On a different hill outside Jerusalem called Golgotha, another judgment would take place, not in myth but in the harsh reality of Roman crucifixion. Unlike Mars Hill, Golgotha was not a place of philosophical debate but of ultimate sacrifice, as Jesus Christ gave His life for humankind (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). In Acts 17, Paul confronts the philosophers of Athens on Mars Hill, redirecting their focus from myth and idolatry to the Creator, contrasting two rocks of judgment: one of mythical gods and one of the living God who offers true salvation through resurrection.

The Areopagus: A Place of Judgment and Inquiry

The Areopagus lies northwest of the Acropolis, 250 meters from the imposing temple complex of Athena. The rocky hill (rising over 70 feet above the agora) itself functioned as a critical institution in ancient Greece, serving as the high court of appeal for criminal and civil cases. Known in Greek as “martial peak,” the Areopagus combined its symbolic connection to Ares with a reputation for strict, impartial justice. Parties brought before this court were positioned between sacrificial remains, swearing oaths by the infernal deities. Here, truth was paramount, as testimonies were given without emotional manipulation to ensure fairness.¹

By the time of Paul, Mars Hill was as much a center for philosophical debate as it was for legal cases. Athenians and foreigners alike would gather to discuss the nature of the divine and the meaning of life. On this hill, Paul encountered Epicureans and Stoics, the leading philosophical schools of his day. Epicureans, following Epicurus, argued that pleasure was life’s highest aim, though they emphasized rational, restrained pleasure rather than indulgence. They dismissed any notion of divine intervention in human affairs, seeing gods as indifferent. In contrast, the Stoics, founded by Zeno of Citium, embraced a worldview in which everything was governed by Fate, seeing virtue and emotional self-control as the pathway to happiness. Their deity was a cosmic force, bound to Fate, in stark contrast to Paul’s personal, sovereign Creator.

Paul’s Address to the Unknown God

Paul’s opening words on Mars Hill highlight the Athenians’ pervasive religiosity: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious” (Acts 17:22).² The city, saturated with idols, had even erected an altar “to an unknown god” (Acts 17:23, NIV). Paul seizes this symbol of uncertainty to declare that the God they worship in ignorance is indeed knowable—the Creator of heaven and earth, who “does not live in temples made by man” (Acts 17:24). By this, Paul directly challenges the Athenians’ pantheon, where gods were represented by lifeless stones and idols. Instead, he presents the true God, who is not confined to altars but is the source of life and breath.

The Areopagus was, therefore, not merely a location but a microcosm of the Athenian quest for truth—a place where philosophical ideas about human existence and divinity were debated with intense scrutiny. Yet, Paul insists that the Athenians’ knowledge is incomplete. His appeal climaxes with the resurrection: “He has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). In a city and location dominated by lifeless idols, Paul boldly introduces the reality of a living God, validated by Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

Golgotha: The Reality of Judgment and Redemption

In contrast to Mars Hill, Golgotha—meaning “Place of the Skull”—was not a place of myth but a site grounded in history, located just outside Jerusalem’s walls. Archaeological excavations led by Kathleen Kenyon³ in the 1960s revealed that Golgotha was part of a quarry used until the first century B.C., a conclusion supported by the Gospel descriptions that it lay outside the city (John 19:20). Over time, this abandoned quarry area likely became gardens or fields, as indicated by traces of plowing and other agricultural activities, corresponding to the Gospel accounts that speak of surrounding gardens (Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; John 19:41).

The topography of Golgotha, a hill outside the city, added to its ominous reputation as a place of judgment, fitting the Romans’ practice of executing criminals in visible, public locations to emphasize the consequences of defying Rome. Excavations have further uncovered Roman-era artifacts, such as debris layers from the Jewish-Roman wars, which indicate periods of rebuilding and destruction after Jesus’ crucifixion. Golgotha was a stark, elevated outcrop that provided visibility, making it a fitting site for the climactic judgment of Jesus, where the sin of humanity was judged through His sacrifice. In sharp contrast, Mars Hill’s fame lies in its cultural associations with philosophy and legend.

The significance of Golgotha rests in its transformation from a place of death to a symbol of hope through Christ’s resurrection. Jesus represents peace and reconciliation, transforming Golgotha into a place of redemption. Here, Paul’s message at Mars Hill finds its fulfillment. He juxtaposes the silent deities of Athenian myth with the living God, declaring, “We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man” (Acts 17:29). The judgment at Golgotha is no myth; it is a testament to the divine mercy and justice enacted on behalf of all humanity.

Connecting Mars Hill to Golgotha

Paul’s message on Mars Hill is not only a critique of Athenian idolatry but an invitation to bridge two vastly different conceptions of divinity. Mars Hill represented a judicial tradition where justice was intertwined with stories of gods like Ares. While the judicial system on Mars Hill may have attempted to maintain impartiality, the Athenian justice system was based on gods who themselves made foolish choices and were driven by selfish whims. Golgotha, on the other hand, demonstrates the true impartiality and selflessness of the living God who was willing to allow His only son to die for all humankind. While the Areopagus symbolized human attempts to grapple with concepts of justice and divinity, Golgotha represented the ultimate act of divine judgment, grounded not in myth but in Christ’s real sacrifice.

Myth Versus Reality: Theological Implications

Mars Hill embodies a philosophical ideal bound to myth, a culture of gods lacking compassion or reality. Ares embodied conflict and vengeance, traits that offered no hope for humanity. While Ares was being tried for a murder that he did commit, Jesus was the victim of capital punishment, though He was innocent of any crimes. Ares was guilty (although acquitted), and Jesus was guiltless (and still condemned). Golgotha represents a profound theological truth. Where Mars Hill’s idols were static symbols of human longing and shortcoming, Golgotha stands as the culmination of God’s plan of redemption, where a man—Christ—bore the penalty of sin for all.

When Paul speaks of the resurrection, he highlights the sharp difference between Athens’ gods and the God of Israel. While the gods of Ares’ Rock remained forever silent, the God of Golgotha validated His power through the resurrection of Jesus. This cornerstone of Paul’s argument underscores that Golgotha, unlike Mars Hill, represents true justice, love, and life. “For in him we live and move and have our being,” Paul declares, quoting a Greek poet (Acts 17:28) while pointing his listeners away from their lifeless idols to the living Creator.

Paul’s words at the Areopagus accentuate the futility of worshipping lifeless stones (Acts 17:29). Here, Paul draws from Deuteronomy and Psalms, emphasizing that the God he proclaims is not an object of human invention, but the Creator who desires a relationship with humanity. The unknown god of Mars Hill finds clarity and fulfillment in Golgotha’s sacrifice. Paul’s words, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), signify the urgency of his message, encouraging Athenians to turn from myth to the reality of Christ.

Conclusion: An Invitation from Myth to Reality

In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul bridges the cultural and theological gap between two rocks of judgment, inviting his audience to transition from myth to reality, from lifeless idols to the living God. He does not simply critique their traditions; he reveals the incompleteness of their understanding. The resurrection, central to his argument, stands as proof of God’s power over death and the true path to life. Paul’s declaration that God “does not live in temples made by man” (Acts 17:24) points away from the temples of Athens toward the living temple found in Christ.

Through Paul’s speech, Mars Hill becomes a steppingstone to Golgotha, offering an invitation to all who seek truth to move beyond philosophy and myth, finding ultimate judgment and mercy in the redemptive act of Christ. By presenting the God of resurrection, Paul calls the Athenians—and all who hear—to turn from lifeless stones to the living “cornerstone” of faith (1 Peter 2:6-8).

Endnotes

¹ Lysias (6.14) described the Areopagus as the most revered and impartial court in Athens. Sophocles, in Oedipus at Colonus (947-949), portrays Creon praising the Council as a body known for its wise deliberation, while Euripides, in Orestes (1650-1652), has Apollo assure Orestes that the Areopagus would judge his case with utmost fairness. The court’s dignity and esteemed reputation are also highlighted by Aristophanes’ decision never to satirize its activities, and it was deemed inappropriate to display humor in the presence of its members (Aeschin, 1.81-84). In the 1st century B.C., Diodorus (1.75.3) ranked the Areopagus alongside Sparta’s Council as one of the finest judicial bodies in Greece [E. Harris (2021), “Areopagus,” Oxford Classical Dictionary, August 31, https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-703]. This respect reflects the Athenians’ high regard for the rule of law, with the Areopagus symbolizing stability and order. During his visit to Athens, the Apostle Paul addressed the Areopagus, discussing theology and denouncing false idols, leading to several conversions (Acts 17:16-34). Even in Paul’s time, the Areopagus retained its status as Athens’ most esteemed court, representing the city’s deep respect for the rule of law [Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz (2011), “The Guardian of the Land: The Areopagus Council as a Symbol of Stability,” in Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy, ed. Gabriel Herman (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag), 103-126].

² Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are taken from the English Standard Version.

³ Kathleen M. Kenyon (1967), Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (New York: McGraw Hill), pp. 151-153; Kathleen M. Kenyon (1974), Digging Up Jerusalem (London: Ernest Benn Limited), pp. 227-231,261.

The post From Mars Hill to Golgotha: Paul’s Bridge Between Two Rocks of Judgment appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The physical and anatomical features of the figure depicted on the Shroud of Turin have undergone extensive scrutiny and analysis. The man’s hands appear to be positioned over the genital area, with the right hand fully covering any nudity. To maintain this position, either the body would need to be tilted forward with arms stretched downward, or the elbows would need to be propped up and the wrists drawn together.¹ However, after death, muscles lose tension and postural control, causing the limbs to relax. Without nervous activity to sustain specific positions, a corpse’s arms are likely to fall to the sides once muscle tension dissipates. Therefore, maintaining a hand-over-groin position post-mortem while supine is improbable.²

Ercoline, et al. found significant deviations between the man on the Shroud and normal human anatomy, specifically regarding the length of the fingers, length of one arm, size of the hips, and the placement of the elbows.³ The researchers concluded that these deviations could not be due to normal anatomical variations. According to some scholars,⁴ the anatomy of the left hand and arm appears unusually elongated and the fingers disproportional to allow for this modest covering. By applying principles of medical human proportion, researcher Elio Quiroga Rodriguez conducted an analysis revealing that the figure on the Shroud exhibits an exaggerated arm length, notably showing the left arm as approximately 7 to 10 centimeters longer than a typical arm.⁵ This discrepancy does not align well with known anatomical norms. Unfortunately, either the torso of the image on the Shroud is too short or the arms are too long for the hands to cover the genitals.

