The Amazing Deception - A Critical Analysis of Christianity
By Doyle Duke
New Testament Authenticity
At this point, I have pushed my allegations to the limit of credibility; that is, that Jesus was an Essene and an insurrectionist. In doing so, I have also brought the generally accepted interpretation of the New Testament into question—a question which must be addressed. However, before we can do so, another aspect of Christian belief must be considered—that of revealed truths outside the Bible. One of the greatest contentions between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation was whether or not the Bible was the sole revelation of God’s will. While the Protestants held that it was, the Catholics argued that Jesus had established, through his Apostles, the means of continued divine guidance for his Church. To support their view, they pointed to traditions outside scriptural teachings already practiced by the Protestants, including Sunday worship and infant baptism. From a Catholic viewpoint, this was a very strong argument. Protestantism was derived from the Catholic Church; they shared the same history. If the Protestants questioned and repudiated that history, they destroyed their own roots. Therefore, many of the traditions of Catholicism were accepted by Protestants simply because they could not deny their origin.
Outside New Testament Scriptures, the Church observed many customs and traditions declared divine simply because they were allegedly practiced by the early Church. We have already mentioned two—a Sunday worship and infant baptism. It should be noted that the early Church did not observe a Sunday Sabbath until it was instituted by Constantine, in 321 AD. Decrees concerning the souls of unbaptized infants were still being passed in the eleventh century (we’ll learn more of this subject later). But the most astounding ability allegedly given to the Church was the “tradition” that the Apostles were endowed with the ability to propagate “revealed truth” to their disciples—a doctrine referred to as apostolic succession. Stated bluntly, Catholicism claimed the divine right to speak for God. For authority, they turned to New Testament Scriptures (which they sanctioned) as a basis for this teaching. Later, we’ll show that their interpretation isn’t valid.
The fallacy of using tradition in this manner to support a religious dogma is that we must consider that all societies and religions have traditions. Recognizing one as authoritative, without any basis of validity, gives precedence to all the others to make the same claim. Therefore, the Native American’s tradition, that man came from a hole in the earth, is just as valid as that of the creation story, or Jesus rising from the dead.
None of the Catholic traditions were even recognized as divine until the orthodox Church began searching for pre-eminence over other Christian sects during the second century. The search for authoritative writings led the Church to concoct the theory of apostolic succession,1 though the term wasn’t introduced until the fourth century. Prior to that “revealed truth,” traditions were used as a teaching method,2 or were simply folk history.
The Church pointed to old traditions and introduced new ones as she aged. Since she alone claimed the right of apostolic succession, those ecclesiastical traditions gave them magisterial power to decide what was “revealed truth". In effect, that absolute power gave them license to institute whatever dogma was needed to further the gospel of Christ, and therefore, their own will.3 Later we’ll see how Catholicism used that power.
At this point, let’s turn to the matter of the validity of New Testament Scriptures. What proportions of Christianity’s basic teachings come from the Scriptures, and how much is derived from traditions? First, let’s just briefly recap those beliefs. We will begin with the life of Jesus. The first four books of the New Testament are gospels allegedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which relate the birth and life of Jesus. To wit, he was the son of God, born of a virgin and sent to earth to redeem mankind. Upon reaching maturity, he was baptized by John the Baptist, chose twelve disciples, and conducted a short ministry throughout the Judean countryside. His message concerned the coming kingdom of God and salvation for all mankind. His ministry was one of nonviolence, peace, and love for all, and was delivered with such wisdom that all who heard were astounded. He had a disdain for the Sadducees and Pharisees and rejected many of their teachings, especially those that ostracized or discriminated against the poor, afflicted, and Gentiles. Following the will of his Father (God), he journeyed to Jerusalem, where he knew he would be killed.
In Jerusalem, he procured an ass and rode into the city in an attempt to fulfill a prophecy from Zechariah that would identify him as the long-awaited Messiah and King of Israel. He boldly entered the polluted temple and "cleansed" it by chasing out the moneychangers and merchants. Later, he was arrested and carried before the Jewish court, then turned over to Pontius Pilate. He was falsely convicted and crucified. On the third day, he arose from the grave and appeared to many witnesses. Then, before ascending up to his Father in heaven, he commissioned his disciples to carry his message of salvation to the entire world.
The balance of the New Testament consists of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles (many attributed to Paul), the Pastoral books, and Revelation—a total of twenty-seven books. For brevity’s sake, I’ll only encapsulate their contents by saying that Acts is supposed to describe the ministry of the Apostles, and the Pastorals and Epistles present the primary teachings of Christianity. Supposedly, Revelation is an eschatological mystery describing the final great tribulations poured out upon the earth.4
Admittedly, this is an axe-job condensation, but since most Christians (and even many non-Christians) are familiar with the New Testament, it should suffice. Besides, if I tread too deeply, I am apt to find myself submerged in denominational controversies. At any rate, assuming all this can be substantiated by these Scriptures, how much of it is based upon tradition, and how much can we actually prove? There was a man named Paul who wrote some of the Epistles—and even that “proof” is questionable!
Oh, we can be rather certain that Jesus did exist, that he was a prophet and, of course, that a religion was started in his name. It is almost certain that most of what was recorded has a physical and historical background. However, this is where the contentions arise. When we compare the New Testament events with historical writings, such as Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews, the New Testament stories take on the aspects of children’s fairy tales. And like the Tales of the Arabian Nights, they are filled with seeming magic and appear to float timelessly within history. Names and events are shuffled together so haphazardly that it is impossible to preserve their identity.5 For example: Peter (one of the twelve Apostles) is referred to as Peter, Simon, and Cephas; with appellations such as Alphaeus, Clopas and Caiaphas.
[Note: even though Jesus allegedly gave Peter the name Cephas (John 1:42); Eusebius, quoting Clement’s Hypotyposes, Book V, claims Cephas wasn’t Peter—but one of the seventy chosen by Jesus.] Even the names of the twelve Apostles are listed differently—with James, Jesus’ brother, being referenced with them in one instance to increase the number to thirteen (Galatians 1:19).
The book of Acts, which supposedly records the acts of the Apostles, is chiefly about Paul. While it goes into great detail about the selection of Judas’ replacement, it scarcely mentions Jesus’ replacement, James. Why are all the writings silent concerning the religious and political strife that was tearing Jerusalem and the land apart? And, as mentioned earlier, why were all traces of the insurrectionist groups, such as the Essenes and Zealots, purged from the records? To understand, one has to examine the New Testament writings with a critical and unbiased scrutiny.
Most Christians assume that the New Testament books were written by the Apostles, or disciples for whom they are titled, or the author identified in the introduction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The original works perished in the very infancy of the Church. No Christian writer has ever made a reference to any of them. At best, what we have are edited copies of the original authors' works, or someone's reminiscence; and in some cases, highly imaginative creations credited to one of the apostles. Most Christians, however, refuse to accept such discrepancies, believing instead that the entire Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, word of God—even though it is universally accepted among many historians, theologians, and paleographers that the Scriptures have been altered. There are thousands of books, in public libraries, in bookstores and uploaded to the Internet, that substantiate this fact. One that does so is sanctioned by the organization that compiled the New Testament canon, the Catholic Church, from the Original Encyclopedia:
But the genuine Gospels are silent about long stretches of the life of Our Lord , the Blessed Virgin, and St. Joseph. Frequently they give but a tantalizing glimpse of some episode on which we would fain be more fully informed. This reserve of the Evangelists did not satisfy the pardonable curiosity of many Christians eager for details, and the severe and dignified simplicity of their narrative left unappeased imaginations seeking the sensational and the marvellous. When, therefore, enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving by pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud, being sometimes moved by a real though misguided zeal, as witness the author of the Pseudo-Matthew: Amcor Christi est cui satisfecimus. But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself
(http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocrypha).
The inference is, of course, that only those apocryphal books were corrupt, and that the canonized books were divinely preserved, error-free. But, as we will see, for the first four hundred year or so, the only difference in the divinity of those books was the doctrinal perception of the readers. The simple truth is that in this statement we have a confession of tampering by the very institution that claims the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Notice: “The former [the Catholic Church] had no motive other than that of a pious fraud.” And who believed and accepted these false tales? “Common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty”—the ignorant, illiterate masses.
Numerous authors and theologians have tried to make a case for the originality of the New Testament by asserting that they were written earlier than generally accepted, and that numerous copies from distant countries corroborate one another. They compare their validity with that of secular authors, such as Plato, Suetonius, and Homer, whose works are acknowledged and, of course, Paul, since his writings are recognized. Such reasoning might hold value if we had a copy from such an early date. However, since our earliest New Testament copy, the Codex Sinaiticus, was written about 300 AD, it doesn’t matter what was written thirty years after Jesus, or twenty, or even five—because we have no proof of what was written at those early dates! They also refer to the historians Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Irenaeus (c. 120-200 AD), saint, martyr, and Bishop of Lyons, as “eyewitnesses” to support their case. Later, we’ll see how credible they are as witnesses.
Also, pseudonymity, the subject of the use of fictitious names by authors, had a great influence on early writings. Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, pp. 41-43, states:
…the centuries preceding and following the rise of Christianity were marked by a fairly extensive use of the pseudepigraphic method in philosophy, religion, and literature. The inducements to employ the names and characters of illustrious men varied in quality. One was the desire for pecuniary gain, which undoubtedly operated during the period in which Ptolemy Philadelphus was forming his library; this cannot be traced within the early Christian literature. The higher motives for such compositions sprang from the innocent admiration and naive sympathy which prompted a disciple to reproduce in his own language the ideas, or what he conceived to be the ideas, of his master, and yet forbade him, out of modesty, to present these under his own name. Conscious of the master's influence, disciples viewed their own writings as an extension of his spirit. In them, through their pages, he spoke, not they. What they wrote was not so much a private venture or independent outburst of their own, as the propagation of his mind and spirit. Hence it became a point of unselfish piety to give up all claims to personal glory, and attribute their writings to the master himself. Such was the practice of the later Pythagoreans. This throws light upon the ethos of New Testament writings like Ephesians and the Pastorals. While 2 Peter represents in the New Testament Canon a pseudonymous epistle, pure and simple, the pastoral epistles, on the other hand, were composed by a Paulinist who must have had access to certain notes or papers of the great apostle, which he incorporated in his own writings…
We referred to these types of writings when we mentioned Paul's works earlier. Two well known examples are identified by Marion L. Soards, B.A., M. Div., and author of The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teachings:
The literature left by early Christians for their heirs (and later students) is not exhausted by the deposit of works comprising the canonical New Testament. Many works of the same genres as those of the New Testament (gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses) exist. A great number of these non-canonical works claim prominent New Testament figures as their authors. Paul is one of the early Christian leaders frequently named as author of non-canonical epistles.
