A Through Guide to the Non-Canonical Gospels

Many years ago, when I first became interested in Christianity, I encountered a book at a local bookstore entitled, The Lost Books of the Bible. As a new investigator of the claims of the New Testament, I was immediately intrigued. “What?” I thought, “There are books about Jesus that were lost?” I couldn’t help but wonder what these books said about Jesus and why they were allegedly “lost” in the first place. I bought the book and began to research the historical texts it described. I was disappointed to discover that the book should have been titled, The Well Known, Late Lies About Jesus That Were Ignored By Christians Who Knew Better. These texts were never part of the New Testament canon. They were written late in history and rejected by everyone who knew the truth about Jesus of Nazareth.

My research into the topic resulted in a number of articles that I’ve reproduced here at ColdCaseChristainity.com. This series of posts will help you understand why such untruths about Jesus were written in the first place, what the documents said about Jesus, and why they were rejected as frauds:

Information About the General Reliability of the Non-Canonical Texts
Before surveying each text, these articles examine why such texts would be written in the first place and whether or not these documents do anything to invalidate what we know about Jesus from the reliable New Testament manuscripts:

What Motivated Early Non-Canonical Writers to Modify the Story of Jesus?
Although these late legends contain many exaggerations and lies, they built their myths and fabrications on the foundation of a true account. As we sift through the legendary claims, we can expose the true foundations upon which they crafted their stories. Once exposed, these foundations can give us even greater confidence the original story of Jesus is early and accurate, even though these late legends are not to be trusted.

Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Challenge the Historicity of the New Testament?
Those who sought to change the story of Jesus in antiquity were driven by a desire to validate their theological presuppositions. We have little reason to accept late re-writes of the life and ministry of Jesus; these non-canonical fictions were rejected by the ancients who recognized their late arrival and understood the self-serving motivations of their proponents.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust What the Non-Canonical Gospels Say About Jesus?
There are dozens of ancient non-canonical legends related to Jesus. That’s shouldn’t surprise us. Given the nature of Jesus and his impact on our world, we should expect to find such a reaction to his life and ministry. In fact, the explosive body of ancient literature related to Jesus is a testimony to both His historicity and Divine nature. Only the Son of God could provoke such a response. It’s our job, however, to eliminate the late stories and isolate the early eyewitness accounts.

Information About the Non-Canonical Texts Attributed to New Testament Witnesses
Many of the non-canonical, fictional accounts of Jesus are attributed (falsely) to real people who knew Jesus personally:

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Peter?
The original manuscript of the Preaching of Peter is now lost to us. We do, however, have a few fragments and evidence from letters written by Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) and Origen (185-254AD) that quote the Preaching of Peter in several places. In addition, Origen wrote early church leaders like Heracleon used the text alongside the canonical Gospels.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to Mark?
The Secret Gospel of Mark is described in a letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD), although this alleged letter has been attacked as a forgery by many scholars. The letter is the only source referencing the gospel; there are no existing manuscripts of The Secret Gospel of Mark. Clement was allegedly writing to another Christian leader named Theodore, advising him about the existence of a more expansive version of the Gospel of Mark containing additional stories and sayings of Jesus. This allegedly extended version of Mark’s Gospel was reportedly known only to Jesus’ innermost circle.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to John?
The Apocryphon of John is a Sethian Gnostic text (Sethians were named for their reverent adoration of the Seth, the son of Adam and Eve, who they described as a divine incarnation and the ancestor of a superior race of humans). Like other Sethian texts, it was first discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi Library collection in Egypt in 1945. The copies date to the 4th century, but scholars place the writing of the text in the 2nd century. The Apocryphon of John describes an appearance of Jesus to the Apostle John (after Jesus’ ascension) in which Jesus provides John with secret knowledge, much like other narratives in the tradition of Gnosticism.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to James?
Like the “First” Apocalypse of James, this Gnostic text was discovered in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt. Scholars actually date the “Second” Apocalypse of James earlier that the “First”. While the manuscript discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to the 3rd or 4th century, scholars believe that the original text was written in the middle of the 2nd century. The Second Apocalypse of James was written as a reported dialogue between Jesus and James the Just (Jesus’ brother) and allegedly recorded by a priest named Mareim.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Thomas?
This late non-canonical text was first discovered in 1945 as part of a large collection of papyri excavated near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, written in the Coptic language, and attributed to a conversation recorded by “Didymos Judas Thomas”.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Philip”?
The Gospel of Philip is yet another Gnostic gospel discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt in 1945. The text was found in the same codex that also contained The Gospel of Thomas, but unlike The Gospel of Thomas, this text is not a collection of “sayings of Jesus” as much as it is a collection of “Gnostic teachings”. The original text was not called The Gospel of Philip; this title has been applied to the text in modern times because Philip is the only disciple of Jesus that is mentioned in the document.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Mary”?
The Gospel of Mary was discovered in 1896 as part of a larger set of papyri. Later discoveries of additional papyri have helped to provide us with a reconstruction of the Gospel, but even with the additional manuscripts, many chapters are still missing. Scholars disagree about the identity of Mary within the text, but most believe that she was intended to represent Mary Magdalene. Scholars have dated the writing of the text to the mid or late 2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Judas”?
The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text similar to other texts from the 2nd century and later. Like other Gnostic Gospels, it contains a conversation between Jesus and one of His disciples (in this case Judas) in which Jesus reveals a secret, esoteric knowledge. It also describes the death of Jesus from Judas’ perspective. The text was discovered in the 1970s near Beni Masah in Egypt and was written in the Coptic language, similar to other Gnostic texts. Only one copy has ever been discovered and this copy is in very poor condition, missing large portions of text.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Matthias?
The Traditions of Matthias is described by Clement of Alexandria in a letter (Miscellanies written in 210AD) and many scholars suspect that it is the same text known as the Gospel of Matthias and mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome. While the manuscript is lost, there are still three small quotes from Clement’s letter that are available to us. The text may have contained a narrative of Jesus’ life along with teachings, but it is difficult to know from what little we have today.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Bartholomew?
This text has been reconstructed from three Coptic fragments and additional pieces of papyri (the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt until the 7th century). The dating for the book has been very difficult to establish. The British Museum possesses the best manuscript of The Book of the Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle, but this manuscript dates to the 12th century. There are fragments of the text that are much older, but scholars are undecided on the original date of authorship. Some place it as late as the 5th or 6th century given its similarities to other Coptic literature.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Nicodemus” or “The Acts of Pilate”?
The Gospel of Nicodemus is a Medieval Latin text that scholars believe to have been written in the middle of the 4th century, reportedly by a member of the “Order of Nicodemus”. It includes, as part of the text, a section entitled The Acts of Pilate and the two titles (for the combined text) are usually used interchangeably. The first two parts of the text attempt to recall the trial and resurrection of Jesus, while the third section (The Acts of Pilate) describes Jesus’ descent to “Limbo”.

