WWJD: A Christian's Thoughts on Gender Dysphoria

So much of the current debate surrounding gender dysphoria is focused on legislation and political posturing.  Many Christians are so caught up in the publicity that they've forgotten their duty to Christ first.  In this video I merely seek to call believers back to what should matter most, being the hands and feet of Christ to a struggling people.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Matthew?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Matthew?

Posted by Clark Bates
May 24, 2016

     As we continue in this discussion of New Testament authorship, our third destination is what is commonly known as the “first gospel” or the “Gospel according to Matthew.” The order in which these articles are being presented, haphazard as it may seem, is not without intent. Having begun with John , (a gospel that stands apart from the three Synoptic Gospels in content and theology), attention was then turned to Mark. The reason being that while Mark is the second gospel in order of canonical inclusion, it is considered by most to be the earliest written record, and the source upon which the other Synoptic Gospels draw some of their information. So, having established the most likely authors of the previous gospels, attention will now be turned to the gospel that followed Mark in dating, Matthew.

      While it has been the format of the earlier articles to begin with the internal evidence of gospel authorship and then to move into external evidence that supports the text, the discussion on Matthew will differ. The reason for this article beginning with external evidence and moving inward is that a larger portion of authorial suggestion comes from outlying tradition. It seems best, then, to begin with the weightier evidence before analyzing it with the text itself.

External Evidence

      Just as could be said of most of the gospels, the Gospel according to Matthew is formally anonymous. The commonly attributed titles by which we now know the fourfold Gospel seem to have originated around AD 125 but this is little more than an educated guess. As was briefly noted in the previous discussion on Mark's gospel, this educated guess has been called into question. Given Hengel's detailed examination of book distribution in the ancient world, evidence has surfaced that titles of some sort would have been necessary for proper identification from other works.¹

      Implicit support for this position is found within Tertullian's criticism of the heretic Marcion for publishing his own gospel without the author's name. As part of his rebuke, Tertullian writes, “a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect. . . which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.”² Writing in the mid-second century, Tertullian's statement regarding the need for titles, falls within the time frame of earlier speculation, but it seems unlikely that such a view could have become prolific within only a few decades. Hengel's main thesis on the subject is that it would be inconceivable that the gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If the authors had been largely anonymous prior to the second century, one would expect there to be more variation within the following attributions; especially given that this was the case with several second-century apocryphal gospels.³

“a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect. . . which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.”

      In detraction to this view, it is often stated that the Greek kata (according to) that precedes Matthew in the title of the gospel need not indicate authorship but merely conformity to a certain style (i.e. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, The Gospel According to the Egyptians). In fact, this is its more common usage in Greek literature of the time.⁴ Hengel agrees with this but also notes a telling analogy: In the Greek fathers, the one Old Testament is referred to as “according to the Seventy” where the prepositional expression is used to introduce the person responsible for producing the version concerned. Hengel argues that the one Gospel circulated in the same way with four distinct forms (i.e. “according to Mark”, “according to Matthew” etc.).⁵ The only existing statement of Papias (AD 70-163) regarding this gospel comes to us through the writings of Eusebius in the fourth century in fragmented form and is notoriously difficult to translate.⁶ It reads, “Matthew (composed, compiled, or arranged in orderly form), (the sayings, or gospel) in (the Hebrew [Aramaic] language or style), and each (interpreted, translated, or transmitted) them as best he could.”⁷

      While this excerpt contains obvious problems, certain textual data within the first Gospel can be illuminating. To begin with, the early church interpreted this text to say that Matthew originally wrote the gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic which was later translated into Greek. However, the Old Testament quotations contained within the text lack Aramiac rendering and read more as from an author writing in Greek but knowledgeable of Semitic languages. Given that Matthew's dependence on the Gospel of Mark is widely maintained, the verbal connections between the two make Aramaic or Hebrew origins less likely. Finally, the existence of Semitisms throughout the first Gospel do not allow for an average translation form Greek. These Semitic enhancements surround the sayings of Jesus and are used for effect by a writer who is demonstrably capable of writing Hellenistic Greek.⁸ If this is the case, Papias' claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew becomes questionable, and while some have argued that this discredits the entirety of Papias' statement there is no need for such extremism, as author's have often been known to err in one point without erring in all.⁹

Internal Evidence

     

       Evidence from within the gospel itself provides some leading information regarding authorship. Only in Matthew do we find the apostle referred to as, “Matthew the tax collector” (Matt. 10:30). In Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, the man whom Jesus calls from his role as a tax collector is identified as “Levi”. However, in the same parallel passage in Matthew (9:9-13) the tax collector is named “Matthew”. While some have sought to create an alternative proposal, the most economical explanation is that Matthew is to be identified as the same tax collector named Levi elsewhere. That this tax collector is the apostle can be confirmed through the apostolic lists of of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-18; Luke 6:13-16).

