Paul's Case for discipleship, Who Wrote The Gospels?, and The 500

 Introduction

Many Muslim critics assert that the Apostle Paul was not a true Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. They erroneously argue that Paul came in after the real Apostles and took over the scene corrupting Christianity with new foreign teachings. Many Muslims assert that the original message of Jesus and his true followers, their supposed Islamic teaching, was in complete disagreement with Paul’s “new” theology. In contrast to this modern Islamic view the Christian position is that history demonstrates Paul was truly converted to Christianity. Christians argue that the evidence shows he was accepted by the original Apostles and by the earliest Christians as a genuine convert with sound theology who was given an important mission from Christ himself.

In this article I will weigh the evidence that both sides offer. When investigating historical issues it is important to use a reliable method to come to truth. I will be appealing to what is known as the historical method in this article as I argue that there are many strong reasons to affirm Paul’s apostleship and no strong reasons to deny Paul’s apostleship. I will utilize historical principles including the concept of multiple independent attestation, early accounts (i.e., the oldest source material), eyewitness testimony, disinterest statements, and the criterion of embarrassment. It is also important to speak to the lack of early reliable evidence for the modern Muslim view concerning Paul. Lastly I will demonstrate that the modern Islamic polemic against Paul is not consistent with many early Muslim traditions which affirm that Paul was in fact viewed as a true Apostle. I believe that Muslims are forced to reject Paul and blame him in trying to explain why their Quran affirms Christian Scriptures(1) and yet teaches that Christianity has false teachings. To the Muslim Paul corrupting Christianity serves as reconciliation to this problem. However, we will see that their rejection of Paul and their accusations are completely erroneous.

Section 1. Positive Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship

When historians use the historical method they will consult the earliest sources regarding the historical issue in question. The earliest sources pertaining to Paul are the 1st century documents that were canonized into the Bible in the 4th century. The Bible is not one source - it is a compiled collection of many separate documents written over a span of about 1400 years. The 1st century texts that were canonized into the New Testament have much to say concerning the Apostle Paul and are thus very important to our study. Some Muslims may object and assert that one can not use the Bible to prove Paul. However, such a surface level objection is based on ignorance since, again, the New Testament is a collection of valuable early historical documents, many of which speak directly to this issue. To discard the 1st century documents that are in the Bible and not include them in our study would be to neglect the earliest sources we have concerning this issue. That method would essentially be to irresponsibly throw away important data, which no serious historian or researcher would ever do. If historical sources don’t count then we can’t know anything about history.

1st Century Biblical Sources

With respect to the 1st century Biblical evidence concerning Paul we have Paul’s writings (Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon), the history of the 1st century church known as “Acts” or “Acts of the Apostles,” and a Christian epistle known as 2 Peter. So, with respect to 1st century Biblical writings we have Paul’s epistles as well as two other independent documents to work with. All of the 1st century Biblical sources that mention Paul affirm that Paul was a genuine Apostle. None of them question that.

All through out the book of Acts we see Paul identified as a true Apostle. And so we could quote numerous passages affirming this from Acts. However, one striking feature is that in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council Paul played a leading role with the other Apostles such as James and Peter in answering the question about Gentiles being under the law. As the council was in session we see the following:

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)

Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter (vv. 7-11) and right before James (vv. 13-21) who concluded the council and gave the final decision that Gentiles are not under the law. This demonstrates that there was 1st century recognition of Paul’s acceptance by the early church and by the Apostles themselves as an authoritative voice.

The book 2 Peter is rejected by many liberal scholars and Muslims but there is a strong case for its authority and for Petrine authorship.(2) This text is another 1st century source that not only affirms that Paul was a true Apostle, but it also identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture:

"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The best case scenario is that Peter wrote this and is accepting Paul. I believe this is the case. The worst case scenario is that this is another independent 1st century attestation affirming the reliability of Paul which we can add to the list. Even if it were not from Peter, it is still an early attestation which was accepted by the church and even added to the Canon of Scripture. Historians look for the earliest 1st century writings when it comes to Jesus and early Christianity. That there are no early 1st century writings asserting that Paul was a false Apostle discredits the Muslim position severely. The historical principles of early sources and multiple independent attestation is thus met with respect to 1st century Biblical evidence for Paul.

If Paul was a true Apostle we would expect his own letters to confirm that this was so. It must be asked: is there anything in Paul’s writings that historians would accept as proving that he was genuine? There are many things to consider. For example it is important to consider the principle of embarrassment which is the principle that something or someone is more likely to be authentic if there are embarrassing themes that you wouldn’t expect to be openly talked about. We see that Paul was quite open about his shortcomings, disputes with other Apostles, and his flaws. Such things persuade historians of Paul’s integrity and honesty, and thus his claims to apostleship gain credibility.

Paul was open about his humanity and imperfection

"8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- 10that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own." (Philippians 3:8-12)

"12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (1 Timothy 1:12-16)

"7So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)

This information meets the principle of embarrassment which historians look for. Christ and the Apostles had a very high view of holiness or sanctification(3) and so therefore we wouldn’t expect Paul to admit his imperfection and need for grace if he was an imposter trying to usurp or lead people away from the moral teachers Jesus and the Apostles. It is a human tendency to want to appear morally good in religious settings. This is especially true of those times. Although Paul was a sanctified model for morality and exhorted others to be moral, he was honest in admitting that he, like everyone else except Christ, was not perfect and that he, like everyone else, relied on God’s grace in his life. We know from history that later untrustworthy people who claimed to follow Christ, such as Pelagius, dishonestly claimed to be completely morally perfect(4). One would naturally expect something like this from Paul if he was trying to usurp Jesus and the Apostles who taught holiness and sanctification. But Paul, being genuine, admitted his imperfection, as did the other Prophets and Apostles either explicitly or implicitly(5), and taught that one ought to strive for holiness in light of being imperfect. In being honest about his imperfection and his reliance on God’s grace Paul was in fact doing the right thing according to Jesus’ teachings on salvation.(6) Hence, this kind of material demonstrates that Paul was genuine since if he was not then there would be no reason to include these types of admissions in his epistles – admissions that critics may twist or use against Paul.

Paul recorded his rebuke of Peter

One thing you would not want to do if all you were was a false Apostle pretending to be a true Apostle is invent a story where you rebuke a major influential Apostle in front of others for not handling the Gospel accurately. However, this actually happened. Paul did just that to the Apostle Peter demonstrating that Paul genuinely cared about the Gospel and would not compromise it for anyone, including major Apostles he worked with who stepped out of line:

“11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16)

Although Peter learned from this mistake and would go on to grow in grace, remain close with Paul, and eventually die as a martyr in Rome where Paul was also martyred, proving that Peter was a genuine appointed leader of the early church(7), this information tells us a lot about the integrity and reliability of Paul. One would not expect Paul to report that he publically rebuked a fellow worker and major Apostle if in fact he was some usurper trying fit in. You would expect him to want to avoid any unnecessary controversies or quarrels. This meets the principle of embarrassment.

Disinterested Comment about James

We can know Paul was a reliable true Apostle because of his disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19:

“18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19)

Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. The point is if Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul is trustworthy showing that he wasn’t out to merely prove he was an Apostle with fanciful detailed stories, but that he was actually recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.

Paul’s Gospel in the 1 Corinthians 15 Apostles Creed is the original Gospel

We can know Paul was a genuine Apostle preaching the original Gospel because his 1 Corinthians 15 Creed, which he received very early from the Apostles (Peter and James), is dated very closely to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion by scholarship which shows that Paul’s message was not some later innovation. The creed states:

“3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Here Paul reminds the Corinthian church that this Gospel message or creed which he previously preached to them orally was first given to him. It is important to note that Paul mentions that he received this creed before giving it to them. The 1st century evidence demonstrates that Paul received this creed from Peter and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem. This demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel (Jesus’ sacrifice for sins, the resurrection and appearances) was not some later corruption but that it goes right back to the beginning – coming from the original Apostles who walked with Jesus. I will demonstrate this by constructing a timeline based on the early data.

First, scholars put Jesus’ crucifixion at about A.D. 30. After surveying the historical literature Dr. Ben Witherington III affirms:

“… it makes sense to conclude that Jesus died on Nisan 14 (April 7) in A.D. 30.”(8)

In his work on the resurrection Dr. Mike Licona notes that A.D. 30 is the standard dating of Jesus’ death among scholars.(9) With that said Paul’s conversion to Christianity is dated 1-2 years after Jesus’ death by scholars. Dr. Craig L. Blomberg puts Paul’s conversion at A.D. 32 – two years after Jesus’ death.(10) One of the leading scholars on the subject is Dr. Gary Habermas and he notes that scholars usually place Paul’s conversion 1-2 years after the cross and goes with A.D. 32. He states:

“… Paul’s conversion is usually placed at one or two years later, so let’s just say two – that’s 32.”(11)

The 1st century documentation shows that after Paul’s conversion around A.D. 32, where he saw Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus, he then went to Arabia and after three years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James:

“15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Galatians 1:15-19)

With respect to this material Dr. Howard Clark Kee notes that it “can be critically examined...just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.”(12) Therefore, when one does so you see that the information harmonizes into a consistent stream in that you are left with a clear picture about where this creed comes from. Galatians 1:15-19 shows that in A.D. 32 Paul was in Arabia for three years until A.D. 35 and then he went to Jerusalem. Paul went to Jerusalem in A.D. 35 to meet with Peter and James – five years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. In Galatians 1:18 it says something extremely noteworthy with respect to Paul’s fifteen day Jerusalem stay in A.D. 35. Its says “I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and remained with him for fifteen days.” The word for “visit” there is actually a bad translation. The Greek word there is histore? where we get our English word “history.” According to the standard Lexical work of today, the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek-English Lexicon, [2000], p. 483 the Greek word histore? means to “to get information from.” It means to gain an account. Therefore, this 1st century data shows that in A.D. 35 Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem to inquire about the Gospel or gain a historical account of the Gospel and confirm that what he had previously received from the Lord through Revelation (Gal. 1:11-12) was the true account of the Gospel preached by the original Apostles. That at this time Paul received the 1 Corinthians 15 creed from Peter and James is the position of the majority of scholars – the creed which talks about Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead. In the verses just preceding the actual creed in 1 Corinthians 15 (15:1-3) we see technical rabbinic terms denoting the passing of previously received oral tradition which many scholars argue is in reference to Peter transmitting this creed to Paul in A.D. 35 – words like “delivered” or “handed on” (paradido?mi) and “received” (paralambano?) – the latter term being in reference to Paul receiving this creed from Peter and James in Jerusalem.

It makes perfectly logical sense, along with the fact that Paul says he went to gain a historical account from Peter, that in his fifteen days in Jerusalem with Peter and James he received (paralambano?) this early creed. It is illogical to think that Paul would not be discussing such important issues with Peter and James after his dramatic experiences. Of course Paul would want to confirm the Gospel with Peter and James, gaining a historical account of the Gospel from them, to see if it lined up with what he had come to believe in the three years prior. This I feel, along with the majority of scholars who have written on the subject, is the best explanation, among a few, as to where Paul got his transmitted 1 Corinthians 15 creed.(13)

If Paul received this creed from Peter in A.D. 35 then Paul’s Gospel is traced back right to the beginning. This would mean Paul’s message is not some later innovation or novelty but is instead traced back to those who walked and talked with Jesus, the Apostles. This utterly refutes the modern Muslim claim that Paul came in later and corrupted Christianity with a new Gospel. Moreover, there is no 1st century evidence questioning this event with Peter and James or casting doubt on it. Scholars have much to say concerning this creed, its reliability, and its date in light of Paul receiving it very early.

The British Biblical scholar Michael Goulder states that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed “goes back at least to what Paul taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”(14) Professor Ulrich Wilkins states that this material, “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of prim­itive Christianity.”(15) The scholar Walter Kasper contends that this creed was circulating by the end of A.D. 30.(16) The notable atheist New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann states:

“… the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion…not later than three years after the death of Jesus.”(17)

Liberal scholar James D.G. Dunn states:

“This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”(18)

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state:

“The analysis of the formula tradition about the resurrection of Jesus allows the following conclusion: a tradition in 1 Cor 15.3b-5, which goes back very close to the events themselves, attests appearances to both individuals and groups. The credibility of this tradition is enhanced, because it is in part confirmed by the narrative tradition, which is independent, and because in the case of Paul we have the personal testimony of an eye-witness who knew many of the other witnesses.”(19)

Reginald Fuller states:

“It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition.”(20)

The eminent scholar F.F. Bruce also argues that Paul received this creed from Peter and James in A.D. 35:

“In that list two individuals are mentioned by name as having seen the risen Christ, and two only: ‘he appeared Cephas’ and ‘he appeared to James’ (1 Corinthians 15:5, 7). It is no mere coincidence that there should be the only two apostles whom Paul claims to have seen during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion [in Gal 1:19]… It was almost certainly during these fifteen days in Jerusalem that Paul received this outline.”(21)

In his 1999 work, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus, p. 466, the radical liberal Jesus Seminar co-founder Dr. Robert Funk states that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed was formulated within “two or three years at most.” Two or three years after Jesus’ crucifixion, that is.

Therefore scholarship is quite clear on the 1 Corinthians 15 creed being extremely early tradition formulated close to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. This utterly refutes the concept of “Pauline Christianity” and demonstrates that Paul’s Gospel and theology (Jesus dying for sins and raising from the dead) is the original early apostolic Gospel according to the 1st century data.

The Original Apostles confirmed Paul’s Gospel and Apostleship

The 1st century historical documentation on this issue also shows that fourteen years after the Jerusalem affair with Peter and James in Galatians 1:15-19 Paul then went back to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus. According to the 1st century data Paul says the pillars of the church (James, Peter and John) “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). This means that the original Apostles of Jesus added no correction to Paul’s Gospel message which he was preaching after the Jerusalem affair in A.D. 35. Hence, the original Apostles affirmed what Paul was preaching – namely Jesus’ crucifixion as a sacrifice for sins and His resurrection as orthodox theology. Moreover, James, Peter and John all extended their right hand of fellowship to Paul after seeing Paul’s grace (Gal. 2:9). This extremely early data (A.D. 49-54) is a severe blow to the anti-Pauline crowd since it adds one more attestation to the conclusive 1st century case for Paul’s reliability and apostleship. It must be stressed over and over, because it is important, that there is no clear 1st century documentation to the contrary asserting that Paul was not a true Apostle who was close to the original Apostles or that he had a false message. With respect to scholarship’s view on this issue the secular historian William Durant states:

“No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.”(22)

Early Extra-Biblical Sources Affirming Paul’s Apostleship

Now that we have covered some of the Biblical data that validates Paul’s apostleship I want to consider the early historical evidence outside of the Bible which affirms Paul as a genuine Apostle. An important and often overlooked consideration to observe in this study has to do with expectations. If Paul was in fact genuine, as I contend, we would expect to find extremely early church writers affirming the apostleship of Paul as well as quoting his epistles as being authoritative, on same level as Scripture, or directly as Scripture. This is precisely what we find as the evidence is examined. If Paul was not a true Apostle then we would not expect to find numerous instances of the earliest extra-biblical writers (who were often students of the original Apostles) affirming Paul’s apostleship and viewing his writings as Scripture. If Paul was not a true Apostle, but was instead a false usurper, we would expect at least some evidence from the 1st century followers of Jesus and the Apostles to state their case in opposition Paul relegating him to the status of imposter. However, the earliest evidence is conclusive in affirming Paul’s reliability.

Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-110)

Ignatius of Antioch was a 1st century pupil of the original Apostles.(23) This is important because if Paul was a false teacher and usurper, Ignatius, being a follower of the Apostles and their Gospel (he often quoted the Gospels of Matthew and John as well), would have pointed out Paul’s supposed theological errors or commented on Paul being a supposed false Apostle. However, this 1st century martyr Bishop offers early data in support of Paul’s association with the other Apostles as well as Paul’s rightful authority in the church. Ignatius wrote the following in A.D. 110 to the Christians in Rome:

“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”(24)

This extremely early material is affirming that Paul worked alongside Peter in leading and commanding the Christian church in Rome. Ignatius has other valuable remarks affirming the reliability of the Apostle Paul. For example, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus Ignatius relays that Paul accurately gave the Gospel to the Ephesians, that Paul was martyred for his faith (which also shows Paul’s reliability) as well as his deep respect and honor for Paul:

“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”(25)

Ignatius often quotes Paul’s epistles as authoritative writings thus demonstrating that Paul was viewed positively in the earliest strand of 1st century Christianity. For example in Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians Ch. 18 he quotes 1 Corinthians 1:20, he states: “Where is the wise man? Where the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? Four our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.” 1 Corinthians 1:20 states: “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians Ch. 11 he quotes 1 Timothy 1:1, he states: “Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.” 1 Timothy 1:1 states: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope.” In Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp Ch. 5 he quotes Ephesians 5:25, he states: “In like manner also, exhort my brethren, in the name of Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, even as the Lord the Church.” Ephesians 5:25 states: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” In the same Letter to Polycarp Ch. 1 Ignatius quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:17, he states: “Give yourself to prayer without ceasing." 1 Thessalonians 5:17 states: “pray without ceasing.”

