Understanding biblical hope

"Hope is the thing with feathers, that perches in the soul, and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all." Those are the words of Emily Dickinson in her poem simply titled "Hope." Yet the concept of of hope, like many of the words, phrases, and ideas we see being thrown around today, requires clarification. Far too often we see the word being synonymously used with the idea of "a wish." It's used to indicate a vague idea of longing for something that we want but the chances of that thing coming to fruition being realistically small. We "hope our problems will go away", we "hope our financial situations will improve," we "hope our children won't make the mistakes we ourselves did as adolescents."

Hope within the Christian worldview, however, is more robust and grounded than mere longing. It carries the idea of a potentially delayed but promised fulfillment. Hope is the guarantee that when God makes a promise, in due time, said thing will indeed come to fulfillment. Hope is grounded in the character and nature of God Himself. As the Psalmist declares, "May my cry come before You, O LORD; give me understanding according to Your word. May my plea come before You; rescue me according to Your promise" (Ps. 119:170).

The apostle Paul and many other New Testament writers describe God as the "God of hope" (Rom. 15:13). The word "hope" is used 85 times in various contexts and ways throughout the New Testament, and all over the Scriptures it is stressed repeatedly that our hope is in a God who has brought us from spiritual death to life, not because of anything we have done but because of what He did. To the Roman church Paul declared, "For in this hope we were saved... And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:24, 28) The apostle anchors believers in the certainty of hope and in the need to wait. The end will come, and until then we trust in God and lean on the Holy Spirit and his promises.
 

The point of the hope we have is not to undervalue life in this world and to have tunnel vision of heaven, but to set our perspectives of finality in context. Our trials and blessings here on earth must be weighed in the light of eternity.

The effects of a world that pretends it can prosper without God is evidenced in our culture's self-destructive behaviors, idealism, self preservation mentalities, and lack of taking care of the "least of these" in our midst (Matt. 25:40). This life, this world, the "here and now," come to shape and control our focus, our wishes, and our concerns. Paul reorients us and sets our earthbound lives beside the eternal purpose that works to inform our place as creatures and image bearers of our Creator. Becoming a people of hope means cultivating an eternal perspective, the ability to see God in the midst of trials, to persevere in the face of despair, uncertainty, the good and the bad, the leisure and the pressures of life.

The point of the hope we have is not to undervalue life in this world and to have tunnel vision of heaven, but to set our perspectives of finality in context. Our trials and blessings here on earth must be weighed in the light of eternity. Our hopes and expectations are anchored in a greater and ultimate reality that is both certain and transforming. Afflictions do not become less real, nor are they unimportant or less painful, but they also do not define us and are ultimately limited in their reach and capabilities by the knowledge that they, too, are finite and will draw to an end.

The three pillars of Christian life are faith, hope, and love. Speaking for myself I can often emphasize faith and love while unwittingly neglecting hope. Yet hope is key. Peter calls us to "give an answer for the hope that we have" (1 Pet. 3:15), implying that our lives as believers naturally exemplify hope.
 

Afflictions do not become less real, nor are they unimportant or less painful, but they also do not define us and are ultimately limited in their reach and capabilities by the knowledge that they, too, are finite and will draw to an end.
 

As the writer of Hebrews states, "We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf" (Heb. 6:19). As Christian evangelists and apologists the hope that we have should be infectious. It should be so concrete, real, open, secure and vulnerable that it works as a beacon to a world full of shallow hopes or no hope.

"You are the light of the world," said Jesus, "A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:14-16).

Why Trust the Bible? (Part 1)

We all know that people use Google to answer all kinds of questions. But did you know that according to a study done by Theolocast, the second most Googled theological question in 2019 was, “what is the Bible?” That question was typed into the search bar a staggering 1.8 million times per month last year. That type of data gives us a picture into the types of ultimate questions people are searching for. What kind of answers to that particular question did those people find I wonder? Were they able to discover credible and educated explanations or was the search lost in the internet quagmire of misinformation and missing contexts?

How does the Christian who professes Christ as Lord and Saviour come to an answer to that very question? If asked, how could we then point to a concise, clear, and honest response, resource, or reference to help others seeking to understand what the Bible is?

…. Keep Reading

On "White Jesus"

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” 


- L.P. Hartley, The Go Between

Earlier this month racial justice activist Shaun King, stated that statues of "white Jesus” should be torn down, alluding to the concept of Jesus depicted as a European being orchestrated to uphold white supremacy. 



One of the most famous (and my favourite) depictions of Jesus is the Christ Pantacrator from the St. Catherine’s Monastery, located at the base of Mt. Sinai. This encaustic painting dates to the sixth century making it one of (if not the) oldest depictions of Jesus still surviving and one of the most important and well known examples of Byzantine art. In it Jesus’ face is split down the middle with two different expressions, an attempt to portray the dual natures of his divine side and human side. St. Catherine’s was established by the Emperor Justinian I, between 548 and 565 AD. This depiction of Jesus is thought to have been done in Constantinople and included as one of the many imperial gifts placed in the monastery during its founding. In it Christ is depicted as a Greco-Roman, a European. 



---

Christ Pantocrator, Courtesy of St Catherine’s Monastery

---

There is no doubt that the Christian church forgot its Jewish roots far too quickly and that portrayals of Jesus as a fair skinned European became more commonplace than not. As a historian I understand the need and clarity for pursuing accuracy in the information that we communicate regarding those of the past. Likewise, as someone who has lived in countries where I have been both a racial minority and at other times a racial majority, I understand how important and validating the topic of representation can be. 



A piece like St Catherine’s Christ Pantocrator sits in among a long tradition of artists stretching well into the Middle Ages who depict Christ as a white European. The caveat to this discussion is of course that Jesus, being a first century itinerant Jewish rabbi, would have been like that of any other Middle Eastern Mediterranean man of his day. No one is arguing that the portrayal of Jesus as a 20th century individual with blue eyes and fair skin is a perfectly historically accurate representation. However, I believe it to also be a stretch to assert that the tradition starting at the mosaics and paintings of antiquity and following into the frescos of the Middle Ages up to our own day of Jesus as white is somehow motivated by white supremacy.



Many paintings throughout history have been depictions of what we know. When the gospel entered into Europe through the evangelistic means of missionaries the subsequent depictions of biblical stories and paintings became efforts of self representation. Biblical characters throughout Europe were portrayed as people knew and understood the world around them. This is also true of many depictions of Jesus throughout the rest of the world. The Ethiopian church can be traced as early as the fourth century and there are countless icons stretching before the first millennium portraying Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, and the apostles as black. Chinese artist Tang Yin, inspired by Franciscan missionaries in the early sixteenth century portrayed Madonna and Child as Asian in a famous scroll painting now housed in the Chicago Field Museum. In the more recent past depictions of Jesus as Chinese by artist Lu Hongnian, show beautifully painted biblical scenes in traditional Chinese style. Do we cry foul at the anachronism of artistic rendering? If we do I think it would surely be out of misguided intent.



---

Lu Hongnian’s “Jesus calms the storm,”

---

A cursory glance at Medieval and Renaissance art would likewise confirm that a good deal of the depictions of biblical characters as European-esqu was nothing more than the reality that a lot of artists were trying to depict people and things they had never seen before. A key example of this would be that many English depictions of exotic animals and how strange and unsettling they seem. The reason for this is that very few, if anybody, throughout the Middle Ages had ever seen these creatures. Lions, for example, end up looking like large awkward cats, overgrown snub-nosed badgers, or something else entirely mythical. Artists drew from the world that they knew coupled with previous artists’ rendering and description and then did their best to render what they believed these creatures could very well have looked like.

---

Spanish Mosaic of a Lion, 11th century via the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Lion by Aelbrecht Bouts, 14th century

---

In a similar vain we know there were Jewish populations residing in England and throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, however, these Jews were products of their geographical location and at this point in time more European than they were Middle Eastern. This then carries over into depictions of the biblical characters who are described within Scripture themselves as Jews. There are even frescoes of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in places like Norwich, England, depicting the evangelists like one would see a European Jew at the time sitting at a desk complete with spectacles and pen.



This is a matter of cultural identification and expression. Unlike many other religious worldviews such as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism who have very distinct and close ethnic and cultural ties, the gospel message is not bound to any one particular culture. It started as a Middle Eastern and Mediterranean movement and then very quickly became the religion of North Africa, remaining so until the sweep of Islam in the seventh century. The British isles, Europe, and western Asia too had large populations and communities of Christians due to the endeavours of missionary evangelists. Following the Council of Jerusalem in the middle of the first century it was decided that gentiles who believed in Jesus as the Messiah did not need to first become Jews in order to become Christians. The recounting of this decision in Acts 15 effectively made Christianity a trans-ethnic worldview. Not limited to one culture, ethnicity, or tradition.



I raise no more objection to portraying Jesus as white as I do for depictions of him as black, Asian, Polynesian, or Indigenous. Very few if any of these portrayals can be linked to nefarious anachronistic attempts to dismiss and camouflage Jesus’ true identity as an ethnic first century Jew. Instead, the beauty of portraying Christ as one who looks like us, who looks like you, communicates the truth of a saviour who transcends cultural boundaries and speaks to our state of affairs, our predicament, a saviour who is Emmanuel - God with us.



If you’re interested in exploring Jesus’ Jewish roots I would reccammend Dr. Michael Brown’s The Real Kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Jewish Messiah.

Did Jesus speak Greek?

Have you ever wondered what language Jesus spoke? Today many of us read the Bible in a modern translation and assume that Jesus was probably speaking Hebrew or maybe Aramaic. However, the New Testament books were originally written in Greek, so how does that fit in?

Here’s what we do know, the first-century Roman province of Judea has evidence of three languages present during Jesus’ day: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

Aramaic had become the day-to-day tongue of the Jewish people since their return to Israel after the Babylonian exile. Throughout the Ancient Near East Aramaic was the lingua franca (the language that was adopted as a common tongue between speakers whose native languages were different). It functioned as the language of diplomacy, the markets, and the home for many ancient civilizations. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the sixth century BC, Darius I of Persia made a declaration that Aramaic would be the official language

In the fourth century BC Alexander the Great invaded the known world, and Greek from that point onward become the language of the ancient world. After Alexander’s death in June of 323 BC, the Hellenistic (that is to say, culturally Greek) Empire extended from India to Egypt. Within twenty years of his passing the empire was divided into three major sections, of which the land of Israel was very much a part of this world. Along with a good deal of cultural influences that came with Hellenism throughout the decades was also the linguistic elements.

The Greek saturated province of Judea

There is no doubt that the four gospel biographies of Jesus’ life, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, tell a very Jewish story. This is not only confirmed by the content of the gospels themselves but also by the archaeology of the geographical area - first century Israel was thoroughly Jewish. This is particularly true of what we see of Jesus’ neck of the woods, Lower Galilee. We have archaeological remains of synagogues in areas like Gapernaum, Gamla, and Magdala. Jewish purity wash basins are commonly found among the remains of settlements and areas of worship throughout the region. Even something as concrete as the absence of pig bones in garbage dumps suggests that the local population avoided pork in obedience with Jewish dietary customs, a sure signifier of Jewish presence as everyone else in the ancient world ate pigs. These realities and many more show that Jesus’ context and public ministry was indeed very Jewish, just as the subject matter of the gospels says.

All of this begs the question then: why was this story written in Greek? Why not Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages of Judaism at that time, why were all 27 books of what we now call the New Testament compiled and penned in a pagan language?

Israel had been part of the Hellenistic world ever since the fourth century BC Asian conquest of Alexander the Great, and the influence of Greek culture in it was thorough and swift. A simple flip through the names of the Hosmonean rulers of the region in the wake of the Maccabean revolt of 167-160 BC gives us a clear picture of this. Although the local revolution by the Maccabees was done to illustrate a distaste for the mix of Jewish and Greek culture, the dynasty that emerged from it was thoroughly Hellenized.

The five brothers who successfully led the Maccabean uprising and ruled in its aftermath, Yehuda (Judah), Yonatan (Joathan), Yohanan (John), Shim’on (Simon), and Elazar, all had strictly Jewish names. However, after Shim’on’s death in 134 BC, the last of the brothers to rule Israel, the only successor was his son Yohanan Hykanus (134-104 BC), who’s name was a Hebrew-Greek mix. This was true for his following sons, Aristobulus Yehudah, who ruled for one year, and Alexander Jannaeu, who controlled Judea until his death in 76 BC. Alexander Jannaeus’ sons were simply known as Hyrkanus II and Aristobulus II, both thoroughly Greek names with no Jewish additives.

By the time we get to the first century AD, Greek names were just as popular. Of Jesus’ twelve disciples two had Greek names: Andrew and Philip. Andrew’s parents called their oldest son Simon, which works equally well in Hebrew or Greek, but when they had another son they gave him a rather rare name which works exclusively in Greek. This suggests that they either spoke Greek or aspired to speak Greek.

Although it is often claimed that the other ten disciples held Hebrew / Aramaic names, this is not entirely true. Hebrew names can end in any letter but Greek words and names only end with a vowel or the sound “n,” “s,” or “r.” If we look at the list given in Matthew 10:2-4, apart from the two Simons, all the rest end with a Greek “s.” This does not necessarily mean that the names Thomas, Bartholomaios, or Iakabos (James) are Greek, but it does mean they are presented as “nativised” with Greek terminations. It was not uncommon to adopt Hebrew Old Testament names like Iacob (Hebrew) vs. Iakobos (Greek) (cf. Matthew 1:2, 10:2) or Mariam (Hebrew) and Maria (Greek), all of which have convenient Greek equivalents.

In Jesus’ immediate family we have Greek-adapted endings to Old Testament names in Iakobs and Ioudas, or a Greek and Hebrew name in Simon. The only purely Hebrew name for a sibling was Joseph (Matt. 13:55), named after his father but adapted to Greek morphology in the form of Joses in Mark 6:3. In fact, all of Jesus’ disciples and siblings have evidence of adaptation to Greek endings. Even the name Jesus ends with “s” because of its accessibility in the Greek language.

We even start to see Hebrew / Greek synchronization with some names in the gospelsr like bar-Tamaois (a Hebrew beginning and Greek ending. Mark 10:46 mentions a beggar named bar-Timaios. “Bar” is Aramaic for “son of,” but Timaios is the name of Plato’s character Timaeus of Locri, the namesake of Plato’s famous monologue. Whether there was an understanding of the origin of this important name or not, it is nonetheless evidence of thorough Greek adoption within the culture.

Greek culture had so saturated in Jewish society in Jesus’ day that the religious ruling council was known as the “Sanhedrin,” which is Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek was on the coins of this time period, and Greek is the main transcriptional language we find in artifacts of Jesus’ day. You would be hard pressed to find even Aramaic writing that didn’t include at least some semblance of fusion with Greek words and phrases.

None of this is evidence Jesus could speak Greek, but it is interesting to see the Hellenization that took place in a nearly exclusively Jewish Roman province.

So, did Jesus speak Greek?

Throughout Jesus’ ministry we see some very interesting examples of interactions that seem to make far more sense if they happened in Greek. For example, Jesus’ conversation with Pilate at his interrogation (Mark 15:2-3, Matthew 27:11-14, Luke 23:2-4, John 18:29-38), his conversation with the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13, John 4:46-54), or his interaction with the Syrophoenician (or Canaanite gentile) woman (Mark7:25-30, Matthew 15:21-28). These examples make the most sense if, taking into considering both the flow of the conversation (as it’s recorded in the Greek gospels) as well as who these individuals Jesus is speaking to are, speaking Greek specifically and not Aramaic or Hebrew.

Either way, the language spoken at that time was a bit of a mix. For example, in Matthew 5:22 it is recorded that Jesus says “But whoever says to his brother' ‘Raca’ will be liable to the Sanhedrin.” If Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, he used the Greek-origin word “Sanhedrin” in the sentence. If he spoke that sentence in Greek, he still used the Aramaic word “raca.” This is just one example of many that we can see being a mix of cultures and languages. First century Aramaic would have been interspersed with all sorts of Greek phrases and terms.

Although not specifically the first century, we do know that Greek ended up becoming seamless with a lot of the regional dialects like Coptic and Syriac between the second and fourth centuries. One only has to look through lexicons of these two languages to see that Coptic, as it was read in the fourth century, had developed into just over 15% Greek in its vocabulary.

Another fascinating example pointing to a high probability of Jesus speaking Greek is that within the Gospel of Matthew Jesus starts his opening speech with alliteration of Greek words. The first four beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-6 all begin with pi (π):

”Blessed are the poor (πτωχοὶ - ‘ptochoi’)…”
”…those who mourn (πενθοῦντες - ‘penthountes’)…”
”…the meek (πραεῖς - ‘praeis’)…”
”…those who hunger (πεινῶντες - ‘peinontes’)…”

In fact, Greek alliteration is all over the place in this sermon. Matthew 5:6 states, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Thirst is the word “διψῶντες” (dipsontes) and righteousness is “δικαιοσύνην” (dikaiosynen).

Matthew 5:8 goes on to say “Blessed are the pure in heart.” “Pure” is the word “καθαροὶ,” (katharoi) “heart” is the word “καρδίᾳ” (kardia). They are kappa alpha (κα) repeats.

The beatitudes have eight initial terms, of which the third declension plurals are all grouped in beatitudes two to five. Beatitudes two and four to seven end with the rhyming sound “ontai,” which ends a verb. The final position of these verbs is not compulsory and so therefore, seems to be organized that way on purpose. In addition, the initial phrase “poor in spirit” has two consonant clusters beginning with pi (π).

Matthew 4:25 states that “Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.” Broad Galilean Aramaic would not have helped the folks form the notoriously Greek Decapolis. It is far more likely that those from “Jerusalem, Judea…. and the region across the Jordan” would have spoken Greek as opposed to those from the Decapolis speaking Aramaic / Hebrew.

There has even been recent archaeological discoveries that echo the prevalence of Greek religious teaching in Jesus’ day. There is firm verification of a Greek-speaking synagogue adjacent to the temple in Jerusalem. A large Greek inscription of ten lines was discovered within the last decade, found in a cistern just south of the Temple Mount. A section of it reads:

Theodotos son of Vettenos, priest and synagogue leader, son of a synagogue leader, grandson of a synagogue leader, built the synagogue for the reading of the Law and teaching of the commandments, and the guest-house and other rooms and water installation for the lodging of those who are in need.

This shows that Greek speaking adherers of Judaism were common enough within Jerusalem itself that there were religious institutions catering to those who preferred the Greek language specifically.

A Comment about “Hebrew Matthew”

It has been pointed out that there are a number of Early Church Fathers, specifically Papias of Hierapolis, who say that Matthew “collected the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as well as he could” (Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6). These types of quotes have launched the “Hebrew-source hypothesis” for the origin of Matthew’s gospel. This theory raises the supposition that what we know of the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then later translated into Greek. I personally think there are a number of problems with this theory which I won’t necessarily go into here, however, when we look at things like the alliteration in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (one among many examples), it seems clear that not only was this message given in Greek, but that Matthew wrote it down in Greek as well.

Conclusion

When taken as a whole, the evidence for Jesus speaking at least some Greek seems pretty strong. Although Aramaic was most probably the day-to-day language in Jesus’ day and region, and Hebrew was the liturgical and religious language of the period, I do not think it is much of a stretch to also include Greek on that list. Jesus’ Hellenistic context would have been well suited for it, the synchronicity of the language was clearly there, and if nothing else as a tradesman or “carpenter” (a “τέκτων” as mentioned in Mark 6;3 and Matthew 13:55), Jesus would most likely have done business with Greek speaking individuals. Although that last point may be speculation, such a background in the trades could have made him well suited for the conversations we see taking place with Pilate at his interrogation (Mark 15:2-3, Matthew 27:11-14, Luke 23:2-4, John 18:29-38), the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13, John 4:46-54), and the Syrophoenician woman (Mark7:25-30, Matthew 15:21-28). Given this fact, I think it makes perfect sense to say Jesus spoke Greek, and that not all, but many of Jesus’ words that we have recorded for us in the gospels are transcriptions not necessarily translations of his own words.

---

For further study:
Stanley E. Porter, Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?, Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993) 199-235.
Peter J. Williams, “Can we know the exact words of Jesus?” at the 2019 Cooley Lectures (Gordon-Conwell, Charlotte)

Mary, Joseph, and Jesus Were Not Refugees

My friend Tim Barnett, over at Stand to Reason republished a Facebook post of mine as a blog on STR.org. This is a re-repost of that:

There is a thought-provoking image circulating the internet that depicts a nativity scene unlike most we’re familiar with. It’s a picture of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, each in separate cages. This image is powerful, especially in light of the current political climate. But is it truthful?

The power of this nativity rests in the assumption that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were refugees. After all, if Mary, Joseph, and Jesus weren’t refugees, then the portrayal of them in cages doesn’t make any sense.

My friend Wesley Huff recently gave his thoughts regarding the controversial nativity on Facebook. Huff is a currently working on his doctorate at The University of Toronto in New Testament and works with the campus ministry Power to Change.

Continue reading by CLICKING HERE…

Why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke different?

The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would come from the line of David (2 Samuel 7:12-15, Isaiah 11:1, and Jeremiah 23:5-6). Both Matthew (at Matthew 1) and Luke (at Luke 3:23-38) provide genealogies of Jesus that confirm that he was a descendant of David, and therefore, a legitimate Messiah making a claim of as the true heir to the throne of Israel. Each genealogy also brings out themes that are important to that particular gospel writer. Matthew’s genealogy goes from Jesus to Abraham, Abraham being the father of the Jewish nation. By doing this Matthew emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus. Luke’s genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, focusing on the universality of the gospel message — a message for Jews and gentiles alike everywhere.

While the two genealogies from Matthew and Luke are basically the same from Abraham to David, from David to Jesus they differ. Matthew follows the line of David’s son Solomon while Luke follows the line of Nathan, another son of David. So how do we account for two different genealogies and the differences we do see in the text?

Many skeptics point to this as a point of contention or contradiction, saying that Matthew or Luke got it wrong; creating or borrowing a genealogy in order to manufacture a Jesus with a legitimate ancestry. Yet, there are many credible and possible explanations for the two differing genealogies that coincide with the facts that we do have.