Information About the Lesser Known Non-Canonical Texts
Many of the non-canonical, fictional accounts of Jesus were used by lesser-known, smaller heretical groups:

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Basilides”?
Nothing of this Gospel survives today. What little we do know about Basilides and his followers comes first from the letters of Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hegemonius (all of whom described Basilides as a heretic). Basilides was an early Gnostic teacher in Alexandria, Egypt between 117-138AD. He taught among the Persians and wrote many commentaries on the orthodox Gospels (assembled as a volume known as Exegetica). The Gospel of Basilides is mentioned by Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and Venerable Bede.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Marcion”?
The Gospel of Marcion (also known as The Gospel of the Lord) was used by Marcion, the infamous heretic and one-time Bishop of Sinope between the years of 150-160AD. The text is lost to us, but the Early Church Fathers and apologists (such as Tertullian) criticized The Gospel of Marcion extensively in their own writings; we can now reconstruct much of The Gospel of Marcion from the critical writings of the Church Fathers. Marcion’s Gospel (as acknowledged by the vast majority of historical scholars) appears to be a modification of The Gospel of Luke, altered to support Marcion’s theological ideas. It is typically dated in the mid-2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of the Egyptians”?
Like other early heretical Gnostic works, The Gospel of the Egyptians (also known as The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians) is presently lost to us. What we do know about the text is what is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius of Salamis. From what little we have, it is impossible to know if the text was a narrative about Jesus or simply a collection of sayings.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Second Treatise of the Great Seth”?
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth was also discovered at the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt in 1945. Its title comes from the final line of the text and it is unknown if there was a First Treatise, as none has ever been discovered. It is yet another example of Sethian Gnosticism; a text used by a group who originally worshipped the biblical Seth as a messianic figure and later treated Jesus as a re-incarnation of Seth. The text is written as though Jesus Himself is the author.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit”?
Two versions of The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit were discovered in 1945 among the papyri of the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt. Based on the Gnostic contents of the text and its position among other documents, scholars place the writing of the book in the 2nd century as yet another Gnostic Sethian document.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “History of Joseph the Carpenter”?
Like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and The Infancy Gospel of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter is another example of non-canonical legend that was created in order to answer questions about the life of Jesus. Many details of Jesus’ life prior to the age of twelve were left unaddressed in the canonical Gospels, and several late non-canonical works were created in order to satisfy the growing desire for additional information. This text is written as a message from Jesus on the Mount of Olives in which he talks about the life of His stepfather, Joseph.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of the Savior”?
This Gnostic text was discovered by two American scholars in a Berlin museum. It is only a fragment, and scholars date the fragment to somewhere between the 4th and 7th century, although the date of writing has been attributed to the 2nd century. The manuscript was discovered on “calfskin” and only 15 pages remain from the original document which appears to have been damaged in a fire. It is a “sayings” document, much like The Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus is quoted as the source for a number of statements.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior”?
This Infancy Gospel (like other apocryphal Infancy Gospels) was likely written to satisfy the curiosity of those who wanted more detail related to the childhood of Jesus. It appears to be a compilation written originally in Syriac and then later translated into Arabic, and it clearly draws from (and amplifies) information from prior Infancy Gospels. The document borrows heavily from The Infancy Gospel of James for material related to the Virgin Mary, from The Infancy Gospel of Thomas for material related to the childhood of Jesus, and then provides additional information (from an unknown source) related to the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Truth”?
The Gospel of Truth was discovered alongside other Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt (in 1945). Scholars have dated it to the 2nd century and have connected it with an early Gnostic teacher named Valentinus (who lived from 100-160AD). It is a poetic “homily” rather than a “gospel”, and is now considered one of the most artful Gnostic writings of all time.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Sophia of Jesus Christ”?
The Sophia of Jesus Christ is yet another Gnostic text discovered in the Egyptian Nag Hammadi Library in 1945. The word “Sophia” here is most likely to be understood as “wisdom”, as this text claims to be a conversation between Jesus and his disciples in which Jesus provides them with hidden wisdom, much like other Gnostic examples that value secret, esoteric knowledge as the mechanism through which one can escape the fallen, material body.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Dialogue of the Saviour”?
The Dialogue of the Saviour was discovered, along with other Gnostic texts, in the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt in 1945. The original text was greatly damaged, but it appears to be a dialogue between Jesus and some of His followers or book of sayings bearing some similarity to The Gospel of Thomas. The text seems disjointed at points and jumps from topic to topic without continuity. For this reason, scholars have surmised that the text may have been assembled from a number of separate documents. Scholars date the text to the mid to late 2nd century.

