Canon Crossfire

Irenaeus Testifies that Baruch was Apostolic Preaching

Irenaeus Testifies that Baruch was Apostolic Preaching

It is time to refocus on Baruch and the question we originally passed over: was Baruch wrongfully accepted in the period before the canon lists, or was it true teaching from the Apostles? Personally, I think Baruch is the key to everything, and it is precisely at this point, the end of thesecond century, that the canon debate reaches the real crux of the issue.

Recall that Gallagher and Meade have told us that:

The lack of formal citation [to the Apocrypha] continues for the first couple of centuries of Christian history: according to Oskar Skarsaune, until Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century, Greek Christian writers formally cite the deuterocanonical books only twice, both of which are quotations by Irenaeus of Baruch, which would have formed part of the book of Jeremiah at that time.^[1] Such evidence suggests to some scholars that the Christian Old Testament canon began in conscious accord with the Jewish canon, and only later-especially in the Latin West-did the religious value and liturgical use of the deuterocanonical books secure them a place in canonical lists. (p. 29).

(Skarsaune/Gallagher and Meade somehow miss that Athenagoras also cites to Baruch at the same time, as noted below.)

Baruch “formed part of the book of Jeremiah at that time”—which means that it was Scripture to Irenaeus, just like the rest of Jeremiah, and just like Genesis, the Fourfold Gospel, the Epistles of James, 1 John, and 2 John. If Irenaeus can be trusted, then the Churches already preached Susanna and Baruch (Daniel and Jeremiah were Scripture and, therefore, were preached; Susanna and Baruch were part of Daniel and Jeremiah and were preached, too). Thus, this “citation evidence” speaks to the early Church’s belief that Baruch was Scripture.

But actually, all that is missing the real point when it comes to this citation from Irenaeus. The point that matters most is that Irenaeus is one step removed from the Apostles, and he says Baruch is Apostolic preaching—not just Scripture, mind you, but Apostolic preaching, from John to Polycarp to Irenaeus.

Let us begin by first reading Irenaeus, in his own words, from sections 97-98 of the work entitled “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.” In fact, read that title again, and focus on what it is saying: Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Irenaeus wrote this as an instruction manual for new converts on how to learn and preach the true Apostolic faith when Gnostics and others were out there preaching false teachings. Emphasis added:

Wherefore also Jeremiah saith concerning her (i. e. wisdom): “Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, found her, and will bring her for choice gold? There is none that hath found her way, nor any that comprehendeth her path. But he that knoweth all things knoweth her by his understanding: he that prepareth the earth for evermore, hath filled it with four-footed beasts: he that sendeth forth the light and it goeth; he called it, and it obeyed him with fear: and the stars shined in their watches, and were glad: he called them, and they said Here we be; they shined with gladness unto him that made them. This is our God: there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with him. He hath found out every way by knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel that is beloved of him. Afterward did he appear upon earth, and was conversant with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die.” [Baruch 3:28-4:1, i.e., 3:28-3:37 plus 4:1.] Now by “Jacob” and “Israel” he means the Son of God, who received power from the Father over our life, and after having received this brought it down to us who were far off from Him, when He “appeared on earth and was conversant with men,” mingling and mixing the Spirit of God the Father with the creature formed by God, that man might be “after the image and likeness of God.”

This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children. This must we keep with all certainty, with a sound will and pleasing to God, with good works and right-willed disposition.^[2]

(a) Irenaeus quotes ten straight verses direct from the Book of Baruch, finishing with Baruch 4:1: “This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die,”

(b) Irenaeus identifies this as a crucial prophecy that is fulfilled by Jesus Christ. He does so a few sentences before ending this Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching with “… error has strayed widely from the truth. … they reject prophecy. And of all such must we beware, and shun their ways,”

and (c) Irenaeus tells his audience that this is “the preaching of the truth, … which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children. This must we keep with all certainty …”

Irenaeus—who learned from Polycarp, who learned from John^[3]—says in very clear terms that Baruch is Apostolic preaching. That is not nearly the same thing as a writer two hundred years later listing Baruch on a canon list, or referencing Baruch as “Scripture,” or even also stating that it was “Apostolic preaching.” Irenaeus does not just think that Baruch was part of Jeremiah, he is saying that it was part of Jeremiah as preached by John and Polycarp. It is “Jeremiah” as he was taught it, as it was read to him at Church, as it was preached to him as a disciple of Polycarp, and as it was preached to Polycarp as a disciple of John.

So saith the man who provides the pre-eminent testimony as to what John and Polycarp said and taught and preached—and is cited as such endlessly in the case for Christianity, the case for the historicity of the Gospels, and the case for the New Testament as the authentic Christian Scripture.

Irenaeus authenticates that John passed the text of what we call the Gospel of John on to Polycarp, who then authenticated, taught, and preached from that text—and Irenaeus authenticates the exact same thing for the Book of Baruch. The importance of Irenaeus is precisely this “one step removed” linkage between the Apostle’s teaching and the words on the page, which assure us that we have the right documents: the texts that are authentically Apostolic.

The implications for what Irenaeus is saying about Baruch are enormous.^[4]

Jeremiah Saith

Still, Irenaeus says that the prophesy is what “Jeremiah saith,” and people claim that this “misunderstanding” is why Irenaeus “mistakenly” believes it is Scripture—i.e., that Irenaeus has the “wrong” Book of Jeremiah and believes Baruch is Scripture only because he thinks it is part of the Book of Jeremiah (or the words of Jeremiah), and not because John preached from Baruch.

But first, this is the case for Christianity. Whether something is seen as Scripture is certainly part of the canon debate, but in the case for Christianity the part that matters is whether it is Apostolic preaching. That a Father accepts something as “Divinely inspired Scripture” implies his belief that it was Apostolic preaching, but the concepts are not always identical.

And Irenaeus does not say that Baruch is Scripture. What he says is that it is “the preaching of the truth … which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.” We have a precise, mechanical question presented: Did Irenaeus speak the truth when he stated that “the apostles delivered” the verses from the Book of Baruch? “No” is an answer that will have profound consequences in the case for Christianity, because Irenaeus is the pre-eminent testimony of Apostolic preaching upon which claims for being Scripture are based—claims for the Gospels, the Epistles, and all the documents that allegedly prove that the Apostles saw the risen Christ.

Furthermore, we must be mindful of the context here and shift gears away from “list-thinking.” On a list that says Jeremiah, the point is that the label Jeremiah as mentioned on the list references the physical Book of Baruch. Thus, for that list, the Book of Baruch is canon because it was part of the object the writer called Jeremiah.

But here is the reverse situation: Jeremiah is now a label that Irenaeus uses for the Book of Baruch. It is the Book of Baruch—the physical Book itself, the words on the page, the words of the prophet—that he is quoting, not the “rest of” the Book of Jeremiah. Irenaeus is speaking of the words he has just quoted, taken from the Book of Baruch. The words of the Book of Baruch are the preaching that “Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.” It is the words found in the Book of Baruch that we must keep with all certainty, and such as leave it shall die.^[5]

The “rest of” Jeremiah has nothing to do with what he is saying, nor is Jeremiah (the person) the subject that he is discussing. At no point does Irenaeus argue that a reader is to accept the words of the Book because it is part of Jeremiah; to the contrary, he expressly states that the reader is to accept the words precisely because they are Apostolic preaching (unlike the words of all the false documents and preaching he counters). That is literally the entire point of Irenaeus’ book, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: he is telling his readers that the words of the Book of Baruch are what the Apostles preached. He is not providing a canon list declaring that “Jeremiah” is canon and whatever is labeled “Jeremiah saith” is to be accepted as canon.

There were many other fake Books,^[6] including several claiming to be by Baruch, which moderns call 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and 4 Baruch.^[7] There were also fake Books claiming to be from Jeremiah, such as the Ethiopic Lamentations of Jeremiah.^[8] Irenaeus did not accept any of them because “Jeremiah saith,” he accepted this particular one because (he says) this one was part of the Apostolic preaching he had learned. He says this as part of warning his own disciples against all the false teaching that was being offered, including false books of “Jeremiah saith” and “Baruch saith.”

Nor is Irenaeus confused about who wrote the Book of Baruch and the Book of Jeremiah. Having read both Books, he undoubtedly knew full well (and better than many who just throw this claim out there) that Baruch wrote both of them. Jeremiah may have written nothing at all. He dictated parts (not all) of the Book of Jeremiah to Baruch, who wrote it down while also writing all the rest of the Book of Jeremiah—and all of it is Scripture, not just the parts Jeremiah dictated.^[9]

The Book of Baruch is not “fake Jeremiah”—it is either an honest Book of Baruch or a fake Book of Baruch. That the ancients thought Jeremiah was the one speaking in the Book of Baruch is not really the story; the story is that the ancients knew that the writer of the Book of Jeremiah was Baruch. And the Book of Baruch says in its very first verse (1:1) that “these are the words of the book, which Baruch the son of Nerias … wrote in Babylon…” The Book of Baruch never even mentions Jeremiah at all.^[10]

Origen will later separate the Book of Baruch from the Book of Jeremiah, but he did not “expose the Book of Baruch as a fraud” or anything of the sort; he merely splits a collection of Books into some of its component pieces (exactly like splitting Lamentations from Jeremiah, Ruth from Judges, and Nehemiah from Ezra). After that, Origen calls Baruch a prophet; Athanasius (a successor of Origen’s in Alexandria) specifically lists the Book of Baruch as canon by name, as does Cyril of Jerusalem; Epiphanius and the Apostolic Canons/Constitutions both specifically note that (some?) Jews accept the Book of Baruch as well as the Book of Jeremiah. Some Fathers, like Chrysostom, quote it as “Baruch in the book of Jeremiah…” Augustine says, “Some attribute this testimony not to Jeremiah, but to his secretary, who was called Baruch, but it is more commonly ascribed to Jeremiah.”^[11] At no point before Jerome does anyone claim that the Book of Baruch is not true or not Scripture.

This situation has other Biblical parallels: earlier, I quoted Jimmy Swaggart telling us Hebrews came from Paul and noted that Martin Luther told us it was from Apollos, but neither really cared. They had their opinions, and were no doubt attached to them, but not so attached that it makes any real difference to whether the actual Book is Scripture.

Jewish tradition claimed that Jeremiah was also the author of 1 and 2 Kings, though few believe that now, with no one claiming the books are not Scripture on that account. In fact, whether one person (that person being Baruch, not Jeremiah) actually wrote even the Book of Jeremiah is debated. Chapters 27-29 use different spellings of names, for example, implying multiple authors. The KJV changes some of the transliterations to match, so you can compare 27:6 (Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon) to 25:1 (Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon). The NIB commentary says that even the spelling of “Jeremiah” changes (Overview 26:1, p. 768), but that change does not seem to transliterate in the KJV (at least that I could find).

Another rather notable comparable is Ezra/Nehemiah. This situation is far too confusing to go into detail herein, but consider that “Mid-16th century Reformed Protestant Bible translations produced in Geneva were the first to introduce the name ‘Book of Nehemiah’ for the text formerly called the ‘Second Book of Ezra’.”^[12] Earlier citations to the Book of Nehemiah actually say Ezra/Esdras. Not infrequently, people confuse which of the two is writing (e.g., Nehemiah Chapters 8-10 are actually part of the “Ezra Memoir,” and Ezra Chapter 10 changes from speaking in the first person to speaking in the third person). In addition, the attributions to the person Ezra are far from certain: “it is possible that Ezra was responsible for the final text. However … a definitive answer to the question of the authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah cannot be given.” (Apologetics Study Bible, introduction to Ezra). Moreover, there were many other books attributed to Ezra—some are still accepted by all Christians, even though few now believe Ezra wrote them (1 and 2 Chronicles); others are only accepted by Orthodox Churches, and others still are not accepted by anyone.

