The Brutal Suffering and Death of Jesus the Christ (Part 1 of 2)

The Historicity of the Crucifixion

Certain aspects of the life of Jesus, particularly his death by crucifixion, “rank so high on the ‘almost impossible to doubt or deny’ scale of historical facts,” they “command almost universal consent.”¹ Nevertheless, not everyone is convinced.

 

Anti-Christian Skepticism

 

Mainstream Muslims, while believing Jesus is a real historical figure, typically reject the Gospel accounts of his death.² Other skeptics not only deny his crucifixion and death but his very existence. Sam Woolfe, a freelance writer and blogger based in London, is among the plethoric non-critical thinkers claiming the biblical account of Jesus’ life is not original but represents “the archetypal story of the archetypal hero,” with “similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions,” particularly the “dying-and-returning-god” pattern of various legends, concluding this “suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.”³

 

The idea of an ancient “dying-and-returning god” archetype comes from Sir James George Frazer’s 1890 The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. However, subsequent scholarship has proven the claim to be farcical. These so-called dying (or disappearing) and returning gods of ancient mythology are actually accounts of deities that died and did not return, or deities that returned but had not died. “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”⁴

 

Antemortem Suffering of Jesus

 

According to Luke the physician, textual variation notwithstanding,⁵ prior to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion he was in “agony” [ἀγωνίᾳ] as he earnestly prayed, “and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44). Medically, hematidrosis (bloody sweat), albeit rare, is the result of capillaries hemorrhaging into the sweat glands due to extreme mental anguish.⁶ The other Synoptics describe his volatile mental and emotional state as intense “grieving” [λυπέω], “distressing” [ἀδημονέω], “very sorrowful” [περίλυπος], and “sorely dismayed” [ἐκθαμβέομαι], “even to death” (Matt. 26:37-38; Mark 14:33-34). 

 

Jesus was arrested by an armed mob (sent and escorted by the chief priests, scribes [Pharisees], captains of the temple, and elders), carrying lanterns, torches, and “weapons,” viz. “swords and clubs.”⁷ He was treated as a λῃστής, a violent criminal like a bandit or robber or insurrectionist.⁸ All the disciples “left him and fled,” just as Jesus and the prophetic scriptures had foretold.⁹

 

He was bound and led to the former high priest Annas, where he was interrogated and slapped.¹⁰ Next he was taken to the current high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin and accused of blasphemy (subject to the death penalty under Jewish law),¹¹ where they spat in his face, struck him with the fist [κολαφίζω], slapped¹² him in the face, blindfolded and beat him.¹³ He was then led bound to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate¹⁴ and briefly transferred to the tetrarch Herod Antipas, where he was treated with contempt and mocked before being taken back to Pilate.¹⁵ 

 

Jesus was accused of sedition, treason, and insurrection, including the claim of being “king of the Jews.”¹⁶ These were very serious charges, and if proven, subject to the death penalty under Roman law. Pilate then had Jesus severely whipped.¹⁷ To be continued in the Next Post.

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Endnotes:

     ¹ J. G. D. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019): 339; cf. also J. D. Crossan and R. G. Watts, Who Is Jesus? (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996): 96; B. D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: University Press, 1999): 101. Ehrman observes, “The crucifixion by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life” (“Why Was Jesus Crucified?” The Bart Ehrman Blog [18 Oct. 2019], <Web>).

     ² Quran 4:157-58, “In fact, they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him …”

     ³ “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013), <Web>. 

     ⁴ J. Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (London: Macmillan, 1987): 4:521-27. See also P. R. Eddy and G. A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); B. D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperCollins, 2012); T. N. D. Mettinger, “The ‘Dying and Rising God’: A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts,” eds. B. F. Bernard and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 373-86.