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Pistis Sophia”?
This important Gnostic work has been known to scholars for over two hundred years. It was originally purchased by a private citizen from a bookseller in London and then purchased by the British Museum in 1785. It is an expansive document of Upper Egyptian origin that appears to be a collection (at least two scribes seem to be involved) of Gnostic Coptic manuscripts. The exact meaning of “Pistis Sophia” has been argued by scholars but generally means something akin to “Faith Wisdom” or “Wisdom of Faith”. The Pistis Sophia includes passages in which a transfigured Jesus is described as teaching His followers about the mysteries of Heaven and various spiritual matters.

These ancient non-canonical texts are late, heretical documents. Follow the links and investigate each document. When they are examined under the criteria we use to determine eyewitness reliability, they fail the test. The four canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) are still the earliest reliable record of Jesus, written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who knew Jesus personally.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas Is True (Free Bible Insert)

Detectives create lists. As a cold-case detective, I’m no different. When investigating an event in the distant past (in my case, an unsolved murder), I collect evidence, make lists and do my best to reach the most reasonable inference. When I began to investigate Christianity at the age of thirty-five, I approached the gospels the same way I approached my cold-case files. Lists were an important part of the process. One New Testament claim was particularly interesting to me: the conception and birth of Jesus. When I first read through the gospels, the birth narratives seemed incredible and unreasonable. I’m not the only person to express such a concern. In an article posted in the Herald Scotland, Reverend Andrew Frater called the Nativity story a “fanciful, fairy tale” and called on Christians to “disentangle the truth from the tinsel”. Frater is a minister and a believer, and even he doesn’t believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. As an atheist, I was even more skeptical. I rejected supernatural claims altogether, and the first Biblical claim about Jesus was a supernatural one. But as I collected the evidence and formed my lists, I found there were many good reasons to trust the story of Christmas. I’ve assembled them here with links to longer treatments of each topic:

Reason 1:
The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn’t Disqualify It
When I began to investigate the virgin conception, I was actually investigating my own philosophical naturalism. I was, in essence, asking the following questions: “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?” “Are supernatural events possible or even reasonable?” In asking these questions, I was putting naturalism to the test. It would have been unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur. If we want to be fair about assessing the virgin conception or any other supernatural aspect of the nativity story, we cannot exclude the very possibility of the supernatural in the first place. Our presupposition against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the claim.

Reason 2:
The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History
It’s always easier to tell a lie once everyone who was alive to know the difference has already died. But if you’re going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk your claim, be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations. The virgin conception of Jesus is one of the earliest claims in Christian history. The students of the gospel authors cited the virgin conception as a true claim about Jesus. Ignatius, the student of John (an Apostle who chose not to write about the birth of Jesus in his own gospel), included it in his early writings to local churches. Other Church leaders repeated the claim through the earliest years of the Church, and the doctrine also appears in the most ancient Church creeds. Even early non-canonical documents include the virgin conception of Jesus.

Reason 3:
The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Are Not Late Additions
Critics, in an effort to argue the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are not reliable, point to stylistic differences and “content shifting” within the gospels. Critics claim that the Greek language used in the birth narrative section of Luke’s gospel is far more Semitic than other sections. But the fact that this section of the gospel is stylistically or linguistically different than other sections does not mean it was a late addition. Luke told us he compiled the information for his gospel from a number of divergent sources (Luke 1:1-4). As a result, we should expect stylistic and linguistic differences within the gospel of Luke. In addition, any claim related to the late addition of the birth narratives defies all the manuscript evidence available to us; there is absolutely no evidence that the gospel of Matthew and Luke ever existed without the birth narratives. All manuscripts, translations, early Church documents and references to the gospels, along with every historic, reliable witness testifies to the fact that the birth narratives are ancient and part of the original record.

Reason 4:
The Virgin Conception Was Not An Invention of Early Christians
Some critics of the virgin conception argue that the earliest Christian authors inserted it in an effort to give Jesus a “heroic” birth consistent with other Old Testament heroes. But, not every Jewish hero from the Old Testament had an unusual birth story. Joshua, King David, and King Solomon are just three of the more obvious examples of powerful Old Testament heroes whose birth stories were less than surprising or unusual. In addition, there is no other character from the Old Testament who was born of a virgin through the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit. This characteristic of Jesus’ conception is unique to Jesus and follows no pre-existing Old Testament pattern.

Reason 5:
The Virgin Conception Wasn’t Borrowed from Another Source
Skeptics also attempt to discredit the virgin conception of Jesus by claiming it was borrowed from prior pagan mythologies such as those of Mithras or Horus. But any fair examination of pagan mythological birth narratives revels the dramatic differences between the virgin conception of Jesus and stories about the supernatural emergence of mythological gods. While “borrowing” may have occurred between belief systems, the weak resemblances between the Biblical account and pagan mythologies are far more likely the result of the Judeo-Christian influence rather than contamination from a pagan source. It’s irrational to believe the early Jewish readers of the gospels would embrace any part of paganism in the story of Jesus’ conception as continuous with the Jewish narrative from the Old Testament. In addition, early Christian converts were repeatedly called to a new life in Christ, told they were merely travelers passing through this mortal (and pagan) world, called to live a life that was free of worldly influences, and told to reject the foolish philosophies and stories of men. This group, in particular, would be the last to turn to pre-existing pagan stories and superstitions.

