WHO WROTE THE PASTORAL EPISTLES?

I have a lot more to write about the authenticity and place of the pastoral epistles. In fact, a book length treatment is in the works, but there is something that I wrote several years ago (with a few minor upgrades along the way):

Back in the early 1990s while pastoring in the United Methodist Church, I attended one of their liberal seminaries. It was there that I first encountered the idea that some of the books of the New Testament were not written by the authors that bear their name. At the time, I thought that this idea would never be more than an academic concern--an annoying issue among Biblical scholars but of little concern to most people. I was gravely mistaken. New Testament scholar, skeptic and best-selling author Bart Ehrman has totally changed that with his book Forged: in the Name of God— Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

In his book, Ehrman alleges that there are several forgeries in the New Testament. While much of what will be discussed in this article will be applicable to the arguments for other alleged forgeries in the New Testament, this article will focus on the pastoral letters (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).


1. THE BASIC ARGUMENT
What is the basis of the idea that the pastoral letters were written by someone other than Paul? Are there textual variants giving other names? Are there manuscripts lacking Paul's name? Is there a statement against their authenticity by an early church father? Does someone in the early church even question their authenticity or hint that Paul may not have been the author? No. Nothing of the sort. On the contrary, these letters were used approvingly and recognized as part of the canon at a very early date. More than that, they are always included among Paul's letters in all canonical lists and manuscript collections; and they were never among the disputed letters in the canonical discussions of the early church.

Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (4:1) says: "But the love of money is the beginning of all troubles. Knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the world neither can we carry anything out, let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness, and let us teach ourselves first to walk in the commandment of the Lord"--clear allusions to 1 Tim 6. See also 5:2 which quotes 2 Timothy. Polycarp not only quotes from both 1 and 2 Timothy, but he indicates that he knows they are from Paul. Polycarp is an important witness to Pauline authorship because he was a disciple of the apostle John and also the most important church leader of the early 2nd Century (following the death of John, the last living apostle.
[See the excellent online article by Polycarp scholar Kenneth Berding of Biola: "Polycarp of Smyrna Tells Us Who He Thinks Wrote the Pastoral Letters."]

The letters to Timothy in particular are cited approvingly by Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, Origen, Eusebius, etc. (and also quoted disapprovingly by the heretic Marcion). And Titus is quoted by Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, etc. (and quoted disapprovingly by Marcion).
[See a nice summary of this evidence in the quotes from E.K. Simpson and Alfred Plummer at the bottom of this blog page.]

So why is there any question that Paul wrote them? The primary reason given by the Bible's critics is that the vocabulary and style of the pastorals seems to be different from that used in the other ten letters that bear Paul's name.

Carson and Moo summarize the argument as follows:

A strong argument is produced from the vocabulary differences between the three Pastoral epistles and the other ten epistles usually attributed to Paul. P. N. Harrison, building on the work of previous scholars, compiled some impressive statistics. He pointed out that the three Pastorals make use of 902 words, of which 54 are proper names. Of the remaining 848 words, 306 (more than a third of the total) do not occur in the other ten Pauline letters. Of these 306, at least 175 occur nowhere else in the New Testament. The argument is then developed in two ways. First, it is pointed out that this leaves 542 words shared by the Pauline letters and the Pastorals, of which no more than 50 are characteristic Pauline words in the sense that they are not used by other writers in the New Testament. Of the 492 words that are found in three bodies— the Pastorals, the rest of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament— there are, of course, the basic words without which it would be impossible to write at all, and words that every Christian writer would necessarily use (e.g., “brother,” “love,” “faith”). Again, some words have different meanings from book to book. Paul, for example, uses (antechomai) with the sense “to support,” “to aid” (1 Thess. 5: 14); the Pastorals, with the meaning “to hold fast” (Titus 1: 9); (koinos) means “Levitically unclean” in Paul (Rom. 14: 14) and “common” (as in “the common faith”) in the Pastorals (Titus 1: 4). Second, it is argued that many of the words in question are found in the apostolic fathers and the apologists of the early second century. Of the 306 words in the Pastorals that are not in the Pauline Epistles, 211 are found in these second-century writings. This kind of reasoning leads many to the conclusion that the author of the Pastorals was not Paul but probably a writer living at the end of the first century or toward the beginning of the second century. It is held to be unreasonable to think that in his old age Paul would suddenly produce a wealth of new words— moreover, words that are found in a later period. Third, scholars point out that of the 214 Greek particles found in the ten Pauline letters, 112 do not occur in the Pastoral Epistles. From this many infer that there is a comparative poverty of style in the latter: the connective tissue of the Pastoral Epistles is apparently very different from that of the Pauline ten. (Kindle Locations 14222-14242).

At first glance, this may seem like a very reasonable--perhaps even overwhelming--argument against the authenticity of the pastoral letters. When examined closely, however, this argument crumbles and is found to be illegitimate. In fact, the more closely I examine this argument, the more astounded I am that this argument has gained such widespread acceptance among Biblical scholars--even among many evangelicals.


2. BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARGUMENT:
Carson and Moo show some of the basic flaws with this statistical analysis:

The arguments sound impressive, but they are not as convincing as they seem to be at first sight. Those who put them forward do not always notice, for example, that most of the words shared by the Pastorals and the second-century writers are also found in other writings prior to A.D. 50. It cannot be argued that Paul would not have known them, nor can it be argued that Paul’s total vocabulary is the number of words in the ten letters (2,177 words). It is not necessary to argue that Paul produced hundreds of new words in his old age, for if he could use 2,177 words, there is no reason for supposing that he could not use another 306 words, most of which are known to have been current in his day. That some of the words are used with different meanings signifies no more than that the contexts are different. Paul also uses words with different meanings in different contexts in the ten letters. It is misleading simply to say that the Pastorals have 306 words that do not occur in the ten Paulines. On Harrison’s own figures, of the 306 there are 127 that occur in 1 Timothy alone, 81 in 2 Timothy alone, and 45 in Titus alone. This means that the vast majority are found in only one of the Pastorals and that the three differ from one another as much as (or more than) they differ from Paul. Are we to say that there were three pseudonymous writers? The statistics constitute no impressive argument for a single author. Or to put the argument in a different way, if the figures show that the three Pastorals were written by one author, they also show that that author may well have been Paul. (Kindle Locations 14243-14264).

They go on to delve further into the problems with the argument based on these statistics, but I will not reproduce the whole of it here. The central problem can be summed up with a question: Are we really to believe that the other ten letters contain the whole range of vocabulary and expression for one of the most educated, literate, verbal and well-travelled persons of the First Century? The answer is obviously: No. Paul's excellent education, wide exposure to literature, and constant speaking and interacting with people from numerous different cultures would have left him with an immense vocabulary. This objection alone is enough to put this argument to rest. But there are several other even more serious problems with this argument.


3. OTHER SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARGUMENT:
In this section, I want to look at 7 major factors that would have affected vocabulary and language use in the pastoral letters. Any one of these could easily account for differences between the pastorals and the rest of the Pauline corpus; but when all are considered, there should be no surprise at all that we do indeed find differences.

A. THE USE OF AN AMANUENSIS:
Paul's use of an amanuensis (or secretary) in the writing of his letters would definitely have had an impact on the language and style used. In fact, I think that this is probably one of the two most important factors of all in understanding the language used within Paul's letters. And the following references clearly indicate that Paul always made use of an amanuensis:

*Rom. 16:22: "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord."
*1 Cor. 16:21: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand."
*Gal. 6:11: "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!"
*Col. 4:18: " I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand."
*2 Th. 3:17: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write."

These verses make it clear that Paul used an amanuensis to write down the body of the letter and then to write the greeting at the end of the letter himself. Most likely some kind of health problem made it necessary for him to rely on a secretary (most scholars think he probably had some problem with his eyes: see Galatians 4:13-15).


