What are we asking of God when we pray, “Lead us not into temptation”? (Part 1 of 3)

What has traditionally been labeled “the Lord’s Prayer,” or more appropriately “a model prayer,” was taught by Jesus as a sample of how to pray (Matt. 6:5-15; Luke 11:2-4). It includes the petition, in English translation, “lead us not into temptation,” which some have interpreted to mean that God deviously tempts humans to do what he condemns.¹ This has prompted a call to adapt the wording to a more tolerable, “do not let us fall into temptation.”² But mistranslation based on misinterpretation is not a satisfactory solution. 

Would the heavenly Father really lead us into temptation if we neglected to ask him not to? Is it necessary to request that he refrain from doing what he would never do? Is there something we might be missing about what Jesus expects his disciples to pray for?

Defining Terms

The verbal πειράζω in the Greek NT can simply mean to “try,” as in making an attempt,³ but usually means to “test,” whether for teaching or confirming,⁴ or to trap with sinister motives,⁵ including luring into sin,⁶ or to challenge God.⁷ In some instances a double nuance might be inferred, i.e., testing by trials and tempting.⁸ The noun form πειρασμός essentially refers to a difficult “trial” that may serve as a “test,” particularly in assessing one’s commitment to the Lord. It can apply to adversity or physical suffering,⁹ or to any type of challenge to one’s faith,¹⁰ including enticement to sin.¹¹ Again, in some instances a double nuance might be inferred, i.e., trials and temptations.¹² This study mainly concerns the latter, although clear distinctions are not always discernable.¹³

The Process of Temptation

When it comes to allurements to sin, the devil has a role, we have a role, and God has a role. 

·      The devil is recognized as ὁ πειράζων, “the tempting [one]” or simply “the tempter” (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5; cf. Matt. 5:37; 13:19; 1 Cor. 7:5). 

·      With free-will moral capacity, each accountable human being is personally responsible for how the devil’s temptations are handled in his or her own life (Matt. 13:20-23; 1 Tim. 6:9; Jas. 1:14; 4:1-4). While everyone is the tempter’s target, those who persistently capitulate also become his agents (cf. Matt. 5:39; 13:38; John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:15). 

·      God provides the necessary tools for warning against, resisting, escaping, and overcoming the devil’s ploys (1 Cor. 10:13; Eph. 6:10-18; Jas. 1:12; 4:7-10; 1 Pet. 5:6-11).

According to James 1:13-15, God actively “tempts” [πειράζει] no one “of evils” [κακῶν]. Enticement to sin, therefore, does not come “from” [ἀπό] God but from one’s own desires and self-deception when the devil is not resisted and the divine will is ignored or rejected (cf. vv. 21-27; 2:19-26; 3:13-18; 4:1-10).

Does God Have an Active Role in Temptation?

In Matthew 6:13a and Luke 11:4b, when Jesus instructs his disciples to ask the Father, “lead us not into temptation” (ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, N/KJV, RSV), in both passages the verbal εἰσφέρω is employed, a combination of φέρω (to “bring” or “carry”) + εἰς (“in,” “unto,” “into”). Elsewhere in the NT the sense is always to “bring” or “carry,”¹⁴ thus the petition should read, if translated consistently, “bring us not into temptation” (ASV, ISV, CSB, NRSV, WEB).¹⁵ This more readily implies the heavenly Father’s presence and involvement. He not only leads, he accompanies.¹⁶

But in what sense would the heavenly Father ever bring or carry us into temptation that would occasion a prayer like this? In the vein of Hebrew parallelism, the contrast is between “bring [εἰσφέρω] not into temptation” and “deliver [ῥῦσαι] from the evil [one].”¹⁷ The entreaty does not ask God to abstain from tempting, which would be nonsensical, but to guide us away (deliver, rescue) from the evil one’s allurements. Even so, it follows that if God explicitly delivers or rescues from (cf. 2 Pet. 2:9), he also implicitly brings into – not temptation itself but situations where temptations (and trials) are possible, likely, or inevitable.  

The Jewish Context

The prayers of the Hebrew psalter repeatedly petition God for guidance in the right direction¹⁸ and affirm that he acts accordingly.¹⁹ Although the concepts of “leading” and “bringing” could be viewed interchangeably,²⁰ the latter involves a more personal and intimate description of God’s abiding presence, elsewhere stated more explicitly.²¹ While he can and does lead instrumentally, Hebrew verbs like yatsa [יָצָא] more clearly convey an active and direct “bringing” or “carrying.”²²

The psalmist duly prayed, “Incline my heart to your testimonies and not to unjust gain” (Psa. 119:36); “Do not incline my heart to practice anything evil with wicked men who work iniquity, and do not let me eat of their delicacies” (Psa. 141:4).²³ At the same time, personal accountability is understood: “Your word I have hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you” (Psa. 119:11); “I have inclined my heart to do your statutes indefinitely to the end” (Psa. 119:112).