Two Parents, Two Genealogies

One of the simplest explanations are that these genealogies are representational of the two earthly parents of Jesus — Mary and Joseph. In this case Luke would be giving us Mary’s genealogies and Matthew gives us Josheph’s. Practically, this makes sense, since Luke’s birth narrative focuses on Mary and tells the story from her perspective. Matthew, on the other hand, gives us the angel’s message to Joseph and many of his understandings and responses. Through both Mary and Joseph’s line, Jesus was a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Although matrilineage (tracing the ethnic roots through the mother) is common practice in modern Judaism, the tradition can only quantifiably be dated back to the 2nd century. Within ancient Judaism it was the father who was seen as the carrier of the family name (especially which tribe one was descended from). While tracing one’s genealogy through the mother would have been seen as a little bit unusual, it would not have been ruled out as completely invalid. Not, that is, that the circumstances around Jesus’ birth where free of unusual occurrences to begin with!

Legal vs. Physical Portrayals

Another reason that has been hypothesized is that Matthew presents a royal or legal genealogy. In this explanation Matthew is said to be presenting an official line of Dividic kings, not necessarily his actual descendants. The point by the author being to show the reader that Jesus is in the line of Dividic kings and that Joseph has a claim to being connected to this line. Luke, on the other hand, within this theory would be giving us an actual physical descendency.

There is definitely something to say to the fact that Matthew is making a theological argument with his list of descendants. Matthew’s genealogy is curated, at least in part, for symbolic purposes. If one cross-references Matthew’s list with the genealogies of the books of Genesis, Chronicles, and Kings, we can see that Matthew duplicates and even leaves out certain individuals entirely (see chart below).

The answer to this puzzling choice lies in the fact that if we count the names we get three perfect sets of fourteen, totaling forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus. This is not an act of mistake or purposeful misleading, but rather an attempt to use numbers to present a symbolic message to the reader that Jesus is in fact the Messiah. How? Well in ancient Judaism there was a concept called Gematria, where letters held numerical value, and this was used to present certain ideas or concepts. David’s name in Hebrew, for example looked like this:

דָּ (D) + וִ (V) + ד (D) = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14

Thus, Jesus’ genealogy is divided into three sets of fourteen generations, reflecting the importance of the numerical value of David’s name, and therefore reinforcin Jesus’ claim as the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1).

Two Fathers

The Early Church Father Eusebius of Caesera, explained the discrepancy between the two gospels as saying that Matthew is tracing the biological lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurance known as “levirate marriage” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.7). Levirate marriage was a Jewish tradition that stated that if a man died without bearing sons his brother was to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the dead brother’s family name. Eusebius, then, saw Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) as married at different times to the same woman. This would mean that Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) were half-brothers. If Heli died without a son, and his (half) bother Jacob married Heli’s widow, his son would be Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Therefore, what this hypothesis solved was the problem of the variances in the lineages by saying that Matthew and Luke are both recording Josephs family line, but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological one.

Conclusion

No matter which theory you ascribe to the bottom line is this — this supposed contradiction has many explanations as to why the two gospel authors would have given different lists. At the end of it all we still come out with the same conclusion, Jesus comes from a genealogical lineage that traces his roots do King David, and therefore, a legitimate Messiah and a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel.

You might also be interested in…

Donkeys, inns, and other Christmas misconceptions

Advent: Expectations in the midst of hope and sadness

Donkeys, inns, and other Christmas misconceptions

This blog is a repost from an article I wrote for the Power to Change — Students blog from Dec. 2017.

“It’s the most wonderful time of the year!” Or so the carol declares. Christmas time is upon us, although I am not entirely sure how December got here so quickly. I’m still trying to figure out where June and July went. While I’m looking for my seemingly lost time you can hang your stockings by the chimney with care.

Speaking of stockings, what is it with all these Christmas traditions? The trees, the lights, the strange man dressed rather conspicuously who breaks into our houses and leaves packages in our living rooms? When did all of this stuff come along, and why? How does any of this fit into the story of Jesus’s birth anyways? There is much about Christmas that seems mystifying, but a lot of it has a very simple and fascinating history. The term “Christmas” for example is a compound word originating from when Roman Catholic masses would be held in December, i.e. “Christ’s Mass.”

Ever wondered what on earth a “Yule” was? It’s an Old English word (Gēola) which represented the winter months of December and January. As time went on it simply got wrapped up in representing the Christmas season. And here I was thinking it was just a redicyules made up word. I guess I had a yuleterior motive, maybe my mode of thinking was too minuscyule? Alright, alright, I’ll stop… Yule be sorry I didn’t go on though.

Happy birthday, Jesus!

Although we celebrate Jesus’s birth on December 25th, the reality is that no one really knows the date of Jesus’ actual birth. Some in the early church believed it had to have been the spring due to the shepherds’ presence in the fields. Shepherds were in the fields from March to November; and during the winter rain months they would not have had their livestock grazing. The early Church Father Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) argued strongly that it was in November (the 17th, of 3 BC to be exact) that Jesus was born.

So why December 25th then? The earliest evidence we have of that date specifically comes from 354 AD when the Bishop of Rome was said to have observed the date of Christ’s birth on that particular day. There are two running hypotheses as to why that date was chosen. The first is what is known as the religions hypothesis. The idea being, that there were four major Roman festivals held in December already. Some speculate that as Christianity grew in popularity in antiquity, converts to Christianity would commandeer the pagan festivals they would have normally celebrated on that date by replacing them with a celebration of Jesus.

The second theory is known as the calculation hypothesis. In order to understand this theory we need to understand that there was an idea within early Christianity that if you were really holy you would die on your birthday. This was calculated mainly because the Old Testament would record the life of individuals like Moses and present round numbers (without adding months or days) for how long they lived. For example, in Deuteronomy 3:7 it says that, “Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died.” Well the most holiest man who ever lived was Jesus, therefore the early church thought he must have died on his birthday.

The early church thought that Jesus was conceived on March 25th, this was because we know that John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah was a priest who served in the temple at Jerusalem. While he was serving an angel appeared announcing that his wife Elizabeth would become pregnant and the boy’s name would be John. The Jewish priests were on a schedule according to their family lineage because the priesthood was hereditary. Zechariah was a priest of the class of Abijah (Luke 1:5). The class of Abijah was the eighth class of priests (Nehemiah 12:17). Each class served one week in the temple twice a year. The Abijah class took their turn during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri. On our calendar that would fall between the 22nd and 30th of September. Count ahead nine months. We celebrate the birth of John the Baptist on June 24th. When the angel comes to Mary to announce the conception of Jesus Christ after her assent, she goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother and wife of Zechariah) when Elizabeth was six months pregnant (Luke 1:36). If John the Baptist was conceived around September 25th, and assuming Mary’s pregnancy was nine months long, that would end on December 25th with the winter solstice.

Fuzzy Details

We often have ideas of how the story on the first Christmas went down. Unfortunately, a lot of our preconceived notions come from the songs we sing at this time of year and not from the biblical narratives themselves. For example, neither of the stories in the biographies of Luke or Matthew tell us that Mary rode a donkey into Bethlehem, that the innkeeper turned the needy couple away (only that there was no room in the inn), or that the birth event took place immediately upon arrival. It doesn’t say that there were specifically three wise men (three gifts, but the number of the bearers is never specified), or that the Magi arrived the day of the birth. In fact, the biblical text implies that Jesus could have been anywhere between infancy and the age of two when the Magi made their appearance.

Likewise, due to what we know of the evidence from the time period, Jesus was most likely not born in what we picture as our modern day stables. The location probably resembled more of a cave or shelter built into a hillside. Archeological discoveries from the late first century BC and early first century AD show that the countryside of Bethlehem during the time would have been dotted with small caves that would have housed livestock. What is now the Church of the Nativity was established in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, over a probable livestock cave of the time.

And let’s be honest, a teenager giving birth in a cave next to livestock probably didn’t make for the most “silent night.”

Spruce-up the Season with a Tree!

Although the tradition of bringing trees into one’s house during the winter solstice is often attributed to ancient and early Medieval pagans, this is a complete fabrication. In fact, the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther is credited as the first person to bring a tree indoors and decorate it with lights. The story goes that during a winter evening stroll Luther was overcome by the brilliance of the stars in the night sky, painting the background over the evergreen forests. In order to capture this moment it is recorded that Luther cut down and erected a tree in the main hall of their house, covering its branches with lighted candles.

Although the tradition was well known from that point on in Germany (and dispersed parts of Europe) it was not practiced in Britain until the 19th century. When Queen Victoria married her German cousin Prince Albert, the custom was brought into the household of the British royal family. From then on it was associated with Royalty, and wealthier middle-class families soon followed suit with the tradition during the holiday season. Canada however, had adopted the tradition just prior in the 1700s where we have records of Brunswick soldiers stationed in Quebec who are said to have decorated large fir trees with candles and fruit during the holiday season.

A Loophole in the Santa Clause

The historical St. Nicholas was Bishop of Myra, situated in modern day Demre, Turkey during the fourth century. During the persecution of the Church under the Roman Emperor Diocletian, Nicholas was imprisoned. After the Edict of Milan in AD 313 and the decriminalization of Christianity in the Roman empire under Emperor Constantine, Nicholas was released and was even present at the famous Council of Nicaea (May-June, AD 325). According to oral tradition, when the heretical teacher Arius denied the eternal existence of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, Nicholas stood up and punched him in the face. However, this story is much more lore than it is history and we can never know whether Jolly Ol’ St. Nick truly did lay the smackdown on the heretics at the first ecumenical council.

During the Middle Ages, children were given gifts in honour of St. Nicholas. During the Reformation in an attempt to draw attention away from saint veneration, Martin Luther would lay out gifts out on Christmas Eve and tell children that “Holy Christ” had delivered them. “Holy Christ” in his native German was pronounced “Christkind” which years later was Anglicized and  morphed into “Chris Kringle.” Later Protestant tradition would end up melding the titles of St. Nicholas and Christkind along with the British “Father Christmas” into the same character.

Christmas is fun. And sure, much of our modern day tradition and celebration have little to do with how it would have been originally remembered or celebrated. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Nonetheless, Christmas is special because of what sits at the heart of it. Not the specific date, the details in the carols, the trees and decorations, or an elderly bearded man who commits home invasion to eat our milk and cookies. What sits at the heart of Christmas is the centre point of history – the Word becoming flesh and making his dwelling among us (John 1:14). The season is less about the presents and far more about the Presence. For “we have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth… Out of His fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given” (John 1:14b, 17).

All the rest aside, Christmas is the amazing remembrance of an unfathomable mystery – that the Creator of the universe would be willing to step into humanity to save it. The reality of “Immanuel” (a Hebrew word meaning “God with us”), is the beginning of the unimaginable event of Jesus’ earthly life, ministry, death, and resurrection. An event worth celebrating till, as the apostle Paul writes, “the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

See original post at P2C - Student’s blog.

Advent: Expectations in the midst of hope and sadness

“It’s sometimes in the happiest moments that sadness pierces through.” – the Buddha 

It may seem a little unorthodox to start a Christmas blog with a quotation from the Buddha, but, in the quote above, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha)  capitalizes on something very apt for this time of year. 

