Category: Research Papers

Restoration Movement Theology: T. W. Brents on the “Foreknowledge of God”

On By Jovan PayesIn 2005, College Papers, Foreknowledge, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Old Testament, Research Papers, Restoration Movement Theology, T.W. Brents, Theology

There is a certain measure of absurdity that occurs when a finite being seeks to understand the infinite God. The inquiry is no simple matter. God’s infinite nature transcends the finite and linear nature of human beings. Such a pursuit touches every major philosophical, theological, religious, and epistemic field of knowledge. The study of God and his attributes is a complex endeavor and is often accomplished by examining individual aspects of the nature or essence of God, or by considering the way in which God interacts with his creation. One classic question centers on God’s omniscience, and what it means for God to know the future of particular persons and events (i.e., foreknowledge).

The question of divine foreknowledge tethers together God’s omniscience and human free will. For example, why would God create the universe if God was aware more people would be lost eternally rather than saved? As one person asked in an online discussion, “Why go through on something knowing in advance that it is a bad investment?” The question presumes there is a logical inconsistency between an all-loving God and the reality of suffering and chaos in the world.

Some contemporary theologians have argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited and can only account for what can be actually known. This theory has various labels, but is commonly called, “Open Theism.” Among 19th-century Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement personas, Thomas Wesley Brents (1823–1905) argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited to what can be actually known. Brents’s viewpoint is set forth in his sermon, “Foreknowledge of God,” set forth in his classic anthology of sermons, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874). Brents was a well-respected nineteenth-century North American “pioneer” preacher of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. In short, Brents argued that unlimited foreknowledge lacks biblical consistency.

I dispute this conclusion. There are many presuppositions that underpin the argument of Brents’s sermon, “Foreknowledge of God.” This paper offers a refutation of his thesis that God does not have unlimited foreknowledge. I argue that God knows all that is possible to be known and that this foreknowledge does not interfere with human free will.

Statement of the Problem

Unlimited foreknowledge is asserted on the basis of three basic arguments. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God knows everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is essentially outside of time and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

In “Foreknowledge,” however, Brents posed what is a fair question:

may we not, then, with becoming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass?[1]

In The Gospel Plan of Salvation, “Foreknowledge” is part of the opening series of sermons Brents delivers against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, election and reprobation, hereditary depravity, and the doctrine of Universalism (i.e., all souls will be saved).[2] Brents principally attacked the fundamental basis for the two systems of belief; namely:

the assumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just who and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost.[2]

For Brents, “such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable decree” in which “man had no power to avert” this foreknown destiny. Brents argues that such a position violates human agency.[3] He then sets forth a series of arguments that follow a somewhat sequential order, building upon one another.

He concedes that this study can only appropriately operate if it is recognized that finite humanity has mental limitations and can only understand God as God has revealed himself.[4] Brents cautiously affirms:

We may know God’s will, and the extent of His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go. When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and believe, whether he can or can not [sic] see to the end.[5]

Then he moves to argue against God having unlimited foreknowledge on account that there are passages that appear to demonstrate that God was unaware of certain things, such as the depravity of the pre-flood population of Earth (Gen 6:5). Brents forwards his argumentation by means of the analogy of omnipotence, pondering that “if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”; consequently, infinite knowledge does not require that he knows everything.[6]

Brents acknowledges that this may be accounted for on the grounds of accommodation, and provides his definition of accommodation and its limits. Accommodation must embody the same thought from whatever source it is being transferred from and should the thought be different then it is a form of deception, conveying “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[7]

The next line of reasoning is Brents’ “all” argument, where he observes that while Scriptures teach that God and Jesus know “all things,” the word “all” may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[8] In his conclusion, Brents maintains that God only knows for sure that which He has decreed to be an absolute certainty, and is unaware of those things he has decreed to be contingent realities.[9]

First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know.

Preliminary to evaluating the biblical data, a brief definition of what is meant here is that God knows everything there is to know. That God knows everything there is to know is to say that God is omniscient. Omniscience comes from two words, omnis, “all,” and scire, which means, “know”; consequently, it means knowledge of everything – a perfect knowledge.[10] God has perfect knowledge of the past, the present, and the future from the human point of view; furthermore, if God has perfect knowledge of the future, then this suggests that God has foreknowledge. This aspect of God’s omniscience specifically focuses on God knowing the future acts as if they were already done.[11] Interestingly, Casper W. Hodge observes that God’s omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence” (2 Chron 16:9, Pro 15:3, Psa 139).[12] These concepts will be further embellished as Brents’s specific lines of contention are addressed.

Old Testament evidence suggests that God is omniscient. Notice an example from the Exodus where God revealed the future of Abraham’s offspring in Egyptian bondage (Gen 15:13–15). When Moses is called, God is prepared to deliver them from this servitude (Exod 3:8–9), but Moses is warned that Pharaoh will harden his heart and not let the Israelites go easily (Exod 7:14) until the last plague is sent upon Egypt (Exod 11:1).[13] God was fully aware of the future events, and this assurance that God knew what would happen was a vital part of the confidence of Moses, as were the miraculous abilities and supernatural experiences he had gone through (Exod 3:4–6, 4:1–17).

New Testament evidence likewise provides strength to the picture that God is omniscient. An example from this group of canonical material is found in 2 Peter. One scholar reflects upon this material in light of omniscience and free will and points out: “Divine revelation as it is expressed in 2 Peter does not present a God who is learning, relenting, at times taken by surprise or retracting his eternal counsel.”[14] 2 Peter 3:14–18, as suggested by Neyrey, reflects the “themes and issues raised” from the beginning of the letter.[15] Edmond Hiebert likewise notes this connection based upon dió (“therefore”) in 3:14 and suggests two points: “these exhortations are based on what has been written” so far; and the author insists, “that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained” in light of the coming judgment.[16] This observation is vital in light of the heretical religio-philosophical school of thought under attack in 2 Peter 2:1–3:13. Thomas R. Schreiner, observes:

Peter’s argument is not pragmatic […] he did not invent the idea of a future judgment to foster ethical living now. On the contrary, the day of the Lord, consisting of both judgment and salvation, was bedrock reality for him. On the basis of this reality, believers are exhorted to godliness.[17]

This moral argument is given weight and authority throughout 3:14–18 in three ways: the inspired revealer of God’s knowledge reminds his audience of the coming judgment which is sure  (3:14–15a).[18] God knows the future outcome of these false teachers and those who live immorally; therefore, “what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (3:11).

Brents’ attack is really quite simple: God is omniscient, but he only knows what can be known and what respects the free moral agency of humanity. This would necessitate that there are some things that God cannot know – which are the future actions of mortals. As an example of this, he cites Genesis 6:5–6 where the Bible says:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Brents asks why state that God “saw” the world bankrupt of morality if it was not new from God’s perspective?[19] “Why did God grieve over a result which was as plain to Him before He created man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness performed?” Again he asks, “Could there be anything unknown to him whose understanding is infinite?”[20] Brents believe there is, and here is his argument; which is somewhat analogous to the attribute of omnipotence; observe, 

if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”[21]

“God is as infinite in power as He is in understanding. No one, we suppose, will deny that He is omnipotent as well as omniscient, yet there are some things He can not do; e.g., God can not lie [….]” because they are inconsistent with his other attributes and the free agency of man.[22] Therefore, Brents’s reasons,

He did not know, before making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free agency and responsibility of man. To be a responsible man must be free.”[23]

Any knowledge of future events, says Brents is equivocal to an immutable decree that cannot be averted, thus there is no freedom to “falsify” God’s foreknowledge –hence where is the freedom.[24]

In response to Brents, several things may be said. First, it is believed that too high a premium has been made upon a small sampling of Scripture that employs accommodative language, depicting God as repentant for making humanity. Brents argues that the accommodative language argument is fallacious, however, for two reasons: accommodations must embody the same thought. The other reason is that if the same thought is not employed then some form of deception is being undertaken, conveying, “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[25] Brents takes it one step further and suggests that God could have said that He knew from the beginning that man would fall and that he was not surprised by man’s spiral into immorality. The problem with this is that it does not square with the rest of the biblical evidence, a sample of which has been demonstrated above. Furthermore, as Hodge observes:

It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge (Gen 11:5; 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term.[26]

Furthermore, as will be developed later God is outside of time God does not live a linear life where life “exists of moments following one another,” C.S. Lewis observes.[27] There is a genuine anthropomorphic accommodation (i.e. “God is described in human terms”) when God reacts sadly to the fall of man, as instantaneously as humans would, demonstrating both concern and contempt for sin.[28]

Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom.

Brents is very clear that if God knows everything including the future events of humans, then that goes against free agency. He argues that if God knows a thing then it is as sure as an immutable decree. The problem Brents has with this analogy is that while the force of both foreknowledge and an immutable decree may be similar in that the future cannot be changed, the latter has participation in selecting one’s future destiny; whereas, with the former, it is simply a matter of knowing, not a matter of imposing a certain destiny. Hence the argument Brents articulate is quite problematic, for one of his major premises is crippled. Though we would not agree with everything said by Arthur Pink, he makes a good observation relative to this point:

It should, however, be pointed out that neither God’s knowledge nor His cognition of the future, considered simply in themselves, are causative. Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.[29]

In keeping with the critique of Brents, Pink’s observation likewise contributes to the credibility of the notion that knowledge is not causative. Simply because a person may know how an engine works, does not imply that this person is responsible for all engines everywhere to function. It simply means that this person knows what will occur under the present circumstances. Therefore, taking this limited illustration to a divine scale, God knows all the circumstances and what will happen under those circumstances, but does not decree that they occur in the sense of direct cause for it to occur. Humans are still left with their free agency intact.

Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Brents’s argument is the implied presupposition that God acts in a linear existence as man does. Part of this has to do with Brents’ view of the biblical statements, for example, consider the case of Abraham offering Isaac (Gen 22:12). The text says that when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, God through an angel said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld you son, your only son, from Me.” Brents responds to this passage as follows:

What can this mean? “Now I know that thou fearest God.” Did He always know it? Nay, how did He then know it? “Seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” Does not this language imply that God saw in Abraham a degree of faithfulness unseen before?[30]

Indeed, from the surface it appears to be the case, and honestly, there is a sense that God did experience something new about Abraham, for Woods writes that the phrase “Now I know” suggests the idea that God now knew “by experience.”[31] This would imply that there is a difference between God foreknowing a thing, and then actually experiencing it; which furthermore demonstrates that knowing and the action are mutually exclusive. Yet Brents asks, in light of Hebrews 11:7, where this was design to “try” Abraham,  “How then could God try Abraham if He knew Abraham would past the test”? Brents then argues that in order to be a true accommodation, Abraham should have been to whom this statement was addressed: “Now you know” what kind of faithful service you can render to God, for “an accommodation of language to thought would require a change like this”[32] But as noticed above, God is outside of time.

Returning to the aspect of God living in a non-linear – outside of time – environment, C. S. Lewis provides helpful information. He writes:

How could He [God] at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples “Who touched me?” You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: “While He was a baby” – “How could He at the same time?” In other words I was assuming that Christ’s life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time […][33]

But Brents argues that since Christ had a limited foreknowledge of future events (time of his return Mark 13:32), then it means that God in heaven may have a limited foreknowledge of future events. He makes this leap of argumentation:

It is one thing to know all things, and quite another to foreknow all things –one thing to know a thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing, or when it has no existence.[34]

Then he says that the term “all” in all things may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[35] Brents moves to say that since all has this meaning, as demonstrated in his examples (all the people were baptized by John, though many rejected him; John’s audience only knew that which John was writing about; love does not believe lies though it believes all things), “then we shall continue to believe that our Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His foreknowledge to an extent compatible with the free-agency and accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised for him, until we are shown a more excellent way.”[36]

The problem here is simple. Brents assumes that Christ on earth shares the same omniscience as God in Heaven, but this is not so. Particularly is this true when Christ affirms that God knows certain future events that the Son did not; for example, the establishment of the kingdom (Acts 1:6–8). More specifically though, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among mortals, He emptied himself of certain qualities that he shared while being with the Father in Heaven. Philippians 2:5–8 reads as follows:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

All that Brents may argue from Mark 13:32 is that Jesus had limited foreknowledge, which is consistent with his departure from heaven to take upon human appearance. Furthermore, Brents’ discussion and argumentation cannot extend to God in heaven, since the Father and the Holy Spirit never divested themselves as Christ did. Consequently, Brents’ argument against the foreknowledge of God does not stand.

Conclusion

At first glance it appears that Brents offers a strong case as he moves from position to position, setting forth his claim that the classical concept of God’s foreknowledge is flawed, and that God’s knowledge is only about things that can be known, and that such things must occur in order for him to know. However, in the process of his argumentation, it appears that Brents is flawed in several particulars. Although Brents argues that unlimited foreknowledge is unbiblical, it is maintained in this paper that unlimited foreknowledge is biblical.

The basis for this assertion lies in three lines of reasoning. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is. With these things in mind, we close this discussion.

Endnotes

  1. T. W. Brents, “Foreknowledge of God,” The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 17th ed. (1874; Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987), 75. All italics are original to the text of the sermon unless otherwise noted as “emphasis added” (i.e., emph. added).
  2. Brents, Gospel Plan, “Predestination” (7–12), “Election and Reprobation” (13–40), “Calvinistic Proofs Examined” (41–73), “The Foreknowledge of God” (74–87), and “Hereditary Depravity” (88–116).
  3. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  4. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74–75.
  5. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 75.
  6. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  7. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  8. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  9. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  10. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 85–87.
  11. Charles Hartshorne, “Omniscience,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 546.
  12. Charles Hartshorne, “Foreknowledge, Divine,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 284.
  13. Casper W. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” ISBE 2:1128.
  14. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  15. J. Daryl Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate,” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 86.
  16. Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter,” 247.
  17. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a,” BSac 141 (1984): 331.
  18. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: Broadman, 2003), 393; see also, Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 334, and Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1986), 449.
  19. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334.
  20. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  21. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  22. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  23. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76–77.
  24. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  25. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  26. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  27. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  28. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (1952; repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960), 146.
  29. Wayne Jackson, “Anthropomorphism,” Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 2002), 8; Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972), 17.
  30. Arthur Pink, The Attributes of God (1930; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20.
  31. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  32. Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 56.
  33. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  34. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 147.
  35. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 83.
  36. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  37. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983.

Brents, T.W. “The Foreknowledge of God.” Pages 74–87 in The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 17th ed. 1874. Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987.

Charles, J. Daryl. “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate.” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 85–93.

Hartshorne, Charles. “Foreknowledge, Divine.” Page 284 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

_____. “Omniscience.” Pages 546–47 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a.” BSac 141 (1984): 330–40.

Hodge, Caspar Wistar. “Foreknow, Foreknowledge.” Pages 1128–31 in vol. 2 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Jackson, Wayne. Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy. Stockton, CA: Courier, 2002.

Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament:  An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986.

Lanier, Sr., Roy H. The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries. Denver, CO: Lanier Publishing, 1974.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Revised edition. 1952. Repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude:  A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37C. Edited by William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. 1930. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003.

Woods, Clyde M. Genesis-Exodus. People’s Old Testament Notes. Vol. 1. Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972.

