24: Noncanonical Christian Authors (AD 95–160)
24
Noncanonical Christian Authors (AD 95–160)
Overlapping with the very end of the canonical New Testament period and extending into the second century, early Christian writers produced additional texts that provide very helpful historical information of various qualities and sorts. These writings often offer valuable insights into early Christian beliefs, chief doctrines, customs, and practices as well as various types of practical exhortation. Though many of these comments are brief, they still can be helpful on a couple of fronts.
The overall purpose of this chapter is twofold. Initially and more broadly, we are still continuing the discussion of ancient sources for Jesus’s life in terms of establishing his existence, particularly in response to those who doubt or deny it. Of course, Jesus’s historicity remains a prerequisite for any discussion of his death and possible resurrection, including this present study. Further, the latter topics regarding these purported events at the end of Jesus’s life remain the central focus of this entire study, and a number of the ancient texts that we will view in this chapter focus precisely on Jesus’s death and resurrection, which is hardly surprising since it is the central Christian message from the beginning.
Rather than looking at each mention of these reported historical events from Jesus’s life, we will view only the statements that seem to concentrate more selectively on an explicitly historical interest. Given this emphasis on the more historically oriented claims, our treatment of these ancient Christian sources will be comparatively brief despite the many writings from this time period.1 Beginning with the earliest of these writers, the apostolic fathers (dating from approximately AD 95–125),2 a few more historical texts from immediately after this earliest period will also be mentioned.
Historical Accounts?
Initially, some issues of historical value need to be addressed here. For starters, is there a particular point after which the materials from a general time period are no longer very useful in a study of ancient events such as Jesus, his death, and claimed appearances? In other words, when do reports reach a place where there are diminishing returns simply due to the time gap between event and report? On the one hand, it must be acknowledged that it is somewhat arbitrary to demarcate a parameter to serve as a hard historical terminus for admissible sources for an ancient study of a person or event, as if there were such a magical border beyond which historical sources are inadmissible.
Still, such boundaries are sometimes set anyway, at least implicitly. Ehrman employs the standard of 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, though he may have set this time so as to put his best foot forward in making his case for the historicity of Jesus when arguing against the Jesus mythicists.3 In another well-known study, Robert Van Voorst moves the line just a little further away from Jesus, concentrating on the contributions of seven ancient, non-Christian authors, the latest one being the philosopher Celsus.4 Scholars usually date Celsus’s writing On the True Doctrine to approximately AD 160 to 170, or 130 to 140 years after the crucifixion.5
In my own work on this subject, Justin Martyr has acted as a sort of historical boundary at about 130 years after the crucifixion, though like a number of other researchers,6 I give consideration to particular passages in the Jewish rabbinic texts, or elsewhere, due to the possibility of helpful hints that date later.7 Yet, even without a magical stopping point, it is clear that the further removed we are from the life of Jesus, the less valuable the sources are, at least in strictly historical terms.8 With the sources reviewed in this chapter, we are certainly nearing the end of that boundary.
Some initial questions concern the historical value of the information in this chapter. Are these reports simply religious proclamations, summaries of dearly and sincerely held beliefs, but nonetheless propaganda of some sort no matter how intensely they are believed? These questions could be extended. Or are there ways to check out the claims that are made in these accounts? If some scholars think that the Gospels, generally thought to have been written some forty to sixty-five years after the crucifixion, are near the end of the allowed distance between event and report, where does this leave these accounts?
One very helpful study here is that by Ehrman. Calling himself a non-Christian New Testament scholar who is “an agnostic with atheist leanings,”9 Ehrman provides more than a dozen independent sources for the historical fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion. Dating each of the writings “within a century of Jesus’ death,” the list includes a number of secular and religious non-New Testament texts. These references include some figures treated in this chapter, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Papias.10
But it must be stated as carefully as possible that while Ehrman states clearly that the canonical writings contain the most valuable sources, this is definitely “not because ‘the Gospels say so’” but because they pass the appropriate tests for historical criteria.11 In other words, Ehrman, as a non-Christian, is very far from preferring the New Testament writings because they are somehow inspired, revealed, or otherwise occupy a special category. These texts are simply the best attested of the ancient historical materials on Jesus.
Nor is Bart Ehrman the only agnostic or non-Christian New Testament scholar to hold positions such as these. Maurice Casey12 and his former student James Crossley13 both speak positively of the historicity of the Gospel texts in terms of establishing key features of the early Christian message. These conclusions are in spite of their rejection of other Gospel passages.
One reason why some of the texts in this chapter are better situated than other ancient documents is that there is decent evidence that points strongly to some of our authors here having had earlier connections to the apostolic eyewitnesses. Some of these aspects are also pursued below. In short, particular authors were simply in the right time and place to have gained access to highly valuable information. Hopefully, these authors and texts will provide further insights that may support the historicity of Jesus in general and the gospel message of his deity, death, and resurrection in particular.
Sources Dated from AD 95 to 125
Clement of Rome
One of the most important of the non-New Testament documents is Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthian church known as 1 Clement. It is usually thought to be the earliest extracanonical Christian writing. Church historian Eusebius refers to Clement as the third bishop of Rome and the leading elder in that church.14 Clement is thought to have written 1 Clement about AD 95 or so to help end a dispute between church members and elders at Corinth.15 Koester notes, however, that while “well-attested ancient tradition” attributes the letter to Clement, along with there being good chronological hints to confirm the date of composition, there is still “no indication that Clement was the bishop of the Roman church.”16
Although 1 Clement is largely doctrinal and moral in nature, it contains at least one important historical reference to Jesus and earliest Christianity:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. (1 Clem. 42)
In this particular passage, Clement of Rome actually employs several facts in tandem, composing an argument in the process. The gospel message had been delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, who was sent by God. With Jesus’s resurrection providing the assurance of the truthfulness of these teachings, the apostles were additionally confirmed by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. So the apostles spread the “glad tidings” of the kingdom gospel everywhere as their central message. Wherever the gospel was preached and local congregations were started, leaders were chosen to minister to those who had responded in faith.
This certification formed a chain of authority from God, to Jesus Christ, to the apostles, to the early Christian elders. Along this path, the resurrection encapsulated the basis and stimulus for the early doctrinal proclamation and church organization. So the resurrection anchored the entire process, evidencing the message of kingdom authority based on the Christian conviction that Jesus had truly been raised from the dead, thereby fueling their joy.
So it should be noted from this passage that for Clement, the combination was more than just the occurrence of a unique miraculous event, as special as that was in itself. Rather, the resurrection was of such a magnitude that it additionally incorporated worldview implications. Rather than a stand-alone marvel, the momentous nature of the occurrence in tandem with the way it was woven into the fabric of the overall system and message as the grounding evidence indicated the truth of the entire message.