Concluding Thoughts

In the Lord’s model prayer, the “bring us not into temptation” appeal is preceded by a recognition that the heavenly Father already knows our needs, along with a desire for his will to be done and a request for forgiveness (Matt. 5:8-12). Beyond the immediate context, to get the clearest sense of what Jesus teaches about prayer, what better commentary than his own experience? To be continued …

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Fabio Frustaci, “Lead us not into temptation,” The Conversation (8 Dec. 2017), <Link>.

     ² Harriet Sherwood, “Lead us not into temptation: pope wants the Lord’s prayer changed,” The Guardian (8 Dec. 2017), <Link>. Note also CEV, ERV, God’s Word^®, The Message, J. B. Phillips, NLT, NLV. Calls to change the wording of this prayer also include the reference to “our Father”: see Harriet Sherwood, “Lord's Prayer opening may be 'problematic,'” The Guardian (7 July 2023), <Link>.

     ³ Acts 9:26; 16:7; 24:6. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ⁴ John 6:6; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 11:17, [37]; Rev. 2:2, 10; 3:10.

     ⁵ Matt. 16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35; Mark 8:11; 10:2; 12:15; Luke 11:16; John 8:6.

     ⁶ Matt. 4:1, 3; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; Jas. 1:13-14.

     ⁷ Acts 5:9; 15:10; 1 Cor. 10:9; Heb. 3:9.

     ⁸ 1 Cor. 10:13b; Heb. 2:18; 4:15.

     ⁹ Luke 22:28; Acts 20:19; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 4:12-13.

     ¹⁰ Luke 8:13; 1 Cor. 10:13; Gal. 4:14; Heb. 3:8; Jas. 1:2-3, 12; Rev. 3:10.

     ¹¹ Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38; Luke 4:13; 22:40, 46; 1 Tim. 6:9. This appears to be the sense in Matt. 6:13a; Luke 11:4b, somewhat parallel to Matt. 26:41; Luke 22:40, 46.

     ¹² Luke 8:13; 1 Cor. 10:13a; 2 Pet. 2:9.

     ¹³ “But it would be a mistake to distinguish the connotations sharply; for every enticement to sin tests faith, and every test of faith holds an enticement to sin” (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary [2nd ed.] 109).

     ¹⁴ Luke 5:18, 19; 12:11; Acts 17:20; 1 Tim. 6:7; Heb. 13:11. Notwithstanding the prepositional prefix, the compound verb εἰσφέρω parallels 2 Pet. 1:21, wherein men are said to have spoken from God, being “brought” or “carried” [φέρω] by [ὑπό] the Holy Spirit. In Heb. 12:7 the verbal προσφέρω is a combination of φέρω + πρός (“to,” “towards”); note also 11:17. Throughout Hebrews this compound word is used in the sense of “offer” (5:1, 3, 7; 8:3-4; 9:7, 9, 14, 25, 28; 10:1-2, 8, 11-12; 11:4, 17).

     ¹⁵ Young’s Literal Translation inconsistently renders the verb “lead” (Matt. 6:13) and “bring” (Luke 11:4b).

     ¹⁶ In Luke’s writings, with greater literary precision, when the idea of “leading” or “guiding” is conveyed, the verbal εἰσάγω is more commonly used (Luke 2:27; 14:21; 22:54; Acts 7:45; 9:8; 21:28, 29, 37; 22:24; outside of Luke only in John 18:16; Heb. 1:6). God not only “led” Israel from Egypt (Ex. 13:17-18, 21; 15:13), he “brought” them (Ex. 3:8, 17; 6:6, 7; 7:4, 5; 12:17, 42, 51; 13:3, 9, 14, 16; 29:46; Psa. 105:37, 43; 107:14; 136:11), and not merely by command (Ex. 6:13; 7:6) but with his very presence (Ex. 3:12; 18:19; 20:24; 29:42-46; 33:14; 34:5, 9).

     ¹⁷ With textual variation, the Byzantine Majority Text includes this contrasting clause in both passages, whereas in Luke’s account it is omitted in the NA²⁷ and UBS⁵ Greek texts with an abridged version.

     ¹⁸ Psa. 5:8; 27:11; 31:3; 43:3a; 61:2; 139:24; 143:10. 

     ¹⁹ Psa. 23:3; 67:4; 73:24; 77:20; 107:30; 139:10.

     ²⁰ Psa. 31:3-4; 43:3; 60:9; 108:10. 

     ²¹ Psa. 14:5; 16:8-11; 21:6; 23:4; 46:7, 11; 51:11; 54:4; 68:7-8; 73:23-24; 91:15; 139:7-10, 18, 24; 140:13.

     ²² Psa. 25:15, 17; 31:4; 37:6; 142:7; 143:11; 107:28; 136:11.

     ²³ The active voice is sometimes substituted for the passive for emphasis. “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (James MacKnight, A New Literal Translation: Apostolical Epistles, with Commentary and Notes 29).

Related Posts: Lead Us Not Into Temptation Part 2, Part 3

 

Image credit: https://www.indiatvnews.com/lifestyle/vastu-vastu-tips-pray-facing-in-this-direction-for-happiness-and-peace-739350

Challenging the Integrity of the Canonical Gospels: A Response (Part 3 of 3)

Questions of Authorship¹

Whether divine guidance is conceded or not, human beings were involved in the production and transmission of the Gospels. On the “fundamentalist” end of the spectrum, as long as God is recognized as the primary author, human instrumentality is of little consequence. On the opposite end, the legitimacy of the biblical record can be more easily challenged if orthodox attributions are discredited.

Titular Evidence

The first four books of the NT are anonymous in the sense that the names of the authors do not appear in the respective texts. This does not mean, however, the original reading audiences were ignorant of who these authors were. There is no concrete evidence that any of the Gospels ever circulated without a title,² and the only extant appellations are ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ, ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ, and ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ, i.e., according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is consistently attested among surviving Greek manuscripts, versional evidence, and patristic citations. How likely is it that any of the Gospels would have been left unidentified, especially if they were meant to be passed around and read by a wide audience? There had to be some way to distinguish between them as they circulated. 

Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220) was highly critical of the idea of a Gospel being published without its official designation (Adv. Marc. 4.2). There is no documented proof for the groundless assertion that the titles were not added until the second century. It is inconceivable that such significant writings would circulate anonymously for decades, or that the names of the real authors were lost and then replaced by fictitious monikers without any variations in subsequent years.³

Historical Attribution

Early and consistent testimony ascribes authorship of the First Gospel to the apostle Matthew Levi. The oldest surviving reference is from Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), while others include Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220), Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339), and Jerome (ca. 347-420). No other name was ever appended to Matthew’s Gospel. 

The invariable title of the Second Gospel is “According to Mark.” The earliest attestation is that of Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), with comparable testimonies from Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220), and Jerome (ca. 347-420). No one from the early church ever denied this claim or proposed a different author. 

Luke’s authorship of the Third Gospel is also affirmed very early and includes the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (ca. 200), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339). Lukan attribution is unvarying.

The earliest extant reference to John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel is that of Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), whose testimony is based on the corroboration of Polycarp, a contemporary of the apostle John himself (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.3-8; 5.20.5-6; 20.4-8). Other testimonies include the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 181), Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170-235), Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339). With the exception of the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.11.9) and Epiphanius (Haer. 51.3), no one seriously questioned the authorial role of John until 19th-century critical scholarship.

Unlikelihood of Pseudonymity

If the popular charge of pseudonymity is taken seriously, the names appended to the Synoptic Gospels are rather curious if not practically inexplicable. Matthew is the only one of the three that can be identified as an apostle and personal disciple of Jesus. Yet he is among the least prominent of the apostolic group. His name appears once in the account of Jesus’ initial call (Matt. 9:9) and elsewhere only in the collective listings of the apostles (Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Mark 3:18; Acts 1:13). He is listed seventh in Mark and Luke and eighth in Matthew and Acts. Always appearing before him are the names of Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, and Bartholomew. And as a former tax collector, there “was never a more unlikely candidate for the office of apostle …”⁴

Mark and Luke were neither apostles nor confirmed eyewitnesses. Both are relatively obscure figures in the NT. Mark has a tainted profile in Acts and is mentioned briefly only four times outside of Acts. Luke is mentioned by name only three times in the NT. Anyone wanting to falsely credit a Gospel to an authoritative witness had much more notable characters to choose from. There is no rational explanation for these ascriptions unless, of course, they are genuine. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not widely recognized because of their prominence in the biblical record but because of the documents unanimously ascribed to them in antiquity.

Conclusion

In many scholastic circles there appears to be a general aversion to accepting or even considering conventional authorial appellations.⁵ But alternative judgments based on conjectural argumentation, unwarranted assumptions, circular reasoning, and exceedingly complicated redaction and compilation theories manifest a strong appearance of grasping at straws. Authorial attribution plays an important role in how the respective Gospel accounts are viewed and interpreted.⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This article is a revised version of K. L. Moore, “Authorship of the NT Gospels,” Moore Perspective (27 May 2012), <Link>.