The Gospels: Seven Reasons to Trust Their Reliability

On By Jovan PayesIn 2022, Ancient Biography, Ancient History, Biola University, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Early Christianity, Gospel Studies, Graduate Work, Greco-Roman World, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Research Papers, Talbot School of Theology, Theology

In the summer of 1996, I picked up a little green Gideon New Testament and began reading the gospels. At the time I was searching to see if perhaps Jesus would be the help I needed in my personal quest to leave the street gang life, overcome my dependency on illicit drug use, and establish a relationship with God. The experience had a radical impact on my hope of what was possible in my life, that I could be other than what I was, and how I could be reborn into the kingdom of God. A few days after Christmas day, I committed my life to following Jesus. In that nascent period of my emerging faith, I relied on the gospels to “tell me the story of Jesus.”

Since that time, I have immersed myself in the study of the gospels for faith and for hope, for truth, and for the renewing power of the historic Jesus who is the Christ of my faith. However, in that same period, it became clear to me that a number of sources (academic and popular) questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels (and the Bible). In this present paper, I affirm their reliability in a cumulative case, based on seven good arguments that make it more probable than not that the Gospels are historically reliable.[1]

The case will be divided into three categorical units.[2] I begin with four “ground-clearing” arguments to resolve important front-end misgivings regarding the reliability of the gospels. Second, I argue how four compositional conventions demonstrate a remarkably stable environment for writing ancient biographies of a recent figure within living memory. Then, I show how three historical features of the Gospels affirm their reliability. Finally, I offer a summation of what this abbreviated cumulative case affirms regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Cumulative Argument for Reliability

There are two aspects of the present cumulative case for the reliability of the Gospels to consider before moving forward: the method and the goal. The method of a cumulative case is to use a series of individual arguments that are “less than sufficient” to bear the whole burden of a case by themselves, but together argue a compelling case that is reasonable. Former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, says it helps others to “see the forest for the trees.”[3] If the overlapping nature of the arguments makes for a reasonable argument, then the goal is to demonstrate that the cumulative case is more probable than the alternatives.

As an illustration, consider the colloquial commonsense argument: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has a bill like a duck, then it is a duck.” These three arguments form a cumulative case that the “bird” is a duck. With this admittedly limited illustration, I point to the commonsense nature of overlapping lines of reasons and evidence, of varying weight, together to offer a big-picture argument.

Presently, then, the seven arguments below overlap to argue positively that it is reasonable and more probable (not just plausible) than not the Gospels are in general historically reliable as an ancient historical biography of a recent religious teacher (Jesus) within the living memory of his disciples. This is a threshold argument. Do the gospels crossover to the category of historically reliable? This is significant since the Gospels are our best available source for any historical picture of Jesus of Nazareth.[4]

Ground Clearing Arguments

The following arguments are treated as “ground-clearing” lines of evidence as they address “front-end” matters of reliability.[5] What extant sources are available for knowledge of Jesus? Has the text of the Gospels been preserved and reliably transmitted? Even if the textual tradition is adequate, are the translations reliable? How early are these Gospels and who wrote them? These are important questions that must be given consideration due to so many misgivings about them in popular circles.[6]

Ancient Sources for Jesus

In the first place, what sources exist to know that Jesus existed and what he said and did? Apart from the Gospels, there is a cache of early ancient non-Christian, often hostile, testimony about Jesus available from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, later Christian, and heretical and apocryphal literature within the first one hundred years.[7] The composite picture of what is known of Jesus from these sources remarkably corroborates with what is found in the four Gospel accounts: Jesus was a Jewish itinerant, miracle-working rabbi in the Roman province of Judea, who many believed was the Messiah; but he was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar; his disciples believed he resurrected spreading this belief throughout the Rome. The Gospels remain the best sources for Jesus, but corroboration of their portrayal of Jesus with ancient non-Christian sources is a necessary starting place.

Reliable Transmission

Additionally, skeptic Richard Carrier, a historian of ancient Rome, lists “textual analysis” as the first stage of historical inquiry.[8] This second ground-clearing argument asserts the Gospels pass the “bibliographical test” as part of the reliable transmission of the Greek New Testament from the ancient text to the modern reader.[9] New Testament textual criticism can evaluate, detect, and correct textual corruptions due to the access of textual critics to over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, early ancient translations, and early church quotations.[10] There are two significant variants in the gospels which involve an entire passage (Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11), but these are the exception. According to Blomberg, we have “upwards of 97% of what the original writers wrote reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt,” and the remaining 3% affects no Christian doctrine.[11] As an ancient, hand-copied group of books, the Gospels have been reliably transmitted.

Reliable English Translations

As a third argument, standard English Bible translations are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of knowing the deeds, sayings, and passion of Jesus in the Gospels. Translation is the work of transferring the meaning and ideas of words from one language into the language of a receptor language. Biblical scholar Philip W. Comfort notes that a translation “must reliably replicate the meaning of the text without sacrificing its readability.”[12] In translation theory, there are formal equivalence (“word for word”) translations (ESV, NASB), and there are dynamic equivalence (“thought for thought”) translations (NLT, CEB).[13] Additionally, there are optimal equivalence translations that seek an ideal blend of formal and dynamic methods (CSB, NIV).[14] No translation is perfect, but they typically succeed in producing a “reliable and readable” English text.

First-Century Documents

Finally, the Gospels are first-century biographical documents. Although the traditional authorship attributed to the Gospels attributed to them by the earliest Christian claim has been disputed and denied by critical scholarship, the dating given for most of the canonical gospels is within the window of “living memory” for the writing of ancient biographies about a historical figure.[15] Keener defines “living memory” as a time when “some people who knew the subject were still alive when the biographer wrote” their biography.[16] This is an ideal time to write a Gospel given the access to “better sources” and communal accountability to “document” events and sayings than a later biographer would have at their disposal. Scholarly consensus places the publication of each Gospel within the range of “living memory” of the first century. This fits within a literary period of the early Roman Empire in which concern for historical biographical accuracy peaked, roughly between the first century B.C. to the third century A.D.[17]

The Argument from Memory

In Christobiography, Craig Keener marshalls a compelling case that the Gospel biographies have many of the features of the ancient biographies. The following section seeks to condense Kenner’s overall argument. I argue for a remarkably stable environment for historical writing, with a focus on living memory and oral sources, which were adapted to write an ancient biography of a recent figure within living memory with a concern for accurate history telling.[18]

To focus the present argument, the historical preface to Luke-Acts will be used to inform and illustrate these conventions:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4 English Standard Version)[19]

Luke’s preface elicits the reader to anticipate that a historical narrative is forthcoming and constrained by pre-existing Jesus knowledge. Luke readily demonstrates that a historian’s use of convention to compose history is not incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration.[20] Nevertheless, here the focus is only given to how the Gospels are examples of reliably composed ancient biographical documents using the sources and conventions available to the authors.

Luke illustrates that the early church had a depository of oral tradition available to them extending back to “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2). The presence of oral tradition alone does not suggest stability, as it could be argued that the further away from Jerusalem over the years, the oral tradition lacked authentic “controls on the content” to prevent corruption.[21] Admittedly, this is a very complex question. It requires an appreciation that one’s memory precedes chronologically “memoir” and “oral tradition,” which brings into focus the question: how reliable was the first-generation memory of Jesus on which the Gospels are written? Part of the answer is found in the strength of the communal memory of the first generation of eyewitnesses to preserve and provide accountability to the transmission of oral tradition even if certain details were distorted, or allowable stylistic changes crept in.[22] That is to say, distortions may occur when forgetting certain details (location, timeframe), but in an organically controlled environment, memory will likely not invent new stories.

Craig Keener argues at length that memory studies “offer no reason to discount” that the Gospels, as ancient biography, “preserve substantial information about Jesus.”[23] Debates occur over how much “core” Jesus is preserved in the Gospels from the source of memory and oral tradition. The skepticism of how much ancients could remember, it should be tempered with contemporary “Westerners” use of memory to reconstruct from their own living memory, despite the natural limitations of organic memory.[24] When it comes to what the earliest disciples should have remembered, memory studies point to an expectation that the collective memory and oral tradition of the disciples should have provided a basic historical portrait of Jesus.

The retelling of the same or parallel events with stylized segments of Jesus’ teaching, the person mentioned, or details omitted, are the kinds of elements that would be found within well a preserved oral tradition and communal memory. This is particularly important for the oral teaching of Jesus in which the oral community cared more for substance (the gist) over the verbatim recollection.[25] Thus, Keener argues, there are good historical grounds for accepting the shared events, themes, teachings, and deeds of Jesus and his inner circle.[26]

Historical Arguments

The present historical arguments affirm the reliability of the Gospels. First, archaeological confirmation situates the realism of the biographical narratives. Second, early Christian letters predating the Gospels include early Christian creedal statements, possible quotations, and allusions to the teaching of Jesus.

Archaeological Corroboration

Archaeology is a precarious discipline as it does not always yield all the desired corroborating evidence for a specific event or person. Nevertheless, “evidence-based apologetics” is linked to the proper use and interpretation of archaeological findings.[27] Excavations from various cities connected to Jesus have illuminated the realism found in the Gospel narratives, but by the nature of the case, they do not confirm the supernatural deeds of Jesus.[28] It is immaterial if one’s horizon believes the Gospels exaggerate these aspects of the historical Jesus or allow for them.[29] There was a time when it was believed that archaeology could only date the birth of Christ but provide little that would illustrate Jesus’ life.[30]

Archaeology has since demonstrated places mentioned exist (e.g., Nazareth), illustrating agrarian life (mill stones, viticulture), living conditions (homes), topography, economics (Roman and Judean coins), and other socio-cultural realities.[31] In 1961, an inscription was found at Caesarea Maritimis confirming externally that Pontius Pilate was the Judean prefect during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The realism of stories of the twelve disciples traveling by boat in the Sea of Galilee was confirmed in 1986 when a first-century fishing boat was found in the Sea of Galilee. In an impressive find, in 1968 the remains of an early first-century crucified man, named Yehohanan, were discovered in a family bone box (ossuary) found in the northern city limits of Jerusalem. This find illuminates Jewish death customs of the period, that Judean crucified victims as criminals received proper burial rites (like Jesus), instead of the claim of some that the crucified were buried in unmarked mass graves.[32]

Pre-Gospel Allusions in Paul and James

A second historical argument is made from pre-Gospel publication creedal statements, quotations, and allusion to Paul and James the Just. Paul is believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero in Rome (A.D. 64–67).[33] In Galatians 1:11–2:10, the content of Paul’s gospel is authenticated by the earliest disciples of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, Paul appeals to a pre-existing creedal statement affirming the death, burial, resurrection, and multiple resurrected appearances of Jesus (Matt 28:1–10; Luke 24:1–49). Additionally, Paul distinguishes his teaching on marital issues from known circulating instruction from Jesus (1 Cor 7:10, 12).[34] In Romans 1:1–6, is found the belief that Jesus is of Davidic lineage (Matt 1:17). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites what is likely an oral saying of Jesus that is found nearly verbatim in Luke 10:7.[35]

Additionally, James wrote an early epistle to Hebrew Christians. He was executed by high priest Ananus II during the transition from procurator Festus to Albinus (A.D. 62), alluding to the teaching of his brother Jesus.[36] Blomberg demonstrates that no epistle “contains as many passages that verbally resemble the teaching of Jesus” as James, so much so, that some believe James had access at minimum to Matthew’s sermon on the mount (Matt 5–8).[37] The resemblances seem consistent with the fluid nature of oral tradition.

These references from Paul and James, and many other letters, do not alone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels, but they do show how the Gospels fall within the continuity of pre-publication beliefs.

A Summation

The “ground clearing” arguments demonstrate that there is good ancient first-century source material that has been adequately preserved and reliably translated into English for those who would like to know about Jesus. Additionally, the oral tradition techniques and composition with available sources to write ancient history are remarkably stable to deliver the four Gospel biographies of Jesus within living memory. Finally, the external historical reliability of the Gospels is seen in the authentic writings of Paul and James, and archaeological corroboration of the realism and setting of the Gospels. I pray this cumulative case leads someone to believe that the Gospels are reliable so that one day they may come to believe in the Jesus of the Gospels.[38]

Endnotes

  1. To be clear, I do not affirm that these are the only arguments that can be made. Nor have I included all historical “ground clearing” issues (e.g., historical methodology, etc.). I have limited the discussion to these seven arguments due to space and convenience.
  2. These are my personal arrangements of the arguments.
  3. Former cold-case detective, J. Warner Wallace, remarks, “cumulative case arguments are typically built on a number of pieces of evidence, each of which may be imperfect or insufficient when considered in isolation. When examined in totality, however, the case becomes strong and reasonable.” He goes on, “opponents of cumulative cases usually attack the imperfections or insufficiencies they observe in the single pieces of evidence within the larger case. But remember, each individual evidence is admittedly less than sufficient, and this has no impact on whether or not the final conclusion, given the overwhelming nature of the cumulative case, is reasonable.” See, “Intense Investigation,” Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith, Logos electronic ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2017), n.p.
  4. Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 11.
  5. The idea of “ground clearing” arguments is taken from a passing statement in a lecture by Craig L. Blomberg on the reliability of the Gospels. The structure of this paper relies on the selective use of Blomberg’s lectures from a Fall 2022 Biola University graduate course titled, “The Reliability of the Gospels.”
  6. Paul Barnett likewise asserts, “our first and most basic step is to identify, date, and assess the historical value of our sources for Jesus Christ” (Finding the Historical Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009], 11).
  7. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 249–280; Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 11–64.
  8. Richard C. Carrier, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Kindle ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2012), location 174: “We have to use the methods of textual criticism and paleography to ascertain whether a document we presently have is authentic and accurately reflects its original—since usually only copies of copies exist today.”
  9. John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (1964; reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014), 11–13; Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017), 46–47.
  10. Blomberg points out it is not a fair use of the textual evidence to suggest the earlier back one goes, there will be an increase in variants (Historical Reliability, 335–36). Still, the earliest extant manuscripts are second-century papyrus fragments of Matthew 23:30–39 (P77) and John 18:31–34 and 18:37–38 (P52), and John 18:36–19:7 (P90) attesting to the early circulation of these books (Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990], 31–71). There are witnesses to Syriac and Old Latin translations of the gospels as early as the second century (Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001], 25–35). The gospels are cited or alluded to in first-to-second-century patristic literature such as Ignatius, Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, etc. (cf. Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (reprint, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research, 2009).
  11. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 332–33; For his alarmist rhetoric see, Bart Ehrman, “The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings” in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 45–69.
  12. Philip W. Comfort, Essential Guide to Bible Versions (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2000), 104.
  13. Comfort, Essential Guide, 103–04.
  14. On “optimal equivalence” see “The CSB Translation Philosophy: Optimal Equivalency” (Feb. 14, 2017).
  15. McDowell and McDowell compare the dating ranges of the four Gospels among conservative and liberal scholarship and provide these ranges in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (42–46): Matthew (early 60s–80s; 80–100), Mark (late 50s–late 60s; 70s), Luke (early 60s–80s; 70–110), John (mid-60s–100; 90–100).
  16. Keener, Christobiography, 2.
  17. Keener, Christobiography, 68–103.
  18. Due to the nature of this essay, especially this section, I am arguing the case for reliability without seeking the shortcut of appealing to “Holy Spirit-guided inspiration.” I am fully committed to the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. I believe God used the conventions of the day in the production of his written Word.
  19. Unless otherwise noted Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  20. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 38, footnote 42: “Luke describes the composition of his Gospel according to the standard process of ancient history-writing–consulting written sources, learning from oral tradition, interviewing eyewitnesses, selecting what is deemed most important for one’s own objectives.” In Keener, Christobiography, 221–39, the two-volume work Luke-Acts is profiled as a mixture of “biohistory” with each book from a sub-category of the historical genre: Luke (ancient biography) and Acts (ancient history).
  21. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 30.
  22. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing, 33–36.
  23. Keener, Christobiography, 366.
  24. Keener, Christobiography, 373. Keener points out how memories are not “videocameras… not straightforward, objective records of what happened” (374). They include constant reworking, bias, and conflation, and are vulnerable to suggestion.
  25. Keener notes that verbatim recollection was very rare, and given the sample size of the teaching of Jesus, one should expect the kind of substance-focused material found in the Gospels (385–90). Cf. Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 74–99.
  26. Keener, Christobiography, 384.
  27. McDowell and McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 416.
  28. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–27.
  29. I. Howard Marshall explores what is meant by “historical” as whether a person named x actually existed or whether a historical reference to someone named x is more fiction than history. Additionally, he pursues his project by seeking to go from “I believe in that there was a historical person called Jesus… what, if anything can be known about this person” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus, rev. ed. [Vancouver: Regent College, 2004], 16). C. K. Barrett assesses the uncomfortableness for the modern historian reading pre-scientific literature like the Gospels largely centers on the supernatural elements that do “not so appear in his own experience.” Still, it would be a “bad historical method to rule out a priori… such events” (Jesus and the Gospel Tradition [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968], 4). See a more recent discussion on “preunderstanding” horizons in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 38–50.
  30. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, eds. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 441.
  31. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 326–31. Charlesworth lists over one-hundred-twenty items ranging from the mundane to the illustrious (“Jesus Research,” 443–45).
  32. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Ossuaries,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 33. The multiply attested “burial tomb tradition” (Mark 15:42–47) has been doubted by various critical scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, who believes crucifixion meant “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion” (Who Killed Jesus? [New York: HarperCollins, 1995], 163–68).
  33. For Paul’s death see 1 Clement 5:5–7, 6:1; for context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (2008; reprint, New York: Routledge, 2015), 93–114.
  34. Blomberg describes this as a “powerful confirmation of the care with which the first Christians distinguished the words of the historical Jesus from later instructions inspired by his Spirit” (Historical Reliability, 287).
  35. Although critics do not list 1 Timothy among Paul’s authentic letters, the arguments are far from definitive and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972], 1–5; George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles [1992; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 21–52).
  36. For the death of James the Just see Josephus Antiquities 20.197–200; For context and historical analysis see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 115–34.
  37. Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 292–93.
  38. This “two decision” model is taken from Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 255–58.

