4. Is the NT True? Archives - Page 12 of 17

Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Over the past few months, we have been investigating the authors and backgrounds of the New Testament books. In this article, we will look into the letters attributed to Peter. Towards the back of the New Testament, one will find two letters associated with Peter, most would think this would be the same Simon Peter as found in the Gospel narratives. But, what do we know about the author and background behind these two letters?

Author: The author of 1 Peter is identified as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1). 2 Peter is also associated with “Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Thus, Simon Peter is the clear candidate for authorship of the two letters bearing his name. Silvanus was employed as an amanuensis for the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12). The second letter does not mention an amanuensis as far as I can tell. It could have been that an unnamed amanuensis was employed, but it is odd that no name is given especially with the church’s disdain for pseudonymous letters.[1] The Semitic spelling of Simeon in 2 Peter 1:1 suggests that Peter himself penned the letter. In addition, while 2 Peter had some skeptics, the vast majority of the early church accepted 2 Peter as a genuine writing from Simon Peter. 1 Peter was unanimously accepted as being the words of the imprisoned Simon Peter. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all accepted the letters’ authenticity.

Date: If 1 Peter was written by Simon Peter, then it must have been penned somewhere between AD 62 and 64. Paul was imprisoned around AD 60 to 62 and he never mentioned Peter. Likewise, Peter never mentions Paul being in Rome with him. Only Silvanus and Mark were with Peter (1 Pet. 5:12-13). This suggests that 1 Peter was after AD 62 when Paul was imprisoned and released for a time, but at a time before 2 Peter. So, when was 2 Peter written?

2 Peter, like 1 Peter, was likely written from a Roman prison cell. The author of 2 Peter know that he is about to soon die as he writes “since I know that I will soon lay aside my tent, as our Lord Jesus Christ has indeed made clear to me” (2 Pet. 1:14).[2] Tradition indicates that Peter died sometime around AD 67 during Nero’s reign (AD 54-68). 2 Peter was written after 1 Peter which forces the dating of 1 Peter to a time between AD 62-67. I think it can be said that 1 Peter was written around AD 65 with 2 Peter coming about in AD 67.

Purpose: 1 Peter was addressed to “those chosen, living as exiles dispersed abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2a). Peter writes about the living hope that the children of God have while living in the last days. Throughout the text, Peter provides ethical standards for the child of God. This theme on ethical living is continued in 2 Peter (2 Pet. 1:3-11; 3:11-18) but with the emphasis of focusing on the true teaching of Christ (2 Pet. 1:12-21; 3:1-10) and the rejection of false heresies that attempt to infiltrate the church (see especially 2 Pet. 2:1-22).

2 Peter’s Association with Jude: 2 Peter and Jude are quite similar. Some scholars suggest that one author borrowed from the other. If the author of 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, then Peter was probably not the author since Jude was written somewhere between AD 65-80.[3] However, if Jude borrowed from Peter, then Peter is more likely the author. It is far more likely that Jude borrowed from Peter than vice versa. Since Peter was an influential leader and Jude, even if he was the brother of Jesus, was not a disciple until after the resurrection of Jesus.

The letters of Peter are quite powerful and important for modern Christians. Believers are reminded of the call to moral living in Peter’s letters. In addition, we are reminded of the importance of truth. It is in 1 Peter 3:15 that we are given what has become the mantra for apologetics. Peter teaches that the believer must “regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

Notes

[1] Tertullian flatly rejected a pseudonymous letter related to Paul and Thecla. See also Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3.

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

[3] Later datings of Jude would certainly eliminate Peter from contention as he died in AD 67 by the command of Nero.

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.

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

August 27, 2017/by Guest

Who Wrote the Letter of James?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bryan Chilton

As you know, we have been examining the authorship of the New Testament letters over the past few weeks. Thus far, we have learned that good reasons exist to accept the apostles Matthew and John as authors of the First and Fourth Gospels; John Mark as the author of the Second Gospel, who in turn served as a preserver of Simon Peter’s testimony; Dr. Luke, the beloved physician and colleague of Paul, as the author of the Third Gospel; Paul as the most reasonable author for the 13 letters attributed to him; and most likely Luke as the author of Hebrews. But what about the letter attributed to James? Who is the most likely candidate for the pastoral letter? That is the topic of this article.

Date: Interestingly, the letter attributed to James is most likely the oldest letter in the entire New Testament. Evidence suggests that the letter of James was probably written around the year A.D. 48 as the letter holds more a kinship with Jewish wisdom literature than does further developed Christian literature. James’s tie with the Jerusalem church as well as a thoroughly Jewish focus leads one to believe that the letter was written prior to the Jerusalem Council (c. A.D. 48).

Purpose: Many have claimed, and rightfully so, that James’s letter is somewhat similar to the Jewish wisdom literature found in the Old Testament. The key difference between James and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament is that James contains key exhortations and prophetic elements which are not found in OT wisdom literature.[1]

The book of James is the most practical of all the books in the NT. So practical is James that many have suggested a difference between the theology of James and Paul. However, such differences are quite exaggerated. Paul does focus on grace while James focuses on works. Yet, the two are far more complementary that skeptics suggest. James holds that true, genuine faith will lead to action as one should be a “doer of the word and not hearers only” (James 1:22, CSB). Jesus holds a similar outlook as he notes that one who loves him will obey his commandments (John 14:15). Therefore, James and Paul do not present alternate versions of Christianity. Rather, their message of works subsequent to grace is complementary.[2]

Author: Three people are candidates for authorship of this early letter: James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus (also known as James the Less or James the Younger),[3] and James the brother of Jesus (also known as James the Just). James the son of Zebedee could not have authored the letter as he died in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2).

Pertaining to James the son of Alphaeus, there is no claim in the early church that he wrote the letter. Not much is known pertaining to the whereabouts of James the son of Alphaeus after the early ministry with Jesus. It is thought that James the Less was stoned by the Jewish authorities for preaching Christ and was buried in the Sanctuary in Jerusalem.[4] Justinian is said to have exhumed the body of James and placed his bones in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople in 332.[5]

This leaves only one possible candidate: James the brother of Jesus, also known as James the Just. James was not a believer in Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry (John 7:5). However, James did start following Jesus after Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. He was listed among those to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). James was one of the first leaders of the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9). James later died by being pushed off the temple ledge [6] and stoned by the Jewish authorities.[7] With the Jerusalem origin of the letter and the focus on Jewish wisdom literature, James the brother of Jesus is identified as the author of the letter.

