Part 4 (2/2)

It is not within the scope of this present work to examine thoroughly the alternative argument for a late dating of the gospels. This important scholars.h.i.+p is based princ.i.p.ally on a close examination of the most ancient Christian texts,2 as well as archaeological evidence-or lack thereof-and various anachronisms. The result is that there is good reason to include these late dates in our investigation, and doing so may yield some surprising results concerning the authors.h.i.+p of the gospels.

Engaging for a moment in ”outrageous speculation” to demonstrate how alternative dating of at least one of the gospels may provide solutions to outstanding problems, we will take as an example the gospel of Luke, particularly since it is a.s.serted that ”the key to dating the Gospels is the Book of Luke.”1 In dating Luke's gospel, which is addressed to ”most excellent Theophilus,” it should first be noted that nowhere does the author identify himself as the Luke who was a companion of Paul, mentioned in three Pauline epistles. In fact, other than the t.i.tle ”the Gospel according to Luke”-which is admitted by all authorities to be an addition and not original to the text-Luke's name does not show up in any gospel. Despite outward appearances, it is by no means certain that the author of Luke, who was neither an apostle nor a known disciple, was anywhere near in time to the events he is recording. When we factor in the Acts of the Apostles, which is widely regarded as having been written by the same person as the gospel of Luke and which likewise addresses ”Theophilus,” a whole new can of worms is opened, as there is also no record of that book having been written or existing before the end of the second century. Furthermore, other than the Jewish high priest Theophilus (37-41 ad/ce) briefly mentioned in Josephus (Ant., XVIII, 5, 3)-a highly unlikely candidate for Luke's pen-pal, particularly since Josephus certainly says nothing about what would const.i.tute a stunning conversion to Christianity-there is no appearance in the historical record of any other ”Theophilus” earlier than the bishop of Antioch (fl. c. 168-c. 181/188 ad/ce). Thus, the ident.i.ty of Luke's Theophilus has never been explained adequately in terms of the purported era of Christ's advent.

Some scholars and apologists have sought to explain this name ”Theophilus” as more of an epithet, meaning ”Lover of G.o.d”; hence, it has been suggested that Luke was addressing his text to ”G.o.d-lovers” in general. Among other reasons, the fact that Acts also begins with a greeting to this ”Theophilus” makes it more likely that it is a name of an individual, not simply a t.i.tle. In the original Greek, Luke calls Theophilus ”kratistos,” a term used biblically with the following meaning, per Strong's Biblical Concordance (G2903): 1) mightiest, strongest, n.o.blest, most ill.u.s.trious, best, most excellent a) used in addressing men of prominent rank or office In discussing the word ”Theophilus,” Strong's a.s.serts that it is a single individual to whom Luke is addressing his gospel and Acts. In addition, someone with the t.i.tle kratistos is likely not to be an obscure, lower-cla.s.s individual but, rather, a person of rank.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch.

Concerning Theophilus, Christian biblical commentator David Brown (1871) remarks, ”It is likely 'Theophilus' was chief magistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor.” Could not this ”chief magistrate” be a bishop, and this ”city in Asia Minor” be Antioch? Especially since it was a.s.serted by ancient authorities that Luke himself was from Antioch? And that the Christians were first so-called at Antioch? It is possible that Luke's Theophilus is indeed the bishop of Antioch, who was a ”Pagan”1 convert to Christianity, fitting in with Luke's a.s.sertions concerning Theophilus's instruction in Christian doctrine. In fact, Bishop Theophilus (c. 115-c. 181/188 ad/ce) was one of the early Christian apologists, composing an apology called Ad Autolychum (c. 176), in which the author describes himself as a convert from ”heathenism.”2 It is singularly noticeable that, despite his sincerity as a Christian convert, in this work Theophilus does not discuss any of the synoptic gospels, a fact which tends to validate the notion that the gospels were not in circulation at that point and that Luke may have been composing his gospel specifically to encourage the bishop in his apologetics.

