=

Home Page

   

The ChurchinHistory Information Centre

www.churchinhistory.org

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

[According to the Clementine Tradition]

By

Dennis Barton


The Gospels are Historical


Part 2

CHAPTER VIII

DATING MATTHEW

For nearly 2000 years it has been held that Matthew wrote his gospel in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the city in 70 AD. The reason modern books have transferred its composition to a later period is so as to conform to the Markan theory. When dating is examined on its own, without this supposition, the witness of the ancient historians is clearly correct. This chapter will highlight some of the concerns featured in this gospel that indicate its background was Palestine and Jerusalem as it existed prior to 70 AD.

The new Christian community was formulating its position with regard to the Hebrew Scriptures, The Law, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Temple sacrifices, purification rites, the Sabbath, admission to the community, internal discipline, fasts, prayers, marriage, divorce and celibacy, as well its attitude to the Samaritans and Gentiles. As we read through the chapters and verses of Matthew we see this taking place. This is what gives this gospel such a Jewish flavour and points to it being written at this time and place. There are many examples which indicate a Palestinian background:

 

5: 19                                        Fulfilment of the law.

5: 23-24                                   Bringing gifts to the altar.

5: 35                                        Swearing by Jerusalem.

10: 6 and 15: 24                       The lost sheep of the house of Israel.

15: 22                                      The Samaritan woman.

24: 21                                      The Sabbath.

19: 28                                      The twelve tribes.

23: 16-22                                 Swearing by the Temple and the altar.

23: 27                                      White-washed tombs.

Luke and Mark/Peter addressing mainly Gentile audiences omit these subjects.

The Jews lived by `The Law` and Matthew was very conscious of it. He uses the words Just, Justice, Lawlessness, worthy, judgement fifty times, while Luke uses them twenty four times and Mark only twice ((NCCHS 710B)). We can see here a sign of a progressive moving away from the Palestinian environment.

Matthew assumes his readers are familiar with the views and customs of the Scribes, Pharisees, Herodians and Sadducees. He never explains who they are, which would be expected if he had a mixed Gentile-Jewish audience towards the end of the first century ((RO 233)).  He is busy solving the problems of Christian Jews, while ignoring those of the Gentiles who, by 85 AD, were pouring into the Church. Major theological concepts in Matthew`s Gospel presume an audience possessing a good understanding of the Old Testament. The Gospel uses concepts foreign to Greek thought such as:

 9: 14-15  Nuptial Tent.            17: 10-13   Bridegroom.           22: 7   Marriage Feast.

The Greeks,  thanks to Aristotle,  had a word for  `species`,   but the Hebrews lacked this concept. They used expressions such as: `Son of Man`, Son of Ox, Son of Crow etc. Tresmontant examined this in detail ((CTH 30-45, 87, 131)).

Matthew writes of the Sabbath (24: 19-20), yet the corresponding passages in Luke 21: 23 and Mark 13:17 omit it. Again we see the Church drawing further away from her Jewish roots.

Matthew in 16: 1-12 attacks the Pharisees and Sadducees four times in a long passage. In the related passage in Mark 8: 11–27, we see the mention of the Pharisees reduced and there is no mention of the Sadducees. If Matthew had written second, why would he double the references to the Pharisees and insert the phrase `and the Sadducees` four times? We need to remember that by AD 85 the Sadducees had ceased to exist.

Why would Matthew (17: 24-7) in 85 AD be preoccupied with the half- shekel Temple tax which had ceased to exist fifteen years earlier?

Comparing the two stories in Matthew 15: 1-2 and 15: 21, with Mark 7: 2-4 and 7: 28, we see Mark finding it necessary to explain the act of `washing` and the nationality of a Canaanite. Matthew writing for Palestinians had no need to do this.  If Matthew was writing in 85 AD for a mainly Gentile readership, and basing his Gospel on Mark`s Gospel, why did he leave out the helpful explanations provided by Mark?

Matthew`s Gospel is full of examples claiming Christ fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies (e.g. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9). He reports the rending of the Temple veil (27: 51), yet does not record the fulfilment of Christ`s biggest prophesy – The destruction of the Temple.

 


According to Matthew 12: 38-42, Christ said the story of Jonas would be a sign to a disbelieving Jewish generation. The point of the story (see Jonas chapters 1and 2) is that the pagans would flock to be righteous while the chosen people would keep their hard hearts. The three-day whale incident is ancillary to the main story. If Matthew had written towards the end of the century when the Gentiles were flooding into the Church, he would have been able to show the full fulfilment of the prophecy ((CTH 42)).

These are all signs of Matthew writing pre-70 AD.

The disciples realised Christ was aware of the future and out of curiosity asked questions. But Christ was aiming to make his Apostles single-minded and not waste time on idle curiosity (John 21: 22). He gave them answers, but Christians have been puzzled ever since as to what applied to the immediate future and what to the end of the world. Whether this was deliberate on the part of Christ or whether the Apostles became confused, we do not know. But we do know that a major item of the prophecy, the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, had been fulfilled within forty years.

If Matthew wrote after 70 AD why did he fail to take the opportunity to unscramble the reporting of the words of Christ?

Orchard has pointed out that the letters of Paul to the Thessalonians, written in the 50s, show the influence of Matthew`s Gospel. Orchard comments: “We find the same teaching, the same metaphors and similes and the same key words, some exceedingly rare”. Apart from two in 4: 16, the words are used in the same order. The order is not so close in the second Epistle, but even here the words all appear in chapter 24 and the beginning of chapter 25. Other powerful supporting reminiscences of Matthew are to be found in Galatians 1: 12, 16, and 1 Cor. 7: 1ff and 9: 14 ((RO 119-120)). For a fuller description of these relationships see `Biblica 19 (1938): 19-42`. This is further evidence of Matthew writing prior to the 50s AD.

Every ancient historical source says the Apostle Matthew wrote the first Gospel and most of them record that it was in Hebrew or at least in a Semitic language or style.

  

CHAPTER IX

A HEBREW MATTHEW

The previous Chapter pointed out how the subject matter in Matthew`s Gospel indicates its early composition for a Jewish audience in Palestine. In this chapter we look at the linguistic evidence of it being first written in Hebrew.

Eusebius quoting Papias wrote, “Matthew collected the oracles [logia or sayings] in the Hebrew language/style”. ((EH 3: 39.16)). Quoting Irenaeus Eusebius wrote, ”Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue/ dialect”. ((EH. 5: 8, 2)). Kirsopp Lake in a footnote to his translation explains that the word `also` indicates that Matthew`s Gospel also had a spoken form. Markans reject the evidence of Eusebius as unreliable because it challenges their theory. Most Markans assert that it is not possible to back-translate Matthew`s Greek Gospel into Hebrew. Yet they have no evidence for this assertion. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1912 stated that this assertion did not undermine the words of Eusebius.

In recent years two Frenchmen have thrown more light on this question. Jean Carmignac, a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, spent eleven years from 1943 translating `The Book of Chronicles`. Then from 1954-63 he was engaged in translating manuscripts from the Qumran caves, otherwise known as `The Dead Sea Scrolls`. Although his work was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, he noticed several interesting connections with the New.

So in 1963 he attempted to translate a Greek Gospel back into the form of Hebrew used at Qumran. Carmignac was `absolutely dumbfounded` to find how easy it proved to be. Realising his translation would meet with ferocious criticism from Markan priorists, he searched in the old monastic libraries of Europe to see if the translation had been attempted previously. In this way he also hoped to correct and improve his own work. Although he lacked the time to make a thorough search, he soon found sixty translations of Gospels or portions of them. Some were by Rabbis who had become Christians and others by Rabbis wishing to dispute with Christians.

Carmignac had not completed the writing of his scholarly findings but was aging. So his friends persuaded him to write a small book for the general public, which appeared in 1987. He not only wrote that Matthew`s Gospel was the first to be written, but that it was in Hebrew. He could also see a Hebrew substratum in the other two synoptic Gospels.

According to him, the order of composition was a Hebrew Matthew followed by a Greek Luke, and then by a Greek Mark. In order to conform to Markan priority, he presumed there must have been an earlier Hebrew version of Mark, which Mark later translated. If we ignore this presumption, his work dovetails with the Clementine tradition of Matthew-Luke-Mark. He dates Greek Mark as before 70 AD, so Matthew and Luke also before that date.