Notes

[1] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1965.

[2] See also Jesus’s illustrations to good and bad fruit in Luke 6:43.

[3] William Steuart McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, revised ed (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 1973), 138.

[4] Ibid., 148.

[5] Ibid., 148.

[6] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.12-16.

[7] “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” Josephus, Antiquities 20.200, in Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 538.

About the Author:

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2uYK9VZ

August 15, 2017/by Guest

Did Paul Write All Thirteen Letters Attributed to Him?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

In the New Testament, thirteen letters are attributed to the apostle Paul. Paul is, of course, the individual who had persecuted the church, but became a Christian missionary after an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. But, did Paul actually author all thirteen epistles believed to have been penned by him? Some believe that Paul only actually authored seven of the thirteen.

Epistles are ancient letters written to individuals or groups of individuals addressing particular theological issues and/or doctrinal problems. The thirteen letters classically attributed to the apostle Paul are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Of the thirteen letters, seven are recognized as being undisputed (that is, without debate). Those seven undisputed letters are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. But what of the other six (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus)?

Some scholars have called the disputed six letters of Paul the “deutero-Pauline” epistles.^[1] It is believed by some that these letters may have been written by someone who was influenced by Paul’s doctrine and wrote what they thought Paul would have said on certain issues.

Skeptics of the disputed letters hold several reasons for their disbelief. First, they claim that the history presented in the disputed letters do not match what one finds in the book of Acts. For example, Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus in 1 Timothy 1:3 and leaves Titus in Crete in Titus 1:5. Such events are not found in Acts.

The vocabulary, it is argued, is much different in the disputed letters than in the undisputed letters of Paul. Drake Williams notes that the skeptic argues that “Approximately one third of the vocabulary within the Pastoral Letters is not found anywhere else in Paul’s letters, and over 35 names are not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Many of these words, however, can be found within second-century writings (Harrison, Problem).^[2]

In addition, skeptics argue that the development of church structure is more advanced in the disputed letters than the undisputed letters; doctrinal issues seem to point towards a later date (including some apparent allusions to Gnosticism); and the stylistic differences between the undisputed and disputed letters all illustrate their cause for dismissing Paul as the author of the disputed texts.

Despite the objections offered, one possesses good reasons for accepting all thirteen letters attributed to Paul as authentic. I have never been convinced that the disputed letters were forged. Here are a few reasons why.

The Appearance of the Apostle’s Name on All the Letters

The first point does not necessarily prove Paul to be the author of the disputed letters. In fact, the authors of the Gnostic second-century letters erroneously attributed them to apostolic origin. Nevertheless, it is quite odd that all thirteen letters would have received approval from those closest to Paul if the letters had not actually been written or dictated by him. The letters are certainly early enough to have been tested for authenticity as many early church leaders quoted from the disputed letters as well as the undisputed letters, as we will discuss a little later.

At times, skeptical claims can be a bit inconsistent when applied to biblical authorship. Some scholars deny the traditional authorship of the Gospels because they are anonymous while also denying the traditional authorship of the Epistles because they are not anonymous. How bizarre!

Differing Circumstances Account for Differing Theological Emphases

It must be remembered that Paul encountered various issues in differing locations. The church of Corinth faced tumultuous circumstances with doctrinal issues and infidelity. Thus, the letters to Corinth would differ from the letters written to Galatia where they were bombarded by individuals who attempted to steer believers away from the idea that the grace of God alone was sufficient for salvation. These differences are recognized among the undisputed letters. So then why would one not account for some differences in emphasis with letters written to individuals like Timothy and Titus, especially if one allows for the idea that Paul wrote the later letters from a prison cell?[3]

The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences

When I first learned the scribal practices of the amanuensis, I realized the stylistic differences in the different Pauline epistles were easily resolved. One may see stylistic differences even among the undisputed letters of Paul for the same reason. An amanuensis was a scribe who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. The amanuensis would read back the letter to the author to ensure the message was as the orator desired. Scholars have noted that amanuenses were often allowed some liberty in the structure of their writing so long as the message was preserved.

In the undisputed letters, one finds evidence of the amanuensis’s involvement. Take Romans, for instance. The letter begins by stating, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1).[4] Yet, at the end of the letter, one reads, “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Romans 16:22). What’s going on here?

Well, it’s simple really. Paul authored the letter while Tertius was the amanuensis. Paul dictated the information to Tertius, who wrote down the message of Paul and read it back to Paul to ensure that it encapsulated the message desired. In my humble opinion, I think the practice was used by the Holy Spirit to make the epistles even better than they would have been if only one hand was involved. Evidences for the amanuensis imprint are found in 1 Corinthians 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 1:1, among many other places.

The Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

The so-called problem with the historical differences between the disputed epistles and the book of Acts is easily solved when one realizes that Luke did not provide an exhaustive history of the church in his sequel. That is to say, Luke did not document every event that took place in early church history. In like manner, the Gospels do not provide an exhaustive biography of the life of Jesus. As one of my former professors, Dr. R. Wayne Stacy denoted, “The Gospels provide us portraits of Jesus rather than photographs.” I like that analogy. John even admits as much when he writes that “There are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if every one of them were written down, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

When one examines Acts with the epistles, there is no problem so long as the two do not contradict each other. These differences can easily be dispelled when one acknowledges the intentional gaps in Luke’s history.[5]

Early Church Father Quotations from the Disputed Letters

The early church unanimously accepted all thirteen letters as authentic. Space will not allow a full treatment of this issue. However, let’s look at one disputed letter: Colossians. Early church leaders unanimously endorsed the letter as authentically Pauline. Irenaeus endorsed it in Against Heresies 3.14.1; Tertullian in De Praescr. Haer., 7; Clement of Alexandria in Strom., 1.1; as well as Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 85.2 and 138.2.

