Who Jesus Was vs. Who Jesus Is

 

Who Jesus Was vs. Who Jesus Is

Posted by Clark Bates

June 30, 2016

      Recently I was listening to the a contemporary Christian radio station and a song began to play. As I listened to the lyrics it began to unsettle me, and the more I thought about the word the more troubled it has made me. I'm writing this not to expose a musician or to speak out against the contemporary Christian music industry, I actually really enjoy the band that recorded this song, but to briefly discuss the problem, as I see it, with some of the theology that flows from it. While this might, “show my hand” as it were, I'd like to list the lyrics that troubled me and expound on them:

Some people say he was a healer,

      Who had his moment long ago.

Some even say his time is over,

      But I don't want to talk about history

Cause I know who he is to me.

He is hope

He is light

He is with me every moment

He is all that I need

Everything good in me

Some might say that Jesus was

I say Jesus is.

Now, I recognize that the intent behind this song is to express the relevance of Jesus in the modern age, and, to a point, it has valid statements. Certainly through the indwelling of Christ all believers carry His presence and draw from that an inseparable bond with the eternal Son of God. He is indeed our hope and all that could be seen as righteous or good in us. However, and this is probably the apologist in me, to discount the historicity of Jesus is a detrimental form of “Experiential Theology.”

      When I use the term “Experiential Theology” I'm referring to the increasingly popular notion that what's of most importance is the experience a believer has as a child of God. Emphasis is often placed on how God has made them feel whole, or confident; how their life has changed for the better, or their overall outlook on life has improved. While all of this might be true, it does little to nothing in the arena of worldviews to demonstrate the validity of Christianity or the Supremacy of Christ. If all the believer has in their arsenal to support the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is experiential moments or subjective feelings, how will they respond to the Buddhist who claims to have the same experiences through meditation, or the Muslim who finds similar experiences with Allah? It becomes nothing more than an endless, “he said, she said” diatribe with no way to determine the truth of one worldview over the other.

       It cannot, I would even say must not, be forgotten that Christianity is unique among all religious claims in that the centerpiece of our faith is the man, Jesus Christ. The claims of the Christian faith exist within a time-space continuum that can be investigated. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation upon which all of Christianity rests and has occurred within a specific time frame, in a specific location, and can be cross examined for reliability. While each believer's personal relationship with Christ is a defining issue for them, it is not the means by which one can engage with an opposing worldview to demonstrate the need for sharing that faith.

 

 

"The claims of the Christian faith exist within a time-space continuum that can be investigated. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation upon which all of Christianity rests and has occurred within a specific time frame, in a specific location, and can be cross examined for reliability."

      In short, the song above implies that Christians should “not want to talk about history”, but in so doing, Christians cut off the essential line of reasoning by which the Christian faith supports itself. We should want to talk about history. Who Jesus was, as it were, is equivalent to who Jesus is. Jesus was the eternal Son of God, God Himself, incarnate as man to live a perfect, sinless life, becoming the solely sufficient sacrifice to God the Father on behalf of the sins of the world. He was this in history. Jesus is still the same eternal son of God, returned to the presence of the Father, having become the Savior of the world, destined to return and rule. In the interim He is the source of hope, life, light, peace, strength, confidence, support and holiness from which we draw, and Christians can say that this is true because the claims of the historical Jesus (who Jesus was) are verified through His existence in us now (who Jesus is). These are not mutually exclusive realities and they should never be handled as if they were.

      If you are one of the many believers out there that wish you had a dramatic conversion experience from which you could recount the power of God to another individual, let me assure that you already have that regardless of what transpired. Let me tell you what you're dramatic conversion experience was: The infinite, transcendent, God of all creation loved you with an unrequited love of such grand proportion that He became human, taking on the shame of a servant and died the death of a criminal so that He might rise from the dead and return to His throne, providing for you the opportunity to receive eternal life free from sin continuously within His presence. I can think of no greater conversion experience than this and it is true for each one of us.

God is Love

In this lecture I not only discuss the most desired attribute of God, but also the deep ramifications it has for those who believe in Him.

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Ephesians?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Ephesians?