In 1953 Claude Tresmontant, a French Hebrew scholar, published a book dedicated to Hebrew thought. He then worked for many years to produce a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. While doing this he was overwhelmed by how easy it was to back-translate the Gospels into Hebrew. In his 1980 `Le Christ Hebreu` [English translation 1989], he explained in detail the Hebrew basis for the Gospels. He formed the opinion that Matthew in both Hebrew and Greek could be dated as having been written soon after the Resurrection, Luke between 40-60 AD, with Mark 50-60 AD. ((CTH 324)). While not confirming the Clementine order, it allowed its possibility.

Tresmontant detected a Hebrew substructure to Mark`s Gospel. At first sight this appears to conflict with the normally accepted view that Mark recorded Peter speaking in Greek. But, according to Orchard, over 90% of the talks by Peter consisted of him quoting from Matthew and Luke. So the Hebrew substructure of these quotations would automatically be carried into his talks. The additions made by Peter would also possess a strong Semitic tone because Peter was a native Aramaic speaker. J Kurzinger has shown that the word of Papias regarding Matthew`s Gospel would be best rendered as `style`. ((RO 128-9)). This would be a good description of a Greek document written with a Hebrew substructure.

When discussing Semitisms in the Gospels, Carmignac and Tresmontant accepted that many could be explained as a Greek author borrowing familiar Hebrew words. It would have been easy for the translator to carry over some Hebrew words. But the Hebrew sub-structure pointed out by Carmagnac and Tresmontant is of a different kind.

Hebrew likes wordplay and takes great pleasure in using similar sounds to assist memorisation. In Matthew 3: 9 we read of `stones` and `children`. In Greek and English there is no linguistic connection to assist memorisation. But in Hebrew it reads as `abanim`, and `banim` ((CTH 64)). In Matthew 9:16 the tear (qera) becomes worse (ra).  In Matthew 13: 6 shemesh (sun) is linked phonetically to the word for root (shoresh). In Matthew 21:12, shulehanot (tables) is similar to shulehanim (changers). ((JC 29)).

Hebrew Matthew in 26: 38 probably used the words `imdu` (stay) and `immadi` (with me). The word `immadi` was translated into Greek, and therefore into English versions. This is acceptable in English but superfluous in the Greek language ((JC 30)). It is interesting that Peter, reading a Greek copy of Matthew and speaking in Greek, omits it (Mark 14: 34). We may ask Markan priorists why Matthew, if writing in Greek at the end of the first century, adds a superfluous Greek word.

Translators and copyists are liable to make small errors, and these show when we compare the Gospels. It is necessary to point out here that the use of small dots or dashes in Hebrew are not aids to pronunciation, as they are in some languages.  In Hebrew they signified completely different letters. Many apparent discrepancies between the Gospels may be explained if we accept that Matthew`s Gospel was originally in Hebrew. In Matthew 22: 19 we read `show me a coin`, while Mark 12:15 has `bring me a denarius`. But in Hebrew a coin is HBW and a denarius is HRW.

In Hebrew only a small difference distinguishes B and R from one another, so could easily have been misread when being translated into Greek ((JC 32)).

Matthew 13:17 has, `the just` or `righteous men`, but Luke 10: 24 has `kings`. As `the just` corresponds to WYSRYM and `kings` to WSRYM, and as the symbols for W and Y are very close, we are able to see how easy it would have been to read W in place of WY.  Misreading the word `king` for `just` in Greek would be unimaginable ((JC 33)).

In the previous chapter, we noted that some Hebrew theological concepts present in Matthew’s Gospel would be alien to Greek thought. Here we may note some of the more common Hebrew words and expressions used by Matthew but not by Greeks: Beelzebub, Woe, Flesh and Blood, deliver into the hands, hardness of heart, to set one`s face. Why would a Greek use these if not translating from the Hebrew? These words are not used by Luke or Mark ((CTH 67-71, 90-92 and 112)).

Tresmontant has pointed out that a Hebrew-Greek Lexicon had to be produced when the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). He holds the opinion that the Christians used the same lexicon in New Testament times. On both occasions the translators were worried about losing the full meaning, so tended to transcribe word for word, even though this could produce a Greek which did not flow well.

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and at least sixty Rabbis, is that the Gospel according to Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The examples supplied here are just a few of the many provided by the two French authors. This is in full accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus, which say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were gained amongst those who could speak Greek only.

Although these two Frenchmen firmly agreed that the Synoptic Gospels were written pre-70 AD, they did not take a stand on the sequence in which they were composed. But it is interesting that Tresmontant refers to them in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark four times on one page of his writings ((CTG 14)). As they have shown that Papias and Ireneaus were correct to report that Matthew`s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, confidence in the other information these historians provide, is greatly increased.

In 47 AD Western sailors learnt how to utilise the monsoons so as to sail from Egypt to southern India in less than 100 days. According to Indian records, Thomas the Apostle landed at Malankara, Kerala in 52 AD ((SGP 5)). After establishing seven churches he moved to Coramandel on the east coast where he was martyred in 68 AD. Irenaeus records that Pantaenus, director from 180-192 of the Alexandrian School of Sacred Learning, paid a visit to India in 190 and was shown a copy of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew characters. Pantaenus said the Apostle Bartholomew had taken it to India      ((EH 5: 10)). Thomas was called `Mar Toma` [Lord or Bishop Thomas] so Pantaenus, who knew Hebrew but not the local Indian languages, may have misheard this as `Bar Tolmai`, the Hebrew name for Bartholomew ((SGP 19)). Whether this copy of the Gospel according to Matthew had belonged to Thomas or Bartholomew, Panteanus had seen it and it was in Hebrew.                                                                                                                           .

Yet Markans claim it was written to an isolated Greek speaking community after both Thomas and Bartholomew were dead.

In his `De Viris Illustribus`, Jerome claims that Matthew wrote in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of the Jews and it was translated into Greek. He writes that: “the Hebrew itself is preserved even now in the library at Caesarea …”. He also says that he: “was given the opportunity of transcribing this volume by the Nazarenes who use it in Beroea, a city of Syria”. He adds that Matthew, when quoting from the Old Testament, had used Hebrew Scriptures not the Greek Septuagint. ((RO 203 and DVI, chapters 3 and 7)).

The doubt regarding the use of Hebrew by Matthew is due to the view put forward by J.A. von Widmanstadt in 1555. Without firm evidence he asserted that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus ((JC 83)). Many books still repeat this error yet Luke reports that Paul used Hebrew when speaking to a Jewish mob (Acts 21: 40 and 22: 2). The `Dead Sea Scrolls` have now confirmed that Hebrew was not a dead language at the time of Christ ((JC 65)).

  

CHAPTER X

ANTI-JUDAISM IN MATTHEW AND JOHN

Markan priorists claim that Jews and Christians were on good terms and shared the same synagogues till 85 AD, when the Jewish leaders at a conference in Jamnia, composed a prayer containing an anti-Christian curse. As Christians would not say this prayer they were expelled from the synagogues. As the gospels of Matthew and John have an anti-Judaic tone they must have been written after 85 AD.

This may sound plausible until we examine the history of the period which has been studied in detail by both modern Jews and Christians. The Jewish findings were published in, `Jewish and Christian Self-Definition` by E. P. Sanders, 1981. William Horbury, who is the leading Christian authority on this subject, endorsed these findings. Robinson quotes from the book:

[The prayer]  `... does not reflect a watershed in the history of the relationship between Jews and Christians in the first centuries of our era. Apparently there was never a single edict which caused the so-called irreparable separation between Judaism and Christianity. The separation was rather the result of a long process dependent upon local situations and ultimately upon the political power of the church`. ((JATRP 76-77)).

           

And concerning a later period:

            `… there is abundant evidence from patristic sources that Christians were frequenting the synagogues quite often. Indeed there is far-flung evidence that it was the church leadership that strove to keep Christians away from the synagogue and not the Jews who were excluding them. Such protest from the church Fathers demonstrates the receptivity of the synagogues to Christians. This situation is highly unlikely if the synagogue liturgy contained a daily curse against Christians`. ((JATRP 75-76)).