Works Cited

Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ. After Jesus, volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Bock, Darrell L. “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, 74–99. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Kindle edition. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2012.

Charlesworth, James H. “Jesus Research and Archaeology” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 439–66. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperCollins, 2005

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Ossuaries.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 21–46.

Keener, Craig S. Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Revised edition. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 2002.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017.

McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. 2015. Reprint, New York: Routledge, 2018.

Montgomery, John Warwick. History, Law and Christianity. 1964. Reprint, Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2014.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2013.

_____. Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2017.

Do We Have the Old Testament?

On By Jovan PayesIn 2003, Bibliology, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Freed-Hardeman University, Old Testament, Research Papers, Textual Criticism, Theology1 Comment

A person of faith often assumes that there are no problems ascertaining the wording of certain passages. But reality demonstrates that there are instances where this proves to be untrue. What a believer expects God to do in His providential care of the planet may not always line up with how life unfolds itself, but such disorientation has been common among the faithful.

Despite all the miracles employed to compel Pharoah to release the Israelites from Egypt, when the environment became less than comfortable fear and panic overcame God’s people (Exod 14). Even Moses had initial problems with understanding the situation he was faced with when he was sent to Pharoah to have him release the Israelites (Exod 5). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that a person of faith at times needs “more” in order to calm their nerves.

The following brief study gives attention to the textual basis of the Old Testament, considering a few lines of thought that contribute to a more informed outlook on how copies of the Hebrew Bible have been transmitted into modern hands, and what the sources of the copies used today so that translators are able to produce translations of the Hebrew Bible.

It must be emphasized that this is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject. So much more is available for analysis; be that as it may, a survey of this material is sufficient to adequately support the above affirmation of the adequate veracity of the Hebrew Bible.

A Skeptic’s Concern

A skeptical approach to the Bible essentially argues that for a collection of books so old, for a collection of books that have passed through so many hands, or for a collection of anonymously published volumes, it is a hard sell to affirm that the Bible – here the Hebrew Bible – is trustworthy in any sense.

Regarding the textual certainty of the Bible in general, skeptic Donald Morgan puts the matter bluntly in the following words:

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book that survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.[1]

The argument basically affirms that there is no way for the Bible to be an accurate record of the words of God, and therefore, it is not “trustworthy.”  The sheer force of this argument is designed to rob the Bible believer’s faith in God. Implicit with this is the futility of having a religion founded upon the Bible’s guidance.

What can be said of this dire depiction, except that one must not be persuaded by mere affirmations, but instead by the available evidence. Not only is it paramount to see the evidence, but it is imperative that a proper evaluation is given to it.

The OT Accurately Transmitted

The Scribal Evidence

The overall scribal evidence suggests that the Hebrew Bible has been adequately preserved. The “scribe” trade goes back very early in recorded antiquity and therefore is a field of has a rich heritage of scholarship and workmanship behind it.[2]  J. W. Martin notes that the field of transmitting literature is a known trade skill from the 2nd millennium B.C. and observes, “men were being trained not merely as scribes, but as expert copyists.”[3]  Copying occurred during the Babylonian exile. F. C. Grant writes, “in far-away Babylonia the study and codification, the copying and interpretation of the Sacred Law had steadily continued.”[4]

This means that extending back beyond the time of Abraham (19th century B.C.) and Moses (15th century B.C.), down to the time of the exilic and post-exilic scribes (the predecessors to the “scribes who copied and explained the Law in the New Testament times”),[5] “advanced” and “scrupulous” methods would likely be used to copy any text, including the Hebrew canon.

The next question in need of an answer, though, is: what were those methods? Briefly, observe the mentality and professionalism which exemplify the sheer reverential ethic towards the transmission of the Biblical text characterized by the scribes.

The Hebrew Scribes revered the sanctity of the Scriptures. Moses commanded the people not to “add to the word,” nor to “take from it” (Deut 4:2). The Hebrews respected this command. Josephus weighs in as support for this point. In arguing for the superiority of the Hebrew Bible against the conflicting mythologies of the Greeks fraught with evident contradicting alterations to their content, Josephus bases his argument upon the reverential mentality towards these writings.

Josephus testifies to this sense of reverence (Against Apion 1.8.41-42):

[41] It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; [42] and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.[6]

William Whiston, Translator

Even though there are variants, produced by scribes, the fundamental historical truth stresses that the Hebrew scribes revered the Scriptures and dared never to add or take away from them. This important truth must not be forgotten. Moreover, this fact emphasizes the great care they had with the transmission of the text.

The scribal methods changed as time progressed, and this seems to be for the better and for the worst. One thing is transparent, however, and that is this: consistent with the reverential appreciation of the scriptures, the Hebrew scribes exercised acute professionalism in their methods, however superstitious they were at times. Rabbinic literature testifies to the early scribal school. Clyde Woods reproduces 17 crucial rabbinic rules demonstrating the rigors of the early scribal methodology.[7] The specifics concerning the writing materials, the preparation of the document, the veracity of the authenticity of the template, the conduct displayed when writing divine names, and other critical rules are thus enumerated underscoring the diligent professionalism of the early scribes.

The Masoretes succeeded and exceeded these scribes as a professional group of transmitters of the Hebrew Bible, laboring from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1000.[8] Lightfoot summarizes a number of procedures the Masoretes employed to “eliminate scribal slips of addition and omission.”[9] The Masoretes counted and located the number of “verses, words, and letters of each book,” thereby passing on the text that they have received. This intricate methodology in preservation is of extreme importance in modern textual studies,[10] and answers the reason why these reliable “medieval manuscripts” are commonly the underlying text of modern English translations[11] and represented in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (cf. English Standard Version).[12]

The concern for the accurate preservation of the Biblical text cannot, however, dismiss the fallible humanity which copied the text by hand, thereby producing inevitable scribal variations.[13] René Paché recounts the “herculean” endeavors of scholars evaluating the variants which have “crept into the manuscripts of the Scriptures” (e.g. B. Kennicott, Rossi, and J. H. Michaelis). These labors have also encompassed the analysis of the oldest versions and numerous citations and allusions from Jewish and Christian works. Robert D. Wilson’s observations in his work, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, noted that the 581 Hebrew manuscripts studied by Kennicott are composed of 280 million letters comprised of only 900,000 variants. These variants are boiled down to 150,000 because 750,000 are “insignificant changes” of letter switches.[14]

This is represented as 1 variant for every 316 letters, but putting these unimportant variants aside, the count stands at 1 variant for every 1,580 letters. Moreover, “very few variants occur in more than one of the 200-400 manuscripts of each book of the Old Testament.”[15] The point that needs recognition, however, is that we must recognize that the scribes have done their best, but there are variations that must be accounted for. These variations are not sufficient enough to call into question the adequate preservation of the Hebrew Bible.

Textual Evidence

After evaluating some of the problems in the textual evidence for the Old Testament, it can be said that the overall material adequately preserves the Hebrew Bible. This investigation is comparable to a roller coaster. There are both ups and downs, making one more confident while at the same time bringing some concern. For example, Peter Craigie notes, “there is no original copy of any Old Testament book; indeed, not even a single verse has survived in its original autograph. This is not a radical statement, simply a statement of fact.”[16]

The Bible believer might feel a bit disconcerted to know this fact, but there is no genuine need to feel this way. Truth endures because of its very nature no matter if one destroys the materials upon which it is written (Jer 36:23-32). Moreover, the scribal evidence adequately demonstrates an amazingly high level of accurate transmission and preservation of the Old Testament, even though the autographs are not available. One might speculate as to why these important documents are not providentially preserved for posterity, but the observation that such a course of action “is a highly dangerous procedure” is promptly recognized.[17]

Nevertheless, there are historical issues relating to this question and to the question of why there are such a small number of manuscript copies of the Old Testament when compared to the textual evidence of the New Testament. The most important fact is that the Hebrew scribes destroyed old manuscripts (autographs and copies). Clyde M. Woods writes:

The relative paucity [i.e. smallness of number] of earlier Hebrew manuscripts is due not only to the perishable nature of ancient writing materials (skins and papyri) and to the effort of hostile enemies to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, but, perhaps more significantly, to the fact that the Jews evidently destroyed some worn out manuscripts to prevent their falling into profane hands.[18]

This explains why there is comparatively less textual witness for the Old Testament than for the New, however, as Donald Demaray notes, “there is the compensating factor that the Jews copied their Scriptures with greater care than did the Christians.”[19] There are accounts of scribes having burial ceremonies for the manuscripts,[20] and the storage “of scrolls [in a “Genizah” depository] no longer considered fit for use.”[21]

Cairo Genizah - Cambridge Library Blog - Fig1
Image Credit: Cambridge University Library Special Collections. “Fragments from the Cairo Genizah prior to conservation and cataloguing [sic]” (Emma Nichols, “Conservation of the Lewis-Gibson Collection: Re-Treatment of Manuscript Fragments from the Cairo Genizah“)

A second major factor is the A.D. 303 declaration by Emperor Diocletian to destroy any “sacred” literature associated with the Christian religion.[22] F. C. Grant frames the significance as follows:

As never before, the motive of the Great Persecution which began in 303 was the total extirpation of Christianity: […]. The first of Diocletian’s edicts directed to this end prohibited all assemblies of Christians for purposes of worship, and commanded that their churches and sacred books should be destroyed.[23]

This would further contribute to the lack of Hebrew Bible manuscripts.

Modern manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible, therefore, does not include the autographa (“original manuscripts”) and is generally never expected to, as desirable as the obtainment of these documents is.[24] What remains is the collection of manuscripts which together allow textual scholars to reproduce as close as possible the Hebrew Old Testament. This body of textual evidence goes very far to close the gap between the present day and the autographa. What are these manuscript witnesses to the Hebrew Bible? There are primary and secondary witnesses but where space is limited to the manuscripts.

Bruce Waltke observes that the textual witnesses to the text are the extant Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew Vorlage obtained from the early versions of the Hebrew text.[25] While the term “manuscript” is typically recognized, the term Vorlage is probably unfamiliar to the general Bible student. This term refers to the text that “lies before” the translation or a theoretical “prototype or source document” from which it is based.[26] The Masoretic text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are the principal manuscript witnesses. These manuscripts coupled with the Vorlage are the “documents” at our disposal.

Craigie’s presentation on this material[27] when compared to Waltke leaves something to be desired, and that something is more data and deeper investigation. However, Craigie presents the evidence that the manuscript evidence (including early translations) extends from the 2nd century B.C to the MT of the late 9th century B.C.[28] Leaving a considerable gap, as he notes, of “several centuries, the time varying from one Old Testament book to another, between the earliest extant manuscripts and no longer existing original manuscripts.”[29]

Waltke presents a fuller presentation of the two substantiating Craigie’s observations and would extend from the available data that the Vorlage of some of the DSS and SP points to a Proto-MT at least somewhere in the 5th century B.C.[30] Moreover, the oldest evidence is found in 2 extremely small silver rolls containing the Aaronic priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26, dating to the 7th or 6th centuries B.C.[31] The text reads: 

May Yahweh bless you and keep you;
May Yahweh cause his face to
Shine upon you and grant you
Peace
(Michael D. Coogan)

Consequently, the worst case holds that the textual evidence goes only to the 2nd century, while the best case goes back some 300-500 years further back to a purer source as of yet unavailable.

H. G. G. Herklots has compiled a generous amount of information concerning the production of harmonization work which underlies the works of present-day manuscripts.[32] By doing this Herklots highlights that there are variations in the textual witnesses that the early stewards of the text attempted to dispose of but this has in some sense complicated the matter, making the study more laborious than it already is.[33] Variations are not as problematic as the skeptic supposes. To be sure, there are occasions of serious textual dissonance, but these are far from the plethoras of insignificant, obvious, and correctable variations.[34]

Waltke affirms, that “90 percent of the text contains no variants,” and of the remnant “10 percent of textual variations, only a few percent are significant and warrant scrutiny; 95 percent of the OT is therefore textually sound.”[35] Douglas Stuart notes that when considering the variations, “it is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading.”[36] The variations of the extant textual evidence hardly, therefore, pose an indomitable problem to the adequate preservation of the Old Testament. The skeptic’s argument has no leg to stand upon.

Extra-Hebrew Bible Sources

Besides the extant Biblical literature of the Hebrew Bible, there are miscellaneous sources that demonstrate the veracity of the text, and implicitly note the accountability of the Hebrew Bible to a textual investigation. While these witnesses cannot reproduce the entire Old Testament, they can be compared with the manuscript evidence for accuracy and enlightened evidence when certain passages or words appear obscure. Briefly, consider two sources.