We know that Ignatius was fed to lions in a Roman coliseum for his faith since Christianity was being persecuted by the Roman state.(26) This shows that Ignatius so firmly believed in his theology (which included Paul as a true Apostle with inspired doctrine) that he was willing to be martyred for it. If he knew Paul was an imposter or deceiver he would not be willing to be martyred for his faith. As the saying goes “liars make poor martyrs.” If he wasn’t absolutely sure that Paul was genuine he would not be willing to die for a faith or theology which included Paul as a true Apostle. Hence, the conspiracy theory hypothesis won’t work, nor will the “lack of certainty” hypothesis. It is absurd to say that early fathers like this were in on some conspiracy to introduce Paul to people while supposedly knowing he was an imposter. The only way to get around the evidence would be to discard the evidence, which is extremely irresponsible, or to assert that Ignatius was misled or deceived to accept Paul. But that doesn’t work either because Ignatius was very familiar with the theology of John and the other apostles, other apostolic texts, as well as Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels. So if Paul was teaching something contrary to the apostolic 1st century message and was not accepted by the original Apostles, Ignatius would not have supported Paul the way he did. Ignatius gives no indication that there were any early disputes amongst the 1st century Christians about Paul’s reliability.

Clement of Rome (A.D. ?-101)

Clement of Rome was a 1st century Christian secretary of the church at Rome responsible for correspondence with other churches.(27) There is also evidence to suggest that he was a prominent presbyter of the Roman church. Some believe he was the “fellow worker” Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. In his work Against Heresies chapter 3, book 3, section 3 Irenaeus, the 2nd century early writer, notes that Clement of Rome knew the original Apostles:

"...after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles."

In his letter The First Epistle of Clement also known as First Epistle to the Corinthians written in A.D. 96 Clement states the following about Paul:

“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee,and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”(28)

“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”(29)

Notice that Clement, in representing the beliefs of the 1st century Church at Rome, grants Paul’s reliability. He mentions Paul’s labours for the Gospel, his persecution for the faith, and his martyrdom. He states that Paul was a “striking example of patience” or in other words “endurance.” Notice also in the second citation that Clement attests to Paul’s reliability in that he calls him a "blessed Apostle," takes Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians as authoritative and valid with respect to Gospel truth, and states that Paul wrote his letter “under the inspiration of the Spirit.” This means Clement, and subsequently those in the 1st century Church of Rome, believed Paul’s letters to be inspired God-breathed Scripture - canon. We know that Clement knew many of the original Apostles and followed the teachings of the Apostle Peter honoring him deeply.(30) Therefore, why would Clement, who being familiar with the original apostolic message of Peter and the other Apostles(31), grant Paul’s reliability if Paul was preaching something other than what Peter and the other Apostles were preaching? Since Clement knew of Peter and his teaching, why would he affirm Paul if Paul was just some imposter? If Paul was not a genuine Apostle with the true original Gospel, then Clement, knowing the message of Peter and the original Apostles, would have either exposed Paul as an imposter or pointed out his theological errors. There is no indication from Clements pen that there were any 1st century disputes amongst the 1st century Christians about Paul’s reliability.

Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 69-155)

Polycarp was a 1st century Bishop like Ignatius. He was also a student or pupil of John and the other Apostles. We know this from his writings as well as his contemporary who knew him, Irenaeus (A.D. ?-202). We also know this from Tertullian (A.D. 160-220). Polycarp’s contemporary Irenaeus makes mention of the fact that Polycarp was a Pupil of John and a Pupil of the Apostles being appointed Bishop of the church in Smyrna by the Apostles themselves. Irenaeus also mentions that Polycarp was a martyr for the Christian faith:

“For, while I was yet a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing yourself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miraclesand his teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.”(32)

“And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.”(33)

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.”(34)

In his Epistle to the Philippians Polycarp seems to indicate that he and his church were instructed directly by the Apostles:

“Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us…”(35)

A 2nd century document written around A.D. 156 known as The Martyrdom of Polycarp records his brutal martyrdom showing that he was willing to die for his faith and theology which included Paul as a true Apostle. A burning at the stake failed and he was stabbed:

“At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger.”(36)

Therefore, in light of all of this early evidence which demonstrates that Polycarp knew the original Apostles, knew their original 1st century Gospel message, was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles and suffered brutal martyrdom for his faith, it is indeed interesting that he would then affirm the Apostle Paul as genuine and sound theologically if Paul was a false Apostle. Polycarp states:

“For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, is the mother of us all.”(37)

“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles.”(38)

“For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen. But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord? Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world? as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known him.”(39)

If Paul was an imposter, then Polycarp, knowing John and the other Apostles as well as their orthodox theology, would have spoken out against Paul. On the other hand if someone asserts that Polycarp was a liar or conspirator trying to mislead people to follow Paul for some nefarious absurd reason then Polycarp would not willingly go to his death for his faith. This evidence is a fatal blow to the egregious falsehood of anti-Pauline critics. Polycarp also identified Paul’s writings as sacred Scripture showing that Paul was viewed as an inspired Apostle by Polycarp and those around him in the 1st century church. For example, he says the following about Ephesians 4:26:

“For I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, Be angry, and sin not, and, Let not the sun go down upon your wrath [Eph. 4:26].”(40)

It is germane to note that the early church writer Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) also relayed some pertinent information about Polycarp’s status, he states: “For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John.”(41) This shows that it was widely known that Polycarp knew the original disciples. Therefore, the case is quite clear for Polycarp being a student of the original Apostles. That the blessed Polycarp affirmed Paul’s reliability is irrefutable.

Frequent Gnostic Claims to Authority mean Paul is not Reliable?

One response Muslims have offered is that there were 2nd century Gnostics like Valentinus, Montanus, Maximilla and others who claimed to have authority or receive divine prophecy and revelation. Therefore, Muslims argue, since it was common for people to lie and claim to receive prophecy, authority, and revelation one should not accept Paul. However, this is just the logical fallacy known as the problem of induction fallacy. Just because it is doubtful that these 2nd century people had true apostolic authority and received visions and revelation it doesn’t therefore prove that Paul was false. That would be like saying because my cat is orange therefore all cats must be orange.

Secondly, this is a fallacious argument because such Gnostics are 2nd century. Paul is 1st century. There are no meaningful multiply attested 1st or early 2nd century sources saying these people or their followers knew the original Apostles and were accepted by them. There is a wealth of multiply attested 1st and early 2nd century evidence affirming that Paul and his followers knew the Apostles and were accepted by them. There is no meaningful 1st century evidence that Valentinus, Montanus and Maximilla saw visions of the risen Lord. There is a wealth of 1st century evidence that Paul saw a vision of the risen Lord. There is no evidence whatsoever that Valentinus, Montanus and Maximilla were willingly martyred for their faith. There is reliable 1st and early 2nd century evidence that Paul and his followers were willingly martyred for their faith. Historians are interested in early multiply attested accounts. That is why Paul is reliable. To discard these historical principles is to show incredible bias and demonstrate that one is not interested in what the earliest data says. In light of these facts one can not compare Paul to these later 2nd century Gnostics since the historical evidence is clearly in favour of Paul.

Section 2. Critiquing the Muslim Misuse of the Ebionites

Are the Ebionites and their Claims 1st Century?

Since it is clear that the 1st century case for Paul’s apostleship is strong, Muslims have tried to find some kind of clear 1st century proof that would legitimately discredit Paul as a true Apostle. Their main argument or claim is that an early sect called the Ebionites rejected Paul while claiming to have apostolic authority. It is true that this aberrant sect rejected Paul and there is some evidence to suggest that they claimed to have apostolic authority in that they believed their views were sanctioned by the Apostle James. However, what I will be demonstrating is that Muslims are incorrect for dating this sect and their gospel/beliefs to the 1st century, that the Ebionites were complete antichrist heretics not only according to Christianity but also to Islam, and finally I will show that their absurd reason for denying Paul is not reliable historically.

The original gospel of the Ebionites is lost and we have no works from any of their followers. What we do have is quotations of their gospel and refutations of their beliefs from a 4th century work known as Panarion which was written by the Christian writer Epiphanius of Salamis (A.D. 310/320 – 403). It is agreed that their gospel was a forged mutilated document which quoted from Matthew, Luke and Mark. In it are insertions/interpolations of their own narrations and beliefs as well. Various writers like the 2nd century church father Irenaeus wrote on the Ebionites in his work Against Heresies Book 1 Ch. 26 asserting that “they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life.” The same source also affirms that they” repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.” However, Irenaeus does not indicate that the Ebionites go back to the 1st century. In his work De Principiis Book 4 the church father Origen (A.D. 185-254) also mentions the Ebionites and says their name [Ebion] means “poor.” Origen also mentions them in his work Against Celsus. The 3rd/4th century historian Eusebius mentions them in his work Church History etc. Although Muslim apologists like Nadir Ahmed, whom I debated on this issue years ago, assert that the Ebionite testimony is 1st century testimony, scholars like Dr. Ron Cameron date the gospel of the Ebionites to the mid 2nd century. In his work The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts Dr. Cameron states:

“The Gospel of the Ebionites was composed sometime after the Gospel of Matthew and Luke and before the first reference to it in the writings of Irenaeus (toward the end of the second century). A date of composition in the middle of the second century, when several other gospel harmonies were also being written, is most likely.”(42)

Cameron also notes that the Ebionites were “a group of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who were prominent through out the second and third centuries.”(43) Dr. Geoffrey W. Bromily notes that the Ebionites were “flourishing in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th cents. A.D.”(44) In the same work Dr. Bromily also dates the Gospel of the Ebionites to the 2nd century. In his work Apocryphal Gospels: an Introduction Dr. Hans Josef Klauck states that the gospel of the Ebionites was “composed most probably in the mid-second century.”(45) It must be stressed that it is widely acknowledged that there is no firm historical material proving that the Ebionite sect itself dates to the 1st century. Dr. Bart Ehrman has offered some speculation on this issue, however. Because he feels that some of their beliefs are somewhat similar to those of the 1st century Galatians that Paul was in opposition to, that maybe the Ebionites are the physical and spiritual descendents of the Galatians.(46) However, Ehrman doesn’t attempt to trace such a line of descent with any meaningful historical evidence. One Muslim apologist, Sami Zaatari, feels that this speculation from Ehrman is enough to prove that “the Ebionites do have a foundation even during the time of Paul.”(47) However, Ehrman himself is not even sure if there were Ebionites at the time when Paul disputed with the Galatians in the 1st century since he says things like, “… if these (Christian) Jews were in existence before the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE…”(48) The fact is that there just is no real solid evidence tracing the Ebionite tribes to the 1st century. They emerged in the 2nd century and so therefore their assertions about Paul not being a true Apostle are merely late opinions far removed from the time of the Apostles. The evidence shows that it wasn’t until Paul was already dead when their fanciful distortions about him emerged.

In fact, the earliest mention of their rejection of Paul comes from Irenaeus’ late 2nd century work Against Heresies and so therefore we have no evidence that their rejection of Paul wasn’t just some 2nd century novelty. Some people argue that the Ebionites can be traced back to 1st century Jerusalem because in Against Heresies Book 1 Ch. 26 Irenaeus reports that “they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” However, Sakari Hakkinen states that the “… expression means the typical prayer orientation towards Jerusalem and it cannot be used as evidence of the origins of the Ebionites in Jerusalem. As the Ebionites were committed to Jewish traditions, it was natural that they also prayed like Jews.”(49) In his detailed treatment on the subject Dr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer sums up the current scholarly position saying, “… there is simply no evidence for their existence in the first century A.D., either before or after the destruction of Jerusalem.” (50)

Damaging Heresies of the Ebionites

The fact that the Ebionites were abominable heretics according to both Islamic and orthodox Christian theology should make people question why Muslims use their late singular non-multiply attested testimony against Paul as evidence. Paul warned about potential heretics who would come and forbid the eating of meat and things of this nature:

“1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

The Ebionites altered Mark 14:12-15 in their 2nd century gospel (the gospel of the Ebionites) to try to make Jesus a vegetarian suiting their heretical practices. As Epiphanius notes:

“And the Lord himself says, ‘Go ye into the city, and ye shall find a man bearing a pitcher of water and ye shall follow whithersoever he goeth, and say ye to the Goodman of the house, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall keep the Passover with my disciples? And he shall show you an upper room furnished; there make ready.’ But the Lord says in turn, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you.’ And he said, ‘this Passover,’ not simply ‘Passover,” so that no one would practice it in accordance with his own notion. Passover, as I said, was roast meat and the rest. But of their own will these people have lost sight of the consequence of the truth, and have altered the wording-which is evident to everyone from the sayings associated with it-and made the disciples say, ‘Where wilt thou that we prepare for three to eat the Passover?’ And the Lord, if you please, says, ‘Have I desired meat with desire, to eat this Passover with you?’”(51)

This severely damages the credibility of the Ebionites showing that they were deceptive and dishonest. This gives further reason to question their claims about Paul. Moreover, in Origen’s (A.D. 185-254) work Against Celsus he notes that there were different sects of Ebionites, many of which denied the virgin birth of Jesus. Origen mentions the “… the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings.”(52) This is heresy. Isaiah 7:14 predicts that, “… the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Luke 1:32-35 also condemns the Ebionites:

“32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.”(Luke 1:32-35)

The Quran also condemns these Ebionites by admitting that Jesus had a virgin birth in Quran 19:19-22 which states:

“He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place.” (S. 19:19-22)

The Ebionites held to numerous heresies about Jesus including their claim that Jesus was the person of Adam or a created spirit who was higher than the angels. Epiphanius states:

“For some of them even say that Adam is Christ-the man who was formed first and infused with God’s breath. But others among them say that Christ is from above; that he was created before all things; that he is a spirit, higher than the angels and ruler of all; that he is called Christ, and the world there is his portion. But he comes here when he chooses, as he came in Adam and appeared to the patriarchs with Adam’s body on. And in the last days the same Christ who had come to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, came and put on Adam’s body, and he appeared to men, was crucified, rose and ascended.”(53)

This type of apostasy is condemned in John 1:1-3 which affirms that Jesus is the incarnate God when it states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” See also Philippians 2:6-11. This Ebionite heresy is also condemned by Islamic teaching. Quran 5:75 asserts that Jesus was just a human messenger like those who passed away before him, not Adam or a pre-existent exalted spirit:

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away.” (S. 5:75 Pickthall)

Lastly, a Muslim writer named Abdullah Smith claims that the Ebionites “did not believe Jesus was God, or the ‘son of God.’”(54) However, historians realize that the Ebionites did believe Jesus was the adopted Son of God – a heresy according to both Christianity and Islam. The gospel of the Ebionites alludes to the Baptism of Jesus saying, “… a voice sounded from Heaven that said: ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.’ And again: ‘I have this day begotten you’.”(55) They took this and affirmed a form of Adoptionism. According to Christianity Jesus is the eternal divine Son of God bearing the nature of God (Proverbs 30: 3-4; Isaiah 9:6; 1 John 5:20) not the adopted Son. And according to Islam Jesus is not the Son of God in any sense (S. 6:101; 112:1-4).

Therefore, one must question the integrity of any Muslim who would appeal to these antichrist heretics for reliable information on Paul. These 2nd century apostates are unreliable heretics according to both Islam and Christianity and therefore the Muslim apologists ought to stop appealing to them and their opinions as if they somehow represented early orthodox Christian belief. They clearly did not.

The Absurd Ebionite Charge Against Paul

One would expect some kind of meaningful widely acknowledged reason as to why the Ebionites would reject Paul in light of all of the early evidence proving that he was reliable. However, the reason given to us by the Ebionites as to why they asserted that Paul was not a true Apostle is so absurd and outlandish that it makes me question why any Muslim would appeal to their opinions as an argument. Epiphanius writing in the 4th century reports the following Ebionite charge:

"[The Ebionites] declare that he [Paul] was a Greek [...] He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law."(56)

Obviously this is a late concocted fable. It is quite remarkable that this is basis for their bold rejection of Paul. This absurd charge reported in the 4th century by Epiphanius comes from an earlier lost Ebionite source called The Ascents of James. However, this source, which is the original source that this Ebionite fable comes from, is neither early nor reliable. Dr. Georg Strecker and Dr. Robert Van Voorst date the document to A.D. 150-200 and affirm that it was written in Pella in Transjordan. In their work The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner note that this is the “consensus view on the date and place of origin of the Ascents…”(57) Therefore, this charge against Paul is not reliable historically and thus we have great reason to question the Ebionite claims about Paul.