In book II, chapter XXII of Ad Autolychum, Theophilus does bring up a ”spirit-bearing” man named John, giving some language that appears to be from the first chapter of the Gospel of John. However, we cannot be certain that this brief mention is not a later interpolation by a Christian scribe, and, even if we accept that this pa.s.sage genuinely came from Theophilus's hand, he does not state that John was an apostle or immediate disciple of Christ's. Moreover, in his apology Theophilus specifically says that he was converted to Christianity through reading the Jewish scriptures. If the gospels had been known at that time, why would Theophilus need to rely on the Jewish scriptures for his conversion from Paganism? In discussing his own conversion, would a proselyte to Christianity refer only to the ”sacred scriptures of the holy prophets,” as Theophilus does in chapter 14 of his apology? Could it be that these canonical gospels-the most valuable tool for proselytizing-were not yet in existence by that time?

In any event, with this reference in his apology and a purported text of commentaries on the gospels, Bishop Theophilus becomes the first Church father clearly to discuss the canonical gospels! Indeed, in the ”Introductory Note” to one authoritative translation of Ad Autolychum, Rev. Marcus Dods remarks of Theophilus: He was one of the earliest commentators upon the Gospels, if not the first; and he seems to have been the earliest Christian historian of the Church of the Old Testament.1 In this astounding admission, Rev. Dods is referring to one of Theophilus's lost works, apparently his commentary on the Gnostic-Christian ”heretic” Marcion (fl. c. 155-166 ad/ce), the originator of the New Testament. Dods also names Theophilus the ”founder of the science of Biblical Chronology among Christians.” Why, then, is this important Christian authority rarely discussed? Is it because, perhaps, Theophilus represents a ”smoking gun” when it comes to unraveling the era of the canonical gospels' composition? Moreover, Dods further acclaims Theophilus's ability in his apology to describe ”the Antioch of the early Christians,” which is fitting for the bishop of the place where Christ's followers were first called Christians. In fact, it may be surprising for many to discover that it was in the Syrian city of Antioch, rather than anywhere in Judea, that Christ's followers were first named ”Christians.” Does that fact make any sense, if Christ had a large following originating in Judea beginning decades earlier? Why would they not have been named there? Why Syria? It is evident Antioch played a significant role in the development of Christianity that is not widely addressed.

Who are the ”Many?”

The fact that Luke is superseding ”many” narratives also fits in with the idea that his gospel was composed at the end of the second century, as there were many gospels by that time.2 Trying to fit Luke into the middle or end of the first century, however, is an endeavor rife with problems, including that there certainly were not ”many” gospels in circulation or even in existence by that time. This suggestion also presents us with some clarity on the tradition beginning in the late second century that Luke's gospel supposedly had been corrupted by Marcion during the middle of the second century. In reality, it seems the author of Luke may have based his gospel on Marcion's ”Gospel of the Lord,” rather than vice versa. Furthermore, in determining which texts Luke may be referring to, a number of Church fathers, including Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, as well as other Christian authorities such as the Venerable Bede (8th cent.), evidently named books from authors of the second century such as the Gospels of the Egyptians and the Twelve Apostles, as well as the writings of the Gnostic-Christian heretic Cerinthus.1 In Origen's Homily on Luke 1.1, the original Latin edition reads: Ecclesia quator habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud iuxta duodecim apostolos. ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium et suo illud nomine t.i.tulare.