Luke Was Almost Certainly the Amanuensis for the Pastoral Letters

Recently while listening to a lecture by Ben Witherington (about the 16 minute mark) he made the observation that a close study makes it nearly certain that Luke was the secretary behind the pastoral epistles. He notes that there are about 50 words that are used only in the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts and nowhere else in the New Testament. And that there are 7 or 8 distinct phrases that are shared only by the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts. He also notes that in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says: "Only Luke is with me." So the obvious conclusion is that Luke must be the secretary that Paul always necessitates. The great New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule put it this way: “Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them during Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only in part), at Paul’s dictation.” [p. 434 of Moule's essay “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965)].

Resources for Luke's relationship to the pastoral letters:
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles" by Sean at the Initial Explorations blog
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles": Excursus 2 of The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule

B. CO-AUTHORS OF THE "PAULINE" LETTERS:
An equally important issue that I have never heard or seen mentioned in the many conversations that I have seen about this over the years is the simple fact that the introductions to the "Pauline" letters often clearly indicate that Paul is not the only author. And this cannot simply be attributed to the idea that those mentioned with Paul in the introductions are merely others who are with Paul or part of his team--as Paul routinely reserves the closing of his letter to mention those who are with him.

*Romans 1:1: Paul
*1 Corinthians 1:1: Paul & Sosthenes (16:19-20: others with Paul are mentioned)
*2 Corinthians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (13:13: others with Paul are mentioned)
*Galatians 1:1-2: Paul & all the brothers with him
*Ephesians 1:1: Paul
*Philippians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (4:21-22: others with Paul are mentioned)
*Colossians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (4:10-14: others with Paul are mentioned)
*1 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, Silas & Timothy
*2 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, Silas & Timothy
*1 Timothy 1:1: Paul
*2 Timothy 1:1: Paul
*Titus 1:1: Paul
*Philemon: Paul & Timothy

In summary, 8 of the 13 letters state explicitly that--though Paul is the primary author--others are involved. Only Romans, Ephesians and the pastorals do not indicate plural authorship. Or to put it another way, when the pastorals are being compared to the rest of Paul's letters, we are not comparing apples to apples: The pastoral letters indicate that Paul is the sole author, but 8 of the 10 other letters explicitly state plural authorship.

But clearly the most important finding that comes from this is that Timothy is explicitly stated as a co-author of at least 6 of the epistles. But he obviously would not have been a co-author of the two pastorals written to him.

C. THE IMPACT OF REGIONAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE USAGE:
If you have ever moved to or stayed in another region or culture for an extended period of time you will notice that there are many differences in the use of language. This would almost certainly be even more true in the First Century. (Modern national and international media causes there to be a greater evenness in language use but differences persist nonetheless.). Now consider that Paul is constantly on the move over the entire length of the massive Roman empire spanning radically different cultures. They all use Greek, but one can easily imagine that there were some interesting differences in language use from region to region.

To give a modern day example: Imagine an American travelling to England and spending a year there, perhaps attending a college there. Afterwards he travels back to the U.S. and resumes his previous life and continues his friendships in the U.K via email. It would be quite natural for this American to fill his emails with British phrases he learned while living in the U.K. But he would not likely use those same distinctively British phrases when sending an email to his American friends. There would undoubtedly be both similarities between those emails and significant differences.

It should also be noted that while the average person will find himself being unintentionally influenced by these regional differences, Paul's explicit statement of his mode of operation should convince us that he would intentionally speak the language of the people he was addressing:

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Furthermore, all of Paul's general letters are written to Gentiles; but Timothy was raised by a Jewish mother and grandmother (though his father was Greek; cf. Acts 16:1). So in terms of native language use, Timothy probably had much in common with Paul (being a Jew who was heavily influenced by the world of Greco-Roman culture) and Paul probably spoke to him more in the dialect he was used to speaking with his own family.

D. SUBJECT MATTER:
Way back in seminary, I did my own computer analysis comparing a disputed passage with a passage that everyone agrees was written by Paul. It was quite easy to show that an undisputed passage in 1 Corinthians had as many hapax legomena (words used only once by Paul) as the disputed passage in 2 Cor. 6, which some liberal scholars charge is an interpolation. My observation at the time was that subject matter can make a great deal of difference in the language used.

E. LITERARY GENRE:
Literary forms in the ancient world (and now) come with certain expectations of structure, type of vocabulary used and range of expression. I actually did a paper on the authorship of 2 Timothy back in seminary. My central thesis back then was that language differences were related to the purpose and subject matter. The pastorals are intended primarily for the purpose of mentoring versus addressing specific needs of local churches. My New Testament professor at the time (though a liberal who was mentored by a student of Bultmann) noted that this was a sound approach (much to my surprise) and mentioned parallels in the Greco-Roman literature.

Carson and Moo note: "If we extend discussion of style to matters of literary genre, there is a little more to be said. Johnson and others have argued that 1 Timothy and Titus fit comfortably into the genre of the mandate letter, and 2 Timothy into the genre of the testament. Both fit Paul’s situation admirably and were common enough to have been known by him, but they would have been somewhat alien to someone writing his name several decades later. Thus, careful reflection on the literary genre supports apostolic authorship." (Kindle Locations 14314-14317).

Furthermore, the critics are comparing ten letters that were meant to be circulated for public reading with three personal letters that are written to men whom Paul affectionately refers to in these letters as "my son" or "my true son in the faith" or "my dear son" (1 Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4)--men whom Paul often mentions with great affection in other letters and who had been serving at Paul's side for at least a decade.

F. THE IMPACT OF TIME:
I no longer think that the usually accepted dates are correct. [See my most recent article: "Why 1 Timothy Was Written No Later Than 55 AD and Why That Matters." But if we place the pastoral letters in the usually accepted time frame of 63-68 AD, then they are written about a decade after most of the other letters.

So if you do accept the usual dates, consider the following: Time changes all of us. Can you remember what you were doing ten or fifteen years ago? Think about how you have changed since that time. If I ever find those seminary papers I've been mentioning, maybe I'll compare them to this article. I can only imagine the differences after all of the life experiences and changes I have been through since I graduated from seminary in 1995.

It would be interesting to compare something that Ehrman wrote while at Moody to his latest works. Even among his more recent works, it has been noted that there is a big difference between his popular works and his scholarly works. I am certain the differences would be even greater if we could obtain a few of his recent personal letters and compare them to papers or sermons he wrote at Moody.

If the usual dating of the pastorals is accepted, then most of Paul's letters were probably written about a decade before the pastoral letters: The pastoral letters are generally thought to have been written some time between 63 and 68 A.D. And most of Paul's other letters are thought to have been written in the early 50s, one or two others as late as the mid 50s, and four in the early 60s (probably two to five years before the pastorals).

G. PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS:
Physical and psychological factors should also be taken into consideration. Stress, mood and one's state of health can certainly affect one's use of language. Also, if one does accept the usually accepted dates for the pastoral letters, then Paul is getting old, he has endured a long list of difficulties over the previous 15 to 20 years, he is enduring the hazardous conditions of a Roman prison (at least in 2 Timothy; cf. 1:8; 2:9), and he is now facing his death.

CONCLUSION:
The conclusion seems simple. The pastoral letters state that they are written by Paul, the early church confirms this, and we have no sound reason to believe otherwise. The differences in language are hardly an argument for an author other than Paul. There are a large number of significant factors that quite easily account for the differences between these three short letters and the rest of the Pauline Corpus. (In fact, when all the evidence is weighed carefully, I think that it would be much more suspicious if all of Paul's letters were very much alike.)