This Pauline fable is not multiply attested by any other source in the 1st or 2nd centuries. Therefore, this charge against Paul not only fails the historical test of early accounts and early eyewitness testimony, but it also fails the test of multiple independent attestation. The 1st century evidence I discussed earlier flies in the face of this absurd claim as well – rendering it impossible since the orthodox evidenced view has Paul as a true Apostle and martyr for the faith. Based on the nature of this fanciful charge it seems that the Ebionites were hard pressed for any real convincing evidence or argumentation against Paul’s reliability and so after Paul was dead and not able to defend himself, the Ebionites invented this story to justify their heresies and their rejection of Paul’s 1st century apostolic teachings of grace and faith. There is no evidence to suggest that this kind of anti-Pauline Ebionite thinking was part of any major strand of early 1st century Christian teaching - none whatsoever. There is a wide and broad scholarly view for this absurd Ebionite charge against Paul being a later fabricated legend, story or development as opposed to historical reality.(58)

Section 3. Early Muslim Sources Affirming the Apostleship of Paul

In this section I will seek to demonstrate that modern Muslims are in error for rejecting the Apostle Paul since there are major strands of early Islamic tradition that grant Paul’s reliability. Let us first turn our attention to the Quran itself. Many are unaware that the Quran gives an indirect argument for Paul’s reliability:

"Behold! Allah said: 'O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the day of resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.'" (S. 3:55)

"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed." (S. 61:14)

Here the Quran demonstrates that Paul was a true Apostle as well as a true follower of Jesus since these two texts state that the true followers of Jesus will be superior to until the day of resurrection and that the true early Israelites who followed Jesus would be given power against their enemies and prevail over all other beliefs. However, we know historically that the followers of Jesus who prevailed and who were superior were those who followed Apostles like Paul along with the rest of the 12 Apostles. This means that Paul's message was the true message since it became dominant and prevailed along with the Christians who affirmed it. Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed demonstrates the point and unknowingly proves that Paul is a true Apostle and that his followers were correct according to the Quran:

“To make a long story short, Paul’s church eventually beat out its competitors, and arose as the sole victorious Church which is present today.”(59)

Moreover, the Quran nowhere mentions the Apostle Paul by name or condemns him by name. Muhammad’s ignorance of the 1st century may explain why this is so. But, for argument sake I would pose the following question to the Muslims who believe that Allah is the author of the Quran: If Paul was a false Apostle and major corruptor of early Christianity then why didn’t Allah mention this explicitly and warn people about Paul or inform Muslims about how he supposedly corrupted Christianity? I contend that this is a later development. In fact it seems that the Quran has absolutely no knowledge of these issues. In my debate with the Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed he posed a response to the previous argument without actually dealing with the substance of S. 3:55 and 61:14. He argued that Muhammad taught that there was no prophet between Jesus and Muhammad and since Paul fits the description of Prophet, Islam rejects Paul indirectly. Sahih Muslim states:

Book 030, Number 5834:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I am most akin to the son of Mary among the whole of mankind and the Prophets are of different mothers, but of one religion, and no Prophet was raised between me and him (Jesus Christ)."

However, all this shows is that the Islamic sources contradict themselves, nothing more. On the one hand the Quran affirms Paul’s reliability indirectly. On the other hand a Hadith rejects him indirectly. All this does is show a contradiction in the Islamic sources that Muslims need to reconcile. It doesn’t refute the fact that the Quran indirectly affirms Paul’s reliability. Moreover, although Paul had the characteristics of a prophet, Christians didn’t really view him in the same category as Moses or Isaiah but instead viewed him in the category of Apostles like Peter or James and so it is unlikely that this Hadith in Sahih Muslim even had Paul in mind. If this narration amounts to a rejection of Paul, then it likewise rejects Peter and John and all of the Apostles of Jesus. Suddenly, we are left with no Apostles at all. Clearly, the context of that Hadith in question has nothing to do with Paul.

Commenting on S. 61:14 the respected Islamic commentator Al-Qurtubi grants the apostleship of Paul:

“It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos(?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas(?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.”(60)

Notice that this ancient Muslim tradition has Paul as a true apostle. If Muhammad and the early Muslims taught that it was a priority to view Paul as a false usurper whose teachings were to be avoided then we would not expect to find these ancient Muslim traditions which grant Paul’s reliability. If it were a clear Muslim doctrine in the 7th and 8th centuries to reject Paul as the corrupter of Christianity then one would not expect to find comments like this from Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Ishaq. In a separate work, The Life of Muhammad, the 8th century Muslims historian Ibn Ishaq reports a tradition informing us about a popular early Muslim view about Paul:

"Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage which is Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of the Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas."(61)

Similarly the 9th century Islamic exegete and historian al-Tabari has this to say of Paul:

"Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed."(62)

Sam Shamoun has offered a detailed discussion(63) on the subject of early Islam’s view of Paul wherein he states that with respect to this kind of identification of Paul as a follower and not a disciple, that this is in no way meant to discredit Paul or defame him. Shamoun notes that the translator of al-Tabari’s history, Moshe Perlmann, comments on this saying that, “[i]n Islamic terms the messengers or apostles pave the new path. Their work is continued by the tabi'un, the followers, members of the next generations, who lead the Faithful.”(64) Therefore, by identifying Paul as a follower and not an apostle, this has nothing to do with questioning Paul’s status or reliability – it has to do with his sequential chronology. It is very interesting that although later generations of Muslims are quick to attack the Apostle Paul, the evidence shows that there was an early strand of Islamic tradition reported by some of Islam’s greatest sources granting the reliability of the Apostle Paul.

Al-Tabari also states that Paul was martyred for his faith which further shows his credibility as well as early Islam’s support of Paul and Jesus’ Apostles:

“Abu Ja'far says: They assert that after Tiberius, Palestine and other parts of Syria were ruled by Gaius, son of Tiberius, for four years. He was succeeded by another son, Claudius, for fourteen years, following which Nero ruled for fourteen years. He slew Peter and crucified Paul head down. For four months Botlaius [Vittelius] ruled thereafter.”(65)

What must be stressed about all of this data is that if the orthodox Muslim understanding at the time was an emphatic recognition that Paul was a usurper or corrupter, we simply would not see references like this about Paul being an Apostle or follower of Jesus. These writings demonstrate that the anti-Pauline sentiment we see from Muslims today is not based on any clear teaching of Muhammad or early Islam, it is the product of a process of development in trying to solve the problem as to why Christianity is different than Islam.

For further reading on the issue of early Islam’s view on Paul as well as a comparison between Paul’s theology and Jesus’ theology, proving that they taught the same things, see the following articles:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/christs_apostles.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_affirms_paul.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Wales/jesus_paul.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Wales/jesus_paul_more.htm

Conclusion

In this article we have seen that the 1st century Biblical data on Paul is unanimous and clear. We saw that it contains pertinent information which historians find persuasive in demonstrating that Paul was reliable. We saw that the early extra-biblical testimony from those who knew the Apostles or who were familiar with their views and writings affirmed Paul’s reliability. We saw that these early martyrs truly believed in their theology which included Paul as a true Apostle and were willing to die for that belief. We saw that the Muslim utilization of the Ebionites’ testimony as an argument is hopelessly fallacious in light of the evidence and the consensus of scholarship which shows that the Ebionites, their gospel, and their beliefs are unreliable and 2nd century - not 1st century. We saw that the Ebionites were unreliable deceptive heretics according to both Islamic and Christian theology who even altered the Gospel of Mark to suit their heretical views. We saw that they held to numerous damnable heresies. We saw that their rejection of Paul is not reliable in that they invented 2nd century fables about him that have no basis in reality. We saw that serious scholarship is clear in rejecting their testimony and placing them and their material in the 2nd century. And lastly we saw that there is a very early strand of Islamic tradition that grants the validity of the Apostle Paul. I honestly feel that the Muslim has absolutely no historical basis for rejecting Paul’s apostleship but that they are forced to do so because of sustainability and philosophical or faith reasons.

Christ has risen, He is Lord!

Footnotes:

1.) In Quran 7:157 Muslims are told that Muhammad is allegedly “described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them...” This assumes that the Gospel which was with the Christians in the 7th century (the same Gospel we have today) is reliable. There is no historical proof for 7th century Christians reading any other Gospel than the New Testament material. Hence, this demonstrates that the Quran taught that the New Testament was not some corrupt document as Muslims would later claim. In Quran 5:68 the Muslims are told that 7th century Jews and Christians ought to listen to Allah and “perform the Torah and the Gospel [Injil], and what was sent down to you from your Lord…” This again assumes that the 7th century Scriptures that Christians were reading (the New Testament) was in its pristine form and could be accurately performed. In Quran 6:114 we are told that, “Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth.” This again shows that the 7th century Gospel that Christians read was reliable and not some corrupt text as later Muslims would assert.

2.) It is important to note that 2 Peter itself is not an unnamed work. In 1:1 it states: “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Therefore, when early Christians alluded to it or quoted it as an authoritative text they are giving implicit recognition of its Petrine authorship which it claims for itself. Many hold that the extremely early 1st century extra-biblical document known as the Letter to the Corinthians written by Clement of Rome alludes to 2 Peter 2:5. The Letter to the Corinthians Ch. 7 states: “Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved.” This seems to be an allusion to 2 Peter 2:5 which says: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” This demonstrates that those in the 1st century Church of Rome like Clement believed 2 Peter to be authoritative and Petrine. Another extra-biblical Christian text from A.D. 100 known as the Epistle of Barnabas in Ch. 15 states: “This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years.” This is a quotation of 2 Peter 3:8 which states: “…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” This shows that the Christian author of the Epistle of Barnabas held 2 Peter to be authoritative and Petrine. Examples of patristic writings quoting 2 Peter include Irenaeus’ quotation of 2 Peter 3:8 in his work Against Heresies Book 5 Ch. 28. The 2nd/3rd century church father Clement of Alexandria seems to allude to 2 Peter 2:5 in his work The Stromata Book 1 Ch. 21. The 3rd century church father Cyprian quotes 2 Peter 2:11-12 in his work Treatises of Cyprian Treatise 12 Ch.11 and calls this work “The Epistle of Peter.” This shows that Cyprian and those around him viewed 2 Peter as a Petrine document. Papyrus 72 or P72 is a 3rd/4th century Greek manuscript which was found in Egypt and it contains sections of 2 Peter demonstrating that these early Christians regarded 2 Peter as canonical, authentic and Petrine. The Coptic Sahidic translation of the Bible contained 2 Peter. Scholars like Dr. Horner and Dr. Hornack state that the Coptic Sahidic translation of the Bible is 2nd century. This again shows that early tradition has it so that 2 Peter was authoritative and authentic among many early Christians. The Apocalypse of Peter is a 2nd century extra-biblical Christian-Gnostic apocalyptic work which drew from 2 Peter demonstrating that the author believed 2 Peter to be authoritative and possibly Petrine.

3.) Examples of Jesus and the Apostles preaching repentance, holiness and sanctification (being set apart from the world) can be found in Luke 13:5: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:38: “And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 16:24: “Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you...” James 1:21: “Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” 1 John 1:6: “If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” Jude 1:14: “It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. 17But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." 19It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.” Revelation 2:5: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

4.) Dr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley states: “… Pelagius concluded that Christian perfection was not only a possibility for all believers – it was also the expected result of moral effort.” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995], p. 325

5.) Examples would be King David in Psalm 51:2-5: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. 5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Another example would be King Solomon’s lapse into sin and his subsequent repentance in 1 Kings 11:4-6 “4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and went not fully after Jehovah, as did David his father.” Solomon’s repentant heart is evident in the book of Ecclesiastes. The Apostle Peter sinned by denying the Lord three times. He then wept bitterly and was then reinstated as a prime Apostle by Jesus Himself as is evidenced in Matthew 26:73-75: “73After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." 74Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the rooster crowed. 75And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.” Jesus re-instated the repentant Peter in John 21:15-17 where Peter showed his love for the Lord Jesus.

6.) As opposed to being self righteous, prideful and dishonest, Jesus taught that salvation is attained when a person humbles themselves, admits that they are sinners and seeks God’s righteousness remaining repentant and reliant on God’s grace. Luke 18:9-14 "14He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

7.) First, Jesus Himself taught that Peter would die a faithful man following God in John 21:18-19 which demonstrates that Peter learned from his mistake with Paul in Galatians 2:11-14 and was put back on the path of righteousness for the remainder of his life: “18Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." 19(This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me." Moreover, there is early extra-biblical material which mentions Peter and Paul simultaneously teaching the Christians in Rome. This proves that Peter and Paul reconciled their past differences (the Galatians 2:11-14 dispute). This is evidenced in the 1st century document known as The Letter to the Romans written by Ignatius of Antioch who was a pupil of the Apostles: “I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did” (Ch. 4). Moreover, the 2nd century church father Irenaeus reports an ancient tradition about Peter and Paul’s time in Rome together demonstrating that they remained close despite their conflict in Galatians 2:11-14. Irenaeus states: “…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3 Ch. 3) Their martyrdom’s in Rome are documented by Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians Ch. 5: “Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.” This evidence serves as weighty proof for the fact that despite Peter and Paul’s dispute in Galatians 2:11-14, they remained close friends and fellow Apostles in life.

8.) Dr. Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, [InterVarsity Press, 2001], p. 305

9.) In his work The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, p. 318 Dr. Mike Licona notes that A.D. 30 is the “more standard dating.”

10.) Dr. Craig L. Blomberg argues for this date in “The Case for Christ”, [Zondervan, 1998], p. 35

11.) Dr. Gary. R. Habermas, David J. Baggett, Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, [InterVarsity Press, 2009], p. 35

12.) Howard Clark Kee, What can We Know about Jesus? [Cambridge University Press, 1990], pp. 1-2

13.) Dr. Gary Habermas notes: “The most popular view among scholars is that Paul first received this very early material when he visited Jerusalem just three years after his conversion.” Gary R. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview: Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler, [InterVarsity Press, 2004], p. 183. Other less popular theories as to where Paul got the 1 Corinthians 15 creed have been listed by Dr. Mike Licona: “Paul appears to have visited Jerusalem perhaps two more times prior to writing 1 Corinthians (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-29; Gal 2:1-20). On the occasion mentioned in Galatians, Paul met with the Jerusalem leadership in private. If Acts 15:1-29 reports the same visit, his interaction with the Jerusalem leadership went beyond his interaction described in Galatians 2. Paul could have been the recipient of tradition during these visits. Even more possibilities exist. He may have received some of the tradition from Barnabas or James during his first postconversion visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). In Galatians 2:11 Paul reports a visit by Peter to Antioch. Paul may have received tradition from Peter or from one of those who had accompanied him during this time. In Acts 11:25-30 and 12:25-15:30, Luke reports that Paul and Barnabas spent a significant amount of time together. Paul could have received tradition from this Jerusalem leader during this period.” See Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, [InterVarsity Press, 2010], pp. 231-232 for a few more additional views as to where Paul got the creed.

14.) Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision.” Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa, [Oneworth, 1996], p. 48

15.) Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examina­tion and Explanation, [St. Andrew Press, 1977], p. 2

16.) Walter Kaspar, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green, [Paulist, 1976], p. 125

17.) Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden, [Fortress, 1994], p. 38

18.) James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003], p. 825

19.) Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, [SCM Press, 1998], p. 490

20.) Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, [Macmillan, 1980], p. 10

21.) Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000], pp. 85-86

22.) William Durant, The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, vol. 3, [Simon & Schuster, 1972], p. 555

23.) In the early document known as The Martyrdom of Ignatius Ch. 1 we read: “… Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care…” The 3rd/4th century church historian Eusebius states that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch after the Apostle Peter, Evodius preceding him, which shows that Ignatius was in very close proximity to the Apostles. Eusebius states: “At this time Ignatius was known as the second Bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.”(Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Ch. 22) And: “…Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter…” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Ch. 36). The 4th/5th century Christian Theodoret also states: “You have no doubt heard of the illustrious Ignatius, who received episcopal grace by the hand of the great Peter, and after ruling the church of Antioch, wore the crown of Martyrdom.” (Theodoret, Dialogues, 1)

24.) Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Ch. 4

25.) Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. 12

26.) The fact that Ignatius was willing to die for his faith and theology, which included Paul as an inspired Apostle, comes to us from various early texts. Ch. 5 of his Epistle to the Romans, ironically, is titled “I desire to die.” On his way to be martyred in Rome he states: “From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse. But I am the more instructed by their injuries [to act as a disciple of Christ]; yet am I not thereby justified. May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, and not deal with me as with some, whom, out of fear, they have not touched. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so. Pardon me [in this]: I know what is for my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.” In the early document known as The Martyrdom of Ignatius Ch. 6 we read: “Then, being immediately thrown in, according to the command of Cæsar given some time ago, the public spectacles being just about to close (for it was then a solemn day, as they deemed it, being that which is called the thirteenth in the Roman tongue, on which the people were wont to assemble in more than ordinary numbers ), he was thus cast to the wild beasts close beside the temple.” The 3rd/4th century church historian Eusebius also mentions Ignatius’ martyrdom: “Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Ch. 36)

27.) The early 2nd century document known as The Shepherd of Hermas states the following about Clement of Rome: “Write, then, two small booklets, one for Clement and one for Grapte. Clement will then send it to the cities abroad since this is his duty…” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2, 4)

28.) Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 5

29.) Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 47

30.) We know Clement followed Peter’s message, considered him a valid Apostle, and honored him: “Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” (Clement,The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 5)

31.) Evidence for Clements familiarity with the teachings of Peter and the other Apostles comes from that fact that in his letter to the Corinthians he quotes or alludes to numerous texts from Peter, the Gospels and the Apostles. For example in Ch. 2 he appeals to 1 Peter 2:17. In Ch. 11 he appeals to 2 Peter 2:6-9. In Ch. 24 he appeals Luke 8:5. In Ch. 27 he appeals Matthew 24:35. In Ch. 31 he appeals to James 2:21. He knew of and followed these apostolic texts and teachings and so if Paul was opposed to them and was not accepted by the Apostles, Clement would either expose Paul or not support him – or both.