For Clement, how could God have taken part in raising “the Lord Jesus Christ” unless the latter spoke the truth from the very center of the Christian gospel proclamation? Nothing else explains the outcome sufficiently. This interplay is indicated by the presence of terms such as fully assured, confirmed, with full assurance, and glad tidings. The authority standing behind the truth and preaching of the earliest Christian message was none other than God himself, manifested through the Lord Jesus Christ. It shouted to the world that the message was true in all of its glory!
Ignatius
As bishop of Antioch and another early church leader, Ignatius was condemned to die in Rome in the arena, destined to be torn by wild beasts. On the trip to his martyrdom, being watched by armed guards, he addressed seven brief letters to six churches in Asia Minor, plus an additional one to an individual (Polycarp). These letters were written not long after Clement of Rome penned 1 Clement, providing helpful early witnesses to Christian doctrine and assisting readers in understanding an important part of early church history and ecclesiastical hierarchy. Ignatius’s writings were composed between AD 107 and 115, more often than not being placed at the earlier end of these years.17
Ignatius’s epistles also include several references to the historical Jesus. One example is from his epistle To the Trallians, which states:
Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him. (Trall. 9)
Here Ignatius includes what appears to be a classical creedal statement, which may well have originated before the writing of this epistle, just as similar examples from decades earlier located in the New Testament. The hints here include the brief listing of crucial historical and theological beliefs centered in the gospel teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which forms the center of most creeds.18 Ignatius’s passage even begins in a manner somewhat reminiscent of Rom 1:3–4. The doctrines are lined up in an orderly fashion that is somewhat reminiscent of the Apostles’ Creed. Further, the repeated use of the term truly provides some rhythmic flavor that may indicate a more easily memorized format.19
Some of these key creedal assertions include: (1) Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David and was (2) born of Mary. (3) As a true man, he really lived, ate, and drank while on the earth. (4) Jesus Christ was tortured, crucified, and died at the hands of Pontius Pilate. (5) Afterward God raised him from the dead, (6) as an example of the believer’s resurrection. As it was for Clement, Jesus’s resurrection is again the chief sign for believers, providing the foundation for their resurrection from the dead in like fashion.
In his epistle To the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius also includes two more theological comments regarding Jesus. The first instance opens the beginning chapter with the astounding words, “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God.” Then, sounding somewhat like the previous creedal statement above, Ignatius asserts concerning Jesus:
He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His church. (Smyrn. 1)
After referring to Jesus as God,20 Ignatius affirms another set of contrasts: once again Jesus was physically of the race and lineage of David, and was also the Son of God according to God’s will. He was born of a virgin but was also baptized by John. He suffered later at the hands of Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, being nailed (crucified) in the flesh. Yet, afterwards, he was raised from the dead as a sign to all, especially to believers in the church, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.
In a second comment in the same epistle, Ignatius concentrates chiefly on Jesus’s resurrection:
For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without a body. And straitway [sic] they touched him and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He [both] ate with them and drank with them. (Smyrn. 3)
Here Ignatius affirms that, at his resurrection, Jesus was raised from the dead in the flesh. Afterward he appeared to Peter and the disciples and invited them to touch his physical body to prove that he was really present there with them rather than merely being a bodiless spirit or demon. While Luke does not comment on whether or not the disciples touched Jesus at this point (Luke 24:36–42), Ignatius clearly states that they touched Jesus and believed. Jesus then ate and drank with them. In a statement reminiscent of the satirist Lucian of Samosata, who later made a similar comment regarding Christians as a whole,21 Ignatius also comments that upon believing, the disciples despised death and were even superior to it.
Next to Clement in 1 Clem. 42, Ignatius in Smyrn. 3 may well present the most complete text in the apostolic fathers regarding the observation of the breadth of the gospel message as it extends from the person of Jesus Christ (four titles including “God” and “Son of God” in the immediate context), all the way through Jesus’s death and resurrection, to the believer’s entry into the kingdom of God and the afterlife. As we remarked earlier, there are efforts here to sum up the rudiments of the Christian worldview as we peer beyond the events themselves to the larger picture of what this all entails.
A last reference made by Ignatius concerning the historical Jesus is found in his epistle To the Magnesians:
Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope. (Magn. 11)
Here Ignatius assures his readers that they can with certainty be persuaded of the facts of Jesus’s birth as well as the central gospel proclamation regarding Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The last events occurred while Pontius Pilate was governor, a position that Ignatius reports accurately.22
As in his other references of a historical nature, Ignatius attempts to place such events firmly in the realm of history. His purpose, at least partially, is to provide an answer to those who would question this historical element, such as the threat of an early, emerging form of Gnosticism, which often denied physical interpretations of events such as Jesus’s actual death by crucifixion or the bodily nature of his appearances.
In sum, each of the passages above reveal that Ignatius’s central focus is the nature of the gospel message of salvation. For instance, he tells in To the Philadelphians that the key to the dissemination of the gospel is “the advent of the Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ, and his passion and his resurrection” (Phld. 9). This message brings immortality “if ye believe through love.” One chapter earlier (Phld. 8), Ignatius states, “As for me, my charter is Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is His cross and His death and His resurrection, and faith through Him.” Ignatius commands the audience of To the Ephesians to direct their faith and love toward Jesus Christ (referred to also in this context as the Son of Man, the Son of God, and Lord) in light of “His passion and resurrection” (Eph. 20).23
Polycarp
Written at about the same time or just shortly after Ignatius (who wrote one of his seven letters to Polycarp),24 Polycarp’s short letter to the Philippians does not really include any straightforward historical comments regarding Christianity. Yet, Polycarp mentions many times the gospel message of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, often citing passages from the New Testament that help to date the terminus ad quem for these canonical volumes.25
For example, like 1 Pet 1:3–9 before him, Polycarp holds that Jesus’s resurrection provides sufficient reason to actually rejoice during times of serious suffering and even martyrdom where Paul, Ignatius, and “the rest of the apostles” are singled out for praise for their keeping the faith until the very end (Phil. 1, cf. 8–9). The gospel message of the deity, death, and resurrection is singled out in no fewer than half the fourteen chapters in the Lightfoot edition of this epistle.26 In the process, Polycarp teaches a very high Christology where Jesus Christ occupies “a throne on His right hand” as well as, like Ignatius, referring to Jesus Christ as God (Phld. 2, 7). These references to the centrality of the gospel along with the practical application of the resurrection truth to such practical areas as serious suffering even unto death provide important indications as to how this message was still being applied in ways quite similar to and consistent with the New Testament books themselves, written just a few years beforehand.