     ² During the period approximating the composition of the NT documents, particularly before the widespread use of the codex, a work was typically identified by a tag on the outside of the scroll. 

     ³ See D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 33-44; D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 140-42; M. Hengel, Four Gospels 48-54; Studies in the Gospel of Mark 64-84; R. T. France, Matthew–Evangelist and Teacher 50-80.

     ⁴ William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew 1:329.

     ⁵ Paul Davidson makes it clear to his readers, “Please note that throughout this article, when I refer to the authors of the Gospels by name, it is an editorial convenience only, and not meant to imply that the names of their actual authors are known” (“Editorial Fatigue,” Is That in the Bible? [10 March 2015] <Web>).

     ⁶ See K. L. Moore, “Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 1),” Moore Perspective (11 March 2012), <Link>; and Part 2 (18 March 2012), <Link>.

Related Posts: Part 1, Part 2, The Literary World of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John Part 1

 

Image credit: https://faithandleadership.com/navigating-the-differences-the-gospels

Challenging the Integrity of the Canonical Gospels: A Response (Part 2 of 3)

The Evidence of Eyewitnesses

All the NT Gospels are reportedly based on eyewitness testimony and written within living memory of Jesus’ life.¹ Challenging this claim by attempting to date the Gospels as late as possible has its limitations. 

John’s Gospel was the last of the four to have been published, near the end of the first century in Asia Minor.² There is documentary evidence of a copy of John's Gospel all the way down in Egypt by the early second century.³  Even farther across the Mediterranean Sea in Rome, Justin Martyr in the mid-second century made frequent references in his writings to τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων (“the memoirs of the apostles”),⁴ alluding to written sources based on the apostles’ testimony (Dial. 106.1).⁵  His many quotations and allusions include narrative material corresponding to Gospel narratives (e.g., Jesus’ virgin birth, ministry, death, words about giving up his spirit, resurrection). In Apology 66.3 he writes, “For the apostles, in the memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν] composed by them, which are called Gospels [εὐαγγέλια] …”⁶ Justin’s pupil Tatian of Syria not only had access to all four canonical Gospels but knew them well enough to write by hand and publish in Syriac translation the Diatessaron, a harmony of the massive volume of material. 

The Plausibility of Eyewitnesses 

Theologian Robert M. Price, who questions whether Jesus even existed, favors a second-century date for all the canonical Gospels.⁷ This radical assertion, however, is not based on facts but is indicative of an underlying anti-conservative agenda attempting to undermine the integrity of the evidence.⁸ If copies of all four Gospels were circulating together as a unified corpus by the early decades of the second century,⁹ permeating and impacting all sides of the Mediterranean, the later dating of each original autograph is far less plausible and frankly unrealistic. Nevertheless, even if Price’s extreme proposition were conceded, it still overlaps the conceivable lifespan of eyewitnesses and certainly those who knew eyewitnesses, historically verified by Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140),¹⁰ Clement of Rome (ca. 35-99),¹¹ Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 69-155),¹² Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 108),¹³ and Quadratus of Athens (d. ca. 129).¹⁴

The Probability of Eyewitnesses

Although evidence-based scholarship typically rejects the speculative extremes of skeptics like Dr. Price, the further left along the theological spectrum NT scholars are positioned, eager attempts are still made to date the Synoptic Gospels as late as the evidence might allow: Mark (post-70),¹⁵ Matthew (80-90),¹⁶ Luke (80-90),¹⁷ and of course John even later. Their conclusions are essentially built on little more than subjective guesses as compared to the rigorous investigative efforts and documentation reflected among more conservative scholars.¹⁸

The contention for late-dating the Synoptics is primarily centered on the prophetic descriptions of Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt. 24:1-34; Mark 13:14-23; Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:20-24, which, if recorded prior to the catastrophic event, would require the divine element of predictive prophecy. If dated after the fact, supernatural intervention is not required. Moreover, the popular assumption of Markan priority necessitates an even later dating for Matthew and Luke. Anti-supernaturalism aside, surely the details of these prophetic records would have been more explicit and less cryptic or enigmatic if created after the fact. And any reports of fulfillment, as would naturally be expected, are conspicuously absent. 

The Synoptics place a great deal of emphasis on prophetic fulfillment, particularly Matthew’s twelve fulfillment citations (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9, 35). In addition to the intensified form ἀναπληρόω (Matt. 13:14), the verbal πληρόω (to “fulfill”) in this sense occurs fifteen times in Matthew,¹⁹ three times in Mark (1:15; 14:49; 15:28), and six times in Luke,²⁰ along with Luke’s synonymous expressions πληροφορέω (1:1), τελείωσις (1:45), and συμπληρόω (9:51).  Debates concerning the ending of Mark notwithstanding, rather than leaving his readers in suspense Mark was careful to affirm the fulfillment of divine promises (14:18-21, 42-45; 14:27, 50; 14:30, 66-72; cf. also 8:31, 9:31, 10:32-34, 14:43–16:6). How does one reasonably account for Jesus’ reported predictions unfulfilled in the Synoptics unless the events foretold had not yet occurred at the time of writing?  