32.) Irenaeus, Letter to Roman Presbyter Florinus

33.) Irenaeus, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 3

34.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch. 3

35.) Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Ch. 6

36.) The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Ch. 16

37.) Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Ch. 3

38.) Ibd.

39.) Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Ch. 11

40.) Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, Ch. 12

41.) Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 32

42.) Ron Cameron, The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts, [Westminster John Knox Press, 1982], p. 104

43.) Ibd. p. 103

44.) Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Vol. 2, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982], p. 9

45.) Hans Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: an Introduction, [Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003], p. 51

46.) “They also believed that to belong to the people of God, one needed to be Jewish. As a result, they insisted on observing the Sabbath, keeping the kosher, and circumcising all males. That sounds very much like the position taken by the opponents of Paul in Galatia. It may be that the Ebionite Christians were their descendants, physical and spiritual.” Bart, Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, [Oxford University Press, 2003], p. 100

47.) Sami Zaatari, The Ebionites

48.) Bart, Ehrman, Lost Christianities: the Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, [Oxford University Press, 2003], p. 101

49.) Sakari Hakkinen, A Companion to Second-Century Christian "Heretics", [BRILL, 2008], p. 271

50.) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, vol. 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997], p. 447

51.) Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 30. 22. 1-4

52.) Origen, Against Celsus, Book 5, Ch. 61

53.) Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 30. 3. 3

54.) Abdullah Smith, Paul the Corrupter

55.) Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 30.13.7-8

56.) Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 30.16.6-9

57.) Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission, [Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], p. 37

58.) John Gager states that the Ebionites “developed a legend to explain Paul’s opposition to the law.” (John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, [Oxford University Press, 1985], p. 187). Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner state that, “Epiphanius reports a legend among the Ebionites that Paul accepted circumcision in the first place only to marry the daughter of the high priest...” (Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, Types of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism, [Routledge, 1999], p. 161). A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink identify this Ebionite charge as a “story.” (F. J. Klijn, G. J., Reinink Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Vol. 36, [Brill Archive, 1973], p. 37). In reference to this specific Ebionite charge Harold W. Attridge states: “Another category of legends pertains to stories that characterize various aspects of an apostle’s character…Christians opposed to Paul told the following story…” (Harold W. Attridge, Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism, [Wayne State University Press, 1992], p. 173). Commenting on this charge Matthew A. Jackson-McCabe states that, “Epiphanius transmits some new (fictitious) stories that illustrate the Ebionites’ anti-Paulinism. For instance, the Ebionites explained that Paul’s antipathy toward the law and circumcision was caused by his unfortunate love affairs.” (Matthew A. Jackson-McCabe, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, [Fortress Press, 2007], p. 88). Richard N. Longenecker states that this Ebionite charge is one in a “cycle of stories fostered in Ebionite circles of the late second and early third centuries.” (Richard N. Longenecker, The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul's Conversion on his Life, Thought, and Ministry, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997], p. 4

59.) Nadir Ahmed, Islam or Christianity: Which is the True Prophet?

60.) Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, 61:14

61.) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, [Oxford University Press], p. 653; bold emphasis ours

62.) al-Tabari, History, Volume IV, p. 123; bold emphasis ours

63.) Sam Shamoun, The Apostles of Christ: Messengers of God or Mere Disciples?

64.) al-Tabari, History, Volume IV, p. 123; note 317

65.) al-Tabari, History, Volume IV, p. 126; bold emphasis ours

It is often asserted by Muslim writers that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels and that the orthodox traditional authorship position is untenable. It is common for Muslim writers to quote snippets from critical and even careful conservative scholars regarding Gospel authorship. For example a scholar may be quoted as affirming that in light of their view of the evidence it is “probable” or “possible” that traditional authorship is correct – while ignoring the positive arguments the scholar does provide in favour of traditional authorship and the numerous scholars who view the evidence to be strong. Or for example a scholar may be quoted as stating that “Matthew does not identify himself as Matthew within the body of text” as though that demonstrates Matthaean authorship to be erroneous. But then the actual positive arguments for Matthaean authorship given by the same scholar (internal or external) will be omitted in the Muslim paper or not handled properly. This method assumes that traditional authorship can’t be demonstrated apart from a statement saying “I Matthew wrote this Gospel”. I will therefore build a case for traditional Gospel authorship using evidence and arguments which are just as powerful – data presented by qualified scholars that I feel the Muslim writers have not yet dealt with properly for the most part in the materials I have surveyed. Oftentimes it seems as though Muslim apologists feel that if they can quote statements from liberal critics or take a few snippets from careful conservative scholars which they feel are supportive of their position in some sense then that is enough to completely settle the issue of authorship. However, I am going to challenge this by exhorting Muslim apologists to actually deal with the bulk of positive evidence put forth by the numerous qualified scholars who argue for traditional Gospel authorship – the many who would say the evidence is strong. It is extremely important to actually present the positive data itself and interact with it in order for the best of both sides to be represented. I was initially setting out to refute the Muslim counter case against the bulk of positive evidence cited in favour of traditional Gospel authorship but I have not yet seen an in depth Muslim critique of this sort. So, for this article I will provide a fresh case for the traditional authorship of the synoptic gospels, John, and Acts, since Acts is so closely connected with Luke in this discussion. It is my hope that this article will lead to meaningful discussion with a focus on the actual evidence.

The traditional authorship view attributes the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew the tax collector. Matthew (derived from a Hebrew word meaning “gift of God”) the tax collector was the apostolic name given to one of Jesus’ twelve disciples and he also went by his other name Levi. He can be found in passages such as Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27-29, Matthew 9:9 and 12:3. The Gospel of Mark is attributed to John Mark the interpreter/secretary and companion of the apostle Peter. He can be found in passages such as Acts 12:12, 25 and 15:37. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are attributed to Luke the physician and historian – also a companion of the apostle Paul. He can be found in passages such as Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11 and Philemon 1:24. The Gospel of John also known as the fourth Gospel is attributed to John son of Zebedee who was one of the 12 disciples. He can be found in passages such as Matthew 4:21, 17:1, Mark 3:17; 9:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13 and Galatians 2:9. I will be arguing for this traditional authorship view and thus affirming that the Gospels were written by disciples in the case of Matthew and John or based on the testimony of disciples by those who knew them in the case of Mark and Luke.

Section 1.) Matthew

Before discussing the internal evidence for Matthaean authorship it is important to cover the issue of Matthew’s name being in the Gospel (i.e., the author referring to himself by name in the third person). Muslim writers may ask how Matthew can be the author when for example in 9:9 Matthew is referred to by name when being called by Jesus (“…he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, ‘Follow me’…”). However, an author referring to themselves by name in the third person was fairly common in ancient literature. Craig Blomberg notes that “ancient parallels can be adduced for one writer referring to himself in the third person and first-person plural, as well as the ordinary first-person singular (Jackson 1999).”(1) This applies to the synoptic Gospels and John in the sense that he refers to himself as a son of Zebedee in the third person and, as I will argue, “the beloved disciple”. Examples of authors including their names in their works using the third person have been brought out by Craig. S. Keener in the 2007 work John, Jesus, and history, Volume 2. On p. 17 he notes the Greek historian Thucydides’ (B.C. 460 – 395) work The Peloponnesian War 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1 as an example. Also worth mentioning is the Greek historian and philosopher Xenophon’s (B.C. 430 – 354) work Anabasis 2.5.41; 3.1.4-6 and Julius Caesar’s (B.C. 100 – 40) works Gallic War 1.7; 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.11 and Civil War 1.1. See p. 17 for more supporting material.

Internal Evidence supporting the view that Matthew the apostle and tax collector wrote the Gospel attributed to him can be found in 9:9. Here Matthew is identified as “Matthew sitting at the tax booth” regarding Jesus calling Matthew to follow him when, concerning the same episode, Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 identify Matthew by his other name Levi. It thus follows that the author came to believe that this apostolic name Matthew was nobler than the other name Levi and in turn it was used here instead. It was common for authors to do this as it pertained to one’s own name. For example in his letters the apostle Paul identifies himself with his new nobler apostolic name as opposed to his original name Saul even though other texts sometimes continued to refer to Paul as Saul (Acts 11:30, 12:25, 13:7). Likewise Peter in 1 Peter 1:1 identifies himself with his nobler apostolic name Petros instead of his original name Simon or Simeon even though other texts sometimes continued to refer to him as Simon or Simeon (Luke 7:43; Acts 15:14). Thus Matthew, like Paul and Peter, authored His work referring to himself by his nobler apostolic name in 9:9 when the other synoptic narratives referred to him by his non-apostolic name concerning the same episode. Second, in numerous Matthaean passages financial transactions are discussed (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15) and none of this content contradicts what a 1st century tax collector would know about finance. If Matthew the tax collector were not the author one may expect to find errors regarding these financial matters. Thirdly, we see in 22:19 that with respect to the Pharisees’ conflict with Jesus over paying tribute money or taxes to Caesar, the Gospel of Matthew alone not only uses the word δηνάριον (dēnarion) but also the more precise Greek term νόμισμα (state coin). In contrast, the other synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:15, Luke 20:24) only use δηνάριον (dēnarion) concerning this episode not showing the same concern for the precise financial term that Matthew does. This lends more evidence towards the position that we are dealing with Matthew the tax collector who was familiar with and concerned about accuracy regarding financial terminology. Fourthly, it is the Gospel of Matthew alone which mentions Jesus telling Peter to “give no offense to them [tax collectors]” and to pay temple tax in Capernaum when asked to (17:24-27). This is something that a tax collector such as Matthew would feel compelled to admit into his Gospel. Matthew would certainly not be indifferent towards this included episode since it concerned tax collectors, tax collecting, and the Christian position on not paying taxes being an offense. Fifth, in Luke 5:29 we are told that Matthew made a great feast in οικια αυτου (his house) where Jesus then reclined and ate. Likewise Mark 2:15 says οικια αυτου (his house). However, in the account in Matthew’s Gospel (9:10) we read that Jesus and the disciples reclined at τη οικια (the house). This is consistent with one writing of their own house in a third person narrative. Lastly, it is important to mention that there is nothing in the first Gospel that would clearly rule out a tax collector and apostle such as Matthew as being the author.

External evidence is very good for Matthaean authorship. If the apostle Matthew wrote this Gospel we would expect to find very early extra-biblical evidence in support of this. For, it is often irrationally demanded by critics, both secular and Muslim, that the Bible must be supplemented by good extra-biblical evidence in order to be considered valid. Well in this study we have the extremely early testimony of Papias a 1st century writer who, according to early evidence, was acquainted with those who knew the eyewitnesses of Christ and the apostles.(2) In the early 2nd century Papias wrote a five book work called The Sayings of the Lord Interpreted otherwise known as An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord – sections of which were preserved in the work of the 3rd and 4th century church historian Eusebius known as Church History. Papias’ work survived intact in some European libraries up to the time of the Middle Ages but was later lost. However, the sections of the Papian texts which were preserved by Eusebius are very valuable. In his very early work Papias testified to Matthaean authorship:

“Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could.”(3)

Papias’ reliability is brought out by his documented method of discernment. He states:

“But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”(4)

There are some crucial features about this quotation which bear out Papias’ reliability: 1) Papias carefully learned and remembered things from the first and second century elders or presbyters alive in his day who got their information from the apostles. According to Papias this was done to guarantee that he held to truth and not error. 2) Papias would avoid unreliable people who spoke a lot or recited the commandments of others and would instead listen to those who spoke truth traced back to Christ and the apostles. 3) When Papias encountered someone who followed the elders he would question them as to what they learned from the eyewitnesses of Jesus such as the 12 apostles or those who knew them such as Aristion and John the elder. 4) Papias was not concerned with early writings. He was concerned with what could be traced back to Christ and the apostles.

Therefore, when Papias affirms that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, according to his discernment method and based on how he says he ascertained knowledge about the Gospel of Mark (see section on Mark), he affirmed Matthaean authorship because he had proper authoritative apostolic confirmation. Papias being a God-fearing man concerned with truth would not assert Matthaean authorship unless this view could be traced back to the apostles and those who knew them. And according to Eusebius Papias’ works testified that he personally knew friends of the 12 apostles from which he derived his information.(5)

It is also important to note that Papias does not mention any early church disputes regarding Matthaean authorship which suggests that this Gospel was unanimously regarded as Matthaean in the early 2nd century and prior. Historically speaking with Papias we have an early reliable account which utilized the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses of the apostles. Although I have heard various Muslim apologists assert things like “early evidence can be just as false as late evidence,” or that “early people can be just as big of liars as late people,” there are difficulties concerning this approach. For example those kinds of objections are just vacuous assertions and not arguments. Yes, early material can be false but where is the convincing evidence and what are the good arguments demonstrating that Papias’ early testimony is false? Merely claiming that something can be false does not prove that it is false. Such assertions do not constitute as a refutation of the evidence. I would challenge the Muslim apologists to go more in depth, though the critiques against Papias’ testimony have already been answered by major scholars.

The 2nd century writer Irenaeus who knew Polycarp, a student of the apostles, also testifies that the first Gospel was written by Matthew therefore demonstrating that this Matthaean authorship tradition was strongly attested to and widespread very early on. Irenaeus wrote:

“Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.”(6)

Some argue that although there are similarities between Papias’ comments concerning Matthew’s authorship and Irenaeus’ statements here, which suggests that Irenaeus was drawing from Papias’ writings, there are also differences. Hence, Irenaeus may have been acquainted with another independent early tradition which likewise attributed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew. This would make the external case even stronger than it already is. This early tradition of Matthaean authorship is also attested by Pantænus (A.D. ? – 200) and Origen (A.D. 185 - 254).(7)

In summation Donald Guthrie notes that:

“… there is no conclusive reason for rejecting the strong external testimony regarding the authorship of Matthew…”(8)

With respect to Gospel titles such as “the Gospel of Matthew” there is no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were ever circulating without them. Scholars have asserted that the titles emerged sometime in the beginning or mid 2nd century but other scholars challenge this by noting that this presupposes anonymous Gospels to begin with as well as the works of early to mid 2nd century church writers representing the earliest stages of author attribution. This is an assumption one can not prove, however. Scholars also point out that when early New Testament churches began reading multiple Gospels around A.D. 100 it would be necessary that they be distinguished referentially from one another in the service to avoid confusion. Likewise noted is the fact that there is no recorded 1st or 2nd century competing hypothesis regarding who wrote Matthew. This lends credibility to the case for Matthew always having that title for if it were anonymous even after Gospel collection with no title and circulating as such up until the time of the early to mid 2nd century then there would emerge competing authorship theories. However, there is absolutely no evidence of any such competing theories indicating that the title "the Gospel of Matthew" is very primitive and that Matthaean authorship was affirmed in the earliest strands of Christian thought.

