|
The ChurchinHistory Information Centre www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
Part 3
CHAPTER XIII THE EPISTLES & PSEUDONYMITY / FORGERIES Although this booklet is entitled `Authors of the Gospels`, it would seem incomplete without a mention of the Epistles. That to the Hebrews will be discussed in Chapter IX, and of the remaining 20, the traditional authorship and dating of seven are generally accepted. But critics assert that the remainder of Paul’s epistles, as well as those by other authors, are `pseudonymous`. They claim that the authors were not Paul or any disciple, but unknown persons who adopted the names of the Apostles in the opening words. As we lack room to examine all these 13 allegedly pseudonymous epistles, we will look at the five most rejected by the critics. These are the three Pastorals by Paul, the second epistle of Peter and the one by Jude. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES These are 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus. These provide their recipients with advice for managing their flocks, so are called `Pastorals` We will give the arguments put forward by the critics and then reply. [1]. Raymond Brown, a leading advocate of Markan priority, estimated that perhaps 90% of critical scholarship considered these epistles to be pseudonymous ((RB 50)). Reply: This consensus is not based on each scholar investigating the matter afresh, but of most accepting the work of someone else. [2]. Acts, which was written in the 80s ((RB 128)), provides an account of the travels by Paul but do not include a visit by him to Greece and Crete. The Pastoral Epistles (PEs) imply such visits, and thereby create an `insurmountable difficulty` for the traditional belief that Paul wrote them. Reply: This is an example of how `a difficulty`, concerning the reliability of the New Testament, is not caused by historical or literary evidence, but by the Markan priority theory itself. Because Markans claim Luke wrote his Gospel about 85, they have to date his Acts as later still. Tradition and the 1953 Catholic Commentary placed Acts in the 60s AD ((CCHS 815a)). The historical evidence tells us that Paul was released from prison and continued his missionary journeys. Let us look at the evidence: Clement of Rome writes in his Epistle to the Corinthians that Paul `was a herald both in the East and in the West`, and that he reached `the limits of the west` and was then rearrested and executed ((COR chapter 5: 6-7)). Whether you hold that Clement wrote prior to the destruction of Jerusalem or in 96 AD, many of his readers would have been aware of what had occurred. So he is unlikely to have invented the journey. The `Acts of Peter` was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written about 180-190. It states that Paul was granted permission to go where he wished so chose to visit Spain, returning after Peter`s death. He was then arrested and executed ((AP 1-3; 4. 2, 6; 40)). The Muratorian Fragment of the same period also states clearly that Paul went from `the city` [Rome] to Spain ((MFGR lines 38f)). Eusebius records that Paul, after spending two years preaching in Rome (Acts 28: 30) and `after being brought to trial` set out on a ministry of preaching ((EH 2: 22)). We may note that the alleged offence of Paul was minor, Agrippa had not found him guilty (Acts 26: 31-32) and Festus would have included this favourable opinion in his report. Also the Apostle himself expected to be released so he could see his friends (Phil.1: 25-26; 2: 24). Paul had previously voiced his ambition to preach in Spain (Rom 15: 24-28)). When we look at Acts itself, we note that Luke makes no mention of Paul`s trial, a judgement, or his martyrdom. Yet up to this point Luke has detailed the witness and suffering of Paul in great detail. The obvious conclusion is that Acts does not cover the latter part of Paul`s life. Paul could have written the Pastoral Epistles in his last years. Once we accept that Luke finished `Acts` prior to Paul being released from prison, the `insurmountable difficulty `, created by Markan priority, disappears. Michael Prior holds that the second letter of Paul to Timothy may be seen as a request for assistance in the proposed Spanish mission. In the past the whole letter has been interpreted to accord with one word in chapter 4: 6. But as this Greek word, which has been translated as `departure`, was rarely used, its precise meaning in this context is unsure. Prior believes this word should be seen in the context of the whole letter. He suggests the translation should read: `For my part I am already spent and the time for my release is at hand`. A man on the point of execution is unlikely to make a request for books, parchments and a cloak before winter. However a man about to make a missionary journey would find them very useful. ((MP 89-90 and SB Jan 2001, 19)). [3]. The style is not the same as that seen in the recognised Pauline Epistles. Reply: The `recognised Pauline epistles` were co-authored, as may be seen from their opening and closing words. They were also addressed to the leaders of churches for public reading. On the other hand, the Pastoral Epistles were private letters to friends. It is a fallacy to think we can learn of the personal and private style of Paul from official co-authored letters addressed to communities. Dr. Johnson, when visiting Scotland, described the isles in letters sent home and later in a book. Macaulay, the English historian, said it was: `hard to credit the letters and the book had been written by the same man`. ((PT 17: 152)). Prior has examined the styles of Paul in detail and pointed out the fallacies of pseudonymity. ((MP and SB Jan 2000, 2-19)). [4]. 