Were the Gospels anonymous?

The majority of modern New Testament scholarship today believe that the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were originally penned and circulated anonymously. The thinking being that these documents were what is sometimes referred to as being “formally anonymous,” in that, if you removed the “Gospel According to …” title from the front page and remained with the content you would not necessarily know who the author was. New Testament scholar Rudolf Pesch notes in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark that the “Gospel of Mark was without doubt published anonymously… all inscriptions and subscriptions in the Gospel manuscripts are late.” As Richard Backham notes:

“The assumption that Jesus traditions circulated anonymously in the early church and therefore the Gospels in which they were gathered and recorded were also originally anonymous was very widespread in twentieth-century Gospel scholarship. It was propagated by the form critics as a corollary to their use of the model of folklore, which is passed down anonymously by communities. The Gospels, they thought, were folk literature, similarly anonymous. This use of the model of folklore has been discredited… partly because there is a great difference between folk traditions passed down over centuries and the short span of time — less than a lifetime — that elapsed before Gospels were written. But it is remarkable how tenacious has been the idea that not only the traditions but the Gospels themselves were originally anonymous.”

(Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 300.)

The tenaciousness that Bauckham mentions was indeed the reality of twentieth century New Testament scholarship. This of course is not limited to the past century, as testified by Pesch’s statement. However, the confidence of scholars like Pesch I believe exceeds what the evidence actually indicates. To say that it is “without doubt” that Mark was published anonymously is a very big statement given the fact that the evidence for it seems to be mixed.

This is not to say that Pesch and the majority of scholars’ assertions regarding Gospel authorship and anonymity could not be true. It could be. Majority views are important, and so, if one is going to make an assertion to the contrary of the majority view there better be good reason and sufficient evidence pointing towards that case. The question then is where does the preponderance of evidence point when it comes to Gospel anonymity and what should our conclusions be from said evidence?

What if they were anonymous?

Here’s the reality: if the Gospels were penned anonymously not that much would truly be impacted. A good many works from antiquity are formally anonymous. Other documents within the Christian Scriptural canon are anonymous. 1st and 2nd Chronicles and 1st and 2nd Kings from the Old Testament or the book of Hebrews from the New Testament, all formally anonymous. Not knowing the identity of the author of these books in no way jeopardizes their authority or credibility. From outside the Scriptures themselves we have the works of Philo of Alexandria, the famous Jewish thinker from the first century BC, are written with no formal mention of the author’s name within the document. If the Gospels were written in this way it would not jeopardize the reliability of their content. There are many internal and external methods of verification to identify the biblical Gospels as early, eyewitness-based accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth— with or without a direct ascription to who the author was or wasn’t.

No originals

We are also left with the reality that every writing from the ancient world falls into — we do not possess the original copies. The collection of writings we call the New Testament are approximately two thousand years old and the originals documents that the authors penned have been lost to the sands of time. With the loss of the originals we also have the disappearance of any first-hand evidence that they were or were not titled with the authors name. For this reason it cannot be known whether Matthew, Mark, Mark, Luke, or John inscribed a title to his Gospel account or not.

Author identities

It cannot be discounted that at least two of the Gospel accounts, Mark and Luke, have traditional ascription to non-disciples. If the Gospels did circulate anonymously in their earliest forms then why eventually assign names of particularly unimpressive characters to them? Why not vouch for and chose individuals who had early and widely accepted notoriety as key individuals within the Jesus community? Neither Mark nor Luke had an outstanding reputation as particularly noteworthy individuals. Both individuals in their respective identification traditions have links to others. Mark’s Gospel is reported to have found his source material in Peter. Why not then call this account The Gospel of Peter? If a Gospel account is anonymous why then almost unanimously settle on Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, who deserted the first missionary journey with Paul and went home (Acts 13:13, 15:37-39)?

This could even be argued for Matthew, a character about whom almost nothing is known and whose only claim to fame (outside of penning the Gospel) is that he was a tax collector in the Gospel narratives. Tax collectors were not exactly the most popular of Characters in first-century Roman occupied Galilee. So to choose Matthew over and above other characters within the narrative seems odd. Why not select clearer heavy hitters? Why not associate the earliest narrative accounts of Jesus with weightier apostolic authority? Especially, and with particular note, to the other Gospels that start to pop-up in the second century and following which make explicit claims to the authorship of characters like Philip, Mary, Peter, and Thomas.

Why do any of that, unless of course, the traditional attributions were in fact the authors?

Consistency in Titles

The strongest evidence against traditional authorship being straightforward would be the earliest manuscripts themselves showing diversity in attribution of the author. For example, if we were to find multiple copies with the text of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew with a different title, say, the text of the Gospel of Matthew with a heading of the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of John, then this would be warrant for pause. The problem however, is that we find no such thing. There are no competing claims of titled authorship in any of the manuscripts that survive with a title heading. In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives (the two places we find such titled inscriptions), we find the traditional authorship assigned.

These surviving copies are rare, granted, but not unprecedented. P75, for example, which dates somewhere in the mid to late second century, on leaf 47 (recto) has a very clear “εὐαγγελίον κατα Λουκᾶν” (“Gospel According to Luke”) at the end of the book (Luke 24:53).

Manuscript photograph of P75 courtesy of CSNTM’s Manuscript database. Original manuscript is housed in the Vatican Library (Pap. Hanna. 1).

Although not as nicely preserved in its incipit, another second century Gospel, P66, begins with the title “εὐαγγελίον κατα Ἰωάννην” (“Gospel according to John).

Manuscript photograph of P66 courtesy of CSNTM’s Manuscript database. Original manuscript is housed in at Foundation Martin Bodmery (Université de Genève in Geneva, P.Bodmer II).

All of our major Codices from the fourth and fifth centuries likewise include (at either the very beginning of the very end) an identifier of the author with the traditional name associated with the document. There has yet to be discovered a copy of a biblical Gospel with an inscription of a different name other than the traditional author.

---

The Manuscript Evidence: No Anonymous Gospels

Pitre, Brant, The case for Jesus: The biblical and historical evidence for Christ (New York: Penguin house Llc, 2016), 17.

---

What does all this mean?