Two prominent examples of such non-canonical Pauline letters are called Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Because of matters of language (vocabulary, style, syntax), theology, the historical situations presupposed by the document, and the literary relation of these documents to canonical works (Laodiceans to Colossians and 3 Corinthians to 1 and 2 Corinithians) scholars universally judge that Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians do not come from Paul. This judgment has been shared by students of the Pauline literature through the centuries. Scholars suggest that some early Christians, wishing to honor Paul and/or preserve his apostolic teachings and/or appeal to his authority, wrote these letters in his name. Clearly the idea for the production of these letters comes from the references in the canonical letters to "lost" letters from Paul—Col 4:15-16 refers to a letter to the Laodiceans and 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4, 9; 7:8-12 refer to other letters from Paul to Corinth. (The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teaching, p. 206).
Zealous disciples weren't the only culprits; neither was pseudepigraphic literature the only form of corruption. Scribal errors and contradictions in the canonical Scriptures are acknowledged in many commentaries and are even pointed out in the footnotes of the good reference Bibles. For example, the passage in Mark 16:9-20 was not found in the earlier manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. And of I John 5:13, my Scofield Bible notes that the last portion; "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God,” has been added.
Many of these corrections, or various readings, as they are sometimes referred to (yes, they are so common as to have identifying names) are simply scribal errors. Others are obvious efforts to substantiate disputed teachings. One of the most glaring examples is the insertion of verse 7 in the chapter of I John referred to above: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
In his book, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, one of the more notable paleographers, Sir Fredric Kenyon, belittles the enormity of such changes and defends the Bible by claiming that "none of the fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which the genuineness is doubtful". He also coined another defensive phrase:
The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.
And yet, the verse just quoted, I John 5:7, is the pivotal argument in support of the doctrine of the trinity. Let’s take a look at another pivotal doctrine, that of the virgin birth in Matthew 1:22-23:
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
This is the basis and foundation for the virgin birth story of Jesus. The only possible reference in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
It is generally accepted today that the error here is in the translation of the word virgin. Rev. Craig M. Lyons, M.Div, Bet Emet Ministries, has a detailed explanation:
First of all, the supposed quote from Isaiah 7:14 as found in most English Bibles doesn't follow the Masoretic Text of the "Old" Testament. It comes from the altered and corrupted Septuagint! … We have with this Isaiah 7:14 quote a major instance of the KJV translators inserting their own theology in place of G-d's Word. They could have chosen to translate the verse according to the Jewish Masoretic Text but instead they opted to translate it according to the Septuagint, which many know and acknowledge is one of the poorest translations of any book every made. …
The word translated "virgin," in Christian theology and in most New Testaments, actually means "the young woman," (i.e., the original Hebrew is "ha'almah" or "the young woman," and not "ha'bethulah" which means "the virgin"). The original Hebrew from which some of the more accurate New Testaments quotes reads: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." …
H.W.F. Gesenius, who has authored a Hebrew Lexicon and who is considered a language scholar by other Christian scholars, renders the Hebrew "ha'almah" thus:
"Used of a youthful spouse recently married, Isa. 7:14 (compare Joel 1:8). The notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is 'habethulah.'" He notes that the Septuagint "incorrectly rendered" the word as virgin, and ends by saying, "neither does it convey the idea of the unmarried state, as has of late been maintained . . ." (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, p. 634, #5959. 23. Ibid).
…To put the question of Isaiah 7:14 in context, we need to consider to whom the "Lord Himself" was going to give a sign, which we can do so by simply going back to that time and place. This is one of the first rules of interpretation of Scripture in that passages must be interpreted both historically and contextually. To take out scissors and cut a passage out of its intended meaning and catapult it 700 to 800 years into the future in order to create a fulfilled prophecy is not the way to make sense out of the Bible.
Let us examine the context of the prophecy. King Ahaz of Judah was in a terrible state of mind when this prophecy was written as indeed he had every reason to be. His kingdom was shortly to be invaded by the King of Syria teamed with the northern Kingdom of Israel: "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it" (Isaiah 7:1). In Isaiah 7:3-7 we read that G-d sent the prophet Isaiah to meet Ahaz to tell him not to fear the alliance of Israel with Syria, and that He, the Elohim of Judah, would not allow any harm to come upon the nation at this time. To alleviate the king's fears, G-d was going to give him a sign.
Notice verse 11: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy G-d; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." Now the king's reply didn't please G-d, as verse 12 makes clear.
