Have you ever
read the Bible and found something you could not understand? Something that may
have caused you to doubt the consistency or reliability or accuracy of the
Bible?
You are not the
first.
As Bill was
completing his book on images of the Trinity, we came across Jerome’s Lives
of Illustrious Men (written in AD 392). Jerome, who lived from ca.
AD 348-420, is the church father who revised the Old Latin texts to create the
Vulgate. In The Lives I discovered that Jerome mentioned many scriptural
difficulties that still puzzle Bible interpreters today, over 1630 years later.
For example, Jerome writes that Simon Peter wrote two epistles. But, why does
the second letter have a different style than the first (ch. 1)[1]? Who is the mother of
James, the half-brother of the Lord? Was she Mary or another woman? James wrote
one epistle. But did he really write it (ch. 2)? Matthew composed a gospel.
What happened to the original Hebrew version (ch. 3)? Jude, the brother of
James, wrote one epistle. Did he quote from the apocryphal book of Enoch, and,
if so, does that affect the letter’s authority (ch. 4)? Paul, formerly Saul,
wrote 9 epistles to 7 churches and 4 to his disciples (Timothy, Titus,
Philemon). But, did he write Hebrews, that appears to have differences in style
and language from the other letters, and, if not, who did? Furthermore, why did
his name change from “Saul” to “Paul” (ch. 5)? Luke the physician wrote the Gospel
and Acts of the Apostles (ch. 7). If Acts of the Apostles is authentic, how
about the Acts of Paul and Thecla? Moreover, why are there differences in
Jesus’s genealogy between Luke and Matthew (ch. 63)? John, the apostle whom
Jesus loved, wrote the Gospel, 3 letters, and the Apocalypse. As an eyewitness,
why are there differences between his gospel and the other three synoptic
gospels? Also, why are there differences between the Gospel and the Apocalypse
and between the first letter of John and the other two letters (ch. 9)?
These are some
puzzles that even the early church recognized that still puzzle scholars today.
Nevertheless, Jerome clearly sets a boundary between these questions of devout
thinking Christians about the biblical canon and conclusions that change the
canon itself. For instance, after discussing Peter’s writings, he adds that
other books are rejected as “apocryphal” or false: Acts of Peter, Gospel of Peter,
Preaching of Peter, Revelation of Peter, and Judgment of Peter (ch. 1).
Similarly, he declared the Acts of Paul and Thecla to be apocryphal. The second
century Tertullian knew the presbyter in Asia who confessed to be the author of
the Acts of Paul and Thecla and, when discovered, resigned his office (ch. 7).
Thus, we can
agree with the wise Solomon that there is indeed nothing new under the hallowed
halls of ivy (Eccles. 1:9). But we can as well take comfort. As even Apostle
Peter said about Apostle (and “beloved brother”) Paul: “There are some things
in [his letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to
their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” Peter warns his
readers that since they are “forewarned,” they not get carried away and lose
their own “stability” (steadfastness) but instead “grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:15-18 NRSV).
Why shouldn’t
there be things “hard to understand” in God’s revelation if these writings have
been “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) by the same God who created the universe with
all of its marvelous and manifold mysteries? Is not God “hard to understand”? But,
nevertheless, God loves us and that is wonderful to receive.
Of course, these
biblical puzzles are worth research, even as scientists research the puzzles in
nature.
Jerome and
others offer many solutions. Did a different person write 2 Peter or did Peter
write 1 Peter with the grammatical assistance of Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12) but
without him wrote 2 Peter or did Peter write 2 Peter under more difficult
circumstances reflected in his style? Was James’s mother another wife of Joseph,
Joseph having married a sister of Mary, also named Mary so Mary, the mother of
our Lord, could stay a virgin, or did she consummate her marriage to Joseph and
had more children? Did someone write
James’s epistle under his name or did James, the brother of the Lord, write it
himself?[2] Today, some think the
Greek is too good for a carpenter’s son. Jerome says the Hebrew version of
Matthew’s Gospel was preserved in his time in the library at Caesarea and used
by the Nazarenes in Syria (ch. 3). Some reject Jude because it quotes from
Enoch but others point out that even an apocryphal or noncanonical book might
contain some truth.[3]
Many agree with
Jerome that Hebrews was probably not by Paul. Gaius, the bishop of Rome, who
died in 217, declared that To the Hebrews was “not considered among the Romans
to the present day as being by the Apostle Paul” (ch. 59). Tertullian thought
it was the work of Barnabas, others by Luke the Evangelist or Clement, bishop
of the church at Rome (chs. 5, 15), and since then by Apollos, Prisca, or
Phoebe.[4]
Why did Saul
become Paul? Jerome thought Saul took the name of the proconsul of Cyprus, the
first to believe on his preaching: Sergius Paulus (ch. 5 Lives,
Acts 13:7); others think “Paulus” became his Christian name, and others
that “Paulus” was simply Saul’s Roman name, helpful as he preached to
Gentiles.
Julius Africanus
solved the apparent discrepancies in Jesus’s genealogy by citing Jesus’s
relatives (ch. 63), who said one genealogy was of Joseph, the other of the
levirate grandfather. Others thought the point was to show Jesus as both Priest
and King (Epistle of Aristides),[5] and now some state one
genealogy was of Mary and one of Joseph.
John the apostle
read the other three gospels and “approved indeed the substance of the history
and declared that the things they said were true,” but he wanted also to relate
“the events of the earlier period before John [the Baptist] was shut up in
prison” (ch. 9). Some early church theologians explained the differences
between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse and between 1 John and 2 and 3
John by positing a second John, John the elder, mentioned by Papias. There were
two sepulchers in Ephesus, but some said the two memorials were to the same
John the evangelist, who lived and died in Ephesus (chs. 9, 18). The Gospel was
written by John, the evangelist, while the Apocalypse was a vision given to him
(Rev. 1:1), which may be why the style of the two works have differences.
All these
puzzles have been researched from earliest times and continue to be researched
today. Excellent answers may be found that support the consistency, reliability,
and accuracy of the Bible. Some Bible passages may be “hard to understand,” but
wise answers are available, and, in the process of research, the researcher can
“grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and
thereby, at the end, all the more praise the name of our awesome triune God!
Aida
[1] All chapter
numbers are from Lives of Illustrious Men, which may be found in Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3: Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical
Writings, etc. Second Series, A Select Library of the Christian Church,
eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 361-84.
[2] See my Commentary
on James in the Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2020),
21-30.
[3] See further
Aida Besançon Spencer, “’Parallelomania’ and God’s Unique Revelation,” Africanus
Journal 1:1 (April 2009): 36-37.
[4] Bill thinks
Phoebe, who carried Paul’s letter to the Romans and most likely explained it,
may have written Hebrews. Paul certainly esteems her (see Rom. 16:1-2).
[5] Also see
Eusebius, Church History 1.7. The Epistle of Aristides is reprinted in
“The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus,” Africanus Journal 1:1 (April
2009): 4-6. See Bill’s discussion of the genealogies in that same issue: “A
Personal Reflection on the Undisputed Extant Works of Africanus,” pp. 19-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment