Part 4 (1/2)
Anonymous and Pseudonymous Authors.
Based on the dating difficulties and other problems, many scholars and researchers over the centuries have become convinced that the gospels were not written by the people to whom they are ascribed. As can be concluded from the remarks of fundamentalist Christian and biblical scholar Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, the gospels are in fact anonymous.1 Indeed, the belief in the authors.h.i.+p of the gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is a matter of faith, as such an opinion is not merited in light of detailed textual and historical a.n.a.lysis. In reality, it was a fairly common practice in ancient times to attribute falsely to one person a book or letter written by another or others, and this pseudepigraphical attribution of authors.h.i.+p was especially rampant with religious texts, occurring with several Old Testament figures and early Church fathers, for example, as well as with known forgeries in the name of characters from the New Testament such as the Gospel of Peter, et al.
In actuality, there were gospels composed in the name of every apostle, including Thomas, Bartholomew and Phillip, but these texts are considered ”spurious” and unauthorized. Although it would be logical for all those directly involved with Jesus to have recorded their own memoirs, is it not odd that there are so many bogus ma.n.u.scripts? What does it all mean? If Peter didn't write the Gospel of Peter, then who did? And why? Is not the practice of pseudepigraphy-the false attribution of a work by one author to another-an admission that there were many people within Christianity engaging in forgery? If these apostles themselves had gospels forged in their names, how can we be certain that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not likewise have gospels falsified in their names? And even if they did not, but so much of these texts has been changed, how do we know what really happened or even if anything did occur?
According to Whom?
What we do know for a fact-admitted even by the Catholic Encyclopedia-is that the t.i.tles attached to the gospels, ”The Gospel According to Matthew,” etc., are not original to the texts but were added later. Indeed, the term ”according to” in the original Greek-kata-could be interpreted to suggest that the texts were understood to be relating a tradition of these individuals, rather than having been written by them. In reality, none of the evangelists identifies himself as a character in the gospel story. As one glaring example of this detachment, it is claimed that Matthew was recording events he himself had witnessed, but the gospel attributed to him begins before he had been called by Jesus and speaks of Matthew in the third person. If Matthew wrote his gospel, why does he describe his meeting with Jesus in this manner: ”As Jesus pa.s.sed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office?” (Mt 9:9) Why does the gospel writer speak of himself in the third person and never even state that he was there or that he had witnessed anything?
A similar sentiment may be expressed regarding the author of the gospel of John: If the author is really John, and John is the disciple ”whom Jesus loved,” why would he write about himself in the third person, as at John 20:2? Regarding John, in The Pre-Nicene New Testament, biblical scholar Dr. Robert Price concludes, ”As for the vexing question of gospel authors.h.i.+p, we may immediately dismiss the claim that it was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus.”1 This subject of attribution is extremely important, because, as Tenney a.s.serts, ”if it could be shown that any of the books of the New Testament was falsely attributed to the person whose name it bears, its place in the canon would be endangered.”2
”Back in the Day...”
Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament that imply the books were written long after the purported events, such as when the text reads, ”In the days of John the Baptist,” which indicates that the writer is set far ahead in time and is looking back. As another example, regarding Jesus's body being stolen, Matthew's gospel claims that ”this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.” The phrase ”to this day” indicates that the writer is talking about a significant length of time, not shortly after the resurrection as some have attempted to place the composition and emergence of this gospel. In fact, we do not have any mention in the historical record of the story of Christ's body being stolen having been spread among the Jews until the second century. It is possible that this particular verse was not added until that time, which means that it is not original to the gospel and that Matthew certainly is not its author. Also, Luke's gospel discusses an apparent myriad of preceding gospels written ”by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses...” The phrase ”from the beginning” likewise implies a pa.s.sage of time, as does the fact that there were ”many” who preceded Luke in writing gospels.
The Lukan Prologue.
For a closer look at the pertinent Lukan verses regarding the possible dates of the canonical gospels, I provide here my own translation of Luke 1:1-4 from Stephens's Greek ”Textus Receptus,” used also by the translators of the King James Bible. In making this very literal translation of the Textus Receptus, I also consulted over 20 English editions, as well as the Latin Vulgate: Seeing that many had put their hand to set in order (anata.s.somai) a narrative (diegesis) about those things fulfilled (pleroph.o.r.eo) among us, as they delivered them to us-they (hoi) who from the beginning (arche) became eyewitnesses and servants/preachers of the Word-it seemed to me also, having closely traced (parakoloutheo) from the beginning (anothen) all of the things exactly (akribos) in order (kathexes), to write to you, most excellent Theophilus....
The term pleroph.o.r.eo, as referring to ”those things,” i.e., the events of Jesus's advent, comes from the root pleroo, which means ”to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise,” as in bringing to pa.s.s prophecies. Hence, Luke is evidently supposing that the events of the narrative const.i.tute the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. It seems, then, that the narrative has been derived in order to ”fulfill” this all-important occurrence of the messiah's advent, so highly and pa.s.sionately antic.i.p.ated. In other words, the Old Testament ”prophecies” have been used as a blueprint to compose the gospel tale.
In a display of how translators can muddle original meaning, some translations render the term hoi-”they”-as referring to the preceding ”us,” implying that Luke himself was among those who ”from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers.” In fact the masculine plural article hoi is in the nominative and must refer to the ”they” who delivered ”those things,” meaning Luke was not among the eyewitnesses and ministers from the beginning. The translation of hoi that makes Luke appear to be among the eyewitnesses is not only erroneous but also illogical: Why would ”they” deliver to ”us” the narrative, if ”we” ourselves were eyewitnesses? Going against this erroneous tendency, the Darby, HNIV and AMP editions do indeed a.s.sociate the article hoi with ”they” rather than ”us.”
Although it also means ”from above,” many if not most translations in English of the term anothen render it as ”from the first,” ”from the very first” ”from the beginning,” ”some time past” or ”from the origin,” etc. The point here is that Luke-set apart in time from the events-is researching the story clear back to its beginning, not that Luke was there, following the story from its beginning, as it was happening.
As can be seen, Luke's gospel itself indicates a pa.s.sage of time, during which many people had attempted to write the narrative of the purported eyewitnesses ”from the beginning,” again signifying significant time had elapsed.
Irenaeus, ”Father of the Catholic Canon.”
In addition to the issues already discussed in support of the later dates is the important fact that the four canonical gospels were not mentioned or named as such by anyone until the time of Church father Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 120/140-c. 200/203 ad/ce). In Against All Heresies (III, 11.8), written around 180 ad/ce, Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament: It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four princ.i.p.al winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the ”pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.
These remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.
Church Father and Bishop Papias.
Christian apologetics for the early gospel dates rely on the slimmest of evidence, including a very late third-hand testimony of a late second-hand testimony that ”Mark” had written a narrative, supposedly based on the experiences of Peter as related by the apostle himself. In the fourth century, Church historian Eusebius quoted early Church father and bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 70?-c. 155? ad/ce) as referring to the ”presbyter John” and stating: This, too, the presbyter used to say. ”Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only-to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.”1 Regarding the bishop of Hierapolis, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, ”Of Papias's life nothing is known.”2 In other words, we do not even know who this person is whom Eusebius is allegedly quoting regarding these purported earlier texts. According to Eusebius-in disagreement with Irenaeus, who suggested Papias had known the apostle John-Papias had no direct acquaintance with any of the apostles: ...Papias himself in the preface to his work makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, and tells us that he learnt the essentials of the faith from their former pupils.3 The a.s.sumption that the ”presbyter John” with whom Papias apparently had a relations.h.i.+p was the same as the apostle John is evidently incorrect. Papias himself remarked that he received his knowledge second-hand, even about the apostle John, when he stated: And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, were still saying.1 These comments indicate that the bishop was not in direct communication with any of the immediate apostles or disciples of the Lord. Indeed, Papias is merely pa.s.sing along what he had heard from the disciples' ”former pupils.” What exactly is meant by ”former pupils?” Such a statement implies that these individuals were either no longer followers or were deceased. If these individuals Papias is relying on were not even Christ's followers at that time, why should we trust their statements? Many of Papias's remarks, according to Eusebius, involved miracles, such as the raising of the dead, which stretch the credulity. Are we supposed merely to take Papias's word on what else he was told by these ”former followers?” Moreover, even Eusebius does not think highly of Papias, remarking, ”For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books.”2 Regarding Papias's purported discussion of an original ”Gospel of Matthew,” a collection of Jesus's sayings in ”Hebrew” or, rather, Aramaic, Tenney comments: The testimony of Papias has been frequently rejected, since no trace of an Aramaic original has survived and the language of the Gospel bears no marks of being a Greek translation.3 Nevertheless, Papias's remarks about a book of sayings in Aramaic by Matthew may well refer to a text extant in his time, which may have been used by the evangelists.
Indeed, in some early Christian texts there appear sayings that seem to correspond to some found in the gospels, but these isolated logia could easily be from earlier source texts utilized by the evangelists as well. In ”The Use of the Logia of Matthew in the Gospel of Mark,” Charles A. Briggs remarks: The Logia of the apostle Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, according to the testimony of Papias, in the citation of Eusebius, was one of the most important sources of the Gospels. Certainly a considerable portion of the Sayings of Jesus given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke came from this source. It is still in dispute, however, whether the Logia of Matthew was used by the Gospels of Mark and John.1 Modern scholars have struck upon a sayings gospel called ”Q” for the German term Quelle, meaning ”source.” In New Testament Doc.u.ments, Christian scholar F.F. Bruce logically posits that Q is in fact based on the Matthaean logia, or sayings found in the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. Again, it would be reasonable to suggest that such a text or texts had been used by both the evangelists and early Christian writers; thus, the existence of sayings in early Christian texts that parallel those found in the canonical gospels does not prove the existence of the latter at the time the former were composed.