Where this leaves us is with, in my estimation, relatively sound evidence to conclude that the names of the four canonical Gospels are indeed the authors. Although the early church testimony to these authors was not necessarily discussed in this particular blog, this early testimony also adds to the verification of the authors being the namesakes we associate with those particular documents. Of course it is theoretically possible that these documents were originally circulated anonymously, from the estimation of the evidence I do not believe that to be the case.

---

For more:

What Happened at the Council of Nicaea?

This article was originally posted on the Gospel Coalition, Canada, Website

It’s a common accusation, “the books of the Bible were chosen at the Council of Nicaea.”

I have read it in books and internet forums as well as heard it from laypeople and academics. It is a line that has been repeated over and over, having taken on a life of its own due to the popularity of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and the explosion of promulgation due to the internet.

One of the main characters in the Da Vinci Code, Leigh Teabing, states at one point that, “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike” (Brown, 325). These sort of ideas didn’t start with Dan Brown, the story in one form or another has been floating around for decades and even centuries before any such works of popular fiction. So the valid question that follows is: what did happen at the Council of Nicaea?

What happened at Nicaea?

The first Council of Nicaea, which took place between May and August in 325 AD in what is now İznik, Turkey, was an ecumenical council called to deal with a specific theological problem. Its purpose was to sort out the Arian Controversy––a Trinitarian heresy being promoted by a presbyter in North Africa named Arius, teaching not only that the Son of God was eternally subordinate to the Father, but that the Son was not everlasting but created by God the Father at a specific point in time. Arius, in his letter to Alexandria, wrote that: “The Son, being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, did not exist before his generation… the Son is not eternal or co-equal or co-unoriginate with the Father” (Letter to Alexandria 4:458).

There is even a story that developed later that St. Nicholas (yes, good St. Nick himself), struck Arius in the face during Nicaea after Arius stood up and uttered his famous statement that, “there was a time when the Son was not.” While the visual of Santa punching heretics in the face makes for a good laugh and a fun story, the narrative developed later and cannot legitimately be tied to anything that actually happened historically at the council.

The end result of the assembly was what is now known as the Nicene Creed, along with twenty canon decrees and a synod epistle that went along with the creedal statement. Within all of these documents, Nicaea quotes the New Testament books as authoritative and acknowledged the supremacy and jurisdiction they held. All 318 members (even the unorthodox ones as far as we can tall) recognized the rule scripture possessed already, they did not invent the status it held. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were being read, studied, preached, and declared as God’s holy Word hundreds of years before anyone at Nicaea was even born.

There is no evidence from any of the documents that came out of Nicaea nor from the testimony of witnesses and members who were there (Eusebius, Athanasius, or Eustathius, for example) that any part of the council had anything to do with choosing or establishing the canon of Scripture. So where did this idea originate from? Well, there are two possible sources where the myth could have originated and taken on a life of its own.

One of these options has ancient origins with the other being a little more contemporary. The first comes from a line in the commentary on Judith by Jerome (347–420 AD). In the preface to his work on Judith, Jerome states: “But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!).”

It is important to note that Jerome’s statement does not necessarily mean that Nicaea chose books but could have merely discussed the topic and in the framework of that discussion included writings some may have considered Scripture. That does not mean they were Scripture and certainly doesn’t mean they bestowed any such documents with the authority of Scripture. The content of this single quote is a far cry from any type of vote, of which we have no evidence for. It is also key to take note that other key players present at Nicaea like Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Hilary of Poitiers, all rejected Judith as canonical Scripture in their subsequent canon lists.

Judith likewise, is quite an odd candidate as it contains numerous blatant historical errors (saying Nebuchadnezzar was “king of Nineveh,” not of Babylon, for example) that both Jews and Christians over the centuries have pointed out as highly problematic. Given all of the evidence of what we can see definitively did take place at Nicaea, it is also possible that Jerome was simply incorrect, or that his statement did not intend to point to an instance of a vote of choice, but rather, a discussion that included books others supposed held some authority (for more on Jerome’s intentions see Ed Gallagher’s article in the Harvard Theological Review). Whatever the case this may or may not be where the first echoes of the whole “the Bible was chosen at Nicaea” started. Personally, however, I don’t think that’s where it came from. I think that the account derives its origins from a source a little closer to our time than Jerome of Stridon.

The Modern Nicaea Myth

Unlike a passing comment from Jerome, the way the narrative is so definitively presented in many modern forms appears to be from a pseudo-historical ninth-century Greek manuscript known as the Synodicon Vetus. The Synodicon Vetus claims to present information on church councils and synods from the first to the ninth centuries. At the section regarding Nicaea it says the following: “The council made manifest the canonical and apocryphal books in the following manner: placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened.”

According to this document the source of what we now know as the New Testament canon originates from a miracle that took place when those present at Nicaea prayed over a collection of canonical and apocryphal books. The claim by this narrative is that the documents that were indeed “divinely inspired books” stayed on the table and those that were “spurious” found their way underneath it by miraculous means.

The Synodicon Vetus then appears to have been passed through the hands of a number of individuals over the centuries; the original Greek document eventually making its way into the possession of an individual named Andreas Darmasius in the sixteenth century. It was subsequently bought, edited, printed, and published by a German man at the beginning of the seventeenth century named John Pappus.

Pappus’ publication made its way into the hands of none other than the French Enlightenment thinker Voltaire, in the late seventeenth century. In Vol. 3 of Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, under “Councils” he says: “We have already said that in the supplement to the Council of Nicaea it is related that the fathers, being much perplexed to find out which were authentic and which the apocryphal books of the Old and the New Testament, laid them all upon the altar, and the books which they were to reject fell to the ground. What a pity that so fine an ordeal has been lost!”

The publication of Synodicon Vetus in the seventeenth century, and the use of its narrative by Voltaire in his Dictionary, appears to be the origin of the modern myth. Dan Brown did not invent it, but he certainly took advantage of the story and ran with it. Since the advent of the internet, where both truth and falsehood can spread like wildfire and are even harder to tell apart, the “Council of Nicaea chose the books of the Bible” fable is sure to live on. However, when one actually evaluates the evidence of both what happened at Nicaea, as well as how the formation of the biblical canon came together, it is clear that anyone who is interested in the truth can see what did happen at Nicaea, of which had nothing to do with choosing or rejecting Scripture.