Posted by Clark Bates
June 13, 2016

      As we continue this series on biblical authorship, we turn our attention to the disputed letters of the apostle Paul. Having been credited with writing approximately 75% of the New Testament and being the source for much of the foundational doctrines of the Christian church, it should be of no surprise that his writings would come under fire. While evidence may exist to support the notion that the majority of skeptical claims against traditional authorship stem from a critical presuppositionalism, that isn't to say that the reasons given are entirely unfounded. Believers should always be willing and eager to engage with positions that challenge traditional perspectives to better understand others as well as bolster their own convictions. That is the purpose of this series in general and particularly here in this article. Now, on to our investigation into the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Pseudepigraphy and the Early Church

       It might seem odd to the average biblical reader that there would be debate over the authorship of a letter like Ephesians which presents itself, unambiguously, as from the apostle Paul (1:1-2). In order to make sense of such a claim, it will be necessary to discuss the practice of pseudonimity in ancient Eastern writings. To say that a text is pseudonymous is to say that it is written by an unknown author, claiming the name of a well-known figure as the author, in an effort to provide more weight to what is written. This was a very common practice in the first and second centuries, and because of its wide spread practice, many scholars have found reason to believe several of the New Testament epistles to be pseudonomic writings. Regarding the pseudonimity, Metzger writes, “There is scarcely an illustrious personality in Greek literature or history from Themistocles down to Alexander, who was not credited with a more or less extensive correspondence.”¹

      For twentieth century writers, it would seem more logical to steal the writing of another author and attach our name to it. This is, of course, known as plagiarism and is considered highly unethical. However, in the first century and beyond a writing would be less likely to gain traction unless it could be attributed to someone of note; therefore the opposite practice to plagiarism (pseudepigraphy) was exercised. While plagiarism is almost unanimously viewed as unethical in the 21^st century West, 1^st century pseudepigraphy was not viewed with the same universal, ethical disdain. Thielman writes that,

“The practical reasons and moral justification for the practice were varied and complex. . . . Some pseudonymous letters were probably innocent fictions. . . . letters were sometimes written to deceive their readers. . . . a number of the pseudonymous Socratic epistles describe networks of specifically named friends and . . . details. . . that look realistic. . . . to make the readers believe they are genuine [causing]. . . the people presented [to] become examples of how the Cynic philosopher should live.”²

      While the evidence for the existence of pseudonymous Christian letters in antiquity is decidedly slim, there is, within what can be found, an existence of intentionally deceptive writings in the early Christian movement. By the second century, letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians were being circulated in support of the Marcionite heresy.³ Officially, Greco-Roman society was not more tolerant of forgery than modern society, despite the differences in perspective regarding pseudepigraphy and plagiarism. While the practice was common and not necessarily deemed unethical in popular opinion, if deception was determined to be intended, the consequence could be as extreme as exile.⁴ Because of this there is no reason to see early Christians as more tolerant than others regarding forged documents, leaving the motive behind such productions something of a mystery.

      It has been proposed that Christian authors might have had in mind the Platonic idea of a “noble lie”.⁵ Clement of Alexandria adopted this ethic, making it conceivable that other early Christian writers may have felt the same. In any case, Christian pseudepigraphy of the early church existed for polemical purposes to refute false doctrine steadily increasing within the body. The existence of such work is what has led some to see Ephesians as pseudepigraphal in spite of its attribution to the apostle Paul. The validity of this claim will be assessed later.

Other Detractions From Pauline Authorship

       It is said that the theology of Ephesians reflects non-Pauline characteristics. Apart from the tendency to see the letter to the Ephesians as pseudonymous, multiple other textual persuasions have been leveled against the traditional, apostolic authorship of the epistle. It is assented that the message of justification by faith (2:5-8) is influenced by Paul, but other emphases, such as the cosmic nature of the church (3:10), realized eschatology, and believers foundation being on the “apostles and prophets” (2:20) in contrast to Paul's belief that the foundation of the church was Christ alone (1 Cor. 3:11), are considered to be only weakly attested to in the undisputed letters of Paul. It is also suggested that the use of the Greek Ekklesia (church, assembly) in Ephesians speaks of the universal church, whereas Pauline usage of the same word is normally reserved for the local congregation.