Section 2.) Mark

Internal evidence in support of the position that the New Testament figure we call John Mark, (“John called Mark” in Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37 or simply “Mark” in Acts 15:39; Colossians 4:10; Timothy 4:11), the companion and interpreter of Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony comes in a variety of forms. For example Philemon 1:24 places John Mark in Rome and we know that Peter resided in Rome in the later part of his life.(9) And writing from Rome Peter says that Mark was with him as a close acquaintance, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.” (1 Peter 5:13). Peter identifying Mark as his son is not to be taken biologically but in a ministerial sense. Here we see evidence of John Mark with Peter in Rome later in his life which is consistent with the position that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony as early tradition affirms. Another piece of evidence affirming that John Mark was an acquaintance of Peter can be found in Acts 12:11-17 where earlier on Peter visits John Mark’s home in connection with the Palestinian church. If it is true that while in Rome with Peter John Mark composed this Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony then we would expect to find Latinisms in the Gospel of Mark. Latinisms are Latin terms contained in a Greek work and due to their presence in this Gospel many infer that the author wrote Mark in a place where Latin was dominant. Rome was such a place and since there are numerous strong reasons(10) to believe Mark was written in Rome the contention that John Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome alongside Peter is supported. Some of the peculiar Latinisms in Mark include 15:16 identifying a αὐλή (courtyard) as a πραιτώριον (Praetorium) which is a Roman/Latin term. Other Latinisms are found in 5:9 where the term legion is used or in 6:37 where the term denarius is used – and there are more. Second, many scholars and even Muslim writers have pointed out that Mark contains some Pauline theology. John Mark being the author of Mark along with the fact of his personal connection with Paul (Acts 13:5, 13; Philemon 1:24; Colossians 4:10) would explain this well. If one can show that the author of Mark was influenced by Paul’s theology this supports the position that the person who wrote Mark was Paul’s acquaintance, John Mark – and in turn Peter’s companion. The majority of scholars affirm that Paul wrote before Mark. With that in mind a very clear example of Mark picking up on Pauline thought concerns the cross of Christ. The vast correlations between Markan and Pauline thought on this point have been brought out nicely by Michael F. Bird in the work Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts, and Convergences. He states:

“Mark’s narrative focus on the cross has several key points of interaction with Paul: (1) the early intimation, literary focus and narrative climax of the Gospel on Jesus’ death is conducive to Pauline proclamation. With the exception perhaps of the author of Hebrews, only Mark portrays the cross with a similar pathos and gravity to that of Paul. (2) The description of Jesus’ death with the accompanying apocalyptic portents of cosmic darkness (Mk 15.33) and the rending of the veil in the temple (Mk 15. 38) combined with early language in the Gospel about ‘mystery’ (Mk 4.11, 22) and ‘this age’ (Mk 10.30) likewise represent a Pauline apocalyptic perspective on Jesus’ death and its divine revelation (Gal. 1.4, 6.14; 1 Cor. 2.7-9; Col. 1.12-24, 25-26). (3) Mark and Paul share a perspective on Jesus’ death that expresses the power to save others (Mk 15.31-32). Jesus preaches the kingdom of God and yet what we find at the end of the story is the announcement of the kingship of the crucified titulus (Mk 15. 31-32), marking the moment when the kingdom of God comes with power (Mk 9.1). Jesus’ power is displayed in the zenith degradation, death and disempowerment that has clear affinities with Paul’s description as Jesus of being humiliated, weak and yet triumphant (Phil. 2.5-11; 1 Cor. 2.8; 2 Cor. 8.9; 13.4; Col. 2.15). (4) The cross is also the apex of Christological revelation since it is only at the cross that Jesus is heralded as the Son of God by the centurion (Mk 15.29), which is a distinctly Pauline idea (Gal. 2.19-20; 4.4-5; cf. Rom. 5.10; 8.3). (5) Only Mark and Paul portray Jesus’ crucifixion as a royal triumph (Mark 14-15; Rom. 8.37; Col. 2.15).”(11)

Therefore, since there is good reason to affirm that Mark was influenced by Paul in these areas, the position that the Paul’s known acquaintance John Mark wrote this Gospel drawing certain things from Paul is supported. Moreover, if that is true then stronger supported is the position that this John Mark, the companion of Paul and associate of Peter in Rome, wrote his Gospel based primarily on the eyewitness testimony of Peter.

Evidence that Mark is based on the apostle Peter’s eyewitness testimony is evident from the fact that inclusio is present in the Gospel. Scholars such as Michael F. Bird, Paul Barnett, Andreas J. Köstenberger, and most notably Richard Bauckham etc., have highlighted this point. Inclusio of eyewitness testimony is a literary devise where ancient writings would name the major eyewitness underlying an account first and last in the document. Studies have been done on the writings of early writers in the ancient world such as the 2nd century Lucian of Samosata’s work Alexander and the 3rd century Porphyry’s work Life of Plotinus which engaged in this practice. When Mark practiced inclusio he listed the apostle Peter as the eyewitness behind his Gospel (1:16; 16:7). Second, with respect to the third person plural within Mark surrounding events involving Peter, it should be seen as actually representing the first person plural of Peter (i.e., the eyewitness testimony of Peter). This is known as the “plural-to-singular devise”. Scholars like C. H. Turner, T.W. Manson, Donald Guthrie, Michael F. Bird, Robert H. Stein, Richard Bauckham, F. F. Bruce etc., have affirmed this position. In his classic work The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable F. F. Bruce writes:

“Further confirmation of the Petrine authority behind Mark was supplied in a series of acute linguistic studies by C. H. Turner, entitled ‘Marcan Usage’, in the Journal of Theological Studies for 1924 and 1925, showing, among other things, how Mark’s use of pronouns in narratives involving Peter seems time after time to reflect a reminiscence by that apostle in the first person. The reader can receive from such passages ‘a vivid impression of the testimony that lies behind the Gospel: thus in 1:29, “we came into our house with James and John: and my wife’s mother was ill in bed with a fever, and at once we tell him about her”’.8

“8. C. H. Turner, The Gospel According to St. Mark, in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture (S.P.C.K., 1928), Part III, p. 48. On p. 54 he lists the following passages in which ‘Mark’s third person plural may be reasonably understood as representing a first person plural of Peter’s discourses’: Mk. 1:21, 29; 5:1, 38; 6:53, 54; 8:22; 9:14, 30, 33; 10:32, 46; 11:1, 12, 15, 20, 27; 14: 18, 22, 26, 32.”(12)

External evidence for Markan authorship is immense. In the early 2nd century Papias attests to Markan authorship based on the reliable testimony of an elder or presbyter who knew the apostles:

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”(13)

There are some important points to be brought out concerning this quotation: 1) Papias affirms that he received his information from “the presbyter” regarding Markan authorship being based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. In section 1 we discussed how the presbyters or elders Papias would consult were those who knew the apostles and that Papias was very cautious about making sure facts from the elders or presbyters could be traced back to the apostles. 2) When Papias says that Mark was the interpreter of Peter most scholars hold that this means he was Peter’s translator or one who repeated and transmitted Peter’s preaching from Aramaic into Greek. 3) Papias relays that primitive Christian thought declared that Mark would not state anything in his Petrine Gospel falsely (i.e., distorting Peter’s teaching).

That Mark wrote the second Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony is also attested by the 2nd century writer Irenaeus who notes that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”(14) Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) writing in Carthage northern Africa affirms “that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was.”(15) Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) likewise affirmed that “The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.”(16) In his commentary on Matthew Origen (A.D. 185-254) also confirms that “The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'”(17) When discussing Mark 3:16-17 Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) affirms that Mark is based on Peter’s memoirs or reminiscence. He says “And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened…this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.”(18) A tradition preserved in a late 2nd century source (A.D. 160-180?) called The anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, a note attached to the Gospels by certain manuscript copyists, states: “Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered’ because he had short fingers in comparison with the size of the rest of his body. He was Peter’s interpreter. After the departure of Peter himself, he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”(19)

After answering criticisms towards this strong external tradition D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris note:

“… there seems to be no compelling reason to reject the common opinion of the early church on this matter.”(20)

With respect to the issue of Gospel titles it must be asked if later Christians were dishonestly adding off the cuff titles to their Gospels in a deceitful fashion inserting “the Gospel of Mark” into their manuscript copies without proper justification then why would they not instead just name this Gospel after an actual apostle like Peter, Phillip or Andrew? The fact that Mark and not an actual apostle is designated as the author lends more credibility to Markan authorship being a primitive reality. Certainly if the early Christians were out to give the Gospels credibility and authority by attaching spurious names onto them, like the Gnostics tried to do, then, naturally, another more prominent name would have been selected. This according to many scholars reflects honesty and genuineness.

As is the case with Matthew there is no evidence of competing theories of the authorship of Mark existing in early church tradition. No church father ascribed this Gospel to anyone but Mark. This is suggestive of uniform primitive Markan designation (some say when the Gospels were collected). For, if Mark was anonymous, regarding the title of the book, after Gospel collection and remained as such up until the early 2nd century then one would certainly expect to find other theories concerning its author as there would be room for speculation. But because there aren’t any competing theories in the early church one is justified in maintaining that the title “the Gospel of Mark” is extremely primitive and reflective of truthfulness.

Section 3.) Luke/Acts

Internal evidence affirming that Luke the historian/physician (Luke 1:1-3; Col. 4:14) and companion of Paul wrote the third Gospel and Acts is strong. First, to establish that the author of Luke also authored Acts we see that in Luke 1:3 that the author wrote his Gospel for the “most excellent Theophilus”. In the beginning of the book of Acts we read “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). The author of Acts references the same person the Gospel of Luke does, Theophilus, who he says he initially wrote the “first book” for which contained Jesus’ deeds and teachings – clearly the Gospel of Luke. Thus Acts and Luke were both written by the same person for Theophilus. Theophilus’ title of rank “most excellent” is probably a reference to him being a chief magistrate in Greece or Asia Minor. Moreover, the language, style and interests of Luke and Acts are similar further demonstrating a common author.(21) That the same author wrote both books is affirmed by virtually all modern scholars. With Luke and Acts having a common author in mind we will now show that Acts (and thus by extension Luke) was written by Luke the companion of Paul and acquaintance of other disciples. To do this it must be noted that in Acts there are what are known as “we” passages – five of them. These are passages in Acts where the author includes himself as an eyewitness of the events concerning the disciples’ affairs after Christ’s resurrection. In Acts 16:10-17 the author writes about his involvement in a missionary journey with Paul, Timothy and Silas to Macedonia using the first person plural. He says things like “we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” and “We remained in this city some days” etc. The same first person plural can be found in Acts 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28 and 28:16. In the 28:16 “we” passage the author of Acts places himself in Rome with Paul during the time of his imprisonment. In one of his Roman prison epistles, commenting about a time when many abandoned him, Paul says “Luke alone is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11). Therefore, Luke, like the author of Acts, was in Rome during the time of Paul’s imprisonment – Luke being the only one who stayed with Paul. Thus we have reason to believe Luke authored Acts. Of the others who were also with Paul in Rome during the period of his imprisonment aside from Luke (Mark, Titus, Demas, Crescens, Jesus Justus, Epaphras and Epaphroditus) there is no evidence or good arguments that one of them wrote Luke or Acts. It is problematic to argue for their authorship since one of them would have had to be narrating and thus be present during the first four “we” passages in Acts as an eyewitness, and there are other problems.(22) Since Luke is the strongest candidate for being the eyewitness author present with Paul in Rome, as well as the one affirmed as being the author by strong early tradition, it follows that he wrote Luke/Acts. Thus, we are on very good grounds to affirm that Luke the physician, who we know was a companion of Paul in Rome during his time of imprisonment, was the author of Luke/Acts who was likewise a companion of Paul in Rome during that time.

Second, in light of Luke being identified as a physician (Colossians 4:14) it is interesting that in the third Gospel we see medical language and medical interest which is what one would expect of a physician author. For example Matthew 8:14 and Mark 1:30 mention Peter’s mother-in-law suffering from a πυρέσσω (fever). Luke 4:38, however, says she suffered from a μέγας πυρετός (high fever) thus showing medical interest. Instead of speaking of a man with leprosy or λεπρος (a leper) as Matthew 8:2 does, Luke 5:12 says the man was πληρης λεπρας (full of leprosy), i.e., his disease was in an advanced stage. This shows medical interest consistent with a physician. In his New Testament Introduction the German scholar Alfred Wikenhauser notes that “… the author displays familiarity with medical terminology (cf. e.g. Lk. 4,38; 5,12; 8,44; Acts 5,5 10; 9,40), and he undisputedly describes maladies and cures from the point of view of a medical man (e.g. Lk. 4,35; 3,11; Acts 3,7; 9,18).”(23)

In 1:1-3 Luke says he surveyed handed down eyewitness testimony to compose his Gospel (“Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account…”). Moreover, we documented how Luke spent much time with Paul and could thus also ascertain information from him about Jesus’ life which Paul received from the apostles who knew Christ. Moreover, Luke’s proximity to John Mark (Colossians 4:10, 14 and Philemon 1:24) serves as an explanation as to why Acts 1 contains Marcan flavour and why the Gospel of Luke contains Marcan elements. In Acts 21:8 we learn that Phillip and his daughters entertained Paul and Luke. We know Phillip was associated with Stephen in ministry which would explain where Luke received the information contained in Acts 6-8 (concerning Stephen and Phillip). It follows that Luke received Acts 6-8’s content from Phillip the associate of Stephen who was eyewitness of the events concerning them. Lastly, Acts 21:16 mentions Luke lodging with Mnason of Cyprus an ἀρχαῖος μαθητής (early disciple). It follows that Luke received eyewitness testimony of certain events and corroborating ear-witness testimony from him for Acts and the third Gospel. Therefore, the case is strong for the Gospel of Luke containing early eyewitness and ear-witness testimony and this data also collectively suggests that Luke is the author behind these books.

External evidence for Lucan authorship of both books is strong. Writing to Trypho the Jew concerning Luke 22:44 Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) affirms the authority of the third Gospel as well as its author being a follower of the apostles: “For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that…”(24). The 2nd century writer Irenaeus reports an early tradition stating that “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”(25) In the same work Irenaeus, concerning Luke documenting his travels with Paul in Acts, thus writing Acts, says: “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…”(26) In the earliest orthodox list of books dated to around A.D. 190 known as the “Muratorian Canon” we read: “The third book of the gospel is according to Luke. This Luke was a physician who Paul had taken after the ascension of Christ to be a legal expert. Yet he had not seen the Lord in the flesh. So, as far as he could, he begins his story with the birth of John.”(27). The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (A.D. 160-180) identifies Luke as the author when it says: “Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, doctor by profession… Luke, under impulse of the Holy Spirit, wrote his gospel in the region of Achaia.”(28) In his work against the heretic Marcion Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) attests to Lucan authorship: “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.”(29). P75 (A.D. 174-225) the oldest manuscript of the third Gospel designates Luke as the author as well. All early Lucan manuscripts we possess have the title. In his commentary on Matthew Origen (A.D. 185-254) also affirms that Luke wrote both the third Gospel and Acts when he says “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.”(30)

Speaking to the significance of this strong external tradition Darrell L. Bock writes:

“Such unanimity, when numerous Pauline companion candidates exist, argues for the veracity of this identification.”(31)

D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris write:

“The tradition attaches no other name to these writings. We should bear in mind the point made by M. Dibelius that a book bearing the name of a person to whom it was dedicated is unlikely to have lacked the authors name (it would have been on an attached tag).5 It is not easy to see how some other name would have been completely suppressed, or why the name Luke should have been attached to the writings if he had not produced them.”

“5 M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM, 1956), p. 148. He also says forthrightly, ‘Both writings, Gospel and Acts, were offered to the literary reading public from the very beginning under the name of Luke as author’ (p. 89).”(32)

And:

“Luke’s authorship of these two books went virtually unchallenged until the onset of critical approaches to the New Testament at the end of the 18th century.”(33)

As similarly argued regarding Mark, why if the early Christians were attaching spurious Gospel titles to their Gospels, would they select Luke who was not an apostle instead of designating someone more prominent like Peter, Andrew or Phillip? This gives validity to Luke actually being the author and reflects the honesty of the primitive church.

Section 4.) John

Internal evidence that John son of Zebedee authored the fourth Gospel is strong. First it is important to note that in 1:14 it is said that “… the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory…” It must then be asked who is the “we” who beheld Christ’s glory on earth? The answer is given in 2:11 when it is said that “… the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” Thus the “we” who beheld Christ’s glory were the disciples and hence the author includes himself as an eyewitness disciple who beheld Christ’s glory on earth which included His early miracles. In 19:35 the author of the fourth Gospel affirms that he is an eyewitness of the crucifixion of Christ when he says “He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth--that you also may believe.” With that said the discussion of authorship mainly centres John 21’s comments about the “beloved disciple” who we are told is an eyewitness of the life of Christ and the author of this fourth Gospel. In John 21 we see one of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the disciples and near the end of the encounter we read:

“20Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at the table close to him and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" 21When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?" 22Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" 23So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:20-24).