      If Matthew is the aforementioned tax collector, this makes sense of several details within the text. In several instances, recorded exclusively by the first gospel, financial depictions are discussed (17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16, et. al.). This does not require insider information, so to speak, but does become curious when contained solely within the text of a gospel traditionally held to have been written by a financial dealer. A tax collector would need to be fluent in both Greek and Aramaic, coinciding with what has previously been discussed regarding the textual transmissions of Semitisms in Greek. In addition, The gospel's connection to Mark could be viewed as perfectly reasonable, given that plagiarism bore no negative connotations prior to the invention of the printing press, and even more so if the underlying message in Mark comes from Peter, as is popularly believed. It would be difficult to find a reason why Matthew would not utilize the writings of a fellow apostle in such an instance.

      While it is argued that Matthew's Christology is far too advanced for the time of its writing, thereby disproving apostolic authorship in favor of a late date authorship, a high Christology demonstrably developed early as seen in the Christ hymns of the Pauline writings (Phil. 2:5-11: Col. 1:15-20). Also, it is clearly distinguished within the first gospel what the apostles thought of Christ in the moment opposed to what the author knew of Christ at the time of his writing.¹⁰ Such evidence, rather than disputing apostolic authorship might better be seen as proving it, given that only those closest to the Lord could preserve such clear distinctions.

      Matthew's gospel relates the opposition to Jesus by the Pharisees and Sadducees as a united front, but rather than confusing the two faculties, the author distinguishes them when needed (22:23-33). This should not be seen as ignorance of Jewish customs but a clear effort on the part of the author to depict the unified opposition of the “world” to the things of Christ. Matthew also bears distinction in its attempt to demonstrate the Jewish nature of Jesus mission (15:24; 10:5-6) and the universal call to the world as its result (28:18-20). Taken alongside the long-standing tradition of Matthew's Hebrew emphasis this corresponds nicely with an author seeking to reach the nation of Israel while not alienating the Hellenistic world.

Conclusion

      What does it matter to identify the author of the first gospel with the apostle Matthew? In some cases it doesn't matter much at all. The message of the gospel stands upon the truth of its claims, not on the identity of its author. However, how one perceives the authorship of this gospel (and others) changes the manner in which one views of the early church and the remainder of the New Testament. To close with an extended quote from D.A. Carson:

“Strong commitments to the view that this gospel reflects late traditions that cannot possibly be tied directly to any apostle inevitably casts a hermeneutical shadow on how the evidence, including the external evidence, will be evaluated. Conversely, the judgment that in all probability the apostle Matthew was responsible for the work casts a hermeneutical shadow on the reconstruction of early church history. The web of interlocking judgments soon affects how one weighs evidence in other parts of the New Testament.”¹¹

1Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 64-84.

2Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.

3D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 141.

4Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According ot Matthew (London: Robert Stott, 1909), vii.

5Hengel, Mark, 83.

6If you've read the two earlier articles regarding the authorship of John and Mark, you will recall that Eusebius contains the writings of Papias and Irenaeus regarding early apostolic authorship of each gospel.

7This translation comes from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, transl. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926). The areas in parentheses indicate Greek word usage that remains ambiguous between the three listed options.

8C.F.D. Moule, “St. Matthew's Gospel: Some Neglected Features,” SE2 (1964). A Semitism is a saying in the Greek New Testament that can only be made sensible by appealing to a Semitic underlay or Hebrew idiom.

9It is possible that Papias was led astray by a common error. Carson notes that Epiphanes claims that a heretical group known as the Ebionites based their beliefs on the Gospel of Matthew that they called “According to the Hebrews,” written in Hebrew but falsified and mutilated.

10D.A. Carson, “Christological Ambiguities in the Gospel of Matthew,” Christ the Lord, (Leicester: IVP, 1982), 97-114.