Conclusion

The early Christian communities were very concerned with truth—particularly when it came to what God had revealed. Discussions about recognizing (not choosing) the books that God had inspired took place centuries before Nicaea and would continue to be in the discussion for decades after. Nonetheless, what we can decisively see taking place at the Council of Nicaea was the quotation of the New and Old Testament books as authoritative and an acknowledgment of the supremacy and jurisdiction those books held. The participants recognized the rule Scripture possessed as God-breathed and authoritative already, they did not invent the status it held. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were being read, studied, preached, and declared as God’s holy Word hundreds of years before anyone at Nicaea was even born.

There was no single individual or group that voted the books of Scripture into the Bible. Early Christians saw the authority that certain books held and acknowledged the authority they had. The Bible includes a list of authoritative books rather than being an authoritative list of books. The reliability and recognized inspiration of Scripture span millennia. This does not mean that there weren’t discussions about what was and wasn’t Scripture in the centuries following Christ’s death, there were. The church and its leaders went to painstaking lengths to verify the authenticity and connection of those books to an Apostle or someone who knew an Apostle and it did take time for the dust to settle on the canon of Scripture. But nothing of this process even remotely resembles the Da Vinci Code type narrative that we often hear.

Modern Christians can stand confident and firm in the historical tradition of the church leaders at Nicaea, recognizing Scripture as authoritative, true, and life-changing.

One Bible, many versions

This article was originally posted on the P2C Student’s blog

Henry Ford once said, “Any customer can have a car painted in any colour that he [or she] wants, as long as it is black.”1 Before 1881, this was pretty much the situation with the English Bible:2 you could read any English translation of the Bible you wanted, as long as it was the King James Version (KJV). Since 1881, though, things have changed, and a surplus of new translations have been published: The New Revised Version (NRV), New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), New Living Translation (NLT), New American Standard Version (NASB), and on and on you can go. 

So why are there so many options now? How did the King James get dethroned? Which translation is best for the modern reader? With so many different translations, are any of them actually faithful to the original?

These are all valid questions, and in order to address them, we will need to step back a little to get a “big picture” perspective of the situation. To start, we simply need to ask the question, “Why are there so many English versions of the Bible?”

History of the Text

It is important to understand that there are three basic influences that have given rise to such a wealth of Bible translations over the last hundred years.

First, in 1881, two British scholars by the name of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published a Greek New Testament established on the most ancient handwritten copies, what are referred to as manuscripts, available to them. This text made many notable deviations from the less ancient Greek text that the King James translators used back in 1611. In the 17th century when the King James Version was being worked on, the amount of documentary sources was limited. The King James translators were using a collection of printed texts that were put together based on the manuscript evidence that was available. The discovery of both more and older manuscripts in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, allowed scholars to map out a clearer picture and create a better understanding of what the original writings, which have been lost to the sands of time, of the New Testament looked like. It wasn’t that the Bible had been lost in any way, but with the uncovering of more ancient Bible copies, it helped to broaden our understanding of how the text of the Bible looked over the last two millennia.

It is also important to understand that, while these earliest copies do get us closer to what the original may have looked like, earlier does not always equate to more reliable. This is where examination of the manuscripts is very important. Scholars don’t assume that an earlier copy is a more reliable copy by nature of it being old. Instead, they carefully examine the manuscript and its text, comparing it to other documents of a similar age and later copies that they think it may be the originator of, and come to an educated decision based on a whole host of factors.

All of this is why some of our earliest manuscripts give us a better picture than what was available in the 17th century. Nonetheless, the Christian faith did stand unshakable for centuries while the earliest copies of its texts lay mostly forgotten in the sands of Egypt. People learned, trusted, valued, copied, and were changed by the Word of God long before the most recent discoveries of our most ancient copies. 

However, the older manuscripts, which Wescott and Hort used, did not contain passages such as the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20), or the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) (for a description of why Mark’s ending stops where it does tap here). But the Greek manuscripts that the KJV translators followed included these and many other extra passages, which were likewise included—for better or for worse—in the KJV.

Shortly following Westcott and Hort’s text, the English Revised Version made its appearance, ushering in a new period of Bible translations, an era based on earlier manuscripts.

Second, since 1895 many discoveries from archaeological digs and manuscript finds have been made, bringing into question some of the renderings and translational choices of the KJV. 

In 1895, a German scholar named Adolf Deissmann published a work called Bibelstudien (Bible Studies), which revolutionized New Testament scholarship. He discovered that ancient scraps of papyrus buried in Egyptian garbage dumps contained Greek that was quite similar to the Greek of the New Testament. He concluded that the New Testament was written in the language of the common people. It was not an elitist dialect, as many had previously thought, but rather colloquial Greek, as would have been spoken in the ancient marketplace. 

Since Deissmann’s discovery, translators have endeavored to put the New Testament into the language of the average person, creating translations that are comprehensible without compromising the intent of the original language: to speak to ordinary people. Likewise, subsequent discoveries of ancient manuscripts have shed further light on the meaning of many words and phrases in the original Greek, which the KJV translators had only guessed.

Third, there are a great deal of philosophical issues that have influenced subsequent translations. Major contributions in this area have come from missionaries, as they translated the Bible into many indigenous and tribal languages—missionaries translating, for example, a verse like Isaiah 1:18, that says, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” in an area of the world where snow has never been seen. When Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 and rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, how does one render the text in a location where donkeys do not exist? Is it appropriate to replace the donkey with an alpaca, llama, or gazelle simply for the sake of the reader, or does that do injustice to the words and understanding of the text? These questions of nuance, clarification, and faithfulness in translation both stretched and strengthened translators and their approaches.

The Text of the Modern Translations

During my undergraduate studies, I would routinely talk to the Mormons who frequented my neighbourhood. They were polite and would knock on my door regularly. During one particular conversation, a young Mormon missionary challenged me: “You don’t think your Bible has been changed?” “No,” I replied. “Then who took John 5:4 from your Bible?” he asked, without missing a beat. Puzzled, I turned to the Gospel of John, chapter five, and sure enough, it went from verse 3 straight to verse 5 (for an explanation for why there is no verse 4, tap here). As a Mormon, he would have only read the KJV, which does include this verse. 

As I continued to probe, I found even more examples of supposed discrepancies. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:16, in the KJV it says that “God was manifest in the flesh,” but most of the modern translations read, “He who was manifest in the flesh.” At Revelation 22:19, the KJV refers to the “book of life,” while almost all of the modern versions have the “tree of life” in its place. And that was only the beginning: there are hundreds of changes between the KJV and modern translations. So what’s going on?

First, it is important to note that the textual changes in the modern translations effect no major doctrine of the biblical message. The deity of Christ, his virgin conception and birth, salvation by grace alone, and all the rest are still clearly found in the modern translations.

Second, the textual changes in the modern translations are based on comparing the most ancient and most reliable readings from the available manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament. These manuscripts date from the early second century (AD) and onward (for a discussion of how manuscripts are dated, tap here. The “alterations” we see in our modern text are not a case of “who took John 5:4 out of your Bible?” (as the Mormon missionary asserted) but rather, “who put John 5:4 into your Bible?”

The KJV translators could only use what was available to them: a 1525 Hebrew text and the seven printed versions of the Greek which were based on only six to eight manuscripts (in comparison with the over five thousand New Testament manuscripts we have today). None of those seven manuscripts even came close to the age of the ancient discoveries we now possess. With these older documents, we can get a clearer picture of what the original authors wrote. In the case of John 5:4, we know that this particular text was initially a commentary note in the margin. Over time, the note went from briefly explaining the context of John 5 to making its way into the text itself. For the record, these verses are not missing from your modern translation anyways. In nearly every case you can find a note at the bottom of your Bible explaining the why and what of these “missing” passages. If the KJV translators were alive today, they would of course make use of the plethora of documents we now possess in our undertaking of translating the Bible from its original languages into our own. In fact, they say as much in the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible, that any translation of the Word of God needs to be updated for the purposes of clarity and understanding. 

Third, due to the small number of manuscripts then available, there were sections missing from the text. The compiler of these manuscripts, a man named Desiderius Erasmus, had to fill in a great deal of these gaps by translating the Latin Bible back into the Greek. Because of this, some of the phrases that exist in the KJV—such as the “book of life” passage from Revelation 22—are neither found in the majority of manuscripts nor the most ancient manuscripts. But this history gives the shift between words like “book” to “tree” or “God” to “he who” reasonable and understandable explanations. Some were honest mistakes, others were copyist errors, and still others were the well-intentioned, albeit mistaken, efforts of scribes to render the text accurately. At the end of the day, due to the number of manuscripts we now have, we can be confident that our modern translations are accurate readings of what the original authors wrote nearly 2000 years ago.

Word-for-Word, Thought-for-Thought, or Paraphrased?

Translation style also has a big influence on modern translations. Many presume that the more a Bible translation is “word-for-word,”  the more faithful it will be to the original text. If the original has a noun in a certain place, they would expect a translated noun to sit in the same position. If the original has ten words in one verse, the translation should ideally have ten words as well. This style of translation is referred to as “formal equivalence,” and is used more often than not  in the King James (KJV), the American Standard (ASB/NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV). 

But there are also “thought-for-thought” or “phrase-for-phrase” translations. This translation style is not concerned with replicating grammatical form as much as rendering the intended meaning. This “dynamic equivalence” allows the translation to be more interpretive in order to make the text be easier to understand. This type of translation is reflected in the New International Version (NIV) or the New Living Translation (NLT).

Of course, no single translation is exclusively dynamic or formal equivalence all the way through. Some lean more on one side than the other more often than not, but many modern translations will slide on a scale from book to book, chapter to chapter, and verse to verse, simply for the purpose of making the words readably understandable. 

---

---

A simple way to check whether the translation of your Bible is more of a word-for-word (formal equivalence) or thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence) is to turn to Luke 9:44. In this passage, Jesus predicts his betrayal and crucifixion, however, he prefaces his statement with a comment to the disciples:

“Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you…” (NIV)

“Let these words sink into your ears…” (NASB)

The Greek in this passage literally says, “Let these words sink into your ears,” as rendered by the NASB. However, in English we don’t talk like that. What the NIV and other dynamic equivalence translations do is to rephrase this statement with a more understandable English equivalent: “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.” The thought-for-thought translator translates for the English reader to easily understand, while staying faithful to the meaning; the word-for-word translator is less concerned about how it sounds in English, prioritizing faithfulness to the form.

When we speak of faithfulness in regard to translation, we need to clarify what we’re talking about. Do we mean faithfulness to form or to meaning? This does not always have a simple answer, for at times when we’re faithful to one, we are not always being faithful to the other. There are certain word-for-word passages in the King James that simply don’t make any sense, and frankly, they didn’t make much sense in 1611 when they were originally translated either. Likewise, many thought-for-thought translations push the line on interpretation and border on saying something the original author did not intend.

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe: Which Translation to Use?

So what does all this mean? Is there any hope for knowing what the original text of the Bible said? Is all lost in translation? Should we conclude that, since there are so many different translations, anyone who doesn’t know Greek or Hebrew can’t possibly understand the text? The answer is a resounding “No!”

Every individual who is serious about Bible study should own at least two different translations: specifically, a thought-for-thought (formal equivalence) translation as well as a phrase-for-phrase (dynamic equivalence) translation. This will help to flesh out the original meaning and the original phrasing for the reader—broadening their understanding of what the text actually says.

Finally, a note must be said regarding the King James Version and modern translations. The King James Bible is a fine translation, and no one should be faulted for using it. However, it is neither the best translation nor the most accurate. And to clarify, the KJV of today is not the KJV of 1611, as it has undergone a number of revisions. The vast majority of KJV Bibles today are either an Oxford or Cambridge printing of a 1769 reprint.3

I am also not saying that all translations are created equal. There exist some “translations” that distort, working not to be authentic to form or meaning, but rather to a specific agenda by the translator(s). 

Any sectarian translation is highly suspect. Works done by single individuals often suffer from personal and theological bias (whether intended or unintended) and should therefore, almost always be avoided. The clearest example of a sectarian translation (hardly warranting the title “translation”) is the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation (NWT). Due to the sectarian bias of the JWs in conjunction with the lack of true biblical scholarship among the group, this is easily the worst English translation available. The NWT works to be word-for-word the vast majority of the time, sometimes to an unreadable point. However, when issues of theological questions arise that do not match with JW doctrine, a “phrase-for-phrase” method is enacted that far too often twists the text in an unjustifiable way. 