The combination of internal, intertextual, and external evidence makes a much stronger and defensible case for the pre-70 dating of Matthew,²¹ Mark,²² and Luke,²³ bringing their records much closer to the actual events than many critics seem willing to concede. C. L. Blomberg comments:

That we have four biographies of Jesus within thirty to sixty years of his death is nothing short of astonishing by ancient standards. No other examples from antiquity have been preserved of this abundance of information from multiple authors in writings so close to the people and events being described. To reject a priori the New Testament Gospels as potential sources of excellent historical information about Jesus of Nazareth is to impose a bias on the study of history, if consistently applied elsewhere, would leave us completely agnostic about anything or anyone in the ancient world!²⁴

The Significance of Eyewitness Testimony

It is important to view the Gospels in their original historical-sociocultural environments. Memory and oral transmission of information cannot realistically be judged according to a twenty-first-century westernized context. Modern psychological research “is not necessarily directly transferable to first-century Palestine, because the different cultural contexts and levels of literacy will have significant effects on memory processes.”²⁵ From an ancient-oral-culture perspective, as opposed to a contemporary-literary-technological perspective, people were much more capable of accurately remembering and transmitting large amounts of information.²⁶

The function of collective memory was particularly significant. Social memory (remembering together) strengthens memory and recall. Each person would presumably have his or her own unique perceptions and recollections, and when compared there would naturally be variations yet combined without distortion. Both the similarities and the differences among the Gospel accounts, without compromising the integrity of the collective whole, are exactly what one would expect. “Through the witness of those who saw and heard Jesus, subsequent generations also see and hear.”²⁷

Long before the Gospels were published, knowledge about the key figures and events of which they speak had been conveyed orally and in writing for many years. Less than three decades after the death of Jesus and reported resurrection, Paul wrote a letter, regarded by mainstream NT scholars as an “undisputed” Pauline document, to the Christian community at Corinth. He himself was a self-professed eyewitness and acquainted with other eyewitnesses,²⁸ and he makes a case for the historical death and resurrection of Jesus by appealing to eyewitness corroboration (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Paul’s record is based on testimony that predates the written account. 

About five years earlier he had verbally communicated this information to the Corinthians, which he acknowledged having “received” [παρέλαβον] (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If his reception was by way of supernatural revelation, this confirms for believers divine authorization of the account. Yet earlier in the letter Paul referred to what he had “received from the Lord” (11:23), a qualifier omitted in the present text. If he is claiming to have acquired these details by way of oral reports, the evidence he cites takes us even closer to the events in question. Long before Paul put this in writing, he and many others had been broadcasting this message confirmed by living guarantors of the accounts.

The Gospel records are based on literally hundreds of analogous reports from those willing to suffer and die for their convictions. “But people do not die for a lie they invented if that lie brings them no benefit but instead brings suffering and loss. The apostles died for the testimony to Jesus, and this shows that they believed their report to be true.”²⁹ We can all agree that “bad history never makes for good faith,”³⁰ while “all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony.”³¹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Cf. Luke 1:1-4; 24:48; Acts 1:1-3; John 19:35; 21:24; also Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:20; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4.

     ² The apostle John reportedly lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117) and was the last of the NT writers to compose a Gospel, according to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.1.1; 3.3.4 (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3); and Eusebius himself (Eccl. Hist. 2.24.7). Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) reports that John’s Gospel was the last of the four to have been written and indicates that John was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7). Jerome marks the apostle’s death at the year 98 (De vir. ill. 9).  

     ³ The John Rylands fragment or P52 or P.Ryl. 3.475 preserves a portion of John 18, acquired by Bernard P. Grenfell in 1920 and published by Colin H. Roberts in 1935; housed in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. See C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1938): 3:1-3. Estimated dates of the fragment have ranged from 100-125 (P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett, eds., The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts 355) to as late as the third century (B. Nongbri, “Paleography, Precision, and Publicity,” NTS 66:4 [Oct. 2020]: 471-499).

     ⁴ I Apology 66.3; 67.3-4; Dialogue 100.4; 101.3; 102.5; 103.6, 8; 104.1; 105.1, 5, 6; 106.1, 3, 4; 107.1.

     ⁵ See Wally V. Cirafesi and Gregory Peter Fewster, “Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα and Ancient Greco-Roman Memoirs,” Early Christianity 7.2 (2016): 186-212.