Buddhism goes much further than the simple statement of the quote I’ve used, as it includes happiness itself in its definition of suffering; according to Buddhism, even joy is transitory and vulnerable to sadness.” Attachment, in Buddhism, is what leads to suffering, and things that make you happy are often things you are attached to. Obviously I, as a Christian, don’t go that far, but the statement is not devoid of truth.

There is so much to be happy about during the Christmas season. The gifts, the family, the holiday cheer, and general atmosphere. But many of us often catch ourselves pondering the sadness of this time of year. Feeling alone in the crowd, feeling compassion for those who are less fortunate, feeling uncomfortable around family who we don’t talk to very often. 

Christmas is a joyful season, but sadness often sits amidst the hustle and bustle of the “most wonderful time of the year.” Christmas can, for many, be punctuated by melancholy alongside, or even instead of happiness.

Concepts of happiness and jubilation highlight many of the carols and general tone of the Christmas season. However, Christmas invites us to something much deeper. Christmas isn’t about wrapping up a strange and troubling year with a festival of simple human pleasures. Traditionally, Christmas is about joy piercing the sadness fully and forever. The year of “AD 1” was every bit as mixed and weird as 2019. 

The first Christmas

Mary and her little family might not have been dealing with an American election on the horizon filled with partisan ugliness, the politics and intricacies of climate change, race relations, borders, BREXIT, and Aleppo. But, they did have Emperor Augustus, flexing his despotic muscles in a world-wide census that was designed to extract more taxes and tighten his grip on his vassal states. They had the brutality of Herod the Great, a man who killed his own children out of paranoia, and thought nothing of doing the same to the infants of Bethlehem.

Then there was the unplanned and rather scandalous pregnancy Mary was dealing with. Coupled with a 120km journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (most likely on foot, with all due respect to the donkeys portrayed in our Christmas cards). When the very-soon-to-be expecting couple arrived, there was no room but a manger.

The whole story is very strange and mixed. Sadness and joy accompany one another in a narrative of high emotions, anxiety, and strife that we, as the modern reader familiar with the story, don’t often pick up on.

The gospel writers seem to emphasize all this strangeness by repeating the words “in a manger.” The phrase appears three times in quick succession in Luke’s second chapter (2:7, 12, 16). Luke is not simply being repetitive, he’s making a point. We’re so used to the image of baby Jesus lying in a manger that we don’t see the abject strangeness of the setting. A manger is an animal feeding area. Whatever the exact meaning of the term (feeding trough, animal stay, barn corner), Luke repeats it three times for the reader to get the point.

Chiefly: God has stepped on to the stage at the lowest point on earth – an infant, squeezed out of the guest room, relegated to the place where the animals sleep. 

God brought down low 

In other words, it’s as “bottom of the ladder” as you could possibly get. At the very moment that Augustus is making decrees as the ruler of the known world, and Herod is seething in his palace, God enters stage right. Not on the clouds, asserting his power and dominance, not with all the strength and might he rightly has. But in humility. Doing so with a profound statement that he is turning all our preconceived notions completely upside down.

One of the most beautiful, yet often overlooked, components to this story is Mary’s reaction to the news of her Son. In church tradition we call her carol The Magnificat:

“My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior, because he has looked upon the humble state of his servant. 

For from now on all generations will call me blessed, because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; from generation to generation he is merciful to those who fear him. 

He has demonstrated power with his arm; he has scattered those whose pride wells up from the sheer arrogance of their hearts. 

He has brought down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up those of lowly position; he has filled the hungry with good things, and has sent the rich away empty. 

He has helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he promised to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Amidst all the interpretations of Christmas that we hear at this time of year from clergy, advertisers, politicians, and journalists, we might benefit from listening to the mother who sits at the centre of it all. According to Mary, Christmas is about God scattering the proud, bringing down unjust rulers, lifting up the humble. It’s about God turning things upside down—which ironically is the right way up to begin with.

And God accomplishes all of this not “from on high,” like the decree of Augustus, or the brutality of Herod; instead, God achieves his purposes from below in the lowliness of a manger. With shepherds, livestock, and foreign magi as the first witnesses. 

Christmas is about God turning things upside down—which ironically is the right way up to begin with. 

Every detail about the Christmas story (and the subsequent life of Jesus as well), states that God will reverse the mess and do so by first getting his own hands dirty. God conquers by humbling himself, he will heal by being wounded, he will save us by sacrificing himself. The manger is a throne, and works as a beacon of how God intends to turn everything upside down.

Grace triumphs over dominance, mercy over force, and Mary’s song will be the world’s song. Joy will pierce through the sorrow and sadness, fully and forever. 

See original article at the P2C Student’s blog.

What we can learn from FaceApp's #OldAge challenge

“So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.” – Psalm 90:12

A couple of weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I logged onto social media one morning to find many of my friends, family, and even celebrities, had all aged decades. My feeds were filled with familiar faces with greyer hair and pronounced wrinkles. And no doubt you recognized this strange phenomenon as well—maybe you even put 30 years onto your own portraits!

The viral craze of the old-age filter on FaceApp brings up some interesting questions: questions about perceived self-image, insecurity, and even concerns about privacy. Nonetheless, there are some interesting issues that the popular trend has brought to the surface about ourselves.

From age to age

In a culture preoccupied with youth, we’re strongly interested in getting old.

There’s something strangely fascinating about seeing our friends, family members, colleagues, coworkers, and even ourselves, all of a sudden have the appearance of age. We live in a time where physical beauty is seemingly synonymous with youth. We long for decades passed; we chase smoother skin, youthful physical features, and perceived vitality, all concepts placed on a pedestal by our culture. 

Alphaville’s hit song Forever Young may be more than 30 years old, but its chorus of “Forever young, I want to be forever young” is, dare I say, a timeless mantra—repeated, for example, in Guards’ 2013 song Silver Lining: “I wanna live forever, I don’t care”.

In light of this, the inevitability of aging will always be a clear and present reality. Maybe this is why nostalgia creeps into the popular culture more and more. The notoriety of 90s vintage, the 80s setting of Stranger Things, watching reruns of Saturday morning cartoons long cancelled. Even Disney continues to make live-action versions of the animated features I remember watching in theatres as a kid thus playing on my own childhood angst. All of this is catering to our sense of sentimentality towards the past.

Keep reading…

Islam and coffee

There’s a Turkish proverb I remember reading years ago that says that “the heart desires neither coffee, nor a coffee shop; the heart desires good company.” This is very poetic, and very sentimental, but misjudges my caffeine addiction by a few miles.

Hello. My name is Wesley. And I am a coffee addict.

I have been for a few years now. It started out during a co-op program in highschool where I spent a semester with the Ontario Provincial Police, and the officers I would ride along with would buy me coffee. Then I graduated to making it for myself in the morning; finally culminating in my appreciation of good coffee. Of trying to figure out the nuances of different blends and brews like the difference between coffea liberica, Arabica coffee, and robusta coffee. I enjoy the complexities of the flavours and the differences in the blends. So I was surprised a number of years ago, when reading about the history of coffee, by how intricately linked it was with another aspect of my upbringing: the Islamic world.

Did you know that the history of Islam and coffee traverses centuries? And that without the advent of Islam, the world’s most popular brown liquid may never have reached its Tim Hortons and Starbucks sipping, and Second Cup consuming fame and infamy?

Keep reading…

Addressing Ricky Gervais’ problem with God

I recently watched a video that was featured on the “trending” section of Youtube. The clip was titled, “Ricky Gervais and Stephen Go Head-to-Head on Religion”. 

In it, Gervais, a popular atheist, and Stephen Colbert, a known Roman Catholic, explore the topic of belief in God. Gervais uses three objections to God’s existence. Each objection articulated a grievance you may have heard others use against theism, and more specifically Christianity. 

At face value, the grievances that Gervais brings up might sound genuine–convincing even! However, I believe the source of many of his objections stem from a place of misunderstanding, more than it does a genuine attack on what the Christian worldview teaches concerning God. Many who use these types of complaints may be doing so honestly, feeling that these objections are convincing and persuasive. The issue is that although the balloon appears quite large, it’s actually full of hot air; going through these criticisms will help us understand why. 

Keep reading…

1st Century Mark - fragments and figments of our imagination

Nearly ten years ago rumors started to circulate of a Bible manuscript that had been discovered having been dated to the first century. The News first appeared during a debate with Bart Ehrman of UNC Chapel Hill and Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary (and CSNTM) back in 2012. In the course of the back-and-forth between the two scholars, Dr. Wallace made remarks regarding a yet unpublished manuscript of Mark that had been dated by a world-class paleographer to the first century.

Until recently, our earliest extant manuscript of the Gospel of mark was manuscript P45, a third century codex that contained all four Gospels and Acts.

Since then the rumor mill has churned with pieces of information that no one has been able to truly verify. The academic community has largely been confused, the evangelical apologetics world has been buzzing with excitement, and the people seemingly “in the know” have been bizarrely covert. This all came to a head, however, in June of 2018, when the Egypt Exploration Society announced a re-date update to P137 (P.Oxy. 83.5345), a two sided papyrus fragment of Mark discovered in 1903. In this announcement it was confirmed that P137 was in fact the manuscript purported to be the mysterious “first century Mark” manuscript that everyone was talking about. And that the document in question was not in fact first century, but late second or early third century.

This announcement would have normally been momentous, as it would push P137 into the space of our earliest surviving copy of Mark’s Gospel. But, due to all the hype over an alleged date from the first century, this news was completely overshadowed by more than a little confusion and unanswered questions. The Egypt Exploration Society seemed to share in everyone’s bewilderment concerning the facts, as the manuscript had been in their collection for over a hundred years. The EES likewise has claimed that this papyrus fragment had never been for sale or been passed around within the communities who were making subtle statements about said document.

Manuscript P137 (P.Oxy. 83.5345), courtesy of Egypt Exploration Society

The saga of the first century Mark fragment has been a bewildering one, and if for nothing else, a good example of being cautious and not jumping to conclusions. I personally have been skeptical from the beginning, as an unpublished manuscript find, redating, or discovery, might as well be non-existent. However, the whole debacle just does not seem to want to subside, leaving lingering questions in its wake as new evidence continues to trickle into the public sphere.

What follows is my attempt at summarizing the story so far:

In the Beginning
2012

As previously mentioned, it all started during Dr. Dan Wallace’s comments in the debate between himself and Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on February 1st, 2012. Wallace announced that there was a yet to be published manuscript of Mark’s Gospel that had been redated to the first century by a reputable source, and that this information would be published by E. J. Brill the following year (2013). If true, this meant that there would be a new manuscript in town to be named the earliest New Testament evidence to date.

Shortly after the debate Dr. Wallace wrote a short blog where he stated:

I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered — six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century.

These assertions from Wallace came with their fair share of skepticism from the academic community. Larry Hurtado, Mark Goodacre, and Peter J. Williams, all weighing in with a good dose of apprehension and hesitancy. But nothing could be said one way or the other until something was published for open scrutiny and examination. And so the scholars held a collective breath to see what would come in the following year.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
2013-2014

As everyone waited to see resulting fruit from Dr. Wallace’s announcement the upcoming date of its publication came and went with silence. However, there seemed to be some aspect of a connection with the newly formed Green Scholars Initiative, a project which endeavored to publish and display antiquities as part of the Green family’s (owners of Hobby Lobby) personal collection, now on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.