One might argue that trauma from crucifixion could cause such a deformation. However, studies like that of Bordes, et al.,⁶ which utilized direct forensic techniques, refute this claim. Even with shoulder, elbow, and wrist dislocations resulting from crucifixion, such an event would not cause an arm to extend to the exaggerated proportions observed. Furthermore, the hypothesis suggesting that the head is leaning forward is difficult to substantiate and does not align well with the anatomical expectations of a relaxed supine posture.⁷ These discrepancies raise questions about the anatomical accuracy and potential anachronisms present in the Shroud’s depiction.

Fanti, et al.⁸ also observed that the buttocks and legs do not appear flattened against the cloth, even where direct pressure on it is expected. The fatty tissue of the buttocks is not affected by rigor mortis, so if a real man, dead or alive, in rigor or not, was placed on the cloth, some evidence from 3D image software should show this contact flattening. However, there is none.

The hair depicted in the Shroud seems to be flowing towards the man’s shoulders, instead of falling towards the ground. Interestingly, the hair is not matted with blood, as one would expect from the trauma of a crown of thorns. Rather, the hair itself appears clean. In addition, there are some blood spots that seem to fall around the hair, as opposed to dripping from it.⁹ Coroners Bucklin and Zugibe accurately note that scalps bleed precipitously, but there still lacks an adequate explanation for the lack of blood on the hair and the blood that appears to lie outside the hair.

Caja and Boi¹⁰ recently analyzed the Shroud’s body image and bloodstains to assess the anatomical characteristics of the depicted figure. Upon detailed examination of high-quality images of the Shroud, the researchers observed significant discrepancies between the frontal (anterior) and posterior (back) views. According to Caja and Boi, in the frontal view of the image, both ankles are visible and aligned parallel, with no overlap or superposition of the feet. However, in the posterior view, the right foot is notably plantarflexed (pointed downward), a position not reflected in the frontal image. Additionally, the degree of plantarflexion differs substantially between the two views—14.5 degrees in the frontal view and 32 degrees in the posterior view—nearly double. In the posterior view, the right foot appears to be beneath the left, while in the frontal view, the right foot appears on top. These discrepancies between the two images, which should theoretically depict the same moment in time, raise concerns about the accuracy of the representation. The researchers concluded that there is no anatomical or scientific explanation for these anomalies.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Shroud clearly depicts nail wounds from nails driven through the dorsal area (top) of the feet, whereas all archaeological remains of crucified victims discovered to date exhibit piercings through the sides of the heel bone in a straddling formation.¹¹ Although variations in crucifixion methods or regional practices could explain these differences, there are no documented examples of nails being driven through the top of the feet, nor is this method depicted in early artistic renderings. In recognition of the fact that very few crucified victims have been discovered and that all of them, thus far, demonstrate piercing through the sides of the heel bone, the depiction of nail wounds and blood patterns on the Shroud—indicating a dorsal penetration through the foot—lacks any known archaeological basis. This inconsistency calls into question the Shroud’s authenticity, suggesting that its portrayal may be more aligned with artistic interpretation than historical accuracy, as it does not reflect the documented practices of Roman crucifixion methods.

In addition, proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity often argue that if someone were attempting to create a forgery, they would have depicted the crucifixion wounds with the hands as they were commonly portrayed in medieval art, aligning with contemporary beliefs. Instead, they claim that the nail marks on the Shroud are located where the Romans actually placed them—through the wrists. While there is no direct archaeological evidence of nail wounds in the wrists of crucifixion victims, it is plausible to infer that the wrists would have been the most likely location for nail insertion by the Romans to maximize the inflicted torture and ensure the victim’s support on the cross. This assertion corresponds with the idea that nailing through the wrists would effectively bear the weight of the body, unlike the hands which would likely tear under the strain.¹² However, the image on the Shroud shows the left hand resting over the right, with the palms turned inward toward the body. This inward orientation does not allow for definitive identification of the placement of the nails.

Advocates of the Shroud’s authenticity, such as Paul Vignon,¹³ have endeavored to explain the origins of the scourge marks visible on the Shroud. To account for the circular marks, a theoretical device was envisioned—one equipped with somewhat spherical blunt objects attached to the ends of its lashes, each culminating in a lead weight capable of producing the impression of two side-by-side balls, resembling a small dumbbell. Having conceptualized this scourge, Vignon¹⁴ sought to reconstruct the likely direction of the strikes and even speculated on the positions the torturers might have assumed during the beating. He went so far as to create a facsimile of this hypothesized three-strap instrument of torture, publishing a photograph of it in his second book. Notably, in this reconstruction, he deviated from his earlier description by replacing the imagined small dumbbells with two rounded weights, akin to bullets, spaced at least three centimeters apart.

Many of these hypothetical flagrums have been materially reconstructed, following Vignon’s example, and presented as if they were faithful replicas of an ancient original, despite the complete absence of any historical evidence for such an instrument. One such reconstruction is currently on display at the Shroud Museum in Turin. The museum’s audio guide even claims, “The flagellation in Roman times was carried out with instruments like the one shown here, which has been faithfully reconstructed.”¹⁵ Flagrums such as these have been presented as corresponding to a typical or even unique model purportedly used in Roman times and allegedly well-documented by archaeology—a claim that is entirely unfounded.

Despite the lack of evidence, some have manipulated this absence into an argument supporting the Shroud’s authenticity. For example, Gaetano Intrigillo¹⁶ poses the question: how could a hypothetical forger have known about the Roman flagrum taxillatum, a device supposedly forgotten for centuries and only rediscovered through archaeology, and then replicated its distinctive marks so precisely on the Shroud? The implication is that the forger could not have known, thereby bolstering the Shroud’s authenticity. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The forger could not have known about the flagrum taxillatum because such an instrument has neither been forgotten nor rediscovered—it has never been documented. To date, no evidence exists that a flagrum taxillatum ever existed, nor have any marks made by such an instrument been discovered.

THE SHROUD AND CRUCIFIXION HYPOTHESES

Several scholars have attempted to estimate or conjecture how Jesus’ crucifixion physically occurred using the Shroud as a guide. Since the early 20^th century, medical professionals and scholars have sought to examine the blood patterns on the Shroud in an effort to make informed inferences about Roman crucifixion methods. This approach lacks both an archaeological and scientific precedent.

Most of the Shroud advocates with a medical background, like Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, and W.D. Edwards,¹⁷ a medical doctor, have adhered to the classical interpretation established by Pierre Barbet,¹⁸ which identified a single wound in the center of the right foot as depicted on the Shroud. Most of these advocates agree, based upon their interpretations of the blood distribution on the Shroud, that the left foot was likely nailed atop the right foot, necessitating a severe contortion of the foot and ankle, which would also require the leg and knee to show an abnormal position.

Paul C. Maloney, following the work of Dr. Joseph M. Gambescia, argues that the Shroud suggests two nails were used to secure the right foot, flattening it against the stipes of the cross. This would account for the downward flow of blood and capillary spread observed on the bottom of the foot. In contrast, the left foot, secured with only one nail, retained its natural arch, which would have limited capillary action and the spread of blood.

However, Caja and Boi’s¹⁹ research identified a clear mismatch between the frontal and posterior images concerning the proposed overlap of the feet. The frontal image shows a bloodstain originating from the right foot or ankle, running between both feet, with no corresponding stain from the left foot. The bloodstain from the right foot appears to indicate a nail entry at the midfoot region (Lisfranc’s joint). In contrast, no bloodstain on the left foot corresponds to a nail entry point. The discrepancies between the frontal and posterior images of the feet cast doubt on the single-nail hypothesis and the overall consistency of the Shroud’s imagery.

ORIGIN THEORIES

The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of various theories attempting to explain the detailed imprint and blood marks, each supported by different researchers and evidence.

Painting or Artistic Technique

As previously noted, McCrone,²⁰ among others, has proposed that the Shroud was painted using iron oxide and other pigments, a conclusion based on his analysis of particles found on the cloth. Although this theory has faced criticism, it remains a plausible explanation, particularly given the prevalence of relic creation during the medieval period. Despite the conflicting views, it is evident that the image as it exists today is extremely superficial, with any pigment being almost imperceptible and very finely dispersed. A significant part of the image appears to result from the yellowing of the fibers themselves. Charles Freeman²¹ offers an intriguing solution to this puzzle, suggesting that over time, the original pigment has been removed, leaving only the “shadow” of its former presence.

Medieval Photography Theory

Nicholas Allen’s²² research on the imprint transfer on the Shroud points to the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was a product of medieval ingenuity, created using a photographic process involving a camera obscura and a quartz lens. Allen argues that the Shroud was deliberately manufactured for a noble or religious audience, rather than for public display, and that the image on the Shroud was created using a form of medieval photography, not traditional painting methods. His hypothesis explains all the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the superficiality of the image, its high level of detail, and the absence of pigment. Allen also believes that the medieval creators of the Shroud finalized their work by carefully trickling blood to the areas of the image corresponding to the wounds from nails and thorns on the crucified body. According to Allen, the bloodstains were applied in a manner consistent with the artistic practices and conventions of the late 13^th century.

Allen’s work²³ challenges previous interpretations and asserts that the Shroud’s creation involved a sophisticated process that was ahead of its time. He contends that this medieval photographic technique would have required advanced knowledge of optics and light-sensitive chemicals, which, while difficult to accept, provides a logical explanation for the Shroud’s mysterious features. Ultimately, Allen concludes that the Shroud’s image was intentionally crafted to appear miraculous, exploiting contemporary religious beliefs, and should be understood within the context of medieval art and science.