So it is that Cyprian, in his treatise Ad Quirinum, quotes as Scripture “In Ezra also: They have fallen away from You, and have cast Your law behind their backs, and have killed Your prophets which testified against them that they should return to You.” The quote is now Nehemiah 9:26. Cyprian, too, “thought it was Ezra”—but the fact that we eventually decided to separate the Book of Nehemiah from the Book of Ezra does not alter what he said: the words of the Book of Nehemiah were clearly Scripture to Cyprian and, clearly the point of what he was saying, not the label Ezra.

In fact, consider all the other references to Jeremiah made by Irenaeus in the same book, the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

Section	Quote	Notes
43	This Jeremiah the prophet also testified, saying thus: …	The footnotes say that this is a “composite quotation from the Psalms, here attributed to Jeremiah.” I believe it is taken from Psalm 110:3 plus 72:17 plus 33:6.
43	And again the same says: Blessed is he who was, before he became man	This quote does not seem to be anywhere in the Scriptures, although there is similar wording in the false Gospel of Thomas, Section 19: Jesus said, “Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being.”[13]
68	And Jeremiah the prophet says the same, thus: …	This is not a quote from the Book of Jeremiah; it is a quote from the Book of Lamentations 3:30. The ancients saw it as part of the Book called “Jeremiah”—exactly as they did with the Book of Baruch.
71	And in another place Jeremiah says: The Spirit of our face, the Lord Christ	Also Lamentations (4:20), not Jeremiah. This is something that had been previously cited by Justin Martyr (see next note), but Lamentations does not actually say this; it is a combination of the text and the interpretation of the text, presented as if it were a quote from the text.
78	And in Jeremiah He thus declares His death and descent into hell, saying:…	Footnote: “This is one of the prophecies which Justin [Martyr] declared the Jews had erased from their Scriptures (Dial. 72). It is quoted several times by Irenaeus [in his other book Against Heresy]: III, xxii. 1 (as from Isaiah); IV, xxxvi. 1 (as from Jeremiah, to whom Justin had attributed it); l. 1 (an allusion only); lv. 3 (“alii autem dicentes: Rememoratus . . . causam reddiderunt propter quam passus est hæc omnia”); V, xxxi. 1 (with variations, and no name of author).”
80	And again Jeremiah the prophet says: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was sold, whom they bought from the children of Israel; and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.	A quote mostly from Zachariah 11:13 but attributed to Jeremiah.
90	even as Jeremiah prophesied: …	Jeremiah 31:31-34. This language was cited repeatedly in the New Testament: Heb 8:8-12; Heb 10:16-17; Rom 11:26.
97	the quote from Baruch 3:29-4:1

That is eight quotes from Jeremiah, but seven of them are not in the modern Book of Jeremiah. Three are definitely from someone who was not Jeremiah; one was allegedly erased from the Book of Jeremiah or the Book of Isaiah—Irenaeus is not consistent on which; two are included in what we now call Lamentations, which may not be correctly attributed to “Jeremiah;” the one under discussion is included in what we now call Baruch.

Two are found nowhere in the Scriptures anyone accepts today. Five quotes are in Books that some have considered to be part of the Book of Jeremiah. Only one is from what is still Jeremiah, two are from Lamentations (separated but considered canon), one is from Baruch (separated and considered canon by some and Apocrypha by others), and one was allegedly erased by the Jews before the time of Irenaeus.

The quotes from Lamentations are one short verse, then half of a longer verse. The only lengthy quotations are the one from the Book of Jeremiah (four verses out of the 1,364 verses of Jeremiah (0.3% of the book)), and the one from the Book of Baruch which is ten verses long (10 out of 140; the Catholic Book of Baruch is 213 verses, but 73 are from the Epistle of Jeremiah, a different book that is included with their version of the historical Book of Baruch) – 7.1% of the Book of Baruch is quoted by Irenaeus). Irenaeus quotes many more verses from Baruch than Jeremiah, and as a percentage of the books it is a landslide.

(In his other surviving work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus will also quote another 300 words from Baruch 4:36-5:9. That is the two final verses of Chapter 4 and every single word of Chapter 5, and makes a total of 500 words and 21 out of 140 verses that Irenaeus testifies to: 15.0% of the entire Book of Baruch. Recall that Kruger tells us Irenaeus “appeared” to cite a verse of 2 Peter and discusses the debate over whether he may have alluded to a verse of James. Vague possible mentions of a single verse from Irenaeus are crucial to the case for the New Testament, whereas Irenaeus quoted 500 words and 15% of the entire Book of Baruch as part of his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching and his fight Against Heresies.)

Irenaeus also wrote that it was Jeremiah who spoke the words of the Book of Psalms, the Book of Zechariah, the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Baruch, and possibly the Book of Isaiah—but that is not why he believed Psalms, Zechariah, Lamentations, Baruch, and Isaiah are Scripture. He believed them to be Scripture because he believed them to be Apostolic preaching. In fact, the words of Zechariah that Irenaeus says were spoken by Jeremiah were inarguably what “the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children” (the words Irenaeus used for Baruch). Inarguably, because Irenaeus is not actually quoting Jeremiah, he is actually quoting Matthew, who quotes Jeremiah. Matthew:

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. (27:9-10).

Here is the quote from Zechariah (11:9-13):

And I took my staff … If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

So, that is the sale of a staff with proceeds cast to the potter, and there is no field involved, but it is 30 pieces of silver. Here is the quote from Jeremiah that seems to also be involved:

And Jeremiah said, The word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it. … And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle’s son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. (32:8-9).

That is a field, no potter, and 17 shekels, not 30 pieces of silver. In the Gospel to the Jews (many of whom were former Jewish Priests), Matthew cites to the name Jeremiah while quoting Zechariah. See, e.g., David Limbaugh’s The Emmaus Code, p. 324, which evaluates it as the fulfillment of a prophecy from Zechariah—without even mentioning that Matthew actually said that it was from Jeremiah.

How is this explained? From Gleason L. Archer and The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:

… since Jeremiah is the more prominent of the two prophets, he mentions Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet. … Since that was the normal literary practice of the first century A.D., when the Gospels were written, the authors can scarcely be faulted for not following the modern practice of precise identification and footnoting (which could never have become feasible until after the transition had been made from the scroll to the codex and the invention of the printing press).

Jeremiah was, of course, also more prominent than Baruch his scribe, and people already included the Book of Baruch as part of the Book of Jeremiah. Perhaps that explains why Irenaeus “mentions Jeremiah’s name by preference to that of the minor prophet.”

R.C.H. Lenski gives us a different possible explanation:

… One of the older ways of dividing the Scriptures was to begin with the law and to call this part “The Law.” Next the section commencing with the Psalms was called “The Psalms” although it contained other writings. The third part began with Jeremiah and included all the other prophets, and yet the whole was called “Jeremiah.” Lightfoot cites the Baba Bathra and Rabbi David Kimchi’s Preface to the prophet Jeremiah as his authorities. Horn, Introduction, 7th ed. II, 290. Thus any passage taken from this third section of the Old Testament would be quoted as coming from “Jeremiah.”

Lenski and Lightfoot give us evidence that any other prophet at all—let alone Baruch, his scribe and the one he was indeed partnered with in actual fact—could sometimes be referred to as Jeremiah. Human nature would, then, say that Jeremiah was the “lazy” answer, used by someone who for whatever reason is not looking it up to be certain—just say Jeremiah and move on. That might also explain Irenaeus’ references to the Psalms, Isaiah, and the parallel found in the Gospel of Thomas. It did not really matter who exactly said it, or even where—just say Jeremiah and move on.

In addition, consider Lamentations, once attached to Jeremiah and quoted as “Jeremiah saith,” as well. The Hebrew/Masoretic text of Lamentations does not name any author; it is the later Greek Septuagint translation that adds an interpretive opening line claiming Jeremiah as the author.^[14] But (1) the author of Lamentations writes as an eyewitness in Jerusalem following its destruction by the Babylonians, when Jeremiah was never in the city of Jerusalem after it was destroyed, (2) the first four chapters are four poems whose lines begin with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, yet they differ in the order of the letters (most likely indicating different authors; it is thought that two different sequences were used by the Jews, but that means used by different groups of people, not used by the same person); and (3) “many positions in Lamentations appear to contradict Jeremiah’s prophecies.”^[15]

The NIB explains all this:

Jeremiah is the author of Lamentations in a symbolic sense but probably not in a literal sense. Authorship in the ancient world did not follow modern customs. In order to bring books under the aura of heroes and their moral authority, writings were often ascribed to them. (Intro to Lam.)

The point is this: exactly why Irenaeus refers to the Book of Baruch as “Jeremiah saith” can be debated, as with Lamentations, Psalms, Zachariah, Isaiah, etc., and it can be explained in many different ways. But what is inarguable is that the reasons Irenaeus himself states for believing that the Book of Baruch is authentic Scripture is that “This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, … which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.” That is the part that matters, not the attribution to Jeremiah.

The idea that “Irenaeus just thought Baruch was part of Jeremiah” sounds like an answer, but it is simply not good enough in the case for Christianity. Irenaeus shows no sign of basing his beliefs (or asking his audience to base their beliefs) on the actual identity of the author or the name of the book. To the contrary, he expressly says that the 200 words that “Jeremiah saith” are Apostolic teaching – something he himself was taught, and that his teacher said came direct from the Apostles (presumably John). That is exactly the point he is making in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.

Chain of Custody

Either what Irenaeus said is true, or it is not. If not, who exactly introduced this allegedly false Scripture into Christianity? Or, put another way, how does Irenaeus come to claim that Baruch is Apostolic teaching, when (for the sake of argument) the Jews, Jesus, and the Apostles did not preach it as true Scripture? By the time of Irenaeus, it has already arrived as “fake” Apostolic preaching—Baruch was now, for the first time, being promoted as if it were Apostolic preaching when it was not.

There are five links in the Baruch chain, and only five links: the Jews to Jesus to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus. There are no other links, and thus, no other possible suspects:

THE JEWS -> JESUS -> JOHN -> POLYCARP -> IRENAEUS

The Jews? The entire argument is over the claim that Baruch is not Scripture because it was not considered Scripture by the Jews. So, for purposes of the question, the Jews could not have thought Baruch was Scripture.

Jesus? That would be even more nonsensical.

Was it John (when not being Divinely inspired, of course)? John was the Beloved Disciple, a Jew himself, “known unto the High Priest” (John 18:16), and the Evangelist who wrote five books of Scripture. In reality, John is almost as nonsensical a suspect as Jesus, at least if Christianity is true (John 21:24: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”). Still, let us imagine the almost unimaginable. Even if we assume some bizarre motivation to add an existing book that was not Scripture to the authentic Jewish Scriptures (rather than just write whatever he wanted in his own new Scriptures), it is difficult to imagine he could do this, just as a matter of mechanics. While we could assume he does it after the other Apostles have died, there would still be all the Jews who had converted, among whom were many Priests, which would seem to make it impossible to “quietly” introduce Baruch as Scripture to people who had been taught it was not part of the (allegedly) certain 22 Book canon.

Or was it Polycarp, “O Polycarp, most blessed in God” (as he is addressed in the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, shortly before Ignatius (a fellow disciple of John’s) was martyred)?^[16] Polycarp learned at the feet of John, “appears to know both 1 John and 2 John,” and authenticates multiple Books of the Bible alleged to be from John and others. He may have received the letter to Smyrna in the Book of Revelation and was thought to be the last alive to have known an Apostle personally. Polycarp was taught from the Old Testament—meaning only Jeremiah, not Baruch(?)—while sitting at the feet of John with all the other students, including all those former Priests and converted Jews. And yet Polycarp would have listened to all that teaching and still decided later to add Baruch by his own initiative.

Polycarp is the second Christian whose martyrdom we have a genuine written account of (the first was Stephen). He would have ignored the words of the Letter to Smyrna (Revelation 2:10: “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life”), and then been unfaithful to the teaching of John and the authentic Scriptures, all in order to start preaching Baruch.