If there exists a supernatural Being capable of bringing all space, time and matter into existence from nothing, such a Being could certainly accomplish the virgin conception of Jesus, the Resurrection of Christ, or any of the other “lesser” miracles described on the pages of the New Testament. In addition, there is no historically, textually or philosophically necessary reason to reject the claims of the New Testament authors. If you’re a Christian this Christmas season, celebrate the birth of Jesus with confidence and certainty. The virgin conception is not a fanciful, fairy tale. It is a true story. In fact, there are five good reasons to trust the story of Christmas is factual, reliable and true.

To download a FREE, printable, Bible-sized insert summarizing these five reasons, visit the homepage at www.ColdCaseChristianity.com and click the link in the right column.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Josephus Gospels John Baptist

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

,

By Evan Minton

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in A.D 37. In about A.D 90, he wrote his book “Antiquities Of The Jews” in which he writes a history of the Jewish people. In this work, he mentions several individuals who appear in The New Testament such as Jesus, James’, the brother of Jesus, Caiaphas, King Herod the Great, and John The Baptist, among several others. With regards to John The Baptist, Josephus says that King Herod (Antipas) killed him, just as The New Testament does. Josephus writes “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. …. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119)

Josephus said that the reason Herod killed John The Baptist was that Herod feared that John might lead a rebellion against him, and ergo overthrow him. However, this is not what The Bible says. Read Matthew’s account of John’s death in chapter 14. Matthew says that the reason Herod had John killed was that John was speaking out against Herod Antipas’ marriage because it was unlawful under The Old Testament law. Herodias had divorced her husband and married Herod Antipas. Now, this would have been fine if Herod’s brother had died, but since he was still alive, this was considered adultery. Matthew 14 says that it wasn’t Herod’s idea to have John killed, but that he was instead backed into a corner by promising Herodias’ daughter Salome that if she danced for him, he would give her anything she asked for. She danced, and, at the nudging of her mother, asked for John The Baptist’s head delivered on a platter.

So which is it? Who’s right? Is Josephus right or is Matthew right? Well, we might say; “Well, since The Bible is God’s word, it cannot err. So we must conclude that it was Matthew who is right and Josephus who is wrong”. Of course, this answer won’t suffice for the non-believer who doesn’t believe that The Bible is inspired.

Luke 8, I believe, provides us with the answer. Didn’t you ever wonder how would Matthew have gotten this information in the first place? After all, this happened in the privacy of Herod’s home. None of the disciples were there. Jesus wasn’t there. How did Matthew know what was going on behind closed doors? Luke 8:1-3 says “After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (emphasis mine)

Luke tells us that one of Jesus’ followers had a family member who was the manager of Herod’s household. This would provide a plausible explanation for how Matthew could have known what was happening at Herod’s birthday party. Chuza told Joanna about this incident, and then Joanna told Jesus and the disciples. Matthew would then have this information to later record in his gospel.

What we can conclude, then, is that Matthew is right because he had better source information than Josephus! Matthew was actually told by someone who had a family member who worked for Herod Antipas why Herod Antipas had John The Baptist killed. Josephus was only speculating on Herod Antipas’ motive based on what appeared to be the case to him.

Now, one may object “But couldn’t Luke have simply made this Joanna person up simply to give us an explanation for how they knew about Herod’s motives?” My answer: No. It’s unlikely that Luke made up Joanna or lied about her husband working for Herod Antipas simply to answer the question of how they knew Herod Antipas’ motive. For one thing, this small detail isn’t mentioned in the context of Herod Antipas’ party. Herod Antipas’ party isn’t even mentioned in Luke 7, 8, or 9. If Luke provided this small detail simply to solve the problem, why didn’t he do it in the context of the party? Moreover, scholars have made good arguments that Luke’s gospel was written sometime in the 50s’ A.D when all of the eyewitnesses were still around and could have corrected Luke if he were making this up. Though it’s beyond the scope of this blog post to get into dating arguments. Thirdly, this is what New Testament scholars Tim and Lydia McGrew would call “Undesigned Coincidences”. An undesigned coincidence is when one gospel says something that raises a question, but another gospel mentions an incidental little detail that answers it. From what I recall, Luke never talks about Herod Antipas’ banquet. Matthew does, but Luke doesn’t. Matthew raised a question (i.e “how would he have known what went on at Antipas’ place?”) but Luke answered it (i.e “One of Jesus’ followers had a husband who was his household manager”).

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AOjnEe

/by

Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of Jesus

Historic Heresies Related to the Nature of JesusOver the centuries, believers have sometimes struggled to understand the nature of God and the great mystery of Jesus. The Bible describes Jesus as having the nature and power of God, and the Gospel of John tells us that He existed before the universe began (He was, in fact, the creator of the universe). At the same time, the Bible teaches Jesus was fully human and died on the cross. Efforts to reconcile the Divine and human nature of Jesus have resulted in a number of classic and historic misinterpretations:

Adoptionism (2nd Century)
This heresy denies the pre-existence of Christ and therefore denies His Deity. It taught Jesus was simply a man who was tested by God and after passing the test was given supernatural powers and adopted as a son (this occurred at His baptism). Jesus was then rewarded for all He did (and for His perfect character) with His own resurrection and adoption into the Godhead.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Theodotus of Byzantium

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Pope Victor (190-198AD)

