THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS AND THE DOCTRINES OF INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY

Occasionally while reading the assignments some of my students I get the impression that some see little value in the historical references provided in the Gospels. Some even appear embarrassed by them, while others view them as simply irrelevant or non-essential. Such attitudes reflect a lack of understanding of the doctrines of Inerrancy and Inspiration. Briefly stated, the doctrine of Inerrancy teaches that the scriptures are without error or falsehood. E. J. Young defined inerrancy in this manner, by “this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error.  They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error.  In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.”¹

Modern audiences perceive a problem with the position that the Bible is free from historical errors because their standard of historical accuracy is quite different than that of ancient authors and their audiences; consequently, they find it hard to believe that the Gospels are free from historical errors. Ironically, today’s audiences tend to trust the conjectures of modern scholars who are 2000 years removed from the events recorded in the Gospels. The problem with placing one’s faith in such scholars is that quite often they disagree among themselves with respect to the dates of historical events; consequently, how can they possibly be viewed as credible evaluators of the accuracy of the Gospel writers? One of the primary reasons why modern scholars can only conjecture about historical dates is due to a lack of specific details available to them; consequently, they have to make educated guesses about an ancient author’s point of reference. For example, when Luke wrote “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, . . . the word of God came to John (i.e., the Baptist, Luke 3.1)” concerning this period scholars have to guess was Luke referring to the year that Tiberius became the sole emperor or when he joined Augustus as co-regent, or was he referring to a different sphere of political authority altogether before he became co-regent with Augustus? On this issue modern scholars are equally divided. The salient point is that Luke’s audience knew the approximate period Luke was referring to and that was sufficient for them, and it should be sufficient for today’s audiences as well. In spite of the inability of modern scholars (both secular and Evangelical) to come to agreement on historical dates many Christians are either intimidated by secular opinions of the Gospels, or they simply see little value in defending the historical data contained in the Gospels since they perceive them as nonessential to its message.

Given this dilemma one should first understand the differences in modern and ancient audiences with respect to recording history. Today’s audiences typically expect to learn about the day, month, and year of a particular event, and many times they are even interested in knowing its exact hour of an event.  For example, by causally researching the assassination of John F. Kennedy one can quickly discover that he was shot at 12:30 pm CST on Friday November 22, 1963, and was pronounced dead a short time later at 1:00 pm. Ancient audiences had no expectation of these kinds of details, instead they were more concerned with the significance of what happened instead of any minute precision with respect of its timing. Furthermore, ancient authors felt no need to provide such exacting details since they never dreamed that in the future their credibility would someday be questioned for omitting such minutia with respect to the timing of an event. It is inappropriate, therefore, to hold the Gospel writers to modern standards for historicity since as they wrote they were not aware of such standards, nor did these modern standards fit their primary purposes or meet the limited expectations of their ancient audiences. Instead, the Gospel authors should be evaluated by the standards of their own era. Consequently, Christians should not assume that historical data contained in the Gospels, or the rest of the Bible for that matter, is fallacious. Moreover, in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, they should assume that any historical markers contained the Gospels were accurately recorded by their authors in ways that would have meet the limited expectations of their ancient audiences.

We can trust that the authors accurately provided historical data in their Gospels because the doctrine of Inspiration teaches that all scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1.17). In other words, as the Gospel writers composed their biographies on the life and message of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit inspired and guided them as they wrote; and as a result the Spirit protected their efforts from containing errors that might cause the original audiences to reject their respective messages. This means that Luke 3.1-2 and 23 are just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as John 3.16. The doctrine of Inspiration does not teach that only special parts of the Bible are inspired, but that the Scriptures in their entirety are inspired. John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).  Additionally, we have no evidence that the other Gospel writers were any less interested in historical accuracy than John. In fact, Luke wrote in his preface that “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-3).  Did you catch that? One of Luke’s main purposes for his Gospel was to “carefully” document the “exact truth” about “everything” that Jesus taught and accomplished. Consequently, Christians have little reason to assume that the historical data contained in the Gospels is any less inspired than other parts of the Bible, or that historical accuracy was not a concern of the Holy Spirit as he guided the biblical authors.

Lastly, with respect to the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing concerning the word of Christ.” If Christians feel that they have to make admissions or excuses about perceived historical inaccuracies in the Gospel accounts, then how can we expect our listeners to have faith in those same records? Any lack of trust on our part in the historical accuracy of the Gospels can only undermine our proclamation of their message. The Psalmist wrote “I have inherited Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart” (Ps 119.111). Godliness is the fruit of faithfulness, and faith is demonstrated by confidence in God’s word, not hesitancy. The Scriptures are to be a joy in our lives, not something that we consider suspect. The Psalmist also wrote “So I will have an answer for him who reproaches me, for I trust in Your word” (Ps 119:42). The Psalmist trusted in the veracity of God’s written word more than those that challenged and ridiculed him for his confidence in what God has said. Consequently, instead of dismissing “perceived” historical inaccuracies as not really essential to the message of the Gospels or important to the defense of Christianity, we should have complete confidence in their inspiration, and commit ourselves to discovering the truth of their accuracy. Moreover, if the scriptures are truly inspired and inerrant, then the Spirit will bless our efforts and vindicate Himself and His word as accurate, truthful, and therefore completely trustworthy.

1. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 113.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011

Read Full Post »

LITERACY, PAGAN RELIGIONS, AND JUDAISM

Occasionally while researching the historicity of the Old Testament you will come across scholars who argue that “Judaism” did not arise until the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. The opinion of some liberal scholars is that the Jews did not really have their “religion” in literary form during the earliest periods in Hebrew history; instead the Hebrews relied almost exclusively in oral “forms” or stories to preserve their faith. Consequently, Judaism’s appreciation and obedience to its literature is a rather late development in Jewish spirituality and culture, a development that occurred when the Jews returned to the Southern Kingdom (i.e., Judea) from exile after the fall of the Babylonian empire at the hands of the Persians; thus the term “Judaism.”

Extremely radical and secular scholars would additionally assert that it was at this point that Judaism began to become distinctly different from pagan religions. Therefore, I wish to address this issue of orality (also aurality in some technical works) with respect to the pagan religions of the Roman world, as well as the true origin and basis of authentic Judaism, which always found its roots in its historical Hebrew faith and writings. For the remainder of the blog please understand that I am using the terms “the Hebrew faith” and “Judaism” as synonyms; consequently, understand that in this blog these concepts refer to the same belief system.

Judaism was very different compared to pagan religions because it was primarily a text-based faith—even in the very beginning during the time of Moses. Pagan religions, however, were all based on myths that were almost exclusively passed on via oral traditions and dissemination.  Pagan religions were different because unlike Judaism they were not based upon actual historical events (e.g., the Exodus; the Great Flood; the 40 year wanderings in the desert).  That is not to say that some pagan religions do not refer to actual historical events (e.g., the flood), but that at their core they are not based in reality, instead they are grounded in myths and legends about the mortal life and the pantheon.  Judaism, however, is based upon the historical reality of God’s personal intervention within human history.  Exclusive orality of tradition, therefore, has never been the basis of the Jewish faith (see Duet 4.1-2, 13-14; 6.4-9; Josh 1.6-9). From as early as the time of Moses, Judaism was founded upon written texts that are contained in the Old Testament, specifically beginning with the Pentateuch. Moreover, Jews were expected to be able to read and understand their religious texts if they wished to correctly obey them. Consequently, the literacy rate among Jews was in all probability higher than that of polytheistic Gentiles whose worldview consisted of a belief in the pantheon and mystery religions, which all were primarily rehearsed and preserved through oral mediums. Some modern scholars have suggested that the literacy rate during the Roman empire was around 10%, and even lower among Jews.  However, more recent scholarship has observed historical data that contradicts this assertion, as well as the apparent weaknesses and significant gaps in the research techniques of those who promote such a conjecture concerning Jewish literacy rates.

Nevertheless, this is not to say that oral traditions were not important in Judaism, for clearly oral traditions were a part of the practice of Judaism since Jews often depended upon priests, scribes, and Pharisees to explain the correct application of God’s word—and many of these later explanations were originally communicated orally. However, it is to say that unlike the pagan religions that surrounded Israel, Judaism was grounded in a written text that was fixed and not subject to change. This is evident in Jesus’ rebukes of his opponents for either their outright disobedience of God’s written word (Mark 7.1-13) or their misunderstanding of the emphasis of God’s Word (Matt 23.23-28).  Furthermore, Jesus, his opponents, and Paul all referred to the Law of Moses as being originally composed by Moses himself and containing the correct practice and theology of Judaism, as well as prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah (Luke 20.28 & 37; Rom 10.5).  Most importantly, Jesus himself believed that Moses was the actual human author of the Mosaic Covenant in its original written form; consequently, his writings preserve the origin and correct practice of the Hebrew faith, which is referred to by Second Temple period scholarship as “Judaism.”  Jesus never credited Ezra or any of the scribes and priest from the Babylonian exile with the origins of Judaism (i.e., the original authentic beliefs and practices contained in the Mosaic Covenant). Jesus knew the progenitors of the Jewish nation were Abraham and Sarah, and the authentic Judaism began with the Mosaic Law, which was recorded and preserved by Moses himself (such an assertion does not deny that Moses may have used scribes to assist in recording the Mosaic Covenant; e.g., Joshua or Aaron).  Most importantly, Jesus argued that Moses actually wrote about him (John 5.45-47); consequently, if one is inclined to reject that Moses was the original author of the Torah, then they must also conclude that Jesus did not know what he was talking about, and thus Jesus was also a bumbling idiot and a fraud. It is more likely, however, that the incarnate God knew what he was talking about.

Some liberal scholars argue that there was no such thing as “writing” during the time of Moses, and whatever type of writing existed in that era the average Jew could not read it. This is a poorly defended argument; most scholars recognize that even in Moses time there existed styles of written communication among both the Egyptians (hieroglyphics) and the Hebrews (pre-paleo-Hebrew). Moreover, an very obscure passage in Judges 8.14 reveals that when Gideon capture a “young” man (or boy) that he was able to “write down” the names of the leaders of the city, which numbered more than 70 men.  It is not likely that later copyist would insert such an obvious potential anachronism into a text that they were inventing. It is more probable that they would have simply recorded that the boy “told” them the names of the leaders of the city.  However, the text states that it was the young boy that “wrote down” the names of the men that Gideon was seeking.  Consequently, to assert that these were not written forms of communication is simply ludicrous. In fact, in our technologically advanced modern era we are now returning to a similar method of communication with our Smartphones that is eerily similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics, which we call “emojis” and/or “memes.” For example, if you text to me a time and a place to have coffee and while doing so you insert an emoji of a cup of coffee with the following symbols “@ 9am @ McD’s”, and I text back to you a “thumbs up,” we both have communicated in written form even though we have not actually used English words.  Another example is a cigarette encircled in red with a red strip across it. Everyone knows that this symbol means that cigarette smoking is prohibited in that area. Consequently, Evangelical scholars should recognize that Moses communicated in some type of written form to the Hebrews the covenant that he received directly from God, and he expected them to be able to read and obey it for themselves.