There were, indeed, false preachers at this time, so it is not unimaginable. Still, the timing would be difficult—e.g., Kruger says that “Campenhausen’s well-known claim that the Pastoral Epistles derive from the time of Polycarp has not been widely accepted and places the letters too late to be so readily received by Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment just a short time later.”^[17] But actually, the timing means it might have to be Polycarp. Fathers who were not disciples of Polycarp’s will be quoting Baruch at the same time as Irenaeus, and in far-off geographies. Somehow, that spread occurs before we have written record of it.

If it was Polycarp, he took the authentic teaching of John and added Baruch to the Scriptures (and perhaps also Tobit, which he himself references in the one single writing of his that we have,^[18] and 2 Maccabees if his recorded last words are correct^[19]). It is hard to say more about Polycarp, however, because Baruch is not cited in his own writing. So, while it might have been him, I will mostly focus on Irenaeus. If we decide it was not Irenaeus who did it, then Polycarp is implicated by process of elimination and is, then, virtually certain to be the one who defrauded Christianity by introducing this fake Apostolic teaching.

If not for the timing of the simultaneous citations, then the obvious suspect would be Irenaeus, who learned from Polycarp (“I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. … I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths”). He is of course the one who provides the pre-eminent testimony that the Fourfold Gospel is authentic Apostolic teaching; and he was the first to authenticate the Epistles of James, 1 John, 2 John, and others, all on the basis of what he claimed he had been taught directly from Polycarp.

But there are only five links in the chain, and it must be one of them.

The Teachings of Each Link in the Chain

THE JEWS -> JESUS -> JOHN -> POLYCARP -> IRENAEUS

Let’s go over the chain again, focusing now on the teachings of each link. John says in his Gospel that “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us …” John 1:14. The KJV cross-references John 1:14 and Baruch 3:37. So, John himself may have actually been alluding to the section of Baruch quoted by Irenaeus, per the KJV.

John’s first Epistle says that: “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist…” (1 John 4:3). Thus, John’s first Epistle stresses the point John made in his Gospel at verse 1:14 (the verse that may allude to Baruch) and says that anyone who denies it is the antichrist. 1 John is the Epistle that “advises Christians on how to discern true teachers.”^[20] It says that “… even now are there many antichrists… They went out from us, but they were not of us” (2:19). I.e., the antichrists are teachers who do not teach that the Word/Jesus came in the flesh. In other words, the antichrists are those who do not teach the teaching of John 1:14—the verse that may allude to Baruch, per the KJV.

The entire focus of the Epistle is distinguishing authentic Apostolic preaching from the false teaching, on exactly the point that Irenaeus is discussing. So, how to distinguish the true from the false? “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.” (2:24). “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (4:6). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.” (2:10).

John’s second Epistle says that “…many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John 7). John doubles down on the concept, saying exactly the same thing in his second Epistle as in his first.

1 John and 2 John are the Epistles that Polycarp “appears to know,” according to Kruger. Thus, the Epistles were (in part) communications from one link in our chain to another, from John the writer to Polycarp the reader. And Polycarp “appears to know” 1 John because he seems to quote it in Chapter 7 of his own Epistle:^[21]

For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; (1 John 4:3) …Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; …

Note that the quote by Polycarp could just as easily come from 2 John 7; it is hard to tell because it is really the same point made in 1 John, 2 John, and Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians. All three make the same point using the same language (at a time when “same language” quotation is very rare). All three allude to John 1:14, which itself may allude to Baruch 3:37, per the KJV.

Baruch 3:37 (“Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men”) is not just at the heart of the prophecy that Irenaeus quotes but is alluded to by Irenaeus on other occasions as well—just not as a formal citation/quotation. Against Heresies 4, 20, 4: “Wherefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the flesh… the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with them upon earth, should confer with them …” (In 5.35.1 of the same work, he quotes almost 300 words from Baruch 4:36-5:9, including every word of Chapter 5.)^[22]

Here, Irenaeus also provides the interpretation for this verse from Baruch, saying that it “…means the Son of God…He “appeared on earth and was conversant with men,” mingling and mixing the Spirit of God the Father with the creature formed by God, that man might be “after the image and likeness of God.”” Then, of course, he claims that “This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered…”

Irenaeus ends this “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching” with the note that “others again reject the coming of the Son of God and the dispensation of His incarnation, which the apostles delivered and the prophets declared beforehand… they accept not the Son and speak against the dispensation of His incarnation; or else they … reject prophecy. And of all such must we beware, and shun their ways…”

We see that Irenaeus is saying the exact same thing as Polycarp and John. The issue in dispute flows from link to link to link; and also, the method of determining authentic doctrine (only that which goes back to original preaching is authentic) is the same for every person in the link.

In addition, the substance of the matter is inarguably something John stressed and taught repeatedly, since he does so in multiple Epistles. It is inarguably a point that Polycarp taught (since he, too, is teaching it in his Epistle), and we have clear indications that Polycarp’s teaching “appears to know” the two Epistles of John that stress and teach this point, since he effectively quotes it from either or both of them.

The only development in the chain is that Baruch’s prophecy now appears as the “prophetic forerunner” of this teaching. This occurs in Irenaeus’ manual, written (see Section 1): “to show … the preaching of the truth for the confirmation of your faith. We send you as it were a manual of essentials… So shall it be fruitful to your own salvation, and you shall put to shame all who inculcate falsehood…” This manual is, of course, a much longer document than the Epistles (to my eyes, it is about four times as long as all three Epistles (1 John, 2 John, and the Epistle from Polycarp) combined). It provides the fuller teaching if, indeed, Irenaeus can be trusted—so, the appearance of an additional element makes perfect sense.

Irenaeus has already quoted John’s Gospel as New Testament proof of the point in question, in Section 94: “…He was made flesh and tabernacled with men; as also His disciple John says: And his Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” That is citing John 1:14, the verse that the KJV sees as a cross-reference to Baruch 3:37, and doing so three paragraphs before citing Baruch 3:37.

In fact, Irenaeus references John 1:14 nine separate times in this particular work, as part of this Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (per www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search he makes reference to it in sections 6, 12, 30, 31, 37, 39, 53, 92, 94). That is nine times that he references John 1:14 before he mentions this Old Testament precursor from Baruch. He mentions John 1:14, the verse that the KJV sees as a cross-reference to Baruch 3:37, in the beginning, the middle, and the end of this treatise on Apostolic Preaching.

The Question of Why?

The words quoted from Baruch are not actually all that notable—certainly not in the sense that one would be tempted to introduce a fake prophecy to prove that the Incarnation of Christ was foretold. There are many other prophecies that could be cited instead, such as Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” David Limbaugh’s Emmaus Code (p. 286) says that this is an “explicit” prophecy that “God would literally be born in human flesh and live with us.”

Indeed, Irenaeus quotes Isaiah 9:6 in his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching and discusses it over three paragraphs (54-56). Irenaeus had no need or motive to introduce a fake prophecy into the discussion and declare that it was what “Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.”

Irenaeus had been taught that the Incarnation had fulfilled prophecies, and the original teachings of true prophecies must have been working just fine (in fact, we are often told how explosive the growth of early Christianity was).^[23]

And bear in mind that this false teaching would be easily disproven. Irenaeus is literally daring a reader to go ask the Churches and verify the facts:

Polycarp …always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time…^[24]

From Wikipedia:

[Irenaeus] offered three pillars of orthodoxy: the scriptures, the tradition said to be handed down from the apostles, and the teaching of the apostles’ successors. … In his writing against the Gnostics, who claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus claimed that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the oral tradition he lists from the Apostles is a safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture. … Irenaeus’s point … was that all of the Apostolic churches had preserved the same traditions and teachings in many independent streams. It was the unanimous agreement between these many independent streams of transmission that proved the orthodox faith, current in those churches, to be true.^[25]

Polycarp’s death was not that long beforehand (155 AD, so 22-25ish years), so there would be others still alive who had also learned from Polycarp. In addition, disciples whose training “descended from” other Apostles were teaching all over the world. Irenaeus would risk everything by teaching this false Scripture that no Christian had ever been taught. It was not just the Jews who would object, because any authentic Christian would refute the lie. All had been taught to “return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning” (Polycarp), and “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house…” (1 John 2:10).

Or Why Not, If It Was This Easy?

Or, at least, that is the way it would have happened, if the claims of Christians are true. Here we have a test case that shows how well all the safeguards actually worked. From “Is The New Testament Trustworthy?” by Darrell L. Bock, an essay in the Apologetics Study Bible:

The NT is based on reliable sources carefully used and faithfully transmitted. … The texts surrounding Jesus stress the role of eyewitnesses as the root of the tradition (see Lk 1:2). An apostolic association ensured the account’s credibility. The distance between event and recording is not great-less than a lifetime, a small distance of time by ancient standards. … Judaism depended on the ability to pass things on with care from one generation to the next, recounting events with care. … Judaism, and the Christianity that grew out of it, was a culture of memory…

If any of that is actually true, and Baruch is not authentic Apostolic teaching, then we should have evidence of criticism against Irenaeus for introducing the false Scripture. Not only is there no record of any challenge (or even questions), but to the contrary, we know that Athenagoras (over in Alexandria) also quotes the words of Baruch 3:35 (“The Lord is our God; no other can be compared with Him”) as the words of a prophet in his letter to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in 177 AD.^[26] That is a citation to some of the exact same words Irenaeus is citing to—at almost the exact same time.

A few years later, Clement of Alexandria, in his treatise The Instructor, quotes three different sections of Baruch as Jeremiah.^[27] The three verses come from the same chapters (3 and 4) that Irenaeus and Athenagoras cite. That is three Fathers, roughly contemporaneous, all evidencing that Baruch had been taught as Scripture—and especially this part of Baruch.

Recall that Gallagher and Meade told us that:

the second century was the decisive time for the formation of the fourfold Gospel … The end of the century witnessed the solidification of the fourfold Gospel in the writings of Irenaeus, followed not long after by less enthusiastic but no less definitive testimony from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. (p. 39).

Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen cited Baruch as Scripture. Tertullian made an allusion. In fact, as far as we have evidence, Baruch was universally accepted—unlike the Fourfold Gospel. The three second century Fathers cite to Baruch when fighting heresy (Irenaeus), when pleading for justice from the Roman Emperor (Athenagoras), and when creating a manual for living as a Christian (Clement). The early date, contemporaneous timing, geographical spread, and crucial doctrinal context of all these references point to a practice that extends back in time to the Apostles.

                Or not. But if not, then such indicia of credibility have been proven to fail within the early Church, and those indicia are what support the alleged authenticity of the Fourfold Gospel and much else.

In addition, it is also time to stop kidding ourselves about “mere” citation evidence. Starting in the second century, there is not just the widespread “citation” to Baruch—there is widespread preaching of Baruch. Baruch 3:36-38 was preached as a Prophecy, as Scripture, as handed down by the Apostles, and as fulfilled by Christ, and it was so taught by all the Churches in all the world. It was not cited in some esoteric or academic manner; it was preached, just as Irenaeus preached it in the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.

Not only is there no record whatsoever of anyone objecting to Baruch before Jerome, but to the contrary, there is an astonishingly full and voluminous record of its consistent and repetitive preaching. Baruch was preached by Epiphanius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus, and Origen. That is eight of Kruger’s ten Fathers, all preaching the same preaching as Irenaeus. Missing are Melito (as always, since we have little of Melito’s writings) and Jerome.

Otherwise, eight of Kruger’s ten Fathers expressly declare that particular verse from the Book of Baruch to be Prophecy, Scripture, the Word of God, etc.—just as did Irenaeus.^[28] They preach it as fulfilled by Jesus Christ and as a reason—frankly, not infrequently as the reason—to believe in Christ. We can have confidence that Jesus Christ is truly Divine because His coming was foretold. Who foretold His coming? According to Irenaeus and the early Church, it was Baruch. When the early Church claimed that God fulfilled the prophecies and became man, they cited to Baruch.

