to look at how the governorship of Varus ended with him being recalled to Rome in 4 BC. Josephus also writes that soon after Herod's death, Varus had to quash another messianic uprising coming from within the Temple in Jerusalem at Passover in 4 BC. In Antiquities 17.10, Josephus describes how the Roman legate of Syria took two legions and brutally pacified the country, pursuing the rebels all the way to Galilee where he crucified 2000 men.

Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. After which he disbanded his army, which he found no way useful to him in the affairs he came about; for they behaved themselves very disorderly, and disobeyed his orders, and what Varus desired them to do, and this out of regard to that gain which they made by the mischief they did. As for himself, when he was informed that ten thousand Jews had gotten together, he made haste to catch them; but they did not proceed so far as to fight him, but, by the advice of Achiabus, they came together, and delivered themselves up to him: hereupon Varus forgave the crime of revolting to the multitude, but sent their several commanders to Caesar, many of whom Caesar dismissed; but for the several relations of Herod who had been among these men in this war, they were the only persons whom he punished, who, without the least regard to justice, fought against their own kindred.

After this Varus was recalled to Rome, and by other accounts, he became known as an inept militaru commander mainly remembered for having lost three Roman legions and his own life when attacked by Germanic leader Arminius in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD.

According to historical accounts, Quirnius' whereabouts from 5 to 3 BC is sketchy except that he was conducting military campaigns in Cilicia, which is on the border of Syria. In fact, Antioch, the capital of Syria, the largest city in the region sitting on the border of Cilicia, probably served as a base of military operations. Varus too, lived in Antioch. Since Quirinius was successful in quelling the rebellion of the Homonadenses, it is possible to make the conjecture that he may have taken the military command of Syria from 4 to 1 BC acting officially or unofficially as the governor of Syria. One of his tasks would have been the completion of the census in time for Caesar's Jubilee. Quirinius was essentially the closest ruler in the region, one with a successful military track record of putting down rebellions. So to have Quirinius as a ruler in Galatia, Cilicia and also Syria, in the absence of a formal governor of Syria, is not too much of a stretch.

No other ancient writer has Quirinius as a ruler of Syria duirng this time except Luke. We don't have any corroboarting testimony that Quirinius was ever officially the governor of Syria during this time. Consider that Luke is writing to a Greek speaking Gentile audience. Varus was not nearly as famous in Asia Minor and the eastern portions of the Empire as was Quirinius. Varus was a ruler in Syria for only two years. Quirinius was a military ruler and governor in the region for 24 years. Since Luke's audience nearly 50 years later may not have remebered Varus, he may have decided to use the name of the well-known ruler and miltary hero, Quirinius, who ruled in the neighboring regions on the border of Syria.

A comparable example would be to open up a history novel about the end of World War Two by writing:

The war ceased when Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commander in chief over the combined allied forces.

In reality, Eisenhower was the "supreme commander" over all the allied forces. As president, Harry Truman was the "commander in chief" of America's forces. The war ended in 1945 under President Truman. Eisenhower didn't become president and therefore "commander and chief" of America's forces until 1953. However, a Canadian audience reading these words might not care too much about the distinction between "supreme" and "chief" commander. We should also consider the fact that Luke is translating the names of Roman military and political officials from Latin to Greek, using the generic term for any ruler, hegemon.

To say that Luke's census under Quirinius contradicts Matthew's Nativity account is at best an argument from silence. At worst, it is a gross overstatement based on too little data. Matthew doesn’t mention Quirinius because he is writing to a primarily Jewish audience who would remember the cruelty of Herod. Luke is writing to a Gentile audience in Greece, Macedonia and Asia Minor who would probably remember Quirinius and know little of Varus. This might be lost on a Greek audience many decades later and far removed geographically from those events.

Timeline

Here is my timeline for the nativity based on the historical data:

September 10-29, 5 BC -- Joseph and Mary are in Jerusalem for the autumn feasts, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, a requirement for all Jews.

The census for Augustus’ Silver Jubilee begins.

Over 6000 Pharisees refuse to swear the oath of allegiance to Augustus.

Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem to register in the census as required by Roman law.

Late 5 or early 4 BC -- Jesus is born in in Bethlehem.

Jesus is presented in the Temple at Jerusalem as required by the Law of Moses.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus return for a time to Bethlehem.

Herod hears the news of the birth of the messiah from the Magi.