And again: `There is no evidence to show that people were excommunicated on the ground of harbouring non-orthodox beliefs … While to Christians heresy mainly implied doctrinal dissent, in Judaism doctrinal dissent did not make a Jew into a heretic`. Deviationism was assessed on grounds of practice or discipline rather than doctrine ((JATRP 77)).

So the scenario created to support the Markan priority theory evaporates when closely inspected.

When we seek evidence to explain the anti-Hebrew tone of the Gospel, we do not have to look far. While Christ was alive his followers feared being thrown out of the Synagogues (John 12: 42), and when hiding in the upper room after the crucifixion, they lived in fear (John 20: 19). After the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles emerged from hiding to proclaim the Resurrection, perform miracles and attract converts.

The Sadducees and the High Priest brought Christians before the Sanhedrin, ordering them to be beaten and to cease preaching. Stephen, a very eloquent deacon was tried by the Sanhedrin and stoned to death (Acts 7:59).

A short time later the Roman governor had to visit Caesarea, so left the High Priest to govern Jerusalem in his absence. The High Priest took this opportunity to launch a persecution consisting of searches, arrests, imprisonments and executions (Acts 8:1). Then he sent Saul to Antioch and other towns to bring fleeing Christians back for trial and death. (Acts: 28: 11). It was during a journey to Damascus that Saul was converted and took the name Paul (Acts 13: 9). The Apostles hid until the return of the Roman governor.

When Claudius became emperor in AD 40, he appointed the Jewish Herod Agrippa as king of Palestine. Needing to consolidate his influence with the High Priest, Herod beheaded the Apostle James the Great and, “Seeing that it pleased the Jews”, he arrested Peter. (Acts 12: 1-11). When king Herod died his son was too young to rule, so a Roman governor was appointed and under him the Church was left in peace.

Matthew would have written his gospel at or about this time.

In 58 AD Paul decided to return to Jerusalem from Asia but, hearing that some Jews were plotting to kill him, he travelled by an indirect route (Acts 20: 3). So as to uphold the traditions of his people he visited the Temple for the purification ceremonies, but when recognised he was dragged from the Temple and an attempt made to kill him (Acts 21: 30-31). Fortunately, Roman troops in a nearby fort intervened. Wishing to learn of the reason for the disturbance, the Romans asked the Sanhedrin to hold a trial. While the Pharisees were willing to acquit Paul, the Romans had to intervene again to protect Paul from the enraged Sadducees (Acts 23:10).

The following day it was decided to send him to Felix the Roman governor of Judea now living in Caesaria. Hearing that forty Jews had taken an oath sanctioned by the High Priest to kill Paul, Felix provided a large escort of troops (Acts 23: 21-25). Although rejecting the accusations of the Jewish leaders, Felix granted Paul a limited freedom only.

After two years, Festus replaced Felix. Wishing to gain popularity, the new governor was willing to grant the demand of the Jewish leaders for Paul to be tried by the Sanhedrin. Paul avoided this by claiming his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome. But, before Paul could be sent to Rome, Festus died and Albinus was appointed to replace him.

A few weeks passed while Albinus prepared to travel to Palestine so as to take up his post. In his absence, the High Priest and Sanhedrin were free of Roman control. The city would be crowded during Passover and the leading Jews feared the Christians would take the opportunity to preach more openly. At this time a holy man was known to spend long periods of daily prayer in the Temple. So the authorities placed him on a wing of the building and told him to warn the crowds against Christian preaching.

They were not aware he was the Apostle James, now bishop of the city. As soon as he stood up on the wing and openly preached Christ, the priests and Pharisees realised their mistake so threw him down. After being stoned he was beaten to death with a club. Following this incident in 62 A.D other Christians were killed. ((EH 2: 23 and BC 118-121)).

Albinius, who was still in Alexandria, sent an angry letter depriving Annas of the high priesthood. Although this brought the Sanhedrin under control and an end to the killings, the Sadducees banned Christians from worshipping in the Temple ((BC 121)). Within four years Palestine was ravaged by war so the Christians moved to the Gentile town of Pella, 130 kilometres to the north.

These events explain why Matthew and John saw the Jewish leadership as enemies. In 64 AD Nero launched a persecution far worse than anything attempted by the Jews. If the authors of the gospels of Matthew and John wrote later, why are the Romans reported so favourably? We may add that most Markans admit that Mark wrote before 85 AD. Why was he anti-Judaic if the two communities were friendly at this time?

Why, if the Council of Jamnia had so outraged the Christians that it greatly coloured their writing, did the gospel writers not refer to it?

As many anti-Christian events took place well before the conference of Jamnia, they easily account for the anti-Judaism in the gospels.

CHAPTER XI

LUKE, ACTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MATTHEW

The traditional belief is that the Gospel of Luke was composed by the companion of Paul in Greek no later than 65 AD. It was based on his personal research and extracts borrowed from the Gospel of Matthew. Those claiming this Gospel was written anonymously about 85 AD, or in the second century, deny the author was a companion of Paul.

So let us look at the evidence.

The author declares his aim is to set out an orderly account of the events in the life of Christ and His followers. He does so in the form of a communication to Theophilus. In a second volume, known as `Acts`, the author continues the story from where he left it at the end of his Gospel. If it can be shown that Acts was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that Luke`s Gospel was also composed prior to 70 AD.

The author of Acts records the conversion of Paul in chapter nine and then spends eighteen chapters detailing the travels of Paul, including his arrest, voyaging, shipwreck, arrival in Italy and his two years awaiting trial. But when we would expect details of Paul`s trial; sentence or release; there is an abrupt silence. The absence of this information is a clear indication that Acts was completed before 64 AD.

Acts ends at a time of peace for the church in Rome. Yet secular historians tell us there was a great persecution of Christians after 64 AD. As this does not appear in Acts, we have another indication that Acts was sent to Theophilus before this date.

This dating is confirmed by the way Jerusalem and its Temple are treated. Luke-Acts constitutes one third of the New Testament, yet contains two thirds of the references to Jerusalem.  In the two volumes of Gospel and Acts, the city is mentioned 31 times. We can see that the Temple and Jerusalem are very prominent in the thinking of the author. Yet he ignores their destruction, the civil and religious symbolism of such destruction and the impact on the life of the Church and her missionary preaching. Again, the obvious reason is that Jerusalem and the Temple were still standing at the time he wrote.

The letters sent by Paul to various destinations became well known and copied for reading in the churches. Luke, as the companion of Paul, would not have foreseen their future importance, so did not mention them. But a writer of a generation or more later, giving an account of the life of Paul, would have alluded to at least one as an example of the writing ability of Paul and his thought. Yet nothing is said.

Markans work hard to find alleged discrepancies in the New Testament, but it is prudent to check their assertions. Some claim that Luke`s Gospel tells us that Christ ascended to heaven soon after His Resurrection (Luke 24: 50), while Acts speak of a forty day delay (Acts 1: 3). But the Gospel does not say how long it was between Christ speaking to the Apostles in the Upper Room and leading the Apostles out to Bethany. As we know from other parts of the Scriptures, `then` does not mean `immediately`.

In four places in Acts (16: 10-17;  20: 5-15;  21: 1-18;  27: 1-28) the author uses the pronoun `we`, when recording the journeys of Paul. The obvious meaning is that the author was with Paul in the 60s. Those arguing against this meaning, claim “we” could have been a stylistic device or that the author was copying from an old manuscript without adjusting the wording. But these claims are pure speculation to avoid acceptance of the clear meaning. Acts contains a whole range of pronouns such as: I, me, he, us and they. Together with `we` they all fit naturally into the manuscript.

Paul, when acting alone, is referred to as `he`. When Paul is separated from the author but with others, `they` is used. When Paul is with the author `we` or `us` is used.

Paul`s companions are referred to as `they` until Paul arrives for the first time in Troas (Acts 16: 8) when  ‘we’ and ‘us’ is used till Paul leaves Philippii with Silas (Acts 16: 40). `They` is used again until `they` return to Troas (Acts: 20, 5). Then for the remainder of the travels of Paul, `we` is used.