The reality is that forgeries were as scandalous during the time that the early church was forming as they are now. If they were forgeries, they would not have been accepted as Scripture. As it is, they were widely used and attested to by leaders of the early church.

Dr. Tim McGrew has it right when he says: "Against evidence of this sort [speaking of the testimonies of early church leaders], literary speculations are about as weighty as dandelion fluff. They have very little force. But they are very useful for seeding people's minds with needless doubts." (from the online interview with Brian Auten noted below)


***********
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
*Thanks to Erik Manning for initial help with early church references to the pastorals.
*Thanks to Dr. Tim McGrew for getting me started on this and for help with editing.

SCROLL DOWN BELOW VIDEO 

FOR "RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY"

"How to Be a Biblical Scholar" (2 minutes)

by Lutheran Satire

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY
VIDEO
*Dialogue about Bart Ehrman's book "Forged" between  Ehrman and Darrel Bock on Unbelieveable?

AUDIO
*Dr. Thomas Schreiner has a 42-minute lecture on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
*Brian Auten interviews Tim McGrew: They begin discussing Ehrman's book Forged at about 12:15 and quickly move to discussion of the authenticity of the pastorals.
*Andrew Pitts is interviewed by Nick Peters on the Deeper Waters Podcast. The first 18 minutes are especially helpful for studying this issue related to the pastoral letters of Paul. This two hour podcast then weaves in the issue of the anonymity of the Gospels and textual criticism, and then ends on the authorship of Peter's Letters.
*Justin Langford is interviewed by Nick Peters on the Deeper Waters Podcast.

ARTICLES
*Berding, Kenneth. "Polycarp of Smyrna Tells Us Who He Thinks Wrote 1 & 2 Timothy"
*"The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudopigraphy in New Testament Criticism" and "Dilemmas in New Testament Criticism": excellent articles that  Donald Guthrie produced on the issue of pseudonymity in the New Testament.
*Darrell Bock responds to Bart Ehrman.
*Witherington's series of reviews of Bart Ehrman's book Forged.
*Mike Licona's review of Bart Ehrman's book Forged. (You have to click the link, then it downloads as a pdf.)
*Tektonics online article.
*Online table showing the use of the New Testament by early church fathers and heretics.
*"Pastoral Letters" (p.658-666, esp. 659-661: Section 1: "Canonicity and Authorship") by E.E. Ellis from Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Hawthorne, Martin and Reid
*"The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: An Important Hypothesis Reconsidered" by Jermo van Nes
*Zahn, Theodor. "The Genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus" (pdf file) excerpted from Introduction to the New Testament (1917, Revised 2nd Edition: "Three Volumes in One"), Volume 2, p.85-133. Zahn was one of the great New Testament scholars of the early 20th Century.
*Chilton, Bruce. "Did Paul Write All Thirteen Letters Attributed to Him?"
*Richards, E. Randolph. "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?: The Author in Greco-Roman Letter Writing." (Chapter 8, p. 113-136 in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig). An excellent article on the authenticity of the New Testament letters, especially the pastorals and the letters of Peter. 
*Wilder, Terry. "Does the Bible Contain Forgeries?" Chapter 7 (Kindle Location 3636) of In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, edited by Steven Cowan and Terry Wilder. I highly recommend this whole book.

*Moule, C.F.D. "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (1965): 430-52. (Also published as 24-page pamphlet that is now very hard to find.)

*Marshall, I. Howard. "Recent Study of the Pastoral Epistles," Themelios 23:1. This is an excellent bibliography with discussion by one of the great New Testament scholars of the past 50 years and author of the most recent International Critical Commentary (ICC) on the Pastoral Epistles. Marshall not only provides an extensive bibliography but also interacts significantly with the basic arguments of individual works related to Pauline authorship. Unfortunately, in his ICC commaentary, although Marshall rejects the idea that the pastoral epistles are deceptively pseudonymous, he does not believe Paul wrote them and introduces the rather strange idea of “allonymity."


BOOKS
*Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas J.  An Introduction to the New Testament. (2009) Zondervan. My first go-to reference for these kinds of questions is Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament. I've been using it for about 20 years now and I have never been disappointed. These guys are solid in theology and scholarship. They, of course, skillfully defend the Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters.
*Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament (1917, Revised 2nd Edition: "Three Volumes in One"). Zahn was one of the great New Testament scholars of the early 20th Century. FREE!
*Wilder, Terry. Pseudonymity, The New Testament and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception. (Note: As the one used copy is an astronomical price, you may want to borrow this one from a library.)
*Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. The book which has had the most success at pushing the erroneous idea that the pastoral letters (and others) are forgeries.
*Harrison, P.N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press, 1921). Probably the most important work in the history of casting doubt on the authenticity of the pastoral letters. See especially pp.20ff, 70. This work is now in the public domain and can be downloaded for free at the title link above.
*Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament : Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 466.
*Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament, 4th Edition. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003)

*Simpson, E.K. The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1939, 24 pages)
*Wilson, S.G. Luke and the pastoral epistles (London: SPCK, 1979)

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
A nice summary of the external evidence for the authenticity of the pastoral epistles is given by E.K. Simpson in The Pastoral Epistles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, p.3:

(the last sentence in the quote referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews, see p.4)

~~~*~~~

And also by the eminent New Testament scholar Alfred Plummer writes in The Pastoral Epistles, p.5-6:

The evidence, therefore, justifies us in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second century, these three Epistles were, until· quite recent times, universally accepted as written by St. Paul. 1 This large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (I) The repudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them. They were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought anything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance of them as St. Paul's is full and positive, and reaches back to the earliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the · absence of evidence to the contrary. Tertullian * wonders what can have induced Marcion; while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to Timothy and Titus : and of course those who repudiated them would have pointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical, if such had existed. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these Epistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A. D. 112 ), and Theophilus of Antioch (c. A. D. 180), we have direct evidence of a very convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac Version, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the Muratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later than A.D. 170. Irenreus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that "Paul mentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy," and he quotes Titus iii. 10 with the introduction "as Paul also says." Eusebius renders it probable that both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from I Timothy; and he himself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books and not among the disputable writings: i.e., he places them with the Gospels, Acts, I Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and not with James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he is preceded by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom quote frequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture, sometimes as of "the Apostle," sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the Spirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are addressed to Timothy or to Titus.

"St. Paul (First State)" (1514) by Albrecht Durer

Image source: WikiArt (public domain)

ROMANS 11: THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL AS THE PEOPLE OF GOD

In Romans 11:25-26a, Paul makes the bold statement and prophecy that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved."  Recently in an online conversation, I found that many evangelicals believe that Paul is saying that all Israel will be saved because true Israel is those who have faith. While it is true that Paul does state in other places that the true Israel consists of all those who believe, the context of Romans 9-11 indicates that Paul is here talking about the nation of Israel that is physically descended from Abraham. If we take a closer look at all of this, we will see that Paul is very clear that at a future time the whole nation of Israel will declare that Jesus is their Messiah.

So let me try and expound Paul's argument in Romans 11 that leads up to Paul's conclusion  that "all Israel will be saved" (11:26a).

Paul's Question and His Emphatic Answer
v.1a: Paul asks: "Did God reject his people?"--a question raised due to his remarks about Israel in the previous chapter that begin with Paul's assertion in 10:26: that "not all the Israelites accepted the good news." The question itself contains the answer: they are "his people."

v.1b: And Paul's answer is emphatic: "By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." Clearly Paul is saying that God has not rejected the people of Israel, the descendants of Abraham. He will go on to show that God is not done with them. He has a future plan for them.

If Paul's answer to this question is simply that God has not rejected Israel because the only true Israel is spiritual Israel, then this answer makes no sense, nor does his following extended argument. He should then simply say: "No. God has not rejected Israel because--as I've already made clear--the only true Israel is spiritual Israel; therefore, Israel is not rejected." But instead he goes on to argue that the hardening of Israel is (1) only partial; (2) for God's divine purpose; and (3) temporary, i.e., only until that divine purpose is fulfilled.

The Remnant Chosen By Grace Proves God Has Not Rejected Israel
v.2-10: Paul notes that as in the past (for example, in Elijah's day), so in his time: "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace" (v.5). This remnant of Israel that is saved by grace is Paul's initial answer to the question about whether God has rejected Israel. The answer being: No. That remnant that is saved shows that God has not rejected Israel. After making this point, Paul leaves his argument about the remnant and explains that there is yet more to God's plan for Israel.

The Salvation of the Gentiles Will Make Israel Envious and Turn Them Back To God
v.11: After noting the hardening of all but the remnant of Israel, Paul asks yet another question: "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?" (obviously referring to those who are not part of the remnant). And his answer is: "Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious....." (an envy that leads to their salvation; cf. v.14) So Paul's answer is that Israel is not beyond recovery; Israel's hardening is not a permanent situation but is to open up a way for the Gentiles that will in turn lead Israel to jealousy so that they turn back to God.

Anticipating the Salvation of the Full Nation of Israel
v.12: He then interrupts that thought and declares: "But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!" Here he speaks with excitement and anticipation concerning the "full inclusion" (πλήρωμα) of Israel being the result of Israel's envy of the favor shown to the Gentiles. The Greek word πλήρωμα (pleroma) that is used here refers to the full number of something.

Can Spiritual Israel Be Jealous of Spiritual Israel?
v. 13-15: Paul elaborates on this very point about Israel's envy of the Gentiles resulting in the "full inclusion" of Israel. He ends this section by asking: "For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

So once again, his argument is pointing in the direction of Israel's rejection leading to their eventual acceptance because of their envy of the Gentiles. If the Israel being spoken of here is "spiritual Israel" (which would include Gentiles), how can it be that spiritual Israel is jealous of saved Gentiles? Can it be that spiritual Israel will become jealous of spiritual Israel, so that spiritual Israel can become spiritual Israel? That would obviously be nonsense. And if it is "spiritual Israel" that is in view, it would be further nonsense to speak of this envy leading them to salvation--since, if they are spiritual Israel, they are already saved.

The Natural Branches Take Precedence Over the Wild Branches
v.16-24: Paul's next argument uses the analogy of a domesticated olive tree. Paul reminds his Gentile readers that Israel is the root of the tree and that the hardened Jews are like branches that have been cut off. If then, they (the wild branches) have been grafted in, "how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!" (v.24)

So to sum up the preceding arguments: In v.2-10, Paul's initial answer to the question of whether God has rejected Israel is that God has always had a remnant among Israel. His remaining arguments in v.11-24 argue that God still has a plan for Israel, that the partial hardening of Israel is temporary, and that Israel's jealousy of the Gentiles will lead to their "full inclusion" (the salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole).

All Israel Will Be Saved
v.25-26a: The next section is the climax of Paul's extended argument in Romans 11. Paul sums up his previous arguments this way: "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved." Or to put it another way, this partial hardening of Israel (not including the remnant) is temporary. After the fullness of the Gentiles has been reached, likewise the salvation of the full nation of Israel will take place.

God Doesn't Change His Mind
v.26b-28: But Paul's argument does not stop there. He then turns to prophecy and the promises that God has made to Israel. First, he blends together prophecies from Isaiah 59:20-21; 27:9 (see Septuagint); and Jeremiah 31:31-34. The focal point of these prophecies is that there will be a day when Israel will return to God and he will make a new covenant with them. The emphatic point that Paul is making is that the new covenant that we Gentiles enjoy was made to Israel (very similar to his point about the olive tree). Let me quote the passage in Jeremiah 31:31-36 in full, and note the emphatic conclusion of this section:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.”

And Paul closes his argument with these words: "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable." God's promises to Israel will stand. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)

Praise God for his faithful and tenacious love!


*All Scripture references are from the New International Version.

MESSIANIC PROPHECY: An Overview

"The prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ. 

It is for them also that God has made most provision...." 

~ Blaise Pascal (1660) in Pensees, XI: 706
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

Perhaps the predominant apologetic of the New Testament is "proving from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah" (as noted of Apollos in Acts 18:28). This is seen throughout the book of Acts (Peter: 2:22-31; Stephen: 7:52; Paul: 9:22; 17:2-3; 28:23). It is also seen as a central argument in the four gospels, which quote many of these messianic prophecies. Matthew constantly refers to messianic prophecies, often using some form of the explicit formula: "this happened to fulfill what was said through the prophet" (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9). Likewise, John frequently uses variations of a similar formula: "so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled" (13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36). Furthermore, what is probably the oldest creed of the Church (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, probably formed by 33 A.D.) explicitly notes that Jesus' substitutionary death, burial and resurrection were in accordance with the Scriptures (meaning the prophecies of the Old Testament). And all of this has its roots in Jesus' own teaching. For example: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, Jesus explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27; also Matthew 26:54; John 5:39; etc.).

