The Cumulative Effect Of The Pre-Irenaean Sources On Gospel Authorship

I've sometimes linked a collection of resources I put together on the best and earliest evidence for the authorship of the gospels. A mistake that can be made when evaluating that kind of evidence is to view the information in too isolated a manner. There's a cumulative effect to the evidence, and sometimes two or more things take on an added significance when considered together, a significance they wouldn't have if considered individually.

The Early Prominence Of Luke's Gospel And Its Christmas Material

Trent Horn recently put out a video that largely reiterates some points he's made before about sola scriptura. In the process, he repeated the claim that none of the New Testament documents were "prominent" before Irenaeus wrote in the late second century. I want to respond to that claim with an example that's relevant to the current Christmas context. On the other issues brought up in his video, see my earlier responses to Trent here and here.

Go here to watch Trent citing Lee McDonald's remarks about the lack of prominence of the New Testament documents before Irenaeus. What I want to do in the remainder of this post is focus on the gospel of Luke as a counterexample. With Christmas coming up later in the week and the popularity among skeptics of denying that the earliest chapters of Luke's gospel were part of the original document, I want to discuss not only the early prominence of the gospel of Luke, but also the inclusion of our first two chapters and other Christmas material in the gospel. (For more about the Christmas material in Luke outside the earliest chapters, see this post.)

A Response To Bart Ehrman's Webinar Against The Virgin Birth

It aired at 2:00 P.M. Eastern time today. It consisted of three segments, two presentations that were a little over an hour each and one session of questions and answers that lasted a little under an hour. I saw all of it other than about the first seven minutes of the first presentation, which I missed due to technical problems. The video isn't available for replay yet, but should be later this week. I plan to watch those first seven minutes at that point, then post any further comments that are warranted. But given the small amount of time involved and the nature of the webinar as a whole, I doubt that I missed much in those first several minutes.

When I provide documentation of something said during the webinar, I'll refer to the section involved and the approximate minute within that section. I don't have a video to play back at this point to get more precise numbers. So, "(second presentation, 21:00)" refers to something at roughly 21 minutes into the second presentation, "(questions and answers, 3:00)" refers to something about 3 minutes into the segment with questions and answers, etc.

The Importance Of Rome's Testimony About Luke's Authorship

My last post mentioned some corroboration of Lukan authorship of the third gospel from sources predating Irenaeus (Marcion and his earliest followers, Justin Martyr, a Roman source Irenaeus cited). People often claim that Irenaeus provides the earliest attribution of the third gospel to Luke, but these sources move the earliest attribution and some partial corroboration of it prior to when Irenaeus wrote.

And notice how all three of these pre-Irenaean sources are connected to Rome. Marcion was in Rome, Justin Martyr spent some time there, and Irenaeus' source seems to be Roman.

Paul traveled to Rome multiple times, spent a long time there, and died in that city. The author of Luke and Acts claimed to be a close companion of Paul and frequently discusses him and refers to traveling with him, including going with Paul to Rome around the time when the third gospel was published (Acts 28:14). Given the nature of the events leading up to and following Acts 28:14 and the recording of a large amount of detail in the author's recounting of the events, there's a good chance that the author used his time in Rome to do a lot of his work composing Acts. That would have provided some opportunities for the author (and Paul and whoever else) to have had discussions with the Roman Christians about the writing of the gospel and its sequel. Even if his work on Luke/Acts while in Rome was of a lesser nature, such as just taking some notes, that sort of situation would also have some significance here. If Colossians and Philemon were written from Rome, Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 24 place Luke there, and 2 Timothy 4:11 has Luke in Rome again later on. The references to Mark with Luke in Roman contexts (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 24, 2 Timothy 4:11) add to the likelihood that issues involving Luke's gospel would have been discussed.

This puts critics of the traditional gospel authorship attributions in a bad position. How likely is it that there would be so many early literary references to Mark and Luke in Rome (more than what I've cited above), including references to their being in the city for so long and in such significant contexts, if they hadn't been there? And if they were there, how likely are the Roman Christians to have been as ignorant as skeptical hypotheses require them to have been regarding Mark and Luke's relationships with the gospels attributed to them? The Roman church was in a good position to have reliable information on the authorship of the third gospel (and its genre, historicity, etc.). So, not only do we have testimony on the authorship of that gospel predating the testimony of Irenaeus, but we even have it from such significant sources.

Marcion's Corroboration Of Lukan Authorship

Given Marcion's high view of Paul and low view of the other apostles, his acceptance of the gospel of Luke while rejecting the other gospels makes the most sense if Marcion thought the third gospel had a close connection to Paul.

Concerning Marcion's corroboration of the authorship attributions of the other gospels, see here.