It is common for a writer to give greater detail to events in which he has been involved compared with those he has learned second hand. It is noticeable that the author deals at great length with the `we` events at Philippi, yet provides a short summary of the `they` passages (Acts: 16: 4-8; 18: 18-23).

For the remaining time the author is in such close touch with Paul that events are often recorded on a day-to-day basis. The suggestion that Luke was using the royal `we`, when meaning `I`, is contrary to the narrative. When he does refer to himself in Acts 1: 1, he uses `I`.

Luke devotes one and a half chapters to Stephen (Acts 6: 8- 8: 1). He must have obtained this information first-hand from Saul/Paul who had been closely involved in the trial of Stephen and in his execution (Acts 7: 58). Christians would not have been close enough to those events to hear the conversation in such detail.

An early Greek prologue says that Luke was an unmarried physician, a Syrian by birth who died aged 84 at Thebes in Boeotia ((RO 144)). Irenaeus in his `Against Heretics` took it for granted that Luke was the author of one of the four Gospels. The heretics with whom he was disputing must have accepted this as being true, otherwise the arguments being used by Irenaeus would have been useless.

There is nothing in the many early writings or in more recent discoveries that remotely hints that the author was not the companion of Paul. The only reason it is alleged to have been someone else, is because the acceptance of Luke`s position destroys the theory of Markan priority.

Luke says Christ came to preach (4: 18) and that he did preach (20: 1) yet, according to Markan priorists, Luke not only failed to report this preaching but substituted the views of a later unnamed creative theologian.

Christ said to his apostles: “You shall be my witnesses” (Luke 24: 48 and Acts I: 8). The Gospel writers frequently refer to themselves as being witnesses (Acts 1: 22;   2: 32;   3: 15;   5: 32 etc.). So the apostles had a real interest in the historical dimension of the teaching of Christ. The only way to reject this view is to assert that the books of the New Testament are a massive confidence trick of falsehoods invented by theologians to fool their readers and later generations.

It has been claimed that as the author of the Gospel and Acts did not give his name, these writings are anonymous. But no one writing to a named person, such as Theophilus, would write: “it seemed good to me …to write ”, without letting the recipient know who was writing to him. If the correspondent had a reason to omit his name from the scroll, he would write his name and address on the wrapping or in a covering note. The most likely reason Luke omitted his name will be explained in our chapter XV.

The first twelve chapters of Acts concern the early church in Jerusalem with Peter as the key figure. In the twelfth chapter we read of Peter escaping from prison, hiding in the home of John Mark and leaving for `another place` (Acts 12:17). This would have occurred in 41 or 42 AD ((CTJ 44)). In the first chapter of his Gospel Luke stresses that he has made careful researches, and throughout his writings we find he is very precise when giving place names. So why was he vague here?

Theophilus would know of Ezekiel 12: 1-13, where it was written, “Therefore …prepare for yourself an exile`s baggage, ... in the dark … and go into exile …to another place”.  In 12: 13,  `the other place` is identified as Babylon. At this time Rome was coming to be known as a second Babylon.  Peter himself refers to it by this name in chapter 5 of his first Epistle. The Apocalypse (Chapters 14, 17 and 18) also refers to Rome in this way. So the author was writing in code to Theophilus, to inform him that Peter had gone to Rome. The early historians report Peter preaching in Rome, none reported that he visited Babylon of the Chaldeans ((BC 44)).

Following his escape from prison, Peter was a fugitive. Herod had executed two guards because of the escape. So we have Luke, who aimed to be factual in his accounts, using code regarding the whereabouts of Peter. If Acts had been written after the death of Peter in 65 AD, the author would have been free to say where Peter had fled.

All these observations point to Acts, and therefore the Gospel according to Luke, as being written some time before this date. Jerome stated that `Acts` was completed in the fourth year of Nero which would be in 64 AD. ((DVI chapter 7)).

The Infancy narratives

In a 1977 book, R.E.Brown, a leading Catholic Markan priority scholar, denied the historicity of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Edith Black has shown that the exegetical principles used by Brown, according to which he denies this historicity are in sharp conflict with the norms laid down by the Catholic Church ((EB)).

Brown attracted a large following, but he had not examined the narratives with an open mind. He was committed to the theory of Markan priority with its acceptance of late composition by anonymous non-Apostolic authors personally out of touch with each other, writing creative theological treatises rather than history.

From this presupposition and therefore narrow perspective, Brown presumed that the only way the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke could possibly be historical, was if their authors had both copied an earlier tradition.

As the infancy narratives did not repeat the same stories, he concluded that such an earlier document could not have existed, and therefore the first chapters of these Gospels were not historical ((RBM 34-36)). From this understanding he found many alleged problems. Some of his ‘problems’ have gained wide circulation. Yet when Markan Priority is rejected, the ‘problems’ disappear.

For example, he said that secular historians did not corroborate the massacre and census stories. But is there a need for corroboration?  It is unscientific prejudice to accept the evidence of all sorts of ancient historians provided they were not a Christian as was Luke. Unbiased modern historians accept the accounts of ancient historians as being correct unless there is strong contrary evidence. In this case contrary evidence does not exist. Also, Luke claimed to be giving an account of historical events, so had to be very careful. He knew that many anti-Christians would try to find errors in what he was writing.

Bethlehem was a small community, with the number of males under two years not more than twenty ((RL 372)). According to Josephus, the main Jewish historian of the period, Herod carried out large massacres of his own family, his officers and the general population. They were on such a scale that a non-Christian historian would have passed over the killing of twenty children without comment ((RL 372)).

When discussing scholars who claimed to be demythologising the New Testament, the editor of Faith Magazine asked an interesting question. “Do these scholars ever stop to weigh up the psychological state of mind they imply in the evangelists of the New Testament? Herod may have been a depraved beast, but it would be a monstrous crime to frame even Herod with a murderous outrage he did not commit. Do `scholars` like these know anything about the love of God as an experience?  ((FM March 1991, page 6)).

Quirinius (Cyrinius) did not become governor of Syria until 10 AD so, at first sight, there appears to be a genuine problem here. It is true that other historians are not able to confirm the taking of a census at this time, but they are also unable to say with certainty that it did not occur. Our knowledge of the administrative background of the period is very fragmentary. Roman census did not take place at the same time in each part of the empire, and when one was carried out it could be spread over many years. As Luke mentions `the first enrolment`, he was presuming Theophilus knew of at least one later one. If Luke were so ignorant of the history of the period, would he have left himself so open to criticism, by attempting such precision?

We lack details of the early career of Quirinius. Some modern historians think he was given charge of some affairs in the Middle East before being promoted in 10 A.D. to the position of governor of Syria ((RL 328)).

A census was usually held so as to have a basis for taxation. It was therefore very important for those owning land to inform their children, who would inherit. The census would have been a subject of discussion for many years amongst villagers. Many of Luke`s contemporaries would have been aware of the census through such family histories.

Luke was writing at a time when records of the census would have been available in both Jerusalem and Rome. It is significant that there is no sign of the Roman, Pagan, Jewish and heretical enemies of Christianity challenging the statement of Luke.

Justin Martyr addressed a letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138 –161. After telling of the registration of the Holy Family in the census, he adds that details can be found in the official Roman archives ((JMA 1: 34)).

About 200 AD Tertullian, in his `Adversum Marcionem`, writes:

`There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their enquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ` ((TE Book 4: 19,10)).

So at this time there was historic proof of the census available. Sentius Saturninus was the pagan priest appointed by Augustus to head the planning of the worldwide census.

Some critics claim that Mary would not have travelled to Bethlehem, as it was a duty for the head of the household alone. But if the names of Mary and Jesus were not included in the census, Tertullian`s appeal that his enemies looked in the records would have been pointless.

Other critics have asserted that the Romans did not require a return to one’s hometown to be registered. But we read in the K. C. Hanson collection of Ancient Documents:

“Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:

`The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their homes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration…`” ((KCH)).

This was in 104 AD and only 250 kilometres from Palestine.

nomes = An Egyptian administrative district.

It is true that Matthew writes of a stable at Bethlehem, while Luke reports that the wise men went into a house. But once the crowds had gone home after the census, Bethlehem would not have been crowded. The family would have moved into a house during the two years prior to the arrival of the wise men.

Let us look at the wider aspects of these narratives. The first two chapters of Matthew and Luke provide essentially the same information: Mary and Joseph are legally engaged; Joseph is Davidic in descent; Mary conceives by the Holy Spirit while remaining a virgin; an angel says the child is to be named `Jesus`, meaning `Saviour`.

Matthew then provides some less-essential details. It was Joseph who was told of the child’s name, the place of birth was Bethlehem, the family had fled to Egypt, Herod had carried out a massacre, and Jesus had grown up in Nazareth. Matthew was writing his Lectionary primarily for Jews in Palestine and we can see him contrasting the violent rejection of the Messias by a Jewish king, with the wise Gentiles seeking the Will of God.

Luke repeats the same essential information, which could be said to be `doctrinal`, but not the less-essential details already made known by Matthew. Matthew had stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but had grown up in Nazareth. A vague intimation of the date of the birth of Jesus was conveyed by the mention of Herod in the Magi story, but he had reigned for many years. A precise date would not have been required in Jerusalem just after the Resurrection. Everyone would have possessed a general knowledge of the period. But Luke, writing twenty or so years later in Asia, would feel it necessary to be more precise and explain how Jesus, a Nazarene, came to be born in Bethlehem. His account provided this information and added that he was born in a manger because the Inn was crowded. He also reports the visit of the shepherds. These details do not conflict with those of Matthew.

According to tradition, Mary lived at Ephesus in Asia, and we know that Luke spent much of his time in the same area. Even if she lived elsewhere, Luke would have been permitted to see visit her. Considering the detailed and intimate nature of the nativity story, it is not difficult to conclude that he obtained his information from Mary, especially as he mentions her memory twice (Luke 2: 19 and 2: 51).

The call of John the Baptist for repentance persisted for a generation or so after his murder. Many of his followers came to accept Jesus, but others claimed John was equal to, or even greater than, Jesus. In telling of the visit of Gabriel to Zechariah and Elizabeth, and the birth of John the Baptist, he was providing powerful facts to support the Christian argument that John was doing no more than preparing the way for Jesus.

Markans sometimes claim the infancy narratives are composed in the midrash form of Hebrew popular legend based on the reuse of Scriptures. Yet there is not a trace of midrash in the early life of the church. What some claim is Midrash would often be better explained as typology. The tradition of the Magisterium, which built upon, developed and solemnly defined the things that are of Christ, always treats the New Testament as inspired, factual and objectively true.                 ((FM March 91, page 6)).

 

The Style of Luke

Let us next look at the writing style of Luke. There is a Greek word used thirty-two times in chapters 3-53 of Luke`s Gospel and twelve times in Acts. This word has been rendered into English as `It came to pass` or `And it came to pass that`. It is a distinctive mark of Luke`s style. It is rare in Matthew and John and appears twice only in Mark where he is borrowing from Luke. This `fingerprint` of Luke appears eight times in the infancy narrative of Luke (1: 8, 23, 41, 59, 2:1, 6, 15, 46). It is a clear indication that the author of the Gospel and Acts also wrote the `infancy narratives`.

When rendering the Bible into modern English, the RSV version, replaces the phrase `It came to pass` or `And it came to pass that`, with, `while`, `now while`, `and while`, `and when`, or it is omitted. In this way the fingerprint of Luke`s style is lost to view. To see it we need to look at the Douay or King James versions of the New Testament.

When Luke introduces a new person or place, he explains something about them.

1: 5      Herod, king of Judea                         1: 5          a priest named Zachariah

4: 31    Capernaum, a city of Galilee             7: 11        a city called Na`in.

19: 2    a man called by name Zacchaeus.    19: 29        the mount that is called Olivet.

Yet in verses 3: 1 and 4: 14-16, we find John, Jesus, Galilee, Nazareth mentioned without any explanation of who or what they are. The reason is that they have already been introduced previously in the infancy narratives ((HR 73-74)). This is further evidence of the infancy narrative of Luke being an integral part of his Gospel.

Matthew and Luke

The Clementine tradition holds that Luke borrowed from Matthew, so let us see whether there are signs of this borrowing.

Matthew’s Gospel is constructed in a thematic form. So while the author recounted historical events, he did not place them in chronological order. In recent years Luiz Ruscillo has analysed the material as follows:

A                       1-4.................................Narrative          Birth and Beginning

B                       5-7                 Sermon            Blessings, Entering the Kingdom

C                       8-9                 Narrative          Authority and Invitation

D                     10                    Sermon            Mission Discourse

E                      11-12              Narrative          Rejection by this generation

F                      13                    Sermon           Parables on the Kingdom

E                      14-17              Narrative         Recognition by the Disciples

D                     18                    Sermon           Community Discourse

C                     19-22              Narrative          Authority and Invitation

B                      23-25              Sermon            Woes, Coming of the Kingdom

A                     26                   Narrative         Death and Resurrection

((FM Jan. 2002)).

We find a similar thematic order set out in the 1953: ‘A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture’ where it is explained that the Gospel opens and closes with illustrations (Chapters 1-2 and 26-28) of how Jesus fulfilled the prophesies regarding the Infancy, Passion and Resurrection of the Messiah. ((CCHS 678c)).  The Commentary summarises the five central discourses (chapters 3 - 25) as follows:

‘His first discourse describes the true subjects of the Kingdom and their spirit; his second instructs its missionaries; the third illustrates its hidden but irresistible power; the fourth the mutual obligations of its citizens; the fifth its establishment in power upon the ruins of Judaism’. [with the king ushering his faithful subjects into his Father’s kingdom]. ((CCHS 678g)).

Until Markan priority came to be discussed within Catholic circles, this was how Catholics understood the structure of Matthew's Gospel.

Analysing the ways Luke and John treated the Gospel by Matthew, will assist us in determining their order of composition. When in the next chapter we discuss the Gospel of John, we will see how he supplemented Matthew. Here we will show how Luke was influenced by Matthew. This is based on the detailed study of Luke`s Gospel made by Harold Riley ((HR 11-145)).

In his opening words, Luke says that many, `had taken in hand`, to produce an account `in order`. He then says he is going to write an account `in order`. Luke, in the opening words of Acts, describes this order. He explains that his Gospel told of all that Jesus began to do and to teach. We may note how he gathered together the teaching material into a central section (Luke 9: 52-18: 14) and in doing so changed the order of Matthew`s passages. This could have caused confusion amongst his readers regarding chronology, so he acted to avoid this. When changing the order of a passage from Matthew which contained a note of place and time, he omits this note and uses the phrase, `And it came to pass… `.

To give a few examples: Christ finishes his sermon, descends the mountain and cures a leper (Mt 7: 28-8: 2). Luke, moving this incident to a different location (Luke 5:12-14), suppresses the time and place ((HR 72)). The story of plucking corn is `at that time`    (Mt 12: 1) but Luke makes it non-specific (Luke 6: 1). In Mt 12: 9 we read `He went down from there`, but Luke changes it to the vague `on another Sabbath` (Luke 6: 6). In 13:1 Matthew says `That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea`, but Luke avoids the chronology (Luke 8: 4). Luke`s policy is highlighted when there would be no confusion by preserving Matthew`s chronology, as in Mt 16: 13-17/ Luke 19: 18-45 ((HR 73)). We should add here that `eight days` designated a week

This presents a question for Markan priorists, who assert that Matthew and Luke borrowed these incidents from `Q` or Mark. Why would Matthew give precise times and places while Luke, who has promised in his first chapter to be accurate, omits them? And why does Luke include them only when he has not altered the timing?

Julius Africanus, also known as Sixtus or Sixtus Julius, was in the army in 195. He later lived in Emmaus and Alexandria, and was involved in rebuilding Nicopolis. Still alive in 240 he was one of the most learned writers of the 3rd century. He wrote a treatise of five volumes on chronology from creation to 221 AD. In it he explained that the genealogies of Christ that had been provided by Matthew and Luke were not at variance with one another. ((EH I: 7)). Why would he have bothered if they were the late symbolic inventions of unknown writers, and not viewed in his time, by Christians and non-Christians, as reliable factual history?

Some Markans argue that Matthew`s Gospel does not have an eyewitness quality like that according to John. But Matthew does not need to claim to be an eyewitness of events, nor explain his personal relationship with Jesus. His readers would already have been very much aware of this. His Gospel reads like a Lectionary to be read at the weekly meetings. If, as is likely, it was a Lectionary, it would have been out of place for him to break into the pattern of worship, prayer and learning with matters of a personal nature.

Matthew and Acts

Orchard has pointed out that if we accept Matthew`s Gospel as being composed about 44 AD, we see that it slots in very well with the situation depicted in Acts 1-12. Matthew is responding to the problems we find there.

To avoid recognising this, the Markans are forced to say that Acts 1-12 does not give a true picture of the Church at that time, or they create an anachronistic Christian Jewish community near Damascus about 75-90 AD, or that Matthew was written in reaction to the obscure workings of the Jewish Synod of Jamnia. There is no evidence for any of these proposals, so they are merely attempts to justify the Markan theory ((RO 241)). That Markans have proposed many mutually exclusive theories is itself a sign of the weakness of their position.

  

CHAPTER XII

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

For nearly two thousand years Christians have held that John the Apostle, eyewitness of the public life of Christ, completed this Gospel about 95 AD. Today, some people dispute this. Others accept the date but assert the author was `Prester John`, a non-eyewitness. The story of the alleged existence of such an individual will be discussed in Chapter XV. Here it is proposed to look at the historical and internal evidence pointing to John the Apostle being its author, and at its date.

The Gnostic Challenge

The Gnostic belief, that men were good immortal spirits imprisoned in evil bodies, was widespread in various forms throughout the Greek-speaking world. This imprisonment led to a battle between light and dark, spirit and flesh. While its influence may be seen in much of pagan and non-canonical early Christian literature, we do not possess coherent statements of the beliefs of its various sects.

In the second century the Gnostics became more organised, but their ideas had been causing problems for the Christians much earlier. Ireneaus described the beliefs of Cerinthus before he described those of the Ebionites. He accused the Ebionites of `worshipping Jerusalem`. This points to the Ebionites, and therefore the Cerinthians, being active prior to the destruction of the city.

The word `Gnostic` meant `knowledge`, but heretics had appropriated it to mean `secret knowledge`. In his Epistle to the Colossians Paul writes: “See that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceits, …according to the elemental spirits of the universe, …” (Col. 2: 8). It is widely accepted even by Markans that this letter was sent while Paul was in prison prior to 70 AD.  In 1st.Timothy 6: 20 we read: “Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, …”. Traditionally minded exegetes, including Pope John Paul II ((JPFR 4: 37)), consider Paul was referring to Gnostic teachings. In the Apocalypse we also read of a warning regarding the Nicolaites, a Gnostic sect (Acts 2: 6, 15).

Irenaeus records that John had in mind: `the errors sown by Cerinthus and earlier still by those called Nicolaites` ((IAH 3: 11, 1 and CCHS 778h)). The Gnostics claimed to be `the knowing men of light and knowledge`. According to the `Anti-Marcionite Prologue of John`, [see Chapter II] the bishops of Asia [present day Turkey] asked the Apostle John to answer Cerinthus and other heretics, and this was the reason why John wrote his gospel ((AMJ and RO 151)).

Irenaeus and others made many references to the Gnostics, and Henry Owen in 1764 used this information to construct an outline of their teachings. The following is based on the work of Owen, but it needs to be remembered that the Nicolaites, Cerinthians, Ebionites and many more sects, varied from one another in their precise beliefs.

The Unknown most high God lived in heaven with the chief spirits or Aeons. He generated an only-begotten son, called MONOGENES, who begat the inferior LOGOS [The Greek for WORD]. There were two high Aeons called LIFE and LIGHT. From the Aeons proceeded inferior orders of spirits, including CHRIST and DEMIURGUS. It was DEMIURGUS who created this visible world out of eternal matter. This DEMIURGUS was ignorant of the supreme God and much lower than the invisible Aeons. He was protector of the Israelites and sent Moses to them with laws of perpetual obligation. [Many heretics observed Jewish laws].

Jesus was a mere man, the real son of Joseph and Mary. But CHRIST descended on him in the form of a dove when he was baptised. CHRIST revealed to him the unknown Father and empowered him to work miracles. Similarly the Aeon, LIGHT, entered into John the Baptist. As LIGHT was superior to CHRIST, John the Baptist was in some respects to be preferred to Jesus.

After Jesus had propagated the knowledge of God, he came to suffer, so CHRIST left him and fled to the uppermost heaven. So it was Jesus only who suffered. CHRIST would return to reign for a thousand years, with humanity the slave of lust and pleasure ((EH 3: 28)). Some groups denied that Christ had risen and that there would be a resurrection of the dead ((HO 92)).

We are now able to compare the opening words of the Gospel of John with this teaching.

John says that CHRIST is the LOGOS [The WORD] of God (John 1: 1). The WORD and MONOGENES [the only begotten son of God] are one and the same person (1: 14). CHRIST, or The WORD, is not an inferior Aeon, but God (1: 1). Christ was not ignorant of God, but knew him always and perfectly in heaven    (1: 18). Christ is not to be distinguished from the DEMIURGUS for he is the creator of the whole world (1: 10). LIFE and LIGHT are not particular and separate spirits, but the same as the LOGOS and CHRIST (John 1: 4, 7-9).

So John is saying that CHRIST, the LOGOS [The WORD], LIFE, LIGHT and MONOGENES (the only-begotten) are not distinct Aeons [Spirits], but one and the same Divine person. John says that an Aeon, LIGHT, did not enter into John the Baptist and communicate to him supreme knowledge of the Divine Will. He was a mere man and though inspired, much inferior to Jesus being only the forerunner of him (John 1: 6, 8, 15).

John explains that the Supreme God was not entirely unknown before the time of Christ. Men were enlightened in their own consciences, but they did not want to know him (1: 9-10). The Jews were not the particular people of an inferior god, DEMIURGUS, but of CHRIST, himself the only-begotten son of God (1: 11). Eventually he became man (1: 14) and fulfilled the Law of Moses, which was only a shadow of good things to come, and instituted its fullness. CHRIST came for all men not the Jews only (1: 12,13)). John refutes the idea that John the Baptist, preaching of the Law of Moses, was superior to CHRIST (John 1: 15-34).

In his following chapters, John selected incidents and miracles (see 1: 6, 8, 15-34) to support what he had affirmed. John showed Christ was superior to John the Baptist. A comparison of the passages above shows that Irenaeus was correct in giving the reason why this Gospel was written, so why not accept him as being correct when naming John the Apostle as its author?

Some Markans claim Cerinthus did not live until after John had died. But according to Eusebius, Cerinthus founded his religion `at the time under discussion`((EH 3: 28, 1)).  As he had just been writing about the Ebionites this must have been very early. We also have a graphic story recorded by Irenaeus: `The apostle John once went into a bath-house to wash, but when he knew Cerinthus was within, leapt out of the place and fled from the door, for he did not endure to be even under the same roof with him, and enjoined on those who were with him to do the same, saying “Let us flee, lest this bath-house fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within”` Irenaeus added that he had obtained this story from bishop Polycarp, who had personally known John ((EH 3: 28, 6)).

We read in the opening words of chapter 29: “At his time, too, there existed for a short time the heresy of the Nicolaitans of which the Apocalypse of John [Apoc. 2: 6 and 15] also makes mention”. ((EH 3: 29, 1)). So we again see that Irenaeus was writing about a very early period. The Muratorian Fragment tells us how Andrew the Apostle assisted John to write the fourth Gospel [See our Chapter II d]. As there is no record of Andrew living to a great age, this would also point to John writing at an early date during the life of Cerinthus.

Supplementing and clarifying the Synoptic Gospels

It is worth recalling the two reasons for John writing his Gospel as explained in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues [See chapter II j]. John did not confine himself to refuting the Gnostic sects. He took the opportunity to clarify aspects of the life of Christ not to be found in the existing Gospels. John does not repeat details already given in the other Gospels. This is not evidence of him being unaware of them, nor that he wished to disparage them, as some critics have claimed. It is evidence of him being aware of the information Christians already possessed. It is interesting to note how John presumes many of his readers had a vivid knowledge of the environment of Christ`s preaching, which was radically altered in 70 AD.

Apart from the main outline of the life of Christ, there was no reason for him to repeat information. If he wrote without knowledge of the existing Gospels, it would be incredible that he could so successfully have avoided repeating so much of what is related in them, such as: The Transfiguration, Christ`s confession of divinity before Caiaphas ((CCHS 778h)). Eusebius reports that the three existing Gospels were distributed to all, including John, and John testified to their truth. John then supplemented them ((EH 3: 24, 7 and 11)) and, by correcting any false impressions they may have given, closed openings for heretical attacks.

By looking at various passages we are able to see how he accomplished this.

1.      It would have been strange for the Messiah not to have preached in Judea and Jerusalem or attend the great feasts. Yet the Synoptics mention Galilee only. John provides the additional information (John 6: 1, 5: 1, 3: 22, 4: 54). He ignores the Galilean ministry, except for one incident, where there is a specific reason to mention it.

2.      This specific reason concerned the Eucharist. The Synoptics had given accounts of its institution, (Mt 26: 26-27: Luke 22: 19-20 and Mark 14: 22-24), but not the earlier promise of Christ to do so. In chapter six John provides an elaborate Eucharistic discourse, including Christ`s promise (John 6: 54-58) and a long account of the last supper, but does not repeat the institution of the Eucharist itself.

3.      The Synoptics report the tremendous enthusiasm of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but not what had caused it. John explains that Christ had just raised Lazarus to life (John 11: 17).

4.      Matthew recounts how Christ called Peter, Andrew, James and John to be his disciples (Mt. 4: 18-22), and Luke provides a similar but shorter account (Luke 5: 10-11). Critics could have said that the manner of this call provided neither sufficient time for serious intelligent consideration, nor the opportunity to provide for dependents

Mark had indicated that the father of James and John was not left without assistance (Mk 1: 20). But it is John, who was there, who provides a fuller explanation of what had occurred. He reports that two of the disciples of the Baptist had talked for a long time with Christ in private (John 1: 35-51). What was discussed during that day and night is not given, but we are entitled to presume they heard what was required of them. In the following days, Christ spoke to others he was intending to call.

Matthew and Luke tell us that Christ then went into the desert for over a month, and followed this with a period of preaching (Mt 4: 1-2, Mk 1: 12-13 and Luke 4: 1-2). There was no need for John to repeat this information. By the time Christ finally calls his disciples (Mt. 4: 18-22), each had had time to consider his call and provide for his dependents.

5.   Matthew reports the intention of Christ to appoint Peter (Kepha in Aramaic) as the leader of his church (Mt. 16: 18), but not how Peter got this name. So John supplies this information (John 1: 42), but does not repeat the account of the formal promise of the appointment itself. Matthew had already done so. The change of name was important because in Aramaic `Kepha` was the word for both `Peter` and `Rock`.

6.      Matthew tells us that Christ was born in Bethlehem, and gives the prophecy that Christ would come from this town (Mt 2: 1-6), but not of Bethlehem being the town of David. John adds this important detail (John 7: 42).

7.      Matthew`s Gospel reads as if Simon carried the cross for Christ (Mt 27: 32). The words of Luke (23: 26) and Mark (15: 21) convey the same information. But John makes it clear that Christ was “bearing his own cross” (John 19: 17) and does not mention the assistance of Simon. Note how by introducing the word `own`, John emphasises the meaning of his sentence. We know that heretics were claiming that Christ had not suffered because he had left the body of Jesus before the crucifixion. They were probably quoting Matthew`s account, so as to `prove` it was Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross because Jesus, now a mere man, had been too weak.

8.      Matthew reports in 27: 35 that the soldiers divided the garments of Jesus by lots. This was similar to the prophecy in Psalm 22 (23) but Matthew did not mention what had happened to the tunic of Christ. Critics could say that the reports in the Synoptics did not fulfil the prophecy exactly. Matthew had fled the scene so was reporting second hand. Luke (23: 34) and Mark (15: 24) merely provide abridged versions, so did not clarify the question. It was John, having been present, who was able to provide a detailed account of the discussion of the soldiers and the reason they treated the tunic of Jesus differently. It is the account in John 19: 23-24 which shows the events fit the prophecy in the Psalm exactly.

9.      At the time of Christ there were two high priests. Matthew tells us that when Christ was arrested he was taken to Caiaphas the high priest, the scribes and the elders. They sent him to Pilate because they wanted him to be executed (Mt. 26: 57). Luke and Mark add little to Matthew`s account. Although according to Jewish law the position of high priest was held for life, Annas had been deposed by the Romans and replaced by Caiaphas. So the Jews could argue that the true high priest had not been guilty. John answers this by stating; “First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas who was the high priest for that year” (John 18: 13).

John then reports the trial before Annas (John 18: 19-24), which took place prior to Annas sending Christ to Caiaphas.  John is showing how both high priests were involved and therefore responsible for the death of Christ. It also appears that the arresting party consisted of men employed by Annas. Note how John introduces the word `First` (Verse 13), which emphasises the meaning of the sentence.

10.  Groups of pious Jews were following their tradition of repentance as preached by John the Baptist. They did not accept the superiority of Jesus and his greater claims, and could argue that Jesus had submitted to John for baptism. Also, the Baptist’s words could have been referring to someone yet to come.

Matthew had not been an eyewitness so his account (Mat. 3: 11-15), being second hand, was not reliable.  John, having been a close disciple of the Baptist and present at the baptism of Jesus, was able to give his personal testimony that Jesus was `the mighty one` (John 1: 26-42).

11. The words: `For John [the Baptist] was not yet cast into prison` (John 3: 24) are interesting because they presume readers knew of the imprisonment of John, as reported by the Synoptic gospels.

12.  Because Matthew constructed his Gospel in a liturgical non-chronological form, [See chapter XI of this booklet], it conveys the impression that the public ministry of Christ lasted for one year only. John corrects this    impression by making it clear that it took place through three Paschs.   ((CCHS 779c)).

13.  Matthew in constructing his liturgy passes quickly from the last supper to the crucifixion, and this gives the impression that both occurred within twenty-four hours. Our modern liturgy, by celebrating the supper on Maundy Thursday, continues this model. But the activity between the two events would have required a longer period, so John explains that the Last Supper took place some days earlier (John 12: 1). There are other apparent inconsistencies concerning this week. But archaeology shows that the Essene district of Jerusalem, the Sadducees and the Pharisees each had their own calendars for the festivals ((CTH 292 and CTJ 118)). Also, just as Matthew had condensed three years into one to suit his lectionary, he would have felt free to condense the events of Holy Week.

14.  In our chapter XI we discussed the alleged problem of the census of Quirinius.  But if Luke had made a serious error, as is sometimes claimed, this would have been challenged at the time. Yet John does not take the opportunity to clarify or amend the date. The dating of Luke was apparently not a problem for those living in the first century.

There are many observations we are able to make regarding the above.

a).  While the Gospel of John contains many theological insights; it also aims to provide accurate historical data concerning the same period as covered by the other Gospels. He speaks of the same Apostles and holy women, and mentions Caiaphas, Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea and many incidents from the lives of John the Baptist and Christ.

b).  Today we often hear the Gospel of John called `a spiritual Gospel`. This is true, but the word `spiritual` should not be allowed to exclude its historical aspect. John repeatedly claimed to be a reliable eyewitness of events in the life of Christ.

(John 19: 35;  20: 30-31;  21: 24). Just as in the opening words of his first Epistle.

c).  The action of John in supplementing the Synoptics with such precise and small historical details and explanations, should be pondered. It shows he was treating them as historical documents, not `creative theology`. It also indicates that John was very much alive to the real needs of the churches.

d). Matthew reports that the unnamed disciple mentioned by John (John 1: 35), who had been with John the Baptist, was named John (Mt 4: 21). This explains how the author of the fourth Gospel was able to write with authority regarding the ministry of Christ, and in detailed narrative concerning the mission of John the Baptist, and of his words just prior to the meeting with Christ (John 1: 6, 15-37).

e). In John 5: 2, we see John referring to Jerusalem in the present tense. Critics may try to explain this away, but they have no evidence that it should not be understood as it is written. This indicates that the first part of John`s Gospel was written prior to 70 AD.

f). Matthew recounts how an unnamed person cuts off an ear of the High Priest`s servant (Mt 26: 51-52). Luke 22: 50 and Mark 14: 47 also report this, but all three are careful not to disclose the name of the person wielding the sword. This would have laid him open to prosecution. But John in 18: 10 says it was Peter, and the victim was Malchus. We have here an indication that the Synoptics were written before 65 AD, during the lifetime of Peter, when he had to be protected. While John, writing after his execution, was free of this constraint.