This project was directed by antiquities scholar Scott Carroll, who announced in a lecture on archeology and the Bible, that a first century manuscript of Mark had been found and “dates between 70 and 100 (AD/CE).” This immediately set up red flags for many as such a narrow window of dating is highly improbable if the evaluation had been done based on paleographic evidence alone, which is what had been alluded to by Wallace and others. In this lecture Dr. Carroll also mentions a process of manuscript extraction where manuscripts are discovered by dissolving papier-mache Egyptian mummy masks (a process which is highly controversial as it results in the destruction of one ancient artifact to retrieve another).

Earlier that same year at the Apologetics Canada conference in Abbotsford, BC, Craig Evans of Houston Baptist University, gave a presentation where he made a connection between the alleged first century manuscript of Mark and papyri being pulled from Egyptian mummy masks. That same year well known Christian apologist Josh McDowell gave a talk entitled The Bible: Fact, Fiction, or Fable where he described participation in this process of extracting manuscripts from Egyptian funerary masks. In minute 16 of the video, McDowell makes reference to the first century manuscript of Mark’s Gospel and says it came from one of these mummy masks. Going on to say that the manuscript should have been published the year previous.

As 2013 came and went nothing was published. Some new information did come to light however, on the papyri discovered from the mummy masks. A video appeared from 2012 which shows a crowd of individuals going through with the mummy dissolving. Dr. Carroll can be seen at the beginning of the video describing some of the process and saying that he believed that first and second century biblical documents could very well be uncovered.

A slide Dr. Craig Evans used in his presentation that states a date for both the manuscript of Mark and its forthcoming publication.

The sound of silence
2015

In 2015 Live Science published an article explaining the approach taken by scholars who do seek to extract ancient manuscripts from Egyptian funerary masks, the article explicitly mentioning the first century Mark “discovery.” The article included an interview with Dr. Evans where he states that the manuscript publication had been delayed and should surface at the end of 2015. However, by the end of the year there was still no scholarly publication or positive identification of the manuscript. At a National Apologetics Conference in October of 2015, Josh McDowell interviewed Scott Carroll, asking about the Mark manuscript. Dr. Caroll names Dr. Dirk Obbink, of Oxford University, as the papyrologist who made the official dating.

Doctor, doctor, please - Oh, the mess I’m in

2016

Dr. Obbink, the papyrologist named by Dr. Carroll in 2015, during the Q&A section of a presentation on the Ancient Lives Project, makes the statement in context to a question about the importance of smaller manuscript fragments:

But the collection has juxtaposed very large fragments with very small fragments because even a small fragment can confirm or disconfirm a disputed reading in one of the Synoptic Gospels, for example, and provide the earliest manuscript witness to it.

Although not an explicit mention of the Mark manuscript, many take this to be an illusion. However, this brings up questions for many as to the nature of ownership of the document. Dr. Obbink in this talk is specifically talking about the Oxyfhynchus papyri, a particular grouping of manuscripts discovered in the early twentieth century in Oxyfhynchus Egypt. Until that point all information trickling out about the first century Mark manuscript implied that it was owned by a private collection, such as the Green collection. If not owned privately, the inclusion of so much discussion of mummy masks in context to its mentioning pointed to it, at the very least, being part of a larger project involving such exploration techniques.

Manuscript P52 (John Rylands 457), remains our oldest extant evidence for the biblical New Testament. This fragment measures 3.5 by 2.5 inches, containing writing on both sides and is dated to bet ween 125-175 AD/CE.

It’s the final countdown
2018

Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University, gives at lecture at Purdue University in February, where he mentions the first century fragment of Mark. Habermas, once again, repeats the slightly problematic 80-110 AD window as an off handed comment.

In April, Dr. Elijah Hixson writes a post on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, indicating that the illusive manuscript could be part of the forthcoming Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume 83. Shortly after Dan Wallace broke his silence and confirmed that the dating of the Mark manuscript was P.Oxy. 5345 and in fact not first century, but late second or early third century. Wallace also issued an apology, stating that his announcement six years previous in his debate with Ehrman was done with the permission of the representatives of individual’s claiming to be the fragments owners.

Scott Carroll, in the comment section of the Evangelcial Textual Criticism blog said that:

D. Obbink offered a papyrus of Mark 1 for sale in late 2011 to the Greens and it was still in his possession and he was trying to sell it in 2013. On both occasions, he unequivocally said that the papyrus dated to the late first or early second century and detailed reasons for his dating. He gave no clear indication about its provenance. Without seeing the pictures, I can not confirm if P.Oxy LXXXIII 5345 is the same papyrus he was trying to sell but it seems certain.

The Egyptian Exploration Society, the owners of the manuscript in question, made a statement shortly after saying that:

In the latest volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, volume LXXXIII text 5345, Professor Obbink and Dr Colomo publish a fragment from a papyrus codex (book). The two sides of the papyrus each preserve brief traces of a passage, both of which come from the gospel of Mark. After rigorous comparison with other objectively dated texts, the hand of this papyrus is now assigned to the late second to early third century AD. This is the same text that Professor Obbink showed to some visitors to Oxford in 2011/12, which some of them reported in talks and on social media as possibly dating to the late first century AD on the basis of a provisional dating when the text was catalogued many years ago. Papyrus 5345 was excavated by Grenfell and Hunt, probably in 1903 (on the basis of its inventory number), and has never been for sale, whatever claims may have been made arising from individual conversations in the past. No other unpublished fragments of New Testament texts in the EES collection have been identified as earlier than the third century AD.

The University of Birmingham’s Candida Moss and Yale Divinity’s Joel Baden, in an article for The Daily Beast, highlight a number of contradictions in the stories of the different parties involved in the Markan manuscript saga. This only opened up more questions as Dr. Carroll insisted that the manuscript was put up for purchase to the Green family (who apparently never purchased it) with Dr. Obbink and the Egypt Exploration Society denying it was ever up for sale.

No time like the present
2019

On June 23rd of 2019 Brent Nongbri, an Honorary Research Fellow at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, posted on his blog the text from an email he received from Mike Holmes, a senior figure associated with the Museum of the Bible. This email includes information allegedly confirming an offer of sale by Dr. Obbink during his time as curator of the Oxyrhynchus collection.

2020 updates:

The latest on the saga is masterfully summarized in a piece by Arial Sabar in the Atlantic. Because he is a far more capable writer I will simply link to that article titled A Biblical Mystery at Oxford.

CLICK HERE to read.

Take aways?

This brings me back to the beginning — if we have learned anything throughout this misadventure thus far it is that caution should rule the day. This follows for any discoveries: claims by individuals to have found Noah’s Ark, Isaiah’s name inscribed in a signat ring, James the brother of Jesus’ tomb, or more Dead Sea Scroll fragments for that matter, all need to be vetted and verified by experts and specialists before we should be announcing anything definitive.

The existence of a manuscript, any manuscript, from the first century would be an exciting discovery indeed! And I do not blame those who did caught up in the sensationalism of the existence of something that had a slow trickle of perceived reputable individuals. Calmer heads prevail, and the debacle regarding the first century Mark fragment has been a good test case in that lesson.

At the end of the day, while it would have been momentous to have this Markan manuscript date to the first century, it would have done absolutely nothing to change the dating, text, or perception of Mark’s Gospel as we know it. The Gospel of Mark remains an ancient first century writing. An example of an early biography of Jesus drawn from — if the Early Church Fathers Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, are to be trusted —the apostle Peter.

The document we call the Gospel of Mark that so many of us have the blessing to have in English translations in our hands today still remains a reliable source for the words, life, and events of Jesus of Nazereth two thousand years after it was penned. That fact we can rely on, and one more manuscript added to the pile will not change the truth of it.

If the Qurʾān is true, then it's false

Many Muslims make objections to the Christian faith in the form of accusations against the reliability, preservation, and trustworthiness of the Bible. There are all sorts of arguments for the tenacity of the biblical text: its historical reliability, trustworthiness, and verisimilitude. However, when it comes to Muslims in particular I think a very cogent argument can be made that the Qur’an itself argues for the preservation of the Christian scriptures. The following is what I routinely present to Muslims as an argument commonly referred to as the Qurʾānic Conundrum:

1. The Qurʾān routinely refers to the "previous Scriptures," identified as the "Torah" (توراة‎ - Tawrat, mentioned 18 times) and the "Gospel" (إنجيل - Injil, mentioned 12 times). These books are prefaced with the descriptors of being "sent down by God," as seen in places like Surah Ali 'Imran 3:3 and Surah Al Ma'iadh 5:68: :

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel;"

"Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people."

2. Muhammad is told by Allah in Surah Yunas 10:94, that if he has doubt he should look to the Jews and the Christians because they have the previous Scriptures:

"So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."

3. In context to mentioning the previous Scriptures the Qurʾān declares that Allah's words cannot be changed in Surah Al-An'am 6:114-115:

"[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters. And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

4. Christians in Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:46-47 are told to judge by the Gospel and if they do not do so they are "defiantly disobedient":

“And we sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.”

Conclusion: If the previous Scriptures sit in a chain of succession (as is alluded to by verses like 4:46) then it makes logical sense that you cannot remove one of the links of the chain without compromising the others. If indeed the Torah and the Gospel are corrupt, as modern day Muslims would have us believe, then the author of the Qur'an seems to have no knowledge of it. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary that the author of the Qur'an actually articulates their trustworthiness and authenticity as God's word.

Similarly, if the Gospel and Torah are God's word and no one can change God's word then how have these previous Scriptures become corrupted? Did Allah not know they would be corrupted - in which case he is not all-knowing? Could he not stop individuals from doing so - in which case he is not all powerful? Or is what we have in Surah 6:115 incorrect, in which case the Qur'an itself has been compromised?

In conjunction with accusations of change, why would Muhammad be encouraged to talk to a people who had corrupt Scriptures in 10:94? Would this not only confuse Muhammad as there are clear teachings being revealed to him for the Qur'an that inherently contradict what is in the Torah and Gospel?

We know exactly what "the Torah" and "the Gospel(s)" looked like during the late 5th and early 6th centuries of Muhammad's lifetime. We even have manuscripts from the areas near Syria and the Arabian peninsula from this specific time period. They are virtually identical to the modern Gospels and Torahs we have in translation today. Thus, if these commands had any application for their original audience then what was "the Gospel" and "the Torah" being discussed in Surah 10:94? If we know what these documents looked like in the time period that these verses have application then the evidence shows no serious difference from what we have today.

Finally, why would Allah tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if it had been corrupted? If the Torah and Gospel the Qurʾān is continually talking about are not the Torah and Gospel(s) we have today then how is the eternal revelation of the Qur'an to speak to modern day Christians? Why bother making the statement that Christians are to "judge by what Allah has revealed therein" lest they be "the defiantly disobedient?" Why not simply tell the Christians outright that these former revelations were corrupt and to get rid of them in place of the more perfect Qurʾān?