Here was the Creator of the Universe offering not only to deliver Judah and King Ahaz, but to give comfort by performing a sign for reassurance! But, the wicked King Ahaz bluntly refused the offer! Here is G-d's reply in verse 14: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you (King Ahaz) a sign [of deliverance from the military threat]; Behold, ha'almah' [i.e., THE YOUNG WOMAN] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL." …
Now consider the Christian explanation of this verse: it is that the sign would be the birth of the Messiah, which they claim was Yeshua! Can you imagine, if G-d was trying to comfort King Ahaz and the nation of Judah in the face of such adversity, that He would offer a sign that was to come to pass nearly 700 to 800 years in the future? That would have been no comfort to them at all; they would never have seen it! …
However, Matthew's account would have us believe that the birth of Yeshua was the sign from G-d to King Ahaz: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, G-d with us" (1:22-23, KJV). …
What's more, the Hebrew word "harah" is past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in both Hebrew and English, represents past and completed action, and a number of rabbis have pointed this out to stubborn Christians! The verse, understood properly in the Hebrew tense actually reads thus: "Behold the young woman has conceived [is with child] and bears a son .." (Drazin, Their Hollow Inheritance, pp. 172-174). …
Furthermore, the definite term "the young woman" indicates that King Ahaz personally knew the woman through whom the sign was to be given. It would hardly have been a sign to the king if some totally unknown woman bore a son and named him Immanuel about which Ahaz would have never known. It would have to be someone the king knew as "the young woman" clearly indicates. In other words, at some point into the terrible situation confronting the kingdom, someone would come to the king and say, "by the way, your niece gave birth to a son today: she has named him Immanuel which means that G-d is with us." Suddenly King Ahaz would remember the words of Isaiah's prophecy! …
This notwithstanding, let's lay to rest the claim that this is a prophecy of the coming Messiah by looking at verse 15 of chapter 7. This Scripture tells us that the young child, Immanuel, would not, by any means, be perfect as we are told, according to Christian theology, that the sinless Yeshua was. "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." In other words, this little boy, Immanuel, was to learn, like all humans do, right from wrong by experience! Notice then verse 16: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil [meaning he would be a sinner!], and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Again, the child Immanuel was to be born as a sign to Ahaz, and before this imperfect, sinful little human child was two or three years old, Judah would be delivered from her enemies!
If we go to II Kings 16:9 we see G-d delivered Judah as He had promised Ahaz! History tells us clearly that three years after the sign to King Ahaz (732 B.C.E.) Tiglath-Pileser III took Damascus, and executed the Syrian king and destroyed the Syrian kingdom, which rendered Israel completely powerless (Asimov's Guide to the Bible, pp. 375, 532). These events happening three years from the time of Isaiah's prophecy clearly spells out the meaning of Isaiah 7:16 and the identity of the child Immanuel! What the Holy Scriptures and history clearly spell out is that Ahaz and Judah were delivered from their enemies, which means that the sign of the birth of the child Immanuel must have also come to pass. There is no prophecy here of a child being born almost 700 years in the future! To understand that when G-d gave a promise of a sign that it was carried out immediately, notice II Kings 20:8 and II Kings 20:11, Judges 6:17 and Judges 6:21.
…One can always deny the facts. One may never know them. I just laid them out for you. Furthermore, if one wants to find a way around these facts by claiming that this is a "dual" prophecy, which many ministers now preach, then to be honest to the truth the entire chapter needs to be applied in this manner. That is, we must understand that Yeshua did not live a sinless life because the child Immanuel had to learn to refuse evil and choose good. It is uncertain how the idea of “dual prophecy” came to be instituted in Christianity. Some churches rely very heavily upon the explanation of dual prophecy because it very often relieves them from discarding their erroneous theology and religious belief system and getting bogged down in questions that are unanswerable outside the duality argument. What duality of prophecy means, as taught by some Christian churches, is that prophecies, such as Isaiah 7, that can be shown to have come to pass before the advent of Christianity, will also be fulfilled at a later time. Of course, these ministers will arbitrarily pick and choose which Scriptures are "dual" based solely on their own interpretation of prophecy, itself a victim of their church's doctrine.
In addition we must believe that G-d delivered Judea from their enemies (meaning Rome) in the time of Yeshua. Just a quick check of Biblical history teaches otherwise.
(http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.com/virgin_convceive_really
now.htm/)
Obviously, the writer of Matthew went to the prophecy well once too often. Here, on one erroneous interpretation hangs not only the “fundamental truth” of the trinity, but also the deity of Jesus. I have mentioned only two major errors of many—so many, in fact, that numerous books have been written on that subject alone. What Sir Kenyon and Christians cannot bring themselves to do is recognize the extent of corruption. The examples noted above are obvious Scripture alterations, discernable by comparison. Our earliest New Testament records were copies made from oral tradition handed down for over a hundred years prior to being written, and even longer before canonization. There is no way to know how many times they had been altered verbally, then copied and edited before reaching their final form. How many different versions were told of the same story? How much was lost in translation? How many well-intentioned scribes, like those referred to in the Moffatt's quotation above, "clarified" a passage, or inserted a rumor he'd heard? How many "spirit filled" disciples wrote whole books in the name of their master? We have no way of knowing. But literary study of the Gospels alone reveals the addition of phrases and stories from earlier dated works to the latter. Morton Scott Enslin from Christian Beginnings (Parts I & II) sheds further light:
Many difficulties confront us. One is especially real. The chief source of our knowledge of the earliest beginnings is not one book, but a library by many authors, produced not at one time, but which grew many years after the start of the new religion. Contrary to many popular notions, the new religion produced its book; the book did not produce the religion. Again, these writings, which eventually came to be called the New Testament, were written for purely practical purposes: to meet specific needs felt in those days. They were not prepared to edify or to instruct subsequent generations that might desire historical insights into the past. Hence many points about which we would appreciate information are glossed over or omitted entirely. And finally, the gospels, which purport to tell us of the earliest period, were not the first, but among the last of the documents to be produced. Accordingly, we must give due regard to this lapse of time—at the very least forty years—and recognize the probability that again and again the later outlook and ideas have been reflected, at times perhaps unwittingly, yet none the less surely, in the chronicle of the earlier years (Italics added for emphasis).