175 of the 848 words used in the Pastoral Epistles do not occur in the New Testament, but 93 of these 175 do occur in the Fathers and Apologists. This shows the vocabulary of the PEs belongs to the second century. Reply: Some years ago these statistics were used to convince people. But it has since been shown, with less publicity, that 95 of the 175 occur in the writings of Philo who died 20 years before Paul. Also 153 of these 175 words occur in writings from before 50 AD ((SB Jan 2001, 6)). Almost the same proportion of unusual words are to be found in 1 Corinthians, accepted by nearly all as first century, as occur in the much later Apostolic Fathers ((JNDK 24)). So the vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles was in use during New Testament times. [5]. The heresies implied in the Pastoral Epistles did not develop till the second century. Reply: By the second century Christian heretical sects, incorporating Gnostic and cultic ideas, were well organised. But there is no evidence that earlier and incipient forms were absent from apostolic times ((CCHS 656h)). [6]. The Pastoral Epistles fit the structured church government developing in the second century rather than that of the Charismatic earlier forms. Reply: This statement is based on presumptions based on Markan priority. It does take time for structures to develop, but they need to exist before they are able to develop. The traditional view is that in the first years there was both a Charismatic aspect and a structural aspect to the church, as there is today. Both were developing together as they met new needs. Immediately after the Resurrection and prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit, Church leaders were exercising a self-confident authority with a primitive but effective structure for decision making (Acts 1: 25-26). Modern debates, between different viewpoints regarding the constitution and authority of the early Church, should be based on the data provided in the New Testament and in the historical records. It is not scientific to decide the date of this data so as to suit a particular theological opinion, which asserts the early church lacked structures. [7]. The Pastoral Epistles are like many of the epistles, pseudonymous. Reply: In many epistles, including the Pastoral Epistles the names of the person or persons sending the letter are given in the opening words, or at the end, or in both. So there should be no problem. Both history and the internal evidence are against the critics. But so as to reject the epistles, they have developed a theory that they are forgeries. Christians are not likely to easily accept that early Christian leaders were producing forged documents so as to gain converts or to win arguments. So the critics use the word `pseudonymous`, to claim the authors believed they were doing good by fooling their congregations. Others say the congregations were not fooled, but did not object to what was happening. Those who make these claims come from a world where Christian pseudonymity is considered to have been common in the first century. But, as the quotation below shows, there is no evidence that the Church produced or supported such writings. In the mid-second century some books were ascribed to long dead apostles, but Tertullian recorded the attitude of the Church. He tells us that an author who was orthodox in his teaching, full of love for Paul and acting with the noblest of intentions, was deposed from the presbyterate for the sole reason that he practiced pseudonymity. Some time later, Eusebius quotes bishop Serapion of Antioch as rejecting writings falsely bearing the names of the Apostles ((JATR 187-8)). When a pseudonymous letter is sent to the Thessalonians, it is condemned as a forgery, not a harmless Christian convention (2. Thess 2: 2). Robinson has written:
[8]. Many of the epistles could not have been early, because there had not been sufficient time for `theological development`. Reply: This argument is often claimed to be `conclusive`. Yet the time it took for such developments is purely speculative. The Apostles had lived in daily contact with Christ for three years. Three had experienced the Transfiguration. In history, many individuals have been known to develop deep spiritual insights within a few years. Christianity is a revealed religion, so Christ imparted its basic teachings and structures to the Apostles. Although these were developed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Markans do not know what was known or not known in the first years. Those claiming to make these judgements are living two thousand years after the events, in a completely different environment and with their own ideological agendas and personal presuppositions. Their conjectures are as reliable as measuring a fast growing plant with an elastic measuring tape. [9]. We are told that Paul would have been too humble to have written: 2 Tim. 4: 7 - 8. But he was expressing his honest feelings in a private letter to a personal friend. This criticism is based on a false understanding of humility. [10]. The replies to these points show there is no need to accept Markan assertions regarding the PEs. For a modern Church document endorsing Paul`s authorship see Catechesi Tradendae, Section 62 (Our Chapter XIX point 2). [11]. Another point worth considering regarding the alleged errors in the PEs, is that similar ‘errors’ are to be found in the Epistle to the Corinthians (Col. 2: 4, 8, 16 and 23), which are accepted by nearly all to be by Paul ((CCHS 918g)). PETER AND JUDE Brown estimated that 95% of critical scholarship did not think that Peter composed the second letter of Peter, and 75% doubted that Jude composed Jude ((RB 50)). Markans claim that 2 Peter was written in the second century because it quotes from Jude written late in the first Century. Also that 2 Peter 3:16 mentions a collection of Paul`s letters which would not have existed till the end of the first Century. Reply: Recent research suggests Jude should be dated about 62 AD and that it depended on 2 Peter ((CTP 245)). This would place the composition of 2 Peter sometime in the 50s AD. While these dates have not been proved, they show that an increasing number of exegetes are researching with an open mind, unrestricted by Markan dogma. Regarding a collection of Paul`s letters; the Markan argument is based on their own false picture of Roman life. Life in Rome will be considered in more detail in Chapter XVI, but a few comments may be made here. The Romans had a very good postal system and there was much travelling. Like other churches and institutions of the time, the church at Rome would have possessed a library. Because of Rome`s central position it was likely to have been one of the best in Christian hands. When Paul wrote a letter to a church, it is most likely copies would be passed to other churches. In Colossians 4: 16 a specific instruction is given to do this. It is difficult to imagine that none of these copies arrived at the Church`s headquarters in Rome. So Markans have no evidence that it took fifty years for a library to be formed at Rome containing Paul`s letters. There is another aspect to this question. Peter`s second epistle does not say all of Paul`s letters were in the collection. Catholics need to remember that the Council of Trent decreed that the 2nd Epistle of Peter the Apostle is a sacred book [See our chapter XIX]. So do we have a sacred book in which the author falsely claims to be Simon Peter (2 Peter 1: 1)? And in which he falsely claims he has sent a previous letter (2 Peter 3: 1)?