This is not to assert, however, that we do not have “progressive revelation” from God contained in the scriptures. By progressive revelation I mean new prophetic writings inspired by God that reveal his will for his people during the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Consequently, the people of God received new prophetic and historic books that also became part of the canonical the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms, minor and major prophetical writings, and historical writings such as the books of Esther or Nehemiah). God continued to reveal himself to the Jews by speaking to them through his prophets who continued to faithfully preserve God’s commands and directives in written form. The preservation of God’s word into written form occurred before the exilic period, during the exilic period, as well as after the exilic period. It is to argue, however, that authentic Judaism was not “invented” during the exilic or post-exilic periods, as many radical liberal scholars assert. Consequently, the paradigm that radical Form Critics use to explain the “development” of the Old and New Testaments (i.e., that the sacred texts of both Jews and Christians “evolved” and changed over time) is severely flawed. The bottom line of this blog is that Jesus believed and taught that Moses was the original author of the Mosaic Covenant (i.e., the Pentateuch). It is this covenant, which was preserved in written form during the earliest periods of Jewish history, that provides the authentic origin and basis of the Hebrew faith. Moreover, the Hebrew faith, commonly referred to in biblical research as “Judaism,” was not originally preserved in written form until the exilic or post-exilic periods; instead it finds its origins from the very hand of Moses himself. Consequently, since Jesus believed and taught that the recording of Judaism originally began with Moses, this should be our conviction as well.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2012

 

Read Full Post »

WHEN WAS THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN?

The Composition Date for the Book of Acts

The book of Acts is essential to understanding the birth and early growth of the first-century church, and for the most part it is straightforward and not hard to understand.  However, some historians and scholars disagree about its historical accuracy and when it was written, and as you research Acts you will be confronted with some of these disagreements.  A major disagreement concerns the year that Luke finish writing and publicize the book of Acts. This blog argues that the early date of Acts is the most defensible and reasonable conclusion with respect to when it was written. There are two compelling reasons why Acts should be viewed as having been written before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions (ca. early AD 65 or early AD 66). First, Luke ended his history of the early church with a description of Paul’s condition, writing that, “For two whole years he lived in his own rented place and welcomed everyone who came to him. He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom” (Acts 28.30-31). To be sure, as Luke wrote Act if he was aware of Paul’s fate and the Empire’s attempt to eradicate Christianity, then ending the book with such a cheery description would have been unthinkable, if for no other reason that such an ending would make Luke appear completely incompetent since most of his readers would have either already known about Paul’s fate, or would eventually learn what truly happened to him. Some argue, however, that Paul’s inevitable fate was not important to Luke, and that Luke’s purpose was more “theological” than “historical.”  This is not a well-defended position simply because the book contains far more historical data than explanations concerning theological subjects. Moreover, the book is titled “Acts of the Apostles” instead of “The Beliefs of the Apostles,” and its title is “Acts” precisely because it overwhelmingly focuses upon the activities, accomplishments, and deeds of the early church and its leaders.  Of course it also contains theological content, but this is unavoidable since the focus and purpose of the church is theological in nature.  Nevertheless, if Luke was primarily concerned with the church’s theology, then more content within Acts would look more like what is found in Acts 15 (i.e., the Jerusalem Council), but it does not. Luke’s primary purpose in Acts is clearly more descriptive than prescriptive, in other words he focused predominantly on explaining and documenting the church’s birth and subsequent growth from a small sect within Judaism, to its inclusions of Gentiles, and to its ultimate arrival to the heart of the Empire.

A second reason for concluding that Acts was composed before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions is that Luke placed a high value upon persecution and martyrdom accounts and included them within his history of the early church whenever he could. This is obvious from his inclusion of the martyrdoms of both Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and apostle James the brother of John and a son of Zebedee; as well as various riot accounts found throughout the book.  If Luke had known about the martyrdoms of both Paul and Peter, arguably the two most important leaders of the first-century church, then he would have assuredly provided accounts documenting their deaths, or at least references to them in his history of the church (not to mention the martyrdom of Jesus’ brother James, ca. AD 62). But instead of references to the deaths of these significant leaders, Luke provided travel records throughout Acts (e.g., Acts 27.1-28.10), some of which are rather uneventful.  Additionally, not only does the book show no hint of the fates of these important leaders, but as Carson and Moo observed, the exact opposite is true, Luke seems to portray a rather positive outlook for the church’s leaders, as well as a healthy relationship between the church and the Roman Empire (CM, Introduction to the New Testament, 298-300).  Again, such an outlook would have been completely inconceivable if Acts was written any time after the beginning of Neronian persecutions. In fact, once Nero condemned Christianity as subversive and began targeting its leaders for execution, then Christianity became an illegal religion its eyes of the Empire. Moreover, Nero’s ruling against Christianity became the legal basis for all of the Empire’s future persecutions of church over the next couple of centuries. Consequently, if Luke wrote Acts sometime after the cessation of the Neronian persecutions, then his book would not have improved the image of the church, but would have actually endangered individual churches and other Christians by documenting where they could be found and who were some of its remaining leaders. We should credit Luke with having more intelligence than to have written such a potentially dangerous book if he was aware of the Empire’s lethal hostility towards the church.  The Empire had claimed the lives of some of his closest friends, what could he have possibly gained by composing a work that would have only endangered others?