Scorch or Thermochemical Process

This theory, as championed by Emily Craig and Randall Bresee,²⁴ suggests that the image was formed through a chemical or thermal process, possibly involving a heated statue or bas-relief. The superficial nature of the image and the lack of brush strokes support the idea that heat or light could have transferred the image onto the linen. The bloodstains would have been added later as droplets atop the corresponding anatomical areas.

Pellicori²⁵ successfully replicated the coloration and some properties of the Shroud of Turin by applying certain substances to linen fabric and then heating it to induce oxidation and dehydration of the fibers. The applied substance acted as a catalyst, resulting in a more intense yellow color in the treated areas. Building on this approach, Craig and Bresee used a dust-drawing technique with nearly colorless aloe powder. The aloe powder, intended to catalyze oxidation and dehydration rather than produce direct coloration, was used to create an image of a human face on paper. This image was then transferred to linen, which was subsequently heated in an oven at 200°F for approximately five hours to induce the oxidation and dehydration of the linen fibers.

Naturalistic or Contact Theory

This hypothesis posits that the image was formed by direct contact between a body and the cloth, with body fluids reacting chemically with the linen fibers. Pierre Barbet supported the idea that the image was formed by natural chemical processes resulting from the direct contact of the body with the cloth. Raymond Rogers,²⁶ a chemist who worked on the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), considered the possibility that chemical reactions might have contributed to the image formation, although he also explored other mechanisms such as Maillard reactions.²⁷

While the Contact Theory provides a naturalistic explanation for the Shroud’s image, it faces challenges. For instance, critics argue that the theory does not fully account for the three-dimensionality and uniformity of the image, and that a perfect imprint would be difficult to achieve without significant distortion. Despite this, the Contact Theory remains one of the possible explanations for the Shroud’s enigmatic image.

Radiation or Energy-Based Theory

Introduced by John Jackson,²⁸ this theory suggests that a burst of radiation or energy, possibly during the resurrection, created the image. It attempts to explain the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the alleged lack of pigments and the precise, superficial image.

The idea of a coronal discharge or any other form of radiation as the mechanism behind the Shroud’s image formation is as speculative as other theories and lacks both empirical evidence and biblical support. Throughout the Bible, there are several instances of miraculous resurrections performed by Jesus and the apostles, yet none are described as emitting any kind of radiation or energy. Examples include the resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7), Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8), Lazarus (John 11), Tabitha (Acts 9), and Eutychus (Acts 20). In none of these cases is there any mention of light, energy, or radiation accompanying the resurrection.

Discussion on Theories

Although current scientific understanding does not fully explain the phenomenon observed in the Shroud, several rational solutions have been proposed, even if none have been perfected. The hypothesis that an artist could have created the image on the Turin cloth is bolstered by historical evidence. Historians have identified over 40 documented copies of the Shroud from the 14th to 16th centuries, suggesting that earlier replicas likely existed.²⁹

It is plausible to suggest that an image originally intended to portray the serene repose of death could have been later repurposed to vividly depict the sufferings of Christ with the use of real blood. This transformation would have served to enhance the Shroud’s status as a relic and an object of intense veneration. Additionally, it is conceivable that what began as painted blood was later augmented with real blood to bolster the cloth’s authenticity as a sacred relic. Alternatively, the blood could have been added on top of an image that was deliberately created to represent a crucified Jesus.

CONCLUSION

According to the New Testament, Jesus was alive for nearly six weeks after His resurrection, fully restored from death. In this context, relics such as the Shroud, which are associated with the dead, would have held no significance. The remnants of Jesus’ suffering, such as the cross, nails, crown of thorns, and seamless tunic, were all discarded and only “rediscovered” centuries later. There is no biblical or historical reason to believe that His grave wrappings, considered unclean according to Jewish customs, would have been uniquely preserved.

Moreover, the New Testament does not indicate any interest in preserving such items, nor does it suggest that they even existed as relics. Attempts to link the Shroud to biblical texts, such as the interpretation of the word proegraphe in Galatians 3:1 as referring to a picture or image, are etymologically and contextually implausible. The lack of biblical and traditional support for the preservation of any such relic further undermines the claim that the Shroud of Turin could be an authentic burial cloth of Christ.

Historical records show that there was no interest in searching for Jesus’ burial cloths until the latter half of the sixth century, with no prior documentation of their existence.³⁰ It wasn’t until this time that references to such relics began to appear, alongside other artifacts associated with Christ. Over the centuries, numerous “sister” shrouds surfaced, each claiming to be genuine, and many found their way into the most prominent cities across Christendom. France, especially during the Carolingian period, became a hub for these relics, though many were later exposed as medieval forgeries, such as the Shroud of Cadouin and the Shroud of Carcassonne. In Spain, the Shroud of Oviedo continues to be venerated despite dating back only to the eighth century. The Shroud of Turin stands out among these various relics because it uniquely features the image of a tortured body, unlike others that typically portrayed only the face, like the Veil of Veronica and the Mandylion of Edessa. The existence of numerous shrouds claiming authenticity raises substantial doubts about the legitimacy of the Turin Shroud.

While the Roman Catholic Church may have a vested interest in the Shroud as one of its most prominent medieval relics, it has never officially claimed the Shroud to be authentic. The Church’s teachings emphasize the resurrection itself, rather than any material object, as the foundation of faith. Likewise, Protestants who adhere to the principle of sola Scriptura find their assurance in the Bible’s narrative and the testimonies it records. Note that believing that the Shroud is genuine does not mean that one needs to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just that He actually died. Therefore, one does not need to be Christian to believe that the Shroud is real.

Despite the extensive scientific analysis conducted on the Shroud of Turin, the most critical evidence lies within the biblical text itself. According to the Scriptures, there were multiple cloths used to cover Jesus’ body at His burial, not a single shroud. The Gospel accounts, particularly in John 20:6-7, clearly describe both a linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. This explicit detail directly contradicts the notion that the Shroud of Turin could be the sole burial cloth of Jesus. The existence of only one shroud fails to align with the biblical narrative, undermining its authenticity as the true burial cloth of Christ.

The Shroud of Turin, much like the Egyptian pyramids, stands as a testament to the enigmatic abilities of its creators. Despite the passage of centuries, the precise methods employed in constructing the pyramids remain elusive, suggesting that the Egyptians possessed capabilities and technologies that may no longer exist today. Similarly, the Shroud of Turin represents a creation that defies easy explanation. While vastly different in purpose and form, the artisans behind the Shroud clearly possessed the skill to craft a detailed and lifelike image, potentially augmented with blood, pointing to an advanced understanding of both art and anatomy.

The Shroud of Turin continues to captivate and fuel intense interest despite its carbon dating to the medieval period and the clear discrepancies with biblical accounts. This enduring fascination is largely driven by the unresolved mystery surrounding how the image of a crucified man was imprinted onto the linen cloth. Van Biema³¹ notes the persistent and aggressive defense of the Shroud’s authenticity by its adherents, who challenge scientific conclusions because, even after extensive analysis, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the formation of the image. The scientific community remains perplexed, and many proposed explanations are dismissed as speculative. This ongoing mystery, coupled with historical documents and modern scientific theories that keep the debate alive, sustains the Shroud’s allure, drawing both skeptics and believers into the conversation. The Shroud’s enigmatic nature, combined with the lack of a definitive explanation, ensures that interest in it remains strong.

However, for Bible believers, the need for material evidence of Jesus’ death is unnecessary. The Shroud, whether real or fake, does not affect the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is already affirmed by the accounts of numerous witnesses documented in the New Testament, and no relic is required to substantiate this truth.

Endnotes

¹ Raymond E. Brown (2002), Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), pp. 151-152.

² E.A. Mare (1999), “Science, Art History and the Shroud of Turin: Nicholas Allen’s Research on the Iconography and Production of the Image of a Crucified Man,” South African Journal of Art History, 14[1]:66-83; R.E. Brown (1984), “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 14[4]:145-148.

³ Ercoline, et al (1982), “Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society,” Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington (New York: IEEE), October 28-30.

⁴ See Elio Quiroga Rodriguez (2024), “Unveiling Deception: An Approach of the Shroud of Turin’s Anatomical Anomalies and Artistic Liberties,” Archaeometry, July, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382219566_Unveiling_Deception_An_Approach_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin’s_Anatomical_Anomalies_and_Artistic_Liberties; Joe Nickell (1983), Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books); Edward Steers, Jr. (2013), “The Shroud of Turin,” Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds (Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky), p. 146.

⁵ Rodriguez.

⁶ S. Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21.

⁷ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press), pp. 253-342.

⁸ Giulio Fanti, et al. (2005), “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud,” The Third Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8-11, Dallas, TX, p. 9.

⁹ Ibid.; Luigi Garlaschelli (2010), “Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54[4]; Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 127.

¹⁰ V.L. Caja and M. Boi (2018), “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet,” Archaeometry, 60:1377-1390.

¹¹ Nicholas Haas (1970), “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59; Emanuela Gualdi-Russo, et al. (2019), “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11[4]; David Ingham and Corinne Duhig (2022), “Crucifixion in the Fens: Life & Death in Roman Fenstanton,” British Archaeology, 182:27, January-February.

¹² This assumption is supported by anatomical considerations that Stephen Bordes, et al. concluded from their experiments with cadavers that the most probable site for nail insertion was through the carpal bones of the wrist. See Stephen Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21; cf. Zugibe.

¹³ Paul Vignon (1902), Le Linceul du Christ (Paris: Masson), pp. 110-116; Paul Vignon (1939), Le Saint Suaire de Turin (Paris: Masson), pp. 55-60.

¹⁴ Vignon (1939), p. 55.

¹⁵ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:1-59.

¹⁶ Sindone Gaetano Intrigillo (1998), L’istruttoria del Secolo (San Paolo: Cinisello Balsamo), p. 111.

¹⁷ W. D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F. E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463.