      It is also suggested that the language of Ephesians includes words not found elsewhere in Paul, and that the overall style of the writing is decidedly non-Pauline. Specifically noted is the length of sentences used in the letter. English translations betray this fact by breaking up the sentences into smaller fragments, but in the Greek text passages such as 1:3-14; 15-23, and 3:1-7 are each a singular sentence. This style is often labeled pleonastic (redundant word usage) in the sense that there is a fullness to it. The sentences themselves abound in prepositional phrases, relative clauses, participles, and multiplying synonyms.⁶ It is leveled by critics that, “there is scarcely anything comparable in Paul.”⁷

      Finally, it is also suggested that Ephesians is an early “Catholic” writing, meaning that the author appears to be looking back on the apostles as a closed group from some later date, as well as the relationship of his letter to that of the undisputed , yet strikingly similar, letter to the Colossians. It is widely believed that the letter to the church at Colossae is genuinely Pauline, but the similarity between the two suggests the later author of Ephesians relied upon Colossians for its writing. The similarity is such that it seems anachronistic to write two letters within the same time frame covering the same message. For skeptics, it becomes far more plausible, given the other objections and the existence of pseudepigraphal writings within the Christian church, that this letter was written at a much later date under the auspices of the famed apostle.

A Response in Favor of Traditional Authorship

       With the weight of accusations against Pauline authorship, what response can be given? First, I should note that absolute objectivity in regards to issues such as this can be relatively impossible to achieve. It is disingenuous to believe that one's presuppositions regarding the Christian faith, biblical inerrancy, and preferred textual-critical method do not in some way influence the amount of value one will apply to various evidences for either position. I do not pretend to be distinct from this, and I believe that if you have read my previous articles regarding biblical authorship, you'll notice that I lean toward traditional authorship. I do this primarily from the belief that the weight of evidence (when it can be known) for traditional authorship often outweighs that of the skeptical approach. When evidence is scarce for either position I see no need to affirm one or the other, but find that a theological conviction regarding biblical inerrancy should influence us to accept the traditional view.

    

      Regarding the accusation of pseudonimity, it has already been mentioned that the pseudepigraphal writings of the early church were commonly presented in an effort to combat false doctrine. This is not meant to be an apologetic for the practice but an acknowledgment of the circumstances. As it has been written elsewhere, “Christian pseudepigraphy found its main impetus in doctrinal disputes, the endless argument between orthodoxy and heresy.”⁸ and also, “Ephesians is not a polemical document; there is no theological battle raging behind the text that might justify the extreme measure of a 'noble lie' in violation of the author's otherwise high standards of honesty.”⁹ Neither does Ephesians bare the markings of an innocent fiction as much of the pseudonymous works of the first century were. In contrast, the author claims to be Paul, speaks of himself throughout in the first person and presents a very realistic portrayal of the apostle's suffering for the faith. Therefore, if Ephesians is pseudonymous (which it certainly could be), it is an anomaly among Christian pseudonymous letters.

      While the theology of Ephesians might seem more “forward-thinking” than other letters of Paul, it is an extreme measure to suggest that the theology it contains is something that was outside the reach of the apostle. Neither the epistle to the Galatians nor to the Romans are disputed as being genuinely Pauline, yet the theology of the latter far exceeds that of the former. Given the emphasis on spiritual warfare at the close of the epistle (6:10-20), the cosmic functions of Christ and the realized eschatology at the letter's opening can be seen as tailored to the specific needs of the church, and while the apostles and prophets are spoken of as cornerstones of the church (2:20), so too is Christ mentioned as the “chief cornerstone” in the same verse. This corresponds directly with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians and should not be seen as a contradiction or future theological evolution. The same could be said for Paul's use of ekklesia in regards to its universal application in Ephesians. While it is true that Paul's use of the term is regularly applied to the local congregation, it would not be odd for the apostle would to apply this term globally if the letter was to be circulated to all the churches in Asia, as many of Paul's letters were designated.

      The language of Ephesians does contain words not normally used by Paul, but to see this as proof of pseudonymous authorship is yet another leap. It can, and should, be readily acknowledged that many of the words in Ephesians bear more similarities to the writings of the apostolic church fathers than to Paul, but it is also known that those same fathers quoted from Ephesians extensively, leading many to believe that Ephesians influenced their writing as opposed to the language indicating a later author. Also, while the pleonastic style of the letter is something marvelous, it would not be accurate to suggest that this “dominates” the letter. The long sentence structure dominates only the first half of the letter, but what follows is traditionally Pauline in style.