Evidence for Deacons and Elders in Undisputed Letters

Concerning the development of elders and deacons in the church, one must consider the role of leadership in the earliest church. Jesus himself divided his disciples into various groups. He chose seventy-two (or seventy) disciples and sent them out two by two. Of those seventy-two, Jesus had twelve primary disciples. Of those twelve, he chose three to be inner-circle disciples (Peter, James, and John). Therefore, even Jesus established a system for the church in the early going. In Acts 6, the disciples chose seven to serve. These seven are believed by many, including myself, to be the earliest deacons chosen to serve. Thus, with the system set in place by Jesus and the addition of deacons in Acts 6, it is no great leap to implement the offices of elders (i.e.,, pastors) and deacons in the church. Therefore, the idea that the offices of pastor and deacon represents a much later development in church history is greatly overblown.

The Rejection of Pseudonymous Letters by the Early Church (2 Thess. 2:2)

The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters. Ironically, 2 Thessalonians (a letter believed by some to be pseudonymous) admonishes believers to “not…be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Early church leaders emphasized the authenticity of Christian documents. Tertullian while teaching on his acceptance of complementarianism discredited a letter involving Paul and a woman named Thecla because it was falsely attributed to Paul.

Eusebius tells the story of Serapion. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch. Serapion chided the church at Rhosse in Cilicia for their use of the the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote, “We brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”[6]

Closeness in Proximity

Simply put, individuals closest in proximity to the writing of a document can know with more certainty who actually authored the document than those two-thousand years removed. This is especially true if the veracity of the document is stressed by early readers.

Conclusion

While this article is much longer than I hoped it would be, the importance of establishing the authenticity of Paul’s thirteen letters cannot be overemphasized. Did Paul write all thirteen of the letters attributed to him? Yes. He did with the help of amanuenses. With the points established in this article, one should have no reservation in accepting all thirteen letters. The only letter sometimes attributed to Paul that should be highly questioned for its Pauline origin is the book of Hebrews. No one really knows who wrote the book. However, it is accepted as authentic for reasons we will discuss in a future article. In fact, we will discuss the writers of the Pastoral Epistles next in our series on the authors of the New Testament.

Notes

^[1] Drake Williams, “Paul the Apostle, Critical Issues,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry, et. al., eds (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

^[2] Ibid.

[3] The idea that Gnosticism is found in the disputed letters is far-fetched in my opinion.

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

[5] By gaps, I do not mean errors. Rather, Luke did not provide an exhaustive history and never intended to do so.

[6] Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vok7wP

July 23, 2017/by Guest

Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We have been engaged in a series of articles discussing the authorship of the books of the New Testament. In this article, we consider the Third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. Who wrote the Gospel? What clues do we have from the internal and external evidence, the date, and the location and audience?

Proposed Author by Tradition: Traditionally, Luke is proposed as the author of the Third Gospel. Luke was a physician and an associate of Paul the apostle (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24).

Internal Evidence: Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one “Theophilus” (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an “orderly sequence” (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (1:3) according to what the “original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down” (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus’s life. But, the author had access to those who had.

Second, the author of the Third Gospel also authored the book of Acts. The level of detail and precision, writing style, the similar address to Theophilus, as well as the connective clause in the first of Acts connects the two works to the same author.[2]

Third, the level of Greek used in both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts is highly advanced. Having taken biblical Greek courses, I have found that a person learns first from the Gospel of Mark and John before tackling the Gospel of Luke. Due to the high degree of Greek employed in the Third Gospel and the book of Acts, one can deduce that the author is quite advanced in his education.

Fourth, the author focuses on Jesus’s ministry to the Gentiles and to the outcasts of society. The Sermon on the Plain is preserved in the Third Gospel. There the author notes that people came to hear Jesus from all around. The author notes that many of the people who heard Jesus were Gentiles from the region of Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6:17).

Fifth, the author describes medical matters far more and to a greater degree than the other Gospels. In Luke 4:38, Luke is sure to note that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law suffered from a high fever. In Luke 14:2, the author describes a man’s body that had “swollen with fluid.” Such details indicate a man who has an eye for medical matters.

Sixth, because of the author’s involvement with the book of Acts, one can deduct from the “we passages” that the author was a close associate of the apostle Paul. For instance, the author of Acts writes that “When it was decided that we were to sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial Regiment” (Acts 27:1).

Finally, the author had access to a great wealth of Jesus’s teachings that are not found in the other Gospels. For instance, it is only in the Gospel of Luke that one reads the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Lost Son. The author would have needed to have access to multiple eyewitnesses to be able to possess such knowledge and to be able to construct the orderly account that he did.

All in all, the internal evidence strongly points to someone of the caliber of Luke, the physician. Luke would hold the educational background, the eyewitness access, the resources, and the training needed to construct both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe there are any other contenders. Why choose a non-eyewitness who was a Gentile[3] for the author if it had not been so?

External Evidence: Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”^[4] Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles”^[5] before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”^[6] Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.”^[7] From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel.

Date: Seeing that Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul (c. 64 AD), the Gospel of Luke must have been written at some time in the early 60s AD.

Location and Audience: Luke-Acts comprises about 60% of the New Testament’s content. Luke writes to the influential Theophilus, a man of great standing and prominent status. Theophilus may have supplied the resources for Luke and Acts to have been written. The cost to produce a book the size of Luke would have been around $6,000 according to modern U.S. currency. Acts would have cost nearly the same. The entire product of Luke-Acts would have cost somewhere in the ballpark of $12,000. Thus, a man with the means of Theophilus was used by God to fund the ancient two-volume work we find in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles which was written and compiled by a man with Dr. Luke’s resources and educational background.

Luke had a Gentile audience in mind. But the location of Luke’s composition is a bit of a mystery. The best and most probable locations of Luke’s composition include Caesarea, Achaia, Decapolis, Asia Minor, and Rome. My guess is that Luke was finalized in Rome.

Conclusion: From the internal evidence, one discovers that the author of the Third Gospel must have been quite educated and knowledgeable concerning medicinal matters. The style of writing was quite exquisite, noting that a man of profound knowledge compiled the Gospel. The association that the Third Gospel holds with the book of Acts illustrates the association that the author had with the apostle Paul due to the “we passages” in Acts.

The external evidence unanimously holds Dr. Luke as the author of Luke-Acts. No other contenders exist. Luke’s involvement with the Gospel of Luke-Acts is documented by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, and others.

The date of the Gospel must be in the early 60s due to the necessity of Acts being completed by AD 64. Thus, Luke-Acts is certainly early enough to have contained eyewitness testimony.

Luke-Acts is written for an influential man named Theophilus from whom Luke may have received funding for this writing endeavor. Theophilus may have been a new convert and was financially able to affront the funds and materials necessary to Luke. Luke, himself, would have been a man of great means, as well.

Compiling all the information we have before us, Dr. Luke—the physician and co-worker with the apostle Paul—is the only viable candidate for the authorship of the two-volume work known as Luke-Acts.

Notes

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

[2] Acts begins with the words, “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

[3] Luke is named among those who were uncircumcised in Colossians 4:11. Only Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus were the circumcised co-workers of Paul. Dr. Luke is listed in verse 14.

^[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies” 3.1.1., 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), 414.

^[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.10.1., 423.

^[6] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” 66, 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), 185.

^[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.11.7, 428.

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

July 2, 2017/by Guest

Who Wrote the Gospel of Mark?

4. Is the NT True?

By Brian Chilton

Last week, we began a series on the authorship of the New Testament documents as we discussed the Gospel of Matthew. This week, we continue our series as we consider the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. We will consider the internal and external evidences, as well as the date of the composition, and the area where Mark was located.

Proposed Author by Tradition: John Mark, who transcribed the teachings of Simon Peter, is traditionally held to be the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark was the son of a widow woman named Mary (Acts 12:12-17). The disciples met in Mary’s home. Her home may have even served as the location of the Last Supper. John Mark was also the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journeys. He was, however, scolded by Paul and was disallowed to continue after Mark left the missionaries for unknown reasons (Acts 13:13). Paul and Mark later reconciled. Paul added that Mark was useful for the ministry (Colossians 4:10).

Internal Evidence: Internally, there isn’t much to mark the author of the Gospel. The Second Gospel does hold several traits to be considered. First, the Second Gospel is fast-paced. The author uses the term “immediately” often. Second, the Second Gospel focuses on the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth often discussing his emotions. Third, the author writes with a Latin audience in mind as he explained Jewish customs and used Latin terms. Some example of the author’s usage of Latinisms include the terms census (Mark 12:14), centurion (15:39, 44, 45), denarius (a Roman coin, 12:15), among others.[1] Fourth, the author describes the man who carried Jesus’s cross as Simon of Cyrene who is identified as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Alexander and Rufus were known to the believers in Rome.[2] Fifth, the Second Gospel focuses upon the life of Simon Peter quite a bit. One of the highlights of the Second Gospel is Peter’s declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (8:27-9:1). Sixth, the author emphasizes the Messianic Secret.[3] Seventh and finally, the author describes a man who is unknown except for a bizarre instance in the Garden of Gethsemane where the unknown man is caught as Jesus is arrested, only to escape the clutches of the Roman guard losing his clothing in the process (Mark 14:51-52). Many have postulated that this unknown man is in fact the author.

While the clues are not conclusive, they do point to a man writing to a Roman audience; who directly, or indirectly, knew Simon Peter; who knew the members of the Roman church. Of the possible candidates, John Mark fits best.

External Evidence: Like the other three Gospels, the early church was unanimous in their acceptance that John Mark was the writer of the Second Gospel and that he documented the teachings of Simon Peter. Papias provides the earliest account. Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) writes,

“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”^[4]

Papias confirms John Mark as the writer of the Second Gospel. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) also writes, “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”^[5] Thus, the early church unanimously concurred that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark would make for an odd candidate unless he were in fact the author.

Date: If one holds that Irenaeus’s reference to Peter’s “departure” indicates Peter’s execution, then Mark was written in the mid to late 60s. If, however, “departure” indicates Peter’s establishment of the Roman church, then the date is much earlier. It seems that Irenaeus addresses Peter’s martyrdom. However, he is writing after having received the Gospel when Mark moved to Alexandria, Egypt. Thus, the Gospel could have been written much earlier than Mark’s distribution of the work to the Alexandrians. Most scholars hold that Mark was written first, while others hold that Matthew was the first to be written. Good evidence suggests a date for Mark’s Gospel at some time in the 50s, with some even suggesting a date to the late 40s. Personally, I am comfortable with a mid-50s date.

Location and Audience: It is clear that John Mark wrote his Gospel while still in Rome. Mark writes primarily for a Roman Gentile audience. Mark could have written in Rome at any point. I hold that Irenaeus indicates merely that his community received the Gospel after Peter’s death. However, this is not a point which I strongly hold.

Conclusion:

From the evidences considered, John Mark is the only clear candidate for the Second Gospel. While John Mark was not a primary witness of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and while he does not necessarily record the events of Jesus’s life in chronological order, he does act as a scribe, or amanuensis, to Peter whom Jesus knew and selected to be an inner circle disciple. We have a great testimony preserved for us in the Second Gospel. I believe we truly have the eyewitness accounts of Simon Peter documented for us by his good friend John Mark.

Notes

[1] For a full list of Mark’s Latinisms, see Rod Decker, “Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel,” NT Resources (May 28, 2011), retrieved June 12, 2017, http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1205.

[2] “Introduction to Mark,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1556.

[3] That is, Jesus telling the disciples to keep his identity a secret.

^[4] Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” 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), 154–155.

^[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 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), 414.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2syW4fy

June 18, 2017/by Guest

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

4. Is the NT True?

By Brian Chilton

Over the course of the new few weeks, we will discuss the reasons for accepting the traditional viewpoints for New Testament authorship. We will begin with the Gospel of Matthew today and will then move towards the other three Gospels before looking at some of the letters in Revelation.

The New Testament begins with the Gospel of Matthew. But, what do we know about the origin of the First Gospel? In a world where traditional scholarship is often questioned and too often disregarded, several theories exist as to whom the author of the First Gospel may be. Traditionally, the church has ascribed the First Gospel to the apostle known as Matthew. But, what evidence do we find about the author of the first book in the New Testament?

Internal Evidence

When we discuss internal evidence, we are speaking of the evidence that we find within the book in question. What clues do we find about the author of the First Gospel from the text? Like the other three Gospels, the First Gospel is anonymous.