Quadratus and Aristides
Not long after Ignatius and Polycarp wrote their epistles, two early Christian apologists wrote defenses of the Christian faith during the reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian (AD 117–138). Quadratus wrote to the emperor and answered charges against Christianity, being one of the first intellectuals who pursued a trend of composing apologies for the Roman leaders,27 to defend the faith against various criticisms. In this particular case, Eusebius refers to the non-Christian attacks as “malicious” efforts intended to “harass our brethren.” Eusebius adds that Quadratus’s writing could still be found among believers in his day, which was a couple of centuries later, and that these writings were sufficient to indicate both Quadratus’s intelligence and his Christian faith (Hist. eccl. 4.3).
Quadratus became the Bishop of Corinth after the martyrdom of Publius, like Papias before him. Unfortunately, Quadratus’s apology has been lost. The following text alone remains preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, written around AD 325:28
The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times. (Hist. eccl. 4.3)
Even this brief quotation from Quadratus’s apology reports several important items regarding Jesus’s miracles. He reported that the facticity of these events could be checked by interested persons, since they were done publicly. Different kinds of miracles occurred: while some people were healed of sicknesses, others were even raised from the dead. These miraculous events were witnessed by those who were present not only at the time they occurred, but afterward those who were actually healed “were always present. They remained living a long time,” even after Jesus “left the earth.” Quadratus then adds that “some of them have also lived to our own times” (Hist. eccl. 4.3, 23).
Quadratus’s last comment may raise a critical question or two. Perhaps Quadratus’s apology was actually written much earlier than commonly thought. But if the date is roughly correct, even if the living persons who were healed or raised by Jesus were very young children when the events occurred, by AD 125 they would be in the vicinity of some 100 years old—not impossible but difficult.
The second scholar who also wrote to Emperor Hadrian was Aristides, whose Apology was also penned around AD 125. Avery Dulles comments, “The most important Apologist before Justin is unquestionably the Athenian philosopher Aristides. . . . Notwithstanding its brevity, Aristides’ Apology deserves high respect for its clarity and firmness of argument.”29 Köester notes that the various versions of this work “exhibit considerable differences, causing substantial difficulties in any attempt at a detailed reconstruction of the original.” Yet, “the apologetic arguments are still clearly recognizable.”30
Somewhat reminiscent of both Romans 1 as well as Acts 17:16–34, Aristides’s work consists of seventeen rather short chapters and begins by treating indications of God’s existence and attributes from Nature (Apol. 1). Aristides then identifies “four races of men in this world,” on which his comments make up the majority of the volume. These races are the Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians (Apol. 2.36).31
While wiser than the barbarians, the Greeks have erred to a greater extent because “they have introduced many gods that are made.” This multiplication of gods and goddesses from the Greek pantheon includes Asclepius, Zeus, Dionysus, Herakles, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Tammuz, Rhea, Atys, Isis, and Osiris, along with others (Apol. 8.40–14.48). For Aristides, in every case where the god or goddess was in a major (often life-or-death) bind of some point, his repeated theme is that, every time, the hero was unable to save themselves or their loved one, so they were not gods.32
Aristides concludes the Greek cases:
The narratives about their gods are some of them myths, and some of them nature-poems. The hymns indeed and elegies are empty words and noise. But these nature-poems, even if they be made as they say, still those are not gods who do such things and suffer and endure such things. And those myths are shallow tales with no depth whatever in them. (Apol. 14)33
Concerning Jesus Christ, Aristides explains that
he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous. (Apol. 2)
From this brief passage we may gather the following reported information from Aristides regarding Jesus: though he was “the Son of God Most High,” he “came down from heaven” incarnated as a man, being born of a Hebrew virgin. Almost nothing of Jesus’s ministry is enumerated beyond his having twelve disciples. Rather (and strangely enough), Aristides then moves straight to Jesus’s death and burial without even mentioning the crucifixion at all. Nor does he mention any details of Jesus’s resurrection or the appearances, except to say that “he rose and ascended to heaven.” Though still with few particulars, we are told more about Jesus’s disciples preaching throughout the known world and the faith response that accompanied the message from listeners.
Yet, as brief as this central message was, Aristides was an influential example to those apologists who followed him in producing political and historical arguments for Christianity. Dulles comments, “After the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, however, apologetics became the most characteristic form of Christian writing.” This was due to the presence of four groups of people who came into contact with Christians: scientific converts who were entering the church with a need to provide reasons for their faith, philosophers who attacked the Christian message, Roman emperors and the ensuing though often spotty persecutions, and Jews who denounced Christians or tried to distance themselves from the newer beliefs.34
The two most common sorts of apologetic exercises were political efforts to defend Christianity in the hope of gaining tolerance and efforts to interest new converts, usually aimed at both pagans as well as Jews. The literary form of the arguments often followed those of previous Hellenistic philosophical dialogues. Quadratus and Aristides were among the earliest scholars to follow some of these patterns.35
Sources Dated from AD 126 to 160
Papias
If a survey were taken among scholars as to which lost writings from antiquity they would most wish to discover in a secret room in an old monastery, what might they respond? That probably depends on their area of research. If they were ancient historians, perhaps they would opt for the discovery of the early biographies of Alexander the Great. Or, perhaps the 75 percent of Roman historian Livy’s lost writings would be their choice for recovery, or the 50 percent of Roman historian Tacitus’s lost volumes. Another candidate might be the second-century philosopher Celsus’s critique of Christianity, On the True Doctrine.
For New Testament scholars, the most popular choice could very well be the now-lost five-volume Exposition of Oracles of the Lord written by Papias in the early second century,36 including especially the material from the Preface to the “Discourses” section (the term that Jerome uses as part of Papias’s title instead of the word “Oracles”).37 A number of Papias’s quotations or other references appear in other works, and even these are very valuable.
Huge amounts of discussion have been generated by how some key words in Papias should be interpreted. For instance, writing only a few decades later, Eusebius cites Irenaeus, who refers to Papias as “John’s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer.” Then Eusebius adds his own comment: “But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy apostles, but informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends” (Hist. eccl. 3.39). So the question is whether Papias claims to have heard the apostles directly, or was instead given information about the apostles from their close acquaintances.
Continuing this line of questioning, Eusebius then considers another passage from Papias where the latter reported getting his information on the teachings of the apostles Andrew, Peter, Phillip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, “or any other of the disciples of our Lord.” Papias then adds that he actually preferred “the living voice of those that are still surviving” over the written words in a text (Hist. eccl. 3.39).
Later in this same passage, Eusebius recounts the well-known comments made by Papias regarding the authorship and accuracy of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. According to Papias, Mark wrote his Gospel based on the teachings of Peter, which “he recorded . . . with great accuracy,” adding that “Mark has not erred in any thing.” On the other hand, Papias records that “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect,” though this last comment on Matthew has long occasioned much head-scratching and many question marks from contemporary scholars, chiefly since the Greek-language canonical Matthew does not appear to have been a translation of a Hebrew document (Hist. eccl. 3.39).