If you've been nurtured within the Christian faith since childhood, as I was, or have made the total commitment that belief demands, then your understanding of the New Testament teachings is as real to you as your own name. To even listen to someone question their validity is offensive. I know, because I was a devout Christian for over thirty years and attended a number of churches of different denominations. But in all those years, not once did anyone introduce a true and detailed study of the history of Christianity. Oh, it was glossed over, encapsulated in brief stories of the apostles writing letters to various churches, but never was the truth revealed.
The truth? No one can say with certainty who wrote any of the New Testament books! Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, the authorship of only twelve is known with any degree of assurance, and we can be reasonably confident that Paul wrote seven of those. The Epistles of Paul, written in the middle of the first century, were the earliest of the New Testament writings, and there is some speculation that the Gnostic Marcion may have edited them when he used them as the basis for his canonical bible in about 140 AD. And even so, they tell us almost nothing about Jesus, a fact we’ll investigate more extensively later.
Richard Carrier—B.A., M.A., M. Phil.—Ancient History—has a concise, informative, history of the New Testament canonization entitled, The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000) that is readily available on the Internet. From it, he gives us a brief introduction to the dating of the New Testament books:
Rather than try to commit to specifics here, I will just give the possible ranges of dates that have been argued and which are at least possible.
The material for this section is taken from my own survey of scholarly
consensus found in numerous sources. It is believed that Jesus died c. 30
AD. Specifically, if he died under Pontius Pilate, the date must have at
least been between 26 and 36, the ten years we know Pilate to have served
in Judaea. Whatever the date, Paul's conversion follows one to three years
later. The earliest known Christian writings are the epistles of Paul,
composed between 48 and 58 AD. Some of these are of doubted authenticity
(and were even in antiquity), but the debate is too complex to summarize
here. The other letters, and the Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of
John), are of even more uncertain authorship and date. They are presumed
to have been written in the same period or later (I Peter, for instance,
may have been written, some scholars say, as late as 110 AD).
The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 AD, Matthew second, between 70 and 80 AD, Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 AD, and John last, between 90 and 100 AD. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention; cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark)
(http://www.geocities.com/airspirit3/newtestamentcanon.html).
There is no historical reference to the Gospels until about 130 AD, when Papias mentions Matthew and Mark. However, even those references are ambiguous and confusing, because the Matthew he refers to was written in Hebrew.6 The Matthew familiar to Christendom was written in Greek. Neither does Papias' account concerning Mark do much to commend that writer. He says Mark was the interpreter and companion of Peter in his travels. He states that Mark recorded Peter's memories of the acts and sayings of Jesus. Therefore, he never knew Jesus and supposedly wrote his Gospel shortly after Peter's death, around 64 AD. The difficulties with Papias' testimony are that Peter has no significance in Mark's book and that his theology is Hellenized, like Paul's.
Papias himself seemed to care more for hearsay than for the written word. His works only survive because Eusebius quoted from Papias’ Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord—a collection of things Papias heard said by students of the elders who claimed to have known the first disciples; in other words, oft-repeated hearsay.
Irenaeus and Eusebius, who had the work of Papias before them, understand the Presbyters to be not Apostles, but disciples of disciples of the Lord, or even disciples of disciples of Apostles (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Papias%2C_Saint).
Eusebius also described him as; "…a man of very small mind, if we may judge by his own words" (ibid). In his defense, Papias offers this statement: "I did not think that information from books would help me so much as the utterances of a living and surviving voice.” Here we’re introduced to another historical “truth;” the early Christians’ preference for oral rather than written tradition.7 It was only in the late second century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of Papias’ work show how destructive this “preference for oral tradition” could be. He recorded the most bizarre claims as if they were true, such as a description of Judas' head bloated to greater than the width of a wagon trail, with his eyes lost in the flesh, and that the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that over a hundred years later, no one would go near it.
While we can’t know the exact development of the early stories, we do know they were spurious rather than planned. From The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000),
…the situation evident in Papias is that there is little regard for any written Gospels, in contrast with nearly complete faith in oral tradition, with little critical thought being applied. More importantly, the context seems to be one where there were perhaps no set written Gospels in his day, but an array of variously-worked texts. And this picture is somewhat confirmed by the remarkable discovery of fragments dated c. 130-180 AD from a lost synoptic Gospel, the composition of which has been dated "not later than AD 110-130.” In this text, there are echoes from all four Gospels, but also miracles and sayings of Jesus found nowhere else, and it appears the author was working not from textual sources but from memory, and composing freely in his own style. It is likely that this, in part, is how all the Gospels were written. Moreover, it is possible that the canonical Gospels did not achieve their final (near-present) form until during or shortly after the time of Papias.
(http://www.geocities.com/airspirit3/newtestamentcanon.html).
This thought is substantiated by the fact that early writers never considered these writings as Holy Scripture. Clement of Rome, the first Apostolic Father, writing about 95 AD, frequently refers to different Epistles of Paul but calls them wise counsel, not Scripture. That authority he reserves for the Old Testament, which he cites over a hundred times.
In his letter to the Philadelphians, written at the turn of the first century, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 50-117 AD), recounts a debate he held with Judaizing Christians in which it is clear that only the Old Testament was regarded as an authority. Instead of referring to any New Testament writings as evidence, he simply says that Jesus Christ is the witness to the authority of the tradition. This suggests that none of the New Testament was regarded even then as an authority.