11D.A. Carson, New Testament, 150.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Mark?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Mark?

posted by Clark Bates
May 18, 2016

      As a continuation of the earlier article regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John (here), this article will approach the authorship of the second Gospel, attributed to Mark. Of the four gospels, John stands apart as holding the clearest level of internal evidence to attest to its authorship; we continue to Mark as it is considered the earliest gospel, and the one upon which the rest of the Synoptics draw. It is no surprise that the second gospel falls under intense scrutiny and skepticism, for if doubt can be raised to its authorship or accuracy, that doubt must naturally spread to both Matthew and Luke. While it was stated earlier that the authorship of a biblical text is not a necessary element in demonstrating its truth, it can reinforce the authoritative nature with which it speaks. What follows is in no way an encompassing discussion on the various challenges to traditional authorship, but a survey of the evidence from which we can draw conclusion regarding the most likely, or plausible author.

The Gospel According to Who?

      Just as is the case for the Gospel of John, the Gospel attributed to Mark is formally anonymous. The attestation which all Christians are now familiar stems the formal titles attached to the documents in the second century. “The first reference to the author and circumstances of the second Gospel comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. . . composed sometime prior to his death in AD 130.”¹ The original writing of Papias has long since been lost, but was recorded within the writings of the early church historian, Eusebius, in the fourth century. It is from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History that much of these earliest works remain extant.

      According to Papias, one who lived during the time of the apostles, as recorded, “Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For Mark had not

heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”² If this is, in fact, the case, the gospel of Mark consists of eyewitness accounts from one closest to the Lord. Edwards agrees with this sentiment, writing, “That the Second Gospel was in many respects 'Peter's memoirs' found, as far as we know, unanimous agreement in the early church.”^{3 4}

      By examining the Papias quote, three points are illustrated concerning the author of the second gospel:

      1.  Mark wrote the gospel that, in Eusebius' day, was identified with his name.
      2.  Mark was not an eyewitness but obtained his information from Peter.
      3.  Mark's gospel lacks “order,” reflecting the occasional nature of Peter's preaching.

By no later than the mid 4^th century, the second gospel was consistently and unanimously attributed to Mark. While Mark himself was not an eyewitness of Christ, his source for information was, giving the gospel the necessary credentials for canonicity. From our standpoint it might seem odd that Papias would suggest a lack of order to the second gospel, given that it seems orderly in English texts, but what is likely meant by this statement is that it lacks rhetorical or artistic order common in first century compositions, particularly the other gospels.⁵

Which Mark?

      Given that the name “Mark” is being thrown around in connection to the second gospel with relative ambiguity, it would be helpful to clarify the author in question. The lack of further explanation by Papias or any of the early church when discussing the gospel bearing his name affirms that only one “Mark” could hold such a distinction. He was the son of a prominent Christian woman in the Jerusalem church (Christians gathered in her home during Peter's imprisonment) (Acts 12:12); cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10); accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 13); left the pair before it ended resulting in a separation between Barnabas and Paul on account of the latter not wanting to take Mark on any subsequent journeys (Acts 15:36-40); reconciled to the apostle Paul later and accompanied the apostle during his Roman imprisonment (Philemon 24; Col. 4:10); and traveled with Peter, referred to by the apostle as his “son” possibly suggesting that Mark was converted through Peter's ministry (1 Pet. 5:13).

      In the New Testament this Mark is often referred to by his full name, “John Mark.” It has been speculated that he was the “young man” who “fled naked” from Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested (Mk. 14:51-52) which could be an account added by the author himself. Some have suggested that this would call into question Papias' statement that Mark was not an eyewitness of Christ, and while it is mere speculation, it remains curious that Mark's Gospel contains the only account of this instance.

Difficulties With Traditional Authorship

      For many who doubt the traditional authorship of the second gospel, difficulties abound. Among them is the second gospel author's alleged ignorance of Jewish customs and errors about Palestinian geography. It is claimed that a Jerusalem-bred writer, would not make such mistakes. However, when careful reading is applied to the second gospel, along with careful investigation, these alleged discrepancies or errors, are alleviated. In fact, the narrative of the second gospel corresponds smoothly with all known facts surrounding Jesus' place of ministry.

“I do not know any other work in Greek

which has so many Aramaic

and Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow

a space as does the second gospel.”