¹⁸ Caja and Boi, “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin,” 60:1377-1390.

¹⁹ Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

²⁰ Charles Freeman (2014), “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin,” History Today, 64[11].

²¹ N.P.L. Allen (1995), “Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin,” De Arte, 51:21-35; N.P.L. Allen (1997), “On Proto-photography and the Shroud of Turin,” History of Photography, 21[4]:264; N.P.L. Allen (1993), “Is the Shroud of Turin the First Recorded Photograph?” South African Journal of Art History, 11:12-32; N.P.L. Allen (1994), “A Reappraisal of Late-thirteenth Century Responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin: Encolpia of the Eucharist, Vera Eikon or Supreme Relic?” Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4[1]:62-94. Allen argues that the Shroud was created using a primitive form of photography involving a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals like silver nitrate. This theory accounts for the high level of detail, negative image, and superficiality observed on the cloth. Allen’s experiments successfully replicated these features, making this one of the more scientifically grounded explanations for the Shroud’s origin during the 13th or 14th century.

²² N.P.L. Allen (1997), 21[4]:264.

²³ Emily A. Craig and Randall R. Bresee (1994), “Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 34[1], January.

²⁴ S.F. Pellicori (1980), “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19:1913-1920.

²⁵ Pierre Barbet (1955), A Doctor at Calvary (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons).

²⁶ R. Rogers (2008), A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin (Florissant, CO: Lulu Press).

²⁷ See also T. De Wesselow (2012), The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (New York: Penguin Group).

²⁸ J.P. Jackson (1991), “An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image,” History, Science, Theology and the Shroud, ed. A. Berard (St. Louis: Richard Nieman), pp. 325-344; L. Gonella (1987), “Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons” in Turin Shroud Image of Christ? Proceedings of Symposium in Hong Kong, 1986, pp. 29-40,31; Mark Antonacci (2012), “Particle Radiation from the Body Could Explain the Shroud’s Images and its Carbon Dating,” Scientific Research and Essays, 7[29]:2613-2623.

²⁹ F.C. Tribbe (1983), Portrait of Jesus (New York: Stein and Day), p. 63.

³⁰ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends; Andrea Nicolotti (2022), “The Shroud of Turin: Anything Left to Say? The History of Christianity’s Most Controversial Relic,” Biblical Archaeology Review, April 6, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-shroud-of-turin-anything-left-to-say/.

³¹ D. Van Biema (1998), “Science and the Shroud,” Time Magazine, April 20, https://time.com/archive/6732613/science-and-the-shroud/.

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is also an adjunct faculty member in the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology. Sarah Ferry received her M.A. in English from Eastern Kentucky University. She is a former high school, middle school, and college English teacher. She has edited articles and papers on biblical studies for the past decade. She currently works remotely as a part-time freelance editor and proofreader.]

History and Background

The Shroud of Turin, a controversial linen cloth housed in a cathedral in Turin, Italy, is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Publicly displayed first in the 1350s in France, the Shroud has a complex history, having suffered fire damage in 1532 and undergone multiple repairs since then. It was handed to the Dukes of Savoy in 1578. The House of Savoy eventually gave it to the Vatican in 1983, who then placed it in St. John’s Cathedral under the care of the archbishop of Turin.

The Shroud bears a full-length frontal and dorsal¹ negative imprint of a man’s body. The linen cloth, which is woven with a herringbone pattern, is approximately 4.3 meters long and 1.1 meters wide. The Shroud contains multiple blood and fluid stains as well as areas that have been burned and watermarked.

Supporters of the Shroud’s authenticity note that the blood splatters match those described in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. They connect the blood wounds around the head, back, side, wrists, and feet on the cloth respectively with the placing of the crown of thorns on His head (John 19:2), the scourging of His back (Matthew 27:26; John 19:1), the piercing of His side (John 19:34), and the nailing of His hands and feet (John 20:25).

Scientific examinations by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)² in 1978 revealed intriguing details, such as the presence of pollen allegedly predating the Byzantine period and first-century coins imaged in the eye sockets. Additionally, the Shroud’s herringbone weave is, according to Shroud advocates, similar to first-century burial cloths found in Jerusalem.

While significant passion and well-intentioned efforts have elevated the Shroud of Turin as a cornerstone of archaeological evidence for the death of Jesus, the artifact is fraught with many inconsistencies and unresolved issues. The dedication and hard work of those who have devoted their lives to substantiating the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are worthy of respect; however, the evidence supporting the Shroud fails on many levels, particularly in its alignment with both historical facts and biblical scriptures, undermining its credibility as an authentic relic.

Although many aspects could be examined in this brief discussion, the purpose of this article is not to diminish the beliefs of those who uphold the Shroud’s authenticity, but rather to highlight its vulnerabilities under critical scrutiny. This is especially true when considering the biblical discrepancies that remain inadequately addressed by its proponents and the Shroud’s late emergence in historical records.

Biblical Accounts

The biblical accounts of Jesus’ burial are of utmost importance in examining the validity of the Shroud of Turin. According to the Gospel accounts of Luke and John, Jesus was wrapped in more than one burial cloth.

Luke 24:12 (ESV)—But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John 20:5-7 (ESV)—And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, and the face cloth (σουδάριον), which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths (ὀθονίων) but folded up in a place by itself.

Note that John reports that a separate face cloth (σουδάριον) was folded and set aside from the burial cloths (ὀθονίων). The term “cloths” is translated from the Greek “τὰ ὀθόνια” (ta othonia). The word ὀθόνια in verses 5 and 6 of John 20 unequivocally means “strips of linen,” and the word used in verse 7 is also the plural form of the same Greek word, ὀθονίων, indicating multiple pieces of cloth. In short, John reports that Jesus’ body was wrapped in two different types of grave-cloths: a face cloth (σουδ΄άριον) and strips of linen (ὀθόνια).

John 11:11-45 describes Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus involving two different burial clothing items, just like John 20:5-7. Verse 44 notes Lazarus’ appearance when he came forth from his grave: “The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips (κειρίαις), and his face wrapped with a cloth (σουδαρίῳ). Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’” Although the verse specifically mentions cloths wrapping only his hands, feet, and face, it is evident that Lazarus was wrapped in multiple cloths, similar to how Jesus was bound in John 20:7, where a separate cloth or napkin (σουδαρίῳ), was placed around His head.

Anointed with Spices

Some additional details in the biblical account may be valuable for studying the evidence of bloodstains on the Shroud. The Gospel of John mentions that a large quantity of spices were wrapped with Jesus’ burial garments:

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews (John 19:39-40).

Nicodemus provided approximately 75 pounds of myrrh and aloe, substances known for their strong adhesive properties. These spices were traditionally used in Jewish burial practices to anoint the body and help preserve it, likely creating a sticky and fragrant coating over the burial cloths.

The Shroud of Turin and the Biblical Accounts

Mathew 27:59, Mark 15:45-46, and Luke 23:53 all use the singular Greek word for fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), indicating that these Gospel writers described Jesus’ burial garments more generally than did John. Proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity argue that John may not have been correct in identifying two separate burial clothing items. Some have suggested that John’s reference to a separate face cloth may denote a simple binding strap, intended to secure the jaw in a closed position at death, in addition to the full-body linen shroud later identified as the Shroud of Turin.³

While this interpretation may seem to provide a possible solution to the textual problem for Shroud advocates, the notion that John was mistaken in his account regarding two separate burial cloths does not hold up under scrutiny for two reasons. First, John 20:7 notes that the σουδάριον (soudarion) was “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting it was larger than just a strap for the jaw. Second, though Luke in his Gospel account (Luke 23:53) uses the singular Greek word for a fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), in the very next chapter, Luke uses the plural Greek word for linen cloths (ὀθόνια), identical to John 11 and 20, when describing Peter’s first glimpse into the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:12).

Another theory proposed by scholars like Arnold Lemke is that the face cloth referred to by John was only used initially at the cross to wipe Jesus’ face and then set aside inside the tomb by an unknown burial attendant. Lemke summarizes this theory as follows:

It is also possible, of course, that there was in fact a true face cloth used for a brief time perhaps to help cover the head or face of our Lord while being taken on a carrier to the grave and then left there, with the main linen wrapping cloth later having been taken away from the grave by the time Peter arrived on Easter morning—but this is speculative.⁴

This view suggests that a genuine face cloth was briefly used to cover the head or face of Jesus at the grave or during His transport to the grave and was subsequently left inside the tomb while the main linen burial cloth was used to cover the body of Jesus. In other words, the face cloth would have been buried with the body but may not have remained on the face upon Jesus’ final interment. According to this view, the folded face cloth set aside from the burial garment was not folded or set aside by divine action, but by human agents.

Discussion on Biblical Accounts

To reconcile how the Shroud could have captured the complete image of Christ despite the clear indication in the biblical text of two distinct burial cloths, one must assert one of the following scenarios:

1. Nicodemus did not actually apply 75 pounds of spices and aloes to Jesus’ body. This view discounts the explicit statement in John 19:39-40 where it states that “they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices.”
2. The face covering was used in conjunction with the body shroud, covering the entire body without causing any disruption to the image of Jesus on the Shroud. However, John 20:7 specifically mentions “the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself,” implying that this face cloth was separate from the larger body shroud.
3. A single shroud was used to cover the face, head, and body without causing any smearing or distortion to the resulting image. This would require that the Shroud, with its precise image and unsmeared droplets of blood, was somehow applied without affecting the condition of Jesus’ blood and sweat, contradicting the realities of wrapping a recently crucified body in linen (as implied in John 20:6-7).
4. John misrepresented the details, mistakenly describing two distinct clothing items, thereby suggesting that only one shroud covered the body from head to toe. This approach would essentially argue that the description in John 20:6-7 of two cloths is a gloss or error in the account.
5. The second, folded face covering referenced by John and Luke was merely a thin linen strap used to close Jesus’ mouth. This theory disregards the textual implication in John 20:7 that it was a larger piece of cloth, “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting that it was more substantial than a simple strap. Further complicating this theory is the lack of any clear evidence of a strap on the face depicted on the Shroud of Turin.
6. The face covering referred to by John was merely a sweat cloth used immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross but not applied within the tomb. This hypothesis, however, begs the question: why mention the napkin being folded in the tomb if it was not on Jesus when He was resurrected? This theory also relies on a human agent manipulating these burial cloths, rather than recognizing the possibility of divine action, as the biblical text seems to indicate.