Think about it this way, if 3 years ago someone wrote a book about the rise of Isis and its condition, then the book would have concluded with some ambiguity with respect to its future.  However, if one wrote a book on Isis 10 years from now, it would be inconceivable to not explain or at least reference its collapse.  Of course, Isis’ ultimate defeat would not have to be the book’s main purpose, but to completely ignore its demise as an organized geo-political military force would be a rather glaring omission, one that would make any author appear completely out of touch.  Nevertheless, some scholars still make speculative conjectures promoting a late composition for the book of Acts; however, the more reasonable conclusion is that Luke completed it near the end Paul’s first imprisonment or soon after his release, sometime in the early to mid AD 60s, probably no earlier than AD 62.  Additionally, such a date also has obviously significant ramifications for estimating the date for Luke’s composition of his Gospel.  Many secular scholars who have a biased against the supernatural and prophetic natural of Luke’s Gospel must date the composition of Acts later since they also date the Gospel of Luke considerably later. Since Acts was composed after Luke’s Gospel, then in their view the book of Acts must also be dated much later as well.  Nevertheless, such conjectures and speculations are not well defended given the available historical evidence.

Doc.

Copyright © Monte Shanks, 2010

 

Read Full Post »

INSPIRATION, LITERARY INTERDEPENDENCE, AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

What Does Literary Dependence Look Like and Does It Negatively Impact the Doctrine of Inspiration?

While researching the topic of the Synoptic Gospels one is often confronted with confusing concepts, such as “Literary Independence” and “Literary Interdependence.” Consequently, I want to define and explain what these terms mean and their implications with respect to the doctrine of Inspiration.  “Literary Independence” simply means that as the Gospel authors wrote their respective works that none of them relied upon previously “written” material from the other Gospels. Consequently, all of the canonical Gospels are literarily independent of the other Gospels.  “Literary Interdependence” simply means that as the authors of the canonical Gospels wrote their respective works, they that at times utilized (i.e., copied and/or redacted) materials found in the other Gospels that proceeded them. This possible “literary dependence” upon preceding Gospels does not mean that these writers cease to be “authors” in their own right; it only recognizes that there is an observable “literary relationship” in their work(s) with the Gospel(s) that preceded them.  This issue or “question” is especially acute when researching the Synoptic Gospels.

A question some may have at this point is: how does this impact the doctrine of Inspiration? There are some that are of the opinion that if scholars affirm literary interdependence they are impugning the doctrine of Inspiration.  Additionally, if they are unfamiliar with Koine Greek, then some may find it difficult to understand how anyone can detect literary dependence.  First, I wish to address the concept of detecting literary dependence; and afterwards tackle the issue of Inspiration with respect to this observable phenomenon.  Detecting literary dependence in Greek is not any different that detecting it in English writings.  For example, if one uses different color markers to highlight common words and sentence constructions found in some parallel passages from the Synoptic Gospels, then they will find some evidence of literary interdependence.  However, what maybe observable in English translations of the Synoptic Gospels is extremely more detectable in the original Greek.  The evidence for a literary relationship is more observable simply because of the idiosyncrasies of Koine Greek, which is a more complex language than our modern English. With this in mind, it is still possible that the Gospels writers were familiar with common oral traditions, and later they were independently inspired to record those same traditions. However, when oral proclamations are transcribed into literature they generally undergo some stylistic revisions; this is generally self-evident simply because no one writes the same way they speak.  I have experienced this first hand with respect to my own sermons, sermons that I later composed into written lessons or blogs.  Unless one is a court reporter (and the Gospel authors did not function as such), no one writes to a group of people the same way they speak to a specific audience.  Nevertheless, some affirm that the Holy Spirit inspired the Synoptic authors to write their respective Gospels independently of one another—Gospels that not only contain the same data, but when compared side by side are eerily similar because in many cases they record events and speeches with the exact same vocabulary, style, word order, chronology, as well as the same parenthetical statements (e.g., Mark and Matthew’s “let the reader understand” statement, which is something one would not say to an audience as they are listening [Mk 13.14 & Matt 24.16]).  Consequently, they argue that none of the Gospel authors relied upon any previously written Gospels as they wrote their respective work.

For the purpose of explaining why literary independence is not the best explanation for how the Synoptic Gospels were composed, I have provided 4 English sentences below.  First, please read all four, and then after reading them identify the sentence that appears to be the most likely candidate for being “literarily dependent” upon the first sentence (it is assumed that the first sentence is the original and oldest).

1. The drunken man kicked his Rottweiler after it bit him, and then the dog ran away and never returned.
2. The dog bit a man and then ran away after the man hit it.
3. A vicious dog was kicked by a powerful man that he bit and he immediately ran away and was never seen again.
4. The intoxicated man kicked his Rottweiler after it bit him, immediately afterwards the dog ran away and never returned.