First, we find that the author of the First Gospel is thoroughly entrenched in Judaism. The author often quotes the Hebrew Bible (otherwise known as the Old Testament). He parallels the life of Jesus with the great prophets of Judaism. Additionally, he makes every effort to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy. In many ways, the author of the First Gospel focuses on the Jewish aspects of the faith, even describing some areas such as Jesus’s exclusion clause for divorce. The writer of the First Gospel also focuses quite a bit more on Jesus’s messages than do some of the other Gospel writers.

Second, the author focuses on Jesus’s work within Galilee and does not so much focus on Jesus’s work with Gentiles as does Luke. Thus, the evangelist is mostly concerned with Jesus’s ministry to the Jews.

Finally, the author of the First Gospel adds financial details only found in the First Gospel. For instance, only the First Gospel records the incidence where those who collected the temple tax “approached Peter and said, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax” (Matthew 17:24)?[1]

From all the details considered with the internal evidence (one who is thoroughly Jewish in scope of the messages presented by Jesus, one who focuses on the prophetic fulfillment of Jesus, one who focuses on the ministry of Jesus to Jews, and one who focuses on financial matters especially in the area of taxes), Matthew best fits as the author of the First Gospel. Matthew was a tax collector before accepting Jesus as Savior and his role as an apostle. Thus, Matthew’s knowledge of shorthand to take notes as well as finances would far excel most others.

External Evidence

When we speak of external evidence, we are addressing information we have about a document’s authorship from outside the document. What do others say about the author of the First Gospel?

The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”^[2] While we do not have a Hebrew or Aramaic edition of Matthew’s Gospel, there are reports that one may have existed in the early church.[3] Regardless, one should not be surprised that Matthew, who would need to have great knowledge of Greek in the business world, originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, only to revise the Gospel in Greek. Even if his Gospel were written in Greek by another, even say an amanuensis,[4] this would not negate Matthew’s authorship. Craig Evans recently recorded a video where he claims that Matthew may have come about in phases.[5]

Pantaenus also confirmed that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. The great church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, writes that Pantaenus, a church leader in the late 2^nd to possibly early 3^rd century, came across the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. Eusebius notes that Pantaenus was “a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.^”[6]The following is Eusebius’s report of Pantaenus’s encounter with the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel:

“It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,⁶ which they had preserved till that time.”^[7]

With the addition of Origen and Irenaeus’s acceptance of Matthew writing the First Gospel, one is hard-pressed to dismiss their claims.

In addition, scholars acknowledge that Matthew’s name was associated with the First Gospel from the earliest times. The writers of the CSB Study Bible denote that “the title that ascribes this Gospel to Matthew appears in the earliest manuscripts and is possibly original. Titles became necessary to distinguish one Gospel from another when the four Gospels began to circulate as a single collection.”[8]

Date and Location of Writing

It is certainly reasonable to accept that Matthew was written in the 50s due to the reasonable assumption that Acts was finished before AD 64, with Luke coming before Acts, and Matthew writing his Gospel before Luke’s. Scholars generally hold that Matthew composed his Gospel in or around Antioch of Syria.

Conclusion

Some may argue that a disciple like Matthew would not borrow material from Mark, if in fact it is true that Matthew did borrow material from Mark’s Gospel. However, when one considers that Matthew followed Jesus long after most of the apostles, and that Matthew was not an inner-circle disciple, then it stands to reason that Matthew would borrow material from Mark’s Gospel if it is true that Mark relayed information from Simon Peter—who was both an early apostle and inner-circle disciple.

While some will still disagree, it seems strange to me to ascribe the First Gospel to Matthew of all people, especially when the First Gospel was used as a church manual in many cases. Matthew was a tax-collector. Tax-collectors were held in slightly higher esteem than pond scum…but not by much. So, why ascribe the First Gospel to a tax-collector unless there was at least some merit to the claim?

In my humble opinion, I believe the First Gospel came to us in three phases. First, the apostle Matthew wrote the teachings of Jesus in Aramaic. Then, Matthew added the miracles and deeds of Jesus to his Aramaic and/or Hebrew edition of his Gospel adding his eyewitness testimony and the testimony of Simon Peter as found in Mark’s Gospel. Finally, either Matthew himself or a highly trained scribe translated the Gospel in Greek.

Notes

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

^[2] Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” 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), 155.

[3] I believe it is Jerome who reports seeing a Hebraic Gospel of Matthew. But is this the same? We cannot know for sure.

[4] That is, a scribe who writes down the words that are dictated to oneself. Some amanuenses were given freedom to add their own expressions to a degree.

[5] Video recorded for Faith Life. I could not find the link. I will post the link if I am able to find it.

^[6] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 224.

^[7] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 225.

[8] “Introduction to Matthew,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1494.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2rapy3W

June 11, 2017/by Guest

Why Is There Even A Jesus Myth Theory?

4. Is the NT True?

By Stephen Bedard

I have spent much of my apologetics activity responding to the Jesus myth theory. My first book (co-authored with Stanley Porter) Unmasking the Pagan Christ and my first journal article were both responses to the Jesus myth theory.

Although generally discounted by scholars, I believe that it is a dangerous theory that is influencing people through the medium of the internet. I am thankful that many apologists see this challenge and are responding to it.

This post is not a response to the specific claims of the Jesus myth theory.

My question is: Why is there even a Jesus myth theory to begin with? It does not make sense for people to just wake up one morning and decide they are going to question the historicity of one of the most well known ancient figures. Why do they do it?

I do not believe that there is only one answer to that question. I will present four possible reasons for people to embrace this theory.

1) Atheist Agenda. Atheists by definition deny the existence of God. Traditionally, however, they have accepted the existence of Jesus. They have seen Jesus as either someone who was delusional or someone who was misrepresented (usually by Paul).

More recently, some atheists have begun to question the existence of Jesus as well. Why make this leap? It may be the fault of many Christian apologists. Some apologists, including myself, see the resurrection of Jesus as the best evidence for the existence of God. If the evidence demonstrates that Jesus died and then on the third day was seen alive, something supernatural must have happened.

Instead of attacking each piece of evidence, it may be easier for some atheists to just reject the entire story. There is no need to respond to the empty tomb if Jesus never existed.