How ethical were the early Church fathers? We must remember the sense of ethics referred to above in the article on pseudonymity by Moffatt. Also, by the time the value of the written word was finally recognized, there were hundreds of heretical sects copying, editing, and adding freely to each others’ works. According to Eusebius, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote some time during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD) that "the devil's apostles have filled" his own epistles "with tares, taking away some things and adding others," and he makes the situation clear, "small wonder, then, if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself".
Here can be seen the contention regarding doctrines and beliefs. There can be no doubt that numerous, differing stories were circulating throughout the Christian world. Later, we’ll discover that the Catholic fathers, such as Tertullian, St. Augustine and Jerome, were not searching the scriptures for truth; they were struggling to make history fit what the Church had already decreed as truth.
Eusebius himself was, to say the least, of questionable character. There is much contention today in regard to his integrity and ability as a historian. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, accused him of withholding demeaning information concerning the Church in his Ecclesiastical History, and for saying that it was all right to lie for a good cause.8 Also, Eusebius quotes a letter purportedly written by Jesus with total confidence in its authenticity.9
Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–1889) an English theologian and Bishop of Durham, in his Eusebius of Caesarea, had much praise for Eusebius' work, but was critical of his qualifications as a historian.10
A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. ...
Eusebius was the first historian to write a history of the Christian Church, completed about 327 AD at the height of Constantine’s power. However, it should be noted that it was a Church history, as opposed to a national or world history. Its purpose was to refute Gnosticism by establishing the line of apostolic succession, and thereby, the authority of the Church. In actuality, no one had bothered to keep a history of the Church prior to Eusebius, in the early fourth century. So, whatever he wrote, factual or fraudulent, became the official history of the Catholic Church. I’ll quote again from Mister Carrier's website. However, for those who might wish to research the subject further, the information is generally available in most libraries and at numerous websites.
The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account. Two things must be known: first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous, and either way not a very good historian; second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times in order to accommodate changing events, including the ever-important Council of Nicea, where Arianism, the view that Christ was created by God and not entirely identical to God (the greatest advocate of this was Eusebius' contemporary Arius, after whom the doctrine was named, but the idea was not entirely original to him), was decisively declared heretical, and for the first time in history this decision had the full backing and enforcement of the Roman Empire. Eusebius was an Arian until that day, and, not desiring to lose his position in the church, he abandoned his Arianism. We may never know what effect this had on his final revision of his history—but any view he may have taken about the canon that was pro-Arian was certainly expunged. This may reveal once again how doctrine more than objective scholarship affected Christian choices concerning canonical texts.
Even in 327 AD, when Eusebius published the final draft of his Church History, two years after the great Council of Nicea, which set out to establish a decisive orthodox creed that would be enforced by law throughout the world, there was no official Bible. Bruce Metzger paints the picture superbly, for what drove Eusebius to pay so much attention to the history of the Bible must have been:
“Eusebius' search for certainty as well as...the absence of any official declaration having an absolute value, such as a canon issued by a synod, or the collective agreement among churches or bishops. Of these there is not a trace in the long series of literary notices, so conscientiously amassed by the historian. But, when all is done, the most that Eusebius can register is uncertainty so great that he seems to get confused when making a statement about it.”
The only standard Eusebius employed in deciding which texts to call "recognized" is to accept every book that is recognized by every (orthodox) author he knows. The next category of texts includes those that are recognized by some but disputed at least by someone (someone, that is, who was regarded by him as orthodox—hence, the opinions of early church leaders like Marcion did not count). The final category of texts includes those universally regarded as heretical by those adhering to his idea of orthodoxy. This standard is obviously multiply flawed: first, it begins with his own subjective doctrinal judgment of who is orthodox and thus whose opinion counts at all, and second it is based solely on the doctrinal opinions of these writers. There is no reference to standards of historical research or textual criticism, for example. And against general sentiment, Eusebius only voices one opinion of his own, in defense of the Revelation of John, which was already in the second category and thus half-way to being canonical.
(http://www.geocities.com/airspirit3/newtestamentcanon.html)
Apparently, the crucifixion and death of Jesus wasn’t a given until the latter part of the second century. Irenaeus, as well as Papias, stated that Jesus was not crucified and that he lived to an old age. As mentioned before, Papias received his information from disciples of the disciples of the apostles. He claimed that they used to say that the Lord died an old man and that those Christ restored to life “lived on until the age of Trajan,” the Roman Emperor, AD 98-117. Irenaeus was more specific. In his Adversus Haereres, one of the heresies he attacked was the Gospels’ assertion that Jesus had been crucified at about age thirty:
For he came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead.”
They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He excelled all others.” …
How, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year, everyone will admit, but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a msn begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. And He remained among them up to the times of Trajan [Roman Emperor, Ad 98-177]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren. Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 4, 5).
Here we have two contrary tales; one according to the Gospels, the other based upon tradition. It is assumed that Jesus died at about age thirty. And yet, we find two prominent bishops and saints declaring just the opposite. One view discredits the Gospels, the other discredits the character of both Papias and Irenaeus. The issue isn’t which story is correct, but the fact that we have a glaring contradiction—an example that is repeated again and again throughout, not only non-canonical writings, but also the Holy Scriptures! The reason becomes obvious when we realize that the New Testament originated from folktales and early Church writings, not divine revelation.