The obvious choice of which sentence is literarily dependent upon sentence #1 is sentence #4.  Please note, all four sentences describe the same event; however, sentences 2 and 3 do not provide all of the relevant data and are written in entirely different styles.  Additionally, sentence 3 was not well written and is open to some misunderstanding; nevertheless, after comparing it with the other 3 sentences one can more precisely glean its meaning.  The difference between sentences #1 and #4 has to do with the elegance of their vocabulary, not the data contained in each sentence.  Moreover, both sentences contain the same basic structure and flow.  However, anyone can claim that all 4 records are dependent upon the same oral account of the event.  Nevertheless, with respect to the question of which sentences are literarily dependent upon one another, the evidence suggests that there is a connection between sentences #1 and #4.  What is obviously to you concerning these English sentences would be significantly more transparent for sentences written in Koine Greek.  The fact is that with Koine Greek it is vastly easier rather than harder to detect literary dependence given the nature, grammar, and peculiarities of the Greek language. For example, in Koine Greek where a word is found in a sentence is of little importance to the translation of the actual sentence; whereas in English the order of words in a sentence is extremely important (e.g., subject, verb, and direct object).  So, if in a sentence the same words appear in the same order and in the same grammatical construction in two different Greek works, let alone entire paragraphs or chapters, then it is a good bet that one is dependent on the other—the question then becomes, which was written first (i.e., which Gospel was a “source” for the other Gospel).  And just as literary dependence is obvious with respect to the two English sentences above; it would be much more obvious if such a pattern were repeated throughout an entire book, such as the Synoptic Gospels. The fact is that much of the material in the Synoptic Gospels employs the exact same vocabulary, grammar, and word order; thus scholars justifiably conclude that there is some degree of literary dependence between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Now to the more important question: does literary dependence jeopardize the doctrine of Inspiration.  Well, let us look at it from Luke’s perspective.  Luke was not one of the original disciples of Jesus, just as he implied in his prologue (Luke 1.1-4).  Consequently, being a disciplined investigative reporter he prepared materials for his future Gospel by interviewing those who were closest to Jesus (Luke was a contemporary of the first generation of Jesus’ followers; thus, he personally knew many of the apostles).  Consequently, we should ask ourselves this simply question: once Luke discovered that a biography about Jesus had already been composed based upon the eyewitness testimony and memories of the apostle Peter (i.e., the Gospel of Mark), would it be inappropriate for the Holy Spirit to inspire Luke to include some of Mark’s material into his own Gospel?  Or do we expect Luke to sit quietly in meditation waiting for the Holy Spirit to inspire him to write specific words in a specific way, only later to discover that in many places what he wrote corresponds precisely with what was already recorded by Gospel authors?  Luke has already confessed that he was dependent upon oral reports from Jesus followers and the apostles, why should he be any less credible if he also depended upon other literary works based these same eyewitness testimonies? I personally do not see Luke’s dependence upon other trustworthy Gospels as a threat to the doctrine of Inspiration, especially when one realizes that such practices were common fare for ancient historians that composed works on empires or biographies about famous people.  While holding to the position of “Literary Independence” may make the Synoptic Gospels more “magical” for some, it does not mandate that those who affirm “Literary Interdependence” with respect to the Synoptic Gospels have some how impugned the doctrine of Inspiration. Moreover, audiences in Luke’s day would have expected Luke to embed other trustworthy literary sources in his biography on the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as include additional material that he had personally gathered from other trustworthy eyewitnesses.

So, could the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain common “oral traditions”?  By the term “oral traditions” many scholars are referring to supposedly “anonymous” but well-known stories about the things Jesus said and did.  It is possible but extremely unlikely given what Luke asserted in his prologue, which was that he wanted to provide Theophilus with certitude about what he had learned concerning Jesus from others (Luke 1.3-4).  By definition one cannot provide certainty about anything that is dependent upon anonymous hearsay sources.  Moreover, this is clearly not the case with Mark’s Gospel.  The church’s earliest histories objectively document that Mark relied upon the memories and sermons of his mentor—the apostle Peter; thus, Mark’s primary source was anything but anonymous (cf., Papias, ca. AD 110).  And it is especially certain, again as Luke claimed in his prologue, that any oral tradition that was used for material within his Gospel only came from trustworthy sources.  There is no hard evidence that any of the Gospel writers relied upon hearsay or anonymous sources.  A comparison of the Synoptic Gospels, therefore, provides conclusive evidence that there is to a large degree literary interdependence between them.  Which Gospel was the first or oldest, and therefore the main source for the other 2 Synoptic Gospels is the question that Source Criticism seeks to address and answer.  Consequently, since we know that the authors of the canonical Gospels, as well as their sources, were entirely trustworthy, then we should not feel that the doctrine of Inspiration is in any way threatened by any evidence of literary interdependence.  On the contrary, since we know these sources to be profoundly trustworthy, then we should have the utmost confidence that the data contained in all four of the canonical Gospels is also accurate and trustworthy.  Neither should we unnecessarily assume that the doctrine of Inspiration is threatened because one canonical Gospel has a literary relationship (i.e., containing the same material) to other similarly inspired Gospels.

Doc.

© Monte Shanks Copyright 2014

 

 

Read Full Post »

DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS CONCERNING “Q”

The Dirty Secrets about “Q” and the Synoptic Question (or Problem)

This blog discusses what is often referred to as the “Synoptic Problem”; however, you may notice that I refer to it as the “Synoptic Question.” Calling it a “problem” implies that there is something is wrong with the canonical Gospels; consequently, I refer to this issue as a question rather than a problem.  I call it a question because basically what we are seeking to answer is the question of which Synoptic Gospel was written first; and what if any literary relationships (i.e., “dependence”) did the other Synoptic Gospels have to that particular Gospel. Consequently, we are dealing with a question or a riddle instead of a “problem.” When attempting to answer this question, one particular conjecture/theory is always brought up, and it is a theory concerning a source commonly referred to as “Q.” Consequently, in this particular blog I want to briefly let you in on some dirty little secrets concerning controversies about this uncorroborated source. A cautionary note before continuing—not all Evangelical scholars that believe Q existed are “liberal.” I know many conservative scholars and I have many friends who believe that Q existed.  They are people that I admire and respect, they are not liberal in their theology or view of the canon—quite the opposite, they are conservative. This blog is not to be used as a litmus test for determining who is a conservative Evangelical and who is not.  You should understand that this blog specifically addresses the biases of scholars who have rejected the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. So please keep this in mind as you read.

