Quotations
"The remarkable thing about the
people of Q is that they were not Christians. They did not think of Jesus
as a messiah or the Christ ... They did not regard his death as a divine,
tragic, or saving event. And they did not imagine that he had been raised
from the dead…
"With Q in view, the entire landscape
of early Christian history and literature has to be revised."
Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel
The 'Newly Discovered' Jesus
One of the most common, and most
disturbing, refrains heard in the media's coverage of contemporary radical
views of Christ is that New Testament scholars have recently "discovered"
new sources of information about Jesus that contradict the Bible's own
view of Jesus. It is claimed that works such as the Gospel of Thomas,
Secret Mark, the Gospel of Peter, and especially "Q," contain
material about Jesus that was lost, or intentionally suppressed, when the
Gospels were accepted by the early church. Now that these works have been
discovered, however, we can, as one liberal scholar put it, finally free
ourselves from the "tyranny of the canonical Jesus" and come up with an
alternative Jesus along the lines of these other non-biblical sources.
At first glance, the average reader
can be taken back by these spectacular claims. The very idea that there
are ancient books outside the Bible that speak about Jesus -- let alone books
that speak about him more accurately than does the Bible! -- is confusing
to believers and nonbelievers alike who have never heard such things before.
In the interest of improving your "Bible literacy," many liberal scholars
have gone out of their way to inform you of their discoveries. But, also
in the interest of improving your Bible literacy, you need to know that
there is another side to this story. Many scholars, you should know,
think that all of this amounts to little more than hot air! In what follows,
I'll tell you why.
How 'New' Are the 'New Discoveries'?
In the light of all the media talk
about "new" discoveries, it may come as something of a surprise to learn
that there are, in fact, no 'new' documents that have been discovered.
Indeed, two of the four so-called 'discoveries' now being most heavily
used by liberal scholars in their attempts at reinventing the historical
Jesus have never been discovered ("Q" and Secret Mark). They
are hypothetical 'documents' these scholars think once existed.
Another (Gospel of Thomas) was discovered fifty years ago, while
the fourth (Gospel of Peter) was discovered over a hundred years
ago.
The existence of these supposed sources,
therefore, is not new. What is new, however, is what certain scholars
are now trying to do with these sources. Thus, while speculation about
"Q" has been going on for over a hundred and fifty years, only recently
have certain scholars dreamed of completely revamping our view of who Jesus
was and what his earliest followers were like on the basis of this hypothetical
document.
So too, while the Gospel of Thomas
has been in our hands for fifty years, only recently have certain influential
scholars tried to argue that this document provides information about Jesus
that pre-dates the Gospels. So also with the Gospel of Peter and
Secret Mark. Only recently have certain liberal scholars attempted
to make these works a significant part of their project of reinventing
the historical Jesus.
Rest assured, then, that despite
the sometimes sensational popular media presentation, there are no new
discoveries that shake the foundation of the biblical view of Christ. There
are simply new theories about old discoveries and old hypotheses.
And these new theories, we shall now see, are themselves hardly "foundation
shaking."
So, what are we to make of these
extra-canonical sources? Of the four mentioned above that receive the most
attention today, "Q" is by far and away the most important. And so I shall
treat it separately below. But a few words must first be said about Secret
Mark, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Thomas.
Secret Mark
In a letter written by Clement of
Alexandria in the late second century, a "secret Gospel" that purportedly
came from Mark is quoted at some length. This work, Clement says, was composed
by the disciple Mark, shortly after he wrote the canonical Gospel bearing
his name. And it was intended to communicate "secret" matters for "those
who are being perfected." Clement of Alexandria quotes this work in the
process of refuting the licentious interpretations which a certain radical
gnostic group (the "Carpocratians) were giving it.