END NOTE There is no need to worry regarding the authorship of the twenty-one letters. Once the presumptions, problems and difficulties caused by the Markan theory are set aside, there is no reason to doubt the opening and closing words of each letter. It would be difficult to run any organisation and convert an empire, if two thirds of the most important and treasured letters between branches are forgeries.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS According to tradition, Paul sent this letter before 70 AD to the Christian Jews of Jerusalem who were known as Hebrews. This tradition was set out in `A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture` of 1953 ((CCHS 929a,b)), but was denied sixteen years later in a subsequent publication. This latter adopted the Markan view that it was written by an anonymous person from an unknown place to a mainly Gentile community, probably situated in Rome, between 80-90 ((NCCHS 932b)). The Council of Trent in 1546 issued a decree which referred to this epistle. `By placing Hebrews in the list of 14 Paulines, Trent favoured Paul`s authorship but did not directly define it` ((CCHS 928a)). For the wording of this decree see our Chapter XIX. In the early church some had doubted Paul`s authorship and these doubts were revived by the Markans in the 19th century. But in June 1914 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that; `No such force is to be attributed to those early doubts` ((CCHS 928a)).
We will now set out some of the reasons for accepting the traditional opinion. Critics claim this Epistle is not written in Paul`s normal style. But as explained in the previous chapter, we do not know how to recognise the normal style of Paul when he was writing alone in Hebrew to a community. Theories based on such a weak foundation cannot be reliable. Critics also point out that after Origen had studied the authorship, he remarked `only God knows`. It is worth noting how critics who deny the reliability of the early historians suddenly start to quote them when thought to be useful in undermining Christianity. Even then the critics create a false impression by partial reporting. Origen stated that everyone agreed that the quality of Greek was better than that in the epistles known to be by Paul. But everyone also agreed that the standard of thought was as found in Paul`s writings. So Origen concluded that Paul composed the epistle but another wrote it. He praised those churches that accepted it as being by Paul, going on to write: `But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. … some saying that Clement [a bishop at Rome]… wrote the epistle, others that it was Luke, he who had written the Gospel and the Acts…`. ((EH 6: 25)). So Origen`s doubts were regarding which secretary was working for the author at the time. Some today consider it has an Alexandrian flavour, so have suggested the secretary for the Hebrew original was Apollos, who came from that town. Luke praised Apollos for his writing ability (Acts 18: 24-28). Clement of Alexandria had recorded earlier that the Epistle to the Hebrews was by Paul and had been written for the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue. He also tells that Luke had carefully translated it for the Greeks, hence the style is the same as his Gospel and Acts ((EH 6: 14, 2)). Clement goes on to explain that the words “Paul the Apostle” `were not prefixed because the Hebrews were prejudiced against him and he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name` ((EH 6: 14, 3)). So Clement of Alexandria and Origen both believed Paul had composed the epistle, but were not sure who had held the pen. It is worth noting that no one suggested it was the `creative theology` of an unknown `community`. As described in our Chapter X, the discovery of James the Apostle in the Temple, was a great shock to the Jewish authorities. In response, Christians were barred from this sacred place. For years the Christians had been insisting on their loyalty to the laws and rituals of Judaism, so this was a painful psychological blow. Their spiritual life and mental framework were bound up with the national form of worship. The Eucharist was held in simple rooms without the grandeur, formality and history associated with the Temple. They had now to choose between worshipping exclusively outside the familiar cultural setting, or to deny Christ. At this critical moment Symeon, successor of James as bishop of Jerusalem, would not possess the same personal authority as James had done. With the other Apostles being out of the country, many Christians would have felt leaderless. News of the crisis would soon have reached the whole Christian world and, if we accept the letter to the Hebrews as a response to this crisis, much falls into place. A careful reading shows it was addressed to a community soaked in knowledge of Jewish history with multiple references to Moses, Melchizedek, the Psalms and the ritual of the Temple. It is addressed to a community as if it was completely Jewish, with no mention of Gentiles or their needs. Only in Jerusalem would such a community exist. Markans claim that Rome also had a large Jewish population. This is true, but what is significant is that the Jewish Christians addressed in the Epistle were under great temptation to deny Christ, yet their fellow Gentile Christians were not apparently faced with the same temptation. The arguments employed in the fifth chapter of Hebrews, would have had no meaning for former pagans. It is also worth remembering that Paul, having been educated as in the Temple, was aptly suited to compose this letter. The opening words of the letter are: `In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; …`. There is no evidence the early Christians believed God spoke through prophets to the Gentiles, so the letter must have been addressed to a community of Jews. By writing `our fathers` the author was claiming to be of the same race as the Jews he was addressing. There are many passages indicating that it was written while the Temple was still standing. Examples are listed below with verbs in the present tense underlined. 7: 5 `And those descendents of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people …`. 8: 4-5 `…there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary`. 8: 13 `And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away`. 9: 6-9 `…go continually … performing …goes, and he but once a year … he offers 9: 13 `…sanctifies...` 9: 25 `…as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly …`. 10: 1 `…sacrifices which are continually offered year after year …`. 10: 3 `…there is a reminder of sin year after year`. 10: 11 `And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away our sins`. 13: 10 `We have an altar from which those who serve the tent [the sanctuary] have no right to eat’ [an allusion to the Eucharist eaten from the Christian table]``. 