       The belief that Paul speaks of the apostles as a past phenomenon in Ephesians is yet another exaggeration, given that there is no direct mention of the apostles having passed, nor is referring to them as “holy” indicative of any past tense formulation given Paul's regular attribution of holy to all believers. While Colossians and Ephesians are remarkable similar, and many point to the copied information as evidence for later authorship, what is not copied is of equal importance. “If Ephesians had been copied from Colossians, why would the author have omitted Timothy's name when he is mentioned in the latter as Paul's co-author? And why are all the other names in Colossians missing in Ephesians except that of Tychicus. . .? No theory of imitation offers a suitable explanation of this incongruity.”¹⁰ To put it briefly, the relationship between these two letters is not determinative of much in the domain of authenticity.

Positive evidence for Pauline authorship is as follows:

1. Both in the body and the opening of Ephesians, the letter claims to have been written by Paul (1:1; 3:1). While obviously not determinative on it's own, any letter coming down from antiquity should be held to be by the author it mentions unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.¹¹ The writer inserts multiple personal flourishes, including knowledge of the readers' faith and love (1:15), he prays for them (1:16), calls himself the “prisoner of Christ Jesus” (3:1; 4:1), asks for the readers' prayers (6:19-20), and the comment regarding Tychicus at the letter's close (6:21) is completely incoherent if the author is not the apostle.
2. In the earliest known circulation of this letter, its authenticity was never doubted. As was mentioned above, the letter was accepted even by the heretic Marcion as authentic; it is in the Muratorian Canon, used by heretics and orthodox alike, and was viewed as Pauline by many apostolic fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Hermas. The question of authorship is a modern disputation.
3. Despite the skeptical claims, the letter to Ephesus is replete with Pauline features. There are words and structure throughout that conform directly to that of the undisputed letters, and there are words and phrases found here and nowhere else in the New Testament. What we are left with is best posed in the rhetorical question of H.J. Cadbury, “Which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul's style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten percent from his usual style?”¹²
4. Given the two diverging perspectives regarding the relationship of Colossians to Ephesians, argument can be, and is, made for and against Pauline authorship. Approaching the relationship from a traditional perspective, it would seem that Ephesians can be seen as a development of Colossians rather than a copy. Colossians seems to serve a specific purpose, whereas Ephesians takes similar themes and applies them on a broader scale.
5. Many of the themes in Ephesians are decidedly Pauline. For example, justification by faith, the place of grace, the dominance of the flesh in the unredeemed, the work of Christ as reconciler, and the place of Jews and the law. Opposition may argue that this is merely Pauline imitation, but that is using the conclusion to prove the premises.
6. Paul claims that he was a prisoner at the time of writing Ephesians (3:1) which corresponds to what can be known of Paul historically. The theological development of this letter is not uncommon for a man nearing the end of his life, and even more so as the church at Ephesus is seen as needing further instruction in the faith. In short, no alternative explanation for authorship stands as more likely than that of the apostle Paul writing from his final imprisonment.

“Which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul's style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten percent from his usual style?”

Conclusion

      For many, how you view the evidence above will be filtered by your presuppositions. This serves only as a brief overview of evidences that can be investigated in greater detail. Much of the arguments against Pauline authorship are arguments from inference. In any case, there is no justifiable reason to approach any text of antiquity from a perspective of absolute skepticism. If authorship is claimed, evidence to the contrary must be brought to bear and weighed prior to any positive identification to the contrary. The author is admittedly Pauline, and it is the view of this article that the evidence against the claim is unsatisfactory.

1Bruce Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigraphs,” Journal of Biblical Literature, (1972), 10.

2Frank Thielman, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 1-2.

3Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

4Herodotus, Histories, 7.6

5L.R. Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles,” Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 22 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1986), 18-19. Plato's “noble lie” was that a lie does not merit abhorrence if told in an effort to dissuade foolishness or insanity. Essentially, it would be a lie that is told to bring about a greater good.

6D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, “Ephesians” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 484.

7Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 26.

8Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy,” 17.

9Thielman, Ephesians, 4.

10Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul's Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), 79.

11Carson and Moo, Introduction, 480.

12H.J. Cadbury, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5, (1958-59): 101.