Ultimately, all these scenarios challenge the clarity and authenticity of the text. They rely on arguments from silence or require reinterpretation of the text, which is clear in its description that two distinct burial cloths were used (Luke 24:12; John 20:5-7). John 20:6-7 indicates that when the tomb was found empty, the face cloth was folded neatly on the tomb bench, strongly suggesting that Jesus’ body was not stolen but that He had risen, leaving behind these items in an orderly manner, thus pointing to the resurrection.

In 1543, John Calvin presented a critical biblical rationale concerning burial cloths that remains relevant in comparing the Shroud of Turin with the biblical accounts:

In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, “as is the manner of the Jews to bury.” What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot…. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.⁵

If two linen garments (one for the face and one for the remainder of the body) were employed in the burial process, a single shroud could not encompass the entirety of the body and simultaneously capture a full and detailed image. Additionally, once again, the process of wrapping a body with linen, especially with the application of spices and aloes, would likely result in distortions, making it difficult to produce a clear and accurate representation of the entire form. The existence of the Shroud presents a clear contradiction with the descriptions provided by the biblical writers regarding Jesus’ burial garments, which imply a more complex arrangement that would not easily accommodate such an image under these conditions.

Dating the Shroud

On April 21, 1988, four samples were removed from the Shroud for analysis, each sample weighing approximately 50 mg and measuring 10×70 mm. It is important to note that the samples were taken from the main body of the Shroud, away from patches, but not necessarily far from the charred areas or obvious water stains. Three laboratories independently dated the Shroud to the Middle Ages,⁶ specifically between A.D. 1260 and 1390, rather than to the first century.⁷

Shroud advocates allege that of the 12 samples measured,⁸ there was a decrease in radiocarbon age as the samples were taken farther from the main body of the Shroud. In other words, samples taken closer to the area where the body lay were dated older, indicating less residual carbon-14 and therefore less modern contamination. Shroud proponents contend that the carbon dating results are flawed due to significant contamination by external sources of carbon-14, arguing that the Shroud dates to the first century.⁹ Possible contaminants include oils from human skin and soot from candles. Riani, et al.¹⁰ analyzed the samples measured by the three radiocarbon laboratories and concluded that the original sampling was flawed due to poor experimental design. Casabianca, et al. noted the following:

The measurements made by the three laboratories on the Shroud sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% CE 1260-1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval…. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.¹¹

However, according to Dr. Harry Gove, who developed AMS technology and observed the Shroud’s dating process in the Arizona lab, if the Shroud were truly from the first century and the results were skewed by contamination, the samples tested would have needed to be contaminated to the extent that one-third of the entire sample was affected—something that is highly improbable.¹²

Textile Analysis

In 1988, during the extraction of the radiocarbon sample, the Shroud underwent a comprehensive examination by Gabriel Vial, the Technical General Secretary of the Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens (CIETA). Vial determined that the Shroud had been produced on a four-shaft treadle loom.¹³ The distinctive herringbone pattern of the Shroud can be characterized by its V-shaped formations. Across the width of the Shroud, there are 53.5 of these V-shapes, each comprising approximately 80 warp threads—40 slanting in one direction and 40 in the opposite. This intricate pattern is achieved by sequentially attaching the threads to four shafts in a specific order: 1-2-3-4, repeated 40 times, followed by 3-2-1-4, also repeated 40 times, and continuing this sequence across the entire width of the Shroud. Accomplishing this with around 4,300 threads to produce 53.5 complete V-shapes is a highly skilled task.¹⁴ The evidence points unmistakably to the Shroud being woven on a four-shaft loom, likely operated by heddles. No such loom or weaving technique is known to have existed in the first-century Middle East, where silk production using similar technology was confined to China.

Vial expresses some skepticism toward claims that similar textiles had been discovered from ancient periods. Vial explains:

So far every example studied—and these have come from Pompeii, Antinoe, Palmyra, Cologne, Dura-Europos—has been radically different from the shroud, both from the point of view of the structure (2/2 twill as opposed to 3/1) and the materials used (wool and silk rather than linen). We have to look to the 16th century to find the first example of linen chevron weaving with a 3/1 twill structure, found in the canvas of a painting in Herentals (Belgium). Taking into account the constituent elements of any textile (material, structure, warp and weft density), the textile of which the shroud is composed is unlike anything presently known to date prior to the 16th century.¹⁵

Although Vial refrains from assigning a precise date to the Shroud’s origin, he contends that the four-shaft loom responsible for the Shroud’s distinctive 3/1 herringbone weave likely did not exist until the late medieval period. Supporting this, Hugh Farey states, “The conclusion to all this is clear, and difficult to obfuscate. The Shroud was inescapably woven on a four-shaft loom, and most probably one operated by heddles. Nothing of the kind is found, illustrated, or mentioned around the 1st century Middle East, and silk production involving such a loom was restricted to China. The Shroud, however, was made in Northern Europe, in the late 13th century, by which time the appropriate apparatus was established.”¹⁶

The Bloodstains

After His arrest and appearance before Pilate, Jesus would have been severely wounded, covered in blood during the journey to Golgotha (John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:29–31). The Gospel accounts, specifically John 20:25 and Luke 24:39-40, indicate that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to the cross. Additionally, the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side (John 19:34). Sure enough, bloodstains correspond to these areas on the Shroud.

Real Blood?

Despite years of debate on whether the stains on the Shroud constitute actual blood, little consensus has been achieved. While some experts have rejected the notion that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are actual blood,¹⁷ there are those who, despite doubting the Shroud’s authenticity, acknowledge the presence of blood.¹⁸ Scholars like Hugh Farey argue that blood may have been used to enhance or embellish the artistic depiction of a man in repose.

Whether the stains are genuine blood, paint, or a combination of both, the limited studies conducted on the Shroud have primarily analyzed samples that had been cleaned of any adherent particles, often with differing methodologies, resulting in inconsistent conclusions. Walter McCrone¹⁹ analyzed approximately 30 sticky tape slides taken from various sections of the Shroud of Turin and identified small orange-red particles on numerous fibers, which he recognized as an iron oxide pigment. By assessing the density of these particles, he could distinguish between image and non-image areas, leading him to conclude that the image on the Shroud was at least partially created by iron oxide paint.²⁰

In contrast, John Heller and Alan Adler²¹ examined about 20 of the same slides but did not report observing a significant presence of these orange-red particles or their differential distribution. Heller and Adler,however, used a different approach. Instead of direct microscopic examination, they extracted individual fibers with toluene, thoroughly rinsing them to remove the sticky tape glue. This process likely also removed any paint medium and most of the embedded pigment. The discrepancies between McCrone’s and Heller and Adler’s findings likely stem from these differing methodologies rather than any intentional misrepresentation.²² Understanding these experimental differences offers a more balanced explanation for the conflicting results.

Heller and Adler concluded that the blood predates the image on the cloth.²³ Their research suggested that since the image fibers exhibited “corrosion” while the blood-covered areas did not, the image must not exist beneath the blood. However, this conclusion does not consider the potential effects of the blood or serum on the image at the time of application or during subsequent removal. The evidence suggesting that the blood predates the image is not definitive and may overlook key factors.

This raises the possibility that the blood and image could have been created simultaneously or that the blood was even added afterward as part of an artistic process. The Shroud clearly was carefully crafted to simulate the appearance of a burial cloth, using techniques that might enhance its credibility as a holy relic. The ambiguity surrounding the timing of the blood application lends credence to the theory that the Shroud may have been purposefully designed as a devotional or symbolic piece rather than an authentic witness to a Jesus burial (or anyone in the first century).

Flow Patterns and Scourge Marks

Upon evaluating the bloodstains on the Shroud, the distinct flow patterns have sparked considerable debate regarding their authenticity. Among the chief concerns are the marks on the back and legs of the Shroud image that are supposed to represent the injuries incurred through the scourging of Jesus. It is well known that scourging was designed to inflict pain and bodily injury through the tearing of flesh.

It is unknown what type of flagrum was utilized in the scourging of Jesus. However, if wounds were inflicted that would abrade and tear the skin (as most often depicted), significant blood flow would occur with each strike (John 19:1). Shroud advocates maintain that these continually oozing injuries would remain moist for hours and would eventually allow for the transfer of the scourge wounds to the cloth. However, according to Farey, there is no sign of any “flow” on the Shroud from the scourge marks on the back, let alone “areas of torn skin [which] would ooze blood and clear body fluid (serum).”²⁴

Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli forensically analyzed the blood patterns from the Shroud. They found that the blood flow patterns observed on the arms and legs of the figure depicted in the Shroud do not align with the expected behavior of blood from a man who had been crucified with his arms positioned at an approximate 45-degree angle. Specifically, the blood rivulets on the back of the left hand correspond to a position in which the arms are extended 35 to 45 degrees above horizontal. Conversely, the bloodstains on the forearm suggest a scenario in which the hands were positioned almost vertically. In such a case, the blood would flow directly down the forearm, rather than at an angle, which is inconsistent with the blood patterns shown on the Shroud. The authors of the study note, “Assuming that the red stains on the Turin linen are actually blood from the crucifixion wounds, the results of the experiments demonstrate that the alleged flowing patterns from different areas of the body are not consistent with each other.”²⁵

Nicolotti²⁶ has observed that the marks on the body depicted in the Shroud correspond precisely with the shape of scourges known to people in the Middle Ages and commonly represented by artists of that period. Nicolotti maintains that the scourge marks are further evidence for dating the Shroud around the Middle Ages, specifically, in the first half of the fourteenth century.