This pa.s.sage is translated as: The church has four gospels, heresy many, from among which a certain one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the twelve apostles. Even Basilides dared to write a gospel and to ent.i.tle it by his own name.2 The Greek edition of this quote does not contain the word ”twelve” in numbering the apostles. In his Homily on Luke 1.1, Origen argues that none of these ”many” could be the canonical gospels because the authors of these preceding efforts were ”trying” to write the gospel, whereas ”Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not 'try' to write...”3 Instead, in consideration of the fact that Origen is addressing his Homily specifically to Luke 1:1, in which the evangelist discusses the ”many,” it would appear that the Church father is counting among these ”many” the haeresis plurima-or, ”heresy many”-such as the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. Origen's aside about the Gospel of Basilides cannot be deemed for certain to mean that Luke used the Gnostic-Christian ”heretic's” work as well. The best evidence indicates a middle to late second-century date for the existence of these texts, with the earliest dates (c. 100-150 ad/ce) based on the a priori presumption that the received gospel and church history are factual.

In reality, the earliest mentions of the Gospel of the Egyptians appear to be in the writings of Church fathers at the end of the second century to the fourth century, such as Clement Alexandrinus, Origen, Hippolytus and Epiphanius. But, even the earliest of the dates for this gospel and that of the Twelve Apostles would place the composition of Luke at the end of the first century at the very earliest. Moreover, Basilides supposedly thrived during Hadrian's reign, which ended in 138 ad/ce. Any work of Basilides would date to no earlier than the first quarter of the second century.

Another Church father who mentions various writers in his discussion of Luke's ”many” is Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310-403 ad/ce), who in his Panarion names ”Cerinthus, Merinthus and others” in response to Luke 1:1 (in the original Greek): , , .1 Waite translates this pa.s.sage thus: ”Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,” by which he would intimate that there have been many undertakers of the like work. Among them, I suppose, were Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others.2 The dating of the Gnostic-Christian heretic Cerinthus to the beginning of the second century is likewise based on the circular reasoning which presupposes that the gospel and church history are true, particularly upon the claims by Irenaeus and Jerome that John's gospel was written against Cerinthus. If John was composed by the end of the first century, it is reasoned, then Cerinthus must have existed at that time as well. In any event, Cerinthus cannot be dated to any earlier than 100 ad/ce, and some have placed him in the middle of the second century,3 although he may have flourished prior to around 120. Hence, if Luke wrote his gospel after the time of Cerinthus, the emergence of Luke again needs to be pushed into the second century.

Following Epiphanius, in the ”Preface” to his Commentary on Matthew, St. Jerome (c. 340-2 to 420) made some extremely interesting statements in the same vein: The evangelist Luke declares that there were many who wrote gospels, when he says, ”forasmuch as many, etc...,” which being published by various authors, gave rise to several heresies. They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate.4 Theron's translation of these surprising remarks occurs as follows: Luke, the Evangelist, also testifies that there have been many who wrote Gospels, saying: ”For many, indeed...” and up to the present time they are declaring with perseverance the records which have been published by diverse authors as the beginning of diverse heresies: as, for instance, ”those” [Gospels] according to the Egyptians and [according to] Thomas and Matthias and Bartholomew, and also [that] of the twelve Apostles and of both Basilides and Apelles and of the rest, which to enumerate is too long...1 From these translations of the original Latin, it appears that Jerome is stating that the texts of the ”many” to whom Luke refers include the gospels of the Egyptians and the Twelve Apostles, as well as those of Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, Basilides and Apelles. With this evident validation, Jerome dropped a bombsh.e.l.l which might have shaken the foundations of the Church but which has apparently been ignored, with translations omitting this part of the saint's Preface, and the original Latin of which possibly difficult to track down outside of a major university. Whether or not Luke used these particular texts is immaterial, as what is important is that, in referring to these writers at all, Luke must have composed his gospel after these heretical books already existed. Like those of the Egyptians and Twelve Apostles, none of the gospels of Thomas, Matthias and Bartholomew can be placed earlier than the second century, although there are ”wishful-thinking” first-century arguments for Thomas, evidently the earliest of the three.