First, please understand that only theological nerds (myself included) generally engage in this debate.  I seriously doubt that in your current or future ministries there will be many that ask you about Q.  That is not to say, however, that you will not have to deal with the fallout that this controversy often generates.  Some in your church will have been indoctrinated by liberal and/or unbelieving professors that assume that this document existed, and they also believe that the ancient church has changed this “original and more accurate source” to “create” a Jesus that met the ancient church’s immediate felt needs by the time the canonical Gospels were finally composed. Consequently, they argue that Gospels in the Bible are seriously flawed since they are filled with misinformation and myths.  These scholars will have passed their biases and suspicions on to their students, some of whom will end up in your churches.  Therefore, do not for a minute assume that this controversy is not relevant to your ministries—even if you are never specifically asked anything about “Q.”  Okay, so here are a few real problems concerning Q, as well as any other potential anonymous “source material” that may have been used to compose the canonical Gospels.

Secret #1: “Will the Real Q Please Stand Up?”  If you investigate Q with any depth you will quickly discover that there is a plethora of different schools of thought concerning what kind of document(s) it may have been.  In fact, there is so much diversity of opinion about Q that it’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion about it.  Ironically, scholars can’t even agree on who originally came up with the idea; but for the sake of this blog, we will go with C. H. Weisse.  When Q was originally conjectured by Weisse in 1838 he argued that it was a Greek document that contained some of the teachings and deeds of Jesus—a type of “Gospel narrative” if you will.  Initially, it was presented as an early Greek pre-Gospel that both Matthew and Luke used along with the Gospel of Mark while writing their respective Gospels (i.e., the Two Source Theory/Hypothesis).  However, there are two very real problems concerning this assertion.  First, it is only a theory that such a document ever existed.  Moreover, we have no hard historical evidence confirming that it actually existed.  Let me be clear, there is no historical reference to Q in the annuals of church or secular history, and no one has ever produced a physical manuscript or copy of it, not one.  The closest possible reference to Q is found in Luke’s prologue (see Luke 1.1-4).  But Luke did not say that he employed “many anonymous written sources” to compose his Gospel, but rather that he engaged in his own investigation and then wrote his Gospel based upon his interviews of specific eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and teachings.  He did, however, mention the existence of other written sources.  Nevertheless, since Luke had access to the apostles (i.e., the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word”) he relied upon their testimonies rather than anonymous random sources that he could not verify and corroborate.  Moreover, Luke’s grammar clearly indicates that he was referring to a single group of witnesses, not 2 different groups. Luke did not write that he interviewed one group who were eyewitnesses and then another group that he referred to as “servants of the word.”  Luke’s grammar indicates that the two descriptions refer to a single group.  An example of this would be a solider describing his squad in the following manner: “We are soldiers and brothers in arms.”  We would not understand this description to mean that the soldier was referring to 2 separate groups, one of which are his biological brothers who are not soldiers, and the other being his fellow soldiers.  Instead, we understand that he is describing the same group in 2 different ways.  Similarly, Luke’s grammar indicates that he was referring to only one group of witnesses as his sources, not two.  To put it clearly, Luke wrote in such a way that it is clear that his primary sources were individuals who were both eyewitnesses of Jesus and those that he commissioned to preach “the word”; i.e., the good news about his sacrifice for forgiveness for sins (Luke 24.44-48).  However, the only written sources that the manuscript evidence reveals that Luke relied upon as he wrote his own Gospel are the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and possibly Jesus’ genealogical records (which would have been stored at the Temple in Jerusalem), as well as possible some court records of Jesus’ interrogations and trials.  Furthermore, the manuscript evidence clearly indicates that he primarily relied upon the Gospel of Mark (commonly referred to as Markan Priority), which church history indicates was exclusively based upon the remembrances of the apostle Peter (cf. Papias, ca. AD 110).  Consequently, the assertion that Luke referred to an independent anonymous and mysterious Q document in his prologue is not well defended.

Nevertheless, in spite of the dearth of evidence for Q’s existence, opinions concerning its nature and contents are all over the map.  Consequently, there is no longer any possible way to have a meaningful conversation about Q since there is no real consensus concerning it and its contents.  This means that having a productive dialogue about it is virtually impossible.  Ironically, there are even a few scholars that argue that Q also contained a “pool” of oral traditions as well.  Regrettably, this lack of evidence and consensus concerning Q has never stopped some secular scholars from making wild conjectures that cast suspicion upon the possible sources and historicity of the canonical Gospels.  Given the current environment of this debate, it will be hard for you to adequately answer questions involving the canonical Gospels if you first grant that Q actually existed.  The difficulty of discussing the origins and sources of the canonical Gospels arises simply because this mythical document is an ever-evolving moving target.  Essentially, it is like trying to knockout your own shadow, no matter how many punches you throw you will never land the first blow.