I will argue that the beloved disciple who we are told authored this Gospel and was an eyewitness of Jesus’ life was John son of Zebedee. Earlier comments in chapter 21 narrow down the list of possible “beloved disciple” candidates to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James son of Zebedee, John son of Zebedee, and two unnamed disciples by placing them at this post-resurrection appearance where the beloved disciple is present (John 21:2). Of these seven we can easily rule out Peter, Thomas, Nathanael and James as being the beloved disciple.(34) And supporting the orthodox belief that it was John son of Zebedee and not one of these two unnamed disciples is the fact that John son of Zebedee isn’t mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel even though less known apostles are such as Philip, Lazarus, and Judas (not Judas Iscariot); and even though the synoptic Gospels often mention John the apostle by name. Could it be that for some reason John, being the author, deliberately avoided including his own name in the fourth Gospel? Further support for Johannine authorship is the fact that in the fourth Gospel the beloved disciple and the apostle Peter are linked closely together (John 13:23; 20:2-9; and 21:1-25). John 19:26 is the only time he is mentioned without Peter. Interestingly the non-Johannine New Testament data very strongly links John son of Zebedee and Peter (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1, 11; 4:13; 8:15-25; Galatians 2:9). This further supports the beloved disciple being John the apostle who was close to Peter and thus the author of the fourth Gospel. Moreover, Donald Guthrie forcefully argues that in light of John the Baptist being identified simply as “John”, that this presupposes that the author’s audience would identify the apostle John with another name (beloved disciple). He argues that “… John the Baptist is described as ‘John’ without further qualification, which strongly suggests that the writer intended the apostle John to be understood under another title. It cannot be denied that the absence of specific reference to him creates a definite predisposition toward Johannine authorship and any alternative views must reckon with this peculiarity and provide an adequate explanation.”(35) F. F. Bruce argues that the beloved disciple is John the apostle based on the special relationship James, Peter and John had with Jesus. After narrowing down the possible “beloved disciple” candidates to one of the twelve in light of the synoptic data regarding the Last Supper he states:

“… of the twelve, there were three who were on occasion admitted to more intimate fellowship with the Master – Peter, James and John. It was these three, for example, whom he took to keep watch with Him during His vigil in Gethsemane after the Last Supper (Mk 14:33). We should naturally expect that the beloved disciple would be one of the number. He was not Peter, from whom he is explicitly distinguished in John 13:24, 20:2, and 21:20. There remain two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who were included in the seven of chapter 21. But James was martyred not later than AD 44 (Acts 12:2), and therefore there was little likelihood that the saying should go abroad about him which went abroad about the beloved disciple, that he would not die. So we are left with John.”(36)

Bruce referred to John 21:21-23’s discussion between Jesus and Peter regarding the beloved disciple not dying until Jesus came and took his life naturally and the followers of Christ spreading this rumour up to the time that the Gospel of John was written. He correctly observed that this rumour could not circulate about James up to that point since he died in A.D. 44 long before this Gospel’s composition. Thus it would have to refer to John son of Zebedee. Some scholars assert that the beloved disciple was Lazarus and not John. However, we know that the beloved disciple was at the Last Supper (John 13:23) as one of the twelve and Lazarus was not. According to the synoptic data only the twelve were present at that gathering.(37) Since Lazarus was not present at the Last Supper or one of the twelve this rule’s out Lazarus as being the beloved disciple. What is more John’s style is to not name the beloved disciple but identify him as such up until the end of the fourth Gospel. Therefore, since Lazarus is named fifteen times in the fourth Gospel it is problematic to assert that he is the beloved disciple. Moreover, some scholars have asserted that if John the apostle authored the fourth Gospel and identified himself with the title “beloved disciple” that this would reflect arrogance inconsistent with early Christian teaching. However, D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris have answered this objection sufficiently by noting that:

“When a New Testament writer thinks of himself as someone whom Jesus loves, it is never to suggest that that other believers are not loved or are somehow loved less. Thus, Paul, in describing the saving work of the Son of God, can suddenly make that work personal: he ‘loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). In no way does this imply that Paul thinks the Galatians are loved less. The suggestion betrays a profound ignorance of the psychological dynamics of Christian experience: those who are most profoundly aware of their own sin and need, and who in consequence most deeply feel the wonders of the grace of God that has reached out and saved them, even them, are those who are most likely to talk about themselves as the objects of God’s love in Christ Jesus. Those who do not think of themselves in such terms ought to (Eph. 3:14-21). If a ‘son of thunder’ has become the apostle of love, small wonder he thinks of himself as the peculiar object of the love of Jesus. But that is scarcely the mark of arrogance; it is, rather, the mark of brokenness.”(38)

So weak is that refuted argument that these scholars posited that it should be completely abandoned. In sum, the internal case for Johannine authorship, and thus the case for the fourth Gospel being eyewitness testimony, is strong and in agreement with the large body of external evidence. I have not encountered any substantive exegetical reasons for rejecting Johannine authorship which cannot be or have not been answered.

External evidence affirming that John son of Zebedee authored the fourth Gospel is strong as well. Writing in the 2nd century Irenaeus, sourcing his contemporary acquaintance Polycarp, a pupil of apostles such as John, reports that “… 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… 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… Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”(39) Hence, Irenaeus affirms that John the Lord’s disciple authored the fourth Gospel publishing it in Ephesus where he stayed until the time of Emperor Trajan’s reign. We know that the source for Irenaeus’ Johannine Ephesus information is Polycarp who Irenaeus viewed as a link between himself and Jesus regarding doctrine and theology(40) and because Eusebius quotes Irenaeus regarding congruous information concerning John’s encounter with Cerinthus in Ephesus which Irenaeus derived from Polycarp.(41) Thus, as Donald Guthrie remarks “There can be no doubt, therefore, that Irenaeus accepted John the apostle as author of the Gospel and believed it to have been published at Ephesus on the basis of Polycarp’s testimony.”(42) Moreover, Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) references John 3:3-5(43) while in the same work speaking of the Gospels in terms of “memoirs of the apostles”(44) in the plural most likely referencing John and Matthew since he indicates Luke was written by those who knew apostles.(45) The Assyrian Christian Tatian (A.D. 120-180) affirmed the authority of the fourth Gospel by composing the Diatessaron which was a Gospel harmony using, as Craig Blomberg notes, “John as the base into which to fit the other three.”(46) Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) affirms Johannine authorship stating “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew…”(47) Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) also notes that “John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”(48) Origen (A.D. 185-254) lists the Gospels and mentions “Last of all that by John.”(49) Some scholars hold that Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen relied on Irenaeus’ mere “opinion” (rejecting the view that Irenaeus accurately passed down Polycarp’s early testimony). However, in order for these authors to confidently grant Irenaeus’ position they must have viewed it as authoritative and reflective of factual orthodoxy, otherwise why would they simply repeat it without suspicion? That view makes little sense. Around A.D. 180 Theophilus of Antioch affirmed Johannine authorship when he said “And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him.”(50) The anti-Marcionite Prologue to John (A.D. 160-180?) affirms Johannine authorship when it says “John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics…”(51) The anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke (A.D. 160-180?) also affirms Johannine authorship when it says “Afterwards John the apostle, one of the twelve, wrote the apocalypse in the island of Pathmos and after the Gospel.”(52) The Muratorian canon (A.D. 180-190) affirms that “John, one of the disciples, wrote the Fourth Gospel. When his fellow disciples and the bishops urged him to do so, he said, ‘Join me in fasting for three days, and then let us relate to one another what shall be revealed to each.’ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down everything in his own name, and they should all revise it.”(53) Thus we have very strong and early traditions affirming the authority and Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel.

In regards to the external data Craig Blomberg notes that:

“No orthodox writer ever proposes any other alternative for the author of the Fourth Gospel and the book is accepted in all of the early canonical lists, which is all the more significant given the frequent heterodox misinterpretations of it.”(54)

And in sum Andreas J. Köstenberger boldly states that:

“… we conclude that both internal and external evidence cohere in suggesting John, the son of Zebedee, to be the author of the Gospel that bears his name.”(55)

Conclusion

Having provided dozens of positive arguments for traditional Gospel authorship it is my hope that not only Christians will be edified and strengthened in their beliefs but that this material may help lead Muslims to receive the truth of Jesus Christ found within the New Testament. Though more could be said about all of the issues raised in this article I believe these issues need to be interacted with by Muslim apologists since they wish to openly teach that there is no evidence for the orthodox traditional authorship position. We have provided numerous arguments affirming that Matthew and John were the eyewitness authors of the Gospel’s assigned to them and that Mark and Luke were written by those men who knew the apostles and their acquaintances basing their Gospel’s on eyewitness and ear-witness testimony. The Muslim apologists now have the responsibility of addressing all of this information as opposed to selectively quoting critical unbelieving conclusions or the stances taken by careful conservatives. Again the data, which many find persuasive, has to be the subject of discussion if meaningful dialogue between Christians and Muslims is to be advanced.

Christ has risen, He is Lord.

Footnotes:

1.) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, [InterVarsity Press, 2001], pp. 37-38

2.) Irenaeus writing in the second half of the 2nd century mentions “… Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.33.4). If this is true it would mean Papias was in a position to learn about who wrote the Gospels from eyewitnesses like John the apostle and Polycarp who was a companion of the apostles. Eusebius disagreed with Irenaeus about Papias being a hearer of the apostle John, however, but based on his interpretation of Papias’ writings Eusebius posited that Papias “received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [apostles] friends” (Eusebius, Church History, III.39.2). Eusebius believed there were two John’s according to Papias’ writings – John the apostle whose teachings Papias learned about from others who knew him and John the elder or Presbyter, a friend of the apostles – Papias learning personally from him (see Eusebius, Church History, III.39.7). Whatever the case there is enough evidence either way for Papias to accurately know who wrote the Gospels since even if Eusebius was correct about Papias not knowing the apostle John the evidence shows that he obtained reliable early information from those who were acquaintances of the apostles and knew their teachings.

3.) Paul L. Maier translation found in Eusebius: The Church History Translation and Commentary, [Kregal Publications, 2007]. p. 114. For good discussions on Papias’ words concerning Matthew see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [InterVarsity Press, 1990], pp. 44-52 and D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], pp. 67-71.

4.) Papias quoted in Eusebius, Church History, III.39.3-4

5.) “Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings”. (Eusebius, Church History, III.39.7). Papias “received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [apostles] friends” (Eusebius, Church History, III.39.2).

6.) Irenaeus quoted in Eusebius, Church History, V.8.2

7.) Eusebius, Church History, V.10.3 and VI.25.3, 4

8.) Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [InterVarsity Press, 1990], p. 53

9.) Writing to the Christians in Rome in the 1st century Ignatius of Antioch states “I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Ch. 4). In the 2nd century Irenaeus reports that “…the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3 Ch. 3). Eusebius reports a tradition provided by Dionysius (A.D. ? – 171) bishop of Corinth: “And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Eusebius, Church History, II.25.8).

10.) “The anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark (late second century?) claims that Mark wrote the Gospel ‘in the region of Italy.’ Both Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.6-7) suggest the same thing. Several considerations are said to confirm a Roman provenance: (1) the large number of Latinisms in the gospel; (2) the incidental mention of Simon of Cyrene’s sons, Alexander and Rufus, at least one of whom may have known Mark in Rome (when writing to the Roman church, Paul greets Rufus [16:13]); (3) the apparently Gentile audience of the gospel; (4) the many allusions to suffering, which would be appropriate if the gospel was written under the shadow of persecutions of the church in Rome; (5) the connection with an important early centre of Christianity, which would have explained the gospel’s quick acceptance.” (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], p. 95)

11.) Michael F. Bird, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts, and Convergences, [Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011], pp. 42-43

12.) F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981], p. 33

13.) Eusebius, Church History, III.39.15

14.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.1

15.) Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV.5

16.) Clement of Alexandria quoted in Eusebius, Church History, VI.14.6

17.) Origen Commentary on Matthew quoted in Eusebius, Church History, VI.25.5

18.) Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106

19.) Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark quoted in Adam Winn, The purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda, [Mohr Siebeck, 2008], p. 47

20.) D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], p. 95

21.) Guthrie cites A. Kenny, (A Stylometric Study on the New Testament, 1986) and F. F. Bruce, (The Acts of the Apostles, 1952, p. 2).

22.) Guthrie lists numerous things in the “we” passages one of those with Paul in Rome would have had to be apart of in order to be the author of Acts “(1) first joins Paul at Philippi; (2) reappears on Paul’s return visit to Philippi; (3) accompanies the apostle on the journey towards Jerusalem and stays with Philip at Caesarea” (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [InterVarsity Press, 1990], p. 116). It is highly unlikely and non-evidenced that any of the candidates (Mark, Titus, Demas, Crescens, Jesus Justus, Epaphras and Epaphroditus) did all of these things with Paul. Second, Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles Quarles have argued against these people being the authors noting that “Of these Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name. Demas deserted Paul because he “loved this present world” (2 Tim 4:10), which renders him an unlikely candidate for authorship of Acts. Jesus Justus was a Jew (Col 4:11); the writer of Luke-Acts was probably not. Epaphroditus was most likely from Philippi (Phil 4:25), which makes it difficult to explain why he would have first joined Paul in Asia Minor before Philippi was evangelized (Acts 16:10). Epaphras is noted in the NT primarily for his role in founding the Colossian church (Col. 1:7-8; 4:12-13; see Phlm 23). This leaves Luke as the best viable candidate” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, [B&H Publishing Group, 2009], p. 260).

23.) Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, [ET New York: Herder, 1963], p. 209 cited in D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], pp. 114-15.

24.) Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103

25.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.1.1

26.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.14.1

27.) Muratorian Canon quoted in Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, [Wiley-Blackwell, 2006], p. 77

28.) Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke quoted in Vincent P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and its Message: An Introduction, [Paulist Press, 1998], p. 138

29.) Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.2; 4.5.3

30.) Origen quoted in Eusebius, Church History, VI.25.6 and VI.25.14.

31.) Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Volume 3 of The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, [InterVarsity Press, 1994], p. 17

32.) D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], p. 113

33.) Ibid. p. 182

34.) The beloved disciple is distinguished by name from Peter (John 13:23-24; 20:2-9; 21:20). Thus the beloved disciple is not Peter. James son of Zebedee was martyred around A.D. 44 toward the end of the reign of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2), while the beloved disciple lived long enough for the rumour about him not dying until Christ came for him was seen to be true (John 21:23). Moreover, James died too soon for him to author the fourth Gospel. Thus James son of Zebedee is ruled out as being the beloved disciple. Most scholars who examine the actual evidence affirm Nathanael was not one of the twelve (Bauckham 2006). The beloved disciple was, however. We know this because he attended the Last Supper (John 13:23) when only the twelve attended (Mark 14:17-18). What is more, since it is part of the fourth Gospel’s nature to not name the beloved disciple even when others are named concerning events he is involved with, it is specious to say that Nathanael, who is often named, should be regarded as the beloved disciple. This rule’s out Nathanael from being the beloved disciple. With respect to Thomas, he can not be the beloved disciple because John 20:8 says the beloved disciple immediately believed after seeing the empty tomb with Peter. Thomas, however, remained doubtful and didn’t believe until later when Jesus appeared to him in John 20:25-29.

35.) Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [InterVarsity Press, 1990], p. 257

36.) F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981], p. 45

37.) Some say that because Mark 14:13 says Jesus “sent two of his disciples” into the city to prepare Passover and that later “he came with the twelve” to eat (Mark 14:17) that Jesus ate with the twelve as well as the two others outside the twelve whom he first sent. However, in Luke 22:8 we learn that the two disciples Jesus sent into the city to prepare the Passover were Peter and John. Hence, Jesus did not send two outside of the twelve to prepare the meal but two within the twelve. Thus, when we read that Jesus ate the Last Supper with the twelve (Mark 14:17-18) that demonstrates there were none outside the twelve present. Hence, because Lazarus was not one of the twelve, (see list of the twelve in Matthew 10:2-3) and thus not at the Last Supper, when the beloved disciple was, we can rule him out as being the beloved disciple. F. F. Bruce puts it in this way, “According to Mark 14:17,when our Lord arrived at the upper room for the Last Supper, He was accompanied by the twelve apostles, who reclined at a table with Him, and there is no suggestion in the synoptic Gospels that anyone else was present with Him on that occasion.” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981], p. 45).

38.) D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan, 1992], p. 148

39.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.1.1; II.22.5; III.3.4

40.) “In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenæus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying: These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to you. For when I was a boy, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life,' Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.” (Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus quoted in Eusebius, Church History, V.20.4-8)

41.) “And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenæus' work Against Heresies, and is as follows: But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church. And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, 'Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” (Eusebius, Church History, IV.14.2-6)

42.) Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, [InterVarsity Press, 1990], p. 270

43.) Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61

44.) Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, 67

45.) When referring to Luke (Mark probably being included in this category) he notes that it was written by “those who followed them [apostles]” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103).