13: 11 `…blood is brought into the sanctuary …are burned`. Much of the document is devoted to showing the difference between the Levitical priesthood and the Christian. This is achieved by returning to the Jewish history of sacrifice and then leading up to the statement that it “is becoming obsolete and growing old” (Heb. 8:13). If this had been written after 70 AD, why did the author not use the crowning proof of his thesis? By then the Temple, the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices, were not merely `becoming obsolete and growing old`, but had gone forever. In order to explain this use of the present tense, Markans claim the author was describing the ritual originally used in the desert, not that used in the Herodian temple. So let us look a little closer. In chapter 7: 1-4 he recounts the institution as given in Exodus 25-26, so uses the past tense. But when in verse 5 he is describing the current practice he changes to the present tense. In verse 6 he explains the reason for the present practice. Markan literature implies the author was ignorant of how Temple ritual had changed from that of the original Tabernacle in the desert. But the ritual acts to which he was alluding in the present tense were still taking place. Whether or not other acts had been modified, is irrelevant to the discussion. The tone of the document is that of the need to face a very severe challenge, yet not one threatening death (Heb. 12: 3-4). This was the situation for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem prior to their flight to Pella. The recipients were reminded of the earlier abuse and torment of their community (Heb.10: 32-34, 13: 3) and urged not to stay away from the assemblies (Heb. 10: 24). The Sanhedrin had prohibited Jewish Christians from entering the Temple ((BC 121)). To be seen attending the Eucharist, would have provided evidence for exclusion. The recipients were reminded how Moses rejected the things of this world and, how Christ was executed outside Jerusalem (Heb.13: 12). His followers must be willing to accept the same ignominy as those with leprosy of being driven to live apart (Lev. 13: 46) outside the camp [nation] of Israel (Heb.13: 12-14). Their correct cause of action would be a stigma (Heb. 11:26). Many of those there in Jerusalem would have personally heard Christ himself (Heb. 2:3). The example of the faith of Abraham is given (Heb. 11:8-10). He went out not knowing whither he went. In 11:27 we are reminded that by faith Moses left Egypt. And in 13:7 and 17, readers are urged to listen to their leaders. A Markan argument for this epistle not having been addressed to Jerusalem is that it was to a rich community (Heb. 6:10), whereas Acts 11: 29 and 24: 17 say the Christian community in Jerusalem was poor. But this is not a valid argument. Hebrews 6:10 does not say the community was financially rich. There are many Christian communities in the world today working hard to spread the word of God, while struggling to feed their own members. Yet they provide a loving reception to a visiting missionary. The relief sent on one of these occasions was because of a specific worldwide famine (Acts 11: 28) that reached its peak in 48 AD. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem may have been refusing relief to the Christians and most communities have poor members who are in need of alms especially in times of discrimination. As James was killed in 62 and the Christians fled from Jerusalem in 68, the date of the epistle would be between these dates. Before the arrival of Markan priority a date of 62-64 was considered the most likely ((CCHS 929b)). It is not surprising that copies have been found in Italy but not near Palestine. On arrival at Pella there would have been little incentive for the refugees to make copies. However, as the destruction of the Temple would have traumatised every Jew in the Empire, the Greek speaking Christian Jews living in Italy and Asia would have been very interested. Luke’s Greek edition would most likely have appeared soon after 70 AD. Modern literary analysis shows its style to be closer to that of Luke than to any other New Testament writing ((PCB 880c)). This confirms the words of Clement of Alexandria. In the last chapter of Hebrews, we read; “The brethren from Italy send their greetings”. Some claim this shows the Epistle was addressed to Rome, others that it was sent from Rome. Both views are nothing more than speculation. The words indicate that some Italians living near Paul were concerned about the difficulties of those to whom he was writing. Thousands of Italian Christians had been expelled from Rome in 49 and had settled in Asia. It is likely to have been some of these who sent their greetings. CLEMENT OF ROME Those who claim a late date for Hebrews argue that the use of the present tense is not conclusive. They point out that Clement of Rome used this tense when describing Temple ritual, yet Clement was writing in 96 AD. Although this date of 96 AD appears in many Commentaries, it depends on the statement by J.B. Lightfoot as printed on page 3 of his: ‘The Apostolic Fathers’. Although he is rightfully held in high esteem, others such as Grotius, Grabe, Orsi, Uhlorn, Hefele, Wieseler held to the earlier date ((CE: St Clement)). Lightfoot did not discuss alternative dates nor provide any indication of any close personal research. The 96 AD date is based on two assumptions: 1). That Clement wrote after he became bishop of Rome in 91 AD, and 2). That the opening words refer to the persecution by Domitian, murdered in 96 AD ((GE 180-205, JATR 328)). Let us read the opening words of this epistle by Clement to the Corinthians:
Clement does not claim to be writing as the bishop of Rome, but on behalf of the Roman Community. Eusebius recorded that: `Clement of Rome wrote in the name of the church of the Romans` ((EH 3: 38, 1)). He did not say Clement wrote as the bishop of Rome. Peter had ordained Linus, Cletus and Clement as bishops ((BC 157)). Linus succeeded Peter in 67 AD. So Clement would have been acting as an assistant bishop for at least three years prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. He would therefore write in the present tense regarding Jerusalem during this period. He writes of the noble examples of martyrs, such as Peter and Paul who were killed under Nero, yet there is no mention of later ones. If a persecution by Domitian had just ended, why did he ignore its martyrs? Why did he use just a few vague words to refer to a terrible persecution affecting himself and his closest friends? The recipients of the letter would have been eager for news. During 69 AD the Roman Empire was in political chaos with the Emperors - Galba, Otho and Vitellius - being killed in one year. This chaos was the cause of troops being withdrawn from besieging Jerusalem. Clement’s words fit this turbulent year very well. G. Edmundson presents a good case for Clement writing this letter in the early months of 70 AD ((GE 180-205)). Robinson accepted that Edmundson’s case should be most seriously considered ((JATR 329)) and Thied has also adopted this date ((CTR 71)). After appealing to the rebels, Clement points out what happened to those who hardened their hearts after seeing signs and wonders: such as the followers of Korah (Num. 16: 33) and Pharaoh`s army (Exodus 14: 23). This would have been a natural place to add the destruction of Jerusalem when its inhabitants refusal to accept the signs of the Messiah and his disciples. The silence of Clement indicates this event had not yet occurred. The passage in chapter 41: 1-3 written by Clement in the present tense reads:
Researchers, uninhibited by a desire to late date this Epistle, would see this excerpt as a powerful indication of it being written while the Temple was still operating. The purpose of the epistle was to urge the Corinthian rebels to conduct services correctly, so why would Clement offer a role model that had ceased to exist twenty-six years previously? We have further evidence pointing to bishop Clement writing as an assistant to Pope Linus when sending his message to the Corinthians. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter to Pope Soter, who reigned from 166 to 175, wrote:
The use of ‘through’ means Clement was an intermediary. The epistle of Clement had been one of admonition.