This interpretation of Jerome's remarks regarding the gospels of Basilides and Apelles as two of the persons to whom Luke refers was evidently upheld by the respected theologian Venerable Bede in his In Lucae Evangelium Expositio (734 ad/ce).2 Slightly later than Basilides, the Gnostic-Christian ”heretic” Apelles thrived in the middle of the second century and was said to be a disciple of Marcion who redacted the latter's Gospel of the Lord.3 Thus, if Luke's gospel postdated their texts, his own could date to no earlier than the second quarter to the middle of the second century. Moreover, the a.s.sociation of Apelles with Luke adds to the argument that Luke based his gospel largely on Marcion's Gospel, and not vice versa.

Luke's Use of Josephus?

Another longstanding argument for a later date for Luke's gospel is that the evangelist used the works of Jewish historian Josephus to pad out his history. Although Christian apologetics argues for the opposite influence, when the most scientific criteria are applied to the investigation, Josephus comes up first, with Luke following. These arguments are lengthy but include Luke's inclusion of the following episodes found in Josephus: * The census under Quirinius/Cyrenius * The three Jewish rebel leaders * The death of Herod Agrippa * Various aspects of Felix's life * The tetrarch Lysanias * The ”parable of the hated king”

* The famine during the reign of Claudius * Pilate's aggressions1 If we factor into this discussion the work released in 1995 by Dr. G.J. Goldberg, based on a search of the ma.s.sive Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database concerning the TF and Luke's ”Emmaus” pa.s.sage (24:19-21, 25-27), we are left with the distinct impression that Josephus and Luke are inextricably linked. Indeed, the TF/Emmaus comparison, done using a database of all extant Greek and Latin texts up to the year 600 ad/ce, strongly indicates that one borrowed from the other or both used a common source text. In consideration of the facts outlined here regarding the gospel dates, however, it becomes reasonable to state that Luke used Josephus, and not the other way around. Or, at least, Josephus's use of a common source or sources occurred decades before Luke's use of the same texts. Considering that the Luke/Josephus connection goes beyond just a couple of similarities, and that Josephus clearly did not have before him Luke's gospel, it would be further reasonable to suggest that it was Josephus's work used by the author of Luke, rather than a common source text, unless that too was based on Josephus, which makes the point rather moot. All in all, the scientific, ”forensic” evidence points to Luke using Josephus.

In this scenario of Luke using Josephus, the earliest time for the composition of Luke's gospel would be the last decade of the first century. However, as we have seen, there is reason to suspect that it was composed much later, nevertheless using possibly the best known history of that era, the works of Josephus.

There are thus several good and valid reasons to suspect that, despite current beliefs regarding its date, the gospel of Luke as we have it represents a late second-century creation.

John's Gospel.

As noted, despite familiarity with John, Papias does not identify any gospel of John. Nor, in reality, is there any clear evidence that Justin Martyr knew about the Johannine writings. Again, the first notice of John's gospel emerges around the time of Bishop Theophilus, who, while he does name a ”John” as the author of verses seemingly from the first chapter of the gospel of John, does not identify the author as a direct apostle or disciple of Christ.

Other mentions of John's gospel occur around the same time by Clement Alexandrinus (d. c. 215), as well as commentary by Tatian (fl. 160-185), and then a grandiose and strident apology by Irenaeus, from whose pen it has been suspected the gospel originally emanated, as a defense against the ”heretical” but powerful Gnostic sect of Docetism. In fact, the evidence points to the existence of Docetism, which denied Christ had come in the flesh, prior to the emergence of the Catholic Church, which did not formally come into being until this very period, under the impetus of Irenaeus. The argument for this a.s.sertion that Irenaeus himself auth.o.r.ed John includes the fact that the Church father was provoked pa.s.sionately to defend the gospel, which he does with a fervor that often accompanies a ”pet project.” Even if John were composed by another's hand, this abundance of defense suggests that the gospel had not been in existence for a long time, as has been claimed, but had only recently emerged in the literary and historical record, leading to the gospel immediately being attacked and dismissed.