In the entire history of the early Church, Isaiah 9:6 (“For unto us a child is born … The mighty God”—the verse that David Limbaugh’s Emmaus Code (p. 286) says is an “explicit” prophecy that “God would literally be born in human flesh and live with us”) was cited only 58 times. Baruch 3:36-38 was cited 158 times (per www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search—three times as often, per the same data set) and essentially always as Prophecy, Scripture, etc.

www.Wednesdayintheword.com/jeremiah-in-the-new-testament/ provides a list of every quote/allusion to Jeremiah in the New Testament. Here is a chart noting the number of times early Church Fathers cited to all the passages of Jeremiah that are quoted/alluded to in the New Testament:

Jeremiah	New Testament	Cites
Jer 5:21	Mark 8:18	7
Jer 6:16	Matt 11:29	30
Jer 7:11	Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46	9
Jer 9:23-24	1Co 1:31; 2Co 10:17	42
Jer 10:7	Rev 15:3-4	5
Jer 12:3	Jas 5:5	5
Jer 12:15	Acts 15:16	4
Jer 22:24	Rom 14:11	20
Jer 31:15	Matt 2:18	18
Jer 31:31-34[29]	Heb 8:8-12; Heb 10:16-17; Rom 11:26	214

All or part of the passage from Baruch quoted by Irenaeus (Baruch 3:28-4:1) is cited by Fathers 188 times, more than nine of the 10 prophecies from the Book of Jeremiah combined. Those other prophecies are quoted in the New Testament—which certainly certifies them as being of crucial importance to authentic Apostolic preaching—but the prophecy of Baruch was preached vastly more often by the early Church.

The lead-in to Matthew 2:18 (i.e., 2:17) says, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet”—so Matthew 2:18 is expressly declaring Jeremiah 31:15 to be authentic Prophecy spoken by Jeremiah and fulfilled by Jesus Christ. And the early Church preached the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Baruch quoted by Irenaeus more than 10 times as often as it preached the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15.

In fact, Jeremiah is quoted by name twice in the New Testament, each time as giving a Prophecy fulfilled by Christ. The other named citation is in Matthew 27:9-10, which (as discussed above) says Jeremiah is the prophet being quoted but, then, quotes mostly from Zechariah. So, it could be seen as referencing both Jeremiah 32:6-9 and Zechariah 11:12-13 (per the Apologetics Study Bible). I presume it is not included on the website’s list for that reason. Regardless, Jeremiah 32:6-9 was cited 15 times (and Zechariah 11:12-13 59 times).^[30]

The alleged safeguards that work to ensure Apostolicity not only would have failed, but they would have failed spectacularly.

The Importance of Irenaeus and His Pre-Eminent Testimony

In the end, we either have a chain of custody we can trust, or we do not. And it is from this chain (Jesus to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus) that we first receive the Gospels, plural—not just one Gospel, but all four, and not any of the other false Gospels that existed:

Before Irenaeus, Christians differed as to which gospel they preferred. The Christians of Asia Minor preferred the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Matthew was the most popular overall. … Irenaeus acknowledged that many heterodox Christians used only one gospel and that some use more than four.^[31]

…Irenaeus asserted that all four of the Gospels, John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark … were canonical scripture. Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion’s edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel. ^[32]

Irenaeus is the true key to the canon. He provides the crucial link for the Apostolicity of the Gospel of John:

Early Christian tradition, first found in Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), identified this disciple with John the Apostle, but most scholars have abandoned this hypothesis or hold it only tenuously; there are multiple reasons for this conclusion, including, for example, the fact that the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.^[33]

Not all believed Irenaeus, however:

Marcion … is said to have rejected all other gospels, including those of Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he alleged had been forged by Irenaeus.^[34]

The conclusion that the Gospel of John was not forged, that it is truly and authentically Apostolic, depends on the “pre-eminent” testimony of Irenaeus, in the words of Gallagher and Meade.^[35] Consider all the inconsistencies between Gospels, and especially those between John and the other three Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels, which have more in common with each other and less in common with John). Craig L. Blomberg, the Historical Reliability of the Gospels:

The conviction that apostles or close associates of the apostles penned the four Gospels already in the first century led Christians throughout most of church history to believe that they recorded historically reliable as well as theologically authoritative material. Thus they regularly attempted to reconcile apparent contradictions, confident that plausible solutions would emerge.^[36]

Recall that CARM rejects Baruch as Apocrypha, and thus showed us what happens when one does not reconcile seeming conflicts.^[37] But because CARM accepts the Fourfold Gospel, they (like all Christians) reconcile when the text in seeming conflict is the Gospel of John. In other situations, the inability of multiple alleged witnesses to get basic facts straight is a sign that they were not really there, and things did not happen the way they say.^[38]

In essence, evidence of Apostolicity for the Gospel of John (based in substantial part on the pre-eminent testimony of Irenaeus) is held to be so trustworthy that it overrides the potential inconsistencies that could otherwise be used as a basis to “prove” that the Gospel of John is inauthentic. But in the case for Christianity, the question would be why a judge would trust the pre-eminent testimony of Irenaeus regarding the Gospel of John being authentic Apostolic teaching, when the Christian admits that Irenaeus gave false testimony about Baruch being Apostolic teaching.

But it is not just the Gospel of John, either. Irenaeus is really at the heart of it all. It was Irenaeus who first said that the longer form of Luke’s Gospel (not the shorter form then promoted by Marcion) and the Book of Acts (which Irenaeus is the first to name) are authentic, descend from a disciple of an Apostle, and are, thus, true Scripture. Of course, not all believe him:

According to a Church tradition beginning with Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD) he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but “a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters”… he does not represent Paul’s views accurately. … Luke-Acts contains differences in theology and historical narrative which are irreconcilable^[39] with the authentic letters of Paul the Apostle. … The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.^[40]

According to Bart D. Ehrman, the “we” passages are written by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul’s views and activities. Ehrman holds that The Acts of the Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery.^[41]

According to Marcion, Irenaeus forged the Gospel of John and falsely authenticated the “long form” of the Gospel of Luke; according to Ehrman, Irenaeus falsely attributed Acts to Luke. But do not forget Matthew either: Matthew is basically a copy of Mark, with “additions” having been made. Because of Irenaeus, we accept Matthew as authentic and supplementary to Mark, an entirely separate “witness,” rather than as a fake, inauthentic “addition” to or “long form” of a copy of the “original Gospel, the true Gospel, that of Mark”—just as Irenaeus accepts Baruch as an authentic supplement to the Book of Jeremiah, rather than as an inauthentic “addition” to the version of Jeremiah that the Jews accept. Papias, one of Irenaeus’ teachers, had earlier identified the Gospels of Matthew and Mark by name, but Irenaeus is, again, the crucial witness, because it is through him that the names get attached to the specific documents we possess. In fact, Ehrman claims that Papias’ information does not match the documents we have.

Nor is Irenaeus only crucial for the Gospels, either, but for very nearly every single word of the New Testament. Acts is, in many ways, an apologetic for Paul, explaining to the unconvinced why a former oppressor who was not one of the original 12 became a valid Disciple. Irenaeus’ pre-eminent testimony for Luke and Acts is thus crucial to proving that Paul was an authentic Apostle. There was a group called the Ebionites who denied this, and therefore, denied all of Paul’s Epistles. But they were refuted by Irenaeus and disappeared from history (only to be reborn in modern times, where there has been “a resurgence of Ebionitism, specifically the problem of Israeli Messianic leaders apostatizing from the belief in the divinity of Jesus”).^[42]

In fact, Ehrman’s choice to attack Acts is probably no accident. A generation ago, J.P. Moreland (Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity) made:

…a strong case … for dating Acts at 62 to 64. … Luke should be dated just prior to that. Further, Matthew and Mark should be dated even earlier, perhaps from the mid-40s to mid-50s. The picture of Jesus presented in the Synoptics is one that is only twelve to twenty-nine years removed from the events themselves. And they incorporate sources which are even earlier. …

Six arguments, taken together, provide a powerful case for dating Acts at 62 to 64. First, Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70… [which] makes sense if Luke-Acts was written prior to the event itself. Second, no mention is made of Nero’s persecutions in the mid-60s … Third, the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), and Peter (65) are not mentioned in Acts. … Fourth, the subject matter of Acts deals with issues of importance prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70. … Fifth, several of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. … Sixth, the Jewish war against the Romans (from 66 onward) is not mentioned in Acts. …^[43]

Of course, Ehrman has a very simple counterargument that simultaneously deals with all six of Moreland’s arguments at once: Acts was not authentic; it was a fake that was wrongly authenticated by Irenaeus. A fake would not mention things that came later than the time period it purports to be from. If one were to fake a newspaper article set in the 1930s, one would carefully avoid mentioning World War II. It is the testimony of Irenaeus that counters Ehrman’s speculation. Ehrman shows us what happens without Irenaeus’ pre-eminent testimony:

It is not difficult to see why orthodox writers like Irenaeus wanted to stress the point. … The authority of a Gospel resided in the person of its author. … it came to be seen as necessary to assign authors’ names to the four Gospels that were being most widely used in orthodox circles, to differentiate them from the “false” Gospels used by heretics… It does not appear, however, that any of these books was written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus or by companions of his two great apostles. For my purposes here it is enough to reemphasize that the books do not claim to be written by these people and early on they were not assumed to be written by these people. The authors of these books never speak in the first person (the First Gospel never says, “One day, Jesus and I went to Jerusalem …”). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. At the same time, later Christians had very good reasons to assign the books to people who had not written them. As a result, the authors of these books are not themselves making false authorial claims. Later readers are making these claims about them. They are therefore not forgeries, but false attributions.^[44]

That’s the view of Irenaeus’ importance from the skeptical side. From the Christian side, I quoted much of Kruger’s analysis in pieces already, but here it is at length to make sure we all have the full context:

One of the most influential voices in the early church was Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and disciple of Polycarp… Irenaeus’s defense of the fourfold Gospel… appears to draw upon tradition that has been entrenched within the church for quite some time.…Given that Irenaeus appears to have known Justin’s works (and maybe Justin himself), and certainly knew Polycarp, it is possible that he received this tradition from them. … [from Footnote 17:] Irenaeus also affirms that Polycarp knew Papias … which suggests that he may also be a source of this fourfold Gospel tradition… (p. 228-229).

… debates would have encouraged critical thinking about these texts, deeper reflection on their content, and more vigorous historical investigation into their origins. Robert Grant argues that a number of early church fathers— Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others – were astute “literary critics” who carefully analyzed the literary merits and historical origins of canonical and noncanonical books… As a result, they took the task of distinguishing between canonical and apocryphal books very seriously, giving us reason for greater confidence in their final conclusions. (p. 201).

The above examples … reveal that the early stages of the canon were not a wide-open affair where newly produced apocryphal literature could have easily found a welcome home, but were marked by concern to affirm only books from the apostolic time period. (p. 286).

In case anyone needs to hear it, Kruger also stresses the importance of the New Testament canon to the case for Christianity:

This book is about a very specific problem confronting the Christian faith. It is certainly not a new problem … but is perhaps one of the oldest. … It is what D. F. Strauss has called the “Achilles’ heel of Protestant Christianity.” It is what many still consider to be, as Herman Ridderbos has observed, the “hidden, dragging illness of the Church.” It is the … fundamental question of how we, as Christians, can know that we have the right twenty-seven books in our New Testament. … Certainly, there can be no New Testament theology if there is no such thing as a New Testament in the first place. … Unless a coherent response can be offered to such questions, then Strauss may be all too right-the canon issue could become the single thread that unravels the entire garment of the Christian faith. (p. 15-16).

