Faith on Trial (25 page)

56. For a general discussion see Brown,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 209–10; also see the unsupported premise of the fellows of The Jesus Seminar in
The Five Gospels
that Papias’s assertion was “patently false,” and in complete disregard for the evidence, further stating that Matthew was first composed in Greek in dependence on the mysterious document referred to as Q, believed to contain nothing more than a few “sayings” of Jesus preserved from the first century (
The Five Gospels,
trans. and commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997], 20).

57. Eusebius, “The Epistles of Ignatius,” in McBirnie,
The Search for the Twelve Apostles
, 53.

58. “Fragments of Papias,” in Coxe,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. 1, 153. Also see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 29.

59. Eusebius, HE 3.39.1, quoting Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33–34. Cited in Robinson,
Redating the New Testament,
95.

60. The reference is preserved in a fragment taken from Anastasius Sinaita, as given in “Fragments of Papias,” in Coxe,
Ante-Nicene Fathers,
vol. 1, 155, n 3. Reference from the
Anti-Marcionite Prologue
is found in Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 52.

61. McBirnie,
The Search for the Twelve Apostles
, 175.

62. Brown,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 210, n 86; Brown, however, adds a personal qualifier that it is possible that this acceptance may have been based upon the fact that they had never questioned the tradition of the existence of an original Aramaic manuscript.

63. See Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 38–39; but see Brown,
Introduction to the New Testament,
210.

64. “Fragments of Papias,” in Coxe,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. 1, 155. Also see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 35.

65. Irenaeus, “Adversus haereses, III.I.i” (Euseb. H.E. V.8), in Bettenson,
Documents of the Christian Church
,
28. Also see Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
, 110–11.

66. Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
, 108.

67.
“Fragments from Cassiodorus”
(a Latin translation by Cassiodorus of fragments of Clement of Alexandria on Comments on the First Epistle of Peter), in Coxe,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. 2, 573. Also see: Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
, 109. In this quote from 1 Peter 5:13, the apostle also refers to his “son, Mark.”

68. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 35–36.

69. Ibid., 37.

70. C. H. Turner, “Marcian Usage,”
Journal of Theological Studies
, in Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 36.

71. Bruce,
New Testament Documents
, 36–37.

72. Greenleaf,
The Testimony of the Evangelists
, 22; also see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 36.

73. See McBirnie,
The Search for the Twelve Apostles
, 252–53; also see Thiede and D’Ancona,
Eyewitness to Jesus
, 13.

74.
U.S. v. DaSilva
, 725 F.2d 828 (2nd Cir. 1983); also see
U.S. v. Alvarez
, 755 F.2d 830, 859–860 (11th Cir. 1985)
cert. den.
474 U.S. 905.

75. Irenaeus, “Adversus haereses, X.I.i.” (Euseb. H.E. V.8), in Bettenson,
Documents of the Christian Church,
28.

76. Brown,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 267.

77. Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
, 101.

78. For a detailed compilation of New Testament sources for this information, see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents,
41–42.

79. Thiede and D’Ancona,
Eyewitness to Jesus
, 70.

80. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents,
47.

81. Ibid., 48–50.

82. Ibid., 50; also see Brown,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 368. For a description of the persecution of Polycarp, see “The Martyrdom of Polycarp,” in Bettenson,
Documents of the Christian Church,
9.

83. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 51.

84. Irenaeus, “Adversus haereses, III.I.i” (Euseb. H.E. V.8), in Bettenson,
Documents of the Christian Church,
28.

85. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 52; quoting from the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of John. The prologue was referred to as Anti-Marcionite because it opposed the views of Marcion, who lived in Rome in approximately
ad
140. Maricon created the earliest list, or canon, of the New Testament books but was labeled a heretic because of his theological position supporting rejection of the entire Old Testament in favor of the New Testament.

86. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 50.

87. Charlesworth,
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls
, xxxiii.

88. For example, see Charlesworth,
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls
, xxxiv; also see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 58: and Wilson,
Jesus: the Evidence
, 34–35.

89. Robinson,
Redating the New Testament
, 284. Robinson has compared the style of the Gospel of John favorably to the books of Colossians, Jude, and 2 Peter.

90. Federal Rule of Evidence 701.

91.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Adetunji Adebayo v. Catholic Knights Insurance Society
, 915 F. Supp. 25, 27 (Northern District of Illinois; 1996), construing Federal Rule of Evidence 602; Advisory Committee’s Note.

92. See
U.S. v. Alvarez; U.S. v. DaSilva
.

93. See Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
for a discussion of this research.

94.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden
, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S. Ct. 1344, 1349, 117 L.Ed. 3d 581 (1992), (setting forth the common-law test for determination of an agency relationship);
Pappas v. Middle Earth Condominium Assn.,
963 F.2d 534 (2nd Cir. 1992).

95.
Matthews Roofing v. Community Bank & Trust Company of Edgewater
, 194 Ill. App. 3d 200, 206, 550 N.E. 2d 1189, 1193, 141 Ill. (1990);
American Laser Products, Inc. v. National Imaging Supplies Group, Inc.,
No. 94 C 7624 (1st Dist. 1996), LEXIS 3520 (1996), 55. (An agency relationship need not depend on an express appointment but may be created by the situation of the parties, their actions, and other relevant circumstances.) Also see
Pappias v. Middle Earth Condominium Assn.,
538 (agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence);
Wargel v. First National Bank of Harrisburg
, 121 Ill. App. 3d 730, 460 N.E. 331, 334, 77 Ill. Dec. 275 (5th Dist. 1984) (an agency relationship must be determined by analyzing the parties’ actual practices).