     ⁶ On the likelihood that Justin knew all four canonical Gospels, see Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” and C. E. Hiss, “Was John’s Gospel Among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. S. Parvis and P. Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007): 53-76, 88-94.

     ⁷ Price argues, “Irenaeus is the first to mention Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So they too must have been written before 180 CE. But how much before? There are no clear quotations from them in earlier writers, much less citations by name. Personally, I favor a second-century date for all four canonical gospels” (“Judas Gets his Say,” Theological Publications [2009], <Web>).

     ⁸ “The historical critic is conscience bound to explore the very real possibility that the Christian Jesus has been shaped by the dogmatic agenda of the religion that claims him as a warrant for everything it does. The critic must wonder if the ‘official biographies’ of Jesus, the canonical gospels, are actually faithful reflections of what a historical Jesus of Nazareth, if there was one, did and said” (R. M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man 25).

     ⁹ See G. N. Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel,” NTS 43 (1997): 317-46.

     ¹⁰ Irenaeus, Haer. 5.33.4; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.3-4.

     ¹¹ Clement’s only undisputed work that survives is his correspondence to the first-century Corinth church, known as First Epistle of Clement or simply I Clement.

     ¹² Polycarp’s only surviving work is his letter to the saints at Philippi, quoting and alluding to several NT documents. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.4) affirms that Polycarp interacted with a number of eyewitnesses and was instructed by the apostles (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.3-8).

     ¹³ Jerome, Chronicon (221st Olympiad) 10.

     ¹⁴ Early in the second century Quadratus “addressed a discourse” to the emperor Hadrian, claiming that in his own lifetime there had been people living who had experienced miracles performed by Jesus: “They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our own times” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.3.2).

     ¹⁵ W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark 117; P. Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels137; N. Perrin, The NT: An Introduction 149; G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context 258.

     ¹⁶ R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT 216-27; W. Dicharry, Human Authors of the NT122, 127 n. 28; D. J. Scholz, Jesus in the Gospels and Acts 77-79; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 198-200; L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 239-40, 244. 

     ¹⁷ S. Davies, Jesus the Healer 174; Francois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9; S. Brown, The Origins of Christianity 24-29.

     ¹⁸ Having cited works by both conservative and liberal academicians, concerning the late-date proponents C. L. Blomberg observes, “Notice how few actual arguments rather than mere affirmations appear for these dates compared to the discussions in the [conservative] sources noted …” (The Historical Reliability of the NT 13).

     ¹⁹ Employed twice more in a different sense (Matt. 13:48; 23:32).

     ²⁰ Employed three other times in a different sense (Luke 2:40; 3:5; 7:1).

     ²¹ Numerous references to the antagonistic Sadducees (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12; 22:23, 34), who dwindled to the point of insignificance after mid-70, as well as Sabbath-keeping in Jerusalem (24:20), temple tax and rituals (5:23-24; 17:24-27; 23:16-21). The parenthetical comment, “let the one reading understand” (24:15), seems to point to the near fulfilment of the temple’s destruction. See K. L. Moore, “Let the One Reading Understand,” Moore Perspective (27 Oct. 2021), <Link>. Note also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1 (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2); Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16); Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.2; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.5-6; Origin (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3-6); Jerome (De vir. ill. 3).

     ²² The parenthetical comment, “let the one reading understand” (13:14), seems to point to the near fulfilment of the temple’s destruction. See K. L. Moore, “Let the One Reading Understand,” Moore Perspective (27 Oct. 2021), <Link>. Note also 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13; Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15-16); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 106.3; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1-2; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5; Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis(Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7); Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.5; Jerome, Ad Hedibiam 120.

     ²³ The abrupt ending of Acts—the sequel to Luke’s Gospel—at Spring 62; the quotation of Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim. 5:18; Luke’s writings betray no knowledge of Paul’s letters and death or the destruction of Jerusalem or the Neronian persecution. Note also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.3.1.1; 3.14.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.4.1-7; 3.24.14-15; 5.8.3; 6.25.6. See K. L. Moore, “The Dating of Luke-Acts and Why it Matters,” Moore Perspective (4 March 2012), <Link>.

     ²⁴ The Historical Reliability of the NT 17-19.

     ²⁵ Judith C. S. Redman, “How Accurate are Eyewitnesses?” JBL 129:1 (2010) 179.

     ²⁶ See K. L. Moore, “Oral Transmission of the Biblical Records,” Moore Perspective (18 Jan. 2012), <Link>.

     ²⁷ K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter 103.