Docetism (2nd Century)
This heresy was coined from the Greek word, “dokesis” which means “to seem.” It taught Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not truly incarnate. Docetists viewed matter as inherently evil and therefore rejected the idea God could actually appear in bodily form. By denying Jesus truly had a body, they also denied He suffered on the cross and rose from the dead.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Attributed to Gnostics and promoted by the Gospel of Peter

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus refuted it was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD

Apollinarianism (4th Century)
This heresy denied the true and complete humanity of Jesus because it taught He did not have a human mind but instead had a mind that was completely Divine. The heresy lessened the human nature of Jesus in order to reconcile the manner in which Jesus could be both God and man at the same time.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Apollinaris the Younger (bishop of Laodicea in Syria), 360AD

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Constantinople in 381AD

Arianism (4th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus was a “creature” who was “begotten” of the Father. Only God the Father is “un-begotten.” In this view, only the Father is truly God; He was too pure and perfect to appear here on earth, so He created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the universe. God then adopted Jesus as a son (because, after all, Jesus and God are not supposed to have the same nature in this view). Jesus was worshipped only because of His preeminence as the first creation.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Arius of Alexandria Egypt (250-336AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Nicaea in 325AD. The Nicene Creed was written to respond to this heresy.

Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ.” In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not God incarnate while in the womb.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Nestorius of Antioch (Bishop of Constantinople in 428AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Ephesus in 431AD

Eutychianism [Monophysitism] (5th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus’ humanity was absorbed by His divinity. The heresy is Monophysite in nature, derived from the Greek words “mono” (“one”) and “physis” (“nature”). In essence, the heresy claimed Jesus had only one nature (something new and different than the Divine or human nature that God and humans have, respectively). Instead, this heresy taught a third unique nature was possessed by Jesus; a blend or mixture of the human and the Divine.

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Eutyches of Constantinople (380 – 456AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451AD. The Chalcedonian Creed addresses this heresy.

Monothelitism (7th Century)
This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy (see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is derived from a Greek root that means “one will.” Monothelitism taught Jesus had two natures but only one will. Instead of having two cooperative wills (one Divine and one human), Jesus had one Divine-human “energia.”

Leader(s) in the Heresy: Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (610 – 638AD)

Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Third Council of Constantinople; the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 – 681AD)

These ancient heresies have been revisited by believers over the centuries and even persist into the modern era. Unitarians, for example, have embraced a view of Jesus very similar to the heretics of Arianism. The more we understand these classic heresies related to Jesus, the better prepared we will be to spot counterfeits when they re-emerge in our culture.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OpUowc

/by
Book Revelation Author

Who Wrote the Book of Revelation?

,

By Brian Chilton

As a teenager, I remember being a bit frightened of the book of Revelation. The smell of acne face cleanser filled the room as I dove into mysterious depictions of four-faced angels, beasts from the sea and land, of massive angels, and 100-pound hailstones being hurled to the earth. While Revelation holds mysterious and frightening images of the end-times, the book of Revelation was written to be an encouragement to Christians of all times. But, who was it that penned the word of Revelation? This article will conclude our series titled “Who Wrote the New Testament?” as we investigate the author of the book of Revelation.

Author: Tradition has long held that John the apostle, whom we have seen penned the Fourth Gospel and the three letters attributed to him, wrote the last book of Scripture. If so, John penned much of the New Testament, with only Paul and Luke writing more than him. While there were skeptics, even early on, about the authorship of the text (most likely due to the apocalyptic nature of the book), the general consensus was that John the apostle was the author. Four reasons exist as to why one should accept Johannine authorship of Revelation.

1) The author identifies himself as “John” in Revelation 1:4; 1:9; and 22:8. This does not necessarily indicate that this John was John the apostle. We know of a John Mark, who penned the Second Gospel, and a possible John the Elder (although it is possible that John the apostle was also known as John the Elder in some instances, yet there are reasons to believe that another John could have lived as a church leader, especially since “John” was a popular name).

2) The author of the book clearly had a strong connection with the seven churches of Asia Minor as evident in Revelation 2:1-3:22. Tradition states that John the apostle served as the pastor to the churches in Ephesus.

3) The author’s circumstances greatly match those of John the apostle. Second-century sources indicate that John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. Ignatius (35-107 AD) writes of particular conclusive facts in that “Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth,] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly.”[1] John the apostle’s exile matches what we find of the author of Revelation (1:9).

4) Throughout the text, Old Testament images indicate one who has been thoroughly immersed with a Hebrew education and upbringing. John the apostle matches that requirement.

5) The Lexham Bible Dictionary discusses a finding called the Harris Fragments. Accordingly, these fragments give further insight to the writings of Polycarp (69-150 AD), a disciple of John. The fragments “offer unique insight into reconciling John’s martyrdom and his reported long life and natural death in that:

  • They support the second-century church tradition that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, lived a long life in Ephesus after suffering exile on Patmos, and died a peaceful death.
  • They account for the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about the martyr’s death that John the son of Zebedee would die.”[2]

From what we have gathered, John the apostle is the clearest candidate for authorship of Revelation. I ascribe to the mentality, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Long-held traditions should only be overturned if there is clear evidence to the contrary. I do not see that with the tradition that John the apostle authored the last book of Scripture. Quite honestly (as you have seen if you have read all my entries on this matter), I do not see any compelling reason to reject the traditional authorship ascribed to any book of the canonical New Testament.

Date: Interestingly, some scholars are dating Revelation earlier than what has been traditionally held due to the thoroughly Jewish imagery found in the text. Those holding an older view for the dating of Revelation promote the late 60s as the time the book was written. However, the view that the book was written later in the first-century, most likely in the late 80s or early 90s holds greater strength.