First, the Targums are a set of Jewish works in Aramaic that are paraphrastic (i.e. “interpretive translation”) of parts of the Old Testament.[37] Targums are said to be used in the synagogue to give the Aramaic-speaking Jews the “sense” of the Hebrew Bible.[38] This is comparable to the verbal translation that had to occur at the inauguration of the Law under Ezra, where there were assistants who “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8 ESV).

Targums have been written upon every section of the Hebrew Bible; they ranged from “very conservative” to “interpretive” (Onkelos and Jonathon respectively), and are useful for the light they show upon traditional Jewish interpretation.[39] In the history of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, at times the Targum was placed along the side of a Hebrew text, a Greek text, and a Latin text (as in the Complutensian Polyglot) to “enable a reader with little Hebrew to understand the meaning of the Scriptures in his own language.”[40] It seems agreeable to suggest and affirm that the Targum serves as an appropriate and practical source to obtain a general understanding of the Hebrew text, which will definitely aid the textual scholar in analyzing obscure passages.

Second, there is the New Testament, which is a virtual galaxy of Old Testament citations and allusions as it connects Jesus and his followers as a continuation -fulfillment- of its message. Consequently, it serves as a proper witness to the passages cited or alluded to. E. E. Ellis writes:

there are some 250 express citations of the Old Testament in the New. If indirect or partial quotations and allusions are added, the total exceeds a thousand.[41]

The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Society, has 2 notable reference indexes. The first index lists the “Quotations” while the other catalogs “Allusions and Verbal Parallels.”[42]

The New Testament writers used and quoted not only the Hebrew Bible, but also the LXX (with some variations suggesting different Greek translations), and other sources such as the Old Testament Targums.[43] In addition, the New Testament, in terms of textual evidence (manuscript, early version, and patristic quotations), is the most attested document from antiquity[44] emphasizes the reliability of the New Testament evidence for the Old Testament.[45]

Concluding Thoughts

In summation, we have examined some of the evidence in a survey and observed that the typical skeptical claim against the Bible is fallacious. We are more than confident that the textual transmission of the Bible has adequately preserved the Bible. There are so many avenues from which data pours in that for all practical purposes the gap from these extant materials to the originals is irrelevant. Gaps of greater magnitude exist for other works of antiquity, but no finger of resistance is pressed against their adequate representation of the autographic materials.

The Bible experiences this sort of attack partly because ignorant friends of the Bible fighting with a broken sword affirm that we have the Bible and that it has no textual problems. Other times, skeptics misrepresent textual studies of the Bible in order to support their case that the Bible is not the inerrant inspired word of God. Be that as it may, the scribal evidence demands that the scribes held a high reverence and professionalism in the transmission of the text, the textual evidence is, though having some problems, near 100 percent sound. Moreover, the New Testament and Talmud are examples of sources that uphold the Biblical text and allow textual scholars to examine the accuracy of the textual data.

Finally, the skeptical attack has been viewed a considered only for it to be concluded that it is fallacious and of no need to be considered a viable position based on the evidence. In connection with this conclusion, observe some observations by Robert D. Wilson and Harry Rimmer. Rimmer writes that a scientific approach to the Bible inquiry is to adopt a hypothesis and then test it and see if there are supportive data that establishes it. He writes:

If the hypothesis cannot be established and if the facts will not fit in with its framework, we reject that hypothesis and proceed along the line of another theory. If facts sustain the hypothesis, it then ceases to be theory and becomes an established truth.[46]

Wilson makes a similar argument and ties an ethical demand to it. After ably refuting a critical argument against Daniel, Wilson remarks that when prominent critical scholars make egregious affirmations adequately shown to be so, “what dependence will you place on him when he steps beyond the bounds of knowledge into the dim regions of conjecture and fancy?.”[47]

Endnotes

  1. Donald Morgan, “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems,” Infidels Online (Accessed 2003). Mr. Morgan is just a classic example of the skepticism that many share regarding the integrity of the biblical record.
  2. Daniel Arnaud, “Scribes and Literature,” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.
  3. J. W. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” in The New Bible Dictionary, eds. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1254.
  4. Fredrick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961), 8 (emph. added).
  5. Grant, Translating the Bible, 10-11.
  6. Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987).
  7. Clyde M. Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 98.
  8. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1255; René Paché, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969), 187.
  9. Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 92.
  10. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 92.
  11. Peter C. Craigie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986), 32.
  12. English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), ix.
  13. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 91.
  14. Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, revised ed., Edward J. Young (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1967), .
  15. ctd. in Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 189–90.
  16. Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
  17. Dowell Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 104: “The books of the New Testament were originally copied by amateurs,” the variants multiplied from persecution pressures and translations issues up until the “standardization of the text” in the 4th to 8th centuries A.D.
  18. Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 96.
  19. Donald E. Demaray, Bible Study Sourcebook, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), 35; Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 106.
  20. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
  21. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57; Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 187-88; F. C. Grant notes that the Synagogue of Old Cairo’s Geniza has been found, throwing “great light upon Biblical studies” (Translating the Bible, 40). Biblical scrolls were discovered from 1890 and, onwards including Targums and rabbinic literature (Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57).
  22. Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476 (1985; repr., New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997), 208.
  23. Grant, Translating the Bible, 208.
  24. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
  25. Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994), 159-68.
  26. Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001), 128.
  27. Craigie, The Old Testament, 32-37.
  28. Craigie, The Old Testament, 36, 32.
  29. Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
  30. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 162.
  31. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 163.
  32. H. G. G. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions (New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957), 29-40, 109-23
  33. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 116-23, Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 164-167.
  34. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
  35. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157-58.
  36. qtd. in Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
  37. D. F. Payne, “Targums,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1238.
  38. Payne, “Targums,” 1238.
  39. Payne, “Targums,” 1239.
  40. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 35-36.
  41. E. E. Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1071.
  42. Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002), 887-901.
  43. Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” 1071.
  44. Wayne Jackson, Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974), 70-75.
  45. Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration, 7th edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 36.
  46. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, 98.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002.

Arnaud, Daniel. “Scribes and Literature.” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.

Craigie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986.

Demaray, Donald E. Bible Study Sourcebook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964.

DeMoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.

Ellis, E. E. “Quotations (in the New Testament).” Page 1071 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Flatt, Dowell. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament.” Pages 103-10 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Grant, Fredrick C. Translating the Bible. Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961.

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. 1985. Repr., New York, NY: Barnes, 1997.

Herklots, H. G. G. How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions. New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957.

Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. 2d edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Martin, W. J., et. al. “Texts and Versions.” Pages 1254-69 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Morgan, Donald. “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems.” Infidels Online.

Paché, René. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Translated by Helen I. Needham. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969.

Payne, D.F. “Targums.” Pages 1238-39 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Rimmer, Harry. Internal Evidence of Inspiration. 7th edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Waltke, Bruce K. “Old Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 156-86 in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. Edited by David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994.

Wilson, Robert D. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Revised edition. Revised by Edward J Young. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1967.

Woods, Clyde. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament.” Pages 94-102 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Family Ministry: Evaluating Garland on “Power and Roles”

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, 2017, Christian Leadership, family, Family Studies, Freed-Hardeman University, Genesis, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Mark, marriage, Marriage Studies, Research Papers, Women Studies

In the December 2015 issue of the Gospel Advocate magazine, my article, “The Widows Church of Christ” was published.[1] It focused on my experience one summer filling in at a small congregation near Freed-Hardeman University that at the time was composed exclusively of women and widows. In the piece, I briefly retold a conversation I had with one of the sisters there, rehearsed a few biblical examples of areas of women’s evangelistic involvement, and discussed women’s role in the assembly.

A reader called my attention to share her disagreement with the following few lines:

Scripture shows that Christian women prophesied and prayed in New Testament times (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 22:8-9), taught the Word of God accurately (Acts 18:26), and brought people to salvation (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15). Christian women also served one another in many diverse ways (1 Timothy 5:2; Titus 2:3-5; Acts 9:36-43). Too, Christian women were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, and “house church” hostesses (Romans 16:1-16).[2]

She disagreed with my assessment, but not because the early church used women in its ministry. She said, “I disagree because we [i.e. women] are stupid.” I responded, “Who told you women are stupid?” She matter-of-factly responded, “we are.” I flatly denied her claim. I do not know who taught her this, all I know is that an entire life in the church has not changed her mind. Unfortunately, this has not been my only experience.

Many women in church ask me to speak on their behalf about ideas. Why? It is not because they are shy, but because they are “women” and women have no “right to share” ideas about the church. Perhaps it is not fair to put all the blame on the church. However, if the church truly embraces a culture of female dignity and equality as image-bearers of God, and equality as recipients of salvation (Gal 3:26-28), then it would be hoped that our sisters and fellow heirs in Christ should have a better perception of themselves as women in the church and society, and as wives and mothers in the home.

The issue at hand may be reduced to one word —power. Who has the power and who does not in the family, the church, in the world? Who should? Furthermore, what is power, and is it an innate quality or something else. The late Diana A. Garland (d. 2015), former dean of the Baylor School of Social Work at Baylor University, discusses power in detail within the sociological perspective of marital relationships and the impact of biblical interpretation in a chapter of her insightful volume, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide.[3]

In it, she provides a working definition of power, explores Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33-37, summarizes gender roles in the home within the American context of the last century, and offers her interpretations of certain key biblical passages (Gen 1-3; Col 3:18-19; Eph 5:21-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6; 1 Cor 7, etc). It is argued here that Garland has presented a cohesive argument regarding power and Jesus’ teaching about power, but they are not complete discussions. Furthermore, Garland presents a brief social-historical summarization of gender roles which reflects a hierarchy —a model of marital headship— that has a built-in “inferiority of women” point of view. Garland’s interpretive trajectory is built on this framework.

This is problematic because Garland generalizes this viewpoint as one that is shared across cultures and eras, which it is not; moreover, she proceeds an attempt to dispel the notion that the biblical references of marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. Garland offers an egalitarian framework, but although she raises important concerns, I believe a complementarian framework is a better-supported framework for matters of church work.

Definition of Power

Defining Power

In the first place, it is important to understand Garland’s point of view on power, gender roles, and hierarchy.[4] Garland provides a working definition of power that is helpful as a starting point for the present discussion and builds her discussion of power with M. Weber’s words in mind: “the probability that one person is able to exert his or her will despite resistance from others.” Such power may be an influence on another “whether or not that influence is resisted or even recognized by any of the actors.” From this it is suggested that power is not best thought of as a personal characteristic but instead as an influence from relational dynamics; thus, “power is,” Garland concludes, “a dynamic in all family relationships. We are always attempting to influence one another.”

While she regards power as ultimately “neutral” she points out that this relationship influence may be used for good (protect the vulnerable) or for ill (take advantage of the vulnerable).

Power and Gender Hierarchy

Garland paints a picture of a community and culture which shapes a power dynamic within the family that has historically given men more power in marriage than women.[5] Similarly, family theorists David H. Olson and John DeFrain suggest: “Tradition has dictated that considerable power go to the males in the family,” and add the caveat, “but women often have more power than they or anyone else admit.”[6] Still, Garland argues that culture and economics have played a historic role in reinforcing certain gender roles in the home and the workforce.

For example, Garland argues that in “traditional” homes husbands earned a living for the family, and gave their wives “an allowance,” and the wife, in turn, managed the emotional and interpersonal relationships of the home. As an extension of the prevailing culture, the church followed suit by emphasizing strong hierarchal gender roles where men had authority and power, while women were expected to submit and obey their husbands in keeping with a military-type paradigm of authority and submission.[7]

Vulnerable and Inferior Women

This unavoidably led to what Garland speaks of as a view of hierarchy—or headship—with a built-in “inferiority of woman” model. In this view, women are vulnerable, in need of protection, in need of structure, and in need of a man to insulate them from the attacks of Satan.[8] She cites Judith Miles as her “poster child” of this viewpoint, who argues in her own work, “I was to treat my own human husband as though he were the Lord, resident in our own humble home.”[9] Consequently, she would never question her husband on anything because such was to question the Lord himself.

Unfortunately, not only did some hold that women were theologically vulnerable, but some even advocated women were emotionally not “up to the task” of ministry. The rise of a liberation movement of women stems was therefore a response to this form of hierarchy model that held an implied inferiority view of women. As the woman’s liberation movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, the church, according to Garland, was threatened by the rise of demands by women for better (egalitarian) family relationships.

This is Garland’s starting point: a historically rigid view of hierarchy and gender roles in society and the home as reinforced by society and church, which not only implied an “inferior woman” model but in many cases overstated the headship of man.

Inferiority Illustrated

Garland’s portrayal should not be dismissed out of hand as it relates to the American church. The relationship between culture and church is not always easily discernible. The church has been affected by this type of “inferior women” hierarchy and has been reaping the whirlwind of this type of gender oversimplification. A few examples are in order.

Roy H. Lanier, Sr., in his Contending for the Faith column, “The Problem Page,” once responded to a letter from an elder’s wife.[10] Her problem focused on her husband’s mistreatment and undermining of her maternal role based on stereotypical female “problems” (emotional and biological). His dismissive treatment of her had now trickled down to their children. Lanier’s response was extensive and centered on a demonstration from Ephesians 5:21–33 that headship does not permit, nor condone, such treatment. Lanier argued, “it is obvious that her husband does not love her as Christ loves His church.”[11]

In F. Dale Simpson’s 1972 book on leadership, Simpson addressed the problem of women in the mission field: “most married missionaries have to overcome the resistance of their wives to go to a foreign mission field.”[12] Therefore, while

women are biologically stronger than men… are as intelligent as men and more careful about details… women are not as temperamentally suited for carrying out the great commission as men.

F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age

Simpson offers only his experience and his opinion about the temperament of women in the mission field.

Long-time missionary and educator, Earl D. Edwards, provides a correction based on several behavioral studies.[13] Edwards rightly points out that different genders tend to have differences that are present at birth and socially amplified; yet, such gender-specific roles (functions) are gender differences and are not a reflection of gender inferiorities or superiorities.[14]

The Struggle is Real

In short, Garland is addressing a real problem about church culture and power, and how it relates to women and wives. It strikes at the heart of a woman’s worth in the home and in the church, and in ministry in general. The church would be wise to hear her call to be alert to this problem. However, Garland does not reject a simply abusive hierarchal power within the marriage as expressed in certain stereotyped gender roles. She clearly rejects any hierarchy with a power structure within marriage—i.e., male headship is not biblical and therefore not normative biblical teaching.

Jesus’ Teaching on Power

In the second place, Garland moves toward a brief exploration of Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33–37 and uses it to frame her discussion of power dynamics within two broad Christian family contexts: gender roles and discipline.[15] 

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mark 9:33–37 ESV)

In this passage, Jesus’ illustrates and demonstrates the true use of power in light of the fact that the disciples had been arguing over “who was the greatest” (Mark 9:34).[16] The passage is, then, a corrective focused on “how his followers should use what they have to serve others rather than exalt themselves.”[17] Indeed, greatness is measured in service, in welcoming the smallest, least powerful, to the most vulnerable of society (Mark 9:35). Unfortunately, the disciples still did not retain the lesson since Jesus must correct them again (Mark 10:13–14); yet, Garland sees Jesus’ point as follows:

Rather than using your power to benefit yourself, use it to serve and benefit others. Order your life as Christians by protecting and caring for those most at risk of others abusing their power.[18]

Diana Garland, Family Ministry

Garland affirms that Jesus “used his own power to care for them” by completing the passion of the cross which he predicts three times (Mark 8:31; 9:30–31; 10:32–34). Power is never conserved for oneself but instead is the instrument to serve others. Elsewhere Jesus says, 

The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. (Luke 22:25–26).