A number of liberal New Testament
scholars have given this citation an incredible amount of weight, even
going so far as to argue, as Crossan says, that "canonical Mark is a censored
version of Secret Mark." [ 1 ] We need not go into the actual contents of
Clement's citation here, but suffice it to say that from this premise,
this citation has been used by certain scholars to substantiate some fairly
controversial views. Morton Smith, the one who discovered Clement's letter,
has used it as the foundation for several books which argue that the historical
Jesus was a magician. Others, such as Crossan, have used it as evidence
that a number of "the first early Christians" practiced homosexuality and
understood Christian baptism as a homosexual rite! [ 2 ]
In any event, there are a number
of problems with taking Secret Mark this seriously. First, as mentioned
above, no one has ever seen any copy of Secret Mark. What is worse,
no one except Morton Smith has ever seen the actual copy of Clement's second
century letter that makes reference to Secret Mark. It somehow mysteriously
disappeared from the monastery Smith discovered it in! To the thinking
of many scholars, this is enough to disqualify it as a serious source of
information relevant to the historical Jesus or the earliest disciples.
But even if Smith's report
about this reference to this work is accepted, there is no good reason
to think that it pre-dates canonical Mark. That fact that Clement himself
tells us it was written after canonical Mark is significant. The
fact that we have no reference to this work until the late second or early
third century further suggests that it is late. Moreover, it's contents,
like that of so many other Apocryphal Gospels, can be shown to be a conflation
and adaptation of the canonical Mark, again rendering the hypothesis that
this work pre-dates Mark impossible.
Finally, the fact that Clement of
Alexandria, in distinction from most other church fathers in the second
and third centuries, was generally quite gullible in accepting spurious
"secret" writings undermines his credibility as a witness to Secret
Mark . He also accepted such works as the Apocalypse of Peter,
the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians,
and the Gospel of Thomas as authentic even though other church fathers
(rightly) rejected them as forgeries.
Secret Mark, then, is a non-existent
work cited in a now non-existent text by a late second century author who
is known for his gullibility. And thus, the reasonableness of giving this
hypothetical work more credibility than the canonical Gospels, whose reliability
can be demonstrated, is dubious to say the least.
The Gospel of Peter
We find several references to the
Gospel of Peter among early church fathers, though it is never quoted
and is usually portrayed as a heretical work. A ninth century copy of it
was discovered in upper Egypt in 1886. Several scholars, most notably John
Dominic Crossan, have tried to argue that its passion narrative (which
Crossan calls "the Cross Gospel") is older than that of the canonical Gospels.
Indeed, Crossan argues that the author of Mark used the Cross Gospel
in composing his own narrative.
Most scholars, however, have not
accepted Crossan's theory, and for good reason. For one thing, we simply
have no evidence that the Gospel of Peter, or any section of the
Gospel of Peter, pre-dates the second or third century. The basic
reason Crossan postulates an early date for "the Cross Gospel" is that
some of this material fits well with his particular conjectural scheme
for how the 'mythological' passion narratives of the Gospels evolved.
What is more, the work as a whole
can be shown to be dependent on the canonical Gospel material. And the
work is full of outlandish legendary material such as we have come to expect
from late second and third century apocryphal works. The Jesus of this
work, for example, feels no pain on the cross. And when Christ comes out
of the tomb, he is accompanied by two men whose heads extend up to the
sky, while Christ himself extends up beyond the sky! And to top
it all off, these three are followed out of the tomb by a cross that talks!!
Compare this with the Bible's own
realistic accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection and you can see
why we insisted in the last two chapters that the Gospel accounts are "sober."
The fact that some yet want to give preference to works like the fanciful
Gospel of Peter over these sober accounts simply reveals the depth
of prejudice against the biblical material held by these scholars.
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas was part
of a large collection of gnostic works discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Until recently, it was, along with many other of these works, universally
dated in the mid-second century, and most scholars still hold to this date.
But a number of scholars who are now getting a good deal of press argue
that a good portion of its material pre-dates the Gospel material. Crossan,
for example, argues that some of this material goes back to the earliest
stage of Christianity (30-60 A.D.), a status not granted by him to most
of the Gospels' material. In agreement with him, the Jesus Seminar decided
to place the Gospel of Thomas right next to the four canonical Gospels
in their publication, The Five Gospels.
What these scholars find most appealing
about the Gospel of Thomas is that it is simply a collection of
sayings of Jesus, many of which are identical to, or at least similar to,
some sayings found in the Gospels. This work, therefore, does not portray
Jesus as a miracle worker or as a resurrected Lord. And this, of course,
fits well with the view that the historical Jesus was simply a teacher
and that most of the narratives about him in the Gospels were created later.
Four things can be in said in response
to this view. First, while we cannot rule out the possibility that the
Gospel of Thomas does contain some authentic sayings of Jesus, and
perhaps even some that were not recorded by the biblical authors, no convincing
case has been made that any given saying of Jesus in the Gospels depends
on a saying of this work. To say that the Gospel of Thomas contains
authentic sayings of Jesus is one thing. To say that these sayings are
more authentic than the Gospels' own material is quite another.
Secondly, the Gospel of Thomas
is clearly influenced by the kind of gnosticism we know was prevalent
in the second and third centuries, but not in the first. For example, we
find the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas saying that "every woman
who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." This demeaning
view of women was common within gnosticism, but utterly foreign to the
historical Jesus.
Moreover, a number of other sayings
of Jesus in this Gospel which parallel sayings in the Gospels are given
a distinctly gnostic twist. Sayings about "the kingdom of God," for example,
have been hyper- spiritualized in a gnostic direction and have lost most
of their original Semitic meaning. This clearly demonstrates that the Gospel
of Thomas is largely dependent on the canonical Gospels, not the other
way around.
Third, the fact that this work doesn't
contain any narratives about Jesus doesn't mean that the person, or the
community, that lies behind this work was unaware of the deeds of Jesus'
ministry. The work seems clearly designed to be a collection of sayings.
And if this was indeed its purpose, we cannot infer anything about what
the person or group behind it did not believe on the basis of what
this work does not say.
And, finally, the use made of this
Gospel by these scholars is weak, if for no other reason, than because
it depends on their particular (and very tenuous) views of "Q." To put
it in a word, material in the Gospel of Thomas that agrees with what these
scholars judge to be the "earliest layer" of "Q" is, for this reason, judged
to be early. While material that doesn't agree with this "earliest layer"
of "Q" is admitted to be late. But, as we shall see, the method by which
these scholars decide what constitutes the "earliest layer" of "Q" is completely
arbitrary. Indeed, sometimes sayings in "Q" are argued to be early precisely
because they agree with the Gospel of Thomas!
For these reasons (none of which
are even discussed in the Jesus Seminar's The Five Gospels)
there seems to be no good reason to regard the Gospel of Thomas
as anything more than a second century distillation of somewhat twisted
material about Jesus, some of which may reflect authentic traditions stemming
from Jesus, and some of which simply reflects gnostic-tending creativity.
Hence, the attempt on the part of certain scholars to give it priority
over the canonical material is simply ill founded.
The "Discovery" of "Q"
As significant as the Gospel of
Thomas and other extra-canonical sources are to the liberal attempt
to reinvent the historical Jesus, they do not compare to the importance
of "Q". The bulk of the material out of which modern liberal views of Jesus
and the early Church are being carved and then fed to the media is taken
from this document.
The existence of "Q" (for Quelle,
meaning "source") was first postulated in the last century as a way of
explaining the close parallels between Matthew and Luke when they are expressing
material not found in Mark. If Matthew and Luke both possessed a single
document that contained (mostly) sayings of Jesus, then their close similarities
in the way they quote sayings of Jesus can be accounted for.
Now there are, of course, a number
of other ways one could account for their similarities that don't
require postulating a hypothetical document. From what we know about Jewish
oral tradition and memorization (see chapter VI), for example, one could
convincingly argue that the commonalties between Luke and Matthew is simply
indicative of the reliability of the oral traditions that lie behind
both. A number of reputable scholars espouse this position. Or, some have
argued, Luke perhaps used Matthew as one of his sources when he composed
his Gospel (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). Hence the similarities in wording is to be
expected.
Whatever we make of these alternative
theories, they serve as reminders that whenever anyone talks about "Q,"
they are talking about a tentative hypothesis, not an actual document.
Not one shred of anything like this document has ever been found. This
is not to say that there's anything particularly wrong with this hypothesis.
It may in fact be correct. But it is to say that any theories
based on this hypothesis can never be more certain than the hypothesis
itself. As we shall see, however, this seems to have been largely forgotten
by some of those scholars who are now trying to erect incredible theoretical
fortresses upon it.
Dissecting "Q"
Many liberal scholars are now arguing
that the Jesus we find in "Q" is a radically different Jesus than the one
we find in the Gospels. Like the Gospel of Thomas, the Jesus of
"Q" is more of a teacher than he is a miracle working savior. His claims,
it is argued, are less pretentious, he does no miracles, he does not die
for sins, and he most certainly does not come back from the dead. And since
"Q" is (according to this hypothesis) earlier than the Gospels, its material,
they argue, should be judged as being more reliable than that of the Gospels.
It's difficult to overestimate the influence this line of reasoning has
on many of those scholars getting the most media attention today.
Indeed, the scholars who are using
"Q" as a foundational source are now going further and are arguing that
"Q" itself can be divided into different stages, with each stage reflecting
an increasingly 'mythological' view of Jesus. While the exact demarcations
of these "stages" differs among scholars, the most common view is that
at stage one (often referred to as "Q1") we find a wise Jesus who
is simply a teacher. In stage two ("Q2") we find a prophetic and apocalyptic
Jesus who is chastising his opponents and announcing the coming judgment
of God. And in stage three ("Q3") we find a superhuman Jesus
who is being seen as having divine authority and as embodying the wisdom
of God.
To the thinking of these scholars,
this "progression" demonstrates that the Jesus of the Gospels was not the
Jesus of history. It shows that the earliest followers of Jesus, reflected
in the earliest layer of "Q" (and, of course, in the 'early' material in
the Gospel of Thomas) held a perfectly natural view of Jesus. It
shows that only gradually did these people begin to see Jesus in increasingly
exalted terms. And it shows, therefore, that the Gospels' view of Jesus
Christ as the miracle working Son of God who died for sins and rose from
the dead is not historical. It is simply the product of the "creative
imaginations" of the early Christians.
Piling Assumptions Upon Assumptions
What is one to make of all this?
Initially this reconstruction of early church history can look somewhat
convincing. But on closer inspection, it simply does not stand up.
Among other things, the entire scheme
is completely conjectural. These scholars are asking us to trade
in the Gospel portrait of Christ, the reliability of which we have already
seen (chapter VI), for a hypothetical reconstruction of history based on
a hypothetical reconstruction of a hypothetical document. And, at least
to thinking of many other scholars, this does not come close to being a
good trade.
To see just how conjectural this
speculation is, consider the number of assumptions that must be made for
this version of how the 'mythological' Jesus of the Gospels came about
to get off the ground. And consider how tenuous each of these assumptions
are.
-
It must be assumed that "Q" existed
as a written document. As has already been said, however, an increasing
number of scholars argue against it. At the very least, there is no concrete
evidence of this.
-
Even if we grant that "Q" existed as
a written document, it must be further assumed that we can accurately reconstruct
the "original Q" on the basis of how Matthew and Luke incorporated it into
their narratives. But how do we know how much, or how little, of "Q" Matthew
and Luke actually used? Perhaps there are entire sections of "Q" (if it
existed) which Matthew and Luke choose to omit.
-
Even if we grant that we can reconstruct
the "original Q" from Matthew and Luke, it must be further assume that
this document was composed for the purpose of expressing everything
early Christians believed about Jesus. Only on this assumption can these
scholars try to argue about what the earliest followers of Jesus did not
believe on the basis of what "Q" presumably does not say. But why
shouldn't we rather suppose that "Q" (like the later Gospel of Thomas)
was simply intended to be primarily a collection of sayings of Jesus, perhaps
used in the earliest Christian communities for teaching purposes? In this
light, arguing about what the earliest followers did not believe
on the basis of what "Q" does not contain should be seen as a classic
illustration of the invalidity of arguing from silence.
-
Even if we grant that "Q" existed, that
it can be reconstructed, and that it was intended to be exhaustive, it
must still further be assumed that there was a community of people
who created "Q." Only on this assumption can these scholars draw inferences
about what the "earliest followers of Jesus" believed or did not believe
from what "Q" does or does not say. But why couldn't "Q" be the creation
of one person who, quite individually, decided to collect together the
sayings of Jesus? Why think it has to reflect what a community of
people believe at all?
-
On top of all this, for the liberal
reconstruction of early church history to stand up, these scholars must
assume that we can now accurately dissect this hypothetical document to
discern it's various "literary stages." As we shall see below, however,
the process by which they discern these "stages" is questionable, to say
the least.
-
But even if we grant that various stages
in "Q" can be accurately assessed, it must still further be assumed
that these different literary stages accurately reflect different historical
stages in the thinking of the earliest followers of Jesus. But why should
the history of a community correspond to the (hypothetical) history of
this (hypothetical) document? Why could we not rather assume that (say)
the earliest followers of Jesus saw him in apocalyptic terms, but that
this view of Jesus simply didn't come into literary form until after
the view that Jesus was a wise teacher? Leaping from a conjectural
literary history of a document to a conjectural history
of a community's theology is an enormous leap!
-
Finally, this speculative theory on
what the earliest followers of Jesus believed must still further assume
that wisdom teaching (in "Q1"), prophetic and apocalyptic teaching (in
"Q2"), and the perception of Jesus in exalted terms ("Q3") are fundamentally
incompatible with each other. Only on this basis can these scholars
argue that each different form of teaching must represent a distinct
"literary stage" in "Q." And only on this basis can they then argue that
each of these stages represent a distinct "stage of progress" in
the thinking of the "people of Q." But if the final (hypothetical) editor
of this (hypothetical) work didn't see any incompatibility here -- obviously,
for he places them all together! -- why think that anyone prior to him would
have seen any incompatibility here? If all three elements of "Q" are there
at the end, in other words, why couldn't they all have been there at the
start? What is more, one can cite many instances in the Jewish literature
of the time in which wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic elements are found
together in the same document.
The Circularity of the Mack
Attack
We see, then, that the liberal reinvention
of who the original Jesus was and what his original followers were like
on the basis of "Q" amounts to nothing more than a pile of arbitrary assumptions
built upon other arbitrary assumptions. But what is perhaps even more damaging
to their theory than this is the fact that the whole enterprise of reconstructing
"Q" is a classic example of circular reasoning.
The all important question to ask
yourself is this: On what basis do these scholars conclude that the material
in the hypothetical "Q" document that portrays Jesus as a wise teacher
came before the material that portrays him as a prophetic or apocalyptic
teacher? And on what basis do they further conclude that all of this material
came before the material that portrays him in divine terms?
The answer, in a word, is that this
conjectural scheme of what comes "before" and "after" what is simply the
one that best fits their assumption of how the earliest followers
of Jesus progressed in their views of Jesus. But this assumption is the
conclusion they arrive at from the various literary stages they supposedly
'discover' in "Q." In other words, the supposed literary stages of "Q"
are inferred from the supposed historical stages of "the people of Q."
And the supposed historical stages of "the people of Q" are then inferred
from the supposed literary stages of "Q." And this is a classic case of
circular reasoning!
Lest you think I'm exaggerating,
lets look at a few examples of how Burton Mack makes his case in his very
popular work, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins
(hence forth abbreviated as LG). For starters, Mack helps his
readers note that, "Frequently the way sayings are grouped or ordered [in
"Q"] makes a point. Sometimes a saying offers a specific interpretation
of a preceding unit of material" (LG, p. 106). But remember, the
only "Q" we possess is the one Mack and others have pieced together from
Matthew and Luke. They decided how the sayings are to be ordered,
and they did so on the basis of the points they think "the original
Q" was making. So its not too surprising that Mack 'discovers' that "the
way sayings are grouped or ordered makes a point." He's the one
who ordered them to make just this point!
Similarly, Mack argues that "the
order and organization of material [in "Q"] are ... clear signs of the coherence
of a particular layer of tradition" (LG, p.108). The coherence of
various "stages" of "Q," in other words, are discernible by how well the
material in each is ordered. But, of course, it is Mack himself (along
with others) who has imposed on the sayings that Matthew and Luke have
in common this particular "order and organization." So arguing on the basis
of this 'discovered' organization that Q has distinct "layers of tradition"
can hardly be called convincing!
Along these same lines, Mack 'discovers'
that in the first layer of "Q" ("Q1"), as opposed to the second layer of
"Q" ("Q2"), "[t]here is no sign of hostility" towards those outside the
"Q" community (LG, 111). In his view, it was a growing sense of
hostility to the 'outside' world that led the "people of Q" to gradually
develop a more prophetic and apocalyptic view of Jesus. But this 'discovery'
can hardly be called a 'discovery,' since it is again Mack himself who
decided ahead of time that any saying which exhibits such "hostility" belongs
to the later layers of "Q"!
So too, Mack notes with interest
the "shift in tone that awaits the reader of Q2," and notes how, "[i]n
contrast to Q1 the reader now encounters narratives, dialogue, controversy
stories ... warnings, and apocalyptic pronouncements" (LG, 131). Amazing
indeed. But who was it who ruled out all this material from "Q1" and placed
it all in "Q2"? It was the very person who is now with fascination 'discovering'
it!
The whole project of reconstructing
earliest Christian history on the basis of "Q," we see, is as circular
as it is conjectural. And we are being asked to trade in the Gospels accounts
of who Jesus was, and what his disciples were like, for this. To
some of us, it is a ridiculous proposition.
Whose History Can You Trust?
What makes this proposition far worse,
however, is that accepting this liberal reconstruction also requires of
us that we trade in the Bible's own history of the early Church, found
in the Acts of the Apostles. If this reconstructed view of early
Church history is even remotely close to being correct, the view given
to us in the book of Acts must be altogether false! For if
there's anything that is clear from Acts, its that the early Church
believed and proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who rose from
the dead from its very inception. And the Church's inception, of course,
occurred just weeks after Jesus' resurrection (on the day of Pentecost).
So the question is, whose history
are you going to trust? Mack's or Luke's? For many reasons, a host of scholars
would argue that the nod must be given to Luke. While we certainly cannot
even begin to investigate this matter with any thoroughness at the present
time, a brief summary of the more important pieces of evidence which substantiate
the reliability of Acts is in order.
The Author of Acts
The early church is unanimous in
maintaining that the author of this work, as well as the Gospel which preceded
it (cf. Acts 1:1) was Luke, the "beloved physician" who accompanied Paul
on many of his journeys (Col. 4:14; cf. Philemon, 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Only
the most radical of Bible critics ever questions this. The fact that this
author reflects such a detailed knowledge of Paul's life, and the fact
that he sometimes speaks in the first person plural in his narrative, signifying
that he was present at the time (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16),
further confirms Lucan authorship.
This information already is enough
to raise this very important question: Who is in a better position to tell
us how the church began and developed in its earliest stages? A companion
of Paul who, as he tells us, is writing an orderly and accurate account
while relying on eyewitnesses (Lk. 1:1-3)? Or certain scholars investigating
the matter two thousand years later, while relying on questionable inferences
from a hypothetical reconstruction of a hypothetical document?
The Dating of Acts
The book of Acts ends very
abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome in 62 A.D. The question is,
why? What makes this question especially interesting is that we know that
Paul, as well as Peter and James, were martyred shortly after this time
in Nero's persecution. And we also know that Luke is interested in recording
the martyrs of key Christian figures. Thus he mentions the stoning of Stephen
(7:57-59) and the martyrdom of James, the brother of John (12:2). But why
then would he omit mentioning the martyrdom of the three key figures
in his book?
The most obvious answer is that these
martyrdoms hadn't yet occurred when Luke was composing his narrative.
And for this reason, many scholars have argued that the book of Acts
must be dated sometime shortly after 62 A.D.
A number of other factors provide
further confirmation this early dating.
-
Jesus, in Luke's earlier volume, prophesies
that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. But Luke never mentions
the fulfillment of this prophesy in his second volume, a fact that is wholly
inexplicable unless Luke was writing before this cataclysmic event occurred
(in 70 A. D.).
Other consideration could be given,
but this is sufficient to show that the events Luke recorded both in his
Gospel and in his Acts of the Apostles were events that had happened
just a short time before he recorded them. Which again raises this important
question: Was this author in a worse position to know 'what actually happened'
than certain scholars are today as they dissect "Q"? Not likely.
The Accuracy of Luke's Record
Even more important in establishing
the reliability of Acts than is the question of its authorship and date
is the question of how well it has, or has not, squared with what we know
from other ancient sources about the first century Roman world. And the
answer, in a nutshell, is that Acts has received remarkable confirmation
from a wide variety of sources. To cite just a few examples of this confirmation:
-
Luke's account frequently collaborates
with what we learn from other ancient historians. For example, his unusual
account of the sudden death of Agrippa, his record of a major famine "in
the days of Claudius," his naming of Ananias as the high priest in 47 A.