Of course, that idea doesn’t sit too well with the Church. In his denunciation of the Valentinian doctrines, Adversus Haereres, Book III, Irenaeus explains the Church’s version of the Gospels origin:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia
(Iren. Adv. Haer. Bk. III, ch. i, secs. 1).
Irenaeus makes reference to the Gospels of Matthew (in Hebrew), Mark, Luke, and John, all of which he appears to have gleaned from Papias, who, as we saw earlier, spoke of a Hebrew Matthew, of Mark being the interpreter of Peter, and of Luke as the companion of Paul. And he contradicts himself when he speaks of the Lord rising from the dead, for we’ve just reviewed his statement in Book II where he claimed Jesus lived until the age of Trajan. Here we have a blatant contradiction, or, more likely, proof of later editing. Irenaeus continues by condemning the Gnostics:
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world," 1 Corinthians 2:6 (Iren. Adv. Haer. Bk. III, ch. ii, secs. 1).
In this passage, we have another case for preferred oral tradition "vivâ voce". The Gnostics are claiming what we have implied—that the Scriptures were recorded from spoken stories. There was resistance to the written word because, as we have already seen, much liberty was taken by the authors.
Another great weakness of these and most other early Church writers, bishops, and Fathers—including Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and even St. Augustine—was that they believed that the old pagan gods were real! Also, many early Christian Fathers, including Athenagoras and Justin Martyr, quoted from the pagans’ Sibyl oracles. Most early Christian Church leaders and theologians were converted Greek pagans who continued to believe in the reality of the pagan gods. Many did, however, recognize them as false gods and Satan’s demons. And as the pagan tales were incorporated into Christianity and attributed to Jesus, the originals were claimed to be counterfeits by Satan, who could foresee the coming events and created his own false religions to discredit and cast doubt upon the truth. Many also believed in magic and astrology. We’ll learn more about this later as we study the lives and works of these authors. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the entire world during the first century was shrouded in miracles, magic and superstitions. Even the educated Greek and Roman philosophers offered sacrifices to appease the gods, and no emperor or ruler would dare make an important state decision without consulting an oracle.
Many writings themselves testify against their authors. For example, the writer of Mark explains Aramaic terms and identifies Palestinian geography erroneously in an attempt to aid his readers, an effort which would be unnecessary for Jewish readers:
 |
In 8:10, he refers to a place called Dalmanutha which doesn’t exist. |
|
In 5:1,
the country of the Gerasenes extends to the Sea of Galilee, But
Gerasenes is |
|
He confuses references to the Herodian family in 6:17. |
|
In 10:12, he thought a wife could divorece her husband, contray to Jewish law. |
Mark also flatters the Romans in an effort to distance the Church from the Jews.
|
He calls the disciple, Simon, a Canaanite to avoid the word Zealot. |
|
He blames
the death of Jesus on the Jews and relieves Pilate of it by inventing
the |
|
The divinity of Jesus is first recognized in Mark by a Roman. |
He degrades the Apostles appointed by Jesus: they are ignorant, weak, argumentative, vain, treacherous, and cowardly—all part of the process of dissociating the Son of God from Jews.
Despite its errors, since Mark is the first of the Gospels and was considered accurate enough by two other Gospel writers to reproduce, it should still be accepted as the most authoritative.
Matthew covers ninety percent of Mark. They have two hundred and fifty verses in common, with many containing the same words and phrases. Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, but quotes from the Septuagint, the Greek version of Hebrew Scriptures used by Hellenistic Jews, rather than the Aramaic used by nationalistic Jews. It doesn’t explain Jewish customs and words as Mark does and, in this sense, seems to aim for a Jewish readership.
The writer of Matthew was anxious to show Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. His approach was to interpret current events, as being prophesied by the Scriptures, using the pesher method. He recorded five scriptural references in the birth narrative to show that prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. And his quotations are seldom precise. He did just what the sectarians of Qumran did—changed the quotations just enough to suit his purpose.
Luke obviously had knowledge of Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 AD, by the Jewish historian, Josephus. The author of Luke is also credited with the Acts of the Apostles, which is usually dated at about 100 AD, but sometimes as early as 64 AD, because the story ends at that date with Paul awaiting trial. The theory that Luke was Paul’s companion is highly unlikely, because he doesn’t use excerpts from Paul’s Epistles—nor does he seem to understand Jesus in the Pauline way.
The writer of Luke was evidently a Gentile, or a Gentile sympathizer, because he had much to say about the conversion of Gentiles and often represented them in a good light. His writings show both Essene and Nazarene influences. Repentance is a central theme, but he extends it beyond the Jews to everyone. He refers to Jesus as “Lord” fourteen times. Mark and Matthew never do, indicating that the split from the Apostles’ teachings was complete.
It is believed that John was penned around 100 AD. However, Papias and Marcion, writing about 140 AD, make no mention of it, and Justin Martyr only quotes from it tentatively in 163-167 AD, as if it had little authoritative value. It is really nothing more than a Christian promo to reinforce Jesus’ awarded deity.11
With careful scrutiny, the metamorphosis of Jesus from man to Messiah to God is easily discernable from Mark to John. In Mark, there are no birth stories, and the post-resurrection tales (16:9-16:18), as we mentioned previously, are not found in early manuscripts. While Paul, Matthew, and Luke accept the Davidic line of descent, Mark ignores it, dissociating Jesus from any claims to the throne of Israel.