46.) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, [InterVarsity Press, 2011], p. 24

47.) Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV.5

48.) Clement of Alexandria quoted in Eusebius, Church History, VI.14.7

49.) Origen quoted in Eusebius, Church History, VI.25.6

50.) Theophilus, To Autolycus, II.22

51.) Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John quoted in Ben C. Smith, The Latin Prologues (textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

52.) Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke quoted in T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, [1962], p. 49

53.) Muratorian Canon quoted in F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994], p. 10

54.) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, [InterVarsity Press, 2011], p. 25

55.) Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, [Baker Academic, 2002], p. 25

~~~~

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 the Apostle Paul lays out the primitive Gospel message and lists various post-resurrection appearances to Jesus’ followers. In v. 6 mention is made of an appearance to 500 people. It states:

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6).

In an article entitled Will the 500 Please Stand Up?, Ibn Anwar questions the historicity of this appearance and concludes by asserting that, “To rely on Paul’s solitary testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is folly as he is clearly an untrustworthy witness.” He asserts that the mention of this post-resurrection appearance to 500 is, “clearly unhistorical.”

However, the arguments Ibn Anwar posits and the claims he makes which led him to this conclusion contain many difficulties as we shall see. Moreover, he failed to once again present the best of what the other side has to offer on this subject; a common problem in Ibn Anwar’s writings. After answering Ibn Anwar’s specious arguments and defending the historicity of this appearance of Christ it is our hope that he will be more careful with his opinions and make sure to cite and interact with the major scholars who disagree with him lest he leave his readers oblivious to the best of the other side.

Three main arguments Ibn Anwar gave to support his conclusion which we will address are: 1) This appearance story is allegedly only found in Paul and nowhere else in the first-century record; 2) because it is allegedly not multiply attested it’s not historically reliable; and 3) Paul was allegedly willing to engage in, and did in fact engage in, lying or dishonesty regarding this appearance story.

Ibn Anwar quotes some liberals, atheists, and anti-theists offering similar opinions and conclusions. Ibn Anwar failed to present the popular argument for 1 Corinthians 15:6’s historicity which we are going to present. We will also demonstrate that he doesn’t understand the historical method/the criteria for historicity which serious historians utilize and that his view falls apart once pitted against the criteria for weighing hypotheses.

Before beginning it should be noted that Ibn Anwar quotes an unbelieving writer named Kris Komarnitsky claiming this appearance is not attested by anyone else. Komarnitsky quotes atheist scholar Dr. Gerd Lüdemann stating, “[It] is improbable that such an event witnessed by more than five hundred people should otherwise have left no trace,” as though Lüdemann doesn’t believe this appearance is otherwise attested at all. However, it is well known Lüdemann believes the Pentecost event in Acts 2 to be the underlying tradition or event behind 1 Corinthians 15:6.(1) Although Lüdemann is wrong, as the ensuing case will show, it’s important accurately report a scholar’s entire position.

Very briefly, Pentecost involved the outpouring of the Spirit, not a physical appearance of Jesus and so can not be said to be an appearance of Christ. As Dr. N. T. Wright observes: “Experience of the Spirit and seeing the risen Jesus are never, in early Christian writings, assimilated to one another.”(2)

Was Paul the Only One to Mention this Appearance?

Ibn Anwar posits that this appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul is “otherwise unknown” quoting one of his favourite scholars M. Eugene Boring(3), a member of the liberal and heretical “Disciples of Christ” denomination/sect which has women ministers and elders, engages in “unity discussions” with false sects, and has many members who deny the virgin birth, inerrancy, and support gay marriage etc. The fact is, however, serious Christian academicians who are not contaminated by liberalism and unwarranted doubt have rightly argued that this appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is to be found in Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20 which state:

9And behold, Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’. . . . 16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’ (Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20).

In vv. 9-10 Jesus meets the women after the empty tomb episode and exhorts them to tell His “brothers” to go to Galilee where Jesus would then appear on a mountain. I will argue that the eleven disciples as well as a large crowd of brothers numbering approximately 500 witnessed this mountain appearance based on the first-century data.

First, we can argue this is the appearance Paul had in mind since in 1 Corinthians 15:6 he says this appearance was in the midst of the adelphois (brothers/brethren), the same word used in Matthew 28:10 when Christ commanded the women to tell His brothers/brethren to go to Galilee for this appearance. This word was commonly used to refer to a large group of Christians or first-century believers in general (e.g. Matt. 7:3-5; 12:50; 18:15, 21, 35; 25:40; Jn 21:23; Acts 1:15-16; Acts 2:37 etc). Early on the word was used commonly of the inner circle of disciples. But by the time of Matthew 28 and later it was a word used commonly by Jesus and His followers to also refer generally to Christian believers as whole or a large group of believers.

This is why Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes that the word often refers to, “the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt 28:10…”(4) Notice, along with affirming that adelphois carries the meaning of all believers, this source also cites Matthew 28:10, the text I cited as reporting the tradition underlying 1 Corinthians 15:6, as an example of Jesus calling a large group of believers to His future appearance, and not merely His inner circle. This supports our contention that the Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20 appearance is the appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul.

In his groundbreaking commentary on Matthew respected New Testament scholar Dr. D. A. Carson offers exegesis in support of our position:

Some have held that ‘my brothers’ raises the status of Jesus’ eleven surviving disciples. This ignores the use of the term in Matthew; for apart from the places where ‘brothers’ denotes a natural relationship, the term is employed of spiritual relationships – even before the passion – explicitly referring to the fellowship of those who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah (18:15; 23:8; cf. 5:22-24; 7:3-5; 18:21, 35). In the two other places where Jesus uses the full expression ‘my brothers’ (12:49-50; 25:40), it refers to all Jesus’ disciples and cannot possibly be limited to the apostles.

Therefore the natural way to interpret ‘my brothers’ in v. 10 is not as a reference to the Eleven but to all those attached to his cause who were in Jerusalem, most of whom had followed him from Galilee to Jerusalem as his ‘disciples’ (see on 5:1-2, and esp. 26:32; 28:7). There were many others in addition to the Twelve who had followed Jesus (e.g., 20:17; 21:8-9, 15; 27:55; cf. 20:29; 21:46; 23:1). Apart from the Galileans, Joseph of Arimathea was certainly not Jesus’ sole disciple from the Jerusalem region (19:13-15; 27:57-61)”(5)

Further evidence of our position is seen in v. 19-20 where Jesus commands those witnessing His appearance to make disciples of all nations baptizing the masses in distant lands and teaching them to obey Christian teaching. That Jesus would command a group of about 500 believers to carry this out makes sense given the fact that there was not yet access to motor vehicles and things of this nature. It is very unlikely Jesus would command eleven men alone to travel, convert, make disciples, baptize, and teach people from every nation on the earth. Given the fact that Jesus predicted and anticipated the disciples’ persecution and deaths (Matt. 10:1, 5, 16-23) it makes more sense to affirm this command was given to the 500 brethren.

With respect to academic support for the view that this Matthew 28:10, 16 appearance is identical to the one mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6, Dr. Gleason L. Archer notes:

… the record of the Galilean retreat closes with a large assembly of Christ’s followers – quite possibly the gathering included more than five hundred at a time (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6) – on some mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16), which though unnamed may have been Tabor, the highest and most impressive hill in Galilee.(6)

We have quoted Carson providing evidence for this view, but, to be clear, in the same commentary he also indicates that this is in fact his view based on the evidence:

The view that interprets the ‘some’ of v. 17 as a reference to others than the apostles is supported, and the resurrection appearance of vv. 16-20 may well be equivalent to the appearance before the five hundred reported by Paul (1 Cor 15:6).(7)

French scholar Dr. Ernest Bernard Allo notes the following in his work Saint Paul: First Epistle to the Corinthians:

We identify, then, with moral certainty, 1 Cor 15:6 and Matt 18:16-20.(8)

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, commenting on 15:6, Dr. W. Harold Mare notes:

This appearance of Christ to so many at once may have taken place at Galilee, where the eleven and possibly many more, went to meet the risen Lord (Matt 28:10, 16).(9)

Dr. Leon Morris notes that it is in fact probable we are looking at the Matthew 28:10, 16 appearance:

The appearance to more than five hundred of the brothers is mentioned here only (unless, as is probable, it is that referred to in Mt. 28:16ff.).(10)

Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary Dr. Robert L. Reymond concurs:

Then he appeared to the Eleven on a mountain of Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20), this occasion also quite possibly being the one when he appeared to more than five hundred disciples at one time, many of whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:6).(11)

Scholar of early Christianity and Judaism and formerly Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament at Yale University Dr. Bruce Chilton notes:

So 1 Corinthians 15:6, which – with many other scholars – I would associate with Matthew 28:16-20 (and not limit that appearance to the eleven apostles).(12)

Although some scholars feel that the reference to the appearance to the 500 is meant to be a summary of everyone whoever saw the risen Christ without exception, we feel the evidence coheres in suggesting the appearance in Matthew 28:10, 16 is in view. One would think that if Ibn Anwar, who certainly knows of our view, was honest then he would at least mention it and interact with it. But of course he didn’t.

Ibn Anwar will most likely gather quotes from unbelieving, liberal and careful scholars who will take the position that this appearance is nowhere else attested. However, we have not only quoted scholars who take our view and support our case, but we have provided arguments for our position. So if Ibn Anwar wants to seriously interact with our position he must not only quote scholars who take a view (which both of us can do), or give their arguments/opinions, but he must directly deal with our arguments and/or quote people who directly do so. Failure to do that will demonstrate his incompetence once again.

Ibn Anwar’s Claims in Light of the Criteria for Historicity

Since we’ve provided a case for 1 Corinthians 15:6’s multiple attestation, that alone is enough to overlook Ibn Anwar’s assertion that since this story is allegedly never elsewhere mentioned it must be unreliable. However, even if one were to take the position that Paul was the only one to mention this event, would that mean we can not know it is reliable based on other historical criteria? That is, is it possible that this story be true based on other criteria of historicity? Can an account fail in one criterion for historicity and yet be deemed true by having met other criteria?

When studying the historical method at seminary level I discovered very quickly that certain episodes of history often do not meet one or more criteria of historicity while at the same time meeting others and therefore being accepted based on those considerations. For example, while the material we have detailing the life and many stories of Alexander the Great (B.C. 355-323) is all late(13) and based on purported traditions or lost works, thus failing the criteria of early accounts in many cases, much of the material instead meets other criteria. The later sources for Alexander the Great’s life are generally seen to be reliable and useful historically. Our high school and college history/text books rely on these rather late sources for most of our information on his life and the events surrounding him.

Hence, for the sake of argument, if we do hypothetically grant one criterion of historicity is not met with regard to 1 Corinthians 15:6 (multiple attestation), there are other criteria that this report does meet rendering it historical. And because of this fact one should not so easily dismiss the account like Ibn Anwar does. For example, it meets the criteria of an early account (1 Corinthians was written between A.D. 53-57 and this appearance tradition is extremely primitive; see more below).

It also meets the criteria of embarrassment in that in vv. 8-9, while in the context of recalling this appearance tradition, Paul says, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). In the context Paul reveals/highlights embarrassing information about himself when he didn’t need to thus showing genuineness of character and repentance. This helps to establish the validity of his comments in the context including the mention of the appearance to the 500 two verses earlier. This material is telling on many levels since it also helps to show later Christians did not forge this letter or invent the information contained in it. If that were the motive then it would not do well for their cause to include unnecessary embarrassing themes. What we have here is a repentant Christian man who turned from the Judaism he loved admitting his past errors and presenting to needy people things which he believed to be true.

Moreover, the criteria of discontinuity and dissimilarity are met since there is nothing in first-century paganism or Second Temple Judaism which suggests it was widely held or believed that Messiah or a saviour of the world would be doing massive post-resurrection appearances in front of his followers after having died at the hands of his enemies. Not only that but the pagans and Jews at the time of Christ and Paul were not anticipating a dying and rising Messiah or saviour. The Jews for example were expecting a conquering King Messiah, who upon His advent, would overthrow Rome and establish the physical kingdom of God.(14) If Paul were here merely presenting ideas which the Jews of his day were anticipating then one may be justified in being more cautious about 1 Corinthians 15:6. But since he is going against the grain so to speak, this demonstrates he wasn’t out to just tell people things they wanted to hear and gain credibility in their eyes in that way. Rather, since he was telling them things which went again their assumptions or anticipations, this is evidence for the validity or truthfulness of Paul’s teaching/report.

Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 tradition here, as argued even by liberals admired by my opponent such as Dr. James D. G. Dunn, goes back to a very primitive tradition Paul received from Peter and James in Jerusalem.(15) In fact this 1 Corinthians 15 creed seems to be one of the earliest traditions of Christianity and so must be dated before A.D. 53-57 to about A.D. 30-32 strengthening our case for its reliability substantially.

Therefore, in light of the various criteria this story does meet, and in light of the fact that a story isn’t automatically not true just because it fails one test of historicity, Ibn Anwar is in error when he boldly asserts that, “If indeed 500 people witnessed it the story would be readily available across the board and not only in a single verse in the entire New Testament.” There are other problems with this kind of argument as well.

One needs to be consistent since things can be found to be true historically without the story being “readily available across the board.” For example Alexander the Great accomplished many great things seen by many people. These people may have even written about these things during their lifetime. But just because we don’t have access to multiple accounts from them 2300 years later (due to such writings being lost etc), that does not automatically mean there was nothing to write about or that they didn’t write about such things. This applies to any story of antiquity which we don’t have multiple contemporaneous accounts for.

Moreover, even if not a lot of contemporary people wrote about a particular event concerning Alexander the Great that doesn’t automatically render what we read about Alexander the Great erroneous either. We must fully consider the criteria of historicity before jumping to rash and hasty conclusions. Moreover, Ibn Anwar needs to keep the low literacy rates(16) of those days in mind too. To demand this account be “readily available across the board” in light of all of these various considerations is, quite frankly, absurd. And, as we will see, Ibn Anwar is being inconsistent since the Quran which he believes in contains stories which do not meet the test of multiple attestation.

In his 2010 tome on the resurrection Dr. Michael R. Licona rightly notes that, “the plausibility or probability … may be increased in those cases when multiple criteria are present.”(17) Therefore, since 1 Corinthians 15:6 meets multiple criteria of historicity one is not justified in discounting it just because one believes/argues it doesn’t meet one of the criterion of historicity (multiple attestation).

At the same time it must also be said, however, that when you are dealing with two contradictory sources concerning an event or issue, that is when not having multiple attestation can be a major determining factor in your historical judgement. If one source is multiply attested and says one thing, but another non-multiply attested source says something else about the same event or issue, then one may be correct in siding with the multiply attested event or issue.

An example would be the non-multiply attested claims and views of the Ebionites against the Apostle Paul vs. the broad array of early testimony vouching for his reliability. For more information on that issue see my article The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments. However, this dilemma does not fit with the 1 Corinthians 15:6 appearance to the 500 since there is not a contradictory multiply attested source/tradition undermining 1 Corinthians 15:6. Thus, in this case, not having multiple attestation would not be as damaging as it could otherwise be (though I hold that it does have multiple attestation e.g. Matt. 28:10, 16).

Did Paul Sanction Lying and Engage in Lying Concerning this Appearance Story?

In order to try to undermine Paul’s credibility and hence his account of the appearance to the 500, Ibn Anwar argues that Philippians 1:18 and Romans 3:7 support his ad hoc conspiratorial view that Paul was supportive of and willing to engage in deception and lying. However, Ibn Anwar’s reading requires that one discards even the most elementary principles of exegesis and logic. I submit that the passages he cites do nothing to support his argument when understood properly in context. The texts in question state:

What then? Only that in every way, whether in honest or dishonest motives, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice (Philippians 1:18).

But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (Romans 3:7).

Ibn Anwar quotes anti-theist M. Anton Mikicic’s self-published book God is Redundant p. 98:

Paul also defends himself against accusations he’s a liar, which suggests to me that someone called him one.

Paul’s own words suggest he felt if the end result was saving souls for the next world, it didn’t matter what you did in this world to accomplish it, including lying.

Ibn Anwar concludes that Paul “is clearly an untrustworthy witness.” That Ibn Anwar and the anti-theist writer he quotes are guilty of eisegesis is evident upon a close and responsible analysis of these texts. With respect to Philippians 1:18 the context is that while in prison (Phil. 1:7, 13, 16) for the sake of the Gospel Paul exhorts the Christians of Philippi to holiness and advances the Christian teaching on perseverance (v. 6). Paul displays his affection for these Philippians and encourages them to press on in the faith (vv. 7-14).

Vv. 15-19 then follow and, contra Ibn Anwar, this text concerns Paul rejoicing in the midst of trouble and trying to find good and positivity in a bad situation, rather than Paul advocating the bad which was present in the situation:

15Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18What then? Only that in every way, whether in honest or dishonest motives, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance (Philippians 1:15-19).