2) Anti-Religion. This reason has some overlap with the first but it is somewhat different. Being anti-religious does not require being an atheist. Some people use their love for God to fuel their hatred of religion.

The denial of the existence of Jesus should be seen in the context of attitudes toward other founders of major religions. In addition to denying the existence of Jesus, there are those who deny the existence of Moses, Buddha, and Muhammad. Admittedly, those who deny the existence of Muhammad are quite careful in how they express that view.

There seems to be a trend for people to question the existence of every founder of a religion. How long before people question the existence of Joseph Smith?

3) Another Conspiracy. Some people embrace the Jesus myth because of their love for conspiracy theories. We can assume that at some point people knew that Jesus was a myth and then at another point, people believed he was real. Someone had to be responsible for this change.

The Church has made many mistakes over the centuries and so they are an easy target. Church leaders must have secretly decided to make Jesus historical, presumably to make money off of the ignorant masses.

Once you add Constantine into the mix, you have both religious and political powers conspiring together. That is the makings of the perfect conspiracy theory.

4) Alternative spirituality. Not everyone who subscribes to the Jesus myth does it for negative reasons. Some use it to replace traditional Christianity with an alternative spirituality.

My introduction to the Jesus myth came through Canadian author Tom Harpur. Harpur is a former Anglican priest. Having read his books and spoken with him over coffee, I have a sense of why he believes what he does. Harpur was deeply disturbed by the exclusivity of traditional Christianity. Belief in Jesus as the only way is, according to Harpur, the reason behind the crusades, inquisition, holocaust and so on.

But what if the story of Jesus was true in a spiritual sense rather than a historical sense? What if there was no historical Jesus to divide Jews, Christians and Muslims? What if there was a cosmic Christ in every human of every religion and of no religion? Then there would be the potential for peace and unity for the human race.

This is not the place to respond to each of these claims. Rather the purpose of this post is to acknowledge that there are different reasons why people accept the Jesus myth. The practical application for apologists is to determine the kind of Jesus mythicist we are interacting with. Their place in each of the four categories will influence how we respond to their questions.

January 30, 2017/by Guest

Did Messianic prophecy inspire the Christmas story?

4. Is the NT True?

By Tim McGrew

One of the favorite targets of destructive biblical criticism is the narrative of Jesus’ birth in the first two chapters of Matthew. One distinctive feature of Matthew’s account makes it a particularly tempting target. Matthew’s theological agenda is absolutely overt: over and over in the first few chapters of his Gospel, we get some variation on the phrase, “… all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet…” followed by a quotation of some passage from the Old Testament. Clearly, Matthew is deeply concerned to show the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

There are two ways to look at that fact. From a traditional Christian perspective, Matthew, knowing some of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, searched back through the prophets to find passages that would resonate with the events. Jewish interpretive practices in the first century were varied and complex and not always something sober twenty-first-century readers would engage in. Still, Matthew’s use of those techniques (still a debated issue in some circles) is pretty tame by Jewish standards of his time.

It is not difficult, in a quick online search, to find long lists of ostensible messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Take Hosea 11:1, for example:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

One recent commentary (John Phillips, Exploring the Minor Prophets: An Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), p. 60) reflects on this passage:

Devout Jewish students must have often pondered this Messianic prophecy. How can the Messiah possibly come out of Egypt? they no doubt reasoned.

Or consider Jeremiah 31:15:

Thus says the LORD, “A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”

Even in Jeremiah’s time, Rachel had been dead for centuries; her mourning is a metaphor. Matthew, reflecting on the small but brutal massacre in Bethlehem, saw history coming full circle again and found in Jeremiah’s description of Rachel’s lament an apt metaphor for events in his own time.

Above all, there is the much-disputed sign promised in Isaiah 7:14:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

As the notes in the NET Bible Synopsis of the Four Gospels inform us, the “Messiah was to be born of a virgin”—and despite what appears to be an unending wrangle over the words almah and parthenos, it is not hard to see how Matthew, learning that Jesus had indeed been born of a virgin, would have taken the event to be a fulfillment of prophecy.

But from a more cynical perspective, this order of looking at things is backwards. Matthew, knowing the Old Testament prophecies, and persuaded that Jesus was the Messiah, invented the stories in order to fit the prophecies. The events did not remind Matthew of the prophecies; the events, in fact, never took place. Rather, recollected prophecies gave rise to the fabrication of the Christmas story.

The simplicity of the skeptical theory gives it a certain superficial charm. Anything Matthew says that cannot be independently verified can be explained away in this fashion. Why does he (but not Luke) send Jesus to Egypt? Because that way, Jesus can be seen as fulfilling the prophecy in Hosea.

Regarding Jeremiah 31:15, George Wesley Buchanan (Jesus, the King and His Kingdom (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984), p. 292) writes:

Jeremiah was a prophet. Therefore, he would have been speaking only of the days of the Messiah. Why would there be weeping in Herod’s day? Herod must have slaughtered Rachel’s descendants the way Pharaoh had done with the Hebrew children in Egypt.

There is the reversal: Herod “must have” done this, as it is what the prophecy requires; therefore, the story fulfills the prophecy, neatly bypassing actual history in the process.

And for Isaiah 7:14, the skeptical explanation seems ready made. Does Isaiah prophesy a virgin birth for the Messiah? Well, then if Jesus is the Messiah, a virgin birth he must have. To the skeptical eye it is all so so clear, so satisfying.

Except for one small problem. In all of the Jewish literature prior to the advent of Christianity, there is not one scrap of evidence that any Jewish reader ever considered Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:15, or Hosea 11:1 to be messianic prophecies.

It is not as though we lack evidence of what they did consider to be messianic. We have an abundance of evidence on that front. In an appendix to the second volume of his massive work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfed Edersheim lists 456 passages that are glossed in the Targums or the Talmud as messianic. And not one of these passages makes the list.

I want to express myself carefully here, as there is a risk that I will be misunderstood. I am not saying that, by the standards of first-century Jewish interpretation, these passages could not be taken to resonate with actual events in the life of Jesus. Clearly they could—if those events really transpired, they might well suggest that sort of application of these passages. What I am saying is that, so far as our evidence is concerned, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that an overly zealous first century Jew, intent on making up a story about the birth of the Messiah, would reach for these passages or feel the need to work them into his narrative. There is plenty of other material to work with. But for this hypothetical Jewish-Christian novelist, these three passages are simply not relevant.