     ⁵ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. While undisputed in the Byzantine Majority Text, the editors of UBS⁵ and NA²⁸ have enclosed Luke 22:43-44 in double square brackets, considering the verses to have been absent from the original and added in the early stages of transmission. On the diverse manuscript evidence, see P. W. Comfort, A Commentary on the Text and Manuscripts of the NT 235-36; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (2nd ed.) 151. Unlike other textual variants, this passage does not depend on parallel accounts or provide an explanation to the narrative. As a physician Luke would surely have an interest in bloody sweat, and angelic activity is thematic in his writings (Luke 1:11-19, 26-38; 2:9-13, 15, 21;  4:10; 9:26; 12:8-9; 15:10; 16:22; 20:36; [22:43]; 24:23; Acts 5:19; 6:15; 7:30, 35, 38, 53; 8:26; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:7-11, 15, 23; 23:8-9; 27:23).

     ⁶ W. D. Edwards, W. J. Gabel, F. E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA 255:11 (21 March 1986): 1456.

     ⁷ Matt. 26:47-55; Mark 14:43-48; Luke 22:47-52; John 18:1-12.

     ⁸ Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52; cf. Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32-39; John 18:40; 19:18. See also Luke 10:30, 36; 2 Cor. 11:26. Josephus employs the term with reference to revolutionaries (War 2.13.5-6; Ant. 14.9.2); cf. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:25.

     ⁹ Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:27, 49-50.

     ¹⁰ Luke 22:54a; John 18:13, 19-23.

     ¹¹ Matt. 26:57-65; Mark 14:53-64; Luke 22:54, 66-71; John 18:24; cf. Lev. 24:13-16.

     ¹² ASV, CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, N/KJV; cf. Matt. 5:39. The verbal ῥαπίζω can also mean to “strike with a rod.”

     ¹³ Matt. 26:67; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65.

     ¹⁴ Matt. 27:2, 11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28.

     ¹⁵ Luke 23:6-25.

     ¹⁶ Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:2, 3, 5, 14; John 18:33; 19:12-15.

     ¹⁷ Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1.

Related Posts: Brutal Suffering and Death of Jesus Part 2, Were Jesus Stories Copied from Ancient Myths?

 

Image credit: https://hope1032.com.au/stories/faith/2019/rediscovering-jesus-part-16-two-men-on-trial/

Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah

According to the biblical records of both Ezra and Nehemiah, the total number of Israelites who returned from Babylonian exile to rebuild the Jerusalem temple was 42,360, with 7,337 additional singers and servants (Ezra 2:64-65; Neh. 7:66-67). Ezra and Nehemiah provide almost identical lists of these people, but their numbers are not consistent. Those listed by Ezra add up to 29,818 (Ezra 2:1-58), whereas Nehemiah’s listing adds up to 31,089 (Neh. 7:5-61), a difference of 1,271. In total there are seventeen divergences in numbering between the two lists.¹ 

EZRA 2	NEHEMIAH 7	Difference
v.5 sons of Arah: 775	v.10 sons of Arah: 652	-123
v.6 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,812	v.11 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,818	+6
v.8 sons of Zattu: 945	v.13 sons of Zattu: 845	-100
v.10 sons of Bani: 642	v.15 sons of Binnui: 648	+6
v.11 sons of Bebai: 623	v.16 sons of Bebai: 628	+5
v.12 sons of Azgad: 1,222	v.17 sons of Azgad: 2,322	+1,100
v.13 sons of Adonikam: 666	v.18 sons of Adonikam: 667	+1
v.14 sons of Bigvai: 2,056	v.19 sons of Bigvai: 2,067	+11
v.15 sons of Adin: 454	v.20 sons of Adin: 655	+201
v.17 sons of Bezai: 323	v.23 sons of Bezai: 324	+1
v.28 men of Bethel and Ai: 223	v.32 men of Bethel and Ai: 123	-100
v.33 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 725	v.37 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 721	-4
v.35 sons of Senaah: 3,630	v.38 sons of Senaah: 3,930	+300
v.41 sons of Asaph: 128	v.44 sons of Asaph: 148	+20
v.42 gatekeepers’ sons: 139	v.45 gatekeepers’ sons: 138	-1
v.60 miscellaneous: 652	v.62 miscellaneous: 642	-10
v.65 singers: 200	v.67 singers: 245	+45

            

Ezra’s itemized list of 29,818 people is short of the grand total by 12,542. Nehemiah’s itemized list of 31,089 is short of the grand total by 11,271. Moreover, each includes individuals not mentioned in the other account. Ezra references 494 persons not found in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah has 1,765 persons missing from Ezra. Adding Nehemiah’s additional names to Ezra’s equals 31,583, which is the same amount when adding Ezra’s additional names to Nehemiah’s. However, the combined numbers are still 10,777 short of the total 42,360 as affirmed in each account (Ezra 2:64; Neh. 7:66). 