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

 

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

Posted by Clark Bates June 10,2016

      It's not uncommon for various Christian lecturers and apologists to be faced with the accusation that the canon of Scripture was not derived until the Council of Nicaea. It is believed by many, largely influenced by popular films, that at this council Jesus was given divine status over human status and what we now call the New Testament was derived by purposefully removing any texts that revealed Jesus to be merely mortal. Dan Brown's elderly character Lee Teabing from the best-selling Da Vinci Code famously states, “Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on at the Council of Nicaea. . . . A relatively close vote at that (233).” While it must be remembered that this is a work of fiction, written for popular appeal, the persistence of this accusation, in light of our series on canonical authorship, deserves a response.

      Before examining the historical account of what happened at Nicaea, a few practical considerations should be observed regarding this claim. First, if these allegations were true, it would require a nearly impossible feat of subterfuge. Given that the writings of the Christian Church had existed, been copied, and widely distributed for more than 2 centuries up to this point, to remove any texts that might have proven the mortality of Jesus over His divinity would necessitate the confiscation and destruction of every document, and copy, spread across the entire empire. This would have to be done completely and successfully, for if even one document remained, it could be re-circulated and re-copied. Second, to prove the claim that the canon of the New Testament derived from this council, it would need to be demonstrated that multiple “Christian” texts that spoke of Jesus only as human were in circulation prior to this period that held the same level of authority and recognition as those that exist today. Given the extremely high level of implausibility for the first consideration, and the lack of extant evidence for the second, any careful observer should take pause when this accusation is presented.

Getting back to the actual council, however, let's examine what history tells us regarding the Council of Nicaea:

      This council occurred in AD 325 in the province of Bithynia, now known as Isnik, Turkey. It holds a substantial place in Christian history for three reasons:

1. It was the first “ecumenical” (universal) council in the history of Christendom.
2. It served as a symbol of imperial involvement in church affairs (given that it was convened and presided over by the emperor Constantine).
3. It marked a crucial development in doctrinal history, by adopting a creed, backed up by anathemas, something heretofore nonexistent.¹

To the dismay of many popular conspiracy advocates, the Council of Nicaea was not convened to discuss the canon of Scripture. At no time during the three month adjournment did the bishops address the validity of any biblical text. The main purpose of the council was to attempt to heal the schism being created by a bishop named Arius.²

      To better understand what this schism regarded, it is helpful to regress to the time of the church leader, Origen. Greek philosophy had taught that God was impassible (unchanging), and this premise controlled intellectual theology. In an effort to ratify this philosophical tradition with biblical christology, Origen spoke of the incarnate Logos (Son of God) as that of the same Logos of the one true God. It was Origen that popularized the term “begetting” in relating the Son to the Father. Even assuring that the Son was of the same nature as the Father, Origen still posited a subordination of the Son to the Father. Arius, diverging from the teaching of his mentor Alexander, disputed that the Son could not be the same essence of the Father and share eternity without challenging the impassibility of God.

      The teaching of what came to be known as Arianism revolved around the central tenet that the divine being is unique, incommunicable, indivisible, and transcendent.³ Because of this, the Son could not be of the Father's being or essence but could only exist by the Father's will. As Arius famously stated, “There was a time when [the Son] was not.” Arianism also taught that the Son was a created being, less than divine, but more of an archangel. This doctrinal stance may sound familiar to some as it has been adopted by pseudo-Christian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). This teaching began to grow in favor, largely due to Arius' eloquence and skill with a pen, and became the reason for the convening of Nicaea in 325.

      So was the council, as Dan Brown said, the moment when Jesus was made divine by a narrow vote? Not quite. While the dispute with Arius did revolve around the divinity of Christ, the debate was not regarding His deity versus His humanity, but rather His divinity versus His angelic nature. Had Arius won the day, it would not have meant that Jesus was believed to be human, only that He was not viewed as equal with the Father. Was there a truly equal disagreement in Christendom relating to the divinity of Christ? Not according to the leading voices of the Christian Church leading up to the council:

Igantius (AD 105) - “God himself was manifested in human form.”⁴

Clement (AD 150) - “It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as God.”⁵

Justin Martyr (AD 160) - “The Father of the universe has a Son. And He is . . . . even God.”⁶

          

Irenaeus (AD 180) - “He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this.”⁷

                    

Tertullian (AD 200) - “. . . Christ our God.”⁸

Origen (AD 225) - "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God...”⁹

Novation (AD 235) - "...He is not only man, but God also..." 