Works done by single individuals also often suffer from personal and theological bias (whether intended or unintended), and should therefore almost always be avoided. Committee translations with multiple individuals have the added benefit of accountability and weeding out any one individual’s personal theological perspective or preconceived bias from bleeding into a rendering of words,  phrases, ideas, or concepts within the biblical text. Examples of translations done by single individuals include Moffatt’s, The Living Bible, Kenneth West’s Expanded Translation, and the Berkley New Testament. While these are not necessarily bad translations, and can often be of use alongside committee translations, for personal use it is not always wise to restrict reading to simply these types of Bible versions.

Again, the individual who seeks serious Bible study should take into consideration a multi-translational approach, possessing at least one formal and one dynamic equivalence translation for personal use. 

The most important note, however, is that whatever translation you use, read it!

Notes:
(1) Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther, My Life and Work (New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1923), pg. 72.

(2) There were of course, other English translations available such as the Wycliffe Bible (c. 1384), Tyndale Bible (c. 1520s), Coverdale (c. 1520s), the Geneva Bible (c. 1560s), and the Bishop’s Bible (c. 1560s) that all predated the 1611 King James Version. 

(3) When many today refer to the Textus Receptus (TR), what they mean is the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Textus Receptus. This, however, is a document compiled by a man named Frederick Henry Scrivener in the mid 1800s. Scrivener compiled the readings that were chosen by the KJV translators and codified them in a single document. It is not based on the manuscripts used by the translators, but rather, their finalized chosen text. In this way, it is a document put together nearly 200 years after the KJV’s final publication in 1611, and represents a Greek New Testament based on an English New Testament based on a Greek New Testament.

(4) For more on the topic of “King James Onlyism,” I would recommend James White’s The King James Only Controversy

Netflix’s Cuties: a social commentary gone awry

By now you’ve probably heard of Netflix’s Cuties (originally titled Mignonnes), a French film released at the beginning of September in North America, that has garnered considerable attention and scrutiny. The criticism comes due to the film’s controversial over-sexual portrayal of the child actors. The original description of the movie read:

The film, which drew attention from politicians and news agencies alike prompted the trending hashtag, #cancelnetflix. The movement was more than just a threat as thousands of subscribers dumped their accounts and Netflix’s stock put up a loss of $9 billion. As the heat cranked up the backlash sparked Netflix itself to make a statement, declaring on their official Twitter account that :

(For the record that “updated” description simply replaced the word “twerking” with “free-spirited.”)

For full transparency I did not watch the whole film. I started out of curiosity but very quickly turned it off. However, due to my desire to want to understand the film (and with the intention of writing this article) I did connect with three individuals who I knew had watched it in its entirety — two who saw its message and outcome as a net positive and one who very strongly denounced the film.

What Cuties gets right

There have been many scathing reviews of the film thus far, many of which I think are warranted in their outrage but might be missing some important points the movie makes. The director of Cuties, Maïmouna Doucouré, in a recent interview explained that her intention with the film was to draw attention to the horrors and dangers of hyper-sexualisation on adolescent women, particularly in the Western world. Many of the articles I read before attempting to watch it myself (and talking to those who had watched it) reduced Cuties to merely a piece of child pornography-light. That I think was not entirely accurate.

There is some genuinely good social commentary within Cuties, touching on the emptiness of modern secular materialism, its over-sexualization of women, as well as the harm and oppression of traditional Islam. Turning the mirror on our own cultures and seeing their ugly blemishes for what they are is always a good thing. Worldview introspectivity is a good practice to exercise.

It seems clear that what Doucouré, as a director from a rampantly secular culture like France, is trying to draw attention to is the oppression that takes place in our cultures both foreign and domestic. As Doucouré notes in her interview,

“Our girls see that the more a woman’s overly sexualized on social media, the more she’s successful. And the children just imitate what they see... It’s dangerous.”

That the over-secularized, hyper-sexualized culture of things like social media can be just as cruel as the fundamentalist Islamic practice of Muslim immigrants. To the extent that this film does that very thing we can see Doucouré’s goal and intention as a noble one.

Source: evanscartoons.com

What Cuties gets terribly terribly wrong

However, please do not misread me — I in no way wish to be an apologist for Cuties and I do not think this movie should have been made. The film ends up doing exactly what it sets out to expose, and while the motives may have been correct the method by which it goes about this task is beyond terrible and results in philosophically sawing off the branch it is sitting on.

The reason for all of the outrage so far is simple: in attempting to point out the over-sexualization and exploitation of children Cuties very clearly over-sexualized and exploited children.

As one of the individual’s who I discussed this film with noted to me, “the gaze of the camera becomes the gaze of the audience,” and the gaze of the camera continually focused on the backsides and crotches of children as they twerked and gyrated. That is not OK. What many of the harsher reviews of this feature get exactly right is that the camera in multiple scenes does indeed focuse and lingers on what the pedophile would go out of their way to look at.

The catch twenty-two of Cuties is that it ends up doing exactly what its author says she is trying to warn against. There is much about the social media saturated, vacuously secularized, and overly-sexualized culture we find ourselves in that needs to be exposed for what it is. But when the cure becomes the disease there is a serious problem. It is a really strange way to stand against the sexualization of eleven year-olds by then making eleven year-olds sexualized.

There are ways to accomplish what Doucouré vocalized as what she was trying to do that would not have taken advantage of and placed the adolescent actors in compromising scenes. In fact, there is a snippet of that very thing within Cuties itself. In one particular scene when Amy, one of the characters in the film, is discovered with the stolen camera of her cousin, she implors for it to be given back to her by offering a seductive dance as payment. The reaction Amy’s cousin gives is horror and confusion. His response is to express how ridiculous and inappropriate Amy is being before he simply walks away. This one scene reveals what the film could have been in its attempt to make an acute social commentary. There are ways that can communicate and suggest that our society has hyper-sexualized eleven year-olds that doesn’t require us to over-sexual eleven year-old actresses in the process.

Where does this leave us?