Qualifying Variables

·      Each listing is representative, and neither claims to be exhaustive.

·      Ezra’s list seems to have been compiled in Babylon before departure (cf. Ezra 2:1),² while Nehemiah’s much larger list (accessed approx. 13 years later) focuses on those who actually arrived in Jerusalem (cf. Neh. 7:5). Births, deaths, and other circumstances would surely have altered these figures. 

·      The entire congregation consisted of men, women, and children, whereas only the “men” are specifically numbered (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). The conventional counting of males 20 years of age and above,³ along with the considerable time involved in preparing, relocating, and settling the multitude, must allow for the maturation of boys to men during the process.

·      Since the primary focus of both Ezra and Nehemiah is Jerusalem in the land of Judah (Ezra 1:2-3; 2:1; 4:6; 5:1; Neh. 1:2; 2:5; 7:6), they document families of the tribes of “Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; Neh. 11:4, 36), along with prominent Levites (Ezra 2:40, 70; 6:18; Neh. 7:43). The whole congregation of Israel then included other tribes (numbering 10,777 persons) located in other cities (Ezra 2:70; 3:1; 6:16-17, 21; Neh. 7:73).

Contextual Perspective 

While there will always be critics attempting to microscopically find fault, any questions or concerns that might be raised regarding the divine inspiration and integrity of the biblical record are unfounded. The primary aim of Ezra-Nehemiah is clearly theological, albeit within a real historical context, providing a spiritual foundation for future generations of God’s restored people. 

Narrative details that might capture our interest, whether historical, chronological, statistical, et al., are merely secondary to this higher purpose and not designed to satisfy our superficial curiosities. Mathematical precision was obviously not the purpose of the respective reports, although the meticulous numbering does reflect the enormity of the task and demonstrates the careful attention to organization. 

All things considered, the similarities between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are much more remarkable than the variations. While itemized differences reflect independent reporting, the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah both end up with the same exact number of repatriated Israelites surely confirms divine consistency.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Thanks to Joseph R. Nally, Jr., “Q&A Knowledgebase,” Thirdmill (retrieved 24 Sept. 2021), <Link>.

     ² The masculine plural participle הָֽעֹלִים֙ [hā·‘ō·lîm] in Ezra 2:1 is more literally rendered “went up out of” (ASV) rather than “came up out of” (NASB).

     ³ Ezra 3:8; cf. Ex. 30:14; 38:26; Num. 1:3, 18-45; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 32:11; 1 Chron. 23:24, 27; 27:23; 2 Chron. 25:5; 31:17. 

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC 

Related articles: Neal Pollard, The Restorers

 

Image credit: https://www.masterfile.com/search/en/confusing+math+equation+on+blackboard

Luke’s Prologues and the Making of the NT Gospels

Although each Gospel is unique, all of them share a common historical-sociocultural-literary environment and were likely produced in a similar manner. The combined prefaces of Luke’s Gospel and its sequel provide insights into how the process worked and how these documents came to be.  