      Some have speculated doubt regarding what appears to be Pauline-influenced theology within the second gospel. It is argued that such influence would indicate a later date of authorship and likely indicate an author far removed from the actual events of Christ. Again however, given the aforementioned connection of John Mark with the apostle Paul, this could be an adequate explanation for such influence. In addition, the amount of Hebrew and Aramaic Semitisms found in the Greek of the second gospel match what would be expected from a Jerusalem-bred Christian.⁶ This led Markan scholar Martin Hengel to exclaim, “I do not know any other work in Greek which has so many Aramaic and Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space as does the second gospel.”⁷

      Mark's connection to the words of the apostle Peter are also in great scrutiny, as many critics view the message of the gospel as a culmination of complex tradition-history developed by a later Christian community. While this approach garners much support, this kind of sweeping promulgation requires considerably more evidence than has been brought to bear. Although, it should be noted that while such hyper-skepticism is largely without warrant, it would not be unacceptable to allow for Mark to have used sources in addition to Peter in the compiling of the second gospel, but the link between the information contained within the second gospel and an eyewitness perspective cannot be easily glossed over. 


       Only in Mark do we find the added description of the grass being green when the five thousand are fed by Christ (Mk. 6:39). Likewise, while the apostles are often presented in critical fashion throughout the gospels, Mark stands out with its vivid characterizations of the twelve. In Mark they are seen as cowardly, spiritually blind, and hard of heart, descriptions reserved for someone that would have known them closely, and only in Mark do we read of Peter “remembering” earlier occurrences (Mk. 11:21; 14:72). Finally, the similar structure of the second gospel and Peter's early sermons (Acts 10:36-41) only further the claim of Papias that Mark recorded the testimony of the apostle.⁸

Conclusion

      While this evidence is not conclusive, it supports the traditional interpretation of Mark's authorship, and it should be acknowledged that skeptics like Bart Ehrman and others have no positive alternative. Some have suggested the apostle John, others a Pauline community, but common recourse is to simply label the author of the second gospel as “unknown”. In a similar fashion to the fourth gospel, much of the authorship for the Gospel of Mark must be determined indirectly. While this may not be the most desired method, it is all that is available and not uncommon for ancient literature. A sense of skepticism regarding traditional claims can be a healthy and natural response if it causes one to investigate deeper, but when the traditional claims offer the most probable explanation given the available evidence and no positive alternative can be suggested there remains very little reason to persist in doubt.

1James R. Edwards, Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark,” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 3.

2Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15.

3Edwards, Mark, 4.

4Justin Martyr, Dialogues with Trypho, 106; Jerome, Commentary in Matthew, Prooemium, 6; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.15; 5.8.2; (Irenaeus) 6.14.6; (Origen) 6.25.5.

5 In fact this is exactly the position of Pierson Parker's article, “The Authorship of the Second Gospel” that should cause readers to doubt Markan authorship. Pierson, Parker, “The Authorship of the Second Gospel,” Persp-RelStud, 5 (1978), 7.

6D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament: Mark, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 175.

7Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 46.

8C.H. Dodd, “The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” ExpTim 43 (1932): 396-400.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . John?

Who wrote the Book of. . . . John?

Posted by Clark Bates
May 10, 2016

      With the release of his new book Jesus Before the Gospels:How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed and Invented Their Stories of the Savior Bart Ehrman has attempted to revive the modern controversy of biblical authorship. This is not new ground for him, nor is it a new challenge in the world of textual criticism or popular debate. The truth of the matter is that determining the authors of various biblical texts can be difficult at times and all but impossible at others. For those books that proclaim or are attributed to a particular author, it falls to the careful reader to seek out means by which verification can be made. The New Testament books most frequently challenged regarding traditional authorship, are the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), The epistles of John (1, 2, and 3 John), The epistles of Peter (1 and 2 Peter), and various epistles of Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus). In the next few posts, under the same title, I'll be looking at what we can know about the biblical authors and why we can know it, beginning with the Gospel according to John.

How Can we Know?

      Before examining John's gospel specifically, it would be helpful to mention how a reader can investigate biblical authorship and what methods are employed by textual critics to determine that very thing. Not being limited to the biblical text, all ancient writings are evaluated under similar programs. In seeking information, authorship in this case, evidence is sought from both within the text and without. Internal evidence can consist of the obvious, such as “This was written by. . .” or more ambiguous clues, such as time and place indicators or specific details surrounding the event recorded. External evidence is that which comes from outside the text but corroborates its message. In the case of authorship it can be the writings of contemporaries or those following after attributing the writing to a particular author. As it relates to the Gospel of John, we have both.

