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/>

The Literary World of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Part 2 of 2)

Authorial Distinctiveness 

Historically, at least as far back as Taitian’s Diatessaron in the second century,¹ the Gospels have been studied together as a collective whole, harmonizing the parallel accounts to construct an amalgamated composite of Jesus’ life. In so doing, however, the differences among the accounts are often overlooked or trivialized, and the unique focus of each Gospel writer ignored.

In the modern era, conservative scholars have been preoccupied with fitting all of the details of the four Gospels together into a harmony of the life of Christ. Liberal scholars have been just as preoccupied with stressing the theological distinctives of each Gospel. Each of these approaches, when employed to the exclusion of the other, leads to a distorted understanding of the texts. Theology without harmonization discovers only distinctions and alleged contradictions without seeing how much the Gospels have in common and how they can be combined into a harmonious whole. Harmonization without appreciation for the theological distinctives of the Gospels trades the inspired form of the text for a humanly created one.²

Words on a page detached from the inspired author are void of any real authority or communicative value.³ The written text is derived from a real person, guided by God’s Spirit, who seeks to communicate. Each Gospel offers a unique perspective, showing deliberate interest in certain aspects of what Jesus said and did, retelling the story in ways relevant to and meaningful for a particular reading audience.⁴ While “authorial intent” (what an author hopes or wishes to communicate) may be a debatable concept, “communicative intent” (what an author communicates intentionally in a text) is more readily discernable,⁵ though not without careful attention to contextual matters of authorship, audience, historical-sociocultural setting, circumstances, literary conventions, etc. 

Authorial Selectivity

The Gospel writers were not creators of the material they transmitted. Nor were they mere compilers. They were authors, albeit “authors in the sense that, with the Spirit’s help, they creatively structured and rewrote the material to meet the needs of their readers.”⁶ Brevity, omission, abridgment, emphasis, and focused precision are among the plethoric narrative options for any given author. The Gospels are “selective documents” in that they provide less information than was available (note John 20:30-31; 21:25), leading interpreters to ponder why each contains the accounts it contains and why the accounts are arranged as they are.⁷ Matthew, for example, tends to use quantity of elements to teach about Jesus, conveying the stories with brevity, while the other Gospels tend to highlight details. When Matthew reports the Lord healing many people inflicted with a variety of ailments (Matt. 15:30-31), Mark focuses on just one of them (Mark 7:31-32). 

Independent Witnesses 

Without compromising their collective integrity, the noticeable differences among the Gospels confirm each one as an independent witness.⁸ Rather than contradict, they confirm, supplement, and complement one another.⁹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Also evident in the writings of Tatian’s teacher and mentor Justin Martyr. See K. L. Moore, “Challenging the Integrity of the Gospels: a Response (Part 2),” Moore Perspective (14 Sept. 2022), <Link>. 

     ² C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 205. Robin Griffith-Jones describes the tendency to combine all the different accounts into one as an attempt “to dish up a single, digestible Jesus—and so would lose the flavor of these four wonderful courses. The gospels offer us a far more inviting, exciting, and nourishing meal than any such reduction can encourage us to look for” (The Four Witnesses ix). Steve Walton encourages conservatives not to throw the Synoptics into a blender for harmonization. Biblically-grounded theology is not dependent on all the Gospels saying exactly the same thing. There are many witnesses but just one Gospel (“I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian and Theologian 50 Years Later,” ETS 73rd Annual Meeting, 17 Nov. 2021).

     ³ Even the “anonymous” epistle to the Hebrews reflects the author’s familiarity with his readers (5:12; 6:9-10; 10:34; 13:7, 18-25) and an obvious link with them (13:18, 19, 23).

     ⁴ All four Gospels follow a rough general outline of Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection, with a fairly detailed and consistent passion narrative but a “largely discontinuous and episodic” ministry narrative (C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel 447-48). 

     ⁵ See esp. J. K. Brown, Scripture as Communication (2nd ed.) 5, 12, 23. It is important to note, however, that if an author is writing to a community with whom he has spent considerable time verbally instructing (e.g., Paul and the Corinth church), he can readily assume a high level of familiarity with his intentions.

     ⁶ G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (4th ed.) 146.

     ⁷ D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in ESV Expository Commentary 8:28.

     ⁸ See K. L. Moore, “The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (3 June 2012), <Link>.

     ⁹ John Chrysostom observed: “And why can it have been, that when there were so many disciples, two write only from among the apostles, and two from among their followers? (For one that was a disciple of Paul, and another of Peter, together with Matthew and John, wrote the Gospels.) It was because they did nothing for vainglory, but all things for use. ‘What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?’ One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth” (Homily 1.5).