Inasmuch as many attempted to compose a narration concerning matters having been accomplished among us,¹ as the eyewitnesses and attendants of the word from the beginning delivered to us, it seemed to me also, having investigated accurately all [things] in order from the first, to write to you most excellent Theophilus, so that you might fully know the certainty of [the] words concerning which you were [orally] instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)²

 

The first narration I composed concerning all [things], O Theophilus, which Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day he was taken up, having ordered through [the] Holy Spirit the apostles he chose, to whom he also presented himself alive after his suffering with many proofs through forty days having been seen by them, and speaking the [things] concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3) 

In line with the prologues of contemporary Greek historians,³ “Luke inherited the high traditions of Greek historical writing,” and with the amount of verifiable data he includes,⁴ “he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy.”⁵ How counterproductive it would have been to leave himself susceptible to legitimate accusations of falsifying his record.⁶ Long before he penned the “we” sections of Acts, Luke opened his two-volume work on a personal note by including himself with first person address in respect to “matters having been accomplished among us … delivered to us … It seemed to me also …. The first narration I composed …” Luke holds himself accountable for what he writes. His purpose was to validate the information and record it “accurately” (Luke 1:3),⁷confirmed by “many proofs” (Acts 1:3).⁸ As a reputable historian he did not invent the stories he recounts but simply conveyed the facts from the evidence he uncovered.

The allusion to “many”⁹ who had “attempted to compose a narration” evinces written accounts.¹⁰ These previous writings were not necessarily inaccurate, just incomplete.¹¹ They were based on eyewitness testimony and “the word” that had been communicated, a clear reference to divine truth.¹²

The single article (οἱ) preceding “eyewitnesses” and “attendants of the word” seems to describe the same persons rather than distinct groups.¹³ In its only other occurrence in Luke’s Gospel, the noun ὑπηρέτης is used for a synagogue attendant who handled the sacred scrolls (Luke 4:20).¹⁴ In the prologue Luke applies it to servants or ministers or attendants of “the word” who were also eyewitnesses. Kenneth E. Bailey argues that not just anyone would have been authorized to publicly transmit the oral traditions about Jesus and his teachings. One had to be an eyewitness to qualify as ὑπηρέτης τοῦ λόγου. “Thus, at least through to the end of the first century, the authenticity of that tradition was assured to the community through specially designated authoritative witnesses.”¹⁵

Corroborated written accounts in conjunction with the oral testimonies of eyewitnesses, shared with Luke, Theophilus,¹⁶ and others, formed the basis of Luke’s composition, “having investigated accurately all [things] in order from the first …” The verbal παρακολουθέω, occurring only three times in the NT,¹⁷ conveys the literal sense of following closely (ESV) and the metaphoric sense of investigating (NASB). It involves a concerted effort to give attention to or thoroughly examine. Luke had “brought himself abreast of” the events about which he writes “by careful investigation.”¹⁸ The adverb καθεξῆς (“in order”), used only by Luke in the NT,¹⁹ can refer to logical, rhetorical, spatial, or chronological order (BDAG 490). A rhetorical ordering appears to be the sense here, according to how Luke arranges his material for persuasive effect.²⁰

The material collected and preserved was not ancient history but embodied the recent past, within the lifetime of his contemporaries.²¹ His research was comprehensive, having investigated “all,” not leaving a stone unturned. In his second volume, where he combined the history of the church with Jesus as one continuous story, he even recounted a number of things he personally witnessed and experienced himself (Acts 16:8-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16).²²

Luke’s own explanation of the process can be explicated even more, abuses notwithstanding, by academic disciplines such as Form Criticism (giving attention to oral reporting), Source Criticism (giving attention to written reporting), and Redaction Criticism (giving attention to the collection and arrangement of materials). Canon Criticism²³ takes this a step further in highlighting the fact that the Gospels were recognized in the early church as having been produced under the supervision of God’s Spirit and preserved through critical thinking and reasonable faith.²⁴

The Role of Divine Inspiration

Contrary to the mechanical-dictation concept of divine inspiration, which is not supported by biblical evidence and is clearly countered by the not-so-subtle variations among the Synoptics, Luke’s preface provides a clearer description of the process. Fairly early in the history of the church, the Gospel of Luke was regarded as “scripture” [γραφή] (1 Tim. 5:18)²⁵ and therefore implicitly included in “all God-breathed [θεόπνευστος] scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16).²⁶ 