But applying these Old Testament prophecies to the Messiah was not a Christian invention. Messianic expectation (though not universal) was widespread among the Jews from the 1st Century B.C. until the 2nd Century A.D. This messianic expectation is seen not only in the gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 2:1-6; Luke 2:25-32; John 1:41-45) but also in other Jewish writings. They are found in the writings that represent the Jewish traditions in the desert community of Qumran. They were a part of the popular Rabbinic/Pharisaic tradition of Judea as preserved in the Talmud and other rabbinic writings. They show up in the Alexandrian traditions far away in Egypt as seen in Philo and in interpretations in the Septuagint. And they are clearly expressed in the traditions represented by Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles. [Bird, Michael F. Are You the One Who Is to Come? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), p.44-62; Newman, Robert C. The Evidence of Prophecy (Hatfield, Pennsylvania: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1988, 2012), Kindle Location 1834.]

When brought together, these Old Testament prophecies form a substantial profile of the Messiah. They tell where he would be born (Bethlehem: Micah 5:2), what ancestral line he would come from (David's: 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-4), and that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). They also tell when he would come: before Judah lost its "scepter" (i.e., its tribal identity and right to rule; Genesis 49:10) and before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Daniel 9:26). They foretold that he would fulfill the roles of prophet, priest and king. He would be a prophet like Moses (who was a prophesying, wonder-working lawgiver who spoke to God directly; Deuteronomy 18:15-18). He would be a priest and substitutionary sacrifice who would reconcile people to God (Psalm 110:4 ; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13; Isaiah 53:4-12; etc.). And he would be a Davidic king who would rule the nations (Isaiah 9:6-7). And there are many more details revealed about the coming Messiah that are simply beyond the scope of this article. But most striking of all are the detailed prophecies of his death and his resurrection (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Genesis 22, etc.).

A common objection is that, if Jesus was the Messiah, the Jews would have recognized him and not rejected him. But even this is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 53; Zechariah 12:10; etc.). Ultimately, the Jews rejected Jesus because he claimed to be God, because he was crucified, and because he did not restore Israel and ascend the Davidic throne to rule the world. Yet the prophecies foretold that the Messiah would be God (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 11:13/Matthew 27:9; Zechariah 12:10/John 19:37; Micah 5:2/Matthew 2:6; etc.) and that he would suffer crucifixion before rising from the dead (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; etc.). Afterwards (at an undetermined time), he would restore Israel and rule the nations.

When all of the messianic prophecies are considered, there is only one person in history who even comes close to fulfilling them: Jesus. These prophecies provide the context for understanding who Jesus is and reveal that he was not invented by people but was progressively revealed by God through his prophets over thousands of years, so that we would be able to recognize him unmistakably.

This is a powerful apologetic that has unfortunately been largely neglected in recent years. And many who have made use of these prophecies have done so carelessly. In using messianic prophecy as an apologetic, it is important to discern the difference between predictive prophecy and typology. Some prophecies clearly expect a future fulfillment (e.g., Micah 5:2; Deuteronomy 18:15-18) while others are simply types that were fulfilled by Christ (e.g., the Passover and the sacrificial system). To present these prophecies with integrity and with the ability to defend them requires a depth of understanding of the Scriptures and careful study. And to this we are called.

****************


*For a ton of resources, see "Resources for the Study of Messianic Prophecy."

The "Great Isaiah Scroll" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Image Soure: Wikimedia Commons

I WILL TELL THE WORLD OF HIS AMAZING DEEDS!: A Testimony

"Sing to the Lord! Praise his name!
Announce every day how he delivers!
Tell the nations about his splendor!
Tell all the nations about his amazing deeds!
For the Lord is great and certainly worthy of praise...."
(Psalm 96:2-4a, New English Translation/NET Bible)

I am writing this post for the purpose of thanking the One who has rescued me from the depths, and also to thank all those who interceded for me before his mighty throne. He has heard our prayers and answered clearly and mightily. Basically, it will be an account of how God delivered me from a cancerous tumor that was growing on my left kidney and the various ways that he heard the prayers of many as my wife and I walked through this difficult path in our life.

[IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN READING THE WHOLE STORY, 
YOU CAN SKIP DOWN TO "THE BOTTOM LINE..."]

So then, let me start this story from the beginning: Back in March I began having kidney problems (kidney infection/stone signaled by gross hematuria). This led me to a urologist who ordered a scan and the scan found a tumor on my left kidney. The urologist believed that the tumor had nothing to do with the symptoms that led to the scan and that finding the tumor was fortuitous. I believe the word "providential" is more accurate, that is: we found this tumor because God wanted us to find it.

My initial urologist referred me to his colleague who was trained to use a robot to do kidney surgery laparoscopically. When I met with him, he looked at the scan and told me that he would try to save the kidney, but that--because of where the tumor was--he would probably have to take the whole kidney.

Fastforward to Friday, July 19, the day of my surgery. The surgery came and went; and when I woke up in my hospital room several hours later, I was very happy to see my family. But I had no memory of the surgery, and from that moment on I never had anything but occasional light pain from the incisions and cutting that had been done on my body. I was told that the surgery went very well. Our prayers had been answered! But I would not find out (or at least take in) all of the details until I talked to the doctor myself.

On Saturday, I was beginning to feel strong enough to eat something more than ice chips (or "rice chips" as I kept calling them when first coming out from under anesthesia). I tried a couple of bites of yogurt and applesauce and banana. I also began a routine of walking down the hospital hall in order to get my bowels working. The first tastes of food seemed to settle fine so I was emboldened to try something more. I ordered some more yogurt and a bowl of chicken noodle soup. That's when the trouble started.

As the chicken noodle soup went down, everything seemed great. It tasted wonderful and I felt my energy returning even as I was eating it. For those few fleeting minutes, I was feeling fantastic. Then the acid reflux started to come...and come....and come....and come....

Over the next 18 hours the acid reflux intensified. The nurses and I tried everything we could think of--one "remedy" after another--to get rid of it, but nothing (not even the prescription acid blocker) gave more than a moment's relief. Other than those, brief moments, it was just hour after hour of the most intense burning in my throat--and a constant painful belching. At some point, I realized that the reason I was having all of this acid reflux was because everything I was eating was staying right in my stomach and going no farther, because my bowels were not working ("paralyzed" my doctor would tell me later). All through the night I was walking and doing all kinds of movements to try and get my bowels moving. By morning, I was completely exhausted and sleep deprived.

Throughout the night I cried out to God, wondering why he would not answer. The cries of the psalmists came to my mind, such as: "Why, O Lord, are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning!?" (Psalm 22:1) I knew he was there, but I could not understand why he was letting me suffer. To the best of my recollection, it was the most miserable day of my life.

It was about that time that my wife notified some prayer warriors about the acid reflux. Not long after that, the cure for my acid reflux came (another long story), the acid reflux vanished and it never came back!

With the acid reflux gone, I did my best to sleep (from 11:30am to about 8pm on a Sunday). I was awakened about every 30 minutes, but at least I was able to lay down and sleep. When I finally woke up, I was feeling much better, but my bowels were still not moving--at all. Again my wife notified some prayer warriors about the problem. And again the answer was soon to come.

My wife ordered a grilled cheese. But I ordered nothing. I didn't even want to think about food at that point. I was just going to wait until the next day to try eating. But when the food came, my wife tore off a small part of her sandwich and offered it to me. It did smell good. And I thought that the least I could do was take a couple of nibbles. As soon as the bread touched my tongue--even as I was biting down on it, the most amazing thing happened. My bowels instantaneously reacted to it and I felt a distinct bubbling sensation in two different places. In the hours that followed, I continually felt my bowels moving. And shortly after I went to sleep, I had to wake back up to have a bowel movement. (Sorry if mention of that seems out of place, but in reality, that was one of the most important moments of my whole hospital stay!)

The next morning I was beginning to feel great, and it was only a matter of time before I would be discharged from the hospital that day. The thought of getting home to get a good night's sleep in my own bed had never seemed so sweet.