If I take the Qurʾān at its word as a "person of the Gospel" and I judge the Qurʾān by the Gospel that has been revealed to me, in accordance with the command in Surah 5:47, I find it wanting. I see no interaction with any of the discussions taking pace in the Gospel nor any indication regarding knowledge of what Jesus is recorded saying there. In fact, what I do see are continual contradictions and misunderstandings regarding what the Gospel says and teaches and therefore, if the Qur'an is true and I obey its command to me then I have to conclude that it is false.

Good coffee, bad advice

A handful of years ago, I worked as a delivery driver for an organic, non-pasteurized, cold-press juice company in Toronto. I would spend the summer mornings and early afternoons hopping from cafe to yoga studio to health food store. I provided overpriced fruit and vegetable goodness to the masses who were willing to shell out $15 for a bottle of liquified carrots, celery, and apples. It was a good gig, and I drank enough cold-pressed juice that summer to make a vegan-hipster-yoga instructor blush. But it wasn’t just the juice that was a perk of the job, it was the coffee. I would deliver to some of the highest quality artisan and hipster cafes in downtown Toronto. I would show up, unload that day’s juice into a mini fridge or a display behind the counter, and pray that I would hear those magic words from the barista: “hey, juice guy, you want a drink?” 

One particular day, when I had just dropped off a crate of charcoal lemonade, green, carrot, and beet juices, and was waiting for the benevolent barista’s brew, I happened to look up at a chalkboard that had the words, “How we live is more important than what we believe,” scrawled in an artistic font above the drink menu. I couldn’t help but think that such a well intentioned saying might sound nice, but I was left wondering how that would actually work in practicality.

Keep reading…

Why the Gospels are embarrassing

You may have never thought about it before, but if you have ever read the biblical Gospels they’re actually quite embarrassing. Not that the gospel itself is embarrassing, but the four biographies of Jesus’ life—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are embarrassing.

While that might sound controversial to some, it’s actually not. The fact that the four biblical Gospels are embarrassing—that is, that their content would have made the early church a little uncomfortable—is one key reason that we know they are reliable and authentic.

This is what historians have termed the “criterion of embarrassment.” In other words, when historians are trying to measure and establish the truthfulness of written historical accounts(1), it is generally accepted that when people fabricate, exaggerate, or embellish stories, they don’t tend to incorporate facts that would make the author or the author’s key protagonists look foolish or leave room for the loss of their credibility.

Keep reading….

The Apologetic Books You Should (Already) Have on Your Shelf

---

---

The following is a list of books that have helped me over the years regarding various apologetic topics and subjects. However, it must be mentioned that the listing of a particular book or resource does not necessarily stand as a wholesale acceptance and support of absolutely every portion of particular statements or content found within them. That may indeed be true for some but not true for all of the following books. Therefore, what are listed below are merely the books and sources that have helped me along my personal journey of developing my repertoire and methodology as both a lay and professional apologist.

---

Table of Contents:

APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
THE BIBLE (Historical & Theological)
THE TRINITY
CHURCH HISTORY
ISLAM
JUDAISM
ETHICS AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL/PAIN
SCIENCE
MORMONISM AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
SAME-SEX ATTRACTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY
NEW AGE AND “SPIRITUALITY”
APOLOGETICS FOR KIDS

---

APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

"Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions" by Greg Koukl

"The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How it Ends, and Everything Important that Happens in Between" by Greg Koukl

"Unanswered: Lasting Truth for Trending Questions" by Jeremiah J. Johnston

"But is it Real?" by Amy Orr-Ewing

"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

"What's Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life's Biggest Questions" by James N. Anderson

"Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels" by J. Warner Wallace

"Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith" by Alister McGrath

"Truth Matters: Confident Faith in a Confusing World" by Andras Kostenberger, Darrell Bock, and Josh Chartraw 

"Fool's Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion" by Os Guinness 

"Apologetics for a New Generation: A biblical and Culturally Relevant Approach to Talk About God" by Sean McDowell

"How do You Know You're Not Wrong?: Responding to Objections that Leave Christians Speechless" by Paul Copan

"Faith Has its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith" by Rob Bowman and Kenneth Boa

“Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics” by William Lane Craig

”On Guard: Defending Yourth Faith with Reason and Precision” by William Lane Craig

"Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics" by R.C. Sproul 

"Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief" by John M. Frame  

"Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith" by Greg Bahnsen

"Christian Apologetics" by Cornelius Van Til

"The Defense of the Faith" by Cornelius Van Til

”Thinking? Answering Life’s Five Biggest Questions” by Andy Steiger

“Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers

”Why do you Believe that?” by Mary Jo Sharp

 

---

THE BIBLE

HISTORICAL

"Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible" by Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Block, and Josh Chartra

”Can We Trust the Gospels?” by Peter J. Williams

"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Richard Bauckham

"The King James Only Controversy: Can you Trust Modern Translations?" by James White

"The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce 

"The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" by FF Bruce 

"Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts" by Lydia McGrew

”The Mirror and the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices” by Lydia McGrew

"The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate" by Michael J. Kruger

"Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books" by Michael J. Kruger

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity" by Michael J. Kruger

"Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions" by Craig Blomberg    

“Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism” by Elijah Hixson, Peter Gurry and Dan Wallace

THEOLOGICAL

"Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity" by James White

"The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures” edited by D.A. Carson

”Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible” by Joel Beeke (among others)

“Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1 - A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura” by David T. King

”Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith, Volume 2 - An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scirptura” by William Webster

”Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith, Volume 3 - The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura” By David T King and William Webster

“The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism” by Roger T. Beckwith

---

Church History

“Church History” by Simonetta Carr

“Is Jesus History?” by John Dickson

“Christianity: The Biography: 2000 Years of Global History” by Ian J. Shaw

“2 000 Years of Christ’s Power Vol. 1: The Age of the Early Church Fathers” by Nick Needham

“2 000 Years of Christ’s Power Vol. 2: The Middle Ages” by Nick Needham

”2 000 Years of Christ’s Power Vol. 3: Renaissance and Reformation” by Nick Needham

“2 000 Years of Christ’s Power Vol. 4: The Age of Religious Conflict” by Nick Needham

”History of the Christian Church” by Philip Schaff

“Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History” by John Dickson

---

The Trinity

“Shared Life: The Trinity and the Fellowship of God’s people” by Donald Macleod

”The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith” by James White

”The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything” by Fred Sanders

”Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ” by Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski

”The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship” by Robert Letham

”The Essential Trinity: New Testament Foundations and Practical Relevance” by Brandon Crowe & Carl Truman

---

ISLAM  

"Grand Central Question: Answering the Critical Concerns of Major Worldviews" by Abdu Murray

“Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?” by Andy Bannister

"Seeking Allah Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity" by Nabeel Qureshi

"No God But One: Allah or Jesus: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity" by Nabeel Qureshi

"What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an" by James White 

"Getting Jesus Right: How Muslims Get Jesus and Islam Wrong" by James Beverley and Craig Evans

 "The Gentle Answer to the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification" by Gordon D. Nickel 

"The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective" by Gabriel Said Reynolds

"Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels" by Kenneth Bailey

"The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross: Insights from an Arab Christian" by Nabeel Jabbour

"Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross" by Normal Guisler and Abdul Saleeb

---

JUDAISM

“The Real kosher Jesus: Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah” by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Traditional Jewish Objections” by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections” by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections (Vol. 1) by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections (Vol.2)” by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections” by Michael L. Brown

“Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: New Testament Objections” by Michael L. Brown

“Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity and Messianic Prophecies” by Eitan Bar

---

 ETHICS & THE PROBLEM OF PAIN/EVIL

"God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled with Pain" by chad Meister and James Dew Jr. 

"Why?" by Sharon Dirckx

"Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan

"Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God" by Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan

"Grieving: Your Path Back to Peace" by James White

"The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis

“God, Freedom, and Evil” by Alvin Plantiga

”Excusing Sinners and Blaming God” by Guillaume Bignon

---

SCIENCE

“The God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe” by Stephen Meyer

"God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" by John Lennox

"Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science" by John Lennox

"Beyond the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross

"The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator" by Hugh Ross

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael Behe

"Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" by Stephen C. Meyer

"Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and a Case for Intelligent Design" by Stephen C. Meyer

"Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique" by J.P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, Wayne Grudem

"Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton

"A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tune Cosmos" by Luke Barnes, Geraint Lewis and Brian Schmidt

"Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God" by Wayne Rossiter

"Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life is Designed" by Douglas Axe "A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology" by Alister McGrath

”The Light Ages: The Surprising Story of Midieval Science” by Seb Falk

---

MORMONISM & JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES  

"Is the Mormon my Brother?" by James White

"Letters to a Mormon Elder?" by James White

"The Forgotten Trinity" by James White

"Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion" by James Beverley and Sandra Tanner

"Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ" by Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski

"Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin

"The Watchtower and the Word" by Stephen Bedard

"Crisis of Allegiance" by James Beverley

"Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ron Rhodes

“Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism” by Robert M. Bowman Jr.

---

SAME SEX ATTRACTION & HOMOSEXUALITY

"Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life" by Ed Shaw

”Holy Sexuality and the Gospel” by Christopher Yuan

”A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Finding Jesus” by David Bennett

"Is God anti-gay?" by Sam Allberry

”Single Gay Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity” by Gregory Coles

"What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality" by Kevin DeYoung

"The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" by Robert Gagnon

"Can You be Gay and Christian?: Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality" by Michael Brown

"Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexuality Activism is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide" by Michael Brown

"A Queer Thing Happened to America: and What a Long, Strange Trip it's Been" by Michael Brown

"The Same-Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message about Homosexuality" by James White

"Critical Conversations: A Christian Parents' Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens" by Tom Gilson  

”When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement” by Ryan T. Anderson

“The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution” by Carl Truman

---

NEW AGE AND “SPIRITUALITY”

“Deceived No More” by Doreen Virtue

“Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement” by Costi Hinn and Anthony G. Wood

“God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel: How Truth Overwhelms a Life Built on Lies” by Costi Hinn

“The Second Coming of the New Age: The Hidden Dangers of Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America and its Churches” by Josh Peck and Steven Bancarz

“The Light that was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace” by Warren

“The Beautiful Side of Evil” by Johanna Michaelsen

APOLOGETICS FOR KIDS

“God’s Timeline: The Big Book of Church History” by Linda Finlayson

“The Ology” by Marty Machowski

“What Am I?” by Andy Steiger, Rachel Mackenzie, and Maggie Richards

”What Am I Worth?” by Andy Steiger, Rachel Mackenzie, and Maggie Richards

 "What is God Like Series" by W.L. Craig

"Talking with Your Kids About God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have" by Natasha Crain

"The Defense Never Rests - Workbook for Budding Apologists" by W.L. Craig and Joseph Tang

"A Case for Christ for Kids" by Lee Strobel

"A Case for a Creator for Kids" by Lee Strobel

"A Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel

"Young Defenders Series" by Melissa Cain Travis

"Fact of Fantasy: A Study in Christian Apologetics for Children" by David Walters

"Cold Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective" by J. Warner Wallace

"The Ology: Ancient Truths, Ever New" by Marty Machowski and Andy McGuire

"Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers: The Trinity" by Joey Allen
"Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers: The Gospel" by Joey Allen
"Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers: The Scripture" by Joey Allen

"Big Thoughts for Little Thinkers: The Mission" by Joey Allen

"If I Could Ask God Anything: Awesome Bible Answers for Curious Kids" by Kathryn Slattery

"A Parent's Guide to Intelligent Design"

---

Fat Bastards and Crucifixion

Have you ever  had a Fat Bastard? Now that might be a bit of a shocking even offensive sounding question at first. But the surprising thing is that many many people would actually answer that question with, "yes." Back in the late '90s, a renowned French winemaker invited his British wine distributor friend over to his winery to sample a new vintage. They tasted samples from dozens of barrels, were pleased with the stock but not blown away. Then the French winemaker offered his British friend a taste of an experimental wine that had stayed in a barrel with yeast sediment longer than the other wines. They noted a dramatic difference, it possessed an incredibly full-bodied flavour, which prompted the winemaker to exclaim: "Now that is what you call a fat bastard!"