Garland’s Miscue

What appears to be lacking in Garland’s treatment of power in Mark 9:33–37 is the broader literary concern with discipleship in the kingdom of God which begins in Mark 8:26 and ends in Mark 10:52.[19] This is not a small matter because, in Mark 8:34, Jesus frames the discussion of true discipleship: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

To follow Jesus means to submit to his plan, to submit to one’s role in the kingdom of God. “Discipleship… comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering.”[20] The hard lesson the disciples continued to fail to appropriate is that the kingdom of God is at the disposal of others—especially the vulnerable—is the transformative experience of discipleship. Thus, power and one’s role are interwoven. Jesus demonstrates this by submitting to his role as God’s servant on the cross (Luke 22:42).

The matter is not simply about power and influence, for Mark 9:33–37 and Mark 10:13–16 teach that discipleship includes one’s submission to God’s transforming kingdom. It is not that Garland is wrong, but that her framing appears incomplete which, for the attention given to her work overall, is a significant oversight.

Overgeneralizations on Power and Gender Roles

In the third place, Garland generalizes that power and gender roles have been male-dominated across cultures and eras, which it is not.[21] This is an important drawback. The American church may be influenced by the surrounding culture and societal gender role expectations (even as traditional roles are presently eroding), but extrapolating from it that all cultures share a similar or comparable power structure along gender lines in families is problematic.

Cultural Anthropology

Not all cultures share the same expectations for gender roles. For example, Paul G. Hiebert, anthropologist and missionary, writes,

while most societies place some responsibility on the father for rearing the child, this is not universal. But the biological and social dependency of an infant on its mother is recognized in all social societies.[22]

Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology

It appears that certain biological relationships (mother-child) have built-within them influences that exert power on behaviors, and while they may manifest differently in various cultures, they do not imply inferiority or lack of equality. These relationships, do, however, create forms of power management that can create a displacement of power. This is a vital element to evaluate Garland’s overarching premise that power exercised implies the inferiority of one influenced by another.

The Psychology of Parental Authority

Psychologists David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall describe that within parent-child relationships authority, or, power, is observable in three parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.[23] The extent to which parents try to control their children is, “the most heavily researched aspect of parenting.” Parents either “set rules and expect obedience” (authoritarian) which tends to affect their children’s social skills and self-esteem. Or, they “give in to their children’s desires” (permissive) which tends to develop children who are agreeable and immature. And, parents who “are both demanding and responsive” (authoritative) tend to produce children who are well-rounded emotionally and socially.

A parent’s use, abuse, or nonuse of power can tend to have drastically different outcomes. The presumed element here in these relationships is that a parent is in a hierarchal relationship with their children (cf. Eph 6:1-4), and within this relationship, power is being managed and applied. Garland’s overarching point is that this is in principle antithetical to Jesus’ teaching on power, but power and role are inseparable. 

Family Power Management

Olson and DeFrain explore the wide range of “family power” management which is of significance here. According to them, “family power is the ability of one family member to change the behavior of the other family members.”[24] And while Garland concedes that “power” and “influence” are morally neutral, she approaches the subject of gender roles, power, and marriage from a morally negative point of view. Yet, as Olson and DeFrain point out, power —particularly family power— is a complex, dynamic interactive feature of a family system. Everyone in a family has power and everyone exerts it on the other member of the family. Even infants, according to Garland, have power. Yet, Garland suggests that a male headship hierarchy historically has mitigated women’s power in the marriage relationship, and therefore, empowers men and silences women, encouraging male power and delegitimizing female power and influence. Garland is not wrong if painting with broad strokes.

Marital Hierarchy

Garland’s argument that the removal of the hierarchy in male-female roles in marriage and family, and therefore must be applied to the church, is problematic.

Garland attempts to dispel the notion that the biblical references to marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. The creation account in Genesis 1–3 “provides,” according to Garland, “the primary foundation for a hierarchical understanding of husband-wife relationships.”[25] The order of creation does not prove male headship nor female submission; instead, Garland proposes that the pre-fall notation of “them” in Genesis 1:26–31 suggests shared dominion, shared identity, and a shared name. Moreover, the woman was not simply a “helpmeet” (KJV), but instead, is a soul-mate helper who is a “bone-and-flesh mirror image of the man who remains incomplete without her.”[26]

The Hebrew term ‘ezer certainly points to a “help” that comes from someone strong (Gen 2:20), as it is used in “warrior-esque” passages (Deut 33:29; Ezek 12:14), and is even used to describe God (Exod 18:4; Psa 121:1–2, 8). Thus, this is not a chain-of-command relationship where Eve is the weaker and more vulnerable of the two.

Garland provides a view of these passages that are cohesive and within reason of the evidence, but it is in Genesis 3:16, where the trouble lies. Garland argues that change after the fall is not a curse from God, but instead a pronouncement by God of how the relationship between Adam and Eve will now be.

In her view, God is being descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not an edict that imposes a new hierarchical relationship based on gender. Observe Garland’s argument that the fall

results in dire consequences for their relationship: the husband now shall rule over the wife. This new development implies that it was not what God had originally determined for their relationship. The dominance of the husband in Genesis 3:16 is described, not prescribed… it is the consequence of their joint disobedience.

Thus, the idea of hierarchical gender relationships is nothing but “a perversion of God’s intention in creation. The partnership has been destroyed. Sin disfigures the good God offered us.“[27] A variety of authors have offered a similar take in recent years. Linda L. Belleville, for example, is certainly at the forefront of pressing this interpretive option against the traditional view of male headship from Genesis 2–3.[28] Belleville, likewise affirms:

male rule finds no explicit place in the Bible’s theology at all. Adam’s sin is noted (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:20-22), as is Eve’s deception (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). But the man’s rule over the woman is not cited even once (not even for the husband-wife relationship). The simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT. The woman is nowhere commanded to obey the man (not even her husband), and the man is nowhere commanded to rule the woman (not even his wife).[29]

Belleville likewise suggests that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of the natural outcomes of the husband-wife relationship to follow due to the “fallen condition” of the world.

Garland, Headship, and the Biblical Narrative

It is the view taken here, in response to Garland––and to some degree Belleville––that Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 do provide the foundation for the traditional view of gender roles and should be regarded as normative.[30] The account of day six in Genesis 1 is a broad-picture passage. It speaks to the equality shared between man and woman as a distinct created order, or class, that is made in the image of God, and for this reason, have a human responsibility together to “have dominion… Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:26–28). But, when day six is given an expanded view in 2:4–25, the foundation for how human power is to be managed is explained—it is to be done in a relationship with someone just like Adam.

This power and influence are managed between husband and wife (2:20–24). And while the family power style is not explained in Genesis 2, Genesis 3:16 becomes an informative model of the way the husband-wife relationship exists outside the garden due to sin as God punished Adam (3:17–19) and the serpent (3:14–15), so God punishes Eve (3:16).

Problems with the Descriptive View

The argument that God is only describing how things will be, clearly undermines several theological themes which begin at this point. These are not mere descriptions of the fallen world.

First, God declared the serpent’s dust-filled days but also that he will feel the consequence of a crushed head by “the woman’s” offspring. This is not descriptive, this is a proclamation of Divine action and judgment upon the serpent, and salvation for humanity (John 16:11).

Second, God declared that Adam would face further hardship in the production of food and nourishment. Adam already understood work. He knew how to til and maintain the vegetation of the garden since day six (2:15). Whatever is forthcoming outside the garden for him is new and punishment for his sin. They are consequential.

And finally, God addresses Eve’s actions with further pain associated with childbearing and nuance to the relationship between her and her husband. When God says, “I will surely” do this and that, it must be interpreted as a consequence. The most pertinent here is the following, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b).

The curse upon Eve is clearly speaking of a matter of power management within the husband-wife relationship. It is the same vocabulary and issue of power management in Genesis 4:7 with Cain and his personified anger who desired to control Cain. Cain must rule over its desire. Moreover, the language is found again in the Song of Solomon, where the bride turns this “curse” into a wedding vow, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me” (Song 7:10). Contrary to Belleville’s claim that the “simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT,” the Bible does recognize implicitly male headship.

Biblically Grounded Patriarchy is Never Condemned

Interestingly, Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke points out that of all the social injustices mentioned by the prophets of Israel, patriarchy is never mentioned among them. Following Abraham Heschel, he argues:

They challenged the injustices of their culture. The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered and awesome beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity. They exposed the scandalous pretensions, they challenged kings, priests, institutions and even the temple.[31]

Waltke is probably correct when he argues that the problem that often affects interpretation is the definitions of concepts of patriarchy and equality brought to bear on the texts of Scripture. Eve was every bit Adam’s equal. They both shared the power and authority over the creation given to them by God. That power was to be worked out in their marriage in some form of family power style.

In Genesis and throughout the rest of the Bible, the family power structure to manage power is a hierarchy, with the husband as head of the wife and as Christ head of the church (Eph 5:23). Yet, such headship does not exist in a vacuum. A husband’s headship does not exist properly without being sacrificial, loving, or nourishing. Neither does it embrace a tyrannical hold on his wife. He is to be as self-sacrificing as Jesus was and is for the church. If the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church —his bride— then one should be careful in calling headship structure “a perversion of God’s intention” and a “partnership” destroyed as Garland has. For this reason, her work and view would be detrimental to family ministry.

Endnotes

  1. Jovan Payes, “The Widows Church of Christ,” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.
  2. Payes, “Widows Church of Christ,” 30.
  3. “Power and Roles” is chapter 11 in Diana R. Garland, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 370–411.
  4. Garland, Family Ministry, 370. All proceeding quotations in this paragraph are from page 370.
  5. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  6. David H. Olson and John DeFrain, Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, 4th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 213. Power, control, and authority are continuously exercised in families, and struggles for personal power in families are exceedingly common. 
  7. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  8. Garland, Family Ministry, 373.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Roy H. Lanier, Sr., “An Elder’s Wife has a Problem,” 20 Years of the Problem Page (Abilene, TX: Quality, 1984), 1:177–81.
  11. Lanier, “An Elder’s Wife,” 178.
  12. F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age (Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972), 121–22. 
  13. Earl D. Edwards, “The Role of Women in the Work and Worship of the Church,” Protecting Our Blind Side: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007), 255–57.
  14. Edwards, “Role of Women,” 156–57.
  15. Garland, Family Ministry, 371–72.
  16. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  17. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  18. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  19. Jovan Payes, “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak,” In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark, ed. Douglas Y. Burleson (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015), 376–77.
  20. Payes, “Leaders Stand Up,” 376.
  21. Garland, Family Ministry, 372–92.
  22. Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2d ed. (1983; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 197.
  23. David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall, Psychology in Everyday Life, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014), 84.
  24. Olson and DeFrain, Marriage and Families, 213.
  25. Garland, Family Ministry, 374.
  26. Garland, Family Ministry, 376.
  27. Garland, Family Ministry, 376–77. Emphasis original.
  28. See Linda L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, rev. ed., ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 21–103.
  29. Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 31.
  30. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40; reprinted in Bruce K. Waltke, The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 457–75.
  31. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” 30.

Bibliography

Beck, James R. Editor. Two Views on Women in Ministry. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Edwards, Earl D. Protecting Our “Blind Side”: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007.

Garland, Diana R. Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide. 2d edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hiebert, Paul G. Cultural Anthropology. 2d edition. 1983. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Lanier, Roy H., Sr. 20 Years of the Problem Page. 2 volumes. Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1984.

Myers, David G., and C. Nathan DeWall. Psychology in Everyday Life. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014.

Olson, David H., and John DeFrain. Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths. 4th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Payes, Jovan. “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak.” Pages 375–81 in In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark. Edited by Douglas Y. Burleson. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015.

_____. “The Widows Church of Christ.” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.

Simpson, F. Dale. Leading the First Century Church in the Space Age. Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972.

Waltke, Bruce K. The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.

_____. “The Role of Women in the Bible.” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40.

Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 2021, Biblical Criticism, Christian Apologetics, Early Christianity, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Resurrection, Theology1 Comment

[Note: This paper has been published. Go to the end of the article to download the published version.]

The historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the foundation of orthodox Christianity. The apostle Paul asserts, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 15:14).[1] One argument skeptics, like former Catholic Priest and Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan, use to counter the force of the historical claim of a bodily resurrection of Jesus is to say that the early Christians experienced hallucinations.

I intend to demonstrate the early Christian claim of Jesus appearing bodily after his resurrection­, as reflected in Paul, is the best explanation for the resurrection appearances of the New Testament over Crossan’s hallucination theory.

I first critique the hallucination theory of Crossan for contradicting the bodily resurrection language of the New Testament. Second, I demonstrate how Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. Finally, I dispute Crossan’s denial of the falsifiable of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Early Christians Believed in a Bodily Resurrection

The language of the miracle claim asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples (John 20:27; Luke 24:39). However, a secular worldview primed by naturalism demands an alternative explanation of “what really happened” to Jesus other than a bodily resurrection.[2] The horns of the dilemma were posed by David F. Strauss (1808–1874), “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again.”[3] However, all the details of passion-week Friday, such as, scourging, dehydration, crucifixion, etc., make any interpretation Jesus did not die to be “at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[4] The category of hallucination, as an explanation theory, is a popular attempt to claim the disciples hallucinated the bodily appearances of Jesus, and mass hysteria then spread their claim. As Dale C. Allison, Jr., frames it,

it was not the empty tomb that begot the hallucinations but hallucinations that begot the empty tomb.[5]

Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark, 2005)

The charge is ancient. In the third-century AD, Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) combatted Celsus’ second-century claim that the disciples suffered a “delusion.”[6]

Another pushback against the orthodox view of a bodily resurrection is that it is just a fictional myth that developed over time as a result of a personal hallucination of Paul. To establish this claim, liberal Bible critic Crossan introduces the writings of two early non-Christian historians (Josephus and Tacitus) which he believes limit “what happened both before and after Jesus’s execution.” [7] Crossan argues their religious profiles of the Christian movement lack mention of the resurrection. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas speaks of the “living Jesus” and the Epistle of Barnabas is void of resurrection talk. Crossan believes this evidence affirms that early Christian faith did not need to believe in a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. He further claims that Paul uses his experience of Jesus appearing to him (1 Cor 15:8) to give him the gravitas to be the equal of all the apostles in a political powerplay.[8]

Crossan’s novel hallucination theory also requires that the present passive indicative verb ōphthē, translated “appeared” in most translations, actually means “revealed.” This would be a culturally conditioned “trance” where Paul experienced an “altered state of consciousness” and used this personal experience to stabilize the infighting in the Corinthian church.[9] Crossan’s theory requires the church to have completely misread Paul’s testimony by taking his personal experience for apostolic orthodoxy. Crossan’s theory offers a “growth-politics” twist to the category of the hallucination theory.