I completely agree, of course. And Kruger did a great job of showing all the evidence that supports the authenticity of the New Testament. But the Apocrypha are also part of this discussion. Either the absence of clear evidence in the first two centuries is devastating to the case for both the Apocrypha and the New Testament Books, or it is not. Either citations are valid and meaningful evidence of support, or they are not. Either the Fathers give solid and trustworthy testimony of what had been handed down by the Apostles, or they do not. And in particular, either Irenaeus can be trusted when he claims something is Apostolic preaching, or he cannot.

I also pulled three books off the top of a pile devoted to Christian Apologetics to see what they have to say about Irenaeus. Evidence for Christianity, by Josh McDowell (an update, of sorts, to his more famous Evidence that Demands a Verdict), states:

Concerning the significance of Irenaeus (A.D. 180), F. F. Bruce writes “The importance of evidence lies in his [Irenaeus’s] link with the apostolic age and in his ecumenical associations. … His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter and 1 John and of the Revelation…”^[45]

That is 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament, some of which do not need Irenaeus’ testimony as much as others. Still, he is important for all of them and is absolutely critical for many, including all four Gospels.

The second book up is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: the index gives us five mentions of Irenaeus. The first is a quote from Irenaeus. The second follows the quote: “If Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct…” Big if. The third: “As with Clement, if Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct…” Big if. The fourth: “If Irenaeus is correct in claiming…” Big if. The fifth: “Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus and a leader in the church of the late second and early third century…” Three “big ifs” and a reminder that Irenaeus influenced everyone who came after him, either for good or ill. (Clement and Hippolytus both cite to Baruch as Scripture, while Tertullian makes an allusion.)

The third book is Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.^[46] He mentions Irenaeus only once, in a discussion with Craig Blomberg, but it is worth quoting in full:

Blomberg: “Then Irenaeus, writing about AD 180, confirmed the traditional authorship. In fact, here—,” he said, reaching for a book. He flipped it open and read Irenaeus’ words.

Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.

Strobel: I looked up from the notes I was taking. “OK, let me clarify this,” I said. “If we can have confidence that the gospels were written by the disciples Matthew and John, by Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter, and by Luke, the historian, companion of Paul, and sort of a first-century journalist, we can be assured that the events they record are based on either direct or indirect eyewitness testimony.” As I was speaking, Blomberg was mentally sifting my words. When I finished, he nodded.

“Exactly,” he said crisply.

Exactly, I say crisply. If we can have confidence. If, and only if. If, if, if. Christianity may not have four eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. What it does have is one crucial man at the heart of it all, authenticating four separate alleged eyewitness accounts.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Irenaeus is either a strong link or a weak link.

THE JEWS -> JESUS -> JOHN -> POLYCARP -> IRENAEUS

Irenaeus is either the pre-eminent testimony proving the teachings of the Apostles, or he is the pre-eminent testimony of just how easy it was for fraudulent Scripture to be introduced in the early Church.

The Skeptical Case Against Christianity

There are simple, easy explanations of how this happened—but only for the skeptic. Perhaps Irenaeus was only lying about Baruch, or was just a fool, or made a mistake (and Irenaeus made plenty of mistakes). But first off, this would consist of more than a false number or name or detail. Irenaeus quoted 200 words from the Book of Baruch as a Prophecy fulfilled by Christ, the preaching of which “the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.” Irenaeus authenticated Baruch as Apostolic preaching and Scripture—the exact matters for which we depend upon Irenaeus the most.

In addition, the case is not about Baruch but about Christianity. Baruch also becomes proof: proof that the processes that allegedly ensure historicity, authenticity, and Apostolicity do not work. I discussed a few already, but there are more, of course. Kruger:

In their role as guardians of the oral tradition, not only would the apostles have passed it along themselves in their own preaching and teaching, but, as Bauckham has argued, they would have entrusted that oral tradition to key leaders and disciples “with the skills and gifts necessary for preserving the tradition.” (p. 177).

The key leader and disciple that John passed the oral tradition on to was Polycarp. He is (in part because of the link with Irenaeus) truly the single most crucial leader that Christians claim had “the skills and gifts necessary for preserving the tradition.”

J.P. Moreland:

When they refer to the way they handled the material about Jesus, they say that they “delivered over” to others exactly what they “received.” These terms are the ones used in Jewish oral tradition to describe the way such tradition was passed on.” (p. 143-144).

Those are the same terms John used, Polycarp used, and Irenaeus used. “The apostles delivered,” sayeth Irenaeus. In point of fact, nearly all the data people cite to prove these sorts of claims about reliability and trustworthiness comes from the Rabbis after the time of Irenaeus, combined with an argument that we can, therefore, assume it went back in time to Christ.

Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses relies on contemporaneous sources to “confirm” testimony and evidence an earlier tradition:

What Irenaeus tells us about John of Ephesus is what was known in the churches of the province of Asia where Irenaeus resided. From more than one local source of such knowledge, including Polycarp, who had known John personally, he knew that this John was the Beloved Disciple, lived in Ephesus, wrote the Gospel there, and survived until around the end of the first century. Most of this is also independently confirmed by Polycrates of Ephesus, writing at about the same time as Irenaeus. We would need very good grounds for doubting the basic accuracy of this account of the authorship of the Gospel of John. (p. 457-458).

But if the Christian admits that Irenaeus’ testimony about Baruch is false, then that provides the “very good grounds for doubting the basic accuracy of this account.” In fact, Irenaeus would not evidence “more than one local source.” He would evidence having zero sources. Even more, however, independent confirmation (by Athenagoras, for Baruch) would be shown to be worthless to establish either earlier teaching or credibility.

We have also seen the claim that “In questions that are not answered by Scripture itself, we inquire into the earliest available evidence for the teachings and practices of the churches, and have little regard for traditions that cannot be traced back to the generation that immediately followed the Apostles.”^[47] That generation is literally Polycarp’s, and includes the teachings of Polycarp that Irenaeus evidences. In a very real sense, it is not all that much else. The period between the Apostles and Irenaeus is a dark age of vague references and debatable allusions, and everyone else (not from the line of Polycarp) is actually several generations removed from the Apostles—even by the second half of the second century, the time of Irenaeus. The claim that it is even possible to trace the evidentiary trail back to that generation to prove the authenticity of anything would be almost completely untenable.

And that is all looking back in time. Looking forward, all the evidence after Irenaeus would be tainted. All of it. No matter how much there seems to be, it can all be dismissed as passing on false information. No one opposed Baruch, so their own inaction shows that they could be fooled (by Irenaeus or someone else). There is no reason to trust the later Fathers, who may have simply trusted Irenaeus’ false testimony.

And bear in mind that Professor Ehrman is not really the skeptical opponent in a case for Christianity. He is only an expert witness, an egghead scholar who lives in a quaint, genteel world where a man of honor actually wastes his time trying to prove that Irenaeus was a fraud and a forger. The case for Christianity is not such a world, it is a world of wolves, sharks, and blood-thirsty parasites—i.e., lawyers. For lawyers, no actual evidence is needed, no “means, motive, and opportunity” need ever be discussed. The skeptical lawyer need only ask the Christian opponent a question: “Was Baruch authentic Apostolic teaching, yes or no?” If the answer is “no,” then Irenaeus falsely authenticated something that was not Apostolic. The details do not matter to anyone, and no one cares how or why or even if such false authentication actually happened. It is the Christian who admits that Irenaeus gave false testimony, and that is all that the skeptic needs to win the case.

With that answer, the Christian tears down all the evidence they had built up for Christianity, and everything Irenaeus authenticates is called into question—if Irenaeus’ dramatic quote of 200 words in the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is not trustworthy, what is? Why would a judge accept his references to other scrolls as persuasive evidence that those particular scrolls were authentic and were indeed handed down to him by the Apostles?

But it is even worse than just that. “The earliest testimony is more likely to be true.” “Simultaneous references across a vast geography evidence an earlier history.” “Lack of contradiction shows that people must have believed it long before it was written down.” All the claims that Christians make to show the strength of the evidence for Christianity are admitted by the Christian not to have worked in the context of Irenaeus, Scripture, and Apostolic teaching. All the safeguards failed, and all the citations, all the canon lists, all the codices, and all the rest of the later evidence is tainted.

After that answer, winning the case for Christianity requires an explanation of what happened that is so wonderful that it would lead a competent neutral judge to turn around and trust the rest of the evidence from the early Church—including Irenaeus’ pre-eminent testimony to the Fourfold Gospel.

I do not believe that it is possible. But that is just my opinion.^[48]

THE JEWS -> JESUS -> JOHN -> POLYCARP -> IRENAEUS

Before you decide for yourself, let us first look at the chain from the opposite perspective. Every single other piece of evidence that proves the historicity of the Gospels (and other Books of the Bible) corroborates Irenaeus’ story and reinforces his credibility. We believe that the evidence proves that he told the truth when talking about some Apostolically-preached Scriptures (like the Gospels), which is some indication that he was also telling the truth about other Apostolically-preached Scriptures, like Baruch.

The importance of the Fourfold Gospel actually strengthens all the indicia of credibility for Baruch. At the time Irenaeus was writing, some groups accepted only one Gospel as authentic and viewed the others as worthless or heretical. It is the pre-eminent testimony of Irenaeus, on behalf of the Fourfold Gospel, that responds to those views. To those groups, a false claim that Baruch was authentic Apostolic preaching should have been the end of any hope for convincing them that the “additional” Gospels were authentically Apostolic. If there was, indeed, a canon received from the Jews and known to all, then introducing Baruch should have been the end of Irenaeus’ credibility and the Fourfold Gospel. Those groups would know from their own history that Baruch could not be authentic, and therefore, they would not accept that Irenaeus was correct that the “other” Gospels were Apostolic teaching as well.

That the other ‘orthodox’ Churches did not denounce Irenaeus over Baruch in fear that this would happen, and that the heterodox groups merged into orthodox Christianity without denouncing Irenaeus’ testimony about Baruch, would seem to be assurance that his testimony was true.

The Easy Solution to the Mystery

So just for the sake of argument, let us consider the crazy idea that the weak link is the first link in the chain instead of the last. To begin, I mislabeled it: the Jews (meaning the Jews of today) actually deny that the Jews of old are part of this chain at all. A more precise name for the link is “the Jewish canon, as a fraction of Christians now claim it was.”

After all, the Jewish Study Bible told us that Daniel was “probably written in its final version in 164 BCE.” It was Geisler and the Apologetics Study Bible who told us that “according to Judaism, the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel before that time, by about 400 BC.”

And it was not the Jews who told us that “the Jewish historian Josephus gave the names and numbers of the authentic Jewish Old Testament, which correspond exactly with the thirty nine books of our Old Testament” (that was Geisler and the Apologetics Study Bible). Nor is it the Jews who say that “the extent of the Hebrew canon was clear to everyone at the time of Christ” (that comes from Don Stewart and the Blue Letter Bible). To the contrary, the Jewish Study Bible said that “there may have been several competing notions of canon in this period, and he [Josephus, writing long after Christ] should not be taken as normative for all of Judaism in his time … it is not clear if he simply had a smaller canon than the rabbinic list …”

Recall, also, that in making his claims Stewart cited to sections of Sirach which also evidence that Baruch was Jewish Scripture.^[49] Not a minor point in this context. After all, it is folks like Geisler and the Apologetics Study Bible who say that “Judaism, which produced these books, has never accepted them into its Bible (the Hebrew Scriptures, corresponding to our Old Testament).” The Jewish Study Bible, on the other hand, says “… the biblical scrolls found at Qumran [abandoned 68 AD, after Christ] do bear on the question …. What was not yet agreed upon was the exact boundaries of the canon as well as the final textual form of the individual works.” It also says that “different Jewish groups from the early first millennium CE may have had different ideas of what comprised scripture…” and that “…It is likely that its [the process of canonization’s] final stages were reached by (if not before) the 1st c. CE, perhaps as a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and its aftermath.” Finally, “the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach … was thus, in some sense, canonical for some Rabbis. Therefore, although we can probably speak of “the” canon having formed by the 1st C. CE, there was a certain amount of fluidity or variability around the fringes.”

Bear in mind that Polycarp’s discipleship not only takes us back to John but before Josephus had written that the Jews had 22 Books (which occurred no earlier than 94 AD). It would be long after Polycarp’s death that a Jew first writes a list of the names of all their Books and inserts it into the Talmud. Hundreds of years after Polycarp, others were still claiming that Apocrypha were accepted by the Jews. Notably, the Book of Baruch was still being so identified on lists of the Books Jews accept in 385 AD—a list from Epiphanius, himself a Jewish Christian. In addition, the Apostolic Constitutions of 380 AD reports that the Jews still read Baruch on the tenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, when they assembled together.^[50]

The Jews are not the first link in the chain. They claim that their limited and exclusive canon was finalized later, after Christ. They also claim that there was diversity in Judaism, not unity. It is claims being made by certain Christians that form the first link in the chain.

In fact, if we go back and read it again, and read it carefully, we can see that what Irenaeus says is that Christ established the preaching of Baruch—Christ, not the Jews. The Jewish prophets proclaimed it, but then Christ established it. Irenaeus then tells us that the Apostles delivered it, not the Jews, and that the Church hands it on, not the Jews.

For Irenaeus himself, the first link in the chain is Christ. It is what Christ established that anchors everything. There were many prophets proclaiming Prophecy, and many false prophets proclaiming false Prophecy. In fact, there were many Books of “Baruch” and many Books of “Jeremiah.” There were factions and groups within Judaism. So, how do we know what was true? The Truth is what Christ established.

And remember that Irenaeus is not our only chain. We have other chains: corroborating evidence descending from Jesus to the Apostles to the predecessors of each Father writing—for example to Athenagoras and to Clement, both of whom also contemporaneously claimed Baruch is Scripture. Each chain attaches to Christ and reinforces and corroborates the others.

We even have some corroboration from Melito, with his admittedly ambiguous list. Recall that his list uses the Septuagint names for the Books, implying Susanna and Baruch, and has a mention of Wisdom that might mean the Book of Wisdom. Those happen to be the exact three Apocrypha that Irenaeus references in his own works. Perhaps that corroborates that they received the same teaching: Melito was Bishop of Sardis, 50 miles inland from Smyrna—and, thus, near where Polycarp was Bishop, and where Irenaeus was from, and where Irenaeus learned from Polycarp. Melito wrote his list in 170, while Irenaeus’ writings are dated around 177 or 180. “Though Melito’s extant writings never quote directly from the New Testament corpus, it is thought that his orientation represents the Johannine tradition, and that his theological understanding of Christ often mirrored that of John.”^[51]

Notice, by the way, that the view that Melito’s list is a Christian list directly supports Irenaeus’ pre-eminent testimony that Baruch is Scripture and authentic Apostolic preaching. If, on the other hand, Melito’s list is a Jewish list, then it is an indication that Jews of that time and place (the time and place of Melito and Irenaeus, and before them Polycarp and John) may have accepted Baruch—which indirectly supports Irenaeus’ pre-eminent testimony that Baruch is Scripture and authentic Apostolic preaching. The ambiguity does not matter much and supports Irenaeus’ claim either way.

In fact, Baruch might actually be a perfect demonstration of Kruger’s model in action: the true sheep recognized the true Shepherd speaking via Baruch. Perhaps they heard the Shepherd’s voice over the voices of some Jews disclaiming Baruch. “A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” (John 10:5). Perhaps there were different Jewish groups, some accepting Baruch and some not.^[52] “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16). Or perhaps, the Jews at the time of Christ still heard his voice through Baruch, then distanced themselves from Baruch after Christ—as may have happened with 2 Maccabees.

Last, and certainly not least, let us finally turn to where we should always begin: the Bible. Per the notes included with the original King James Bible, John 1:14 (the verse referenced by Irenaeus nine times before he cited to Baruch) is cross-referenced to Baruch 3:37. So, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth” (John 1:14) is possibly referencing “Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men” (Baruch 3:37), per the KJV. This is, of course, Irenaeus’ point—that Jesus fulfills this Prophecy from Baruch. We see that the KJV notes it as seemingly fulfilled by John 1:14, as well. But of course, references are always debatable; that is just the KJV’s opinion, and we have no certainty.

Still, things may become more certain if we note that John 1:17 says “For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus.” Combine that with John 1:14, “the Word of God became flesh,” and we see that first the law had been given, then the grace and truth of God became flesh through Jesus. Baruch is connecting the initial giving of the commandments of the Torah to the later coming of God to Earth: “36He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. 37Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men.” This is, thus, a conceptual parallel to John 1:14-17, and if we broaden our perspective beyond John 1:14 to see the context, we see a possible corroborating second reference to the Book of Baruch.

And certainty might be increased further. The word for “only-begotten” (monogenes) appears in John 1:14 and also the Book of Wisdom, 7:22: “For wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me: for in her is an understanding spirit holy, one only [monogenes]…” So, that could be another reference to a different Apocrypha in the same verse of the Gospel of John.

Combine that with the word “glory:” R.C.H. Lenski (Lutheran) in his Commentary on John, 1:14 says:

The phrase “from the Father” ‘is coordinate with “as of the Only-begotten,” both equally modifying “glory.” What these witnesses beheld was “glory from the Father,” a glory so great, so truly divine, resulting from the eternal relation of the Logos to the Father and thus shining forth in the Incarnate Son. This was the kabod Yaweh revealed in the Old Testament in a variety of ways, because of which also the Son is called “the effulgence of his glory, and the very image (impress) of his substance,” Heb. 1:3.

If that sounds familiar, it is because the language that Lenski references from Hebrews 1:3 is the language we have discussed previously, taken from Wisdom 7:26 (recall that effulgence or “brightness” (Greek, apaugasma) is only used in Hebrews 1:3 and in Wisdom 7:26. The same reference is made in the Nicene creed, part of a Christological hymn before the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, etc.).

Two possible references to the Book of Baruch and another two to the Book of Wisdom, all within the context of John 1:14. So, John may be referencing (in just one single passage of his Gospel) two of the three Apocrypha that both Irenaeus and Melito—both intellectual descendants of John—evidence accepting as Scripture.

Nor is that all. Recall that Irenaeus began his long quote with Baruch 3:29 (Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her [the Divine Wisdom], and brought her down from the clouds?). Many see allusions to Baruch 3:29 from John 3:13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”—yet another possible reference from John, who taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus.

And another Evangelist may have alluded to the same verse, Paul in Romans 10:6: “But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:).”^[53]

Those are possible allusions at the beginning of the long quote extracted by Irenaeus. In the middle is the Prophecy. Then, Irenaeus ended his long quote with the next verse after the Prophecy in 3:37, i.e., 4:1: “This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that endureth for ever: all they that keep it shall come to life; but such as leave it shall die.” Some see Matthew 5:18 as alluding to “the law that endureth for ever” in Baruch 4:1: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

In addition to specific verse-by-verse parallels, there are more general parallels. From the NIB commentary:

Baruch 3:29-4:4 also speaks of wisdom in a way parallel to the Gospel of John’s discourse about Jesus the son of God in John 3:13-21 and 31-36. In both Baruch and John humans cannot ascend to heaven to get wisdom, but rather wisdom in Baruch and the son of the Father in John descend from heaven to humans as a divine gift. In Baruch, wisdom is associated with life, light, and salvation, as is Jesus in John. Wisdom understood as the law dwells with Israel in Baruch just as Jesus dwells with humans as the truth, the word, and the way in John.^[54]

“Baruch 3:29-4:4 also speaks of wisdom in a way parallel to the Gospel of John’s discourse” is one way of saying it, another is that “the Gospel of John’s discourse speaks of wisdom in a way parallel to Baruch 3:29-4:4”—and Irenaeus then quoted Baruch 3:28-4:1. A few of the parallels, in table form:

Baruch Chapters 3-4	John Chapter 3
29Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds?	13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
33He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth, calleth it again, and it obeyeth him with fear. 34The stars shined in their watches, and rejoiced: when he calleth them, they say, Here we be; and so with cheerfulness they shewed light unto him that made them.	19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
35This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him 36He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. 37Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men.	31He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. 32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. 33He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. 34For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
1This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that endureth for ever: all they that keep it shall come to life; but such as leave it shall die.	36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John is thought by some to have made even more references to Baruch in his other writings as well (such as Revelations—see below).

All these possible Biblical references provide support to Irenaeus’ claim to have learned the Apostolic preaching of Baruch from Polycarp, who learned at the feet of John.^[55]

Hebraica Veritas

The year 393 AD is 216 years after Irenaeus first wrote about Baruch. Two hundred and sixteen years ago would be 1809, as I write this: the year of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. It is also 360 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ—360 years ago, young student Isaac Newton abandoned his formal studies and fled Cambridge University to avoid the Great Plague. Finally having some free time, he would go on to conduct a few scientific experiments that changed the world forever.

In the year 393 AD, after every canon list and every Father on Kruger’s list has unanimously accepted Baruch as Scripture, and after the Fathers of the Church have been preaching Baruch for centuries, Jerome will omit the Book of Baruch from his translation of Jeremiah. Whether that constitutes rejection of Baruch can be debated, but for the purposes of this book, I treat it as such. If so, for the first time in history, a Christian claims that Irenaeus’ testimony that Baruch is authentic Apostolic preaching was false.

Of course, Jerome never says it that way specifically. But Hebraica Veritas (the idea that only the Hebrew language Books accepted by the modern Jews are authentic Scripture, and Baruch, therefore, cannot have been authentic Apostolic preaching) is only possible if there was a break in the chain between John to Polycarp to Irenaeus.

We do not even have to wonder what Irenaeus would have said about that view, he already quoted it for us from the Book of Baruch: “All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die.”^[56]

So saith Irenaeus.

Interpretations A Judge Might Buy

One way to deal with Baruch is to carefully “interpret” what Irenaeus wrote, so as to dismiss it. To save time and simplify things, I hereby concede that whatever explanation you have thought up is, indeed, an explanation, and no doubt, there are people born every minute who will accept it as gospel.

No one can ever stop lawyers and would be lawyers from trying such things, if only because judges are born every minute, too. Karl Llewellyn wrote a famous paper (since handed out to generations of law school students) explaining how “rules of statutory interpretation” are contradictory, allowing lawyers to argue that the text says absolutely anything. His first example: “Thrust: 1. A statute cannot go beyond its text. But Parry: 1. To effect its purpose a statute may be implemented beyond its text.”^[57] Those are two citations from two actual courts making two actual interpretations.^[58] Depending on what their client needs, lawyers will cite to one, or they will cite to the other. The lawyer will cite one at 8am for one client, the other at 9am for a different client, and then alternate all day long without the slightest care in the world. Whatever you need the text to say, we can argue it says that (if you pay us enough, of course).

For example, in 2014, Professor Michael Sinclair set out to prove himself superior to the average bloodsucking legal parasite, so he lawyered Llewellyn’s own claims. He “shows that Llewellyn’s justificatory list contains no real contradictions, nor even inconsistencies of significance” and claims that in order to prove this merely “requires exploration of the function of statutes in society, the foundational conditions of governing communication, and the role of policy, intuition, and linguistic theory in statutory interpretation.”^[59] Let Sinclair talk his gibberish unopposed for an hour or two, and you will find yourself agreeing that the blatantly obvious conflicts do, indeed, unite into a beautiful, holistic unity. This is no criticism: that is extremely excellent lawyering, the sort of achievement that would get me to hire him at $1000 an hour if I ever need help that badly.

However, a good judge would, first, just read the document without all the arguments attached. Then they would hear arguments and determine whether Irenaeus identified the quote from Baruch as Apostolic preaching. So, try to read it calmly yourself. Then construct the best argument you can from your perspective. Then get a good night’s sleep. Then wake up tomorrow and construct the best argument you can that proves that yesterday you were young and foolish. When you can do no better for either side, be the judge.