In decades and centuries past it was common place to teach people, starting with children, catechisms. Traditionally Christian communities would instruct the youngest within the culture with lasting eternal truths. This practice is of course still practiced. I myself when I hear certain phrases can still fill in the answers:

“What is the chief end of man? — to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”

”What rule has God given to direct us in how we may glorify and enjoy him? — The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Catechesis is the simple and clear instruction of a teaching that reveals a truth. Christian Catechisms teach profound theological truths in bite-sized snippets. These work not to replace the role of Scripture or Christian education but work as a primer and basis to lead to fuller explanation of the ultimate questions that explain reality around us.

But what is the catechism of our modern secular age? What are the influences we implore on our children that help them to grow into men and women who mature into law abiding, responsible, and acceptable adults? Whether we like it or not our culture is communicating the answers to the existential questions through media. The catechisms of the 21st century western world are the mantras communicated to us by pop music, social media, and political ideology. This is actually an aspect that Cuties diagnoses well in its over-arching commentary on society (both east and west).

But Cuties becomes a victim of its own making. In a culture that pays little attention to consistency and true critical thinking Cuties acts as an example of a secular catechism that attempts to point to a problem. But Cuties plants its feet firmly in mid-air and tries to take a leap, making a true cultural statement by doing the very thing it decries.

In many ways I do not think we should be as shocked by Cuties as we are. Does it objectify and take advantage of children in an appealing and reprehensible way in order to point out the horror of objectification of children? Yes. But in a culture where moral ambiguity is becoming more and more the norm, where ethical decay has taken leaps and bounds within my own life time, Cuties is in many ways the logical outcome of our cultural climate.

Why I date the Gospel of Thomas late

1945 was a year of upheaval — the Allied Forces were pushing through France into the Rhine, the United States Army managed to cross the Siegfried Line, and Soviet soldiers hoisting the red flag over the Reich Chancellery announcing the fall of Berlin. By May of that year the Germans would surrender at Lüneburg Heath, an event that eventually led to the full surrender of the Third Reich and the end of WWII. It is no wonder then that in the midst of such global turbulence, an alleged discovery that same year by an Egyptian farmer named Muhammad ‘Ali al-Samman, went virtually unnoticed. Yet, this discovery of a clay jar filled with ancient manuscripts in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, would later prove to drastically influence the fields of antiquity, religious, biblical, and historical Jesus studies.

What was uncovered would later be referred to as the Nag Hammadi codices, a term that refers to twelve papyrus documents and one tractate that arose on the antiquities market two years after the alleged date of the discovery.

The Nag Hammadi codices in 1948. (Image adapted from Jean Doresse and Togo Mina, “Nouveaux textes gnostiques coptes découvertes en Haute-Egypte: La bibliothèque de Chenoboskion,” Vigiliae Christianae 3 [1949], 129-141, Figure 1; image appears courtesy of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity Records, Special Collections, Claremont Colleges Library, Claremont, California.)

Found within the contents of this collection was a complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas written in Coptic. While the exact circumstances regarding the discovery by Muhammad Ali are up for scrutiny, one thing is not, the Gospel of Thomas’ introduction changed the landscape for the Christian academy. Helmut Koester and Stephen J. Patterson refer to the Nag Hammadi library surfacing as “the single most important archaeological find of the 20th century for the study of the new Testament” (Koester, The Gospel of Thomas, p. 30). This Coptic text also helped scholars piece together three Oxyrhynchus papyri (P. Oxy 1, 654, and 6554) which had been unearthed before the Nag Hamaddi text and were not definitively known to be the Gospel of Thomas previous to the Nag Hammadi discovery.

What is the Gospel of Thomas?

The Gospel of Thomas is one of, if not the, earliest extant non-canonical Gospel accounts. However, unlike many other Gospels (both biblical and apocryphal) Thomas contains no narrative and only a list of 114 sayings between Jesus and his immediate followers. Many have argued that Thomas deserves to be in the Bible and represents an early sect of Christianity that was merely dismissed by the orthodox Christian church during its time of popularity. Others have pointed to the portrayal of Jesus within the Gospel of Thomas as evidence that Christianity was widely diverse in its beliefs and practice and that what we today call “historical Christianity” is merely the faith of the theological winners of the environment of the first few centuries AD.

When it comes to the composition of this particular document the scholarly community is torn. The majority of scholars place it somewhere in the middle to late second century. A handful of scholars, including John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagals, place Thomas within the first century. Yet those who conclude that the Gospel of Thomas precedes the year 100 AD remain a fringe minority.

As note before, Thomas is not a narrative like the canonical Gospels, but rather, a list of sayings that Jesus supposedly said to his immediate disciples. Unlike Jesus being described as “the way, truth, and light” in the biblical Gospels (John 14:6), the Jesus of Thomas is a teacher who reveals the light that exists within us (Thomas 24:3) representing some of the earliest witness to what would later be clearly defined as Christian Gnosticism. The Jesus in Thomas also decries fasting and prayer as evil (Thomas 14:1-3) unlike what we see from the biblical Jesus in places like Matt.4:1-11 or Luke 11:1-28. The Jesus in Thomas mirrors a lot of Greek teachers in Greco-Roman literature rather than a Jewish Rabbi. All of these create a strong disparity between the theology of Thomas and the canonical Gospel canon of Matthew.

Dating Thomas

Dating Thomas becomes tricky due to the internal and external evidence we have for it. We simply lack surviving documentary evidence to conclude anything substantial based on the external artifacts alone. There are only four copies and of those copies the only whole copy that survives today is the famous Coptic manuscript which is part of the Nag Hammadi library, which dates to 340 AD. Our other three copies are Greek fragments that only contain about 20% of Thomas and can be dated somewhere in the neighborhood of 200AD .

When all four manuscripts are examined there is notable textual difference between the full Coptic version and our three Greek fragments. So much so that there appears to have been a remarkable change between the earlier copies we have in Greek and the later version in Coptic. Unlike the minor variation that we see within the text of the New Testament manuscripts, our copies of Thomas have enough overlap to point to them being the same document but the content had clearly adapted over the course of 140 years. As John P. Meier notes in A Marginal Jew,

“[The Gospel of Thomas] may have circulated in more than one form and passed through several stages of redaction.”