The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, however, do not support Crossan’s theory. In fact, this passage is a test-case of the united shape of the earliest Christian tradition concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus.[10] The minimal facts theory of apologist Gary R. Habermas provides a firm critical foundation to respond to Crossan. The minimal facts theory is a critical approach that uses “the minimal, best-established facts surrounding the appearances” of Jesus that even Bible critics grant “to determine what really happened after Jesus’ death.”[11] Habermas has established four historical facts.

First, there is very little controversy that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, as even Crossan dates the letter to AD 53–54.[12] Second, Paul’s articulation of the gospel predates him, “I delivered to you… what I also received” (1 Cor 15:3). Here Paul affirms the normative nature of what he is preaching. Third, Paul received this “tradition” anywhere between AD 32–38, less than a decade after the crucifixion.[13] Fourth, this reception of the creed occurred during Paul’s Jerusalem information gathering “visit” (cf. historéō) with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20) and anchors his tradition to the early Jerusalem church.[14]

Bible critical scholar, A. M. Hunter (1906–1991), argues that Paul claims in this passage “a very early Christian summary” of what the united apostolic voice affirms about the gospel and Jesus resurrection appearances (15:11);[15] namely, “that Christ died for our sins… that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… and that he appeared” (15:3–5). The bodily death and resurrection appearances of Jesus legitimizes the existence of the Christian faith, for “in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:20; cf. 15:6, 14). There is no powerplay. Paul is in fact arguing from within the earliest Christian tradition and meaning of resurrection appearance. This is a substantial point since Crossan’s theory offers a reinterpretation of the early Christian tradition which cannot be sustained internally.

Ultimately, a naturalistic argument forces Crossan’s hand to redefine what is a resurrection and how one experiences it. Resurrection was not, according to N. T. Wright, a generic term for “life after death” but instead “the second stage in a two-stage process of what happens after death: the first stage being nonbodily and the second being a renewed bodily existence… Paul really did believe in the bodily resurrection” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1).[16] It is precisely this firm belief in the bodily resurrection that invalidates Crosson’s theory for Paul, and is in conformity with other the New Testament descriptions of the bodily resurrection appearances of Jesus.[17]

Beyond the evidence of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 of multiple eyewitnesses there are the public resurrection expectations and appearances in the Gospels; moreover, there are the resurrection creedal statements in the sermons of Acts.[18] It points to a clear unified belief among the earliest Christians that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and appeared in a renewed bodily existence. Bodily existence is the expected concept non-believers were to understand as the Christian view of the resurrection, as Judean Procurator Festus explains to Herod Agrippa II, “a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). The New Testament evidence affirms, then, the early Christian claim that Jesus was a live again.

No Mechanism for Hallucination

As we shall argue, there are no cause for Paul to need a hallucination. Such a theory redefines the unified Christian claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Crossan, keenly aware that Paul provides the earliest creedal statement, posits that Paul is the key for all the New Testament internal evidence. For Crossan what really happened is Paul was desperate to have a trance experience of the resurrection. He theorizes the Easter tradition developed over the years into its current boundaries of the canonical New Testament. Crossan offers “apparition–which involves trance” as the alternative dissociated state in which he believes Paul experienced resurrection.[19]

Based on the work by Erika Bourguignon on “dissociational” states, Crossan affirms trance to be “a human universal” that may be a culturally trained and controlled experience by one’s social and religious expectations.[20] Crossan’s reading of Paul’s words is an eisegetical fallacy importing a modern socio-religious model of an “altered state of consciousness” into Paul’s experiences to establish his political equality with the other apostles.[21] Again Crossan claims, “Paul needs… to equate his own experience” with the apostles to establish “its validity and legitimacy but not necessarily its mode or manner.”[22] Crossan’s methodology is problematic on this point.

However, there are three major problems with Crossan’s hallucination theory. First, Crossan imports an anachronistic definition into the use ōphthē in Paul’s words. It should be noted with significance that in the Greek Old Testament ōphthē is used in appearances of God (i.e., theophanies) to Abraham, and clearly to Abraham in bodily form where he ate with the Lord (Gen 18:1).[23] Paul was quite familiar with Genesis as he makes substantial arguments about justification by faith with the stories of Abraham in Galatians and Romans. To posit a modern theory while ignoring this Old Testament tradition of the verb, “he appeared,” ignores the textual evidence. Furthermore, it calls into question the validity of Crossan’s exegetical methodology.

Second, he exchanges his own meaning for Paul’s intended meaning of the verb ōphthē.[24] Crossan’s claim puts the power of the trance in Paul’s hands, but Paul’s verbal word choice indicates the appearance was out of his hands. Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace, reminds in grammatical instances like this, “volition rests wholly with the subject [Jesus], while the dative noun is merely recipient [Paul].”[25] It is Jesus who “appeared.” Paul did not conjure a “revelation” of Jesus.

Third, Crossan’s portrayal of Paul as desperate for apostolic power does not agree with Paul’s own success in Judaism prior to his conversion and call. He writes,

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely jealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. (Gal 1:13b–14)

Paul had the pedigree of a rising Jewish leader (Phil 3:4–8). There is no explainable mechanism which accounts for exchanging this advancement in Judaism for the trials of following Christ outside of an actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus which he did not initiate in a trance. Paul joins the pre-existing united voice of the apostolic witnesses, other earlier skeptical witnesses (non-believing siblings of Jesus), and the large groups seeing Jesus post-burial. Crossan’s theory do not adequately take these elements into account. Furthermore, Habermas’s minimal facts theory renders his mechanism historically implausible since its critical timetable places Paul as recipient, not creator, of the bodily resurrection confession.

Paul’s Claim was Falsifiable

This conclusion then leads to question of falsifiability. The early Christians claimed a dead man lived again. Writing about twenty years after the resurrection Paul asserts there were many eyewitnesses who could verify or falsify his claim that Jesus rose bodily. Paul wrote, “I delivered to you…what I also received” (1 Cor 15:2) and proceeds to outline six lines of eyewitness testimony evidence: Cephas, the twelve, over five hundred, James, all the apostles, and Paul. The most audacious claim is that Jesus appeared “to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:6). Paul’s submission invites investigation into the genuineness of the resurrection of Jesus and is essential to Paul’s argument for the validity of the gospel. Paul’s claim to have “seen the Lord” is falsifiable (1 Cor 9:1). Even Crossan understands the surface argument of this passage, and observes, “no Jesus resurrection, no general resurrection; or, no general resurrection, no Jesus resurrection.”[26] He does not however believe it.

Crossan believes that it would be impossible to falsify the traditional empty tomb and resurrection stories. When asked whether “the empty tomb” was historical, Crossan emphatically responds, “No.” Crossan expands,

“I doubt there was any tomb for Jesus in the first place. I don’t think any of Jesus’ followers even knew where he was buried–if he was buried at all.”[27]

John Dominic Crossan in Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 1996)

From Roman sources Crossan argues the Roman expectation for the crucified was the denial of both body and burial.[28] To the point, Crossan says, the “final penalty was to lie unburied as food for carrion birds and beasts [i.e., animals that eat decaying flesh].”[29] Crucifixion meant, then, “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion”; consequently, there was little likelihood of Jesus’ body making it off the cross let alone into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:42; Matt 27:1–61).[30] It would likely take “bribery, mercy, or indifference” to get the Romans to release the body over to a Jew seeking to avoid violating Jewish protocols of burying the hung (Deut 21:22–23).

Such a “hope” would be the exception, for only one contemporary crucified body remains have been found where thousands have been so executed; as such, it “is not history.”[31] This clearly undermines the Gospel tradition of the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried.

Crossan’s historical reconstruction of customary expectations and practices is a strong counterargument against falsification by the presentation of the cadaver of Jesus. If there is no body which survives the cross, there is no body to be buried, and therefore the Christian claim cannot be falsified. However, Crossan cannot historically rule out that Jesus was buried as Mark affirms. He can only suggest burial would be highly unlikely. Crossan’s alternative depends on advancing a legendary basis for the burial of Jesus. Yet, William Lane Craig responds this “would ignore the specific evidence” in Jesus’ case.[32] As established by the “minimal facts” critical theory, the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is very early. Furthermore, this four-line creedal formula affirms crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and then appearance.

The burial of Jesus was essential to the creed and Mark’s reference to it is substantial corroboration. First, the “assured results” of critical scholarship considers Mark the earliest gospel as it is the most “bare bones” narrative of Jesus.[33] Second, the Passion week narrative includes Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion. Third, Mark introduces Jesus’ burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb from which he resurrects. Mark retains the burial tradition.[34] Crossan’s methodology is prejudicial because it rules out, beforehand (a priori), the established testimony of the earliest claim of the Christians: Christ was buried, was raised, and he appeared.

Conclusion

This paper affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus over the challenge raised by the hallucination theory developed by Crossan. The language of the New Testament asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples, to unbelievers, and to many others. Crossan claimed that the resurrection from the dead was not a main element of the Christian faith. However, a critical examination of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 verifies that the primary and earlier Christian creedal tradition which teaches that Jesus arose bodily and appeared. There is no other normative belief in the New Testament than Jesus resurrected from the dead.  

Second, Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. The alternative theory offered by Crossan that Paul had a dissociative hallucination-trance experience to gain religious political power is based on seriously flawed exegetical methodology. There is ultimately no proper mechanism for Paul’s conversion to Christianity and his claim of seeing the resurrected Jesus, when he was living a successful Jewish life as a persecutor of the church. Paul’s claim that he saw the Lord resurrected must be taken seriously.

Finally, I asserted the early Christian claim of a bodily resurrection would have been falsifiable by the cadaver of Jesus. Crossan’s claim that Jesus’ body would likely never have survived nor made it to a burial actually is self-defeating because he cannot rule out known exceptions. In Jesus’ case, there were elements to his story that made it possible for Jesus to be taken off the cross and buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This is in keeping with the earliest Christian claim regarding his burial.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Gary R. Habermas explains that a naturalist theory for the resurrection draws “from a host of philosophical backgrounds, the basic idea is to suggest an alternative explanation in place of divine causation… ‘Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. What really happened is (fill in the blank).’” Habermas, “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001): 180.
  3. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edition, translated by George Eliot (London: Sonnenschein, 1902), 736. The longer form: “a dead man has returned to life, is composed of two such contradictory elements, that whenever it is attempted to maintain the one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really returned to life, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead; if he was really dead, it is difficult to believe that he has really become living” (735–36).
  4. William Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (1986): 1436.
  5. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 204. Allison offers seven categories and sub-categories of resurrection appearance hypotheses each with different psychological catalysts (199–213).
  6. Origen Contra Celsum 2.60: “But Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream, and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman half-mad,— a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.”
  7. Josephus Antiquities 18.63; Tacitus Annals 15.44. cf. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 161–62. Italics added.
  8. Crossan, Jesus, 166.
  9. Ibid., 167; 87–88.
  10. The following four arguments presume the work of Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 264.
  11. Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 262.
  12. Possibly later, like 64. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861–1986, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University, 1988), 308; Crossan, Jesus, 163.
  13. C. H. Dodd argues that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was “not more than seven years after the Crucifixion,” The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (reprint, New York: Harper & Brothers, n.d.), 16.
  14. William R. Farmer, “Peter and Paul and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord Supper’ in 1 Cor 11:23–26,” Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987): 122–28; Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 265–67.
  15. A. M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 99. John Dominic Crossan argues that Paul went to great pains to validate his own apostleship, yet, it was not the voice but a competing voice among many regarding the importance of the resurrection, Jesus, 159–92.
  16. N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A Dialogue,” The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 17.
  17. 1 John 1:1–4; John 20:1–21:24; Acts 1:1–3, 2:29–32.
  18. Expectations: Matt 28:8–20; Luke 24:13–52; John 20:10–23, 26–30, 21:1–14; Mark 16:6–7; statements: 1:1–3; 2:23–24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30–34; 17:31; 23:6; 24:21; 26:8, 23.
  19. Crossan, Jesus, 160–61. Italics are original.
  20. Ibid., 87–89.
  21. Ibid., 166–67; Acts 9:3–4, 22:6–7, 26:13–14.
  22. Ibid., 169.
  23. Genesis 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24.
  24. The following argument is based on Daniel B. Wallace’s discussion of the dative + the present passive indicative form of ōphthē in the New Testament in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 165, footnote 72; “horáo,” Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Ardnt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 719.
  25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 165. What Wallace says for Paul applies equally to all listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8: Cephas and the twelve, the “more than five-hundred,” and James and the apostles. Crossan, Jesus, 164.
  26. John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts, Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 122.
  27. Suetonius, Defied Augustus 13.1–2, Tacitus, Annals 6.29.
  28. John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 160.
  29. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163. In Crossan’s perspective, Joseph of Arimathea is purely a construct of Mark’s imagination; see his discussion on Luke 23:50–54 and John 19:35–42.
  30. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163–68.
  31. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 208.
  32. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 150.
  33. Strobel, Case for Christ, 209.

Click here to download the published version of this research paper. To subscribe to Sufficient Evidence click here.

Prayer and Fasting in the Greek of Didache 8.1-3

On By Jovan PayesIn Didache, Early Christianity, Fasting, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Greek Studies, Patristics, Prayer, Research Papers, Spiritual Formation

In 1873 a manuscript was discovered by Philotheus Bryennios at Constantinople dating from the mid-11th century (AD 1056), though its tradition is believed to be of much earlier origin.[1] Due to certain political problems it was not published for ten years; however, once it began to be studied the Didache became generally known as “being the most important literary discovery in patrology made in the nineteenth century.”[2]

In fact, “the Didache (‘The Teaching’), as it is usually known today, is a ‘handbook,’ or manual of Christian ethical instruction and church order.”[3] It is believed that such instruction was offered to each candidate for church membership prior to baptism.

Although the text maintains a basic “literary unity,” the divergent interests and approaches of the materials strongly suggest, “more than one writer is at work here.”[4] One the one hand, the vocabulary and grammar is not extremely difficult; on the other hand, the theological insights from this early Christian document can become complex, particularly when a reconstructed community is conceptualized.

Exegesis of the Greek Text

8.1 (And) let your fasts not stand with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and on the fifth day of the week, but you fast during the fourth day and during the Sabbath preparation day.[5]

The instruction logically moves from the prior discussion of baptism and the new converts’ requirement of fasting, to a capsulated discussion of fasting and prayer. Draper disagrees, affirming that Didache 8.1-3 is an “interruption to the logical progression of the liturgical section of Didache, in which baptism is followed by the Eucharist.”[6] However, Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν begins with the post-positive δὲ, connecting the logical flow between 7.1-4 and 8.1-3, and should not be viewed as adversative nor as an interruption.[7] Instead, it is a necessary discussion in connection with prospective converts.