Jerome cites the same passage from Papias, also listing it as being from the Preface, and then makes a famous distinction in Papias between John the apostle and a second John, called John the Elder. Jerome states that it was this Elder John who authored the last two Epistles of John (Vir. ill. 18). Irenaeus also calls Papias “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” and then follows by citing a different passage from Papias’s fourth book of the Exposition (Haer. 5.33.4).
Papias’s fragmented testimony is important for several reasons. Initially, he clearly refers to at least two of the written Gospels—Mark and Matthew. This is important because, while the writings of the apostolic fathers are saturated with Scripture citations that appear throughout the Gospels, no book title is mentioned with the exception of this fragment in Papias. While these early writers probably did refer to, or were at least aware of, the Gospel texts,38 it is a difficult question to be sure because many of the citations could have been taken from a list of sayings of Jesus or memorized teachings, or even drawn from note-taking during Jesus’s preaching as opposed to actually quoting a text.39
Further, however the question is settled as to whether Papias interviewed the original apostles firsthand or if he conversed with others who were close to them, it is important information that he imparts regarding the historical Jesus. Once again, these provocative situations cause one to imagine what other gems may have been included in these five lost volumes. Bauckham compares this passage in the Papias fragment to Luke’s well-known comment regarding his checking out eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4). Actually, Papias’s comment may even be considered to be stronger, due to his actually naming a string of eyewitnesses whom he either interviewed himself or about whom he gathered important information from others who knew them, most of whom were the Lord’s own apostles. Bauckham dates this data gathering by Papias to approximately AD 80–90.40
Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas is sometimes referred to as “Pseudo-Barnabas” because the apostle by this name is almost assuredly not the author. But it should not be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas, a much later apocryphal composition. The text exhibits anti-legalistic overtones throughout and expresses strong opposition to Judaism. Its purpose and goal is to show that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament law, though in the process it often resorts to allegorical interpretations.
Dates for the composition of the Epistle of Barnabas have varied quite widely from the late first century to the mid-second century. Over 100 years ago, J. B. Lightfoot of Cambridge University set the date between AD 70 and 132. His reasons were that the epistle gives ample evidence of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, hence it must be at least a little later than that. However, had the author known about Emperor Hadrian’s devastation of Jerusalem in AD 132, he could hardly have failed to point out such a devastating argument in favor of his central thesis.41 Intriguingly, a commonly accepted date at present is still within Lightfoot’s range. While some highly critical scholars still prefer the end of the first century, others commonly move the date closer to about 130. But the 132 date still seems to be a forceful argument for many researchers as the terminus ad quem.42 As such, this writing would fall right on the edge of Ehrman’s marker of 100 years after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, and as such can serve as a good and useful source for the historical Jesus.43
In just one major passage, the Epistle of Barnabas relates several facts concerning the life of Jesus:
He Himself endured that He might destroy death and show forth the resurrection of the dead, for that He must needs be manifested in the flesh. . . . while He was on the earth, that having brought about the resurrection He will Himself exercise judgment. Yea and further, He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. . . . He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. . . . But He himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree. (Barn. 5)
Granted, some theological notions are combined here with historical language. But of course, that is how the Christians could make the most sense of Jesus’s ministry and teachings. The question is not so much whether theology is involved, but whether or not the theology follows from the data.
From this portion we note the report that Jesus became a man, destroyed death, and replaced it with the notion of resurrection, both for himself as well as for others, which will be followed by judgment. He preached and taught Israel, performed “so many wonders and miracles” and expressed great love for the people. Further, Jesus chose his apostles to continue the proclamation of his gospel message by calling sinners to repentance and salvation. In spite of being the Son of God, it was necessary for Jesus to suffer on a tree (i.e., crucifixion).
Justin Martyr
With the work of Platonic philosopher Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, early Christian scholarship entered a new dimension. There is a marked difference between the often characteristically devotional, practical, and even the doctrinal exhortations of the apostolic writings and the more sophisticated, philosophically apologetic works of Justin. At least three major writings emerged from his hand. The First Apology was written about AD 150 to Emperor Antonius Pius (reigning from AD 138–161). The Second Apology was written soon after the First Apology. Finally, his Dialogue with Trypho represents his most detailed and extensive work.
These writings reflect Justin’s personal philosophical pilgrimage as well as his own polemical interests, leading to his reputation as the major Christian apologist of the second century. Justin was martyred sometime between AD 163 and 167. Koester comments that Justin was “the first Christian writer to treat the gospels as historical records.”44
As Koester states additionally, “The beginnings of scholarly work are clearly visible here.” A rather sophisticated philosopher even before his conversion to Christianity, Justin clearly knew of the works of Matthew and Luke, and perhaps Mark as well, which he calls the “Gospels” or even the “Memoirs of the Apostles.” He was the first Christian scholar to understand the Gospels as historical documents, favoring their harmonization. His student Tatian carried out some of these thoughts in his own text on the harmony of all four Gospels, the well-known Diatessaron, written about 180.45
Still, for Dulles, Justin’s primary concern in both his First and Second Apology was “primarily concerned with winning civil toleration for Christians.” Justin was insistent that believers should not be condemned by their reputation alone, but “fair play” should prevail and careful investigation should determine that Christians do not challenge civic loyalty and are not guilty of the death penalty.46
Included in Justin’s works are a number of historical references to Jesus that indicate his own interests and research. In his First Apology, Justin refers to various aspects of Jesus’s life. Referring to Jesus’s birth, Justin notes that he was born of a virgin though his physical line of descent actually came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse (1 Apol. 47). Elsewhere, after citing the location of Jesus’s birth in the town of Bethlehem, Justin explains: “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea” (1 Apol. 34).47
These two references record several items surrounding Jesus’s birth. Justin reports that he was born of a virgin while nonetheless being a physical descendant of Jesse’s family from the tribe of Judah. His birthplace was the village of Bethlehem, located some thirty-five stadia (approximately five miles) from Jerusalem. The fact and location of Jesus’s birth could be verified by consulting the records of Cyrenius, the first procurator of Judea.
Justin Martyr also mentions Jesus’s public ministry and its official documentation of his message. His reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate was discussed earlier in chapter 6 in this volume. There Justin proclaims that Jesus’s miracles of healing diseases and raising the dead could be evidenced from Pilate’s report (1 Apol. 48). Moreover, in answer to the question of whether Jesus performed his miracles by means of magic, a constant theme in the ancient Mediterranean world, Justin denies these charges and points to Jesus’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as a vindication of his claims (1 Apol. 30).48
Justin refers frequently to Jesus’s death by crucifixion. On one occasion he speaks of Jesus as “Him who was crucified in Judea” (1 Apol. 32). In another reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate, he declares that Jesus was nailed to the cross through his hands and feet, and that some of those present cast lots for his clothing (1 Apol. 35). Another brief reference states that: “Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven” (1 Apol. 46).