During one of his visits, the doctor told me about how the surgery had gone. He said it was the most difficult tumor removal that he had ever done. And he said that he was "amazed" (his word) that he was able to do it. He had a limit of 30 minutes to remove the tumor before the arteries to my kidney had to be unclamped--or my kidney could die. He said he was able to remove the tumor in 29 minutes. Then he told me that just the week before they had obtained a machine by which they could see everything that was going on in real time through ultrasound. Before this, he had to figure everything out through triangulation using three different cameras. Do you think that made the difference of a minute or two--perhaps more? No doubt in my mind. Once again God provided just what was needed in answer to our prayers.

Next he told me that he had had to cut so deeply into my kidney that he was very concerned that there would be bleeding, when he unclamped my artery. But when he did, there was absolutely no leakage. My response to all of this was to say: "Well, lots of people have been praying for me." To which he said, "Well, it worked."

This man is obviously a man of great skill and competency. And I am indeed thankful to have been under the care of such an excellent surgeon and his very capable team. But in this moment, I am convinced that God enabled him to do something that was even beyond his natural abilities--that amazed even him! I was prepared to live with only one kidney. I had told my wife: "Other people donate their kidneys to save someone's life; if one of my kidneys has to be taken to save mine, I really can't complain." But God was very gracious to me and allowed me to keep my kidney.

And I should add that during my recovery, I was also blessed with a wonderful nursing staff and a loving wife who stayed there with me during the whole thing.

Finally, I got the pathology report Friday (July 26). The news: the tumor was indeed cancerous. But the report showed that the entire margin of the dissection was negative (that is, cancer free). The doctor said that he was sure that he was able to get all of the cancer and that there would be no need for further treatments. (Though we will monitor the area carefully as an extra precaution.) In the doctor's own words: "It's all very good news!" I have much to be thankful for! The Lord has delivered me from a deadly enemy!

UPDATE: On my one year check up, my doctor told me that my kidney had healed so completely that it was difficult to tell that he had performed surgery on it. Amazing, considering how extensively he had to cut into it!

THE BOTTOM LINE....

God, in his great mercy, has healed me completely. The cancerous tumor has been completely removed and my left kidney is still there working for me. This is something that the doctor did not expect to happen. And to use his own words, he was "amazed" (in more ways than one) that he was able to make it happen.

During this whole time, God gave my wife and I an incredible peace about this whole thing. I knew that I was in his hands; and whatever his will was I was ready to be at peace with it. I was praying earnestly for complete healing, but I was ready to accept whatever answer he gave to me--for his will is perfect and he is full of love for all those who are in Jesus Christ. And for this, I choose to praise him!

But it was not just my body that he healed. It was my spirit, as well. The day after I was discharged from the hospital, in a private moment of personal worship, I suddenly found myself sobbing in prayer--with tears of joy. It had become clear to me that God had used this experience to answer another of my prayers. In recent months, I have been continually praying that God would draw me closer to himself and renew my love for him. As I contemplated how God had answered that prayer during the experiences of the previous days, I was overcome. And in that moment, I declared to him that if that was what it took, it was worth every bit of it.

And so, as strange as it may seem to some, the constant theme of my spirit during my hospital stay and since I have been home has been thanksgiving. And so I indeed will sing his praise and tell the world of his amazing deeds! (Psalm 96:2-4)

NOTE: One might wonder what place such a testimony has in a blog dedicated to the cumulative case for Christianity. Let me just say briefly that it is in fact at the heart of such a case. All the intellectual arguments are empty apart from a real encounter with the living God. They may satisfy the intellect, but they will not satisfy the soul. This testimony falls under the area known in apologetics as religious experience, and also closely related to the area of evidence known as miracles. (Though technically the above events that I recounted were not miracles but rather answers to prayer and signs of God's providential care for me).

UPDATE #2: My cancer came back a couple of years after I wrote this article and I am currently considered to have a rare form of kidney cancer and to have progressed to Stage IV. This does not negate my testimony above. And there have been many signs of answered prayer and God's power in my life in the past two years since I was diagnosed as Stage IV. For example, I have had two more surgeries. There were clear signs of God's care during the first dangerous surgery. And I recovered quickly and completely from both. Also, in spite of the cancer and the daily chemo treatments that I have had, I continue to feel great and have not missed any work except for a few days while recovering from my first surgery. (I missed no work after the second surgery.) And I work a very physical job as the oldest guy working online in the RV factory where I work, walking 7-11 miles every day that I work. I have much to be grateful for. And I am!

**************************************
*GUIDE TO THE CONTENTS OF MY BLOG:
http://2besure.blogspot.com/2013/01/contents-of-this-blog.html

ANCIENT DOCUMENTS (BESIDES THE NEW TESTAMENT) THAT MENTION JESUS

**NOTE: The list of ancient documents below was originally compiled by my friend Shawn White (but his blog has since been hacked and no longer exists). I gave him a little input at the time and have adapted it and added most of the current content to it since then.

*****************

The 27 books of the New Testament are among the most reliable ancient documents that we have and have been confirmed in multiple ways. They were written by eyewitnesses (apostles) or by those who were companions of eyewitnesses (apostles). So they are by far our best source for understanding who Jesus is. 

These 27 documents represent the testimony of no less than 8 different early witnesses (probably 9, since Hebrews is anonymous and was probably not written by Paul but by one of Paul's associates)--six were eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude) and three reported what they learned from eyewitnesses (Mark recorded Peter's testimony and Luke recorded the testimony of various eyewitnesses; see Luke 1:1-4). These are eyewitnesses and their close associates. All but one of the eyewitnesses spent years of their lives with Jesus and who endured difficulty, persecution and martyrdom because of their testimony of Jesus' resurrection. It's frankly very difficult to find testimony this weighty about anything. 

Nevertheless, most skeptics will not accept Biblical sources when it comes to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. They usually want extrabiblical sources (sources outside of the Bible) with the thought that there will not be any or perhaps very few sources that make mention of Jesus. In order to show that this does nothing to support their case or their claims, below is a list of non-Biblical historical sources written between 25-180 years after Jesus lived. 

These sources vary in value as historical information for Jesus, but they all have value and several are of significant weight. Perhaps at a later time I will get to rating and explaining the value of each of these more thoroughly. 



SOURCES WRITTEN DURING THE PERIOD OF LIVING EYEWITNESSES

Sources behind the Gospels (and thus earlier)
*M (Sayings in Matthew only but not in other Gospels)
*L (Sayings in Luke only but not in other Gospels)
*Q (Sayings in both Matthew and Luke but not in other Gospels)
*The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative: "Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37...." (which according to the latest and best chronological work is about 4 years after the crucifixion).

**NOTE: These are hypothetical documents that many scholars believe represent sources used by the writers of the Gospels. I am personally skeptical that the nature of these sources resembles that which is generally proposed. Nevertheless, there certainly were written eyewitness accounts before Luke--as he is very explicit that he is aware of "many" written accounts of Jesus before he wrote his Gospel (one of which was almost certainly the Gospel of Mark). See Luke 1:1-4.

RESOURCES
An excellent article by James Smiley Bishop that looks at the value of the Gospel sources, the creed, and the hymn of Philippians 2.

Sources Quoted in the letters of the Apostle Paul (and thus earlier)
*The Creed in 1 Corinthians 15. Scholars are agreed that this creed was composed before 1 Corinthians and it is generally agreed that it was composed between 6 months and 3 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. For example:

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT Prof. at Birmingham) “…it goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford, 1996), 48.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist Prof of NT at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

*The above quotes are as cited by Nick Peters of Deeper Waters

*The Hymn in Philippians 2. Even liberal scholars typically agree that the hymn in Philippians 2 was composed by someone besides Paul (and therefore before Paul wrote Philippians).

*Many other creeds and Christological hymns are believed to be embedded in Paul's letters. All of them would therefore pre-date Paul's letters. I hope to document more of them later.
Here is a list given in The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ by Gary Habermas (p.29): 

*"The chief examples [of passages explicitly stated as coming from an earlier source] include 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 15:3; 1 Thes. 2:15; 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8; Heb. 1:2-3."

*"Major examples [of passages thought to come from earlier sources but not stated explicitly] include those in Rom. 1:3-4; 4:25; 5:8; 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-11, and Heb. 1:3. Cf. many others such as Eph. 1:20; Col. 1:15-20; 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; 3:16; Heb. 1:1; 1:13; 8:1; 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:21; 2:21; 3:18; 3:22."