The fasts (Αἱ + νηστεῖαι) are the first concern of this chapter, and they are particular fasts – they belong to the readers (ὑμῶν) who are preparing for baptism (Did. 7.4). This is the genitive of possession. The fasts that they are to perform must be expressly free from hypocrisy; moreover, this conclusion is drawn from μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, where the author(s) of the Didache prohibit fasting (thus, an imperatival prohibition) that is μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. This prepositional phrase is very descriptive, for it describes “the company in which an activity or experience takes place”; hence, the readers must refrain from joining the group of “hypocrites” (whoever they may be) when they fast.[8]

The prohibition against joining the hypocrites is given specificity by the post-positive γὰρ where it functions as a guide to understanding how to refrain from joining the company of hypocrites when fasting and praying. There seems to be more to the usage of γὰρ than at first glance. If it were simply a matter of explaining that the hypocrites fast on certain days of the week then this conjunction is unnecessary; however, it makes more sense that it takes on a “guide-to-an-ethical-methodology” based upon a cause for the instruction, even if it is too focused upon externals (i.e. specific days of the week).[9] It leads the potential converts to a methodology that allows them to avoid fasting which “coincides with those of the hypocrites” – μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν (Did. 8.1).[10] In order to express this ethical instruction, Robert Kraft renders the section, “do not let your fasts fall on the same day as ‘the hypocrites.’”[11]

The teacher(s) explain how these prospective converts can avert fasting in the same company as the hypocrites, by explaining that the hypocrites in question fast (νηστεύουσι; present of fact) on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ.[12] There is considerable discussion regarding who these hypocrites are. On the one hand, most see this as a reference to Pharisees because of the parallel instruction of Jesus in Matt 6:16-18; meanwhile, on the other hand, it is viewed as a reference to Christian Jews who are still partial to the pharisaical traditions.[13]

Aaron Milavec spends considerable time evaluating the evidence for the former, and argues heavily that Matthew and the Didache use the term hypocrisy differently and there is no solid evidence within rabbinic sources that the Pharisees distinguished themselves by fasting.[14] Furthermore, “when Did. 8.1 is compared with Matthew, one quickly detects that the Didache has an agenda and an internal logic quite distinct from that of Matthew’s Gospel.”[15] Be that as it may, from a grammatical and linguistic approach it is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is, the hypocrites fast on δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ, and it is these days that are to be avoided by the soon-to-be-baptized-reader. These days are the second (δεύτερος)[16] and the fifth (πέμπτος)[17] days of the week (σάββατον[18]).

The reader learning which days to avoid is then given a glance into the future (cf. future tense of νηστεύσατε), where they see the days of the week they are going to designate for fasting (τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν). This idiom for days of the week has been also clarified by Kraft as “Wednesday and Friday,”[19] but such is unnecessary. Consequently, Milavec’s translation is preferred. The post-positive δὲ is adversative, moving away from the days “the hypocrites” occupy for fasting, the δὲ functions to enhance the reader’s understanding that they are to take on the new ethic imposed by the future, but imperative in force, νηστεύσατε (you will fast).

8.2a (And) do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord ordered in his good news.

As is characteristic of the imperative, the verb assumes its own subject, being the person(s) who are either to do the express action of the verb, or if negated avoid the action of the verb. Here, there is another negated imperative (μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε) “you are not to pray […]”; however, the idea is incomplete because syntactically it is connected to ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί “just as the hypocrites.” The idea of “praying” is supplemented by the phrase “just as the hypocrites”; hence, it can be argued that οἱ ὑποκριταί is functioning in an adverbial capacity to μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε. It goes without saying that praying is not what is being denied; instead, and more to the point, it is the type of praying characteristic of the hypocrites which is being denied.

“The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). “The hypocrites” almost serve as a biblical caricature of examples of how not to commune with God as a public servant of God (Matt 6:5-7). Little wonder, that the author(s) contrast this how the prospective converts are not to pray, with a citation to the Gospel of the Lord (ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ).

This is perhaps the strongest argument that the Pharisees are seen as being equivalent to “the hypocrites”; however, there is no need to be literal since even the name Pharisee can be used figuratively for hypocrites. Be that as it may, the context of the Lord’s admonitions regarding prayer, as particular in Matthew, which has the high verbal agreement with Did. 8.2, has made Pharisee and hypocrite equivalent terms. The main rationale for the Lord’s condemnation is that they make public displays of religious devotion “to be seen by men” (Matt 6:5).

The contrasting ἀλλ’ emphasizes the transition from what not to do, towards the recommended orthodoxy, which is based upon an authoritative tradition. The ground for the moral instruction on prayer is what the Lord commands: ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ. This translates, “as the Lord commanded in his Gospel [or gospel message, good news]”; commanded, ἐκέλευσεν (+ dative), stresses the fact that Jesus himself required the fundamental aspects of proper prayer in his teaching ministry.[20] It is not just theoretical, the instruction may be found in the Lord’s Gospel (or gospel message, good news).

The phrase ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, within itself does not demand that the command is dependent upon a written source especially since it has its divergences.[21] In fact, several scholars believe the following prayer is, though having strong parallels with Matthew 6:9-13,[22] an independent tradition and may have been relied upon by Matthew.[23]

8.2b Pray thus: Our Father, the one in heaven, your name be made holy, you kingdom come, your will be born upon earth as in heaven,

The phrase οὕτω προσεύχεσθε is the resulting imperative calling attention to the reader that they are to “offer prayers” in a certain fashion. The fashion is very closely paralleled with Matthew; however, as Lake discusses there are four divergences between Matthew and the Didache: τῷ οὐρανῷ, τὴν ὀφειλὴν, ἀφίεμεν, and the doxology ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.[24] It takes the totality of Did. 8.1-3 for Lake to affirm:

These three sections, on fasting, on prayer, on the Lord’s Prayer, cannot be separated from each other. They point at least to similar local conditions; but the two former rather weaken the probability that the Lord’s Prayer is a direct quotation from our Matthew.[25]

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)

What these differences between Matthew and the Didache suggest is, according to Lake, is nothing too substantive, they simply point to a more complex study of dependency. On this issue Milavec’s investigation on this particularly complex issue led him to conclude that there is no necessary proof that one borrowed from the other.[26] Similarly, according to Lake, these differences between Matthew and the Didache point to a broader sense of dependency (i.e., oral, proverbial) since vocabulary similarities and divergences, and the omission of similar Matthean tensions are absent, and so “the proverbial character of the saying reduces the weight which must be attached to verbal similarity.”[27]

The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ functions as an adjective to ὁ “the one,” suggesting a prepositional phrase functioning in the attributive position; hence, just as ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ καλός translates “the good angel” or “the angel, namely the good one” the opening part of this prayer is attributive in structure: “Our Father [vocative Πάτερ], the one, namely in heaven.” The prayer Did. 8.2b.3 parallels the aorist imperative verbals of Matthew 6:9c-10:

Didache 8.2Matthew 6:9c-10Translation (AT)
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σουyour name be sanctified
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σουlet your kingdom arrive, 
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουγενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σουyour desire come to pass,
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆςas in heaven so also on earth
Chart: Textual Parallels

The verbal parallels are striking. However, the usage of this tradition is different in its scope when compared to Matthew’s purpose of this prayer. The Didache has more of a liturgical and ceremonial baptismal preparations, emphasizing the specific wording of the prayer. Jesus, on the others hand, encouraged a well-balanced spiritual and personal prayer life anchored in intimacy with God rather than public fanfare (Matt 6:5-6).[28]

From the perspective of Matthew’s Gospel, the three sets of imperatival verbs are particularly interesting, each bearing a unique concept.[29] Following Jack P. Lewis’ observation, it is clear that the first is clearly a benediction of God greatness (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου), the second, stresses a recognition of God’s sovereignty (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου), and the third, accepts God’s will in any area it is to be accomplished (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου). It is difficult, therefore, not to impose Matthew’s contextual message upon the Didache; however, because there is a liturgical purpose for this prayer, it does stand in contradistinction to Matthew’s use.

Principally, observe that while Matthew stresses a spiritually fresh prayer life and expression (Matt 6:5-8), as opposed to endless repetitions of words (6:7-8), the Didache actually encourages repetition (Did. 8.3). Draper argues extensively that the community responsible for the final form of the Didache emphasizes external matters of purity for the purpose of maintaining public purity. Draper writes, “the instructions provide for Christian behaviour [sic] in the crucial and public areas of fasting and prayer which would differentiate them from their opponents.”[30]

8.2c give us this day our loaf that is coming, and forgive us our debt at the final judgment as we likewise now forgive our debtors,

In the analysis of this particular section of the Didache prayer, it is noticeable that there are two changes from the Matthew prayer of the Lord. Following the research of Milavec, the theological scope and worldview changes possibly towards a more focused eschatological perspective.[31] It is significant that the verbs in the petitions of the Didache prayer are all aorist imperatives, even the ones paralleled to Matthew (paralleled: ἁγιασθήτω, ἐλθέτω, γενηθήτω, δὸς, ἄφες, ῥῦσαι, and one divergent form ἀφήκαμεν). Milavec makes an eschatological argument, and suggests that all the aorist imperatives suggesting a one-time future action on the part of God must be eschatological in scope.[32]

Consequently, images such as bread (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν) and eating are metonymy for a banquet in the kingdom (Luke 6:21, 14:15, 22:29-30; Matt 8:11; Rev 7:16).[33] Forgiveness within and for the Christian community is, in the Didache prayer, a future promise rather than a present reality and will be judged as a single action.[34] The pressing matter, however, is not to prove or disprove if the Matthew prayer reflects similar nuances in its eschatology. It is enough to understand that the Didache community was firmly aware of their eschatological worldview. 

8.2d-3 and do not lead us into the trial of the last days but deliver us from that evil because your is power and the glory forever. [8.3] Three times within the day pray thus.

This is the final appeal in the aorist construction; however, in this case, the Didache prayer appears to digress from Milavec’s thesis regarding the aorist imperative stressing an eschatological outlook. Specifically, εἰσενέγκῃς is a subjunctive. The distinction within itself does not rule out the larger eschatological implications raised by Milavec, especially since ῥῦσαι, “you are to deliver,” is an aorist imperative verb. Milavec approaches the phrase, καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, and argues that since all the other Aorist Imperatives demand a one time eschatological fulfillment, then it follows this aorist subjunctive still finds resolution in the over arching argument.[35]

The contrastive ἀλλὰ blusters Milavec’s argument since what is really being pleaded for is deliverance from evil (ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ), not the pastoral hand of God shepherding his children from πειρασμόν (trials). However, what Milavec finds as evidence for a tribulation, can be potentially argued for as praying with an eschatological worldview, where these Aorist Imperatives – since they are timeless – may view the person’s life until the eschatological end.[36]

One of the unique parts of this section of the Didache 8.2 is the doxology, which is its major divergence from the Matthean prayer. As Kirsopp Lake stingingly remarks:

The peculiar form of the doxology does not agree exactly with any of the forms known to occur in the authorities for the text of Matthew.

Kirsopp Lake, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)[37]

This has been the continued opinion of the editors of the eclectic Greek Testament texts that the Matthean prayer ends with πονηροῦ. Bruce Metzger observes that the major textual witnesses are late which include the doxology (9th century), the major textual witnesses which omit the doxology are early, and the witnesses which include it are not uniform and appear to be intentional expansion of the prayer when reappropriated for external liturgical use (as in The Didache, etc.).[38] Thus, the association of this doxology with Matthew’s prayer is ancient but it does not have the textual support to be included in the body of the prayer (contra the KJV and Received Text traditions for Matthew 6:13b).

At any rate, the shift given by ὅτι in a very practical sense closes the petitions offered by the potential convert, who acknowledges that “the power and glory belong” to the Father “into the depths of eternal.” The author(s) of the Didache return to their orthodox imperatival thrust: “You will pray like this three times a day.” The present imperative προσεύχεσθε returns the instructive balance to this section of the Didache which continues its “catechism” training for the one interested in joining the Christian community associated with this manual.

Conclusion

In summation, the Didache is a profound find in the field of Patristic Studies, providing insights into the community or communities to which it addressed. The syntax and vocabulary is not at all particularly difficult, it appears to be written at a very basic level.

The section examined demonstrated that there was a strong desire for the early Christians to visibly and practically be separate from any public association with hypocrites. Not even the days of the potential convert could or should coincide with the days which hypocrites fast upon. The references and citations of traditions found within the New Testament (quotations probable but not always necessary), coupled with the possible “new slant” contextualized by the author(s), brings a theological complexity that must be sifted and sorted out before a proper exegesis of the sections can be accomplished.

Endnotes

  1. Dates have ranged from AD 70, late second century, and even the third century; however, Kraft suggests that a secure date is the sometime within the fourth century somewhere near Egypt (Robert A. Kraft, “Didache” ABD 2:197).
  2. Francis X. Glimm, “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” The Fathers of the Church, ed. R. Joseph Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1969), 167-68.
  3. Michael W. Holmes, “Didache” DLNT 300.
  4. Clayton N. Jefford, Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 35.
  5. The translation in the headings is taken from Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. (New York: Newman, 2003). Other translations will be noted. All uncredited translations are my own (AT).
  6. Jonathan A. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8,” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 364.
  7. The primary Greek text used for this study is from Michael Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), and Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, LCL (London: Heinemann, 1919).
  8. BDAG 637.
  9. BDAG 189.
  10. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 259.
  11. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  12. Kraft translates this expression as: “Monday and Thursday” (“Barnabas and the Didache,” 165), but we follow Milavec’s lead due to his literalness. Kraft’s translation does bring this idiom into modern parlance. It is preferable to leave it as is (Milavec), since it can be understood apart from accommodation to modern convention similarly done in the New Testament (Matt 28:1-2; Mark 16:1-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16.1-2).
  13. Glimm, “The Didache,” 177.
  14. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 301-03.
  15. Milavec, 302.
  16. Did. 2.1 uses a similar expression, “the second commandment of the teaching is […]” (Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 252); that is, this is the second of a series of commandments.
  17. Moulton and Milligan provide an example of this sequential use: “showing the housing conditions of the time, we may cite P Fay 3115 (c. a.d. 129) where a woman applies to the keepers of the archives at Arsinoe for leave to alienate πέμπτον μέρος, “the fifth part” of certain house property belonging to her” (MM 502).
  18. BDAG lists both the singular and plural forms of σάββατον referring to a period of seven days, and any numeral connected to it represent that particular day of the week (910).
  19. Kraft, “Barnabas and the Didache,” 165.
  20. MM (340) lists the aorist active indicative κελεύω + the dative construction rare and list one New Testament example from the Received Greek Text and the King James Version of Matthew 15:35 (κελεύω + dative), whereas, the UBS4 reads παραγγείλας. The sense of urging to the point of a command is reasonable in such cases.
  21. Kirsopp Lake, “Didache,” in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905), 28-29. As will be developed in this paper, Lake observes a noticeable dependence of Did. 8 on Matthew 6 along with variations.
  22. Glimm points out that Matthew 6:9-13 and the Did. 8.2 agree against the parallel passage in Luke 11:2-4 (“The Didache,” 178).
  23. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 632. Milavec has argued convincingly that despite their similarities, they are not enough when considering the influence of orality within the early church; furthermore, the divergences of theological emphases between Matthew and Didache argue against dependence (The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 694-739).
  24. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  25. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  26. Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 695-739.
  27. Lake, “Didache,” 27.
  28. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:101.
  29. Lewis, Matthew, 2:101-02.
  30. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition,” 374.
  31. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003), 66.
  32. Milavec, The Didache: Text, 65.
  33. Milavec, 66.
  34. Milavec, 66.
  35. Milavec, 66.
  36. Milavec, 66.
  37. Lake, “Didache,” 29.
  38. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 13-14.

Selected Bibliography

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Draper, Jonathan A. “Christian Self-Definition Against the ‘Hypocrites’ in Didache 8.” Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers 31. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992.

Glimm, Francis X. Translator. “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Pages 165-84 in vol. 1 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Edited by R. Joseph Deferrari. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969.