In a more extended reference to Jesus’s death and resurrection, Justin Martyr declares:
Accordingly, after he was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles. (1 Apol. 50)
In these four texts, Justin reports that Jesus was Lord, yet he was crucified by being nailed to the cross through his hands and feet, while his garments were taken from him and divided up. Those who knew him denied and abandoned him. Still, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers, teaching them regarding the Old Testament prophecies that he fulfilled. Afterward, those who witnessed Jesus ascending into heaven were called apostles, believed in him, and responded by preaching everywhere.
Justin’s Second Apology carries on many of the same themes as his First Apology, chiefly that both old charges as well as some new ones against believers are unfounded and hence they are unworthy of punishment. Justin also points out that many conclusions correctly arrived at by non-Christian philosophers were the same conclusions that Christians had received from revelation. However, the philosophers erred by only having partial knowledge. Both Apologies also argue Justin’s famous theme that even many especially pre-Christian pagan philosophers were enlightened by the divine Logos, meaning they were Christians in some sense even though they did not know it.49
A major emphasis and recurring theme of Justin’s writings is his argument that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled only in Jesus. On the other hand, Justin’s exegetical school asserted that beliefs concerning the pagan gods, which they collected assiduously, were merely counterfeited imitations of the Old Testament predictions that actually applied to Jesus alone. To show this, it was argued, if properly handled (usually in allegorical terms), then the Old Testament references could only be fulfilled in Jesus. This was confirmed through the gospel sources.50
In his volume Dialogue with Trypho—usually thought to be either the second or third of Justin’s texts—he begins by relating the details of his own conversion from philosophy to Christianity. The theme of Old Testament prophecy plays a major role in this transformation.51 Throughout the rest of this lengthy writing, Justin attempts to show how these prophecies indicate that Jesus is the divine Messiah.52
Justin writes specifically for Jews here to convince them that Jesus is the Messiah. Trypho and his Jewish friends are his dialogue partners, and the discussion both begins and ends quite amicably.53 Throughout the dialogue, there are many references to the historical Jesus and to Old Testament texts that Justin thinks point to Jesus. A few of these should set the tone here.54
For instance, Justin opens Dial. 77 with Trypho’s request for the proof that Justin has been promising as he and his friends take particular Old Testament passages to be referring to persons other than Jesus. Then Justin responds: “And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to anyone among the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land.”55 So the visit of the Arabian Magi to the baby Jesus, including their worshipping him after first stopping to see Herod, fits with Jesus better than with any Old Testament character.
Later, speaking of Psalm 22 (Psalm 21 of the Septuagint), Justin cites the text and then writes regarding Jesus’s crucifixion:
When they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. (Dial. 97)56
Here Justin records several more events, such as Jesus being crucified and nailed through both his hands and feet. As in Justin’s First Apology, we also find a reference to Jesus’s clothes being gambled away by those who killed him. Then immediately afterwards, in the same chapter, Justin accuses Trypho rather strongly: “for you are in all respects blind”(!) for not recognizing that this is Jesus at his crucifixion, adding that this applies to no one but Jesus. However, the charge does not seem to bother Trypho.
Justin also notes, “When Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned from the memoirs” (Dial. 105).57 Then Justin adds in a rather convoluted comment:
He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. (Dial. 106)
Justin’s two references here highlight a few other seldom-mentioned features of the gospel tradition. These include items such that Jesus and his disciples “sang praises to God” together (after their last meal?), Jesus “giving up His spirit on the cross,” as well as the disciples repenting for their having abandoned Jesus during his trial and passion. Of course, Justin’s comments that Jesus reminded the apostles of the Old Testament prophecies on these matters is almost to be expected. Lastly, the mentions of the “memoirs” are also valuable in terms of their evidencing Justin’s knowledge of at least a couple of the actual Gospels.
Following Jesus’s death by crucifixion, Matthew reports that the Jews spread the story that Jesus’s disciples came and stole his dead body (Matt 28:11–15). Justin explains that this story was still being proclaimed elsewhere by the Jews:
Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again . . . yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that he rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. (Dial. 108; cf. 17)
This reference reports Jesus’s prediction that he would rise ahead of time,58 plus an exhortation by Jesus to the Jews to repent. However, Justin adds that even after Jesus rose from the dead, not only did the Jews not repent, but they spread the erroneous story that his disciples stole Jesus’s dead body from the tomb and then lied about the resurrection appearances. The disciples also taught that Jesus afterward ascended to heaven, which at least witnesses to the Christian belief in this event.
Lastly, Justin Martyr also refers to the facticity of the resurrection in another portion of his Dialogue with Trypho: “For indeed the Lord remained on the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again” (Dial. 97). Here Justin records that Jesus hung on a “tree” until evening,59 that he was then buried, and that he afterward rose from the dead on the third day.
Justin Martyr records many other events from the life of Jesus, but he reported that his data were gleaned from Scripture, especially the Gospels (e.g., Dial. 105–6). Without much question, these references suffice to provide numerous examples of Justin’s interest in historical aspects of Jesus’s life on earth.
Synopsis of Christian Sources
In this chapter we surveyed seven early Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus, all of which were extracanonical. In the next volume, early objections to the resurrection will be addressed. Our intent was not to examine all the passages that spoke of Jesus, but only those that claimed to report historical data. Additionally, we limited our discussion to the life of Jesus, thereby overlooking almost all of the comments from these authors pertaining to early Christian origins and teachings. A synopsis of this material provides the listing of numerous details.
The Life of Jesus
These ancient Christian sources taught that Jesus lived on earth in human history (Ignatius), after being born as a man (Barnabas, Justin). He was from the tribe of Judah (Aristides, Justin), from the family of Jesse (Justin) and the lineage of David (Ignatius). Jesus’s mother was Mary (Ignatius), who was a virgin (Ignatius, Aristides, Justin), and he was born in the city of Bethlehem (Justin). It is even reported that Bethlehem was located about five miles from Jerusalem and that his birth could be verified by the records of Cyrenius, the first procurator of Judea (Justin). Later, he was visited by Arabian Magi, who had first visited Herod (Justin).