Secret #2: Q Is Not an Inspired, Infallible, or Inerrant Document!  Here is the biggest problem with granting that Q really existed, let us say for the sake of argument that Q is discovered—should it be added to the list of canonical Gospels?  The answer is no since theoretically speaking no one knows who wrote it (c.f., the canonical test of apostolicity).  However, there exists excellent historical evidence concerning the authorship of all 4 canonical Gospels.  But therein lies the problem, liberal and/or secular scholars will view Q as the most accurate source for information about the man history refers to as Jesus of Nazareth because they will view Q as the more ancient source.  Armed with this very conjecture liberal scholars consistently assert that Q is really the basis from which all of the Synoptic Gospels were composed.  But some might say, “So what, what’s the big deal?”  The big deal is this—what if Q contains misinformation concerning Jesus?  For example, let’s assume that several months after Jesus’ crucifixion that the Jerusalem Times published “fake news” about Jesus and what happened during his trials, which was an exposé funded and directed by the Sanhedrin and some leading Pharisees.  Liberal scholars will not assert that the writers of the canonical Gospels have corrected the “mistakes” or “errors” contained in the article published by the Times.  Instead they will argue that it was the authors of the canonical Gospels that have changed and edited their more primitive source in order to create the Jesus that we read about in our Bibles.  In other words, the Jesus found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is really just a “media” creation of the early church rather than the most accurate record of the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.  They will assert that the best we can know about Jesus is that he was a first-century radical itinerant rabbi that the Roman government executed for some unknown but politically expedient reason.  You can now see the catastrophic problem such a document would create.  It would forever cast doubt on the canonical Gospels, which history documents were composed by Jesus’ closest disciples (i.e., Matthew and John who participated in his ministry and witnessed his resurrection), or their close associates (i.e., Mark being a disciple of Peter and Luke being an associate of Paul).  Moreover, we believe that only the canonical Gospels are historical biographies concerning the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth that are inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It is the canonical Gospels together, therefore, that provide the truth about Jesus, his teachings, and what he accomplished on behalf of the world.

Secrete #3: “Q Is the Dream of Skeptics Everywhere.”  Finding any historical data implying that Q actually existed is the hope and dream of all unbelieving scholars who despise the message of Jesus Christ.  They would use such a document to forever cast dispersion on the more accurate historical accounts written by the immediate followers of Jesus; thus proving in their eyes that the canonical Gospels are nothing more than fallacious propaganda created by crazed fanatics who propagated upon a naïve world history’s greatest hoax.  And when liberal Christian scholars engage in baseless speculations involving existence and nature of uncorroborated sources for the canonical Gospels (such as Q), they are unknowingly playing with a raging fire.

Secret #4: Any potential evidence for Q actually provides greater evidence that either Luke depended upon Matthew’s Gospel or vice versa!  This is by far the best kept secret concerning Q!  For the sake of the following discussion, let’s assume Luke’s dependence upon the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Once someone interjects Q in between Matthew and Luke, all they really have done is provide additional support that Luke had access to and depended upon Matthew’s Gospel in a similar manner as he did with Mark’s Gospel.  But some scholars point the differences in Luke’s portrayal of events that are also documented in Matthew’s Gospel.  They argue that Luke would never have redacted Matthew’s work; consequently, these differences suggest that there must have been an additional source to account for the changes between their shared material.  That would be compelling argument if it were not for the fact that Luke often redacted material he used from Mark’s Gospel. Luke was not just a scribe or copyist, he was an author, a historian, and a theologian in his own right.  He had his own Spirit inspired emphasis with respect to the events that he documented in his Gospel, many of which are also documented in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Consequently, there is absolutely no evidence from Luke’s Gospel supporting the existence of the uncorroborated document known as Q that does not first provide greater evidence that Luke depended upon an existing document that scholars today have access to, which is the Gospel of Matthew.

The bottom line for this blog is this: we do not affirm inspiration and inerrancy upon whatever now lost non-canonical literary sources the Gospel authors may have used as they wrote the canonical Gospels.  We only recognize the reality of inspiration upon the canonical Gospels, and we have solid grounds to do so since we have reliable historical evidence corroborating their authorship and when they were composed.  Consequently, they and they alone are the earliest and most accurate contemporaneous historical biographies on the life of Jesus of Nazareth.   Only the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired, not any non-canonical source(s) they may have used—and this is especially true with respect to the mythical document often referred to as Q.  This is what we affirm, and this is what the early church affirmed with respect to the canonical Gospels as well.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2013

Read Full Post »

THE BIBLE AND THE EMERGING CHURCH: The Christian Version of Bait and Switch!

We recently bought a used car and it has been a problem ever since.  It wasn’t the car that we originally wanted to buy, however.  When we got to the dealership and asked about a car they had on their website, they told us that it was already sold, and that they hadn’t updated their website yet.  We were almost out of the door when they told us about another car, which is the one we now own.  About a month later we suddenly needed another car for our son to take to college.  When we started shopping on the web again we were stunned to discover that the same car that we were originally interested in was still on the dealership’s website.  That’s right, we had fallen victim to the old “bait and switch” routine.  Well, as the old saying goes, let the buyer beware.

There’s a lot of bait and switch going on in Evangelicalism, and tragically it is being passed off as an “effective” strategy of “successful” ministry among leaders in the “emerging church” movement.  It seems that a lot of “leading” pastors of these “fashionable” churches are of the impression that referring to the Bible is not a good thing, while others even suggest that it should be avoided.  It’s funny how a little success can make you believe foolish things.  Regardless of what may be promoted as effective ministry strategies, this approach raises 2 important questions: first, what was the model for ministry given by Jesus and his follows; and secondly, what will be the lasting impact of these modern ministries.