RESOURCES
An excellent article by James Smiley Bishop that looks at the value of the Gospel sources, the creed, and the hymn of Philippians 2.


Sources for Sermons Used by Luke in the book of Acts
Here is a list given in The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ by Gary Habermas (p.29):
"The most-commonly mentioned candidates for these sermon segments are in Acts 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31. Those speaking of Jesus’ deity include Acts 2:33, 36; 5:31."

Ancient Historians of the First Century
*Thallus (wrote his 3-volume history c. 50 AD) See these excellent articles by William Lane Craig, Glenn Miller and Jason Engwer; also see: The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, Volume 4, Chapter 13. See this article to find basic info on Thallus and a listing of the fragments of his work that have been preserved.

*Flavius Josephus (wrote c. 93 AD; lived 37-100 AD) See this excellent article by Dr. Paul Maier.  Another excellent article by Dr. Greg Herrick. Also "Josephus, the Bible and History" by Louis Feldman.

Anonymous Works of the First Century
*Didache (written c. 50-100 AD, probably c. 70 AD)
*The Epistle of Barnabas (written c. 70-135 AD; author unknown)



SOURCES WRITTEN BY THOSE WHO KNEW EYEWITNESSES

The Apostolic Fathers (Disciples of the Apostles)
*Clement, bishop of Rome (wrote his Letter to the Corinthians c. 69 to 99 AD; lived 35-99 AD. He knew the apostles Peter and Paul and was appointed as an elder at Rome by the apostle Peter, as Tertullian tells us was recorded in the church's archives there in his Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32.

*Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (lived 35 to c. 110 AD; wrote on the way to his martyrdom c. 110 AD) was a disciple of the apostle John and knew Polycarp (below). He also knew other apostles besides John; and there is strong tradition that he was appointed as bishop of Antioch by apostles (one tradition says by Peter). See an article on Ignatius followed by extensive resources at EarlyChurch.org.uk. Also, see this excellent article at New Advent.

*Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (wrote c.115-130 AD; lived c. 60-130 AD). He was a friend of Polycarp (below). He not only knew at least two firsthand eyewitnesses to Jesus (the apostle John and another disciple named Aristion), he also interviewed many others who knew other apostles and disciples of Jesus. From these, he gathered enough eyewitness testimony to fill five volumes! This 5-volume work was entitled The Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Fragment 3, Eusebius' Church History 3.39.1, p.526-63 of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes).Furthermore, he provides historical confirmation of Jesus' miracles: "As for those who were raised from the dead by Christ, he states that they survived until the time of Hadrian" (Fragment 5, Philip of Side's 5th Century Church History, p.572-73 of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes). See my blog article on Papias.

*NOTE: If you think it is unbelievable that people that Jesus raised from the dead could have survived until the reign of Hadrian (reigned 117-138 AD), check out this playlist of videos featuring interviews with those who survived the Spanish Flu of 1918. They have very vivid memories of that time. These interviews happened between 1998 and 2020, that is 80 to 102 years after the Spanish Flu epidemic. Hadrian's reign would be as little as 85 years after Jesus' ministry. And if you believe people in the ancient world did not live that long, that is incorrect. Evidence shows that people did, and I have been collecting it. That will be another blog post sometime in the future, but here is just a small taste of the evidence: chapter 49 of The Natural History by Pliny the Elder (written c.77 AD).

*Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (wrote  his Letter to the Philippians c. 120-140 AD; lived c. 69-156 AD). Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John and was instructed by other apostles and eyewitnesses to Jesus; and he was a friend of Ignatius and Papias. See my blog article on the apostolic fathers. See also The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written c.156-160 AD.

*"The Traditions of the Elders" is a collection of 17 fragments preserving the testimony of anonymous apostolic fathers. This collection follows the "Fragments of Papias" in Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers and a smaller collection of 5 fragments is available in the edition of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. The following are two of the best examples in their witness to Jesus' life:

But that the age of thirty years is the prime of a young man's ability, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, every one will allow; but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when he taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them : for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid account. [as preserved in Irenaeus' Against Heresies 2.22.5 which was written c. 175-185 AD; Irenaeus himself living c.125-200 AD; The testimony preserved here is what was handed down c. 80-100 AD from eyewitnesses to Jesus to multiple elders/pastors. It seems from Irenaeus' wording--and it is quite reasonable to believe--that Irenaeus heard this testimony from the elders himself--certainly from his mentor Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.]

As the Elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, relate that they had heard from him, how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and to say...... [as preserved in Irenaeus' Against Heresies 5.33.3, written c. 175-185).

An Early 2nd Century Apologist
*Quadratus, bishop of Athens (wrote c.125 AD; lived c.70?-129 AD). See this nice article at Got Questions?

Eusebius (lived c.260-339) wrote this about Quadratus in his Church History 4.2.1-3 (c. 325 AD):

1 After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Aelius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine: those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." Such then was Quadratus.

3 Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons.

Jerome (lived c. 347-420) wrote this about Quadratus in his book Illustrious Men 19:

Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, after Publius bishop of Athens had been crowned with martyrdom on account of his faith in Christ, was substituted in his place, and by his faith and industry gathered the church scattered by reason of its great fear. And when Hadrian passed the winter at Athens to witness the Eleusinian mysteries and was initiated into almost all the sacred mysteries of Greece, those who hated the Christians took opportunity without instructions from the Emperor to harass the believers. At this time he presented to Hadrian a work composed in behalf of our religion, indispensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching. In which, illustrating the antiquity of his period, he says that he has seen many who, oppressed by various ills, were healed by the Lord in Judea as well as some who had been raised from the dead.

*NOTE: If you think it is unbelievable that people that Jesus healed and raised from the dead could have still been living during Quadratus' lifetime, check out this playlist of videos featuring interviews with those who survived the Spanish Flu of 1918. Not only did they survive it, but they have very vivid memories of that time. These interviews happened between 1998 and 2020, that is 80 to 102 years after the Spanish Flu epidemic. Quadratus' Apology is less than 95 years after Jesus' ministry and he could have met these individuals much earlier in his life. And if you have been led to believe that people did not have that long of lifespans in the ancient world, that is a complete misunderstanding (an urban myth about the ancient world). There is a ton of evidence that shows that people did and I have been collecting it. That will be another blog post sometime in the future, but here is just a small taste of the evidence: chapter 49 of The Natural History by Pliny the Elder (written c.77 AD).


SOURCES WHO PROBABLY KNEW EYEWITNESSES OR HAD ACCESS TO THEM

Ancient Historians of the Early Second Century
*Cornelius Tacitus (wrote c. 115 AD; lived c.56-120 AD) Article by Colin Green, Article by Ryan Leasure. "Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Historical Jesus" by Rob Bowman, Jr.

*Suetonius (wrote c. 115 AD; lived c. 69-122 AD) "Tacitus, Suetonius, and the Historical Jesus" by Rob Bowman, Jr.

*Phlegon of Tralles (wrote c. 140 AD; lived c. 80?-150? AD). Article at Never Thirsty; also see: Origen in Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14 and Chapter 59; also see: The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, Volume 4, Chapter 13.


Fathers of the Early 2nd Century
*Aristides (wrote his Apology for Christians c. 145 AD). See the text of the Apology. See notes on the Apology. Excerpt from the Apology, chapter 2: 

"The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known."

*Hermas (The Shepherd of Hermas was written c. 70?-150 AD): Origen believed him to be the Hermas of Romans 16:14)



SOURCES WHO HAD ACCESS TO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS THAT SPOKE OF JESUS
*Justin Martyr (wrote c.155 AD; lived c. 100-165 AD): Twice he mentioned that the Acts of Pilate Pontius could be checked in the Roman archives to confirm the Gospel accounts. Speaking of the events of Jesus' crucifixion, he writes: "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate" (Justin's First Apology, chapter 35; also see chapter 48).

*Tertullian (lived c.155-240 AD): Knew official church documents that told which elders were placed by apostles (see Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32, written c. 199 AD). He also mentions that both the darkness during the crucifixion and also Pilate's report to Tiberius Caesar about Jesus were recorded in the government archives (see The Apology of Tertullian, chapter 21, written c.197-217 AD; also see this article at Never Thirsty). His writings make it clear that he was highly educated, well read and familiar with government archives. No doubt this was the result of his formal education as a lawyer.