There is other evidence pointing to an early date for Clement’s Epistle. ((GE 180-205 and JATR 327- 335)), but here is enough to show that it’s use of the present tense does not undermine the tradition of Paul writing to the Hebrews before Jerusalem’s destruction.. Late daters also assert that Josephus used the present tense when writing about the Temple in 93 AD. This is true, but he was not writing about an actual practice. He was providing a summary description of the Old Testament ordinances contained in Mosaic Laws. A SIDE ISSUE It is interesting that the Corinthians did not appeal to an Apostle living near-by, such as Andrew. They asked a non-Apostle, Linus the successor of Peter, to intervene. ADDENDUM A Christian named Hermes wrote an account of a series of visions he claimed to have experienced and this came to be known as `The Shepherd of Hermas`, or `The Shepherd`, or `Pastor`. Whether the visions were authentic or not does not concern us here, but at the end of the second vision we read words allegedly spoken by the apparition:
From this excerpt, we learn it was the duty of a person named Clement to correspond with foreign cities. Lightfoot had called him: `the foreign secretary of the Roman church` ((JATR 321)), and Robinson described him as: `the correspondent of external relations of the Roman Church` ((JATR 333)). Edmundson, in his 1913 prestigious Bampton Lecture, pointed out that Clement was: `only the servant, not the head of the Church acting on his own initiative` ((JATR 333)). This would explain why it was Clement who wrote the letter of reply to the Corinthians on behalf of the Church at Rome, presumably after consulting Linus, who had become the bishop of Rome following the death of Peter. Clement, acting as foreign secretary to the Roman administration, would be consistent with the letter received by Pope Soter. This evidence of Hermas supports the above argument that Clement of Rome could have written his letter to the Corinthians prior to 70 AD. According to Origen, `The Shepherd` was written by the Hermas who is mentioned in Paul`s epistle to the Romans 16: 14 ((JATR 320)) and Jerome agrees ((DVI chapter 10)). When Clement in 5: 1 records the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, he speaks of it as `of our own generation`. As they were killed about 65 AD, is he likely to have written in this manner 30 years later?
The reason I have placed this evidence in an addendum, is because some claim the author was a different Hermas to the one known to Paul, and that Clement was a different Clement to the person ordained a bishop by Peter. This claim is based on a passage in the Muratorian Fragment saying that Hermas was a brother of Pope Pius who reigned from 140-155. There is nothing to confirm this statement in the Fragment, which is known to be full of obvious mistakes ((JATR 319)). It is very unlikely that a situation, where two people with the same names and in the same relationship as Clement and Hermes, would repeat itself half a century later. Hermas gives details of his early life, his family and his sister, yet does not say his brother was the Pope. Irenaeus lived in Rome just 20 years after Pius died and quotes `The Shepherd` as if it was part of Scripture. This would have been most unlikely if it had been composed within his living memory. At the beginning of the 3rd Century, Tertullian argued strongly that `The Shepherd` was not part of Scripture. If it had been composed in the mid-second century this would have been a good argument, yet he does not use it. Edmundson pointed out that the book was translated into Latin and published as: `Liber Pastoris` (i.e. The Book of The Shepherd) at the same time the fragment was being written. We are told in: `The Acts of Pastor and Timothy`, that Pius was: `the brother of Pastor`. This appears to have confused the author of the fragment ((GE 206-237 and JATR 320)). Those who accept that Hermas was referring to Clement of Rome, will see it as confirming that Clement was the `foreign secretary` to the Roman Church prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who hold that there were two Hermes and two Clements will not be convinced by the information in this addendum. But the argument of the earlier part of this chapter - that Clement was an assistant bishop of Rome for three years while the Temple was still standing - is unaffected.
A final thought: According to E. Massaux, Clement of Rome in this epistle frequently quotes from Matthew ((EM 35)). So if we accept that it was written pre-70, it would confirm the early composition of the Gospel of Matthew.