Purpose: As mentioned at the beginning of the article, Revelation was not given to scare us. Rather, it was written to encourage believers of all times that despite the troubles faced, God will win in the end. Good will triumph evil. The powers of darkness will be confined by the powers of light. Revelation tells us much about God, Christ, humanity, sin, the church, angels, as well as Satan and his demonic forces.

The book hosts an introduction (1:1-8); letters given to the seven Churches of Asia (2:1-3:22); depictions of what will happen in the end-times by three septets—seven seals leading to seven trumpets leading to seven bowls of wrath—ultimately leading to a new heaven and a new earth (4:1-22:5); and a conclusion (22:6-21).

Be encouraged by Revelation! God gave John the apostle this vision for a reason. It was to let us know that the believer should hold an eternal perspective understanding that God has won, is winning, and will win in the end.

For your listening enjoyment, the Gaither Vocal Band performs “John the Revelator.”

Notes

[1] Pseudo-Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter III,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 107.

[2] Tracee D. Hackel, “John the Apostle, Critical Issues,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

 

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zaWZYj

/by

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical “Gospel of Nicodemus” or “The Acts of Pilate”?

,

The Gospel of Nicodemus is an ancient text purportedly written by the man who visited Jesus in the Gospel of John. But is this non-biblical text reliable? Was it really written by Nicodemus? There are four attributes of reliable eyewitness testimony, and the first requirement is simply that the account be old enough to actually be written by someone who was present to see what he or she reported. The Gospel of Nicodemus was written too late in history to have been written by the Jewish man who visited Jesus, and like other late non-canonical texts, this errant document was rejected by the early Church. In spite of this, The Gospel of Nicodemus still references accurate details related to Jesus.  Although it is a legendary fabrication written by an author who altered the story of Jesus to suit the purposes of his religious community, much can still be learned about the historic Jesus from this late text:

The Gospel of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate (300-375AD)
The Gospel of Nicodemus is a Medieval Latin text that scholars believe to have been written in the middle of the 4th century, reportedly by a member of the “Order of Nicodemus”. It includes, as part of the text, a section entitled The Acts of Pilate and the two titles (for the combined text) are usually used interchangeably. The first two parts of the text attempt to recall the trial and resurrection of Jesus, while the third section (The Acts of Pilate) describes Jesus’ descent to “Limbo”.

Why Isn’t It Considered Reliable?
There appear to have been many documents related to Pontius Pilate in antiquity and some of these are mentioned by the Church Fathers. Justin Martyr (103-165AD), for example, mentions an Acts of Pilate in his first Apology, claiming that information about the crucifixion and resurrection could be substantiated by some sort of report made by Pilate to his supervisors. Tertullian seems also to refer to such a work in a letter defending Christianity to African authorities in approximately 195AD. This document appears to have been lost in antiquity. In addition to these texts recording the supposed activity of Pontius Pilate, there also appears to have existed a hostile pagan version of the Acts of Pilate as described by Eusebius. This hostile Roman account (written around 311AD) was being used in schools under Emperor Maximinus and was disparaging of Christianity, containing a number of outrageous claims related to Jesus. Many scholars believe that the Acts of Pilate we presently have as part of The Gospel of Nicodemus was originally written in response to the hostile “heathen” account described by Eusebius, and, for this reason, scholars date the text very late in history. The first Church leader to mention this version of The Acts of Pilate was Epiphanius in approximately 376AD. It was clearly not written by Nicodemus, Pilate or anyone else who could have witnessed the contents of the book.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
This late piece of fiction is relatively orthodox in its presentation of the life of Jesus and presumes the truth of the canonical Gospels (it simply adds detail and narrative addressing the curiosities of those who were interested in the Passion and the fate of Pilate). Jesus is identified as the “Son of God”, the “Lord Jesus Christ” and the “Christ”. Jesus is described as having disciples (twelve of whom testify for him). The virgin conception of Jesus is affirmed as are the accusations from the Jews about His illegitimacy. The canonical details of the trial, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are acknowledged throughout the text. The characters from the narrative (Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas and Joseph of Arimathea) are named accurately. Pilate is reluctant to carry out the wishes of the Jews, Jesus is accused of healing on the Sabbath and claiming to be God, Pilate conducts his famous interrogation of Jesus and ultimately washes his hands of the matter just as described in the canonical Gospels. Pilate’s wife warns him on the basis of her dream, but Jesus is ultimately beaten, forced to wear the crown of thorns and then crucified between two criminals; He is pierced in the side and given vinegar to drink with gall. The darkness at the death of Jesus is described as an eclipse. The text also acknowledges that Joseph of Arimathea acquires the body of Jesus and places Him in the tomb. The tomb is sealed but Jesus is resurrected as the canonical Gospels maintain.

(Read More)

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Horus Mythology?

,

What if I told you there was once an ancient religion whose God was conceived by a virgin named Meri and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)? What if I told you this God was born in a cave and his birth was announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds? He attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve (although the ancient texts describing this God are silent about His life from the age of 12 to 30). At 30 years of age, this God was baptized in a river (His baptizer was later beheaded). He had 12 disciples, performed miracles, exorcized demons, raised someone from the dead, and even walked on water. They called Him “Iusa”, the “ever-becoming son” and the “Holy Child”. He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount”, and his followers recounted his sayings. He was transfigured on a mount and eventually crucified between two thieves. He was buried for three days in a tomb and rose from the dead. His followers called Him “Way”, “the Truth the Light”, “Messiah”, “God’s Anointed Son”, “Son of Man”, “Good Shepherd”, “Lamb of God”, “Word made flesh”, “Word of Truth”, “the KRST” or “Anointed One”. He was also known as “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish, Lamb and Lion. According to this ancient religion, this God came to fulfill the Law and was supposed to reign one thousand years. Sounds a lot like Jesus doesn’t it? According to those who deny the existence of Jesus, however, this description is of a mythological precursor to Christianity, the Egyptian God named Horus. Skeptics sometimes use ancient deities like Horus, Mithras or Osiris as examples of dying and rising precursors to Jesus. They claim the mythology of Jesus was simply borrowed from pre-existing examples such as these.