— Meir, A Marginal Jew. pg. 125

Because of this I (and many others) believe that the text of Thomas represents an uncontrolled transmission of a document that adapted between the Egyptian communities that may have wrote it earlier in Greek and then again just over one hundred years later in Coptic. The text of what we know as "The Gospel of Thomas" was not static but had varying renditions, all clear attempts at the same document but one that evolved as a fluid text between the mid second and late third centuries.

Nag Hammadi Codex II, showing the ending of “The Secret Book of John” (Apocryphon of John), and beginning of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. (Image courtesy of the Houghton Library, Harvard University; and the Egypt Exploration Society and Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford.)

The bulk of how Thomas is dated comes from the internal evidence which is harder to do than with other Gospel documents because Thomas’ content is simply a list of sayings that contain no historical references in order to cross-reference potential dates. On top of this Thomas shows little internal coherence outside of catch words and phrases.

---

Find out how ancient manuscripts were dated by clicking here.

---

However, a noteworthy aspect of Thomas is that it seems very familiar with other books already canonized within our New Testament. The Gospel of Thomas contains quotes or paraphrases from sixteen of the twenty-seven New Testament books. Therefore, a hypothesis that proposes that all of these documents relied on Thomas would force Thomas very very early, potentially in the late 30s or early 40s AD. It is far more probable that Thomas is using the New Testament books as source material rather than the New Testament books relying on Thomas as a point of information supply. In order to prove the latter one would have to push Thomas into the 40s and assume it is already well circulated and popular for all the New Testament authors to make use of it. It is far more probable that a later author made use of the New testament writings, that were already in frequent circulation and popularity within Christian communities by the second century, than it is to try and validate the New Testament authors making use of Thomas.

Richard Bauckham, in his work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, proposes that Thomas is actually comparing itself with the previous canonical Gospels. Bauckham argues that Thomas is doing this specifically with Matthew and Mark’s Gospel accounts. This is because section thirteen of the Gospel of Thomas has Peter and Matthew trying to guess who Jesus was and failing. The disciple Thomas then steps in and gives the "right" answer. Bauckham argues that using Matthew and Peter in particular (Peter being the source information that the early Church writers like Papias, Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, said Mark wrote his Gospel from), indicates that the Gospel of Thomas is acknowledging and presupposing that he is already aware of the existence of Matthew and Mark (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. pgs. 236-237). Likewise, N.T. Wright in The New Testament and the Story of God (pgs. 431-443), notes a smilar theme by pointing that Thomas lacks the identity of the early Jewish community and specifically the early Christian movement that came out of it.

There is also a noticeable connection between all the extant versions of Thomas and particular sects of Syrian Christianity in the mid to late second century. Nicholas Perrin in his paper, Thomas: The Fifth Gospel, analyzed the content of Thomas and translated it into Syriac and Greek and conclude that the phrases and contents of Thomas made more sense when written in Syriac than it did in Greek or Coptic. Specific catchphrases within Thomas are often transliterations of Syriac idioms (nearly 500 of them in total) frequently used within extra-biblical Christian Syriac writing. Craig Evans has noted something similar by stating that,

“[Thomas has] extensive coherence with late-second century Syrian tradition [and a] lack of coherence with pre-70 Jewish Palestine.”

— Evans, Fabricating Jesus. pg. 76

A simple example would be the title of Gospel being attributed to "Didymos Judas Thomas," a title common in Syrian traditions almost exclusively.

Those who date Thomas within the first century do so almost exclusive on its style rather than its content. That is, Thomas is a list of sayings and the narrative style of the canonical Gospels shows development that a sayings Gospel would predate. The problem with this argument is that there are multiple examples of sayings collections that can be traced to the second and third centuries. Rabbinic works like the Chapter of the Fathers or the Sentences of Sextus were both simple lists of sayings that find their origin and dissemination within the second and third centuries.

Closing the book on the Gospel of Thomas

I believe what we see with Thomas is a philosophical syncretism of Gnostic ideas (of which can be placed no later than the early second century) and the Jesus tradition. The Jesus of Thomas is palatable for a gentile audience who would see no problem with the mystic Jesus Thomas portrays. If we try to attempt placing the Gospel of Thomas before the canonical four it makes little sense to then say that the Gospel authors took this Greek philosopher Jesus and proceeded to dress him in Jewish garments. Especially considering that the Christian movement became increasingly more gentile as time went on. In my estimation it would make far more sense to take the Jewish Rabbi Jesus, and dress him up as a Greek mystic philosopher than the other way around.

I do not think the fact that Thomas is simply list of sayings gives us warrant to place Thomas early, never mind as early as the canonical Gospels. Combined with the fact that it seems to fit perfectly within the scope of later Syrian Christian movements, contains Gnostic elements that only started to develop within the second century, paints Jesus more like a Greek philosopher, and its textual fluidity means that the Gospel of Thomas should not and cannot be placed any earlier than 130 AD.

Let's deconstruct "deconstruction"

This article was originally posted at the Power to Change’s Student ministry blog.

---

What happens when everything you believe about who Jesus is starts to fall apart? 

Maybe the pain of a loved one who is suffering, sick, or has passed away has triggered doubts or questions for you. Or perhaps your plans are not going as you thought they would and you’re experiencing some deep disappointment in God. Maybe you’re struggling with questions of identity, self worth, and questions related to God’s goodness? Or maybe you’ve stumbled across an online skeptic’s video, spurring you on to consider objections you had never even thought about before? 

In the season where the spiritual rubber seems to be hitting the road of reality, those doubts you’ve buried about God’s goodness, the coherence of Scripture, or the example of fallible believers, start to surface and leave you feeling overwhelmed and drained. Where are the answers? Where do you turn?

Many of us can relate to those struggles of faith. Those aren’t merely hypothetical scenarios; rather, they are daily struggles that many of us are wrestling through currently. We all know a friend, family member, or someone we went to youth group or high school with who is struggling to hold on to their faith.

The statistics over the last decade have been clear: people are walking away from Christianity in ever-increasing numbers. They’re not necessarily becoming atheists, but they no longer claim to adhere to Christian faith. Pew Research shows that “a declining share of Canadians identify as Christians, while an increasing share say they have no religion.” This is true in the US, Europe, and Australia as well. For Generation Z, this experience appears to be even more acute.