I was such a judge once—I started this as an atheist and did not care whether Irenaeus was for or against Baruch. While I can see other ways to read it, I do not believe these ways represent what Irenaeus was actually saying or what his readers would take from it. So, while “a” judge might buy anything anyone has to say to the contrary, in an honest thought experiment I believe the answer is that the judge would read it as a declaration (be it true or false) that Baruch was taught and preached by the Apostles.

I particularly believe this in light of all the other corroborating evidence, such as the contemporaneous citations elsewhere in the Empire. But there are also things within the “four corners” of the document that would lead one to this conclusion, such as the fact that Irenaeus says something similar earlier in the document, in section 86:

If then the prophets prophesied that the Son of God was to appear upon the earth, and prophesied also where on the earth and how and in what manner He should make known His appearance, and all these prophecies the Lord took upon Himself; our faith in Him was well-founded, and the tradition of the preaching (is) true: that is to say, the testimony of the apostles…

And this was declared by the prophets in the words: How beautiful are the feet of them that bring tidings of peace, and of them that bring tidings of good things. (Isa. lii. 7) And that these were to go forth from Judaea and from Jerusalem, to declare to us the word of God, which is the law for us, Isaiah says thus: For from Sion shall come forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And that in all the earth they were to preach, David says: Into all the earth went forth their speech, and their words to the ends of the world.

Section 86 is the lead-in, where Irenaeus begins stressing what the preaching and testimony was: that God would come to Earth. He begins citing prophecy after prophecy to make his point; he supports it with testimony from the New Testament (e.g., he alludes to John 1:14 twice); and he then ended with the Prophecy from Baruch in order to emphasize it. The build-up shows that the Prophecy from Baruch was the culmination of his list of Prophecies, the crescendo, the epitome, the top step of Prophecy that connects to Jesus as the fulfillment of them all:

By the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, there is a separation and division among mankind; and wheresoever any of those who believe on Him shall invoke and call upon Him and do His will, He is near and present, fulfilling the requests of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. Whereby receiving salvation, we continually give thanks to God, who by His great, inscrutable and unsearchable wisdom delivered us, and proclaimed the salvation from heaven—to wit, the visible coming of our Lord, that is, His living as man to which we by ourselves could not attain: for the things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Wherefore also Jeremiah saith concerning her (i. e. wisdom): “Who hath gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, found her, and will bring her for choice gold? There is none that hath found her way, nor any that comprehendeth her path. But he that knoweth all things knoweth her by his understanding: he that prepareth the earth for evermore, hath filled it with four-footed beasts: he that sendeth forth the light and it goeth; he called it, and it obeyed him with fear: and the stars shined in their watches, and were glad: he called them, and they said Here we be; they shined with gladness unto him that made them. This is our God: there shall none other be accounted of in comparison with him. He hath found out every way by knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel that is beloved of him. Afterward did he appear upon earth, and was conversant with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die.” [Baruch 3:28-4:1, i.e., 3:28-3:37 plus 4:1. ] … This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children. This must we keep with all certainty, with a sound will and pleasing to God, with good works and right-willed disposition.

Baruch’s prophecy was the jewel in the crown, according to Irenaeus.

Irenaeus references John 1:14 nine separate times in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (per www.biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search: sections 6, 12, 30, 31, 37, 39, 53, 92, 94). He references John 1:14 more times than any other verse in the Gospel of John. He references it more times than any other verse in any of the four Gospels. He references it more than any other verse in the New Testament. He mentions it in the beginning, the middle, and the end of his treatise on Apostolic Preaching. He references it twice right before he quotes Baruch as the Prophecy that he claims the Apostles preached as being fulfilled.

The evidence also shows that Irenaeus’ actual readers, the Fathers of the early Church, saw John 1:14 as the fulfillment of the Prophecy in Baruch, and preached Baruch far more often than comparable prophecies. Even the team of Protestant “Judges” who created the King James Version saw John 1:14 as a cross-reference to Baruch 3:37.

While “a” Judge might believe anything, I believe an honest thought experiment would involve a Judge who sees Irenaeus as preaching that the Apostles preached Baruch’s Prophecy.

Comparing the Evidence

The ultimate task remains proving that we have “good reasons” to believe that the Books of the New Testament are the “written embodiment of apostolic tradition” (Kruger’s phrasing; emphasis added to his claims below):

2 Peter, via Kruger (p. 271-2)	Baruch, via me
Perhaps no book has had a more difficult journey into the canon than 2 Peter. … a number of early sources that may have known and used 2 Peter, such as 1 Clement (c. 96), which has several places of overlap … and the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 110), which also seems to have known the letter. Bauckham considers the connections to the Apocalypse of Peter to be “very good” and “sufficient to rule out a late date for 2 Peter.”	E.g., Kruger cites to 1 Clement 9:2: Let us steadfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to his excellent glory, “which overlaps” 2 Peter 1:17: For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. There are eleven possible allusions to Baruch from the New Testament itself, two are referenced in the KJV. John 1:14 plus 1 Corinthians 10:20: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.Baruch 4:7: For ye provoked him that made you by sacrificing unto devils, and not to God.
In addition, Justin Martyr makes a striking allusion to 2 Peter 2:1 in his Dialogue with Trypho, 5.	Per Kruger’s footnote, the striking allusion to 2 Peter uses one word found nowhere else in Scripture except 2 Peter. Polycarp taught Baruch, per Irenaeus, and he quotes 500 words (15% of the entire Book) as that teaching.
Irenaeus appears to cite it	Kruger’s footnote cites to Against Heresies 5.23.2: “For it is said, There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day” which appears to cite 2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” In the same book (4, 20, 4), Irenaeus quotes 300 words from Baruch 4:36-5:9. That is the two final verses of Chapter 4 and every single word of Chapter 5.
Hippolytus also seems to show knowledge of it.	Hippolytus expressly accepts Baruch in Against Noetus 2 and 5. In addition, Athenagoras is an earlier express acceptance of Baruch; Hippolytus is later and only “seems to show knowledge of” 2 Peter.
Clement of Alexandria wrote a now-lost commentary on 2 Peter	It is not clear what that commentary really was, and in fact Eusebius does not say it was on 2 Peter. The reference is to commentaries on “disputed writings” and Kruger feels that such label would include 2 Peter. Theodoret wrote a full commentary on Baruch. Clement cites to Baruch repeatedly as “Divine Scripture.”
Origen cited it six times and clearly received it as canonical Scripture	www.Biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search lists 42 cites from Origen to 2 Peter and 15 to Baruch. These numbers include allusions.
Eusebius considered it to be part of the “disputed” books in the canon that were nevertheless known to most of the church.	Regarding Baruch, Eusebius wrote: “It is prophesied that the God of the Prophets…will some Day afterwards be seen on Earth, and mingle among Men. I need add nothing to these inspired words, which so clearly support my argument.”
Despite some initial hesitancy toward 2 Peter from some quarters of the church, in the end it was widely received by such figures as Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine.	Baruch was expressly accepted on Athanasius’ and Augustine’s lists; Gregory of Nazianzus lists Jeremiah as canon and quotes from Baruch (without naming a Book), e.g.: “Since I have …solved in the mass the objections and oppositions drawn from Holy Scripture, … yet we have not yet gone through the passages in detail, because of the haste of our argument. … In what passage? Why, in this: This is your God; … after this did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men.”
Thus, even with its slow start, it is important to remember that 2 Peter still has significantly more support for its inclusion in the canon than the best of those books that have been rejected.	Through 450 AD every Father except Jerome accepted Baruch. The ‘clear citation’ start for Baruch begins earlier than for 2 Peter, and the allusions from the Gospels are of course earlier and seem stronger than the early allusions to 2 Peter. Biblindex lists 369 citations to 2 Peter, 549 to Baruch. Eight of Kruger’s ten Fathers expressly declare Baruch to be Prophecy, Scripture, the Word of God, etc. Baruch 3:36-38 was cited 158 times and was cited essentially always as Prophecy, Scripture, etc.

I believe that by any fair metric, Baruch is better evidenced as Apostolic teaching than some Books of the New Testament (as well as some of the Old, as discussed below). Any comparison with the evidence for the core Books of the New Testament (the four Gospels, etc.) is more subjective, because there is so much more evidence for the Gospels (many more scraps of paper and citations from Fathers, etc.). But more is not more trustworthy when it all seems to relate back to and rely upon one initial witness, and for Christians trying to prove the Apostolicity of the Four Gospels and most of the New Testament, Irenaeus (who learned from Polycarp, who learned from John) is that witness—just as he is for Baruch as well.

---

[1] Irenaeus also cites to Susanna: Irenaeus Against Heresy IV, 26, 3: “hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you, and lust perverted your heart. You that are waxen old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed aforetime have come to light; for you have pronounced false judgments, and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord says, The innocent and the righteous shall you not slay.’” (Quoting from Susanna 53-56; www.‌newadvent‌.org/‌fathers/0103426.htm; presumably, Gallagher and Meade do not mention this citation to Apocrypha since Susanna is not a full “Book”).

[2]‌www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_‌preaching‌.html. Numbering for the verses in Baruch is a mess (as to which verses are assigned which numbers). KJV verse 3:37 will show up as 3:35, 3:36, or 3:38 in other citations. I generally copied the numbers in the source I was using at that moment. Fortunately, citations to Baruch are overwhelmingly to the last three verses of Baruch Chapter 3 (3:35-3:37 in the KJV), so no matter what number a cite uses, you can easily find it at the end of Baruch Chapter 3.

[3] Of course, he also learned from Papias and other “elders” who learned from the Apostles. I do not think that identifying the source as Polycarp is unfair or unreasonable. E.g., Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Chapter 17, footnote 62, p. 455) notes that, although Irenaeus drew from three sources for his knowledge of John (he even includes a chart as Table 17, diagramming their influence), Polycarp “clearly takes pride of place.” And, if it was someone else, it does not really alter the analysis: Irenaeus is the one who authenticates and “mistakenly” broadcasts Baruch to the Church, regardless of whether he got it from someone else or introduced it on his own (exactly as Irenaeus does for numerous Gospels, Epistles, etc.) Whether he was a fool or had bad motives, the result is the same: his testimony is impeached.

[4] Note also that Irenaeus further evidences his teaching of Baruch 3:35-37 by alluding to it in his other surviving work, where he, again, ties it to the teaching of John: “this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. Wherefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the flesh, … the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with them upon earth, should confer with them.” Against Heresies 4, 20, 4. www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103420.htm.

[5] Baruch 1:1 (“And these are the words of the book, which Baruch … wrote in Babylon”) forms the foundation for the statement in 4:1 that Irenaeus quotes (“This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law which endureth for ever. All they that hold it fast (are appointed) to life: but such as leave it shall die”).

[6] “Fake books” from the perspective of Catholics and Protestants. The Orthodox say otherwise on some of these, and I mean no disparagement to their claims.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Baruch , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Baruch, https://en.wikipedia.org/‌wiki/4_Baruch

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_of_the_Words_of_Baruch

[9] E.g., see Jeremiah 51:64: “… and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” There is still another chapter of the Book of Jeremiah following the “thus far are the words of Jeremiah.”

[10] The first mention of Jeremiah occurs in Baruch Chapter 6, which is actually not part of the Book of Baruch (at least as I am discussing it herein). It is the Epistle of Jeremiah, which Catholics add at the back of the original Book of Baruch as Chapter 6; but it is a separate work with its own history, although tied in many ways to Baruch, Lamentations, and Jeremiah.

[11] www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm (Ch 3, 6), www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html, www.‌bible-researcher.com/cyril.html, www.bible-researcher.com/epiphanius.html, www.‌newadvent‌‌‌‌.org/fathers/07155.htm, www.newadvent.org/‌fathers/1910.htm

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nehemiah. Previously, there had been two Books of Ezra, which before that were combined as the Book of Ezra, which before that was called the Second Book of Esdras because there is another Book of Esdras, which was meant when early Church Fathers cited to Esdras. The combined Book was/is also known as Ezra-Nehemiah, Esdras B, and 1 Ezra, but sometimes the parts are called 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. https://en.wikipedia.‌org/wiki/Esdras.