The fact that the Jews themselves did not consider these passages to be Messianic is fatal to the theory that the birth narrative in Matthew was fabricated to accord with messianic expectations. One might even reverse the argument. It is not easy to find a good explanation for the incorporation of such material into a fictional account of Jesus’ nativity. Yet there it is. How, then, shall we explain that fact? Why did Matthew feel moved to draw out just those strands from the prophetic writings, unless it was because the parallels were suggested by the events themselves?

Against this, there is always the fundamental fallback position of skepticism, a position that Matthew Arnold puts with admirable bluntness in his Preface to Literature and Dogma (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1883), p. xii:

[O]ur popular religion at present conceives the birth, ministry, and death of Christ, as altogether steeped in prodigy, brimful of miracle;—and miracles do not happen.

With such an antagonist, one knows where one stands. There is no subterfuge here, no pretense that the narratives must be set aside because of the results of dispassionate historical criticism. As G. K. Chesterton observes:

Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. [Orthodoxy (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1945), pp. 278-79]

? Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance ?

December 21, 2016/by Guest

Jesus’ Birth: How undesigned coincidences give evidence for the truth of the Gospel accounts

4. Is the NT True?

By J.W. Wartick

There are many charges raised against the historicity of the birth narratives of Jesus Christ. These run the gamut from objections based upon alleged contradictions to inconsistencies in the genealogies to incredulity over the possibility of a virgin birth. Rather than make a case to rebut each of these objections in turn, here I will focus upon using undesigned coincidences to note how these birth narratives of Christ have the ring of truth. How exactly do undesigned coincidences work? Simply put, they are incidental details that confirm historical details of stories across reports. I have written more extensively on how these can be used as an argument for the historicity of the Gospels: Undesigned Coincidences- The Argument Stated. It should be noted that the birth narrative occurs only in Matthew and Luke. John begins with a direct link of Christ to God, while Mark characteristically skips ahead to the action. Thus, there are only a few places to compare these stories across different reports. However, both Mark and John have incidental details which hint at the birth account. These incidental details lend power to the notion that the birth narratives of Jesus are historical events.

Joseph

First, there is one undesigned coincidence that is such a gaping hole and such a part of these narratives most people will probably miss it. Namely, what in the world was Joseph thinking in Luke!? Do not take my word for this–look up Luke chapters 1-2. Read them. See anything missing? That’s right! Joseph, who is pledged to a virgin named Mary (1:27) doesn’t say anything at all about the fact that his bride-to-be is suddenly pregnant. There is no mention of him worrying at all about it.

So far as we can tell from Luke, Joseph, who we only know as a descendant of David here, is going to be wed to a virgin and then finds out that she’s pregnant. He’s not the father? What’s his reaction? We don’t find out until Luke 2, where Joseph simply takes Mary with him to be counted in the census, dutifully takes Jesus to the Temple, and that’s about it. Isn’t he wondering anything about this child? It’s not his! What happened?

Only by turning to Matthew 1:18ff do we find out that Joseph did have his second thoughts, but that God sent an angel explaining that Mary had not been unfaithful, and that the baby was a gift of the Holy Spirit. So we have an explanation for why Joseph acted as he did in Luke. Now these are independent accounts, and it would be hard to say that Luke just decided to leave out the portion about Joseph just because he wanted to have Matthew explain his account.

The genealogies of Jesus that Matthew and Luke include are different, but they reflect the meta-narratives going on within each Gospel. Luke’s narrative generally points out the women throughout in a positive light, and it is often argued that his genealogy traces the line of Mary. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, traces through Jesus’ legal father, Joseph. Now it could be argued that these are simply reflections of the authors’ imaginations within their fictional accounts, but surely including names with descendants tracing all the way back to Abraham and beyond is not a good way to construct a fictional account. No, Matthew and Luke include the genealogies because their accounts are grounded in history.

Incidental Details

Interestingly, the birth narratives of Jesus also help explain the events reported in Mark and John, which do not report His birth. What of the apparent familiarity John had with Jesus in Mark 1:3ff and John 1:19ff? It seems a bit odd for John to go around talking about someone else “out there” who will be better in every way than he himself is without knowing who this other person is. Well, looking back at Matthew and Luke, we find that Mary and Elizabeth (John’s mother) knew each other and had visited each other during their pregnancy. It seems a foregone conclusion that they continued to interact with each other after the births of their sons, which would explain John’s apparent familiarity with Jesus in Mark and John.

Strangely, Mark never mentions Joseph as Jesus’ father. If all we had was Mark’s Gospel, we would be very confused about who Jesus’ father is. The oddness is compounded by the fact that Mary is mentioned a number of times. Well okay, that still seems pretty incidental. But what about the fact that Mark explicitly has a verse where he lists Mary as well as Jesus’ siblings?

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3, ESV)

This verse seems extremely weird. After all, Joseph was a carpenter (well, a more accurate translation is probably “craftsman”) and yet despite Mark explicitly using that word for Jesus, as well as listing Mary and Jesus’ siblings, we still see nothing but silence regarding Jesus’ father. Well, of course! After all, when we turn to the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, we find that Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus had no human father. Thus, Mark, ever the concise master of words, simply omits Joseph from details about Jesus’ life. But to not mention Jesus’ father in a largely patriarchal society alongside his mother and siblings seems extremely strange. It is only explained by the fact of the virgin birth, with which Mark would have been familiar. However, Mark didn’t see the birth narrative as important in his “action Gospel.” Only by turning to Matthew and Luke do we find an explanation for the strange omission of Joseph from Mark’s Gospel.