Mid-Faith Crisis

Many have given this phenomenon the label “theological deconstruction,” citing public examples like Purity Culture superstar Josh Harris, Hillsong worship leader Marty Sampson, YouTube entertainers Rhett and Link, and Jon Seingard, member of the Canadian Christian band Hawk Nelson. Each were influential individuals who used their substantial public platforms to voice both the “how and why” of their leaving the Christian faith. Deconstruction is simply a term used to describe the process that someone undergoes when the doubts and questions result in a dismantling of their previously held beliefs. 

For those going through a deconstruction experience or for those who are journeying with a friend who is in the process, the experience can be both hard and rewarding. The conundrum for those going through it is often how to find one’s footing when this process often feels like you’re in a mental and emotional tailspin. Discerning which of your beliefs are true and good, and which are false and harmful, can be challenging when you’re in the deconstruction process. We see this with YouTuber Rhett’s journey when he describes in his podcast Ear Biscuits the fact that for many years he wore the label of “evangelical Christian,” but at a certain point he could no longer square his ever-changing beliefs with what he saw as faith claims that were untrue at best and wrong-headed at worst. 

As Rhett himself describes it:

“I had been pulling on this thread [of belief] for a really long time…Let’s call it the sweater of faith…I had been pulling on this thread until it had sort of turned into a vest…and then a midriff…and then a halter top…and now it was a string bikini. And then I was like, fwip, I’m gonna take the bikini off.”

Looking for Answers

There’s no doubt (pun intended) that the idea of theological deconstruction is a bit of a catch-all term. Pithy phrases that attempt to summarize thousands, if not millions, of individuals’ spiritual and emotional journeys will never be able to truly communicate the whole story. But it’s no secret that this new generation is craving non-judgmental spaces where they can ask tough questions. 

How do I know this? They tell me. 

Each month, I receive dozens of emails from young people expressing struggles with intellectual, moral, emotional, and spiritual questions. “Doubt” is not a dirty word, and if we’re honest with ourselves, we have all wrestled with doubt. While you may not have struggled with the really big questions, everyone has struggled to understand  something within the pages of Scripture or the corridors of church history.

Of course, mediums like the Alpha Course Online provide a supportive environment for individuals to ask probing questions, especially for those who are new to the Christian faith. But what avenues are there for those who have made the decision to follow Christ to discuss and explore the really hard and nagging questions? Many turn to the internet, only to find a smorgasbord of blogs and videos by ex-Christians who themselves never truly found the answers they were looking for. Deconstruction can be a healthy process in building up a stronger foundation of faith, but it requires a community willing to come alongside with a posture of non-judgmentalism and love.

Asking the ultimate questions is a sign of growth. The answers that satisfy our longings for truth, morality, purpose, and meaning can only work to help us grow more in loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22:37). There is much value behind understanding our own and others’ journeys; however, we also need to be careful not to make an idol out of the journey itself. The road by which we get to truth is key, but if we glorify the road instead of the destination we create an unspoken assumption that God has not comprehensively revealed himself or made his message about salvation clear. The Christian journey is not an endless search of humanity trying to find God but is about a God who has revealed himself to humanity.

The process of questioning cannot be placed over and above the supplying of intellectually reasonable answers. I understand that to some it may seem intellectually irresponsible to make the kind of overarching truth claims that historical Christianity has made. Those claims may even sound arrogant. The more responsible course of action, some may argue, is to simply say, “I don’t know.” 

The Christian journey is not an endless search of humanity trying to find God but is about a God who has revealed himself to humanity.

While leaving questions up in the air may give off an air of humility, there are significant issues with this posture. For one, “I don’t know” is only the right answer if in fact there is no reasonable basis by which a person can know something. But what if a person does, in fact, have a basis for knowing? If they do, then saying “I don’t know” could very well be irresponsible. 

In the third year of my undergrad, I took an “Intro to Canadian History” class. Let’s say you were in that class with me. If you were to ask me, “Did Jacques Cartier sail up the St. Lawrence River?” and I answered “Yes,” you could hardly fault me as an arrogant smart aleck. Similarly, if I had answered “I don’t know” out of some mistaken notion of intellectual humility, I would be faulted for rejecting historical truth.

We need to ask whether we are deconstructing our faith in a spirit of skepticism or cynicism. What’s the difference? To be a skeptic would be to enter into the deconstruction process with a willingness to reserve judgment until we find a satisfactory answer, knowing that in our learning and searching we will come to a reasonable conclusion. On the other hand, if we are taking on a spirit of cynicism, we are merely asking questions without thinking critically and with no true interest or desire to find the answers to those questions. We need to reflect on whether we’re going through an honest deconstruction process or whether we are being disingenuous in our approach. Adopting the latter posture may lead to the adoption of convenient lies that fit what we want to believe rather than the reality of things. The purpose of deconstruction should be reconstruction. Worldview deconstruction without worldview reconstruction is nothing more than demolition. 

The purpose of deconstruction should be reconstruction. Worldview deconstruction without worldview reconstruction is nothing more than demolition.

Ultimately, questions should be welcomed, nurtured, and understood. As the second century Christian writer Justin Martyr states, “Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true” (The First Apology, Ch. II). If you are going through a season of theological deconstruction, I pray that your questions will lead you back to the One from whom all truth flows.

Why Trust the Bible? (Part 2)

A couple of years ago I gave a presentation at the University of Toronto on the topic of the Bible. The title of the talk was, “Good News or Fake News: can you trust the Bible?” After the presentation, a student came up to me and simply said, “I think you showed pretty persuasively that the Bible isn’t ‘fake news,’ but that doesn’t mean it’s by default “good news.”

Up until this point, I hope you have seen that the history of the text of the Bible gives us a great deal of confidence that what we have now is what the original author’s wrote all those millennia ago. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean what they wrote was true. We could hypothetically have the most widely attested, most accurately transmitted, most textually verified document in all of antiquity — and it could all be a lie. What if we do have what the original authors wrote and those same authors simply made it all up? How do go from a trustworthy text to a truthful message?

The answer to that question lies in the details of the Bible itself.

Keep Reading…

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.