*NOTE: A word of caution about the Acts of Pilate that Justin and Tertullian refer to: Probably most scholars (even conservative ones like F.F. Bruce) express caution or even extreme skepticism that they actually saw such records in the archives or had reliable knowledge of them. Some scholars think they merely assumed the record existed. Other scholars think that they had knowledge of some forged document. I personally think that it is more likely that these learned men were more careful than that. Certainly, it seems unlikely that Justin would present this as evidence to the Emperor Antoninus unless he knew for sure that it was true. The Emperor could easily check this for himself--so that would be a careless move in his apology and would throw doubt on the whole thing. The exact same thing can be said about Tertullian, who makes his reference to the Acts of Pilate in his appeal before the court of the "rulers of the Roman Empire." In fact, it seems even less likely in Tertullian's case, as he had formal education as a lawyer. It does appear that Tertullian especially has combined the information from the Acts of Pilate with information from the Gospels and perhaps less reliable information passed down orally as tradition. Nonetheless, I believe that these men were both had reliable knowledge that the Acts of Pilate did in fact confirm some of the basic facts concerning Jesus' crucifixion.


SOURCES WHO KNEW THOSE WHO KNEW EYEWITNESSES 
*Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (wrote c.175-185; lived c.125-200 AD): See a brief biography and significant bibliography. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna and was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Besides his abundant testimony in Against Heresies, Eusebius has preserved fragments of letters that Irenaeus wrote including one to Florinus, which begins as follows:

These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart,.... [preserved in Eusebius' Church History 5.20.4-7].

*Tatian (lived 120-173 AD). He wrote his Address to the Greeks c. 155-165 AD. And he composed his Diatessaron (a harmony of the four Gospels) c. 170-175. See this excellent brief biography.


SOURCES WHO PROBABLY KNEW THOSE WHO KNEW EYEWITNESSES
*Aristo of Pella (wrote c.140 AD). See brief introduction and fragments from Roberts and Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers.

*Second Clement (written c.98-160 AD). See a brief introduction to this anonymous ancient sermon (that was wrongly attributed to Clement). See the text of 2nd Clement.

*The Epistle of Diognetus (written c.130-200 AD). See this section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. See the text of The Epistle of Diognetus.

*Hegesippus (wrote c. 165-175 AD; lived c. 110-180 AD). Hegesippus almost certainily knew the apostolic fathers and quite possibly knew some of the last eyewitnesses of Jesus when he was a young child. He affirms Jesus' historicity through his records of who were Jesus' relatives, some of whom lived down until the time that Hegesippus was a young child. See Henry Wace's excellent article from his Dictionary of Early Christian Biography and Literature. See also this excellent brief biography. See the fragments preserved from his 5-volume work in Eusebius' Church History 2:23:8-18 and 4:22.

*Melito of Sardis (wrote c. 160-177 AD; died c. 190 AD). See this excellent brief biography. Also this section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. And this very brief biography plus a significant bibliography. See the fragments of Melito's works here.

*Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis and Apologist (wrote c.160-180 AD). See this very brief biography and the few fragments that we still have as found in Roberts and Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers.

*Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (wrote c.165-175 AD). See this brief biography.

*Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (wrote c.180-185 AD). See this section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. See his work To Autolycus.

*Athenagoras of Athens (wrote c. 175-180 AD). See this section from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. A brief introduction and the texts of his Plea for the Christians and The Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead from Roberts and Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Justin Martyr and Athenagorus, p.371-456.

*Clement of Alexandria (wrote c.182-202 AD; lived c.150-215 AD). See this brief biography and significant bibliography. See an introduction and the texts of his works in Roberts and Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers (scroll down at page linked to).

~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~

TESTIMONY FROM THE ENEMIES OF CHRISTIANITY....
*The Criterion of Enemy Attestation (also known as the Criterion of a "Hostile Witness"): 
Gary Habermas notes: "The criterion of enemy attestation is satisfied when an antagonistic source expresses agreement regarding a person or event when it is contrary to their best interests to do so. Maier holds that “such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind of evidence . . . if Cicero, who despised Catiline, admitted that the fellow had one good quality--courage--among a host of bad ones then the historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous.” ("Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels" by Gary Habermas)

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHO HAD ACCESS TO EYEWITNESSES & OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Government Officials Who Prosecuted Christians
*Pontius Pilate (1 B.C. - c.37 AD) Article at Never Thirsty

*Pliny the Younger (wrote c. 111-112 AD; lived 61-113 AD) "Pliny’s Letter to Trajan" at Christian History Institute

*Emperor Trajan (wrote c.111 AD; lived 53-117 AD). See this article at Never Thirsty.

*Emperor Hadrian (wrote/reigned c.117-138 AD; lived 76-138 AD). See this article at Never Thirsty.


NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHO HAD ACCESS TO THOSE WHO KNEW EYEWITNESSES

Critics of Christianity
*Celsus (Criticized Christianity in his work True Discourse written c. 178 AD. We no longer have that work but an estimated 60-90% of True Discourse is quoted in Origen's Against Celsus.). See Celsus vs. the Early Christians by Vocab Malone. See "Evidence for Jesus' Miracles Outside the Bible" by Ryan Leasure.



Heretical Writings
*Marcion (died c. 160 AD)
*The Apocryphon of John (c. 120-180 AD)
*The Gospel of Thomas (c. 140-160 AD)
*The Gospel of Truth (c. 140-180 AD)
*The Treatise on the Resurrection (c. 170-200 AD)
*Several more heretical writings from this period could be added to this list. This is just a sample of a few of the more important heretical writings.
*NOTE: The very existence of hagiography, Gnostic writings and other heresies in the late 1st to mid 2nd Century is strong evidence for Jesus' historicity. No one invents such stories and ideas about people who do not exist. Furthermore, the heretical writings generally say very little about Jesus and his apostles but merely present them as talking heads that speak in favor of heretical ideas, generally well-known pagan ideas. In other words, these writings presuppose the well known existence of Jesus, the basic events of his life, his apostles and other persons from the four New Testament Gospels. On the other hand, these writings had no connection to the apostles as they generally claim: They were written after the time of the apostles and had no connection with anyone who was a disciple of one of the apostles. Even modern liberal scholars who want to propose that these writings preserve some form of Christianity are forced to admit that these writings have no apostolic connection.

Other Jewish Sources
*The Talmud (c. 135 AD). Article at Never Thirsty
*Toledoth Jesu (Compiled in the 5th Century AD, these were a collection of writings dating from mid 1st century to mid 2nd century AD). The relevant section from The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas can be seen at the Google Books preview, p.205-206.

Other Gentiles
*Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirical playwright (c. 165-175 AD). Article at Never Thirsty
*Mara Bar-Serapion (c. 73-200 AD). Article at Never Thirsty
*Greek Magical Paypyri. Article at Never Thirsty

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY

My Class: "Ancient Documents That Confirm the Gospels"
*MP3 Audio (45 minutes)
*PowerPoint Slideshow: When you click on this link, you will note the option at the top to "Open with Google Slides" or you may open with MS PowerPoint or OpenOffice Impress (which is free).
*Class Handout
*I recommend opening the audio and using the PowerPoint Slideshow as you listen (and/or the handout).
*The entire 16-week course may be found here: "HOW TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN CHRIST THAT CHANGES THE WORLD (Apologetics 101: A Cumulative Case)"

Videos
*"Is There Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?" by Peter Williams (6 minutes)

Articles (& Book Chapters) Online
*"What Early Non-Christians Said About Christianity": Links to various articles related to the historical confirmation of the Gospels by ancient non-Christian sources. Written by the authors of Triablogue.

*"Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible" by Lawrence Mykytiuk. This is the January/February 2015 feature article for BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review). Excellent!
*"Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?" by J. Warner Wallace
*"Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ." A nice article at New Advent.
*"Ancient Non-Christian Sources" This is the ninth chapter from The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ  by Gary Habermas and is available for FREE.
*"Evidence for Jesus' Miracles Outside the Bible" by Ryan Leasure.
*"Historical Jesus - Two Centuries Worth of Citations" at True Free Thinker. Lists more than 200 ancient documents within the first 2 centuries or so that mention Christ.
**McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (2017 edition). Chapter 6: "The Historical Existence of Jesus," section II. "Non-Christian Sources" (rated according to value) and III. "Christian Sources" (of exceptional value)

Books
*Jesus Outside the New Testament by Robert  Van Voorst
*The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas
*Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments (Revised and Expanded) by Robert M. Grant. Brief intros and excerpts from 39 different documents from the 2nd Century.
*Testimonies of Heathen and Christian Writers of the First Two Centuries to the Truth and Power of the Gospel (1837) by Thomas Browne. FREE!

STILL LOOKING?.... 
*See RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS: Videos, Articles & Books
...OR "Historical Quotations About Jesus" at Never Thirsty