96. Greenleaf,
Testimony of the Evangelists,
25.

97. Ibid., 26.

98. Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(4)(B).

99. Strong,
McCormick on Evidence
, vol. 1, Section 10, 40.

Chapter Four

1. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 34–35, particularly Theodor von Zahn, Dom B. C. Butler, and Dom John Chapman.

2. Eusebius, “H.E. iii. 39,” in Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 38. For a general discussion of this issue, see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents,
32–38.

3. Brown,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 209.

4. The fellows of the Jesus Seminar have taken the position that a work referred to as the “Gospel of Thomas” evidences the existence of a Q document because the Gospel of Thomas contains no narrative and is composed solely of quotations, or “sayings” of Jesus. Clearly the Gospel of Thomas itself does not evidence the Q document because it is dated much later than the Gospels, even considering the most conservative orthodox dating. The Coptic version of this work was found in 1946 in Egypt together with a group of texts, referred to as the Nag Hammadi texts. These are codices believed by most scholars to be dated to the third and fourth centuries
ad,
although Greek fragments of a version of this Gospel may be dated as early as the end of the second century. They reflect the thinking of an unorthodox group of people living in the second century, commonly referred to as Gnostics. Although these texts are important in that they show the beginnings of wide acceptance of the teachings of Christianity at that period of time, many scholars do not believe they offer any new understanding of the New Testament. See Bruce,
The New Testament Documents
, 98. For a contrary view that appears to be based solely on speculation, see
The Five Gospels,
tran. and commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).

5. For a discussion, see Bruce,
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
, 31–32.

6. Thiede and D’Ancona,
Eyewitness to Jesus
, 135.

7. The text was found in the Wadi Muraba, inventory and plate number 164 (Thiede and D’Ancona,
Eyewitness to Jesus
, 137).

8. Thiede and D’Ancona,
Eyewitness to Jesus
, 136.

9. The comparison is suggested by Bruce in
The New Testament Documents
, 32.

10. Burton H. Throckmorton Jr.,
Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels
,
4th ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979).

11. Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:52, King James Version, as compared to 1956 Throckmortion study
.

12. John R. Kohlenberger III, ed.,
The Precise Parallel New Testament
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

13. See Throckmorton,
Gospel Parallels
.

14. Ibid., 171, 175, 177, 183, 185, setting forth corresponding passages in Luke 22:52 (a portion of the sentences); 61 (quotation only, contained in the last sentence of this passage); 22:62 (entire sentence); 23:3 and 23:44 (a portion of a sentence); 23:52 (a portion of a sentence).

15. Some authorities believe the original Gospel of Mark ended with verse 16:8, in which various women followers of Jesus are reported to have visited the tomb three days after the burial of Jesus, only to find the tomb empty and an announcement by a young man (implicitly an angel messenger) that he has risen from the dead. In that case, presumably the original manuscript would not have included descriptions of postresurrection visits included in the other Gospels, although it would have contained an announcement of the resurrection. However, other scholars believe the original Gospel included the more extensive ending generally given in modern Bibles, and some support for that is found in some of the early manuscripts which do, in fact, contain an ending with postresurrection reports. See Brown,
An Introduction to the New Testament,
148.

16. For a general discussion of the topical arrangements, see Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?,” in
Jesus Under Fire
,
ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 84–89.

17. Greenleaf,
Testimony of the Evangelists
, 22–23.

Chapter Five

1. Strong,
McCormick on Evidence
, 4th ed., vol. 2, Section 339; 436.

2. Greenleaf,
Testimony of the Evangelists
, 31.

3. Strong,
McCormick on Evidence
, vol. 1, Section 34, 111, n 1 (quoting Tribe, “Triangulating Hearsay,”
87 Harv. L. Rev
.
957, 1974).

4. The book of Acts and many other writings of the New Testament chronicle Peter’s position as a leader of the early church. Writings of Eusebius also refer to the leadership of Peter throughout the entire area, and Polycarp’s succession to that position at Smyrna in Asia during this turbulent time. For an interesting and full discussion, see McBirnie,
The Search for the Twelve Apostles,
52–67.

5. Pietro Zander,
The Necropolis under St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican
(Fabbrica di San Pietro in Vaticano, 2009).

6. Federal Rules of Evidence 404(a) and 608; see
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
to Rule 608(a) regarding the exception under Rule 404(a) for admissibility of character evidence of a witness as bearing upon his or her credibility; also see Strong,
McCormick on Evidence,
vol. 1, Section 187.

7. Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b).

8. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). Also see the discussion in
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
for Rule 608.

9.
Compton v. Davis Oil Co.,
607 F. Supp. 1221, 1228, 1230 (D.C. Wyoming. 1985). Here the court stated that it was persuaded of the truth of recitals contained in a death certificate introduced into evidence under the ancient document exception concerning a common-law marriage because the conduct of the heirs of the married couple and declarations of relatives regarding their marital status over the course of many years was fully consistent with such recitals.

10. Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a).

11. Ignatius, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in Coxe,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. I, 70.

12. Ibid.

13.
Rex v. Woodcock
, 1 Leach 500, 168 Eng. Rep. 352 (K.B. 1789); see Strong,
McCormick on Evidence,
vol. 2; Section 310, 325–31.