From then on it would be the only name they ever considered. Fat Bastard wine was an incredibly unlikely name for a wine back in the '90s, long before quirky names became a trend in wines. It was shocking and borderline offensive in a category known for poetic designations like Chateau Margaux or Châteauneuf-du-Pape. Fat Bastard was a cowbell in a symphony orchestra.

Nonetheless, the wine was launched in 1998, and quickly became the largest selling French Chardonnay in the U.S. It was a huge success (except in Iceland. Where a direct mailer for the wine was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority there) despite its off-putting, seemingly offensive face value appearance. A wine with the tagline "Outrageous name, outrageously good."

You may be asking, "what on earth does that have to do with anything regarding Christianity?" The fact remains that we live in a culture where the term "Christianity" and the image of the cross are common place. But for centuries after its inception, both the name and the iconic symbol that would come to symbolize the religion were considered absurd, off-putting, and offensive.

The apostle Paul exemplifies this twice in his letter to the church in the ancient city of Corinth: "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18, 1 Cor. 1:23).

Crucifixion (the act of dying on a cross) in the ancient world was humiliating. Under Roman penal practice crucifixion was a means of exhibiting a criminal's low social status. It was the most dishonorable death imaginable, originally reserved for slaves. Seneca the Younger, Nero's tutor and advisor, describes the practice as the artem autem infelix lignum (art of the unfortunate wood),(1) referring to the humiliating nature of being flayed, tortured, and displayed to die in public. 

The famous Roman historian Tacitus, while commenting on Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 AD, wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by  the populace. Christus (Christ), from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of... Pontius Pilatus.(2)

Tacitus' description sheds light on a few things: first he mocks the title "Christian". A group that derive their very name from someone who "suffered the extreme penalty" - crucifixion, an act Tacitus doesn't even mention because of its heinous connotation.

This notion transcended the writings of the higher classes though, we have cases of Ancient Roman graffiti mocking Christians and their admittance and acceptance of Jesus' crucifixion. Known as the Alexamenos graffito (seen below), a satirical piece of ancient vandalism from 85 AD, represents Christian worship. It depicting a man worshiping a crucified donkey, the inscription ("ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟΣ (ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟC) ΣΕΒΕΤΕ (CEBETE) ΘΕΟΝ") translates to "Alexamenos respects his god".

Yet, despite all of that, Christianity during this period of time (100-300 AD) spread,  grew, and flourished. Regardless of its foolishness and often perceived offensiveness, Christianity in the course of the first four hundred years after Christ's crucifixion proved to be exceptionally popular - despite its name.

It might be somewhat crude and a little bit ostentatious to try to make the connective illustration of Fat Bastard wine and Christ's crucifixion, but it was done to prove a point. Our culture does not hold the same intensity with the concept as it did in its own day. Sure, maybe if you've watched Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ you might have some idea, but something is still lost. The intensity remains in subtle glimpses such as the English word excruciating, derived from the Latin  excruxio, literally translating "off the cross", but that simply represents the muted remains of a passed understanding. 

Cicero, the second century Roman philosopher-politician, declared that "the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the presence of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears".(3) In antiquity there was an inherent cringe factor that would have been associated with the whole thing. Much like naming a high quality wine Fat Bastard. It is a concept that should just not have worked, and yet, it did.

However, unlike the wine, Christianity and the idea of "Christ crucified" is popular for a completely different reason. At the heart of the gospel message are the concepts of grace and reconciliation. Despite its taboo nature, humiliation and agony were the paths that Jesus chose with which to accomplish those two concepts. The idea of sin (which is often tragically minimized) cuts to the very heart of our relationship with our maker and breaks the grandeur for which we were created. It brings disgrace to our essence and stains our very existence.

The act of Jesus' crucifixion two thousand years ago was the ultimate act of disgrace, shame, and pain, working to bring us back to the dignity of relationship with God - picking up the peaces of the broken relationship and healing our shattered souls. The very reason that the apostle Paul declares that he preached Christ crucified was because it transcended the face-value perception of his day. In among all of the absurd, off-putting, and offensive connotations it held, the cross was the ultimate act of the justice and mercy of God coming together. 

[1] Tertulliani Liber Apologeticus, Apologia, IX, 1. 

[2] Tacitus, Annals 15.44, Cambridge Greek & Latin Classics, (Cambridge University Press,  2002.

[3] Cicero Pro Rabiro 5.16, quoted in Martin Hengel, The Crucifixion of the Son of God, (London: SCM Press, 1986), p. 134. 

The question of Canon: the who, what, and where of the books of the Bible

The modern biblical New Testament canon (BNTC) as we possess it today did not come to us in the way that we know it; the original autographs of the BNTC were not leather-bound books with thumb indexing and gold edges on the pages. There was a very lengthy process in which these books were passed down to us. When this subject is being addressed, what is being discussed is the twenty-seven books we find in what is now called the BNTC. These twenty-seven books represent the message of Jesus of Nazareth recorded by his followers in the first few decades after his death. The issue of canon is the question of how these books were assembled and put together. More so, however, the issue encompasses the differentiation of these books from other contemporaneous stories of Jesus in the successive centuries after his death; therefore, in order to understand this issue in its entirety, it needs to be defined, outlined, and addressed under the setting of its theological significance and its first-century context. It must be traced back and proven reliable. This can be done through a number of categories. The first, can be summarized as the origin of the cannon, that is, addressing why the early church intrinsically created a cannon of scripture. The second is that of the date of canon, namely, tracing its historicity and reliability, and the third, through recognizing and examining the contenders for the cannon, their context, content, and direct address.

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The issue of canon must be examined through its origin. Why did the early church decide to put together the documents that we now recognize as the BNTC? Why a New Testament canon at all? As mentioned previously, this is a theological discussion, one that has far too often been framed not theologically, but historically alone. History has a part to play in this, but ultimately the issue of cannon is framed in theological language. Some theologians and scholars have proposed that the BNTC is what we can refer to as an ecclesiastical product, or what can be described as an extrinsic model, imposed onto the church by the outside. However, this retroactive imposition doesn’t always make sense in light of the early church in regard to both their eschatological theology and their covenantal mind frame.1

This can be concretely seen in the eschatological nature of early Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, who were living in a tense situation of displacement. Not a physical displacement, but rather a spiritual one. The anticipation for the deliverance of Israel discussed in the Old Testament (OT) was still very much in the sub-conscious of first century Jews.2 We see this language of deliverance and redemption in the biblical testimony in places like John 1:41 (looking for the Messiah), Luke 2:38 (redemption of Jerusalem), Luke 2:25 (consolation of Israel), and Acts 1:6 (restoration of the kingdom). In other words, the Jews within early Christianity did not view the story of the OT as complete. As N.T. Wright states, “the great story of the Hebrew scriptures was therefore inevitably read in the second-temple period as a story in search of a conclusion.”3This is evident in the very structure of the OT canon, with first-century Hebrew TANAKHs (Hebrew Bibles) most often ending with the book of Chronicles. The idea being that of the openness of the OT canon ending with the Davidic reign, distinctly inviting the coming Davidic King and ending in a posture of anticipation for first-century Jews.4

This then, sets the stage for the first Christians and their eschatological mind frame. Early Christians believed that these OT prophecies were indeed fulfilled and accomplished in the life, death, and resurrection of their Messiah, Jesus (Deut. 18:18 in juxtaposition with the arguments in Hebrews). This was not eschatological in terms of a second coming, but rather, eschatological in terms of the culmination of the story of the OT. It is what Wright describes as “the climax of the exile [being] reached.”5 Consequently, the fact that the Jews of the first century viewed the OT as incomplete and in need of a conclusion brings with it the need for a new corpus of books, i.e. the BNTC. It is also worth noting that the OT biblical witness describes a pattern, one of God revealing a new set of word revelation after His major redemptive events. As Richard Gaffin writes, “revelation never stands by itself, but is always concerned either explicitly or implicitly with redemptive accomplishment. God’s speech is invariably related to his actions; it is not going too far to say that redemption is the raison d’etre of revelation.”6 The pattern therefore being that, redemption leads to word revelation; it would not be hard to see why the early Christians would intrinsically posit this revelation in the BNTC. This process would not have been seen as forced in the early Christian mindset, rather, through this pattern of word revelation following redemption, it would have seemed innate, intrinsic, and organic.

Equally, first century Judaism as well as early Christianity was covenantal. When looking at the writings leading up to the first century, an interpretation of what can be described as covenantal categories is seen very strongly. The Jewish people understood the actions of God through the lens of His covenantal promises. What is interesting is that when we get to the earliest Christian writings this theological covenantal mind frame crosses over.7The acts of Jesus circulating in the Kerygma (oral Jesus stories) and recorded in the gospels were framed in the context of Jesus bringing with Him a new covenant. The last supper was understood as a covenantal meal, as Jesus describes (Luke 22:20; Matt. 26:28; Mark 12:4); Zachariah understood the coming of his son, John the Baptist, as the fulfilling of God’s covenant and the coming Messiah (Luke 1:5-25); Paul describes the ministry of the Apostles as being “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6), alluding to the “making [of a] new covenant with the people” in Jer. 31:31; and so on. There are many examples of this in the text. What does covenantal theology have to do with the origin of the BNTC? The answer lies in the connection between covenants and written texts. The OT idea of a covenant was linked with the written text representing the terms and arrangements of that covenant promise (Ex. 24:7, 34:28; 2 Kings 23:2; Deut. 4:13, 29:21).8 Therefore, if the early Christians themselves were immersed in this covenantal structure and mind frame then it is not hard to imagine the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ, also being received with written text. These Christians, by virtue of their Christian heritage, would have naturally seen this promise manifested in conjunction with written scriptural books. Once again being seen as innate, intrinsic, and organic to their faith.