Luke did not receive through divine revelation the information recounted in Acts 16:11-17, for example, because he personally witnessed and experienced these events. Nevertheless, divine inspiration [θεόπνευστος] ensured that he recalled and reported these things correctly. The function of revelation was to provide the means through which God imparted facts and truths previously unknown, while inspiration was the means through which God ensured facts and truths were inerrantly conveyed. The preface of Luke’s Gospel shows that divine inspiration operated in conjunction with human processes.²⁷

The human element in scripture is evident in features such as first-person terminology, epistolary conventions (greetings, requests, etc.), varied linguistic styles and verbal expressions, and rhetorical techniques.²⁸ According to the collective testimony of the biblical documents themselves, the will of God has been disclosed through his Son and through human penmen, each of whom utilized his own background, resources, language, personality, and writing style, while supernatural governance ensured no mistakes were made in the process and that the recorded message was according to what God wanted communicated.²⁹ If all scripture is divinely inspired, then all scripture is necessarily infallible and inerrant.³⁰

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “The perfect passive of πληροφορέω leaves the reader asking an important question: what has been accomplished and by whom? Essentially, Luke’s Gospel sets out to answer that question by telling of God’s action and God’s self-revelation as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” (J. Jackson, “The God Who Acts,” JETS 64.1 [2021]: 96).

     ² Author’s own translation, corresponding as closely as possible to the actual wording of the text as intelligible English translation allows. 

     ³ B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction (4th ed.) 124-126; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 33-34; B. Witherington III, Acts of the Apostles 24-39.

     ⁴ Note, for example, Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-3; Acts 11:28; 18:2, 12; 24:27; cf. also Luke 23:1, 12; Acts 4:6; 5:34-37; 12:20-23; 13:7; 23:2; 24:1; 25:13. In Luke 3:1-2 alone, seven political figures and their territories are documented. In Acts there are references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands, plus the names of ninety-five people, sixty-two of whom are not named anywhere else in the NT (B. M. Metzger, The NT: Its Background, Growth, Content 171). “Luke points to evidence outside the Bible for believing what is inside the Bible” (T. Anyabwile, Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Luke 8, emp. in the text).

     ⁵ F. F. Bruce, NT Documents 81, 82, cf. also 93. On the alleged historical blunder of Luke 2:1-5, see K. L. Moore, “Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (16 Oct. 2019), <Link>; and “Part 2” (23 Oct. 2019), <Link>. 

     ⁶ C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the NT 27-28.

     ⁷ The adverb ἀκριβῶς means “precisely,” “exactly,” “accurately,” “thoroughly” (Acts 18:25, 26; 23:15, 20; 24:22).

     ⁸ The noun τεκμηρίοις, used only here in the NT, is a technical term from logic, referring to that which causes something “to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof” (BDAG 994, italics in original).

     ⁹ The plural adj. πολλοί (“many”) does not necessarily imply profuseness but functions rhetorically to emphasize the importance of Luke’s work (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 2; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:291; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 37-38).

     ¹⁰ “The earliest Christians did not write a narrative of Jesus’ life, but rather made use of, and thus preserved, individual units—short passages about his words and deeds” (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus 57).

     ¹¹ The verbal ἐπιχειρέω “does not imply the failure of previous attempts …. It is best, then, not to read any disparagement into Luke’s language, but rather to see it perhaps as a reference to the difficulty of the task” (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 2). See also J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 37. “Though ‘many’ have tried to write a narrative, only four have been recognized as Scripture” (T. M. Anyabwile, Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Luke 10).

     ¹² Luke 4:32; 5:1; 6:47; 8:11-15, 21; 9:26; 10:39; 11:28; 21:33; 24:44; Acts 2:41; 4:4, 29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 8:4, 14, 25; 10:36, 44; 11:1, 19; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 26, 44, 46, 48-49; 14:3, 25; 15:7, 35-36; 16:6, 32; 17:11, 13; 18:5, 11; 19:10, 20; 20:7, 32.

     ¹³ J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:294. “Semantically, the two nouns portray this group as those who had firsthand knowledge of the events (αὐτόπται) and passed that knowledge on to others (ὑπηρέται … τοῦ λόγου)” (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 3).