Washed or Unwashed?

Whether Jesus’ body was washed or remained unwashed after His crucifixion is a crucial issue in determining the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. While many have weighed in on this matter, examining the blood spatter, the angle of the wrist stain, and the distinct divergence of the streams, little consensus has emerged.²⁷

Some advocates²⁸ argue that Jesus’ body was washed before burial and that the stains on the Shroud came from blood that flowed from the wounds after Jesus was laid to rest. This hypothesis requires the assumption that the wounds continued to bleed significantly after death. However, medically speaking, dead bodies do not continue to bleed after death. Once the heart stops, blood pressure drops to zero, halting active bleeding. While gravity may cause some passive leakage from wounds, significant blood flow ceases immediately. Blood also coagulates shortly after death, preventing any meaningful post-mortem bleeding. Medical literature confirms that post-mortem bleeding is typically minimal and does not result in the flowing patterns seen in living bodies.²⁹

Those who advocate that Jesus’ body remained unwashed when placed in the tomb³⁰ must assume that, despite being removed from the cross, transported to the tomb, and wrapped in a linen shroud with a large quantity of spices, the bloodstains remained precisely defined without smearing.

Discussion on Bloodstains

Interpreting the bloodstain patterns on the Shroud of Turin is fraught with significant limitations. Current analysis relies solely on photographs, lacking direct examination of the cloth itself. Even if the blood stains from the Shroud represent real blood, this fact does not specify whether the blood was human nor a person from the first century.³¹ Furthermore, there is still insufficient scientifically verified information about the cloth’s history over the past 2,000 years to draw definitive conclusions. As Jumper, et al. rightly note, science is not in a position to categorically prove the Shroud’s authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus,³² which underscores the inherent uncertainty and challenges in attempting to interpret the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Given the cessation of active bleeding after death, it is highly improbable that the detailed blood patterns on the Shroud of Turin could have been produced by a natural interaction between the burial cloth and a dead body. In an attempt to reconcile the presence of detailed bloodstains on the Shroud with the biblical account of Jesus’ burial, some proponents have suggested various theories³³ to explain how dried blood could have become re-liquefied and transferred to the linen cloth. These speculative hypotheses underscore the difficulty—if not futility—of trying to justify the detailed blood patterns observed on the Shroud as being naturally produced by a corpse post-crucifixion. The need for such elaborate explanations only highlights the implausibility of these claims.

Moreover, again, the spices mentioned specifically in John 19:39-40 would have significantly impacted the condition of the skin and any blood present on it, likely absorbing or smearing the blood, preventing the creation of the sharp, well-defined rivulets depicted on the Shroud.³⁴ Yet, modern scientific analysis has found no trace of these sticky, resinous materials on the Shroud.³⁵ The absence of any spice residue undermines the claim that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, as it contradicts the details provided in the Gospel and the burial practices of the time.

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ The frontal image refers to the anterior or front portion of the man’s body: face, chest, etc., whereas the dorsal image refers to the posterior or back plane of the body.

² STURP was a comprehensive study of the Shroud of Turin conducted by American scientists in 1978. The project was led by John Jackson, a physics professor at the Air Force Academy, after he discovered in 1975 that the Shroud’s images contained 3D information. With permission from the Shroud’s owner and church authorities, the scientists performed nondestructive experiments on the Shroud for 120 hours, including light and electron microscopy, photography, UV spectrophotometry, X-ray fluorescence, and thermal photography.

³ Vignon is one of the early researchers who proposed that the image of Jesus’ beard on the Shroud appears to be pressed or distorted, possibly due to a jaw strap. See Paul Vignon (1939), The Shroud of Christ (Westminster: Archibald Constable). Ian Wilson also makes reference to some distortion of the beard of Jesus portrayed in the Shroud as potentially created by a jaw strap. See Ian Wilson (2010), In The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (New York: Doubleday).

⁴ Arnold E. Lemke (2000), “The Shroud of Turin—Is it or Isn’t it the Burial Cloth of Christ?” Paper presented at the St. Croix Pastor, Teacher, Delegate Conference, 6.

⁵ John Calvin (1844), “An Admonition Showing the Advantages which Christendom Might Derive from an Inventory of Relics,” trans. Henry Beveridge (Calvin Translation Society) pp. 332-334.

⁶ The C-14 dating protocol employed in dating the Shroud was thorough and designed to remove the claim of bias from having four samples delivered to three independent laboratories with three control samples.

⁷ P.E. Damon, et al. (1989), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature, 337:611-615.

⁸ The four samples were submitted to three independent accelerator-mass-spectrometry (AMS) laboratories in Tucson, Arizona; Oxford, England; and Zurich, Switzerland. For verification purposes, three control samples were included: (1) a linen piece from a Nubian tomb dating to the eleventh or twelfth century, (2) a linen cloth from a mummy associated with Cleopatra of Thebes, dating to the early second century, and (3) threads extracted from the cope (a ceremonial outer garment) of St. Louis d’Anjou from the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, France, dating to the early thirteenth century. Table 1 presents the age results as published in Nature. Following rigorous calibration, the radiocarbon analysis of the Shroud indicated a date range between A.D. 1260 and 1390. Significantly, the dates obtained for the control samples aligned appropriately with their anticipated historical periods (P.E. Damon, et al.).

⁹ Note that radiocarbon dating does, in fact, sometimes result in ages of materials that exceed 10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating, however, is understood to be suspect for objects thought to be older than roughly 3,000-4,000 years old [cf. George H. Michaels and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods 8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara Instructional Development.]. Further, biblical creationists argue that radioactive decay rates were apparently accelerated during the Flood and afterward, possibly up to 1,500-1,000 B.C., making all dating techniques unreliable for ages beyond that time. For evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in the past, see Don DeYoung (2008), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

¹⁰ M. Riani, et al. (2013), “Regression Analysis with Partially Labelled Regressors: Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Statistics and Computing, 23:551-561.

¹¹ T. Casabianca, et al. (2019), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry, 61[5]:1223-1231, March 22.

¹² H.E. Gove (1996), Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud (Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics Publishing, Techno House), pp. 291-292.

¹³ Gabriel Vial (1990), “Shrouded in Mystery,” HALI: The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles, p. 49.

¹⁴ Ibid.; See also Hugh Farey (2018), The Medieval Shroud: The Beginning of an Exploration into its Purpose, Process and Provenance, p. 17; Hugh Farey (2019), The Medieval Shroud 2: No Case for Authenticity, p. 20.

¹⁵ Vial, p. 49.

¹⁶ Hugh Farey (2019), “The Medieval Weave.” Medieval Shroud, September 13, https://medievalshroud.com/the-medieval-weave/.

¹⁷ Walter McCrone (1981), “Light-Microscopical Study of the Turin Shroud III,” The Microscope 29:19-38; Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

¹⁸ Hugh Farey (2020), “The Medieval Shroud,” Science, Theology and the Holy Shroud, Edited Papers from the 2019 International Conference on the Turin Shroud, ed. R. Gary Chiang and Evelyn M. White (Ancaster, Ontario: Doorway Publications), pp. 1-7.

¹⁹ McCrone (1981); McCrone (1990).

²⁰ McCrone documented his findings with photographs, which were later supported by Eugene Nitowski and Joseph Kohlbeck, who also photographed the sticky tapes, showing orange-red particles adhering to the fibers, though they did not quantify or differentiate them based on image areas.

²¹ John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1981), “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 14[3]:81-103; John H. Heller (1983), Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin); John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1980), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19[16]:2742-2744.

²² Heimburger, a medical doctor with an interest in the Shroud of Turin, authored “A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations” (2008), https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf. Additionally, David Ford provides insightful analyses of the debate between McCrone/Nickell and Heller/Adler in his work titled, “The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry” (2000), which can be accessed at www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf.

²³ Heller and Adler (1981), 14[3]:81-103.

²⁴ See Hugh Farey (2023), “Book Review: The Shroud of Jesus,” https://medievalshroud.com/book-review-the-shroud-of-jesus/.

²⁵ M. Borrini and L. Garlaschelli (2019), “A BPA approach to the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Forensic Science, 64[1]:137-143.

²⁶ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:57; Andrea Nicolotti (2015), Storia e Leggende di una Reliquia Controversa (Turin: Einaudi); Andrea Nicolotti (2016), “La Sindone, Banco di Prova per Esegesi, Storia, Scienza e Teologia,” Annali di Storia Dell’esegesi, 33[2]:459-510.

²⁷ See A. Heger, et al. (2024), “Further Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Nailing of the Hands,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:1573-1581.

²⁸ See Frank C. Tribbe (2006), Portrait of Jesus? The Shroud of Turin in Science and History, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House); also F.T. Zugibe (2005), The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry (New York: M. Evans & Co.), p. 219.

²⁹ Robert A. Wild, “The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th-Century Artist or Forger,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 10[2]:30-46; Joris Meurs (2023), “Immediate Postmortem Changes,” Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, 3:218-223.

³⁰ I. Wilson (1998), The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World’s Most Sacred Relic is Real (New York: Simon & Schuster), p. 32.

³¹ Kelly P. Kearse (2020), “Unanticipated Issues in Serological Analysis of Blood Species: The Shroud of Turin as a Case Example,” Forensic Science International: Reports, Vol. 2.

³² E.J. Jumper, et al. (1984), “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,” ed. J.B. Lambert, in Archaeological Chemistry-III, Advances in Chemistry Series 205 (Washington DC: American Chemical Society), pp. 447-476.

³³ König, L., et al. “Some Experiments,” 229-238.

³⁴ G.R. Lavoie, et al. (1983), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin: Part II—The Importance of Time in the Transfer of Blood Clots to Cloth as Distinctive Clot Images,” Shroud Spectrum International, 8:2-10; L. König, et al. (2024), “Some Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Crown of Thorns, the Lance Wound and the Belt of Blood,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:229-238.