Was Horus really like Jesus in all the ways skeptics often describe him? These similarities are startling. For many Christians (especially young believers who encounter this objection while in college) similarities such as these cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus. It’s important, therefore, to examine the truth of these claims to see what the real mythologies tell us about characters such as Horus. While it’s true there are a number of pre-Christian mythologies with dying saviors, they aren’t much like Jesus once you start to examine them closely. They often merely reflect the expectations and yearnings of ancient people for the God who truly did come to earth. A significant portion of what we just described about Horus is simply false and lacks any Egyptian historical or archeological support whatsoever. Much of what I described about Horus is simply a reflection of the effort of atheists to make Horus look as much like Jesus as possible.

Horus was worshiped principally in two Egyptian cultural centers (Bekhdet in the north and Idfu in the south). Little remains at the northern location, but there is still a large and well preserved Ptolemaic temple at Idfu; most of our information about Horus comes from this southern temple. Horus was usually represented as a falcon. He was the great sky God and the Son of Isis and Osiris. Let’s take a look at the claims we’ve already described and separate truth from fiction (for a more in depth examination of Horus and many other alleged Christian precursors, please visit David Anderson’s excellent website. I’m condensing much of his work in this brief blog post). We’ll also look at some of the reasonable expectations and motivations causing these mythologies to resemble Jesus:

Claim: Horus was conceived by a virgin mother named Meri, and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)
Truth: Horus was NOT conceived of a virgin. In fact, mural and textual evidence from Egypt indicates Isis (there is no evidence that “Meri” was ever part of her name) hovered over the erect penis (she created) of Osiris to conceive Horus. While she may have been a virgin before the conception, she utilized Osiris’ penis to conceive. She later had another son with Osiris as well. There is no evidence of three wise men as part of the Horus story at all. Seb was actually the “earth god”; He was not Horus’ earthly father. Seb is not the equivalent of Joseph and, in most cases, Seb is described as Osiris’ father.

Claim: Horus was born in a cave, his birth announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds.
Truth: There is no reference to a cave or manger in the Egyptian birth story of Horus. In fact, none of these details are present in the ancient Egyptian stories of Horus. Horus was born in a swamp. His birth was not heralded by an angel. There was no star.

Claim: Horus attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve and there is no data on the child from the age of 12 to 30.
Truth: There is no continuous effort in the Horus mythology to account for all these years, so there are no real gaps in the chronology. Horus never taught in any temple at twelve (as did Jesus).

(Read More)

/by

Why Shouldn’t We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospel Attributed to John?

The Gospel of John is a reliable addition to the New Testament Canon, but this ancient document isn’t the only text attributed to this disciple of Jesus. Another slightly less ancient text called the The Apocryphon of John claims to have been written by the same man who wrote the gospel we accept as reliable. But is this non-canonical text reliable? Was it really written by John? There are four attributes of reliable eyewitness testimony, and the first characteristic requires that any alleged eyewitness be present to see what he or she reports. The Apocryphon of John was written too late in history to have been written by the Apostle John, and like other late non-canonical texts, this fraudulent document was rejected by early Christians who knew that it was unreliable. In spite of this, The Apocryphon of John contains nuggets of truth related to Jesus. It is a legendary and elaborate fabrication written by an author who was motivated to change the history of Jesus to suit his own purposes. It is an alternative narrative twisted from the truths offered in the original Gospels. Much can be learned about the historic Jesus from this late fabrication:

The Apocryphon of John (120-180AD)
The Apocryphon of John is a Sethian Gnostic text (Sethians were named for their reverent adoration of the Seth, the son of Adam and Eve, who they described as a divine incarnation and the ancestor of a superior race of humans). Like others Sethian texts, it was first discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi Library collection in Egypt in 1945. Three copies were discovered at that time, and another copy was later discovered in Egypt. All of these copies date to the 4th century, but scholars place the writing of the text in the 2nd century. The Apocryphon of John describes an appearance of Jesus to the Apostle John (after Jesus’ ascension) in which Jesus provides John with secret knowledge, much like other narratives in the tradition of Gnosticism.

MORE…

/by

Who Wrote the Book of Jude?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

Over the past few months, we have been examining the authors and background information for the books of the New Testament. For this article, we will examine a little book towards the end of the New Testament known as Jude. What do we know about this book and whom it was that composed it?

Author:          Jude opens the book indicating that he is a “servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (vs. 1).[1] The quest for Jude’s identity is intricately linked with the identity of James listed as Jude’s brother. One can easily eliminate James the son of Zebedee because he was martyred early in church history (Acts 12:1-5). The only other viable James is Jesus’ brother. When people at Nazareth were questioning Jesus, they asked, “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3).

Mark 6:3 highlights a few facts. First, James and Jude were Jesus’ brothers. Second, they were both known by the church. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that Jude would identify himself as James’ brother since James was an influential leader in the Jerusalem church. Therefore, Jude the brother of James and Jesus is the most viable candidate to have authored this little book. Jude humbly designated himself only as the brother of James and a servant of Christ rather than elevate himself as Jesus’ brother.