The visitation of the Magi.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus escape to Egypt.

The Massacre of the Innocents.

Spring 4 BC -- Herod dies.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus return to Nazareth.

Quintilius Varus of Syria takes over the jurisdiction of Judea.

He quells an uprising around the time of the feast of Pentecost crucifying 2000 Jews in the process.

Quintilius Varus’ jurisdiction over Syria ends in 4 BC.

Quirinius remains in the east as a military governor over Galatia, Cilicia, Syria.

Fall 3 BC -- Men in Spain, Paphlagonia, Armenia and many other regions are required to swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus.

Former governors of Syria, Saturnius and Varus, are in Rome for the Jubilee in 3 BC.

February 5th, 2 BC -- The Silver Jubilee ceremony honoring Augustus Caesar's 25th year in office.

Thus the oath of allegiance takes place during the administration of Quirinius as Luke writes:

This first registration took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.

If anyone would doubt that Quirinius could be called a governor of Syria, then there is the need to explain who was governing Syria during Augustus' Jubilee. Otherwise, this skepticism is based on an argument from silence. The fact that we know Qurinius was a military governor in the province next to Syria, coupled with the fact that Varus handled a Jewish revolt poorly, makes it at least plausible that Quirinius assumed military jurisdiction of Syria as the only capable commander in the region.

Addendum: Logical Fallacies of the Cynics and Skeptics

On a related note, there are many logical fallacies that Bible cynics often engage in. Apparently, they are blind to them. I list a few here for the benefit of those who are able to see clearly. Hopefully, those with their eyes wide open will be able to identify them when they crop up:

1. The argument from silence – Assuming that if a biblical writer is the only historian who mentions an event, then it could never have happened.

2. The argument from silence’s twin cousin – Assuming that if a pagan historian contradicts a biblical writer, then the biblical writer is always wrong and the pagan is right.

3. A distant relative – Assuming that ancient chronologies and histories are uniform with each other and with our modern dating system.

4. The bandwagon fallacy – This fallacy is easily identifiable as beginning with the phrase, “Most modern scholars agree …” with something that contradicts the view of historic orthodox Christianity.

5. An unrelated fallacy – Assuming the one interpretation of the text out of several possible solutions that would result the most egregious error possible.

6. Or perhaps the worst fallacy of all – Refusing to deal with counter-arguments at length instead listing the authorities that the Christian apologist needs to read in order to be enlightened.

There is a difficulty that cynics and skeptics have with the chronology of Jesus birth. However, the difficulty is not with biblical texts contradicting each other. Rather it is a difficulty caused by logical fallacies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

by **jingjing** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:25 am

One possibility is that the critics do not often deal with is a common oral or written gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew saved for years, until it was finally possible to write in Greek. Translation of a common Aramaic or Hebrew sources will account for between the Synoptic Gospels we can see the most subtle differences.

by **jingjing** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:26 am

One possibility is that the critics do not often deal with is a common oral or written gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew saved for years, until it was finally possible to write in Greek. Translation of a common Aramaic or Hebrew sources will account for between the Synoptic Gospels we can see the most subtle differences.

by **runnerjon** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:59 am

Well you actually have a point if that is the way we are going to evaluate the Bible writings. The only key for us to find out is to listen to our heart and have faith. If we would just listen to our brain and the draft questions to evaluate whether the Bible writings are true or false, it will take us forever to take answers. But if we will just consider that there is God, and if only we will continue to of having strong faith, there is no use for questioning. As we know, Gos provides everything. To think, when there comes a time, that you will be facing a real-life battle, you cannot refrain of asking for God's help.

Godspeed then.

The Forerunner

The Gospels: Authentic? Or pseudonymous/anonymous writings?

The Gospels: Authentic? Or pseudonymous/anonymous writings?

How the Gospels were written (Jesus' ministry: 27 to 30 AD)

How the Gospels were written (Book of Acts: 30 to 60 AD)

How the Gospels were written (The Gospel of Matthew)

How the Gospels were written (The Gospel of Mark)

The Worldwide Census of Luke Chapter 2

Re: The Gospels: Authentic? Or pseudonymous/anonymous writin

Re: The Gospels: Authentic? Or pseudonymous/anonymous writin

Re: The Gospels: Authentic? Or pseudonymous/anonymous writin

Who is online