³⁵ Raymond E. Brown (1994), The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday); David Noel Freedman (1992), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 1 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem…. John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem…. Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all.⁴

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem”? Dawkins quoted from 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem. These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.⁵

How often are individuals born in one place and reared in another? I was born in Georgia, brought up in Oklahoma, went to undergraduate and graduate school in Tennessee, and yet have lived most of my life in Alabama. When people ask where I’m from, I generally say, “Alabama.” I sometimes say, “I was raised in Oklahoma.” I rarely say, “I was born in Georgia,” yet that is where I was born. Interestingly, no one ever accuses me of contradicting myself.

Blind Faith or Contradiction Confusion?

If Dr. Dawkins actually believes that John 7:41-42 contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote, then he may be so blinded by an allegiance to atheism and naturalism that he refuses to interpret the Bible fairly. (Yet, surely Dawkins desires for his readers and listeners to interpret his own writings and speeches fairly. Will he not give the Bible writers the same level of fair and honest evaluation that he expects others to give him?) Or, perhaps Dawkins is unaware of what constitutes a genuine contradiction.⁶ If John wrote that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. However, John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Missing the Messiah…Again

Rather than honestly and reasonably pointing out a legitimate contradiction, Dawkins has tragically aligned himself with the very people in John 7 who missed (or altogether rejected) the astonishing evidence for Jesus’ Deity (and, in Dawkins’ case, the inspiration of the Bible). The Old Testament writers specifically (and miraculously) prophesied hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would “come forth” from “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Micah 5:2)—i.e., Bethlehem of Judea.⁷ Furthermore, the prophets also perfectly predicted the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-7) would dwell in Galilee and let His light shine in the land of Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1-2). This, too, happened just as the prophets predicted (Matthew 4:12-16).

These two marvelous pieces to the Messianic puzzle (presented 700 years earlier by Micah and Isaiah) were missed by many souls in the first century, just as they are missed by Dawkins and many others today. Yet, Christians will follow the example of Christ (Luke 19:10; 1 Timothy 1:15) and never stop striving to help unbelievers see the Light. With God’s help, we will continue demonstrating both the supernatural attributes of the Bible and the One Whom the Bible perfectly presents—the Prince of Peace, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Endnotes

¹ Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 97.

² Ibid., pp. 96-97.

³ Ibid., p. 94.

⁴ Ibid., 93, emp. in orig.

⁵ For more information on Micah 5:2 and John 7, see Eric Lyons (2022), “Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem,” Reason & Revelation, 42[8]:86-89, August, https://apologeticspress.org/micah-the-messiah-and-the-little-town-of-bethlehem/.

⁶ See Eric Lyons (2013), “Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions—Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 33[11]:122-125,128-129, November, https://apologeticspress.org/dealing-fairly-with-alleged-bible-contradictions-part-ii-4747/.

⁷ This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah. People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrathites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 2:4; 4:11; 1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4).

The post Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What do we mean by “myth”? German theologian Rudolf Bultmann popularized the notion that, in order to properly interpret the text, the New Testament must be stripped of those elements that appear to be “mythical,” specifically, its supernatural features.¹ “Myth,” therefore, in theological circles refers to a traditional, non-literal story in a particular culture that manifests that culture’s worldview. The story serves as a vehicle to convey a truth, without necessarily being historically true. The Bible’s depictions of heaven, hell, demons, evil spirits, and Satan are viewed as symbols for deeper meanings rather than being literally existent. Many theologians, and now many Americans, insist that the Bible is a pre-scientific document that is riddled with the errors that accompanied early man’s quest for knowledge, making many of its claims “mythical.”

Along with the onset of modern scientific discovery and understanding has come a widespread tendency to compromise the biblical text of Genesis 1-11. Otherwise conservative thinking Christians have not been immune to this deadly cancer that ultimately undermines the entire Bible and one’s ability to arrive at the truth. In the 1980s, it was discovered that raw evolution was being taught by two Abilene Christian University professors. One of the biology professors provided his class with a handout that included a photocopy of the first page of Genesis. In the margin he scrawled the words, “Hymn, myth.”² Concerned about the backlash from its base, the university mobilized in an attempt to discredit the charge and sweep it under the proverbial carpet, but the evidence was decisive, as acknowledged even by objective outsiders as well as a Master’s thesis conducted 30 years later.³ The fact is that evolution has been taught on other Christian college campuses as well. The lack of outcry testifies to the fact that even Christians and their children have been adversely influenced by secular education.

It is amazing, even shocking, to see the extent to which the authority of the biblical text in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, has been undermined in the mind of the average American, especially in the last half century or so. In virtually every corner of our country, relaxed and compromised views of the Bible prevail—even among otherwise conservative Americans and those who profess to be Christian. Before leaving office, President Bush (“W”) was interviewed by Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “Nightline.” When asked if he believed the Bible to be literally true, he responded: “You know. Probably not.… No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is…has got… You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.’”⁴ When asked about creation and evolution, Bush said:

I think you can have both. I think evolution can—you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an Almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.⁵

Myriad instances could be cited in which Americans manifest the degrading effects of skepticism, atheism, evolution, and liberal theology.

What a far cry from most of America’s history. It is hard to believe that—up until the 1960s—American education was thoroughly saturated with the biblical account of Creation.⁶ The book of Genesis was taken as a straight-forward account of the formation of the Universe and the beginning of human history. People took God at His Word. Though liberal theology swept through Europe in the late 19^th century, which included attacks on the verbal, inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures, and though the Creation account began to be openly challenged at the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, still, the majority of Americans continued to accept the biblical account right on up to World War II. Since then, however, sinister forces have been chipping away at belief in the inspiration and integrity of the Bible. They have succeeded in eroding confidence in its trustworthiness and authority.

But there are no excuses. The evidence is available, and it is overwhelming. No one can stand before God at the end of time and justify himself for his rejection of Genesis as a straightforward record of literal history. Failure to take Genesis at face value can easily result in acceptance of views and/or practices that will jeopardize one’s standing with God.

New Testament Proof that Genesis is Literal History

If we had no other means by which to determine whether Genesis is myth or history, the New Testament alone is ample proof. Depending on how one calculates the material, the New Testament has at least 60 allusions to Genesis 1-11, with over 100 allusions to the entire book.⁷ Jesus and the writers of the New Testament consistently treated Genesis as literal history. As a matter of fact, every New Testament author refers to Genesis, and nearly every New Testament book does as well. Their handling of the Genesis text demonstrates that they considered the events to have actually occurred, rather than being mythical or legendary folklore that merely contains useful lessons.

Jesus

Consider a sampling of allusions made by Jesus:

• He specified the foundation of the marriage institution, quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as historical precedent and proof that carte blanche divorce is unacceptable to God (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8). Did He mean to ground marriage on fairytales?
• Jesus mentioned Abel as a real person whose blood was shed on account of his righteous behavior, just like other historical personages in human history (Matthew 23:35). If Abel was not an actual person who lived on Earth, neither was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom Jesus said the Jews “murdered between the Temple and the altar”—an actual physical location.
• Jesus declared Satan to be a “murderer from the beginning” and the father of lies—referring to the Fall (John 8:44; Genesis 3:4,19; cf. Romans 5:12; 1 John 3:8).
• Jesus referenced Moses’ writings as genuine representations of history (John 5:46), even warning, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (vs. 47).
• Jesus spoke of the “days of Noah” and the Flood as an actual historical event that has many parallels to the future coming of the Son of Man in terms of what people will be doing with their time (Matthew 24:37-39).
• Jesus compared Capernaum to Sodom (Genesis 18-19), saying, “for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:23-24). Sodom would have had to have been an actual city for it to “have remained until this day” and for it to fare more tolerably in the Day of Judgment (cf. 10:15).
• The genealogical lists of Jesus’ physical lineage identify actual historical persons in the first century all the way back to persons originally named in Genesis, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Tamar (Matthew 1:1-2), as well as Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah (Luke 3:36-37).

Paul

Paul, likewise, treated persons, places, and incidents in Genesis as if historically real. Here is a sampling of some of his allusions:

• He quoted Genesis 1:3 to note how God caused light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4:6).
• Quoting Genesis 2:7, Paul said Adam was the first human being on Earth (1 Corinthians 15:45).
• He claimed that Adam was made from dust (1 Corinthians 15:47)—as Genesis records.
• He noted how the woman is “from” (ek—“out of”) man (1 Corinthians 11:8,12), referring to the fact that Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s body.
• Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 to verify how a man and woman “become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16), comparing marriage to the church (Ephesians 5:31).
• Adam was as historically real as Christ and Moses, having introduced sin into the world, causing death to reign during the historical interval “from Adam to Moses” (Romans 5:14-15).
• Paul identified Adam and Eve by name, noting that Adam was created before the woman was created, and also noting the deception to which Eve succumbed (1 Timothy 2:13-14), which occurred via the “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3).
• Paul claimed that God’s deity and attributes have been evident “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20).
• Paul said that Jesus fulfilled the promises that had been made to “the fathers,” i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 15:8).
• Paul quoted the promise God made to Abraham concerning Sarah giving birth to Isaac (Romans 9:9), and also mentions Jacob, Esau, and Rebecca by name (vss. 9-10).

Peter

Peter, too, endorsed the historicity of Genesis:

• He alluded to the watery mass at Creation from Genesis 1:12,6-7,9 (2 Peter 3:5).
• He regarded the Flood as an actual historical event, mentioning Noah by name and specifying the number of survivors as eight, and the Flood’s extent being global (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6).
• Peter believed in the historical personage of Lot (Genesis 11-14,19) and that God actually turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes” to make them “an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.” The incident also serves the purpose of demonstrating how God “knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Peter 2:6-9). If the incident was not historical, it would serve no legitimate parallel purpose.
• Peter also noted the actual, historical relationship sustained by Sarah and Abraham (1 Peter 3:6).