CHAPTER XV PAPIAS; THE `Q’ SOURCE; TONING DOWN MARK? THE JERUSALEM PROPHECIES; ACCORDING TO … Bishop Papias Although Markans usually reject the reliability of ancient historians, the words of Papias are quoted when they appear to undermine the credibility of the gospels. They claim that Papias mentioned John the Apostle and also a `John the Presbyter`. They then argue that the gospel may have been written by, `the Presbyter`, not by the Apostle. In a further attempt to undermine the reliability of the historical evidence, they claim that Eusebius considered Papias to be of small intelligence. It is worth noting how Markans will quote or misquote an historian if it suits their purposes, then say he was an unreliable historian when he writes details that do not conform to their theory. To understand these words of Papias and Eusebius, it is necessary to look at the context in which they appear. The Gospel according to John is distinct in style from that of the Apocalypse, and many in the early Church doubted that they could be by the same author. After long debate, the problem was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of most people. But Eusebius was one of a few who continued to reject the Apocalypse as inspired by John. He was having great difficulty with heretical sects in his diocese and this, no doubt, greatly influenced his views. Papias not only recorded that John wrote the Apocalypse, but also held the opinion that after the resurrection of the dead, Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years. The heretics claimed this was part of the teaching of Christ, and were able to quote Papias as their authority against Eusebius. Dionysius of Alexandria had earlier rejected the Apocalypse as having been written by John the Apostle, saying there were two graves at Ephesus dedicated to John. Eusebius used this report together with an ambiguous phrase of Papias in support of his argument that John the Apostle had not composed the Apocalypse. Eusebius quoted the following from Papias, adding his own comments:
But Eusebius had not produced a strong argument. The point to notice is that Papias enquired what those in the first list HAD said. He then enquired what the two living witnesses were STILL saying. This was the reason for separating the two lists, not the status of the individuals. Papias was explaining that in the past he had obtained information about the words of the disciples, whom he referred to as `presbyters`. As an after thought he adds that he is still gaining information from John and Ariston. To make clear the identity of this John he adds the title of `presbyter`. Papias called John a presbyter just as he had called him a presbyter a few words earlier. Ariston, although a source of information about the life of Christ, was not a presbyter. It may also be noted that the whole world knew the ascription `the Presbyter/Elder’ in John`s second and third Epistles was referring to John the Apostle ((RO 183)). The remark by Eusebius, critical of Papias, reads: “For he appears to have been a man of exceedingly small intelligence, …he has been partly the cause of quite a large number of churchmen after him holding the same opinions as his, …” ((EH 3: 39, 13)). This is obviously due to the frustration felt by Eusebius that the heretics were able to quote Papias in the theological argument. It is not in accord with the very high regard Eusebius expresses towards Papias in other parts of his book. Eusebius had set out to provide an account of the early successors of the apostles, who had preserved in writing the apostolic teachings. But in order to keep within manageable size he concentrated on those most important - Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius of Antioch and Papias ((RO 159)). So he viewed Papias very highly and devoted a whole chapter to him ((EH 3: 39)). Markan books imply that Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria relied solely on Papias for their sources. But both of them had travelled widely over the whole of the Roman Empire and, as mentioned in our chapter II, Clement refers to his sources in the plural. These historians had sources amongst elderly acquaintances and in their libraries. They would also have been aware of the absence of contrary traditions. Eusebius was also careful to check his information. As mentioned earlier when quoting Clement he compares his words with what Papias records ((EH 2: 15, 2)), showing that he knew that they were quoting from separate traditions ((EH 2: 15, 2)). Eusebius also quoted Irenaeus who had obtained information from Polycarp, who personally had known John the Apostle. These writers were under constant scrutiny from Jews, Pagans and heretics looking for the slightest inconsistency. The position of Papias is discussed in greater detail by J. H.Chapman ((JHC)) and in less detail by Orchard ((RO. 172-184)). When discussing this, we should not lose sight of the fact that Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Dionysius, and those heretics whom Eusebius was opposing, all agreed that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel. The disagreement concerned authorship of the Apocalypse. It is also worth noting that Papias was a young man in his 30`s when John the Apostle died. The `Q` Source There are verses in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which are identical. The Markans claim the authors copied from Mark`s Gospel. They further assert that Matthew and Luke had no knowledge of each other. So where did they obtain their many identical verses that were not present in Mark`s Gospel? Markans say they copied from a lost document, which they call `Q` from the German word `Quelle` (Source). There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that `Q` or its author ever existed. If `Q` had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of `The Our Father` and `The Beatitudes` to `Q`. Mark did not bother to record them. If `Q` had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services. Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced `Q` later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of `Q` and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature? Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about `Q`, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality `Q` was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory. Markans describe the period between the time of Christ and the writing of the Gospels as `A long dark tunnel`. Groups of dedicated Markans have spent years, at the expense of Universities, looking for `Q` and its author in this darkness. According to the historians and those who accept the Jerome or Clementine traditions, the period was short. The `long` is not a fact, but a further creation by Markans to bolster their theory. It is true that the Markans are working in a long dark tunnel. This is because they refuse to turn on the lights provided by the historians. The Markans call the anonymous authors they have invented, by the names of actual people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). This makes them sound familiar, real and comforting but, if the Markans are correct, more appropriate names would be Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable `Q`. I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe. I am not surprised when non-Christians are unconvinced by the Markan way of explaining the truth of Christianity. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated, so why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or `Q`? Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of the great saints who had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the greatest writings of mankind? Also, why did they all come to believe that they were written by the same four other authors? When the Deists first put forward the assertion that we could not know of the life of Jesus from the Gospels, they were asserting that the Gospels had been written 2-300 years after the life of Christ. Few today try to uphold this assertion, so place Matthew and Luke at about 85 AD and John about 95-100. But these were periods when many eyewitnesses and the children of eyewitnesses were alive and active in the Church. Although many of the old Deist arguments have now been discredited they still influence modern Markan thinking. Toning Down Mark? Markans often repeat the claim made by Abbott in 1879 that the gospel of Mark shows Christ and his apostles as having weaknesses of character and limitations of power. He then claimed that Matthew and Luke revised the verses of Mark so as to remove `stumbling blocks` for weak believers ((WRF 159)). His basis for this theory was the claim that as heroes fade into history their followers idolise them and remove negative aspects of character from their accounts. He believed this was a strong indication that Mark wrote first. Abbott was building his claim on a succession of presumptions.