[13] See www.marquette.edu/maqom/Gospel%20of%20Thomas%20Lambdin.pdf. The date range for the false Gospel of Thomas could be after Irenaeus (i.e., it might have taken the concept from him), it could be contemporaneous, or it could be earlier (but it seems unlikely that Irenaeus would be intentionally quoting from it, since he is the preacher of the Fourfold Gospel). In any event, regardless of where he got it, Irenaeus seems to be misattributing this to Jeremiah.

[14] Note also that the Greek translation of the Book of Jeremiah and the Greek translation of Baruch 1:1-3:8 show that they were translated from Hebrew into Greek by the same person and were, thus, on the same scroll—and the Septuagint sometimes has the Books in the order of Jeremiah, then Baruch, then Lamentations (per the NIB, Introduction to Lamentations, p. 1016), which is mighty odd if (as some claim) the Jews never accepted Baruch as Scripture.

[15] New Interpreter’s Bible, Introduction to Lamentations, p. 1016, citing Delbert Hillers, Lamentations, AB 7A (Garden City, N.I.: Doubleday, 1972) xxi-xxii. I repeat (3) because they say it, but of course, such claims are no more than someone’s opinion.

[16] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm, ch. 7.

[17] Kruger cites to: “(H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible [London: A&C Black, 19721, 181). See critiques of Campenhausen in L. T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 85; and Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 386-87.”

[18] The one writing that I personally accept as Polycarp’s, anyway. Others have other ideas: “Some scholars attribute the pastoral epistles—the biblical Books 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus—to Polycarp.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp.

[19] According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm, Chapter 11), his last words before being sentenced to death include, “You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why do you tarry?…” which may be an allusion to the last words of the last of the seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7:30: “Whom wait ye for? I will not obey the king’s commandment: but I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses.”

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John

[21] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

[22] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103420.htm

[23] E.g.: “We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you — cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum — we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. … For now it is the immense number of Christians which makes your enemies so few — almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ…” (Tertullian’s Apology, Chapter 37 (197 A.D). www.newadvent‌.org/fathers/0301.htm); “… consider how in the space of a short time the Word of God has run through all the world that was possessed of false beliefs, and has recalled it to the knowledge of the true faith…” (Origen Commentary on the Song of Songs, Book 3, 11 (240 AD). Not available online.); “… the Roman Senate, and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the people, and the relatives of those who had become converts to the faith, made war upon [Christianity], and would have prevented (its progress), overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by the help of God, escaped the danger, and risen above it, so as (finally) to defeat the whole world in its conspiracy against it.” (Origen Against Celsus 1.3 (248 AD)).

[24] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

[26] See www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm Chapter 9: “the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments… the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, … what, then, do these men say? The Lord is our God; no other can be compared with Him.” FYI, the KJV of Baruch 3:35 is “This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him”—which seems like the exact word for word quote to me.

 Perhaps the issue that quibblers see with that as a full citation may be that it does not precisely state that the line is taken from Jeremiah. Otherwise, I cannot see why it does not qualify as a solid citation and show up in biblindex.org/citation_biblique/search, or Skarsaune/Gallagher and Meade. Note also that I am not sure how certain the date is for Athenagoras; Irenaeus cites to Baruch in the other work of his we still have (Against Heresies), which also gets a date of 177. The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching comes a few years later; the common guess is 180 AD.

[27] www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm, Chapter 10.

[28] Whereas three of those ten left the Book of Esther off their Old Testament canon lists.

[29] “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel … I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people…” It is the longest passage of the Old Testament quoted in the New (Hebrews 8:8-12).

[30] I refer to all the verses cited by Irenaeus for simplicity’s sake, but actually, Baruch 4:1 is only cited by Theodoret (in a line-by-line commentary that commented on almost every verse of the Book), and Baruch 3:28-3:34 are cited by four Fathers: Eusebius, Didymus, Methodius, and Theodoret again. In other words, seven of the 10 verses Irenaeus quotes from Baruch are almost uncited, and the “usual three verses” of Baruch are what is really quoted by those who came after Irenaeus—and they are essentially always quoted for the purpose of preaching Baruch as Prophecy fulfilled by Christ.

[31] E.g., “For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only… Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, … Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ… preferring the Gospel by Mark, …Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John…” Against Heresies, III 11, 7-8 www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm.

[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus. Note, incidentally, that the version of Jeremiah with Baruch was essentially the “long form” of Jeremiah, and it is Irenaeus who gives us the pre-eminent testimony that the long forms of both Luke and Jeremiah are the true versions.

[33] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John. But John was not a simple fisherman, he is the son of a man who owned a fishing business (Mark 1:19-20). James and John (and presumably their father) were partners with Simon Peter (Luke 5:10), and presumably Andrew; they also employ servants (Mark 1:20). Boats needed 5 to 16 men, and sometimes two boats were needed to handle the nets. This was not a small operation, even if it was only a few boats (and we do not know that; it could have been many). John is also known unto the high priest (John 18:15-16), including the damsel that kept the door, presumably because he was the one who supplied them with fish—a lucrative gig. The Bible also notes that he was a spoiled momma’s boy—momma literally begged in order to advance John’s career (Matthew 20:20-21: Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him…). The idea that such a family arranged for John to be tutored in Greek is not nearly as inconceivable as skeptics contend.

 Note, however, that I have proved my point by using Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: the Fourfold Gospel, four Books that interconnect and supplement each other. Allegedly.

 I am also leaving out many other possible explanations for the evangelists’ perfect Greek, such as that their linguistic skills derived from Pentecost (Acts 2:8: And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?). Of course, a skeptic like Ehrman would never accept that explanation, in part because he believes Acts was just a forgery, authenticated by Irenaeus—who, among other things, is the Father who first named the Book of Acts.

[34] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels 

[35] In fact, Kruger’s entire thesis for why we can trust the New Testament is based on John 10:27: “Jesus’s statement that “my sheep hear my voice… and they follow me” (John 10:27) is not evidence for the authority of the sheep’s decision to follow, but evidence for the authority and efficacy of the Shepherd’s voice to call.” The problem, of course, is that the sheep accepted Baruch, says Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John, who was taught by the Shepherd Himself.

[36] InterVarsity Press 2007, p. 27-28.

[37] https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/

[38] The plot of the Apocrypha Susanna, incidentally.

[39] Says who? Read the arguments from both sides, then decide for yourself whether they are actually irreconcilable.

[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke 

[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke-Acts (citing Ehrman’s Book Forged (2011)). I just looked up something in connection with Ehrman’s book and encountered a review that said, “I have no doubt that apologists are feverishly working on books rebutting Forged, just as they have with Ehrman’s last two mass-market books. But I fail to see why anyone who can think for themselves would find those necessary.” And that foolishness was the top review on the list, the one that got the most “up” votes.

 I submit that the correct decision-making process is critical to making correct decisions, even for people who actually are as smart as the reviewer mistakenly thinks he is. Look at the evidence; then read the arguments for both sides (or all sides); then decide what is truth and what is not. Even for a $50 jaywalking ticket, you would be horrified to find that a Judge simply declared you guilty after the prosecutor finished speaking and refused to hear what you had to say—and yet people will risk the fate of their immortal soul by reading only the side they want to hear.

 What I looked up, incidentally, was confirmation that Ehrman said what I had remembered Ehrman said. Wikipedia is wrong; that is the title of the book (and applies to some things (he claims), but not the Gospels and Acts. He actually specifically says that the Gospels and Acts are false attributions and not forgeries (p. 228). I.e., the man who wrote Acts did not write out a claim that he was Luke, and the writer of John never claimed to be John, etc. It was Irenaeus who claimed that they were Luke and John.

[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

[43] Baker Book 1993, p. 154, 152-3.

[44] Forged, p. 226-228

[45] Thomas Nelson, Inc. 2006, p. 47.

[46] Zondervan 2006, p. 35-36.

[47] www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

[48] Many apologists show deep concern about this concept in other contexts, over inconsistencies that are far less central than the authenticity of the Fourfold Gospel. E.g., Gleason L. Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: “In any court of law, whether in a civil or criminal case, the trustworthiness of a witness on a stand is necessarily an important point at issue if his testimony is to be received. Therefore, the attorney for the opposing side will make every effort in his cross-examination of the witness to demonstrate that he is not a consistently truthful person. If the attorney can trap the opposing witness into statements that contradict what he has said previously or furnish evidence that in his own community the man has a reputation for untruthfulness, then the jury may be led to doubt the accuracy of the witness’s testimony that bears directly on the case itself. This is true even though such untruthfulness relates to other matters having no relationship to the present litigation. While the witness on the stand may indeed be giving a true report on this particular case, the judge and jury have no way of being sure. Therefore, they are logically compelled to discount this man’s testimony.” (p. 23). Emphasis added: in this case, Irenaeus would be shown to be untruthful on the matter of Apostolic preaching and authentic Scripture.

[49] The Books of Jeremiah and Baruch 1:1-3:8 were apparently translated from Hebrew into Greek by the same person. Since Sirach refers to the Law and the Prophets as a well-known and accepted collection in the Greek-speaking community of Alexandria, the Greek version of Jeremiah/Baruch 1:1-3:8 must have been completed before 110 B.C.

[50] Book 5, 3, 20. www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm.

[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito_of_Sardis

[52] The Jewish Study Bible: “It is important to remember that different Jewish groups from the early first millennium CE may have had different ideas of what comprised scripture…” (p. 2157). In the Bible, there are Sadducees and Pharisees and Samaritans, and then John the Baptist is essentially the founder of a popular movement completely outside the official Jewish hierarchy. Outside of the Bible were the Essenes, and there still are the Mandaeans (who follow the teachings of John the Baptist (as they claim them to have been) and not Christ: https://en.wikipedia‌.org/‌wiki/‌Mandaeans). Epiphanius’ Panarion (385 AD) also details other Jewish groups, heretics, etc. and all their histories.

[53] Paul may also reference another verse of the Book of Baruch in 1 Corinthians, per the notes included with the original King James Bible. See below for that citation.

[54] Volume VI, Introduction to Baruch, p. 935. Note that their way of saying it in the first sentence does not draw attention to what they are really saying, which is that the later John parallels the earlier Baruch. My KJV analysis involves cross-references for exactly this reason: the choice to put the note in the Apocrypha section is editorial, and can easily cause a reader to miss the possible implication of what is being noted. Whether you accept something as a reference is up to you, but the point is that any reference comes only from the later author; and a reader might easily miss the fact that they have a decision to make when people note these things in reverse order.

[55] Bear in mind that similar issues exist with essentially all of the very earliest evidence used to establish Apostolicity. The problem (that the evidence also points to the Apocrypha) is not limited to Irenaeus and Baruch, though it is best exemplified by them.

[56] Of possible interest: Irenaeus’ Against Heresies includes extensive arguments about what is authentic Scripture and the heresy of not accepting it. His main opponents were those (Marcion, the Ebionites, etc.) who had cut up the Gospel of Luke, or rejected the writings of Paul, etc. He even lists everything that would be lost from Christianity if Luke’s Gospel were not authentic: see Against Heresies 3.14.3.

[57] scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol3/iss3/4/

[58] For the first: First National Bank v. DeBerriz, 87 W. Va. 477, 105 S.E. 900 (1921) ; Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 388 (2d ed. 1904) ; 59 C.J., Statutes, § 575 (1932). For the second: Dooley v. Penn. R.R., 250 Fed. 142 (D. Minn. 1918); 59 C.J., Statutes § 57S (1932).

[59] www.Amazon.com/Karl-Llewellyns-Dueling-Canons-Perspective/dp/1600421857. When standing on dubious ground, useth thine own vocabulary to overwhelm thine own opponent.