     ¹⁴ Elsewhere ὑπηρέτης is also applied to Christ’s immediate disciples (John 18:36), to John Mark (Acts 13:5), and to Paul along with the term “witness” [μάρτυς] (Acts 26:16). 

     ¹⁵ “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20.2 (Jan. 1995): 10.

     ¹⁶ The verbal κατηχέω in Luke 1:4 refers to oral reporting or instruction (Acts 18:25; 21:21, 24; Rom. 2:18; 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6).

     ¹⁷ Luke 1:3; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10.

     ¹⁸ A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke ICC 4.

     ¹⁹ Luke 1:3; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:4; 18:23.

     ²⁰ J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:298-99; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 38, 43-44.

     ²¹ A distinction can be made between “oral tradition,” which is usually anonymous and spans an extended period of time, and “oral history,” which includes eyewitnesses and is more current (see R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony 15-34, 202-204).

     ²² Luke shares much in common with the Greek historian, who often traveled to the places he writes about, observed the events he records, and presents a neutral account of the acts and persons he describes (see B. Witherington III, Acts of the Apostles 25-36). Colin Hemer, in his The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, views Luke’s writings according to the various methods of ancient historiography and identifies Luke as a traveling investigator in the same category as Polybius (cf. B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction [4th ed.] 124-26). Representative of other historical works of the time, “Editing can include clarification or unpacking that does justice to what actually happened. All Luke’s material can be thought of as redactional …. Something can be both redactional and historical” (C. L. Blomberg, “I. H. Marshall’s View of Redaction and History in Luke-Acts,” ETS 73rd Annual Meeting, 17 Nov. 2021).

     ²³ See esp. M. J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the NT Books (2012); cf. also C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 107-109. 

     ²⁴ “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as that the canon selected itself…. The church’s role is not to establish what books constitute Scripture. Rather, the scriptural books make their own way by widespread usage and authority, and the church’s role is to recognize that only certain books command the church’s allegiance and obedience, and not others – and this has the effect of constituting a canon, a closed list of authoritative Scripture” (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 735-41).

     ²⁵ The quotation is from Luke 10:7, though liberal critics might deny Luke as the source or dismiss the evidence by claiming the Timothy letters are pseudonymous. The early church would disagree: “the external attestation for the [Pastoral] Epistles … is as strong as that for most of the other Epistles of Paul, with the exception of I Corinthians and Romans” (D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 585-86).

     ²⁶ Variously rendered “inspiration of/inspired by God” (NASB, N/KJV, N/RSV), “breathed out by God” (ESV), “God-breathed” (NIV). As applied to the biblical writings, the term “does not imply a particular mode of inspiration, such as some form of divine dictation. Nor does it imply the suspension of the normal cognative (sic) faculties of the human authors,” although it would be “an error to omit the divine element from the term implied by theopneustos” (N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, General Introduction 33-34).

     ²⁷ The relation between divine and human collaboration probably varied among different genres, with the “scribal mode” of Luke involving “a complex contributory process” that included “the critical study and use of many sources” (L. I. Hodges, “Evangelical Definitions of Inspiration,” JETS 37.1 [March 1994]: 103-104).

     ²⁸ P. J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority 20-21.

     ²⁹ J. I. Packer observes that God was “always adapting His message to the capacities of His chosen messengers that it never overran their powers of transmission, but within the limits set by their own mind, outlook, culture, language, and literary ability, could always find adequate and exact expression!” (God Has Spoken 100). 

     ³⁰ The English word “scripture,” corresponding to the Greek γραφή in the NT, is a transliteration of the Latin scriptura with reference to “a writing” or “something written.” The above statement pertains to the divine message that has been transmitted and preserved in written form, irrespective of the plethoric, albeit insignificant, variants occurring throughout the extensive copying process (the concerted focus of textual criticism) that do not effectively change the message itself. Inerrancy means the Bible does not affirm or endorse error, whereas infallibility means the Bible, although transmitted by fallible human beings, is itself (in its original form) incapable of erring.

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

 

Image credit: St. Luke by G. Reni, <https://dwightlongenecker.com/dating-st-luke-2/>