Concerning his public ministry, these texts indicate that Jesus was baptized by John (Ignatius) and chose and trained apostles (Clement, Justin), of which there were twelve (Barnabas). He also performed reported miracles (Quadratus, Barnabas, Justin). More specifically, it was pointed out that these miracles consisted of people being both healed and raised from the dead, and it was said that some of the eyewitnesses of these events were still alive (Quadratus). It is also claimed that Pilate filed a report (i.e., the Acts of Pontius Pilate) with the officials at Rome that corroborated these details (Justin). Additionally, we are told often and repeatedly that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, thereby validating his claims (Justin). Some of these fulfillments had to do with the visit of the Magi and many details regarding the crucifixion (Justin).
Inseparable from their comments describing Jesus’s teachings in other areas or his actions, these seven early Christian postcanonical writers were also convinced that Jesus was more than a man. He “came down from heaven” (Aristides) and was incarnated as a man (Aristides, Barnabas). He was called Lord (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias excerpts, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin), the Son of God (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin), and Christ or Messiah (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias excerpts, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). In at least the very early case of Ignatius, Jesus was called “God” on many occasions, as detailed above.
The Teachings of Jesus
These sources also record some of Jesus’s important teachings. Jesus preached and taught the people of Israel, whom he loved (Barnabas). He exhorted the Jews and others to repent in light of judgment (Barnabas), yet they did not do so even after he rose from the dead, an event which Jesus had predicted ahead of time (Justin).
Jesus’s major teaching was the nature of the gospel message, which he received from God and imparted to his apostles (Clement, Barnabas). The apostles were fully assured of the message’s truthfulness, and they in turn preached the kingdom of God throughout various towns and countries (Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). Where this message went, it was accompanied by the founding and organizing of churches, complete with choosing leaders such as bishops and deacons (Clement).
The Death of Jesus
The early Christian writers were careful to point to the factual nature of Jesus’s death by crucifixion (Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). They sought to link it firmly to history, such as the assertion that this event occurred during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and the reign of Herod (Ignatius). Details of the crucifixion are also provided, such as Jesus being nailed to the cross (Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin) while his clothing was divided among his torturers (Justin). During his agony, he hung on the cross until evening and gave up his spirit to his Father (Justin), after which he was taken down and buried (Aristides, Justin). Jesus’s friends had forsaken and denied him, though they later repented of their actions (Justin).
The Resurrection of Jesus
These Christians were equally adamant in their belief that Jesus’s resurrection was also a fact of history (Clement, Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). This event occurred on the third day after Jesus’s crucifixion (Aristides) in spite of the Jewish claim that the disciples stole the body (Justin).
As evidence that he had been raised from the dead, Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples (Ignatius, Justin; cf. Aristides). During these encounters, Jesus allowed and even encouraged the disciples to touch his risen flesh, which they did (Ignatius). Jesus also ate and drank with his followers (Ignatius) and taught them concerning how he had fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Justin). Later, Jesus ascended to heaven (Aristides, Justin, cf. Quadratus).
These early Christian authors asserted that Jesus’s resurrection provided assurance that the gospel which he preached was ordained by God (Clement). This event was an example of the believer’s resurrection and was the reason why the disciples despised death (Ignatius).
Conclusion
From the outset in this chapter, we sought to address two issues: What value do these early extracanonical sources have in helping to reconstruct historically the life of Jesus? Do such Christian authors provide any exceptional or at least additional data on behalf of the death and resurrection of Jesus? Actually, there are both positive and negative considerations involved in such questions.
Positively, the Christian sources discussed in this chapter are all quite early. Clement wrote at the end of the first century, thus at approximately the same time as a few of the later canonical New Testament writings and perhaps even before a couple of them. Ignatius’s seven epistles date only about ten to fifteen years later, with Polycarp’s epistle To the Philippians coming at about the same time. These men were also said to be close to apostolic sources, as is evident from several different ancient testimonies (e.g., Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15–16). For example, although there is much discussion on this question, the comments regarding the authoritative nature of Papias’s fragmented material is praised by such ancient luminaries as Irenaeus, Jerome, and Eusebius,60 with each of these providing helpful comments.
On the issue of whether Papias heard some of these items directly from Jesus’s apostles themselves or received them from those who were very close to the apostles—as Eusebius calls them, the apostles’ “intimate friends”—Papias would still appear to be in great position to have garnered some wonderful data during these times. There are differences here, to be sure, but all the signs point to Papias being an exceptional resource for this crucial information.
Another positive factor is that some of these early authors were scholars or leaders in their own right. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias were all well-known bishops in the early church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15, 22; Jerome, Vir. ill. 18), while Justin was a rather distinguished philosopher before his conversion (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.16). Additionally, these writers were frequently careful to cite evidence for their assertions. Clement and Ignatius refer to the resurrection as the basis for Christian truth. Quadratus grounds Christian teaching by citing eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’s miracles, including some of those who were healed and, as he claims, were still alive. Justin refers to miracles and fulfilled prophecy as evidence. So it is true that there are early sources here, that the authors held lofty positions in the early church, that there is some strong contemporary scholarly backup for particular points being raised as well as relevant evidence that provides crucial, ancient backdrop.
However, there are also some weaknesses in our usage of these texts. Initially, it is obvious that these writings rely on the New Testament for much of their primary data, as is specifically reported by Justin (e.g., Dial. 105–6) or in Papias’s fragments. That they do so is not necessarily a weakness in itself, for we have argued repeatedly and in various ways that the New Testament provides good historical sources, especially when only data are being used that are critically ascertained (what we have called the minimal facts method) or confirmed in other ways, such as through the application of scholarly criteria. However, one point here is that if many of these sources rely on the New Testament documents, then they are not totally extracanonical, and one of our questions concerns how many of the sources for Jesus’s life are independent, as well as how strong they are, to ascertain what sort of evidence is available.
It should also be remembered that the goal of these ancient Christian writers was not a critical investigation of history per se, but the reporting of Christian origins. While such is certainly a fair and worthwhile approach, and can yield historical facts, additional evidence could also strengthen the case.
Accordingly, some additional, corroborative data are at least partially available from the secular sources that have been overviewed here. Many of the reports help confirm the citations singled out here, especially with regard to the teachings and crucifixion of Jesus. There are also parallels concerning his life and the reports of his resurrection. Thus we continue to witness the ancient corroboration of Jesus’s story. As we have said, he is actually one of the most mentioned figures in the ancient world, even if most of the references are quite brief. As noted often, however, stronger data from even closer to the events in question are needed.
Notes
1 Thus, even some well-known works that are usually dated fairly early, such as the Shepard of Hermas, will not be included in this discussion, since it contains little that might be counted as historical information concerning Jesus and the early church. For the record, this work is usually dated to the early second century. For example, see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151 (see chap. 10, n. 20).
2 Citations from the apostolic fathers here are taken from the edition by J. B. Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (1891; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971).
3 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41, 163 (see chap. 2, n. 15).
4 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 19, 64–68 (see chap. 6, n. 3).