Date:               Jude is a difficult book to date. Since Jude deals with false teachings that had entered the church, one would think that a later date would be more feasible. However, the book does not discuss Gnosticism outright. Thus, many have postulated a date between AD 65 and 80.  

Purpose:         By Jude’s own admonition, he had desired to write an encouraging letter about the believers’ common salvation to the “loved by God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (vs. 1). The beloved of God refers to the recipients who were most likely Jewish believers of the time. However, due to false teachings that had entered the church, Jude felt compelled to write a letter “appealing [them] to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” (vs. 3).

Jude’s letter is a polemical letter warning the believers to avoid false teachers. After giving the purpose for his letter in verses 1-4, Jude describes the apostates of the past and present time (vs. 5-11), the apostates’ doom (vs. 12-19), delivers an exhortation (vs. 20-23), before giving his benediction (vs. 24-25).

Connection of Jude with 2 Peter:    Most unique to the book of Jude is its link with 2 Peter. Much of the content of Jude matches that of 2 Peter, including a quotation from the pseudipigraphical book 1 Enoch (vs. 12-13) and an allusion to the apocryphal book the Assumption of Moses. Did Jude borrow from 2 Peter, did Peter borrow for Jude, or did both borrow from a common source?

As shown previously in the article “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter,”[2] Simon Peter is a good candidate to have written 2 Peter. If 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, then the book would have been too late to have been penned by Simon Peter. If Peter is a good candidate for 2 Peter’s authorship, then either Jude borrowed from Peter or both borrowed from a common source. There are less problems stating that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter or that both borrowed from a common source. It is likely that since Jude borrows heavily from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, he most likely borrowed from Peter’s second letter since it was received by the church in his day.

 Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible(Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Brian Chilton, “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?,” Bellator Christi.com (August 23, 2017), retrieved September 14, 2017, https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/08/23/who-wrote-the-letters-of-peter/.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wOfpry 

 

About the Author

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

 

 

/by
Wrote Letters John

Who Wrote the Letters of John?

,

By Brian Chilton

The website has devoted substantial time in exploring the identity of the authors of the New Testament texts. This journey continues as we explore the three letters attributed to John. Who was the person named John behind these letters?

Author:          The early church nearly unanimously attributed the three letters of John to the apostle John. It was not until modern times that serious attention was given to the idea of two Johns: one the apostle John and the other a different John known as the elder. In 2 and 3 John, the author mentions that he is the elder. Some have also contemplated the idea of a Johannine school that preserved the teachings of John and wrote the letters giving credit to the aged apostle.

The confusion between the apostle and the elder is found in Papias’ statement as preserved by Eusebius which reads:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings – what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples, [and] which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.[1]

The view with the best support, however, is that John the apostle and John the elder are the one and same person.

The letters of John, particularly the first letter, bear a remarkable similarity to the Gospel of John. The evidence for apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel is quite strong. Thus, the correlation between the Gospel and the letters demonstrate a high probability that John the apostle also authored the letters along with the Gospel.

In addition to the association that John’s Gospel holds with the letters, second-century sources strongly suggest that John the apostle served as a pastor in Ephesus, living up until the rule of Emperor Trajan in AD 98. George Beasley-Murray notes,

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer. 3.1, 2). The “disciple” is clearly the apostle John, who is identified with the “beloved disciple” of the Gospel. Irenaeus also acknowledged the authority of the church in Ephesus, since “it was founded by Paul, and John lived there till the time of Trajan” (3.3, 4). This testimony is the more significant in view of Irenaeus’ acquaintance with Polycarp, who was martyred in his old age in a.d. 155.”[2]

In light of the strong ancient evidence, one can claim with confidence that John wrote the letters attributed to him in Ephesus. It is possible that John used an amanuensis to write the Gospel and the first letter and wrote 2 and 3 John with his own hands. Nonetheless, John is clearly the author of all four documents.

Date:   Since one can align the documents attributed to John while also noting that the apostle ministered in Ephesus while living to 98 AD, the Gospel and letters can confidently be pegged to the mid-80s to the mid-90s.

Purpose:         1 John was written to guide Christians into true doctrine while helping them to avoid false beliefs and actions. In 1 John, John focuses on the truth of Christ (1:1-4), the lifestyle of the authentic believer (1:5-2:14), the believer’s relationship with those outside the church (2:15-27), along with a personal exhortation to the believers to love one another and to shine the light of God in their lives (2:28-5:21).

2 John is a more personal letter written to the church of Ephesus. John commands the church to “(1) walk in the truth, (2) obey God’s commandments, (3) love one another, and (4) guard the teachings of Christ and they would not be deceived by the antichrist.”[3] John greets and blesses the believers (1-3), exhorts the believers to love (4-6), warns of false teachers (7-11), and plans a visit to the local churches in the area (12-13).

3 John like 2 John is a personal letter. Whereas 2 John is written to the church, 3 John is written to three individuals: Gaius (1), the one receiving the letter; Diotrephes (9), a troublemaker in the church; and Demetrius (12), the one carrying the letter to Gaius. In 3 John, the apostle greets Gaius (1-2), commends the Gaius for standing for truth (3-4), discusses issues with Gaius (5-12), and discusses his future visit with Gaius (13-14).

The letters of John are quite powerful and important for teaching about the nature of God and of the believer’s stance during difficult times. Everyone would do well to take time to read through John’s Gospel and his three letters. The apostle has some important words for all the church for every generation.

Notes

[1] Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, III, 39.

[2] George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxvi.

[3] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xFNzCD

 

 

/by