In his defense, Irenaeus claims that John was written against the heretic Cerinthus, who was spreading the error of ”gnosis,” but it seems as if John was also written in order to combat the ”heresy” of Christ not coming in the flesh, which was called ”Docetism.” In fact, Irenaeus fairly foams at the mouth when going after these heretics who did not confess Christ had come in the flesh. In other words, Jesus's very incarnation was at stake, and Irenaeus's goal was to wipe out two Gnostic birds with one stone.

Gospel Anachronisms.

In addition to these profound reasons for a later dating of the canonical gospels as we have them, some of the variant readings and a.s.sorted other anachronisms within the gospels tend to confirm these late dates in terms of words used, writing style, and politics of the day as well. As examples of terms anachronistically used that indicate a late dating for at least parts of the gospels, a number of word usages supposedly articulated by Jesus were not ”in vogue” until after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 ad/ce. These terms used anachronistically in the gospels include: 1. ”Gehenna” (h.e.l.l) as a place of punishment; 2. ”synagogue” as concerns a place of prayer; 3. ”sanhedrin” as referring to the Jewish court; and 4. ”mammon” as meaning ”money.”1 In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, Jesus is represented as a.s.sailing prayer in public, as in the synagogues, when in reality synagogues were never used as houses of prayer until after the temple was destroyed. Hence, this part of the Sermon could not have been written until after that time, which means either that the gospel itself dates to then, or the pa.s.sage was a later interpolation and was certainly not spoken by Jesus. That the Sermon on the Mount represents a later patchwork is further evidenced by the fact that the Lord's Prayer, for example, appears nowhere in the rest of the early Christian writings, including the other canonical texts, as well as those of the Church fathers-an astounding omission in consideration of the fact that this prayer was supposedly ordained from on high by G.o.d/Jesus, during his advent. Indeed, it is possible to demonstrate that the Sermon as a whole was strung together using sayings from the Old Testament and the rabbinical tradition. As Jewish scholar Gerald Friedlander states in The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, ”Four-fifths of the Sermon on the Mount is exclusively Jewish.”1 Another noted Jewish scholar, Solomon Zeitlin, concurs with the a.s.sessment that the Sermon is an aggregation: ”Many of the sayings were not uttered by Jesus, but are the product of the time of the compilations,”2 after the destruction of the temple. After breaking down the Sermon into parts, and after showing Old Testament precedents for several of the Beat.i.tudes, Friedlander remarks, ”The Beat.i.tudes have undoubtedly a lofty tone, but let us not forget that all that they teach can be found in Isaiah and the Psalms.”3 In another chapter ent.i.tled, ”The Old Testament as the Source of the Lord's Prayer,” Friedlander goes into further detail demonstrating the Hebrew scriptural basis for that part of the Sermon as well. Friedlander further comments, ”Once again we can see how the Gospels have borrowed the entire framework of the Messianic conception from the Pharisaic Judaism, out of which Christianity grew.”4 The end of the Lord's Prayer at Matthew 6:13, called the ”Doxology,” is also lacking in the earliest ma.n.u.scripts, and appears to have been added from 1 Chronicles 29:11, as yet another piece of the patchwork of Old Testament scriptures that const.i.tute the Sermon on the Mount. As Friedlander states, ”Doxologies are by no means uncommon in Jewish literature.”5 Regarding the Lord's Prayer in general, Friedlander further remarks, ”The Lord's Prayer is...lacking in originality. There is not a single idea or expression which cannot be found in pre-Christian literature of Israel.”6 Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount we possess further indication of the use of the Old Testament as a blueprint for the creation of the New Testament, const.i.tuting one of more germane ”fingerprints of the Christ.”

Another similar anachronism in the gospels appears in the description of the ”disciples of the Pharisees,” as at Mark 2:18 and Luke 5:33. Since the Pharisees were technically not ”priests” per se but pious, unlearned laymen, it would be unusual for them to have ”disciples” in the clerical sense.

This phrase may not have come into use until after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad/ce, which would mean that the writers were distanced from the events by a considerable amount of time.1

<script>