5 Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against Christians, trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), See “General Introduction,” 30. The original has apparently been lost, though Origen’s detailed answers allows a high percentage of the text to be reconstructed.
6 One example is Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, especially chaps. 4 and 6–10 (see chap. 6, n. 3).
7 Habermas, Historical Jesus, esp. chaps. 2, 9 (see chap. 3, n. 48). Like other commentators, I am also more critical of these later sources, particularly with regard to the time factor.
8 As a crucial note that I have mentioned in several other publications and lectures, it is exceedingly strange and even prejudiced that critical scholars can be extremely strict and narrow in their treatment of ancient Christian sources, such as referring to Mark as being late at just forty years after the crucifixion. However, it is frequently the case that the historical gaps between non-Christian religious founders and their earliest texts or between secular figures and their historical accountings are viewed very liberally by these same scholars. For a couple of examples on the religious side, when talking about Buddha, comments are made regularly such as “The Buddha taught . . .” without the slightest reference to the fact that the cited Buddhist teachings may come from documents dating from half a millennium after Buddha’s time! See Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, esp. 11–12, 34, comparing Christian with Buddhist sources (see chap. 4, n. 54). In another example, we are told that the four Gospels are “secondhand accounts” of Jesus’s teachings even at a maximum of sixty-five years later. Yet, in the very same text, the recording of Buddha’s teachings is dated at a minimum of three centuries after Buddha’s death. Then we are told on the same page that “Buddha taught . . .”; see David Levinson, Religion: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), comparing 38 and 28. Another instance on the secular side is provided by prominent scholar E. P. Sanders, who states, “The sources for Jesus are better . . . than those that deal with Alexander.” This is because the texts on Alexander come from “much later” writers. See Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Also on Alexander, see Roman historian Grant, Jesus, 200; cf. 247 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Why do we so seldom hear these things? Do we not notice the sometimes blatant double standard here? Christian sources have long been held to a much stricter code than those for any other religions. For many more examples and comparisons of dates between the major religious teachers and the earliest documents that contain their teachings, see Gary Habermas, “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ among the Major World Religions,” June 13, 2017, http://www.garyhabermas.com/Evidence2/Habermas-Uniqueness-of-Jesus-Christ-2016.pdf. See also Kenneth R. Samples, God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017).
9 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 5, also 2.
10 Ehrman, esp. 290–91. Other helpful historical lists and comments by Ehrman include those on 50–68, 76–78, 92–93, 97, 130–32, 140–41, 163–64, 171–72, 262–63, 327–31.
11 Ehrman, 74–76.
12 Casey, Jesus, 49, 80–86, 90, 104, 108, 133–35 (see chap. 4, n. 41).
13 Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 51, 53–54, 60, 74, 82 (see chap. 15, n. 33); Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 138, 140, 154, 208 (see chap. 4, n. 41).
14 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15. It is often mentioned that Clement of Rome possibly could be the same individual mentioned by Paul in Phil 4:3b as his colaborer.
15 Ehrman, New Testament, 331, 418 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:145, 288 (see chap. 4, n. 47); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 548; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4 (see chap. 2, n. 44); Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 343, 396 (see chap. 6, n. 81); Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151.
16 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:287–88. Ehrman also emphasizes the “concrete clues concerning the time of its writing”; see The New Testament, 417–18.
17 Ehrman, New Testament, 402, 415; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:57–59; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151; Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 343, 396. Strangely enough and contrary to his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, Jesus mythicist Bob Price considers Ignatius’s epistles to be spurious! Price, Deconstructing Jesus, 27 (see excursus 2, n. 106)
18 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–29, 43–60, 140–46 (see chap. 8, n. 70).
19 Similar features presumably persuaded Charles Talbert in this direction as well in “The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 20.
20 On many occasions, Ignatius calls Jesus “God.” While some of the instances are clouded by matters of syntax or textual variants, many of these texts are straightforward, such as: Eph. 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 19; Magn. 8; Rom. Introduction, 3, 7; Smyrn. 1; and Pol. 8. Some of the questionable instances, due to syntax or textual questions, include Trall. 7; Smyrn. 6, 10. At the same time, Jesus was also described as always being obedient to his Father, so there were some distinctions between Father and Son, to be sure, perhaps due to position or location: Magn. 7, 8, 13; Phld. 7; Smyrn. 8. Moreover, there is overlap between these texts, such as Jesus being referred to as God as well as being obedient to his Father, both in the same book. Also, there is a least one text from To the Smyrnaeans in all three of these categories. But even Rudolf Bultmann freely acknowledged that Ignatius called Jesus “God” so easily and on a good number of occasions “as if it were a thing to be taken for granted.” Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, esp. 1:129 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 29 (see chap. 21, n. 60), also singles out the comment by Ignatius in Eph. 7:2 as one involving a high view of the incarnation, including the words “God in man.”
21 Lucian, “Death of Peregrine,” 11–13 (see chap. 6, n. 118)
22 On the other hand, Roman historian Tacitus refers to Pilate as the procurator (Ann. 15.44) when in fact this was an inaccurate title. Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea, as accurately identified in Matt 27:2, 11, 14, 15, 27; 28:14; and here in Ign. Magn. 11. For more details on this matter, see Ehrman, New Testament, 196–97.
23 Similar themes from Ignatius are also mentioned in the Trall. Introduction; Magn. 9; and Smyrn. 2, 5, 6, 7, 12.
24 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:57–59; Ehrman, New Testament, 415; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4, 292; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151; Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 411; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 18, 35.
25 An example comes in his very first chapter, where Polycarp quotes a text from 1 Pet 1:8, most likely indicating that the latter had been written before his time. Bauckham notes that Papias knew 1 Peter too; see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14. Perhaps reasons such as these provide good grounds as to why scholars such as Brown, Churches the Apostles Left Behind, 75 (see excursus 2, n. 113); and Ehrman, New Testament, 401, date 1 Peter, respectively, to AD 80–90 and to the end of the first century. Incidentally, Brown holds that the author of this epistle is “a Petrine disciple” (75) and reports that this is probably the majority view among recent scholars (26).
26 See Pol. Phil. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, cf. 5.
27 This practice of appealing to the Roman emperors was an intriguing counterpart to Pliny the Younger’s efforts from the “opposite” side, and from approximately the same time, to write his Letters for Emperor Trajan (r. 98–117) to justify his own interrogation of Christians, often ending with their death.
28 Avery Dulles agrees on this point in A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus Instrumentorum, 1971), as does Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:340.
29 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 25.
30 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:341.