D., and his record of a certain Egyptian revolutionary who led thousands
to their death, have all been confirmed by cross-checking them with the
writings of Josephus.
-
Perhaps the most impressive feature
of Luke's narrative is the way he consistently gets the titles of certain
dignitaries right. This was particularly difficult to do of officials within
the ancient Rome empire, for the titles of dignitaries, as well as the
status of the provinces they ruled within, changed frequently. Yet Luke
consistently gets them right, a fact that has to bolster our confidence
in his ability to relate reliable history. As Stephen Neill puts it, "Experience
shows that nothing is more difficult than to get titles exactly right."
But what we find in Luke is that "[e]xactly the right title is used at
exactly the right time and place." [ 3 ]
Thus, for example, Luke is consistently
correct in calling the magistrates of senatorial provinces "proconsuls"
while calling those in imperial provinces "governors" (hagemon).
In a Roman colony like Phillipi, however, they are correctly called
"praetors" whose attenders are correctly labeled as "lictors" or "serjeants"
(16:12, 35). In Thessalonica, however, they are correctly identified as
"politarchs, " a term elsewhere unknown, but confirmed in Thessolonica
by archeology.
Now if Luke was consistently correct
about such details as these, on what grounds can we question the accuracy
of his record on more general matters -- such as what the earliest Christians
believed about Jesus?
-
Archeology has confirmed Luke's accuracy
on a host of other matters as well. His detailed knowledge of the ever-changing
political topography of Rome, its geography, road ways, and means of travel,
have all been confirmed by archeological evidence. More particularly, Luke's
remarkably detailed account of Paul's sea voyage and shipwreck in chapter
27 has been called "one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge
of ancient seamanship." [ 4 ] His accuracy in portraying the widely divergent
cultures and customs of various regions throughout the Roman world has
been frequently noted as well, as has his command of the complex legal
processes that were employed in diverse regions of the empire.
It was evidence such as this that led
Dr. Sherwin-White, arguably the ablest historian of ancient Roman law in
our time, to conclude that:
The confirmation of historicity
[in Acts] is overwhelming ... any attempt to reject its historicity
even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. [ 5 ]
Assessing the Liberal Proposition
It is, however, just this "absurdity"
that the liberal scholars who are now trying to rewrite early Church history
require us to believe if we are to accept their radical revisionist views.
They are, in effect, asking us to believe that the book of Acts,
as well as the Gospels (to say nothing of the apostle Paul) are all fundamentally
incorrect in how they viewed Jesus and his earliest disciples. Despite
all the evidence which supports their reliability, we are to believe that
they are, in fact, altogether untrustworthy. What we are to trust
is certain scholars ability to locate the 'real' Jesus behind all of this
myth.
And what is evidence that should
compel us to accept these scholars radical views. Well, there's a brief
allusion to a lost "secret" Gospel in a late second century letter that
has, unfortunately, only been seen by one person and has now itself been
lost (Secret Mark). There is a third century account of the crucifixion
and resurrection which includes a talking cross that less than a handful
of scholars think predates the Gospels (Gospel of Peter). There
is a second century gnostic document, parts of which some now want to date
early (Gospel of Thomas). And, of course, there is this hypothetical
reconstruction of a hypothetical document ("Q") built on 7 sets of very
tenuous assumptions that are pieced together in a viciously circular fashion.
To a good number of people, the suggestion
that the New Testament record should be traded in for this is not
even tempting. The proposed trade is a poor one. While the liberals' accounts
of who Jesus was and what he did might be initially compelling to many
ordinary readers, its appeal is quickly lost once you gather all the facts.
Endnotes
- J. D. Crossan, The
Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), p.329). [ Go Back ]
- op. cit. [ Go Back ]
- S. Neill., N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New
Testament: 1861-1986 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp.
153-4, 151. [ Go Back ]
- F. F. Bruce (quoting H. J. Holtzmann), "The Acts of the
Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction? Aufstieg
und Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, 23:5
(New York; Berlin: de Gryter, 1985), p.2578. [ Go Back ]
- A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the
New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 173. [ Go Back ]
|