The Jerusalem Prophesies In Matthew 24:15-16, Luke 21: 20-24 and Mark 13: 14, we read of Christ prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Apart from Christ`s death and resurrection, the destruction in 70 AD was the most momentous religious event in Jewish-Christian history. Yet there is not a word recording it in the Gospels, Epistles or Acts. The normal conclusion would be that these were written prior to the epoch making catastrophe. If you are reading an account telling the story of Nazism which provides details of Hitler`s birth, young life, the first war, his involvement in politics, gaining power, war with Poland, Britain, France and then his invasion of the Soviet Union, but stops as his armies approach Moscow, everyone would conclude that it was written prior to 1943. Why not use the same logic when reading the books of the New Testament?
Recognizing the force of this conclusion, Markans claim prophetic words were placed on the lips of Christ by the anonymous authors after the destruction had occurred. The prophecies are said to be ex-eventu (i.e. created after the event had already occurred). This claim is made without any supporting evidence but is needed in order to uphold their theory. So let us look at their assertions.
We may wish that each Gospel author had opened and closed with his name and other details. But would this be sufficient to silence the critics? There are 13 Epistles where Paul uses his name at the beginning or end, or at both. Yet his authorship is still denied. There was one message of Good News, one Gospel – the Gospel of Christ. Justin Martyr used the word `Gospel` in the singular, but used the plural when he says the memoirs of the Apostles are called Gospels. This dual meaning had evolved by his time, although signs of it may be seen earlier in Rom.11:16, 16:25, Tim 2:8 and 2 Thess 2:14. It was because four authors had given their separate accounts of the one Gospel, that the expression, `According to…` came to be used. There is however another way to look at this subject. The early Christians were soaked in the traditions of the Old Testament. Christian artists in the Roman catacombs depicted scenes where the Old and New Scriptures were compared. The five Christian foundation scrolls (the four Gospels and Acts) were set beside the five scrolls of the Torah. The Jewish Palestinian Talmud of the 5th century confirms that the Christians wrote in the same format as the Jews, so as to underline that the Christian books were of equal quality to the Torah ((CTJ 76-77)). According to Claude Tresmontant, when the Gospel of Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek, the same lexicon was used as that used for translating the Septuagint ((CTH 17-23)). When we look at the Old Testament, we find that the authors of historical books do not give their names, while the authors of prophetic books do ((GS 276)). The Apocalypse is clearly framed on the model of the Old Testament. The transition from the third to the first person in the Apocalypse; `his servant John` and `I John` (1: 1, 1: 9, 21: 2, 22: 2) is parallel to the usage of Isaiah (1: 1, 2: 1, 6: 1, etc.), and of Daniel (1: 6, 7: 1, 2, 15, etc.). So it was a matter of following Jewish tradition that the Christian author of a prophetic book should begin by giving his name. We should not be surprised when the authors of the Gospels and Acts omit to give their names. John gives his name in his prophetic book, but not in his Gospel. Luke explains how he collected the historical material for his gospel and produced the clearly historical `Acts of the Apostles`. Yet in both cases he omits his name. It follows from this that the four authors considered their compositions to be historical books. Notes: 1). The books we name as Josue, Samuel and Esdras do not refer to the authors, but to the subject matter. 2) Nehemias (alternatively called 2 Esdras) was a continuation of Esdras. The anonymous author had died so Nehemias divulged his own name when explaining that he was continuing the account. There was therefore a special reason for the traditional rule to be broken in this one case. The early Church recognised that, `according to`, meant `written by`. We find this in the writings of Eusebius where he reports that the hearers of Peter besought Mark to leave them a written statement and: “so became the cause of the Scripture called the Gospel according to Mark” ((EH 2: 15, 2)).