     ²⁸ 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:18-20; 2:9. In addition to Paul’s writings, the book of Acts is replete with recorded testimonies (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39-40). Luke’s Gospel and the Hebrews epistle explicitly claim eyewitness corroboration (Luke 1:1-4; Heb. 2:3-4), while there are first-hand statements in the writings of John (John 19:33-35; 1 John 1:1-3) and the Petrine documents (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). 

     ²⁹ D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in ESV Expository Commentary 8:26.

     ³⁰ L. Hurtado, “What Do the Earliest Christian Manuscripts Tell Us?” in C. A. Evans, ed., The World of Jesus and the Early Church 209.

     ³¹ R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses 5. 

Related Posts: Part 1, Part 2

 

Image credit: https://www.theforerunner.org/calendar/2020/6/3/a-new-bible-study

Challenging the Integrity of the Canonical Gospels: A Response (Part 1 of 3)

Jesus of Nazareth is the foundation of the Christian faith, having impacted world history like no other. While his existence as a real historical figure is sufficiently confirmed beyond the NT,¹ the Gospels provide the best and most comprehensive record of his life and teachings. Supplementary data are also available in the other 23 documents that comprise the NT canon, most of which were written even earlier or within a comparable timeframe.

Classical scholar Michael Grant has observed: 

if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned…. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.²

Defending the Integrity of the Gospels

It is not without significance that four separate Gospel accounts have been preserved in the NT. A long-held and firmly-established maxim affirms, “Upon the testimony of two or three witnesses, every word will be established” (2 Cor. 13:1b),³ a quotation from the LXX version of Deuteronomy 19:15 and reiterated repeatedly in scripture.⁴ The NT Gospels thus offer more evidence than was deemed necessary. The value and veracity of their combined witness cannot be ignored or easily dismissed, serving as our primary source for understanding who Jesus really is.

Historicity

The aim of the historian is to record facts, not to invent stories or produce fictitious works of creative imagination. Although the Gospels are not strictly historical narratives, they are packed with historical information and therefore demand historic inquiry. Christianity is a historical religion established on historical evidence. “Some religions can be indifferent to historical fact, and move entirely upon a plane of timeless truth. Christianity cannot. It rests upon the affirmation that a series of events happened, in which God revealed Himself in action, for the salvation of men.”⁵

The information provided by Gospel writers includes people, places, time periods, and events that can either be verified or falsified in the records of history. This allows a rational and objective defense. If an account were fabricated, the entire manuscript would be discredited.⁶ While Christianity is more than just an exercise in reason, faith has a historical dimension. Faith must be grounded in evidence. Biblically defined (see Hebrews 11:1), faith cannot be divorced from ὑπόστασις (confidence, assurance; substance, essence), the certainty of something real; and ἔλεγχος (proof, conviction), convinced by sufficient evidence of the reality “of things not seen.” Biblical faith is not a blind leap in the dark. In order for a historical narration to have credibility, it must have happened.

If the central claims of Christianity could so easily be discredited, how does one reasonably explain its explosion into existence within a hostile Jewish environment, its rapid spread throughout a resistant polytheistic world, to become such an impactful global movement? The early believers did not choose their religion because it was familiar and popular. They embraced the Christian faith as true, irrespective of cultural conditioning and without violent coercion (just the opposite!). Christianity began and flourished among real people in the first-century world who could readily test its claims.

The Bias Dilemma

Were the Gospel writers biased? Anyone who is convinced and passionate about anything is necessarily biased to some degree. If those responsible for the canonical Gospels sincerely believed the message they transmitted, does their “biased agenda” automatically render them incapable of honesty and factual reporting? John Drane has aptly observed:

But the idea that only “unbiassed” people can ever tell the truth belongs to a way of understanding reality that no longer stands up to critical scrutiny. The philosophical notion developed through the European Enlightenment, that merely by the exercise of human reason it is possible to step outside our own experience of life and judge things in some kind of “objective” way entirely detached from our own perspective, is now seen to have been just wishful thinking on the part of self-opinionated white Westerners who wished to justify their own ideas over against what they regarded as the “irrational” understandings of people of other times and places.⁷

None of the Gospel writers or other early followers of Jesus started off with a Christian bias. Contrary to the assumptions of many critics, “the Gospels were more spontaneous expressions of theologies that already existed within the communities out of which they arose than documents designed to shape community theology.”⁸ The passionate defense of a conviction does not render a work better or worse in its scholarship. That is determined by “the accuracy of the information it includes and the cogency of its argumentation.”⁹

The Supernatural Dilemma

People have a tendency to interpret data according to their entrenched worldview and presuppositions. Anti-supernaturalism assumes there is no God, the physical universe is a closed system that does not permit outside interference, and therefore miracles are seen as fictitious. Yet by their very definition miracles are out of the ordinary. When the universe is conceptualized through the restrictive lenses of scientific method and philosophical naturalism, viewed as a closed system operating according to inflexible laws that are totally predictable and never vary, any deviation from what is expected is regarded as impossible. 