Despite all these factors, Papias is one of the only pieces of evidence Christian apologetics offers as to the dating of the gospels-yet, his testimony concerning these writings of Mark and Matthew is not only second-hand but also too late to possess any value as concerns the earliest of the gospels dates. Moreover, Papias only speaks about a narrative by Mark, which by no means conclusively refers to the canonical Mark as we have it. Nor, as we have seen, is the Aramaic gospel of Matthew the same as the canonical Matthew. Furthermore, from Papias's comments we can adduce that Mark was never a disciple who had ever heard or followed Christ, as has been erroneously a.s.serted by a number of apologists claiming that Mark may have been one of the 70 or 72 disciples mentioned in the gospel of Luke (10:1).
In addition, from Eusebius it appears that Papias-rumored to have some relations.h.i.+p with the apostle John-does not mention any gospel of John! From this fact and other reasons, it can be safely stated that the gospel of John did not exist at that time, i.e., the first quarter of the second century. Nor does Papias mention Luke or give any indication of a narrative gospel of Matthew.
Justin Martyr.
As proof of the existence of the gospels prior to the end of the second century, it is claimed that Church father Justin Martyr (c. 110-c. 165 ad/ce) included 268 ”quotations of the New Testament” in his writings, an extraordinary figure from a chart in Josh McDowell's book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.2 However, the various a.s.sertions regarding ”quotes” from biblical texts in early Christian writings rank as highly misleading. In the first place, there appears nothing prior to Justin Martyr (c. 150 ad/ce) that we can point to as real evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels, which is why Justin Martyr heads the chart in McDowell's book. In fact, virtually all of the numerous quotes purportedly from the New Testament listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia,1 for example, as found in earlier Christian writings const.i.tute sayings that may have been transmitted orally or in other source texts such as the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew or Q. Next, upon close inspection, the material from Justin Martyr-such as the ”Memoirs of the Apostles”-does not correspond well enough to that found in the canonical gospels and is likely from another common source text or texts. Indeed, renowned biblical scholar Tischendorf only managed to find two pertinent quotations in Justin Martyr's works that could possibly come from the gospel of Matthew, for example.2 Again, these miniscule pa.s.sages could very well come from a shared source text.
The Rylands Papyrus.
Aside from various sayings within the writings of the Church fathers that resemble those found in the gospels but may well come from common source texts, the only widely accepted evidence that places the emergence of any of the canonical gospels before the end of the second century is a small sc.r.a.p of papyrus called the ”Rylands fragment” or P52, which contains several dozen letters scattered across four verses of John's gospel (18:31-33). The dates for this tiny fragment-the provenance of which is unknown and the authenticity of which has been disputed-are by no means set in stone and have been posited from the ”wishful thinking” of 90 ad/ce all the way to the end of the second century. The presumed dating of P52 to the first half of the second century has been called ”sensational” and seems untenable. One significant argument against the early dating of P52 is that the fragment was part of a codex, or book, rather than a scroll, and there are few examples of such books in existence at such an early date. Moreover, in a fairly recent paleographical study published in the Archiv fur Papyrusforschung 35 (1989), German scholar Andreas Schmidt suggested a date for P52 of 170 ad/ce +/- 25 years. The fact is that paleography is a difficult and imprecise science, especially for as tiny a fragment as P52, which means that caution is warranted in making definitive declarations, particularly in regard to the earlier dates. As New Testament professor and Christian ma.n.u.script expert Dr. Larry Hurtado states: ...because paleographical dating can rarely be more precise than +/- 25 to 50 years, the proposed dating of many ma.n.u.scripts will lie across two centuries (e.g., second/third century ce).1 Combined with these factors, since the gospel of John does not appear in the literary record until the end of the second century, logic would suggest the later dating of P52 to be more accurate. The debate continues, but the value of P52 in providing evidence of a first century date for John's gospel seems to be nil.
The same may be said of the other early papyri fragments, P90 (Jn 18:36-40; 19:1-7), P98 (Rev 1:13-20) and P104 (Mt 21:34-37; 43, 45?), speculatively dated to the middle of the second century +/- 50 years. These fragments-two of which, P90 and P104, are from the ma.s.sive collection found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt-may well be from the end of the second century at the earliest, particularly since they are evidently in the uncial style of Greek writing, which apparently began to emerge at the end of the second century or into the third century. Early to mid-second century dates for other papyri such as P1, P66 or P77 are not accepted by mainstream scholars.h.i.+p and likely const.i.tute wishful thinking that a.s.sumes the gospel history, rather than seeking a scientific a.s.sessment.
Late Dating of the Gospels?