First let’s address the second question.  If we intentionally display an aversion to referring to the Bible while attempting to reach the lost, what will be the impact upon those who actually trust Christ?  In other words, after avoiding displaying any knowledge of and confidence in the Bible in order to make seekers more comfortable, should we really expect those that come to faith to suddenly start trusting the Bible?  Moreover, how long will it take them to unlearn what we have so thoroughly modeled to them?  I remember listening to a youth minister explain that the “purpose” of his ministry was to make visitors “comfortable.”  Immediately I thought to myself, “Great! But how do you think they will feel once they start feeling comfortable you start telling them they are sinners bound for eternal Hell if they don’t accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord?”  Making sinners comfortable in order to tell them an inherently offense message (Gal 5.11; 1 Peter 2.4-8) is nothing more than a bait and switch tactic; furthermore, comfort should never be the “purpose” of our ministries.  We can only grow what we plant, and we usually reap a greater amount of what we have sown.  So I ask you, what does the church need more of, biblical illiterate church attendees, or biblically mature disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Rarely can those we disciple overcome our weaknesses; and regrettably they may even exaggerate them.  Consequently, if we think that we are doing unbelievers and young Christians a favor by not promoting the Bible as the foundation of the Christian faith, then we are sorely mistaken.

And this leads me to the first question that I asked: which is what was the method of ministry that the Jesus and his apostles modeled? Regardless of our justifications for how we minister, if we model an aversion the scriptures then we are certainly not following the example set forth by Jesus and his apostles. Before discussing how the original followers of Jesus did ministry, it is necessary to briefly describe their historical context.  The first-century world was overwhelmingly pagan, polytheistic, mystical, worldly, immoral, and skeptical of the Jewish scriptures.  To put it simply, the pagan world of Peter and Paul’s day was antagonistic towards the Jewish worldview as revealed in the Old Testament; consequently, it was openly antagonistic and derogatory towards the Jews and their scriptures—does not that cultural context sound eerily familiar? The reality is that the ministry context of the first-century world was no less hostile, sophisticated, and complex as ours is today, and it is simply arrogant to suggest that it was not.  In fact, the first-century world was considerably more hostile towards the Christian faith then it is today, the Middle East and North Korea notwithstanding.  Nevertheless, when the apostles wrote letters to churches they expected them to be read out loud to everyone in attendance, gatherings in which they knew that seekers would also be present.  And in these letters the apostles regularly quoted and referred to the “scriptures,” and treated them as the basis of authority for the true Faith that God had once and for all delivered the church.

To prepare for this blog I did a quick word search for the term “scripture” in the epistles of the New Testament, from which I found 17 different references.  This doesn’t even begin to include passages that contain phrases such as “God said,” “it is written,” and “the Lord spoke.”  Now at this point I need to make an important observation about to the word “Bible.” When using the word “Bible” everyone knows that it is synonymous with the term “scriptures” (possible exceptions may be orthodox Jews or Muslims, and even these are questionable).  The point is that the overwhelming majority of audiences don’t make a distinction between these words; to them they mean the same thing.  Consequently, on this issue we should follow the example set by the apostles who were not the least bit hesitant to refer to the scriptures.  They showed no aversion to quoting them because they knew that if they faithfully communicated the scriptures that God would speak to both saints and sinners alike.  The bottom line is that they weren’t shy about referring to the scriptures; consequently, we should be no less shy about referring to the Bible as God’s word.

Nevertheless, many in the emerging church movement, as justification for their “enlightened” approach to ministry, point to Paul’s example of evangelism at Mars Hill in Acts 17, as a defense in which Paul made no direct reference to the scriptures. The problem with their justification from this observation is that it is based upon a category mistake. Mars Hill wasn’t a Christian worship setting; instead it was a completely pagan gathering. When I was ministering at secular universities we regularly used this example during our own evangelistic efforts on campus.  But Mars Hill wasn’t a gathering of believers; moreover, Paul never suggested that his method of engaging pagan philosophers should be embraced while also ministering in Christian worship gatherings whose primary purpose is the edification of believers.  Consequently, it is indefensible to suggest that Paul’s approach at Mars Hill is the most effective ministry model for today’s post-modern generation.  Moreover, with respect to ministering to the church, Paul directly exhorted Timothy to be committed to “the public reading of the Scriptures. . .” (1 Timothy 4.13).

And this leads to another point touching on this issue.  Some argue that we can’t claim that our Bibles are “inspired” or “inerrant” because they are not the original autographs.  To this assertion I would only point out that when we read the New Testament we find no hesitation with its authors that interpreted and often quoted translations of the Old Testament as they wrote.  That’s right, virtually every quote of the Old Testament found within the New Testament is a quote of the LXX, which is nothing less then a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and yet the apostles showed complete confidence in it; and they did so irrespective of the attitudes of their audiences.  Moreover, they expected their audiences to believe, study, and receive the translations of their day as God’s holy word.  In other words, the fact that they only had copies of translations of the autographs of the Old Testament didn’t deter the apostles from referring to them as the trustworthy, truthful, and most importantly as the very word of God.

Lastly and most importantly, the Bible is a powerful resource for creating faith in the hearts of those listening.  Paul wrote in Romans 15.4 that the scriptures were written for the express purpose of producing both endurance and hope within us.  And again in Romans 16.25-26 he stated that God “commanded” the composition of the “prophetic writings” “so that the nations might believe and obey Him.”  So to put it plainly, when we arrogantly show aversion to quoting the Bible in our attempts to reach people for Christ, then we are actually undermining our own ministries.  Furthermore, when we avoid referring to the Bible in our evangelistic efforts then we are intentionally neglecting a powerful resource that God has ordained for us to use, and by doing so we are abandoning the very method of ministry that the Lord and his immediate followers modeled for us. It sounds both ironic and tragic that we would actually reject the Lord’s ordained method for ministry while attempting to reach others in his name.  That type of ministry sounds more like a foolish attempt at a bait and switch tactic; however, the kicker is that it doesn’t even include any real bait at all.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2016

 

Read Full Post »