Who Was Jesus? Part 4

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?

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