The Gospel of John

      Like the Synoptics, the Gospel attributed to John is formally anonymous. That is to say, the author never names himself in the way you might expect from the apostle Paul in many of his letters. That it is formally anonymous does not mean that authorship is impossible to identify with any degree of certainty, however. Just as textual critics, this article will begin with the internal evidence of authorship from the Gospel itself and follow with the external evidence. Early Greek scholar and commentator Brooke Westcott offered the five criteria by which the authorship of John should be judged, and still remains the criteria today. His five points were that the author of John must be ,

1. A Jew
2. Of Palestine,
3. An eyewitness,
4. An apostle,
   and
5. The apostle John¹

Now, to avoid appearing to be circular in argumentation, I will note that the 5^th point really acts as the logical conclusion to the affirmation of the other four.

The Author was a Jew

      Using this guideline, it is easily seen throughout the text that the author is Jewish. He has a clear understanding of Jewish customs, theology, and messianic expectations.² The author has a clear understanding of Jewish festivals, regarding the law of the Sabbath (7:22) and the ceremonial pollution of Jews entering a Gentile court (18:28). Most tellingly is the account of the Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7. Many details included within this section of the Fourth Gospel are only fully intelligible in light of the circumstances surrounding the festival. Circumstances known to the writer and merely hinted at through the text.³ These circumstances would be the practice of pouring water from the pool of Siloam onto the sacrificial altar, shedding light onto Jesus' message of “living water” (7:38), the kindling of lamps to impact Jesus' claim to be the “light of the world” (8:12), and the reference to the last day of the festival as “the great day” (7:37).

The Author was from Palestine

      While this assertion might be more difficult for the lay reader to establish, textual critics such as Westcott, Morris, Lightfoot, Carson, and others affirm that the writing style and vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel are inherently Jewish.⁴ The author's repeated use of words and themes such as “light”, “darkness”, “flesh”, “spirit”, “life”, “the kingdom of God” and others are found throughout the writings of the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament). To quote Westcott once more, “The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew.”⁵ Only a brief overview of the internal evidence for these first two points is presented here, primarily because they are not widely disputed among scholars.⁶ This near unanimity has been bolstered by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and requires little defense.

The Author was an Eyewitness

      The dispute surrounding the remaining three points hinges upon the identity of the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, who is stated to be the author of this Gospel (21). This persona is first mentioned in John 13:23, reclining on Jesus during the Last Supper and mediating for Peter. He is found at the cross and commissioned by the Lord to care for Mary, the Lord's mother (19:26-27), and at the empty tomb alongside Peter (20:2-9). His knowledge of events occurring within the chambers of the upper room, as well as those of the events surrounding the trial of Jesus could only be supplied by one present at each occasion.⁷ This disciple, present at the intimate moments of Jesus's life claims to have “written these things” in the epilogue of the Fourth Gospel. If what is meant in John 21:24 is that the beloved disciple physically wrote all that is contained within this Gospel, then it can be no other than John the Apostle.⁸

The Author was an Apostle

      The Synoptic Gospels insist that only the twelve apostles were present with Jesus at the Last Supper, placing the 'beloved disciple” within the ranks of the twelve. He is repeatedly distinguished from the apostle Peter and clearly distinguished from the other apostles named in John 13-16.⁹ The author is one of the seven to go fishing in John 21, but is not Peter, Thomas or Nathaniel, suggesting that the author is one of the sons of Zebedee or one of the two unnamed disciples (21:2). Neither the James the son of Zebedee nor John are mentioned within the Fourth Gospel, which should be of note, given the space provided for even relatively obscure apostles such as Philip and Judas (14:22).

The Author was the Apostle John

    

  It's recorded in the book of Acts that the apostle James, the son of Zebedee, was the first martyr of the twelve.¹⁰ Given the late dating of the Fourth Gospel, even among conservative scholars, this son of Zebedee, martyred approximately 50 years prior to its writing, could not be the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” The repeated association of this unnamed apostle with Peter is synonymous with the relationship between John the apostle and Peter as seen in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts and the writing of Paul.¹¹ What's more, it should be noted that most of the important characters in the Fourth Gospel are designated with rather full names, i.e. Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus, Judas son of Simon Iscariot; Caiaphas the high priest that year, and so on. Yet, John the Baptist, is simply called “John” even when he was first introduced.¹² While this final point is not conclusive in itself, the simplest explanation is that John the son of Zebedee authored the Fourth Gospel and felt no need to distinguish the other John from himself.