Christianity unhitched

I watched the whole sermon by Andy Stanley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pShxFTNRCWI

He means well, but well-meaning people can do kinds of damage that wicked people can't. 

Andy Stanley was raised and trained in Dispensationalism. Internecine fights over Dispensationalism (classical, progressive) are his default frame of reference. It's a very provincial outlook. Compare that to writers like Gordon Wenham and Christopher Wright on OT ethics and piety. 

One problem is equivocation, where he oscillates between the OT and the law of Moses, as if they're interchangeable. But there's a difference between the Mosaic law, OT history, the Psalter, Prophets, and Wisdom literature. The Mosaic law isn't the whole package.  

Christians disagree on how the old covenant is fulfilled in the new covenant. Their disagreement is the basis for some divergent theological traditions or denominations. Lutherans and Anabaptists see more discontinuity, Confessional Presbyterians see more continuity. You have variations within the same tradition. The LBCF sees more continuity while Don Carson and Stephen Wellum see more discontinuity, yet that's an intramural Baptist debate. 

So that's a perennial debate. But that's a separate issue from the OT in general. There's a difference between unhitching the Christian faith from the Mosaic law and unhitching the Christian faith from "the Jewish scriptures". Stanley does a bait-n-switch. Even if we grant his Dispensational view of the Mosaic law, that doesn't mean we can unhitch the new covenant from the OT generally. 

He makes the ridiculous claim that Pauline sexual immorality is independent of the OT, even though Rom 1 is based on Gen 1-2 while 1 Cor 6:9/1 Tim 1:10 reaffirm Lev 18:20. 

Andy says Christianity is about an event (the Resurrection), but that's grossly simplistic. The NT interprets the person and work of Christ through the lens of the OT. 

And it's not the Resurrection alone that vindicates Jesus. He must also be the fulfillment of OT messianism. 

And even at the level of events, the Resurrection is not the only crucial event in the mission of Christ. What about the Incarnation, miracles of Jesus, and the return of Christ? 

Andy appeals to the image of God, but of course that's an OT category! 

Andy says that in the OT, God was playing by the rules of the kingdoms of this world. Really? The OT is aggressively countercultural in relation to ancient Near Eastern social mores. 

The application is about people who've lost faith because they can't embrace OT historicity, OT miracles, the Genesis creation account, or value system/worldview depicted in the OT. 

But the NT can't be true unless the OT is true. Jesus, the apostles, NT evangelists, and/or NT authors constantly appeal to OT validation. If the OT is mistaken, they were mistaken in their assessment of the OT. 

I think Andy is personally spooked by historical, scientific, and moral objections to the OT, so he wants to unhitch that from his own faith. But they're logically and theologically inseparable. Take it or leave it. 

Yes, some folks will lose their faith while others will be turned off. That's tragic, but truth is divisive. Individual apostasy is a necessary winnowing effect to preserve the church from institutional apostasy. 

Richard Bauckham Is Wrong About John's Authorship

He thinks the fourth gospel was written by a close disciple of Jesus named John, but not the son of Zebedee. The second edition of his Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2017) has a new chapter that expands upon his earlier treatment of the subject.

There's some merit to Bauckham's arguments against authorship by the son of Zebedee and for the existence of another prominent early church leader named John. Like his case for the authorship of the first gospel, however, what he says about the authorship of the fourth gospel becomes much less significant when you look at it in light of the evidence as a whole. He substantially underestimates or ignores a lot of evidence against his position.

I mostly agree with the seven arguments against identifying the author as the son of Zebedee that Bauckham discusses on pages 562-71 (e.g., the gospel's focus on Jerusalem rather than Galilee; the gospel's lesser attention given to the Twelve in some contexts, in contrast to the Synoptics; the lack of attention given to James the son of Zebedee). Authorship by somebody other than John the son of Zebedee makes more sense of some of what we see in the gospel. But the arguments don't amount to much, individually or collectively. It doesn't take much on the other side to outweigh what Bauckham is offering in support of his position. That's true of not just the seven arguments he provides on the pages cited above, but also the arguments he brings up elsewhere.

Early Orthodox Christianity Was Superior To Its Heretical Rivals

It's often suggested that we have no reason to think that what we today call orthodox or traditional Christianity was superior to its earliest rivals who also claimed to be Christian. Why prefer traditional Christianity to Gnosticism? Or Marcionism? Or other early alternatives? How could we tell that one group has a better claim to truth than the others?

There are a lot of ways to compare these groups. We can look at their size, the character of their leaders, what evidence the groups offer for their claims, the internal consistency of their claims, etc. What I want to do in this post is discuss several examples.