Conclusion

I have listed just a few undesigned coincidences to be gleaned from the birth narratives of Jesus. The fact of the matter is that these can be multiplied almost indefinitely if one looks at the whole of the Gospels, and even moreso if one investigates the whole Bible. These incidental details fit together in such a way as to give the Gospels the ring of truth. The way that Matthew fills in details of Luke, Mark demonstrates his familiarity with the birth narratives, and the intimate connections of Jesus and John are all cross-confirmed is both incidental and amazing. The claim is not that based upon these incidences alone the Gospel accounts are true. No, the claim is that those who challenge the truth of these accounts must account for these incidences in a way that is more plausible than that they simply occur when people relate history. It seems that the only way to do that would be to resort to outlandish narratives that involve the four authors sitting together and discussing which portions of stories to leave out so the others can fill them in. No, instead it seems much more likely that these four authors were writing what they had witnessed–or that they received from eyewitness testimony, and just as we do when recounting events (think of 9/11, for example, and the different things people remember) they wrote specific details they felt were important or part of the narrative, while the others found other things more important or had other incidental knowledge related to the events they recorded.

?Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance Here ?

December 19, 2016/by Guest

On the Historical Accuracy of the Book of Acts

4. Is the NT True?

By Tim McGrew

Here are some of the details that Luke gets right in Acts that cannot be derived from Josephus. Most of these can be found in Colin Hemer’s magisterial work, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

1. A natural crossing between correctly named ports. (Acts 13:4-5) Mt. Casius, which is south of Seleucia, is within sight of Cyprus.

2. The proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)

3. The proper location of Iconium in Phrygia rather than in Lycaonia. (14:6) This identification was doubted because it challenges some sources reflecting boundary changes from a different date, but the ethnic inclusion of Iconium in Phrygia is confirmed by the geographical distribution of Neo-Phrygian texts and onomastic study.

4. The highly unusual but correct heteroclitic declension of the name Lystra. (14:6) This is paralleled in Latin documents.

5. The Lycaonian language spoken in Lystra. (14:11) This was unusual in the cosmopolitan, Hellenized society in which Paul moved. But the preservation of the local language is attested by a gloss in Stephanus of Byzantium, who explains that “Derbe” is a local word for “juniper.” Hemer lists many other native names in the Lystra district.

6. Two gods known to be so associated—Zeus and Hermes. (14:12) These are paralleled epigraphically from Lystra itself, and the grouping of the names of Greek divinities is peculiarly characteristic of the Lystra district.

7. The proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use. (14:25) This was a coasting port, where they would go to intercept a coasting vessel, by contrast with Perga (13:13), a river port.

8. The correct order of approach (Derbe and then Lystra) from the Cilician Gates. (16:1; cf. 15:41)

9. The form of the name “Troas,” which was current in the first century. (16:8)

10. The place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace, dominated by a 5000 foot mountain. (16:11)

11. The proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony, and the correct identification of its seaport as Nea Polis, which is attested both in manuscripts and in numismatic evidence. (16:12)

12. The right location of the Gangites, a small river near Philippi. (16:13)

13. The identification of Thyatira as a center of dyeing. (16:14) This is attested by at least seven inscriptions of the city.

14. The proper designation for the magistrates of the colony as strategoi (16:22), following the general term archontes in v. 19.

15. The proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia, cities about 30 miles apart) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey to Thessalonica. (17:1)

16. The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica. (17:1) This is attested by a late 2nd AD inscription. (CIJ 693)

17. The proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates in Thessalonica. (17:6) See Horsley’s article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, in loc.

18. The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring “Etesian” winds of the summer sailing season. (17:14-15)

19. The abundant presence of images in Athens. (17:16)

20. The reference to a synagogue in Athens. (17:17) See CIJ 712-15.

21. The depiction of philosophical debate in the Agora, which was characteristic of Athenian life. (17:17)

22. The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos, “seed picker,” 17:18) as well as for the court (Areios pagos, “the hill of Ares,” 17:19)

23. The proper characterization of the Athenian character. (17:21) This, however, might be attributed to common knowledge.

24. An altar to an “unknown god.” (17:23) Such altars are mentioned by Pausanias and Diogenes Laertius. Note also the aptness of Paul’s reference to “temples made with hands,” (17:24), considering that Paul was speaking in a location dominated by the Parthenon and surrounded by other shrines of the finest classical art.

25. The proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection. (17:32) See the words of Apollo in Aeschylus, Eumenides 647-48.

26. The term “Areopagites,” derived from areios pagos, as the correct title for a member of the court. (17:34)

27. The presence of a synagogue at Corinth. (18:4) See CIJ 718.

28. The correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth. (18:12) This reference nails down the time of the events to the period from the summer of 51 to the spring of 52.

29. The bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth’s forum. (18:16ff.)

30. The name “Tyrannus,” which is attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions. (19:9)

31. The shrines and images of Artemis. (19:24) Terracotta images of Artemis (=Diana) abound in the archaeological evidence.

32. The expression “the great goddess Artemis,” a formulation attested by inscriptions at Ephesus. (19:27)

33. The fact that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city. (19:29) This is confirmed by inscriptional evidence dating from AD. 104. (See OGIS 480.8-9.)

34. The correct title “grammateus” for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus. (19:35) This is amply attested in inscriptional evidence.

35. The proper title of honor “neokoros,” commonly authorized by the Romans for major cities that possessed an official temple of the imperial cult. (19:35) See Wankel, Die Inschriften von Ephesus, 300.

36. The term “he theos,” the formal designation of the goddess. (19:37) See the Salutaris document, passim.

37. The proper term (“agoraioi hemerai”) for the assizes, those holding court under the proconsul. (19:38)

38. The use of the plural “anthupatoi,” (19:38), which is either a remarkable coincidence of expression or else a deliberate reference to the fact that at that precise time, the fall of AD 54, two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul because their predecessor, Silanus, had been murdered. See Tacitus, Annals 13.1; Dio Cassius 61.6.4-5. This is one point where Ramsay’s work has been superseded in a way that reflects great credit on Luke’s accuracy.

39. The “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere. (19:39) The concept is mentioned repeatedly in the Salutaris inscription, IBM 481.339-40 = Wankel 27, lines 468-69.

40. The use of a precise ethnic designation, “Beroiaios.” (20:4) This is attested in the local inscriptions.

41. The employment of the characteristic ethnic term “Asianos,” meaning “Greeks in Asia.” (20:4) Cf. IGRR 4.1756, where the Greeks honor a Sardian citizen with this designation (lines 113, 116).