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

Secondly, there is the issue of the BNTC, namely, tracing its historicity and reliability. Here the “when” of it all is addressed. When exactly were these books first viewed as scripture? If it is argued that canon is an ecclesiastical product, an extrinsic model imposed onto the church, than the date of canon is essential to the discussion. The majority consensus on the date of canon is the end of the second century as the point when this shift takes place, specifically because of the writings of Irenaeus (130-202 CE), when he writes, “but it is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds, and the cherubim too were four faced”9. Not only this, but Irenaeus quotes other BNTC books extensively. Along with the four-fold gospels, he names the entire Pauline corpus (excluding Philemon), Acts, Peter, James, Hebrew, 1st and 2nd John, 1st and 2nd Peter, and Revelation. Irenaeus quotes BNTC passages over a thousand times, identifying them directly as “graphe” or scripture (there is also some evidence he thought the Shepherd of Hermes was scripture but that will be discussed later). However, because of this fact many scholars have posited the idea that Irenaeus was the innovator of the BNTC, Elaine Pagels describes him the “principal architect”10  of the BNTC itself. The problem with such a theory is that in Irenaeus’ Against Haresies he gives no proof-texting for his citations of BNTC being scripture. Instead he cites the BNTC frequently, as if his audience would have known of them, and confidently as scripture. There is no defense or argument of their scriptural integrity, he simply quotes them rather as fact. If the extrinsic model is true, it would be foreign within the early Christian community to see BNTC books being cited as scripture either before Irenaeus’ or by contemporaries. If true, this would push back the date of canon beyond the second century.11

Irenaeus however, was not the only second century writer to mention the books of the BNTC as scriptural. Theophilus (169-183 CE), a contemporary of Irenaeus, and the bishop of Antioch, states in the mid to late second century that, “concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God."12 This stands as a very bold statement; essentially, Theophilus is arguing that the authority and veracity of the OT prophets is shared in its scriptural nature with the gospels. Not only this but Theophilus makes mentions of Paul’s letters as well. So too does Clement of Alexandria (95-97 CE). In his letters to Corinth he quotes BNTC with ease and regularity, establishing all four gospels, the epistles of Paul, Acts, Hebrews, 1st Peter, 1st and 2nd John, Jude, and Revelation.13 Likewise, the early document of the Muratorian fragment (there is some argument as to the dating of this document but the earliest it's attested is 170 CE) suggests that Irenaeus was not alone in his views. Not only this but the evidence of the Muatorian fragment works to place these books in a list, suggesting restriction rather than mere usage of BNTC. The Muratorian fragment is strong evidence but even more is the testimony of Tatian’s work of the Diatessaron (160-175 CE), which promotes a complete gospel harmony of all four BNTC gospels. In this we start to see somewhat of a pattern evolving in the second century Christian community. For not only Irenaeus but also Theophoilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, and the witness of the Muratorian fragment, all baring testimony to a very early date and idea of canonicity. Dispelling ideas of Irenaeus being alone and working to show that the BNTC was accepted at a very early date showing both geographically diversity and recognition as canon throughout the second century; ideas that, due to their regularity and ease of quotation by these second century Christians, may well have predated the second century.

EVALUATING THE CONTENDERS

Finally, the issue of canon can be recognized and examined by the category of looking at the contenders for the cannon, their context, content, and direct address. For it is true that there are other books written in the first few successive centuries after Jesus’ death; books that discuss the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in a different light than our BNTC presents them. Apocryphal (that is, non-canonical) works started to appear and be circulated relative early in regard to the story of the early Christian church, donning the titles of Apostles and other members of Jesus’ followers (Mary Magdalene, Nicodmus, Judas, etc.). 14 The question therefore must be asked, how do these apocryphal gospels, letters, and books fit into the conversation in regard to the BNTC as we know it today? Did they ever have a chance at being included the BNTC? This conversation is key in understanding the BNTC because many of the early church fathers already mentioned (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tatian) make use of and quote apocryphal sources. So the question in regard to the BNTC and its contenders is that of use. Is mere use of apocryphal books proof of their authoritative status?

Some scholars and theologians have indeed argued for the mere use of a book demonstrating its authoritative standing. The issue in regard to canon and contenders is not whether their use is true or not, for this is evident, the question is the conclusion that is drawn from that fact. The content of how these books were discussed and used is very important.15 Eusebius (260-339 CE) refers to the apocryphal Gospel of Peter when the Christian community of Rhossus writes to Serapion of Antioch (191-211 CE) in regard to the supposed work of Peter. Serapion, after reading the Gospel of Peter discovered it contained a docetic teaching (that is, denying the incarnate physical nature of Christ). Serapion condemned the apocryphal gospel of Peter on all counts because of its content. 16 In regard to Serapion and the community of Rhossus, can we draw the conclusion (as previously stated) that the four-fold gospel collection that we find in the BNTC was actually normative? The answer remains that there seems to be no indication on the part of the Serapion event, that the Gospel of Peter was either considered as scripture by the church at Rhossus or Serapion himself. 17 No indication from the documents themselves that it even functioned as scripture in any one of those contexts. 

Likewise, Clement of Alexandria, and his pupil Origen, both quoted extensively from apocryphal books such as the Teaching of Peter, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epistle of Barnabas. Yet Clement, as recorded by Eusebius, declares “about the four gospels, which alone are undisputed in the church of God under heaven" 18, directly highlighting Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Consequently, the content and context as to which both Clement and Origin use these sources is very important. They are clear in their use of scripture, often outlining BNTC as such in comparison with apocryphal works. Therefore, Clement works as a very concrete example of an early church source having no issue with using apocryphal works as sources, but through his context, content, and direct address, specifies which are and aren’t scriptural. In this way, mere use does not equate to reception or acceptance on the part of scripture.

 Frequency likewise must be noted in the discussion. Irenaeus makes over 1000 references to the BNTC books (400 of which are gospel quotations). Comparably, Tertullian accredits the four-fold gospels, making 2500 references to the BNTC books (700 being gospel citations). Clement quoted the BNTC books far less than Irenaeus or Tertullian but still made 230 references. In comparison, Clement quotes apocryphal sources a total of 16 times in all his writings; Irenaeus and Tertullian’s numbers of apocryphal citations being similarly low in comparison to their BNTC references.19

It is also paramount to address some of these specific contenders directly in order to refute their relation to the BNTC. The two closest contemporaneous contenders for the BNTC were not the sensational Gnostic or Decetic Gospels. Rather, the two who had the best possibility at being incorporated into the BNTC were the Shepherd ofHermes, and the Epistle of Barnabas. The number one contender is the Shepherd, so therefore it will be addressed directly. Neither of these books were gospels at all, rather, the Shepherd of Hermes was an apocalypse, comparative to the book of Revelation (last book in the BNTC).  The issue with the Shepherd as a book was its late authorship; being a mid to late second century writing, with no direct apostolic connection. It is interesting to note that the Muatorian fragment (mentioned previously) rejects the Shepherd (along with the Epistle of Barnabas) outright stating that “it was written very recently, in our times by Hermes while his brother Pius was sitting in the chair of Rome."20 This gives a very strong indication that recent productions (after the first century) were never truly seen as contenders to BNTC. Apostolic succession for documents of the BNTC was considered the core criteria for the early Christian church and its leaders. All in consideration, while Irenaeus seems to have no interest in Barnabas, he does at one point call the Shepherd of Hermes graphe, “scripture” in his work Against Heresy, but afterwards never mentions it again.  Origin too regarded the Shepherd as valuable but leaves it out in his explicit list of BNTC books. Tertullian, much like Irenaeus had very little to say about Barnabas but rejected the Shepherd outright stating, “But I would yield my ground to you, if the writing of the Shepherd… had deserved to find a place in the Divine canon; if it had not been habitually judged by every council of Churches (even your own) among apocryphal and false (writings) 21”. The Shepherd of Hermes remains the closest contender for inclusion in the BNTC, but as seen, the leaders of the church did not seriously consider it part of canon in the second century.

The dating of these apocryphal documents is crucial. While the BNTC documents all predate the second century in autograph and origin, the apocryphal documents all date from the second century or later. The only apocryphal book that could possibly be dated close to the first century is that of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. While being an early work of antiquity, the Gospel of Thomas had very little possiblity of actually making its way into the BNTC. Thomas is practically absent from any mention in early Christianity, apart from a few mentions of condemnation by patristic writers. Thomas is not a traditional narrative gospel like that of the BNTC gospels; rather, it is a list of 114 sayings of Jesus. Narratives of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are absent from Thomas. Even more to the point, is the content of these sayings, most of which draw heavily on the BNTC gospels for its content with a very strong leaning towards Gnostic heresy. Gnosticism as a defined religion was not solidified till the mid second century. These teachings not only recognized as heretical in terms of doctrine but also revealing late authorship, ultimately excluding writings like that of Thomas from anything connected to the apostolic writers and therefore the BNTC. 22

CONCLUSION

The issue of canon and the documents that make up the BNTC have great implication in the picture of the Christian message and theology as a whole. Theology lives and dies in the message of scripture, all coming back to the notion of God’s revelation. It hinges on the question of how God has revealed Himself to us, and in what way has He done this. This ultimately funnels down to the inquiry of whether we know that what we possess today in the BNTC is what God gave to the original authors, and whether we can trust that message. Therefore, the faith seeking understanding Christian need to ask themselves honestly what the BNTC is, and how we know it is reliable. This can be done through looking at the origin of the cannon, flushing out the eschatological nature of the early Christians and the intrinsic, organic, and natural process of the pattern of word revelation following redemption linked with covenantal promise and written texts, by analyzing the date of canon, tracing its historicity and reliability through looking at the perception of the early church fathers, and their view of the BNTC documents as scripture and therefore divine revelation, and finally, through recognizing and examining the contenders for the cannon, their context, content, and direct address. By examining how they were viewed and related in regard to BNTC, and by examining the credibility of contending works of antiquity, we can conclude the authenticity, reliability, and credibility of the documents we know call the BNTC.

[1] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press (2012), pg. 8-10; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press. (2003), pg. 236-237

[2] Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy. Illinois: Crossway Publishing. (2010), pg. 125-127.

[3] N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press (1992), pg. 217.

[4] Michael Coogan, The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction. (2008), pg. 119,127; Richard B. Gaffin, Ressurection and Redemption. Phillipsburg: P&R. (1978), pg. 22; Michael J. Kruger. Canon Revisited. Illinois: Crossway Publishing. (2012), pg. 166-170

[5] N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. London: Biddles Publishing Ltd. (2004), pg. 150.

[6] Richard B. Gaffin, Ressurection and Redemption. Phillipsburg: P&R. (1978), pg. 22.

[7] N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. London: Biddles Publishing Ltd. (2004), pg. 150.

[8] Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon. Illinois: Inter Varsity Press. (2012), pg. 57-59

[9] Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 3.11.8

[10] Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House Publishing. (2003), pg. 111.

[11] Michael J. Kruger. Canon Revisited. Illinois: Crossway Publishing. (2012), pg. 214, 228.

[12] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 3.12.

[13] Michael J. Kruger. Canon Revisited. Illinois: Crossway Publishing. (2012), pg. 211, 212.

[14] Denis Farkasfalvy, Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture. New York: Catholic University of America Press. (2010), pg. 94.

[15] Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press. (2003), pg.146-167

[16] Patrick Healy, St. Serapion, The Catholic Encylopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company. (1912), pg. 248-252

[17] Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press. (2003), pg.14-16

[18] Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4-6

[19] Thomas Cooper, The Bridge of History Over the Gulf of Time: A Popular View of the Historical Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. London: Hodder and Stoughton. (1871), pg. 74-75.

[20] M.A. Smith, From Christ to Constantine. London: IVP, (1971), pg. 65-66.

[21] Tertullian, De Pudicitia. 10.12

[22] H,H Drake Williams, Jesus Tried and True. Wipf and Stock Publishers. (2013), pg. 26-27.