External Evidence

      Having given a brief defense of the traditional authorship of the Fourth Gospel from the internal cues provided within the text, I will turn some attention to the traditional external evidence behind John's authorship. It's normally assumed that the title “The Gospel According to John”, as well as the other Gospel titles, were not ascribed until A.D. 125. The earliest known reference to the Fourth Gospel is from Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), who wrote, “Christ indeed said, 'Unless you are born again you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' It is evident to all that those who have once been born cannot re-enter their mothers' wombs.”¹³ This is almost certainly a quotation from John 3:3-5, and while Justin Martyr never attributed his quotations to John or any other Gospel author, he did refer to the Gospels as the “memoirs of the apostles.”

     

The first attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John is from Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181), but before this the Fourth Gospel was quoted as authoritative by Tatian, Athenagoras, Polycarp and Papias. Polycarp is known to be a successor and associate to the original twelve apostles, having been martyred in A.D. 156 at the age of 86. This same Polycarp had a student named Irenaeus who recorded much of his work. As a student of Polycarp who wrote of his discourses with the apostle John, there was no doubt for Irenaeus who authored the Fourth Gospel. He wrote, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was resident at Ephesus in Asia.”¹⁴ This certainty carried on into the second century by the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian being maintained to the point that by the end of the second century few opposed the apostolic authorship.

Conclusion

      As it relates to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the internal evidence leaves little room for doubt. We can see within the very pages of the text, how the author reveals himself, and the humility with which he wrote.¹⁵ The author was clearly a Jew of Palestinian origin. He was aware of information only available to one who had traveled with the Lord, and more so, information only available to one of the twelve. Each apostle is clearly identified throughout the Gospel with the exception of one, John. The tradition of the church leaders that followed the apostles also attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the Apostle and clearly held an authoritative role in the development of church theology; even so far as to be the centerpiece for the first harmony of the Gospels ever written, the Diatessaron. Such authority would not have been given to a book with dubious authorship then, nor should we doubt its authority today. 

      It must be said that the authorship of Scripture is irrelevant to the message of Scripture. Even if there were no intelligible way to determine who wrote the New Testament (which is the case for the book of Hebrews), it would have no bearing on the quality or the truth of what is written. What authorship does for those who seek to know their Bible, is substantiate the origins of what we hold dear and observe the profound effect that Jesus had on their lives.

1 Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. Vol. 1. (John Murray, 1908), 10 – 51.

2John 1:21; 4:25; 6:14-15; 7:40ff.; 12:34.

3Wescott, John, 11.

4Morris, L. The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. Vol. 1. (John Murray, 1908).

5Ibid., 12.

6With the exception of Margaret Pamment in her “Focus on the Fourth Gospel,” ExpT, 1994.

7Only in John do we find the discourses of the Last Supper and the teaching that follows regarding the Holy Spirit and the Vine and Branches (John 13:31-16:33). Likewise, John contains information of the trial of Christ not found in the Synoptics (John 19:1- 11.

8Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 71.

9The author is distinguished from Peter in John 13:23-24; 20:2-9; and 21:20.

10Acts 12:1-2; during the reign of Herod Agrippa I, AD 41-44.

11Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Acts 3:1-4:23; 8:15-25; Gal. 2:9.

12Carson, John, 72. i.e. John 1:6 contra. Mark 1:4.

13Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61.4-5.

14Irenaeus, Against Heresies, iii. 1.2.

15While it has been contested that the author's self-referral as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” seems arrogant, it is largely viewed in scholarship as a humble assessment of how Jesus changed one who was formerly a “son of thunder.”

Book Review: "Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward"

Nabeel Qureshi, Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Posted by Clark Bates

May, 3, 2016

      When finishing author Qureshi's latest book, Answering Jihad, one is left with the impression that the Islamic faith has evolved into such a dizzying maze of counter-intuitive beliefs that it has become immune to accusation. Its origins in the Quranic text are filtered through various hadiths which then become interpretable only by select Imams, resulting in the notoriously fluid system of Sharia Law. Speaking from his Islamic heritage through the lens of his Christian conversion, Nabeel endeavors to bring clarity to the history and tenets of the Islamic faith in light of modern jihad. Answering 18 of the most common questions asked of Islam, the author looks forward to the “phenomenon of jihad in Judeo-Christian context,” and “propose a response to jihad,” today.¹