Cyprian (AD 250) - "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God."¹⁰

 Methodius (AD 290) - "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..."¹¹

Lactantius (AD 304) - "We believe Him to be God."¹²

Arnobius (AD 305) - "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of Divinity."¹³

      Was the divinity of Jesus Christ determined by a narrow vote? No. A unique feature of the Council of Nicaea was the near unanimity of the vote to condemn Arius of heresy and to excommunicate him from the church. All but two bishops voted against Arius and to uphold the Orthodox teaching of the divinity of Christ, maintained for the first three hundred years of the Church's existence. Lastly, was the canon determined at Nicaea? As was mentioned above, no. In fact, as the series on New Testament authorship has shown, the existing New Testament was in circulation by name as early as 200 years prior to the convening of the council. Much to the chagrin of novel writers and those prone to conspiracies, history undermines the popular view. For Christians, the Council of Nicaea can be viewed in various ways, but ultimately it produced a historic creed that became the basis for those used in churches around the world for thousands of years:

We believe in God the Father almighty

maker of all things, visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

The only-begotten of the Father,

that is, begotten of the substance of the Father,

God from God, light from light, true God

from true God,

begotten, not made,

of the same substance as the Father,

through whom all things were made, in

heaven and earth,

who for us humans and our salvation came

down, took flesh, and was made human,

suffered and rose again on the third day,

ascended into heaven,

and will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

1Everett Ferguson, Church History I: From Christ to Pre-Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 196-7.

2Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, “Council of Nicaea” by C. Blaising, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 839.

3Elwell, Theology, 839.

4Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius, “Three Celebrated Mysteries” from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.xix.html?highlight=god,himself,was,manifested,in,human,form#highlight

5Clement of Alexandria, The Second Epistle of Clement, Chapter I, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xii.vi.i.html?highlight=clement,it,is,fitting,that,you,should,think,of,jesus,christ,as,god#highlight

6Philip Schaf, The History of the Christian Church II, “The Divinity of Christ,” from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.ix.html?highlight=justin,martyr,the,father,of,universe,has,a,son#highlight

7Alexander Roberts and W.H. Rambaut, The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh, 1868-9) from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.xi.i.ii.html

8Tertullian, Elucidations, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxxiii.html?highlight=tertullian,christ,our,god#highlight

9http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xvii.html?highlight=origen,the,son#highlight

10Cyprian, Epistle III, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.iii.html

11Methodius, From the Discourse on the Resurrection, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.v.i.html

12Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.html

13Arnobius, The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathern, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xii.iii.i.i.html

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Luke?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Luke?

posted by Clark Bates on June 6, 2016

      As it regards the Gospel according to Luke, there is very little debate, still existing surrounding its authorship. Just as with the other gospels, formal titles were not believed to have been applied to this gospel prior to AD 130. Debate over the reliability of this belief was discussed in a previous article (here), making it sufficient to merely comment here that the belief that the fourfold Gospel was transmitted for more than a century without any form of identification or distinguishing titles, seems implausible and unlikely, especially given the testimonies of the early church. Just as the other three gospels, Luke is formally anonymous. The author of tradition is the “faithful companion” of the apostle Paul, referred to as the “beloved physician” (Col. 4:14 ESV). Most of what can be known about the presumed author comes from external evidence, but a considerable amount of internal support can be found from the book of Acts.

Internal Evidence

      The opening of the gospel clearly suggests that the author was not an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus and, therefore, not an apostle (Lk. 1:1-4). Some debate exists regarding the meaning of the phrase, “having followed things closely” (ESV translation, of the Greek pareklouthekoti) v.3. Cadbury argues that this phrase is best translated as, “one who kept a close personal watch over the events that transpired”, implying that the author provides a form of personal account, but he stands apart from the larger body of tradition which translates the phrase to be, “one who investigated” without any direct personal observation.¹ The third gospel betrays a heavier interest in Gentiles than the other synoptics and may point to a Gentile author. The Greek of Luke is formal and in keeping with educated classical style, suggesting an educated man, very aware of the Roman literature of the first century.