31 Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, trans. from the Syriac by D. M. Kay. This website reports that Aristides’s Apology, mentioned in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and others, was considered by many to be lost until the late nineteenth century, when an Armenian fragment was discovered. In 1889 the full Syriac translation was found. Some of the copies are shorter than others, depending on whether or not they were edited or how much was otherwise available. The reading is available on the Early Christian Writings website, accessed January 4, 2023, at https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html. Another version is available as being transcribed by Roger Pearse with the note that all material is in the public domain, available at “The Apology of Aristides,” 2004, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/aristides_05_trans.htm.
32 Aristides, Apol. 10.43–12.46. Interestingly in terms of this study, Aristides points out that Aphrodite went to Hades to ransom Adonis from Persephone, “the daughter of Hades,” but did not help him (11.44). It is noteworthy that no rescue from death is listed in the text.
33 Aristides, Apol. 14, in the D. M. Kay edition, Early Christian Writings site.
34 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 22–23.
35 Dulles, 23–25. For the larger context here, compare Dulles’s chapter 2 on “The Patristic Era.” Well before Dulles’s treatment, in April of 1958, F. F. Bruce delivered five lectures at Calvin College (titled the “Calvin Foundation Lectures”) that became the fine little volume The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). Bruce’s text reflects some similar concerns to those of Dulles, namely, how the gospel confronted four main audiences (devoting a chapter to each): Judaism, paganism, the Roman Empire, and “pseudo-Christianity” (the last subject mostly addressing legalism and Gnosticism). Bruce’s book is characterized by a large number of memorable quotations and thoughtful comments pertaining to our chief topic of Jesus’s resurrection (14–17, 38, 45–47), along with the closely related theme of the centrality of the Gospel message (15, 18, 30, 33–34, 44, 86, 101–3), other chief apologetic interests in the early church (14–15, 35), common ground (18, 35–47), the relation to early Christian persecution (61–68), legalism and other false teachings (71–74, 98), as well as lessons to be learned in contemporary apologetic endeavors (10–11, 15, 29, 47).
36 For an overview of these quotations and references located in one place, see “The Fragments of Papias,” in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, especially comments 3a, 14 by Irenaeus, comments 7–8 by Jerome, and comments 1–3 by Eusebius, all on 261–71.
37 For a few examples, Koester dates Papias at approximately AD 130; see Introduction to the New Testament, 2:3, cf. 168. Drane prefers 130–140 in Introducing the New Testament, 166, 181. Carson, Moo, and Morris state the recent scholarly preference for about 140, but they think that Papias could very well have written at approximately 115–120; see their Introduction to the New Testament, 67–68. Guthrie simply states that Papias wrote very soon after the apostles; see New Testament Introduction, 26. Having done quite a lot of research on Papias, Bauckham lists the most popular date as about 130, while noting that Papias most likely conducted these interviews regarding the apostles at about AD 80; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 13–14, 18–21.
38 In a few places, these early writers did refer to the “Gospel” (singular) when quoting a text (as in 2 Clem. 8; Did. 8). Curiously, Papias similarly refers to the “Gospel” when citing Mark. Then, a few decades after Papias, harmonizations of either all three Synoptic Gospels or all four of the canonical Gospels began appearing in different languages, so there was a growing awareness of the four books themselves. See Ehrman, New Testament, 181; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:31–32, 343. As an aside, and though it is rare, when quoting Paul, the apostolic fathers refer a few times either to his letters in general (Ign. Eph. 12; Pol. Phil. 11) or, in the case of Clement of Rome, actually refer to a particular Pauline book by name (i.e., Corinthians; see 1 Clem. 47).
39 On these questions pertaining to the oral preservation of Jesus’s teachings or even note-taking, see especially Dunn, Jesus Remembered, particularly chaps. 7–9 (see chap. 1, n. 3).
40 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. 19–20.
41 See Lightfoot’s comment in “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 133–36. Although there are some similarities between Lightfoot’s argument here and the predominant critical tendency at present to date Luke a full decade or two after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, this is largely a different matter for more than one key reason. For one thing, it is held widely by scholars today that Luke does indeed indicate his knowledge of Jerusalem’s fall (as in Luke 21:20, 24). Further, a minority but influential view is that the earlier fall of Jerusalem is indeed enough reason to place the composition of this Gospel before that date, hence dating Luke quite early. On the other hand, as we have said, the Epistle of Barnabas’s key theme is the superiority of Jesus to the Old Testament law, and a second fall of the city nearer to the Epistle of Barnabas’s own time would be much more difficult for the author to ignore due to its absolutely devastating one-two buttressing punch to the Jewish system, which would confirm the major theme of the entire text. So, rather than being an argument from silence, this central theme of the epistle being what it is, is enough to date the Epistle of Barnabas before 132.
42 For a few examples, Koester prefers a date for the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the first century in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:158, 277, as do the members of the Jesus Seminar in Acts of Jesus, 548. Quite differently, Ehrman opts for about AD 130 in New Testament, 384–88, as do Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151.
43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 290–91.
44 Köester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 342; Dulles, A History of Apologetics, 25–26; cf. the additional details in Ehrman, New Testament, 389–90, 407.
45 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 342–43.
46 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 25–26.
47 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 34. Quotations from the writings of Justin Martyr are taken from volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (1885–1887; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
48 For some specific examples of the messianic prophecies Justin used, see 1 Apol. 32–35.
49 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 46: “We have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists.” On the odd notion of the view of Christ here, see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343; cf. Dulles, History of Apologetics, 26. For a historical contrast of several positions at this time, including an apparent difference on Justin’s view, see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 322–38.
50 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343–44. Intriguingly, Koester points out that Justin presupposed the truth of the Gospels rather than actually presenting arguments on their behalf (344).
51 See especially Justin Martyr, Dial. esp. 1–8.
52 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 26; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343.
53 Justin Martyr, Dial. 1, 142.
54 Such Old Testament texts are utilized quite commonly throughout this dialogue, such as the claims that pagan stories actually emulate particular prophetic texts (as in Dial. 69, 70), that some passages have been adjusted to make the Old Testament case for Jesus seem less apparent (Dial. 70–73), that Jesus was the name of God used in Exodus 3 (Dial. 75), or that the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7 was Jesus (Dial. 74). Amazingly, the last example of the Son of Man is still an active discussion among scholars today!
55 Justin Martyr, Dial. 77. Note both Trypho’s and Justin’s emphases on the import of finding such strong evidence for their respective arguments.
56 Justin Martyr, Dial. 97; cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 35 for some similarities.
57 Justin Martyr, Dial. 105. On the term memoirs as Justin’s reference to the Gospels, see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 342.
58 Justin specifically refers to this prediction as “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (see Matt 12:38–40; also Matt 16:1–4; Luke 11:29–32). Interestingly, this text is a Q statement.
59 Justin refers to it as a “cross” in Dial. 108, for instance.
60 See discussion and references above.