What is the positive or good which Paul takes from this negative situation of deception? The name of Christ was still being spread in an ungodly and unbelieving world. In no way does this mean Paul positively advocates deception as a method to spread Christ’s name, in any kind of universal sense, however. What he does is express that even when these dishonest people who rejoice in Paul’s imprisonment (v. 17) engage in such behaviour, one can still nevertheless find consolation in the fact that Jesus’ name was being spread – and for that reason alone Paul can still rejoice in the midst of negativity and wrong.

That Paul does not support the method of the people who he is speaking about is evident by the fact he contrasts their method of “dishonest motives” (v. 18), with the method of those who preach from “good will” (v. 15). Hence, Paul does not believe those who use deception to be of good will and so for Ibn Anwar to attribute to Paul the belief that it is good to practice dishonesty, he is engaging in the very thing he accuses Paul of: dishonesty and bearing false witness.

Paul is very clear in his writings insofar as avoiding deception, lying and dishonesty is concerned. For example, in Colossians 3:9 Paul says, “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9). Moreover, in Ephesians 4:25 Paul states, “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). In Romans 3:13 Paul condemns using one’s tongue to deceive. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 Paul speaks against the “wicked deception” of the coming lawless one (the antichrist).

Therefore, to attribute to Paul the idea that he supported the deceptive method of those he was speaking against in Philippians 1, when in reality he taught they’re not of good will, condemns lying and deception over and over, and merely says he rejoiced in the fact that Jesus’ name was still being spread in this negative situation, is a big stretch to say the least.

Now, with respect to Romans 3:7 which says, “But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?,” the context is vital and it refutes Ibn Anwar. In Romans 3:1-8 Paul is posing hypothetical questions to himself from an anticipatory unbelieving Jewish interlocutor’s/objectors perspective.(18) And Paul then answers as a Christian. This is to help the Roman Christians better understand his teaching. Hypothetical Jewish objections to his teaching are found in vv. 1, 3, 5, 7-8a. Paul’s Christian answers are found in vv. 2, 4, 6, 8b and in the ensuing discussion in the rest of the chapter/book.

Thus Ibn Anwar has confused v. 7 as Paul’s position or a statement from him indicating his mindset, when in reality it is a verse which is meant to be read as a Jewish interlocutor’s/objector’s objection to Paul. The reason Paul, as a hypothetical unbelieving Jew, asks if though through his lie God is still glorified since God judges the liar and receives glory, why is the Jew or sinner is still punished?, is because Paul just got finished teaching unfaithfulness or sin ends up revealing the righteousness of God through judgement (vv. 3-5). Thus the argument to Paul is: why shouldn’t I just lie or sin then since everything just ends up glorifying God in the end (i.e., since sin leads to God’s judgement which brings glory to God and shows God’s righteousness)? Paul’s answer in v. 8 is, “some people slanderously charge us with saying [this]. Their condemnation is just.” Thus, some falsely take this fatalistic approach as a logical conclusion of Paul’s teaching. However, Paul reveals that’s not his position and says those who attribute such a teaching to Paul and other Christians (as Ibn Anwar does) will be justly condemned (see v. 8 again). Thus, the conclusion is that it is not okay to sin or lie even though doing so results in God’s judgement (i.e., God’s glory and righteousness being revealed). How one can then turn things around and make it as though Paul were a liar is inexcusable.

In summary, Romans 3:7’s mention of “my lie,” when understood in context, in no way whatsoever, has Paul admitting to being a liar. That is a hypothetical unbelieving Jew’s objection to Paul, not his own admission. As we noted earlier, Paul’s letters are filled with admonitions to avoid lying and deception.

We have answered this false accusation over and over again on Answering-Islam. For Ibn Anwar to use it yet again after it has been explained many times is hardly a sign of his intellectual honesty. For example: 1, 2, 3.

Ibn Anwar’s own inconsistency and deception is, however, truly evident here since Muhammad on the other-hand actually did sanction lying and deception to further Islam unlike Paul and Christianity. The two texts Ibn Anwar cited do not support his case on this subject. But when we turn to Bukhari for example we read:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." ... (19)

For more on this see here.

Ibn Anwar’s Method Applied to Islamic Stories Shows his Inconsistency

We have argued that 1 Corinthians 15:6 is multiply attested and that it meets other criteria of historicity. But what makes Ibn Anwar even more inconsistent is that there are many stories in the Quran which are not multiply attested. Therefore, if 1 Corinthians 15:6 isn’t historical due to allegedly not being multiply attested as Ibn Anwar has argued (even though it is), then many stories in the Quran can’t be historical since they are not multiply attested or attested by any contemporaneous sources at all!

Consider for example the Quranic teaching that Jesus spoke and gave theological discourses as a baby in his cradle which Surah 3:46 and 19:28-34 mentions:

He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life (Surah 3:46).

O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and has made me a prophet. And has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive, And (has made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt (Surah 19:28-34).

Since no first-century source says that Jesus gave theological discourses as a baby, that means this story is not attested by any early material (and thus certainly not multiply attested). How could this be? Based on Ibn Anwar’s method this story should be “readily available across the board.” If the Messiah spoke as a baby in his cradle to people then surely such a monumental miracle would have been reported by at least one source in the time of Jesus and His followers. Since it wasn’t it can’t be true according to Ibn Anwar. He has thus falsified Islam with his own criteria.

It should be clear that Ibn Anwar quotes and sides with radical liberals and atheists who deny the supernatural. He will accept the lenses through which they read the Holy Bible and critique it. But if those same standards are applied to the Quran then Islam is disproved. Yet this doesn’t stop the Muslims from using inconsistent methods and siding with the liberals and anti-supernaturalists. This common inconsistency of Muslims where they appeal to and heavily rely on liberals and atheists is quite revealing since it demonstrates they can’t argue against Christianity and at the same time be a consistent Muslim. That says a lot about the strength of their arguments.

Ibn Anwar’s Take on 1 Corinthians 15:6 vs. the Criteria for Weighing Hypotheses

We have covered the issue of criteria for historicity. Now we must cover four criteria for weighing hypotheses.(20) Ibn Anwar has given his hypothesis concerning 1 Corinthians 15:6. He argued that Paul was lying about this appearance to the 500 because he allegedly supported deception and thus it’s ahistorical. I am arguing Paul was correct about this tradition which we see in Matthew 28:10, 16 and he reported it in order to advance truth and the Gospel. When we examine our positions against the four criteria for weighing hypotheses which we will use, it becomes evident that Ibn Anwar’s view falls short and must therefore be rejected by the serious person inquiring about truth.

Criteria #1: Explanatory Scope

Whose hypothesis can account for the largest quantity of known facts of the case? The hypothesis which does will be the true hypothesis. The one which can’t will be in error.

Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis can not account for the fact that the 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creed which v. 6 is contained in was created no more than 2 or 3 years after Jesus’ crucifixion (Ibn Anwar’s hero Dunn even argues months!) and transmitted to Paul by Peter and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem.(21) My hypothesis can account for this fact. Amazingly Ibn Anwar didn’t even interact with this crucial point in his paper.

Moreover his view can’t adequately account for the fact that in v. 9 Paul reveals embarrassing information about himself in the context of recalling this appearance tradition thus showing genuineness and honesty (unless it’s an ad hoc reason).

It’s a fact that we have no writings or traditions challenging this appearance to the 500. My view that the appearance is historical and had witnesses who could vouch for Paul explains why we have no evidence of anyone arguing: “we checked and no one is vouching for your appearance story, Paul.” If there were no 500 brothers who saw Christ one may expect at least a later tradition of a rejoinder against Paul from a critic(s) (or sect of critics) even if contemporary information is not readily available to us. Ibn Anwar’s view can’t account for the probable view that no tradition ever existed which is based on the fact that there is no evidence of such writings or even a later tradition. If there were in fact an early known tradition (written or oral) from objectors who argued there were no witnesses who would come forward to vouch for Paul then Paul’s Ebionite detractors (or others) would certainly pick up on it and use it in their second/third-century polemics against him.

Though it must be noted in fairness that the fact there are no survived writings or even traditions is not an absolutely conclusive proof for our case since such writings/traditions, had they even existed, could have been lost. But if it is true that there never were any, and it is probable that there weren’t since it’s a fact there is no evidence of them when there should be given Paul’s later heretical and ruthless detractors, then we have more evidence of Ibn Anwar’s view having less explanatory scope. I believe the evidence to be on my side here based on the fact that there are no survived objections against Paul of this sort when if there were we would expect groups like the Ebionites to exploit them.

Ibn Anwar attempted to provide facts which my view can’t account for such as this report not being multiply attested, and this report allegedly needing to be readily available in many early sources in order to be deemed true, but we have disproved those two non-facts.

Criteria #2: Explanatory Power

Whose hypothesis requires the least amount of pushing/straining relevant facts? Whose hypothesis requires the least amount of effort, vagueness, and ambiguity? That will be the hypothesis with explanatory power.

Ibn Anwar has to strain the fact that Paul used an early source/tradition. In order to make this fact fit his case, Ibn Anwar has to discount this earlier source/tradition. He does so without proper warrant (see more below). Moreover, Ibn Anwar has to push or strain the idea that this report isn’t multiply attested by quoting the opinions of doubtful sceptics and liberals even though there is a powerful case for this appearance being attested in Matthew 28:10, 16.

Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis requires a lot of vagueness since he offered no sufficient reasons as to why Paul would even report this tradition if it were not in fact true or if he didn’t believe it were true. To argue it was merely for the sake of spreading lies is vague and requires that he bends the fact of Paul’s genuineness to fit his hypothesis and replace it with a deceptive motive. My view that he wished to deliver truth and teachings he firmly believed for the sake of providing the Corinthian Church with facts about their beloved Messiah doesn’t require any strain or vagueness concerning Paul’s character or the information surrounding this case.

My hypothesis doesn’t require that one strain the fact that Paul is a trustworthy witness (that’s evidenced as I will argue below). Nor do I have to strain the fact that this story is multiply attested since there are good arguments for that position which many scholars agree with. Nor do I need to strain the fact that v. 6 is part of an early tradition. A broad strand of scholarship agrees and lots of evidence is in support of this fact. Ibn Anwar’s view requires a strain on all of these facts in order for them to fit his hypothesis.

Criteria #3: Plausibility

Whose hypothesis is consistent with other known facts in other areas? That is, whose view is consistent with other background knowledge in our area of focus? The more plausible hypothesis in this regard will be correct.

My hypothesis is in accord with the fact that we know there were post-resurrection appearances happening at the time.(22) Thus it is not a big stretch to agree with the evidence and affirm this appearance to the 500 took place. Ibn Anwar’s view that there was no appearance to the 500 is out of step with the fact that we know others were taking place contemporaneously.

Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis can’t account for the fact that Paul was, for the sake of his Christian beliefs, willing to leave Pharisaic Judaism which was his way of life and which he was a respected scholar of, and that Paul was willing to be imprisoned, persecuted, and martyred(23) for such beliefs as Jesus’ resurrection and these appearances. My view of 1 Corinthians 15:6 being historical can account for these set of facts. Ibn Anwar’s lie/deception hypothesis can’t.

Ibn Anwar’s view can’t account for the fact that Paul was not willing to lie in the form of denying he believed in Christ to save himself.(24) If he wouldn’t engage in that kind of lie or deception when it came to saving his life, why assume he would in regards to reporting appearances?

Ibn Anwar attempted to argue that Paul was allegedly a liar who supported deception. But since we refuted that claim it does not count as a known fact with which my hypothesis is not in accord with.

Criteria #4: Less ad hoc

Whose hypothesis consists of non-evidenced assumptions? The one which is guilty of that is less likely to be true.

Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis is ad hoc since he claims that, “Whatever the source of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15:6 may be using it to prove the historicity of the resurrection is untenable...” However, this is a non-evidenced assumption since he admits he doesn’t even know what the source is. And his reasons for rejecting the tradition were disproved. So he has no grounds to say the tradition is untenable. Also, we know the source is a creed/tradition which is extremely primitive and apostolic so his non-evidenced assumption about Paul’s source is incorrect.

Ibn Anwar’s view that Paul was a deceiver and liar is a non-evidenced assumption common among Muslims as we have shown. This is strange since there are early Muslim traditions teaching Paul’s reliability.(25) My view that Paul was not a deceiver or liar is evidenced by many considerations which we discussed.

Ibn Anwar’s view also requires that one assume the apostles and their students (who abandoned their sacred religion of Judaism for Christianity and even willingly suffered persecution and martyrdom) would not call Paul out if he were going around reporting fabricated stories. They did not do so, however. In fact, as I argued in the article the Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship the evidence is clear that they supported Paul and worked with him. Thus, this assumption Ibn Anwar is required to make is erroneous.

I haven’t argued anything which requires one to accept non-evidenced assumptions on the other-hand. I based all of my arguments and views on sound evidenced arguments.

Conclusion

In summary, we have provided an historical case for the appearance to the 500 reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6. We have addressed Ibn Anwar’s central arguments and exposed his overall position as faulty. It has been seen that when pitted against the criteria of weighing hypotheses which historians employ, Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis is seen to be problematic and erroneous. It is my hope that the Muslims will turn from their rash scepticism, faulty arguments, and reliance on unbelievers and liberals and instead view the evidence consistently and with an open heart. And, Lord willing, the Muslims will put their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ before it is too late.

Christ has risen, He is Lord!

Endnotes

1.) Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, [Fortress Press, 1994], pp. 100-109.

2.) N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, [Fortress Press, 2003], p. 325.

3.) Although Boring’s The People’s New Testament Commentary does say this event is “otherwise unknown,” Ibn Anwar omitted part of this author’s position since on the same page we also read that this appearance, “may refer to something like the Pentecost event of Acts 2:1-42” and that Paul affirmed, “the resurrection is not some twilight zone, never-never-land event in the mythical past, but an event in recent history to which many of his own generation could testify” M. Eugene Boring, Fred B. Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary, [Westminster John Knox Press, 2010], p. 543.

4.) W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Thomas Nelson, 1996], p. 82 italics mine.

5.) D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, [Zondervan, 1984], p. 589.

6.) Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, [Regency Reference Library, 1982], p. 355.

7.) D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, [Zondervan, 1984], p. 589.

8.) Ernest Bernard Allo, Saint Paul: First Epistle to the Corinthians, [Gabalda, 1956], p. 396.

9.) W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Vol. 10, [Zondervan 1976], p. 282.

10.) Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 7, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985], pp. 202-203.

11.) Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition - Revised and Updated, [Thomas Nelson Inc, 1998], eBook.

12.) Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, [Random House Digital, Inc., 2002], p. 282 n. 3.

13.) For Alexander the Great’s life and the stories involved we rely primarily on later sources such as Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, and Arrian etc.

14.) The Jews of Christ’s time looked to Old Testament texts concerning the Davidic conquering King Messiah and anticipated He would overthrow Rome and restore rule under YHWH (Isaiah 9:7; Daniel 7:14; Psalms 2:7-9; 2 Samuel 22:44-51; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Amos 9:11-12; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:25 etc). Acts 1:6 among other texts shows Jesus’ followers still retained this type of thinking for a while and then understood correctly later on. There were events in the first-century bearing this King Messiah expectation out. For example during the great revolt the Judeans exalted Simon Bar Giora as king who would drive Rome out of their land. He amassed an army to fight the Romans but was captured and executed during his efforts by Vespasian and his son Titus (account can be found in Josephus’s Jewish Wars). The Testament of Levi (2nd c. B. C.) states the Messiah’s, “star shall rise in heaven as the star of a king. . . . And there shall be peace in all the earth” (The Testament of Levi, 18); thus affirming this mindset.

15.) Keith Thompson, Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship

16.) “The literacy rate in antiquity was nowhere close to what it is in most countries today. Even a liberal estimate would suggest that no more than 20 percent of the general populace in Paul’s day could read and write” Ben Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, [Baker Academic, 2003], p. 238.

17.) Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, [InterVarsity Press, 2010], p. 295.

18.) Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 180-181; Leslie C. Allen, Romans, New International Bible Commentary Based on the NIV Translation, ed. F. F. Bruce, [Zondervan, 1979], p. 1322; Everett F. Harrison, Romans, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelen, [Zondervan, 1976], p. 36.

19.) Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271.

20.) An explanation of each criterion can be found in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, [InterVarsity Press, 2010], p. 109-111.

21.) Keith Thompson, Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship

22.) Without giving all of the arguments Drs. Licona and Habermas note, “(1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead. There is almost unanimous consensus among scholars to this belief on the part of the disciples” Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, [Kregel Publications, 2004], p. 50.

23.) The evidence shows that before becoming a Pharisee, in “A. D. 15-20 ... Saul begins his studies in Jerusalem with Rabbi Gamaliel, grandson of Rabbi Gamaliel the elder” Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus, [InterVarsity Press, 2001], p. 307 cf. Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14. That Paul was imprisoned, persecuted and martyred see The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 5 cf. Paul’s trials in Acts.

24.) “…and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience” Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch. 5 cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rom. 8:35-39.