Related Posts: Literary World of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John Part 1, Luke's Prologues and Making the Gospels

 

Image Credit: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/gods-thoughts/

 

The Literary World of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Part 1 of 2)

Authors can reasonably assume their readers share their world and apprehend what they mean. Since the Gospels present the life of Jesus in the historical, sociopolitical, cultural environment in which he lived, to truly understand Jesus (what he said, how he taught, what he did), we need to understand his world. But as we learn about Jesus through the communicative efforts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we also need to appreciate their circumstances and that of the reading audiences for whom they wrote. These authors intended to be understood, not by twenty-first-century westerners but within their own literary-cultural environment shared with those with whom they interacted.¹

Invariably “shared histories, assumptions, and experiences shape how these authors’ words and phrases might be heard…. We need more than the words on the page. We need to be oriented to the background assumed by people in the NT era. We need context.”² A high view of scripture and its self-claims of divine inspiration does not ignore the fact that the Gospel message is presented “in specific, historical situations,” and “the way we listen to God (our interpretive approach) must honor the way God chose to communicate.”³

Historically Relevant Historiography 

Historians, interested in real people and actual events, are naturally limited to the amount of information they can realistically put into writing. It is necessary, therefore, to be discerning and to restrict reporting to what is deemed most significant. None of the Gospels professes to be exhaustive. The aim of the ancient historian was to depict historical accounts so that readers could learn political, moral, or religious principles.⁴ Otherwise, what would be the point? “Ancient writers were more highly selective, ideological, and artistic in narrating the great events of their day or the lives of key individuals. They arranged material thematically as well as chronologically.”⁵

In the ancient near eastern and Greco-Roman worlds, literature was designed to be read aloud, with oral and aural features and rhetorical clues mostly foreign to other cultures with much higher literacy rates.⁶ The historian’s methodology (familiar to his contemporary audiences) was not entirely the same as that of modern times and westernized societies. While completeness and accuracy were important, he was not preoccupied with linear thinking and was less concerned about chronological arrangement and precision of dating. Long before the present-day copyright mentality, the meticulous documenting of sources was not necessary. In ancient oral cultures an author could reasonably assume his readers or listeners were familiar with and could easily recognize quoted materials and allusions.⁷ “It would be sheer anachronism and a monstrous injustice to evaluate Matthew, Mark, and Luke [and John] by twenty-first-century standards of precision, some of which they probably never even could have imagined! Theirs was a world without any symbol for a quotation mark or any felt need for one.”⁸

More Than Historians and Biographers

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were historians in the sense they have provided accurate and relevant historical information. But they were more than historians. They were also biographers in the sense of having provided a biographical record of the life of Jesus. But they were more than biographers. First and foremost they were theologians and evangelists. All four, according to the biblical record, were actively involved in the evangelistic enterprise.⁹

Each Gospel seems to have a special theological emphasis, i.e., Jesus portrayed as Messiah in Matthew, Savior in Luke, Suffering Servant in Mark, and the Son of God in John. Each appears to have been arranged so that readers might learn about Jesus, his teachings, and his works in order to be transformed by what they encounter. Merely gleaning factual information without attention to the kerygmatic function of these writings misses their primary purpose. Trying to identify a specific genre according to the historical-literary approach is otherwise futile,¹⁰ as “we will inevitably miss some of the important points being made by the author or text.”¹¹ Perhaps “theological biographies” most adequately describes the unique genre of the canonical Gospels,¹² while “narrative Christology” is an apt description as well.¹³

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “If reader and writer share the same social system, communication is highly probable. But if reader and writer come from mutually alien social systems, then as a rule, non-understanding prevails … Should a translation of the wording (words and sentences) be offered, apart from a comparative explanation of the social systems involved, misunderstanding inevitably follows” (B. J. Malina, The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels 8; see also J. K. Brown, Scripture as Communication 24-27).

     ² J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald, The World of the New Testament 1-2.

     ³ J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word (3rd ed.) 116-117.

     ⁴ See R. Nocolai, “The Place of History in the Ancient World,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. J. Marincola 1-14; also I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian 21-22.

     ⁵ C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 121; also The Historical Reliability of the NT 25.

     ⁶ On the oral and aural features of Mark’s Gospel, as a composition designed to be read aloud, see C. Bryan, A Preface to Mark 67-162; cf. also M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark 52; M. A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel 72, 82. It has been estimated that in the world of the Roman Empire, particularly among non-Jews, only about 10 and at most 20 per cent of the entire population could read, and in the western part of the Empire no higher than 5 to 10 per cent (W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy 130-45).

     ⁷ “Usually the writer was expecting the hearers to recognize the material and therefore did not call attention to it…. New Testament writers often quoted hymnic fragments, standardized arguments (topoi), [the OT] and early kerygma, often without identifying it” (E. R. Richards, “Reading, Writing, and Manuscripts,” in The World of the NT [eds. J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald] 357). “In the first-century Jewish context it does not seem to have made much difference whether a passage of Scripture is explicitly quoted or alluded to” (D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson 251).

     ⁸ C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the NT 25; also Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 128.

     ⁹ Matt. 10:1-8; 28:18-20; Acts 13:5; 15:39; 16:10-16; 1 Cor. 15:11; Col. 4:10-14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. 

     ¹⁰ Proposed classifications have included history, technical treatise, ancient memorabilia, aretalogy (narrative of miraculous deeds), peripatetic biography, Greco-Roman popular biography, aretalogical biography, laudatory biography, tragic drama, and a unique literary (gospel) form. See J. E. Toews, “The Synoptic Problem and the Genre Question,” Direction10.2 (April 1981): 11-18.

     ¹¹ J. G. Crossley, Reading the New Testament 24.

     ¹² C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 122.

     ¹³ M. E. Boring, Mark: a Commentary NTL 8.

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

 

Image credit: https://patternsofevidence.com/2020/05/29/investigating-the-original-languages-of-the-bible/

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