Holmes, Michael W. Editor. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004.

_____. “Didache, The.” Pages 300-02 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Jefford, Clayton N., Kenneth J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Kraft, Robert A. “Barnabas and the Didache.” In vol. 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. Edited by Robert M. Grant. New York: Nelson, 1965.

_____. “Didache.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 1. LCL. Edited by E. Capps, T. E. Page, and W. H. D. Rouse. London: Heinemann, 1919.

_____. “Didache.” Pages 24-36 in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905.

Lewis, Jack P. The Gospel According to Matthew. Vol. 1. LWCNT 2. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d edition. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman, 2003.

_____. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003.

(MM) Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

(UBS4) Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. Greek New Testament. 4th revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

The Role of An Amanuensis in the Letters of Paul

On By Jovan PayesIn 2004, Biblical Criticism, College Work, Freed-Hardeman University, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Social Conventions

The New Testament was not dropped out of heaven in its present form. Instead, it was produced by means of human ability and human ingenuity. No disrespect is given to the dogma of plenary inspiration of Scriptures if one examines the methodologies used to produce God’s breath into written form (2 Tim 3:16).[1] It is a matter of respect when such a course of action is taken.

The literary composition of the New Testament is unbalanced in that 78% of its 27-volume anthology is comprised of epistolary literature. In other words, the Christian canon is principally made up of letters. Among these letters stand those of the Apostle Paul, 13 in all which bear his name. Among the many controversies which surround the letters of Paul, few are underestimated as the Pauline use of an amanuensis, a profession more accurately designated “secretary.”[2]

Secretarial work is one of the most pervasive labors undergirding the production of most of the New Testament;[3] it is also at times one of the most controversial issues to sift through. This is particularly highlighted in the study of the role, more accurately the influence, of the secretary in the Pauline corpus. The principle issue controverted is “the degree of freedom that a letter writer might give to his or her scribe in the choice of wording.”[4]

Although it is true that a secretary in the Greco-Roman world was given liberties in word choices when applied to Paul the letters which bear his name are authentically Pauline according to Greco-Roman standards no matter what level of secretarial influence. This is demonstrated by three lines of evidence. First, there was a wide spectrum of secretarial freedom typical of ancient letter writers which were viewed as genuine epistolary conventions. Second, irrespective of the secretarial freedom in word choice, there were genuine methods of controlling the final product by the author. Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

Preliminary to considering the arguments below, observe that there must be an understanding and appreciation for how a different culture works.[5] The methods of communications may differ from the present modern world, but they were authoritative in the ancient world in which these documents were originally penned. Modern standards must be placed to the side. With this one precautionary principle, the value of the present arguments will be seen clearly. Consider the following three arguments.

Secretarial Freedom

First, each level of secretarial freedom was viewed as a genuine method of letter production.

E. Randolph Richards observes that the sender “could grant to the secretary complete, much, little, or no control over the content, style, and/or form of the letter.”[6] From his extensive evaluation of ancient letters, the role of a secretary, in general, was fourfold. The secretary may have contributed to the production of a letter as a verbatim recorder, as an editor of a preliminary letter, as a co-author with an emphasis on linguistics, or as the composer free of any set verbal content.[7] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor suggests three roles, eliminating co-authorship as a viable role of a secretary and placing that as a different type of compositional endeavor, which seems appropriate.[8]

As a verbatim recorder, the only controversial issue is whether or not there was a shorthand method able to follow dictation viva voce (i.e. at the speed of speech), for syllabim dictation (at the speed of handwriting) is basically free from controversy. Alan Millard observes that there is evidence of a shorthand ability to copy viva voce for the Latin language, but that the evidence for a Greek system is questionable due to poorly preserved manuscripts.[9]

Richards, on the other hand, persuasively argues that this Latin shorthand system derived itself probably from a comparable Greek system because discussions among Latin manuscripts employ Greek words to describe their shorthand system, thus implying a dependence on a prior Greek system. Moreover, there are early second century A.D. fragmentary manuscripts of Greek shorthand available and the evidence has a very wide geographical distribution across the Mediterranean world.[10] Murphy-O’Connor extends the link earlier than the second century A.D. to the first century B.C.[11] The point is, that a secretary could potentially follow the author at the speed of their speech in shorthand, and at the very least at the speed of writing. Dictation was not a problem.

The secretary may serve as an editor of a preliminary letter. In the production of the final copy of a letter, the secretary at times, if not always, was given the responsibility to correct or adjust the grammar and syntax of a verbalized letter or a prewritten letter that was appended by the author.[12] As Robson observes:

Where he did not compose, St. Paul would dictate: this would enable him to be conversational and oratorical at will. He could deliver some portion of a missionary sermon, or answer a series of questions, or parry and thrust with an imaginary opponent in the fashion of the diatribe, at will.[13]

E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917)

The secretary would then harmonize the quick fluctuation of argumentative paradigms Paul employs, as in the Roman letter. There is nothing ingenious about this procedure.

The secretary would likewise be given the task of composing free of any set verbal content. There were times in ancient epistolary composition when an author would request his secretary to be a substitute author.[14] In this respect, the secretary was given a considerable amount of freedom to choose the wording. Moreover, Richards observes that “a writer usually does not reveal that his letter was actually composed by a secretary.”[15] Consequently, the reader would not necessarily know it was a secretary who composed the letter. But there is adequate evidence to demonstrate that if the recipients were familiar enough with the author that they could recognize the handwriting, style, and argumentation methods and distinguish between a letter written by their friend or by their friend’s secretary.[16]

In one sense, the fact that the secretary could do this is difficult to account for in New Testament letters since there are no extant autographs. Definite factors come into play in this regard, which alleviates some of the curiosity that this point highlights in one’s mind. As Richards notes, “the letters, especially official and business letters, had a very set form, vocabulary, and style.”[17]

Consequently, certain letters already had a predetermined template to follow, similar to modern word processing computers, the only difference is that the secretary had to produce a new template each time. Moreover, this was very advantageous for the illiterate population of the Greco-Roman world.[18] Also, there is no evidence to suggest that this was extensively done within personal letters. The point which needs to be emphasized is that there were specific and genuine needs for this method. Observe the next line of reasoning for methods of controlling and authenticating the secretary’s actions.

Measures of Authorial Control

Second, there were genuine methods of controlling the activities of the secretary.

The principal controlling agent was the author who would read the final rough draft or the final draft before it was dispatched.[19] The importance of this is demonstrated by the case of Quintus, the brother of Cicero, on his first Roman appointment. Quintus employed his secretary Statius as his “chief” secretary to read the letters composed by other secretaries without Quintus’ personal attention. Cicero advises Quintus to read the letters that go out in his name because he had already suffered professionally because of his action. The implication here is irrespective of who penned the letter the author is held responsible for every word and sentiment.[20] It is very enlightening that Quintus was not discouraged from having his secretaries write documents in his name, but he was rebuked for not having read them himself before dispatching them.

A second method of demonstrating control over the content irrespective of the type of freedom given to a secretary is the subscriptions written in the author’s handwriting.[21] These subscriptions generally repeat and summarize in the author’s handwriting the main content of the letter to demonstrate that the author is fully aware of the material which is being sent in his or her name.[22] Yet, one must respect the extant evidence and note that not all letters in the Greco-Roman period had subscriptions of the exact same length.[23] Each letter must be approached on its own terms and one must not assume that all letters have this subscription.[24] Nevertheless, there were security measures available for any kind of secretarial influence and freedom.

Paul’s “Security” Precautions

Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

The internal evidence of the New Testament demonstrates that the Apostle Paul had a high degree of care for the churches to which he ministered. This will demonstrate what was more likely for Paul to do with regards to the type of security measures he would place in each letter. For example, in 2 Corinthians (an undisputed Pauline letter[25]) Paul demonstrates his unyielding concern for the church in Corinth to persevere to a more stable spiritual plateau by foregoing a door of evangelism providentially opened by the Lord so he could minister to them (2 Cor 2:12–13).

Again, in 1 Corinthians the Apostle Paul demonstrated his high level of concern when he sent Timothy to minister to them in his stead. He sent Timothy because he would remind them of his ways (1 Cor 4:14–17). In a sense, Timothy was a surrogate for Paul’s presence, an emphasis which is identical to the purposes of dispatching a letter,[26] allowing each party to share in each other life.[27] The point of emphasis made here is that Paul was very careful and had concerned for the well-being of the church. It is very natural to assume, then, that he would procure whatever items needed to guarantee their spiritual safety (1 Cor 8:13).

Observe an additional line of reasoning. Within the New Testament letters which bear Paul’s name, there are six letters that bear explicit marks of a collaboration with a secretary (see Fig. 1). These references demonstrate the subscription of authenticity and generally include a summary, however brief, of the content of the letter. Galatians 6:11 and Philemon 19 are somewhat problematic for they may both refer to the entire letter or the point where Paul inserts his authoritative “seal of approval” as a mark of genuineness.[28] The point that needs to be considered here is that Paul demonstrates his inclusion of security measures in his letters.

Figure 1: This illustrates the widespread use of an amanuensis in the letters of Paul. See also P.Duke.inv. 7 (AD 5/6) and P.Duke.inv. 22 (30 BC–AD 640) as papyri examples of dual handwriting styles differentiating between the secretary and the author.

Moreover, what shall be said for the letters which do not have a subscription (2 Cor, 1 Thess, Eph, Phil, and the pastorals)? In 2 Corinthians 10:1, the Apostle Paul inserts his name into what some would consider a major section of the letter. The Apostle makes an emphatic statement autos de ego Paulos parakalo humas, which literally means “and I myself (Paul) entreat you.” It is reasonable to conclude that the passage is the beginning of Paul personally writing until the end of the letter,[29] but some scholars disagree with this conclusion.[30] However, since their conclusions are just as speculative, consistency points to 2 Corinthians 10–13 as a lengthy subscription or another letter appended to a completed letter.

The Thessalonian correspondence is somewhat unique in that the second epistle has a stronger authenticating subscription (2 Thess 5:17) than that of the first letter (1 Thess 5:27–28), that is why it is treated here. However, the case is strong that both letters are collaborations between Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Thess 1:1). Paul often takes the lead in the discussion.[31] By viewing the subscription in 2 Thessalonians 5:27–28 as a final authenticating mark, 1 Thessalonian’s ”gentle” subscription receives bolstering.

The pastorals are regarded as disputed-non-Pauline works.[32] This position is based primarily upon vocabulary and style differences calculated by a computer. These differences may be harmoniously accounted for by including the use of an amanuensis.[33] However, Harry Y. Gamble has suggested that “such theories” may satisfactorily explain a divergence in vocabulary and style, but not for the “conceptual and situational differences.”[34]

Richards makes a rather compelling case demonstrating from ancient letters that because of the “use of secretaries, letters were not rejected on the basis of style analyses alone.”[35] In other words, just because the letter sounds different that is no grounds for marking it as inauthentic because a secretary may influence style. Richards also demonstrates there were special seals used to enclose a letter; consequently, had Paul not given a subscription,[36] he could have (because this was typical) closed up the letter with a seal.[37] This may account for the Philippian letter being void of a postscript. Perhaps this is why Gamble concedes that there are other things that make “Pauline letters […] even more complex than is usually assumed.”[38]

The letter to the Ephesians poses itself as a unique epistolary production in that among the writings of Paul this was probably a circular letter written for a broad multi-congregation setting.[39] Abraham Malherbe provides parallels illustrating that Ephesians served a comparatively similar purpose as the literature of contemporary philosophical schools to provide general guidance for conventional everyday needs.[40] In this light, and with its traditional connection to Colossians, and Philemon (Col 4:10–14; Philem 23–24, and Eph 6:21), it is probable they were sent together.[41] The subscriptions in Colossians 4:18 and Philemon 19 would seemingly have sufficient authenticity for the letters associated with them, assuming there were no other authenticating measures we are unaware of.

The last argument above has been the longest to formulate. What must be remembered is that the Pauline corpus employs and contains subscriptions and other authenticating items. Differences in vocabulary and style are not sufficient to dismiss any letters of Paul because, according to Greco-Romans criterion, a secretary may so influence a letter that it may sound distinct. Nevertheless, since there are security measures employed, there is an implicit understanding that Paul would be in a position to verify the letter before sending it by means of a courier. Also, he may have had confidence in the secretary’s work such as Timothy, Silas, Titus, and Tertius (Rom 16:22).

Where from Here?

The controversy will more than likely continue. The degree of influence Paul’s secretary had over the composition of the corpus may never be totally realized or understood. It must be remembered that the freedom a secretary had in word choice varied according to need, author, and document; nevertheless, the author was held accountable for every word. That may be uncomfortable for some today, but this study is not a matter of what one wants the evidence to say, it is about what was more likely–probable– to happen.

The freedom of the secretary was a genuine method of letter writing, but it was not the only kind of role they played in epistolary production. There were methods to check the work of the letter before it went forth. Finally, Paul’s character based upon the internal evidence of the New Testament letters suggests that Paul would have and did procure the security procedures of the day to secure the message.

Consequently, the letters which bear his name are authentic according to Greco-Roman standards irrespective of secretarial influence.

Endnotes

  1. Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2000), i.
  2. E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 11.
  3. Richard N. Longenecker, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 109.
  4. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 233–34.
  5. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity 8, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989), 28.
  6. Richards, Secretary, 23.
  7. Ibid., 23–24.
  8. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 8–16, 16–34.
  9. Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000), 175–76.
  10. Richards, Secretary, 41.
  11. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 11.
  12. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 13–14; Richards, Secretary, 44–47.
  13. E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” JTS 18 (1917): 291.
  14. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 14.
  15. Richards, Secretary, 52.
  16. Gordon J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century,” CBQ 28 (1966): 466–67; cf. Richards, Secretary, 92–97.
  17. Richards, Secretary, 49.
  18. Ibid., 50.
  19. Ibid., 52.
  20. Ibid., 51.
  21. Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108.
  22. Gordon J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 2 (1968): 28-30
  23. Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 291.
  24. Roy Bowen Ward, “How to Study the New Testament,” in The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe. Living Word Commentary 1, ed. Everett Ferguson (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 171.
  25. See Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 89; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 262.
  26. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 30.
  27. Stowers, Letter Writing, 28–29.
  28. Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 191; Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 28; Richards, Secretary, 179–80.
  29. Richards, Secretary, 125–26.
  30. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 30–31.
  31. Ibid., 19–20.
  32. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 163–64.
  33. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses,” 292–94; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 359–62.
  34. Harry Y. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” ABD 1:72.
  35. Richards, Secretary, 97 (cf. 92–97).
  36. Longenecker, though, believes Paul did (“Ancient Amanuenses,” 292).
  37. Richards, Secretary, 93.
  38. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” 72.
  39. Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 309–11.
  40. Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, Library of Early Christianity 4, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 149–160.
  41. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 168–70. Granted, critical scholars tend to discount the authorship of Paul of Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians.

Works Cited

Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77.

—. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Revised ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

Field, Frederick. Notes on the Translation of the New Testament. 1899 ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Pages 72–73 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 281–97 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

—. “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Pages 101–14 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by Donald A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1986.

Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.

Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991.

Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917):288-301.

Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 8. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1989.

Ward, Roy Bowen. “How to Study the New Testament.” The World of the New Testament. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. The Living Word Commentary: New Testament 1. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.