There is one other aspect of the New Testament we should consider; that of the many recorded miracles. We’ve already mentioned the superstitious nature of the pagans, but it should be noted that the Jews were also infected by that same nature. One only has to recall biblical stories of parting seas, the sun standing still, Jonah in the whale or a coming messiah, to grasp their faith in miracles. But let’s chose one of those miracles and really dissect its validity—that of “Doubting” Thomas (John 20:24-29). Every Christian should be familiar with the story in which, accordingly, all the Apostles except Thomas had seen the risen Jesus. Because he had not seen, Thomas refused to believe until Jesus appeared and instructed him to thrust his hand into his wounded side.
One has to admit, this is a very dynamic and graphic tale, but let’s try to put it into context. Suppose your father died and was whisked off to the mortuary. You attend the funeral, see him in the coffin, watch as he is interred—then a couple of days later he walks into the room and greets you with a big hug. You would have no doubt you’d just witnessed a miracle—right? Now, instead of your father, let’s suppose it was your grandfather; and the incident happened, not to you, but to your mother—prior to your birth. Try to imagine your reaction when your mother told you the story. Would you believe her? What if the story was collaborated by other family members and friends? Perhaps you could believe.
Now, imagine two thousand years have passed, and someone hands you a similar tale, encapsulated in a short passage of one hundred and sixty-two words, clipped from a dubious letter, supposedly written by a man who knew your ancient relative. Of course, no one knows the man, and there is much debate as to the validity of the letter. Answer honestly now, to yourself (no one will question), could you believe such an assertion?
The point is, no one can experience a miracle secondhand, and since that is so, miracles should be the last evidence we turn to for proof—not the first.
The Christian Bible is composed of an Old and a New Testament. In Exodus, chapter 24, of the Old Testament, God dictated the Law to Moses. Thus, we have a commission by God for that portion of the Bible; but when did God authorize the New Testament addition? I’ve been unable to find any record of such an event. What I have found are early Church writings describing the process used by the Catholic Church to canonize the New Testament. They describe men arguing, dealing, making concessions, including—then excluding—different books, fighting, and, yes, even murdering (See chapter 13)! Not even the compilers claimed a commandment from God. Then by what authority is the New Testament considered Holy and inspired of God? There is only one possibility—the Catholic Church.
I’ve only presented a small portion of evidence depicting the corruption of the New Testament Scriptures, but that is all that is required; only one tiny error disproves any theory of infallibility. And once that one error is confirmed, two questions should spring to mind. First, how great is this corruption? Second, how can I determine what is true and what is false? The answer to the first question will become apparent as you continue reading. The answer to the second question will only come with much unbiased study.
At this point, it should be noted that rather than being the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God—as generally taught—the New Testament Scriptures are anything but, and should be regarded with questioning suspicion. Are they totally useless, then? No, of course not, but they have to be accepted for what they are—very poor records, rather than divinely inspired truths. For example, we can’t just label obvious contradictions as “the mystery of God’s infinite wisdom” and shove them into the “unknowable” category.
We must ask ourselves questions: When did Jesus convert from Judaism to Christianity? Why did Jesus teach his disciples one doctrine and Paul another? And above all, we must read between the lines and match events with people, places, customs, and times.
Notes
1 – See Chapter 8 - Paul's Missionary Journeys
2 – Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, chap. 8, p. 200
3 – But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church – but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church. (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Dogma)
4 – His [John's] revelation still strikes the modern reader as excessive. A rigorous Christian, frustrated with these new circumstances, turned his guns on the Romans ("Babylon") in a grisly vision of their comeuppance, and used the terrifying image of this bloody destruction as a warning and preachment directed at his fellow Christians…. Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote The New Testament? chap. 7, pp. 195-196.
5 – The New Testament tales are corrupted bits of historical events, reversed and distorted to promote Christian propaganda and destroy Judaism. Similar, and more logical stories with some of the same name characters are found in historical works such as those of Josephus, the Pseudo Clementines, Suetonius, and others. Strong parallels can be made between characters like Paul and Simon Magus; Simon Magus and a Simon in a Josephus story; and Peter and a Simon in another of his tales.
6 – According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could. (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Matthew%2C_Gospel_of_Saint_%28Biblical_Commission%29)
7 – Regarding the
canonization of the Book of Matthew, the Original Catholic Encyclopedia
states… "A book was acknowledged as canonical when the
Church regarded it as
Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the
canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate
primitive
Christian tradition
for the use that was made of this document, and for indications proving that
it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the
Old Testament."
"The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because
post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom, and
principally because it is difficult to say whether the passages thus quoted
were taken from oral tradition or from a written Gospel." (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Matthew%2C_Gospel_of_Saint_%28Biblical_Commission%29)
8 – It is generally accepted that the charge of Eusebius condoning lying was taken out of context. That he withheld historical facts, you may decide for yourself. Following the persecutions of Diocletian, Eusebius wrote; "But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 8.2.2-3).
9 – ( http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Legend_of_Abgar%2C_The)
10 – J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp.308-348), Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines, ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Volume II (EABA-HERMOCRATES). This excerpt pp.324-5, quoted by Roger Pearse, (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm)
11 – Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? chap. 7, pp. 176-183
Go to: Next Back Amazing Born Again... Thoughts Home Bibliography