As a side issue it is interesting that Matthew, an eyewitness, does not specify which ear was cut off. Peter, reading from this section of Matthew’s Gospel and as reported by Mark, does not add anything. But Luke specifies that it was the right ear. As Luke was not present at the incident this must have been second hand information and therefore may have been seen as unreliable. But now, John who had been present at the incident, confirms Luke’s information.

g). From our findings above, especially those in e) and f), we are able to date the writing of the main section (i.e. without the final chapter) of the Gospel according to John as between 65-70 AD.

h). If we accept that the gospel of John was written pre-70 AD, and that it clarified parts of the Synoptic Gospels, then these Gospels must have been in circulation before 70 AD.

i). Markan priorists claim that Matthew and Luke reported the destruction of Jerusalem by means of parables. This claim is discussed elsewhere in this booklet, but here it is interesting to consider the reaction of John. He was clarifying the gospels of Matthew and Luke so, if the Markans are correct and he was writing after 70 AD, why did he fail to clarify the meaning of the Synoptic parables where references to the destruction of Jerusalem are intermingled with those concerning the end of the world?

j). Palestine at the time of Christ was a peculiar and very complicated society. The Romans shared administration with the Council of Jewish judges, known as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was often in conflict with the civil officials, taxes were paid in Greek money, Roman money was used in commerce and Temple dues paid in Jewish money. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin were spoken. Public and private life was affected in many subtle ways by this diversity of language, culture and division of authority.

Yet in the Gospels we find countless references not only to geographical features, but to the transient social and religious conditions also. This society was completely swept away in 70 AD, followed by changes in population and government. How could a writer portray the life of this society, so accurately and minutely, living a secluded life far from Palestine, fifty or more years later?

k). When a person lives on one side of a river, such as London, they will often refer to the other side as `over the water`. The author of this gospel uses this expression when referring to the Jordan (1: 28). This implies he was a native of Palestine or had at least lived there for a long period. It also indicates that he was aware of another Bethany. This is just one small item to illustrate how the writer portrayed Jerusalem society so accurately and minutely.

           

l).   The author uses the expression: ‘The disciple Jesus loved’, six times. These are at the Last Supper; at the foot of the Cross; being entrusted with Mary’s protection; outrunning Peter; being first to recognise the Lord; and when Christ says he will have a long life. In Chapter 21: 24-25 he at last explains that, ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ was writing the Gospel. Tradition has always seen the phrase as referring to the author who felt embarrassed by reporting himself in such privileged positions.

Even if we were to accept the claim put forward by some critics that someone else added verse 24, the person is still identifying to whom the phrase refers. We may also note that most of the instances were of a private or semi-private nature, where only the one involved would be able to provide such a detailed record.

m). Matthew, Luke, Mark and John ignore the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, the persecution under Nero and the martyrs at that time which included Peter and Paul. Why would he omit them, if he was writing after these events?

n).  Although the Muratorian Canon is not as reliable as other early documents, there is no reason to deny what it says regarding the part played by the Apostle Andrew in the composition of this Gospel. [For this see Chapter II d]. It has been traditionally accepted that verse 23 of chapter 21, shows this last chapter having been written when John was very old, probably about 96 AD.

The Dating of the Gospel of John

As stated in the 1953 edition of `The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture`, it was presumed that the earlier chapters were written just a few years prior to this date.  ((CCHS 781j)). But in more recent times scholars such as Tresmontant ((CTH 324)), Thied ((CTR xii)), Orchard ((BOO 18)) and Robinson ((JATR 311)) approaching this question from very different directions have concluded that this presumption was an error. They hold that at least the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70 AD.

The use of the word `we` by John in Chapter 21, verse 24 has raised the question of whether a group was involved in writing. To solve the problem of `we` and `This is the disciple` appearing in the same sentence, we need to turn to John`s other writings.

In 1 John 1: 2 we read:  “…we saw it, and testify to it…” Yet in chapter 2, he makes it clear that one person is testifying.

In John 4: 14, we read “And we have seen and testify…” Yet in several places in the same document he says; “I am writing…”

In his Gospel, chapter 3:11, he represents Christ as doing the same.

Chapman has shown how John used the word `we` to signify solemnity and when he was speaking of his joint witness ((CL 109)).

THIS IS NOTHING NEW: Those reading this explanation of John`s Gospel for the first time, may wonder whether it is a new, untested approach. Yet until the arrival of Markan priority, it was the normal explanation to be seen in Catholic publications.

In `The Early History of The Church of God` by the Bishop of Clifton, published by The Catholic Truth Society in 1901:

`Cerinthus spread his errors throughout Syria and Asia Minor, and the Gospel of St. John was written especially to combat his wicked heresies`. ((BC 155)).

In the major 1955 printing of the Bible by the CTS, we read at the head of John’s Gospel:

“Many things that they [the other evangelists] had omitted were supplemented by him, …  When he was earnestly requested by the brethren to write the Gospel, he answered he would do it, if, by ordering a common fast, they would all put up their prayer together to the Almighty God.”

The Catholic Commentary of 1953 explained that John wrote against the Docetists and the Ebionites, to insist on the divinity of Christ, to confirm that John the Baptist was subordinate to Christ, and to supplement the Synoptic Gospels. ((CCHS 778gh)). The Commentary also quotes the report by Irenaeus that John wrote against Cerinthus and the Nicolaites. This Commentary also provides several arguments to prove that John the Apostle composed the: `gospel according John`. ((CCHS 776d – 778f)).

Catholics have been using the Douai translation of the bible for near 400 years and a standard note regarding John 21: 17 reads:

`Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter (St. Matt, 16: 19) and here he fulfils that promise by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is of his whole Church`.

COMMENT

It is worth noting that there is eyewitness authority behind each of the four gospels. For the Gospel of Matthew we have the author himself, most likely aided by those Apostles still in Palestine at the time. For John`s Gospel it is also the author himself, assisted by the memories of Andrew. Luke`s Gospel was approved by Peter, and Peter endorsed his own words recorded by Mark. This provides a firm historical basis for Christianity

Chapters VI, VII, XI and this chapter show each Gospel was written to meet a pressing need. Matthew wrote for the Jews of Palestine just prior to the Apostles leaving them. Luke wrote to meet the needs of the Gentiles. Peter delivered his series of talks conflating Luke with Matthew so as to authorise Luke`s gospel. And Mark responded to the demand for an unedited record of the talks. John then produced his at the request of Andrew and other disciples to meet the need to answer the attacks of the Gnostics. His later addition of a chapter was again to meet questionings.

We find this pattern supported by the words of Eusebius:

`Only Matthew and John have left us their recollections, and tradition says that they took to writing perforce`. [i.e. of necessity]. `Matthew … when he was on the point of going to others…` ((EH 3: 24, 5-6)). Luke was faced with the circulation of unauthorised accounts ((Luke 1: 1-4)), John was asked to relate in his own gospel the period passed over in silence by the former evangelists…”

[So again perforce.] ((EH 3: 24, 11)).

The Markan scenario is that the gospel authors wrote because they felt in the mood and were at leisure residing in isolated communities away from the real world. This sounds more like a description of the world in which some modern Markan authors live.

NOTE

John A. T. Robinson used the title ‘The Priority of John’ for one of his books. While this was successful in catching the eye of potential readers, it could raise expectations that were not fulfilled. Robinson had to explain his meaning at various times: “I am not saying that John was the first Gospel, but that it was a first Gospel”. He did not mean that John was the first Gospel to be written, but that it should be treated as presenting just as much a ‘primary’, (i.e. underived) picture of Jesus as the others. ((SNTW 430 and 434)). Robinson was promoting his belief that John was an eyewitness Apostle.

 
Part 3


Copyright ©; ChurchinHistory 2005.    

This version: 23rd September 2007



Home Page