CHAPTER XVI THE ROMAN WORLD; ARCHAEOLOGY; A NOVEL THE ROMAN WORLD Classical scholars have shown that texts, such as that by Homer, could be disseminated very quickly ((CTP 49)). The noted classical scholar W. Walker has pointed out that Christians are fortunate when searching for their roots, because a highly developed civilisation existed at the time of Christ. Walker has provided an interesting judgment: `”scientific” scepticism can easily be carried too far. Ancient traditions have sometimes been confirmed by archaeology; ancient writers sometimes meant what they said and occasionally even knew what they were talking about. Scepticism about scepticism is especially appropriate in the period from the first century BC to the second century of the Christian era, because this is the most learned, best informed, and most securely dateable period in history before modern times. … The New Testament could not have been written at a time of greater literacy, education, or understanding` ((WW 126-7)). The English Scripture scholar C. H. Dodd wrote in 1972: ‘It is surely significant that when historians of the ancient world treat the gospels, they are quite unaffected by the sophistication of “Redaktionsgeschichte”, and handle the documents as if they were what they profess to be’. ((JATR 360)). F. D. Gregory has noted that Markan authors `…have a hunger for uncertainty` ((AD Nov. 1994, page 15)). The irony used by these authors is understandable. It is the exegetes and theologians with their `creative theology` and love of German theories, not the historians, who question the historicity of the New Testament. The Roman Empire had a good system of roads free from marauders, and Augustus (27-44 BC) had cleared pirates from the Mediterranean. ((CTR 4)). So communications were reliable and fast. The shipwreck of Paul was exceptional. Normally it took ten days to sail from Rome to Palestine to Rome. Rome to Antioch and Alexandria was less. A voyage from Italy to Spain took 4-7 days ((MP 226)). In his book `Geography`, Strabo (64 BC - 19 AD) wrote that fish from the Sea of Galilee was prepared and salted in local factories to be exported to Rome ((CTJ 171-2)). Herod drank Italian wine in his palace at Masada. ((CTP 129)). Letters were sent by post, and valuable documents by hired messenger or trusted servants. Colossians 4: 16, illustrates how Christians used the communication system. A newly written Gospel could be copied and in the hands of Christian leaders throughout the Empire within weeks. Yearly at Passover great numbers of Jews, including those who had accepted Christ as the Messiah, travelled to Jerusalem. The city became a centre for the exchange of news, and a hive of gossip. The preaching of Jesus, his miracles, the turbulence this caused amongst the Jews and the steps taken to maintain the peace, would have been included in reports sent by Pontius Pilate to the emperor in Rome. In 150 AD Justin Martyr addressed: `The Defence of Christianity` to Emperor Antoninus Pius. He wrote:
He goes on to write of the life of Christ, his miracles and details of the crucifixion such as the casting of lots for his vesture. He then adds: `And that he did these things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate`. ((JMA Apologia 1: 35)). Later he lists the sort of miracles Christ performed. For confirmation he again writes:
If these reports of Cyrenius and Pilate had not been in the Roman achieves, Justin would have been risking his life to suggest this action to the emperor. Documents such as `The Acts of Pilate` have not survived down the centuries. One with the same title appeared in the fifth century but is spurious. The references by Justin Martyr to these official reports do not directly assist our dating of the Gospels, but they do provide a further insight into the well-organized Roman world in which the New Testament books were composed.
Markans have no evidence that the authors of the Gospels and Acts lived out of touch with one another in isolated communities. There is no reason to think that the Christians did not live like others of their time. The Markan theory, relying on a presumption that it took a long time for an idea to travel from one community to another, has no basis in fact. Their theory becomes less plausible as we learn more about Roman society. ARCHAEOLOGY Although the Markan theory was gaining support during the early 19th century, it was not until after 1874, when Bismark promoted it in the German Universities, that it became a threat to traditional belief. In 1893 Pope Leo XIII issued; ‘Providentissimus Deus’ to face ‘the difficulties and problems arising from the prejudice of a widely spreading rationalism’ ((DAS 6)). He called for more research because at the time there had been only one or two excavations in the Holy Land regarding the New Testament ((DAS 16)). The Markan theory was born and incubated in the closed world of German academia as it was 150 years ago. But since then there has been impressive progress in archaeological research and the understanding of ancient languages. It is this broad advance which has transformed the scene. Two archaeological sites have particularly added to our knowledge. Since 1902 a mound at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt has gradually been excavated. Finds show that a rough popular Greek was widely used at the time of Christ. Scholars of the 18th and 19thcentury, who expected the New Testament to be in classical Greek, were therefore in error to treat it as in ‘bad Greek’ or ‘degenerate Greek’. ((SNTW 159)). The non-literary Koiné Greek, as used by the lower classes, provides the setting for what has been described as the ‘poor Greek’ of Mark when he was recording Peter`s talks. In 1946 a large collection of Gnostic texts were found at Nag Hammadi, also in Egypt. The examination of this collection has confirmed the reliability of information provided by Irenaeus ((IDU introductory page)). According to Jose O’Callaghan and Peter Thied, fragment 7Q5 found in the Qumran caves during 1947 is from Mark 6 : 52- 53. As the caves were closed in 68 AD they claim this proves the Gospel of Mark existed prior to 68 AD ((CTP 71)). I am not able to get excited over this suggestion. Even if the words found on 7Q5 are accepted as being the same as in the Gospel, this would not prove their claim. These words and those in the Gospel could have both come from a common minor source circulating in several copies at that time. A NOVEL While an historical novel must not be treated as a history book, the success of such a novel depends on the author bringing historical events alive. To do so, it is important to keep the historical background acceptable to his readership. `The Acts of Peter` was published about 180 AD ((AP)). In this novel we find a contest between Peter and Simon the Magician who is mentioned in Acts 8: 9-24. The novel also tells of the story of Peter having to flee from Rome following a sermon on chastity and, when he meets Jesus, Peter is asked where he is going [Quo Vadis?]. Peter is ashamed so returns to Rome where he is crucified upside down. We know from other sources this form of execution was in use ((CTJ 210)). So the author was keeping his novel close to credible historical facts. In chapter twenty of the same novel, we read of Peter entering a house and finding a passage in a Gospel describing the Transfiguration is being read [videt evangelium legi]. Peter rolls up the scroll and proceeds to show how the Holy Scriptures of our Lord should be preached [qualiter debeat Sancta Scriptura Domini nostri pronuntiari]. Saying: `What we have written`, he describes the Transfiguration from memory ((CTP 171)). This story comes from an historical novel, not a history book. But what is interesting is that the author took it for granted that his readers would accept that a written Gospel was in existence while Peter was still alive. Part 4
|