      The opening to the book of Acts connects it to the Gospel according to Luke by way of a common recipient, the unknown “Theophilus” (Acts 1:1). Whether the critic ascribes the authorship to the traditional Luke or some other source does not dispute that it is unanimously accepted that Luke and Acts were written by the same author as a collection. It is in this book that the most light is shed on the identity of the author of the third gospel. There are multiple passages within the book of Acts known as the “we” passages.² In these sections of Scripture the author identifies himself as a companion with the apostle Paul. The argument against the authenticity of these passages rests largely on the theory that they are used as a literary device rather than an attribution to personal experience.³ This perspective has rightly diminished over the years, particularly in light of how arbitrarily the “we” sections are applied. Were these sections meant to b a literary device it would only serve an effective purpose if they were used to introduce more portions of text or various theological points. As Bock notes, “The 'we' sections are more than mere inserts of notes from someone else, and their haphazard use reflects authenticity.”⁴

      If the author of Acts is a fellow-laborer with the apostle Paul (which seems to be the case) and the author of the third gospel as well, then we are left with a narrow group from which to choose. This companion was with the apostle on his first missionary journey to Philippi (16:10-17), third missionary journey (20:5-15; 21:1-18), and on his voyage to Rome (27:1-28:16). The perspective of the account reveals that he author could not have been any of the fellow travelers named in these accounts, and given his travels to Roman, would suggest that he would be a companion listed in one of the letters written by the apostle from that period of time.⁵ The companions named in these letters are: Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, Tychicus, Timothy, Aristarchus, and Epaphroditus. While internal evidence cannot take us much farther than this list, it has also been noted that the Gospel according to Luke appears to contain an assortment of “medical language” absent from any other biblical writing, which could further bolster the traditional authorship to the “beloved physician” of Colossians 4:14.⁶ This leads us to the external evidence of the early church.



External Evidence

      The heretic known as Marcion (famous for printing his own version of the Bible) identified Luke as the author of the third gospel in second century. This same attribution is made by the Muratorian Canon circulated sometime between the second and fourth centuries. The early church father Irenaeus (AD 130-202) claimed Luke, a companion of Paul and doctor, wrote the gospels.⁷ In addition to Irenaeus, Tertullian (AD 160-220) characterized the third gospel as a summary of the gospel according to Paul.⁸ The earliest extant copy of the Gospel of Luke, known as the Bodmer Papyrus XIV or P75, ascribes the work to Luke and is also dated between AD 175 – 225.

      While there still remains an element of skepticism to this external evidence, it must again be stated that the likelihood of first century writings being transmitted without some form of authorial attribution is highly unlikely. While both Luke and Acts remain formally anonymous, not having an author explicitly stated within the text, the earliest copies would have been shipped with an attached tag bearing the author's name.⁹ It should also be acknowledged that no recorded opposition to Lukan authorship exists within the early church. Given the more common requirement of apostolic authorship for canonicity it seems even more reasonable that Luke's name would even be attached to the third gospel from the beginning. To quote Carson, “The universal identification of a non-apostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition.”¹⁰

      Lastly, returning to the ascription to Luke in the letter tot he Colossians, we read that in verses 10-11 of chapter 4 that Paul transmits greetings from three men followed by, “These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers. . .” (ESV), indicating that the previously mentioned three were Jews, whereas those that follow are not (i.e. Gentiles). It is at this point the apostle extends greetings from Epaphras and Luke, leading to the early tradition that Luke was a Gentile believer and subsequently supporting the earlier stated facts regarding the Greek writing of the gospel and its Gentile emphasis.

 “The universal identification of a non-apostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition.”

Conclusion



      Given the weight of the evidence, both internal and external, it is highly likely that the Gospel according to Luke was written by the physician/follower of the apostle Paul. Its quick and early acceptance into the canon by the early church is a substantial support for the book's authority and historicity. The author's careful attention to detail has long since garnered him respect within the historical community and serves as a commanding force toward confidence in the Christian text. As with the discussion regarding the previous gospels, authorship does not determine truth, but continues to serve as a bedrock behind the cumulative case for the reliability of the New Testament.

1For Cadbury see: F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, “The Tradition” (London: Macmillan, 1920-33), 2.501-3. For the more traditional response, see: Darrel L. Bock, The NIV Application Commentary:Luke, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).

2Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16.

3E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 85.

4Darrell L. Bock, The NIV Application Commentary: Luke, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.

5During his Roman imprisonment it is traditionally accepted that Paul wrote Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and possibly Philippians. Although there is dispute about Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians.

6D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction tot he New Testament: Luke, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 204.

7Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1, 3.14.1.

8Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.2, 4.5.3.

9Martin Debelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, (ET: London: SCM, 1956), 148.

10Carson and Moo, Introduction, 206.