      On September 11, 2001, author Nabeel Qureshi was an eighteen year old American Muslim. He had been raised in a patriotic Muslim household, believing, as many American Muslims still profess, that Islam was a “religion of peace.” The tragedy of that day became the impetus for Qureshi to understand the nature of Islamic jihad and its validity, or lack thereof, within his faith. Through his investigation and subsequent roadblocks, the author's heart was turned away from his faith and drawn to the teachings of Christ and the faith of Christianity. Now a Christian apologist employed by Ravi Zacharias Ministries, a New York Times bestselling author, and doctoral candidate at Oxford University, Qureshi writes this most recent work as a response to the questions he faced as a young man, and many continue to ask today.

      Acknowledging the speed with which this writing was produced, the author admits openly that it is not meant to be a comprehensive history of the Islamic faith.² Divided into 19 chapters and several Appendices, Qureshi's work reads more like a quick-reference apologetics pamphlet than a deep theological treatise. This is not to detract from the quality of what is contained within, but to merely identify to the reader what may be expected. Conversely, the amount of information contained within this book is formidable, even more so when one realizes the ease with which this information is conveyed. The 19 chapters of Answering Jihad are wisely segmented into three parts covering the history of Islam, modern jihad, and jihad in light of the Judeo-Christian context. In so doing, Qureshi takes readers through the foundations of the Muslim faith into the development of violent Islam and how such actions relate to the Christian worldview.

      While it might be said that the most timely portions of the author's writing are found in the final section of this book, it would inadvisable to jump to the close without the necessary preparation developed in the preceding sections. For instance, the thirteenth chapter of the book seeks to answer the question, “Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?” In light of the recent Wheaton controversy and the national discussion that has resulted, Qureshi states that , “[Hawkins] statement allowed Islamic assertions to subvert the importance of essential Christian doctrine. Yet she ought not be faulted harshly, as these issues are murky.”³ Rather than sounding condescending toward Professor Hawkins, the author has spent twelve chapters elucidating the nature of Islamic theology and its opacity even among Muslims. As a Christian, Qureshi concludes the thought, writing, “Christians worship the triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, a Son who incarnates and who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not who the Muslim God is, and it is not what the Muslim God does.”⁴

Christians worship the triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, a Son who incarnates and who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not who the Muslim God is, and it is not what the Muslim God does.

      Possibly the most profound chapter within this entire work is chapter 8, “Does Islam Need a Reformation?”. In this chapter Qureshi offers a startling point, “Just as the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to raze centuries of Catholic tradition and return to the canonical texts, so radical Islam is an attempt to raze centuries of traditions of various schools of Islamic thought and return to the canonical texts of the Quran and Muhammad's life.”⁵ Drawing upon the parallels of the Catholic Church, the author demonstrates that Muslims embrace the peaceful form of Islam primarily because they have been taught it as such through various clerics. In the same way that many Catholics came to believe in the Roman Catholic traditions through the instructions of priests, the rise of Islamic jihad is a reformation of Islam seeking to return it to it's Quranic roots. An affirmation such as this cuts to the heart of modern conceptions of Islam, especially from the Christian perspective, and provides an alternative understanding of the violence seen today. This is not to validate the violence of Islamic jihad however, as the author writes, “. . .what it would take for Islam to become a religion of peace [is] not a reformation, but a re-imagination.”⁶

. . .what it would take for Islam to become a religion of peace [is] not a reformation, but a re-imagination.

       While some might be seeking a deeper and more thorough handling of the complexities of Islam, Nabeel's Answering Jihad provides an excellent introduction to the Muslim faith and the challenges faced by the modern world in light of its more recent radicalization. The author has written this text in such a ways as to make it attainable by all levels of reader and Christian. This resource will serve the student as well as the pastor, the evangelist and the Christian businessman, the teacher and the neighbor. Christians are becoming increasingly exposed to the rapid growth of the Islamic faith, and it will be books such as this that aid believers in preparing a manner in which to listen to them while sharing the faith of Christ in sincerity and love.

Clark Bates is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and manages an apologetics and theology blog at http://www.exejesushermeneutics.blogspot.com.

 

I received this book free from W Publishing Group and Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookLookBloggers.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

1  Nabeel Qureshi, Answering Islam, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 19-20.

2  Qureshi, Islam, 12.

3  Ibid., 115.

4  Ibid., 116.

5  Ibid., 75.

6  Ibid., 80.