No scientist is in the position to deny that miracles occurred in the past, as these unique happenings are outside the range of scientific investigation. It is one thing to assert that supernatural manifestations are not witnessed today, but to dismiss even the possibility that they could have ever taken place is to assume one’s own conclusion and involves unprovable (unscientific) speculation. Science has its limitations. It does not encompass all reality and is not the infallible key that accounts for every conceivable anomaly.               

The historical method is also somewhat restricted. The historian’s role is simply to repeat the facts of history, however artistic his depiction might be, without attempting to provide subjective explanations or embellishments. The Gospel records are a matter of historical evidence. Unlike myths, legends, and fairytales, biblical miracles are reported in the context of real historical events, in a simple, straightforward, unembellished manner, typically occurring in the presence of multiple (sometimes hundreds and even thousands of) witnesses. If biblical authors are critiqued fairly and proven to be trustworthy in other areas (e.g., geography, historical and sociocultural data, etc.), their testimony deserves serious consideration and should not be rejected outright. 

When one is predisposed from the start to deny the possibility of exceptional phenomena that defy the natural world as we currently know it, the entire Bible, with its description of miraculous events, will be like the proverbial baby thrown out with the bath water. On the other hand, if one is open to the prospect that God is real and that Jesus is in fact who he professed to be, extraordinary workings are not beyond what is to be expected. Biblical miracles are not surprising at all, and certainly not impossible, in a theistic world. One’s assessment of supernaturalism in the biblical record is inextricably linked to his or her assessment of the plausibility of God. “From a Christian perspective, theism makes the miraculous possible, and the witnesses make miracles credible.”¹⁰

Conclusion

History is not like mathematics. Even the hard sciences fall short of absolute certainty, but secure knowledge is still possible as is secure historical fact. What has the greatest amount of evidence? If anyone is looking for undeniable verification, a consideration of historical evidence does not remove the critical role of faith. Knowledge of all history depends on trusting historians and the information they recount, and the information they recount ultimately goes back to reliable witness corroboration. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Josephus, Ant. 18.3.3; 20.9.1; Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Seutonius, De vita Caesarum: Claudius 25.4, Nero 16; Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.7. To deny Jesus of Nazareth ever existed as a real historical person is a radical extreme comparatively few scholars embrace, although a popular assertion among non-critical thinkers. David Fitzgerald, in his self-published Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All (2010), tries to build a case against the historicity of Jesus. The “study,” however, is noticeably one-sided, overstated, somewhat shallow, emotive, flippant, heavily prejudicial, and unscholarly. Even a secular critic like Bart Ehrman is compelled to acknowledge, “[Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence” (Forged: Writing in the Name of God 256). Robert M. Price, who debated Ehrman in 2017 on the existence of Jesus, is a rare mythicist holding high academic credentials.

     ² Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels 200.

     ³ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ⁴ Deut. 17:6; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28.

     ⁵ C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel 15. Christianity “is not merely open to historical investigation, but demands it, and its piety depends on it” (E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Riddle of the NT 143-44).

     ⁶ D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in ESV Expository Commentary 8:25. Most often attacked in attempts to discredit the Gospels’ historical integrity is the alleged historical blunder of Luke 2:1-5. Upon closer scrutiny, however, these criticisms are built on scarcity of historical information and unsubstantiated presuppositions. See K. L. Moore, “Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (16 Oct. 2019), <Link>;and “Part 2” (23 Oct. 2019), <Link>.

     ⁷ Introducing the New Testament (Rev.) 221-222.

     ⁸ J. C. S. Redman, “How Accurate are Eyewitnesses?” JBL 129:1 (2010): 196. “But we have in any case to account for the kerygma itself. A true historical perspective suggests that it would be nearer the truth to say that the kerygma, or the facts and beliefs involved in it, created the community, than to say that the community created the kerygma” (C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel 77). “Kerygma has not been historized but the other way around. History has become kerygmatized” (C. L. Blomberg, “I. H. Marshall’s View of Redaction and History in Luke-Acts,” ETS 73rd Annual Meeting, 17 Nov. 2021).

     ⁹ C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the NT xxviii.

     ¹⁰ D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in ESV Expository Commentary 42. See also C. S. Keener, Miracles: the Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 vols. (2011).

Related Posts: Quest for the Historical Jesus, Challenging the Gospels' Integrity: Response (Part 2), Part 3

Related articles: Jovan Payes, The Gospels: 7 Reasons to Trust Their Reliability

 

Image credit: https://www.timothypauljones.com/apologetics-how-do-we-know-who-wrote-the-gospels-2/