Hebrews

The writer of the Hebrews letter bases his entire argument on the historicity of Genesis and the Old Testament system:

• His quotation of Psalm 102 includes the fact that even as God created the heavens and the Earth, so they will perish (1:10). Both circumstances require literal historicity.
• Alluding to the fact that God “finished” His creative activities—a direct allusion to Genesis 2:1—he then quotes Genesis 2:2 to call attention to the literal cessation of God’s actions on the seventh day of the week (4:3-4; cf. vs. 10—“as God did from His”).
• The comparison of Christ to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) in contrast with Aaron demands that both of these figures were actual historical personages (5:1-10; 6:20; 7:1-21).
• God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 was a literal promise to a literal person (6:13-14).
• God’s creation of the Universe was by His “word” (11:3)—even as the Genesis record indicates that God spoke the created order into existence (“God said…”—1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26).
• Hebrews chapter 11 is a veritable “Who’s Who” of historical personalities from Genesis whose historicity is assumed: Cain and Abel (vs. 4), Enoch (vs. 5), Noah (vs. 7), Abraham (vss. 8-10), Sarah (vss. 11-12, who literally produced a multitude of descendants), Isaac (vss. 17-20), Jacob (vss. 20-21), and Joseph (vs. 22).
• Esau sold his birthright for food (12:16).
• Abel’s shed blood is as historically real as Christ’s (12:24).

Other New Testament Writers

The other writers show the same respect for bona fide history portrayed in Genesis. James refers to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (2:21). Jude mentions Cain, Enoch, and Sodom and Gomorrah (vss. 7,11,14). He draws a comparison between the physical destruction of the cities with “the vengeance of eternal fire” that awaits the disobedient at the Judgment. John notes that Cain murdered his brother because of his own sinful actions (1 John 3:12). Even the book of Revelation, though highly figurative, nevertheless contains numerous allusions to Genesis that indicate an historical understanding of the book (e.g., 5:5; 10:6; 20:2; 22:2). To suggest that the book of Genesis is a compilation of interesting fables, myths, folklore, popular anecdotes, and stories, rather than actual history, is to suggest that the doctrines of Christianity are rooted in and dependent on fairytales and imaginary stories. Indeed, if the events of Genesis did not historically occur, the New Testament writers—and Jesus Himself—were either in error or flat out liars, since they unquestionably referred to the events of Genesis as being historically true.

Linguistic Proof that Genesis is Literal History

In addition to the New Testament’s inspired treatment of Genesis as an actual account of history, one could also simply examine the literary genre of Genesis. Many in our day insist that Genesis should not be read as literal history because it is written in poetic form and is not a literal description of actual events. But such a claim is, itself, linguistic gobbledygook. Written language, whether from man or God, can be deciphered in terms of its genre. One can identify the author’s use of linguistic elements and extract intended meaning from the words that are used. In other words, though the 50 chapters of Genesis contain figurative language—as does the entire Bible—nevertheless, one can easily distinguish between the literal and the figurative.

Entire volumes have been written on human communication, how human language functions, and how to derive meaning from written language. Many books have been produced that expound the discipline of hermeneutics—the process of interpreting language. These volumes provide self-evident, easily discernible rules and procedures for detecting figurative language. D.R. Dungan’s classic work, Hermeneutics, written in 1888, contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “The Various Figures of the Bible,” and “Figures of Thought.”⁸ Clinton Lockhart’s 1901 volume Principles of Interpretation contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “Poetry,” and “Types.”⁹ Christendom has produced many books that demonstrate the means by which biblical language may be understood, including Bernard Ramm’s Hermeneutics and Milton Terry’s 1883 volume Biblical Hermeneutics.¹⁰ Ascertaining whether Genesis and, specifically, the Creation account are “poetic,” “hymn,” or “myth” is not a matter of confusion or uncertainty—except for those who have an agenda and wish to concoct an elaborate smokescreen to avoid the obvious import of God’s Word.

Does Genesis 1 contain any figurative language? Certainly. But not anything that makes the chapter non-literal in its basic import. For example, the term “face” in Genesis 1:2, which is actually plural in the Hebrew (pah-neem—“faces”), is an idiomatic instance of pleonasm, a form of amplificatio, in which more words are used than the grammar requires: “And darkness was upon the faces of the deep.” The noun “deep” (which, itself, is a figurative term for the sea or ocean) is enhanced or emphasized by means of a second, redundant noun “faces.” Instead of simply saying, “darkness was upon the deep,” adding “faces” makes the statement “much more forcible and emphatic.”¹¹ The use of “saw” in Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25 is the figure of speech known as anthropopatheia in which human attributes are ascribed to God—specifically in this text, human actions.¹² The expression in 1:9,10, “Let the dry appear,” is the figure of speech known as antimereia, the exchange of one part of speech for another, in this case, an adjective for a noun. “Dry” in the verses refers to the “land.”¹³ Genesis 1:11 uses polyptoton in which the same part of speech is repeated in a different inflection. Specifically, the verb “seeding” is repeated by means of its cognate noun “seed”: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,” literally, “seeding seed.”¹⁴ In other words, vegetation was created by God in a state of bearing seed, and not vice versa—which militates against the notion of evolution and underscores the instantaneous nature of the Creation. Indeed, this figurative language testifies to the literal nature of the Creation week.

So, yes, Genesis 1 (and perhaps every other chapter in the Bible) contains figurative language, as does our everyday language.¹⁵ But that language is detectable, discernible, and decipherable—and does not necessarily imply that the overall message being conveyed is not to be taken literally. None of the language of Genesis 1 even hints that the events described were imaginary as opposed to being actual historical occurrences. In fact, simply take your Bible and turn to Genesis chapter 1 and notice how many terms are used that have an obvious, undisputable literal import, including “earth,” “darkness,” “Spirit of God,” “waters,” “light,” “day,” “night,” “evening,” “morning,” “first,” “seas,” “grass,” “herb,” “seed,” “fruit,” “tree,” “seasons,” “years,” “stars,” “fowl,” “fish,” “cattle,” etc. Distinguishing between figurative and literal language is not that difficult. As a side note, Steven Boyd conducted a statistical analysis using logistic regression, in order to ascertain whether Genesis 1:1-2:3 is Hebrew poetry or historical narrative. He concluded: “The biblical creation account clearly is not poetry but instead is a literal description in real time of supernatural events.”¹⁶

Corroboration by Other Bible Passages

If the events described in the book of Genesis were not intended to be understood as literal history, one would expect the rest of the Bible to give some indication of that fact. Yet, on the contrary, several passages scattered from the Old Testament to the New Testament allude to the events in such a way that their historicity is assumed. Take, for example, specific verses regarding the creation of the Universe by God. The distinct impression is given in Genesis chapter 1 that God orally spoke everything into existence, rather than using some naturalistic, time-laden process. In what is obviously an actual historical setting, reported to us in a literal context of Scripture, Moses informs the Israelites situated at the base of Mt. Sinai—

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11).

No Israelite listening to this declaration in 1500 B.C. would have ever conceived the notion that God created everything in the Universe over a period of millions and billions of years. The correlation between the days of Genesis 1 and the six-day work week enjoined upon people under the Law of Moses would have been unmistakable and could have been understood in no other way but literally.

Another example is seen in Psalm 33—which is certainly written in standard Hebrew metrical verse—but poetry that conveys literal truth. Speaking of God’s creative powers, David declared:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6-9).

The figurative elements of this poetic passage are seen in the notions of “breath” and “mouth”—physical attributes that would not literally, physically characterize God Who is “spirit” (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39). But the oral aspect of God speaking the physical realm into existence is literal, even as God literally and audibly spoke to people throughout history (e.g., Genesis 12:1ff.; 22:12; Exodus 3:4ff.; Matthew 3:17; 17:5).

Still another example is seen in the psalmist’s call for praise by inanimate creation:

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! (Psalm 148:1-4).

Here is an excellent instance of figurative language. Obviously, the Sun, Moon, stars, and waters cannot literally, audibly praise God. Yet, having been created by God, they reflect their Maker. They manifest attributes that demonstrate their divine origin (cf. Psalm 19:1ff.). Hence, the next verse declares: “Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created” (vs. 5). Here is yet another forthright indication that the impression projected by the Genesis account, that God literally spoke the Universe into existence, is an accurate impression, in spite of the fact that in Psalm 148 this truth is couched in figurative language.

We must ever remember that the Bible is unlike any other book on the planet. It reflects its own divine origin by the attributes that it possesses. It does not divulge its divine message in a sterile vacuum in which a writer expounds lofty ideals, or by means of a listing of ethical “do’s and don’ts.” Rather, by means of the Bible, God conveys His message to mankind in history.¹⁷ We are introduced to the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of the human race, and thereafter we are treated to a sequential, historical narrative that guides us through 4,000 years of human history, climaxing with God’s own personal visit to the Earth. This is all history! And it is clearly intended to be understood literally.

Conclusion

The book of Genesis explains the Creation of the Universe, the corruption of humanity by sin, the catastrophe of the global Flood, and the confusion at Babel. Amazingly, it provides the foundation for anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, and a host of other disciplines. Critical doctrines that impact all of humanity are rooted in the events described in Genesis, including the necessity of clothing—human modesty—and why we organize our lives in terms of a seven-day week. More crucial doctrines that pertain to eternity are also approached early on, including why humans sin, why humans die, and why Jesus would have to die on the cross. The very meaning of human existence is clarified by examining the book of Genesis.

Read carefully to Charles Darwin’s autobiographical statement regarding the shift that occurred in his thinking that led to his belief in evolution: “I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”¹⁸ The integrity of the entire Bible is seriously undermined when anyone compromises the literal, historical nature of the book of Genesis, with its critical teaching on origins. Obstinately clinging to evolution, theistic or otherwise, and stubbornly insisting on a relaxed, devalued interpretation of Genesis, can only end in a diluted religion.

May we love God. May we love His Word. May we defend it against all efforts to destroy its integrity and message. May we pore over its contents—as if our lives, the lives of our family, and the lives of those we influence depend upon it. For, indeed, they do.

Endnotes

The post Genesis: Myth or History? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

With the widespread deterioration of interest in and respect for the Bible in the last half century in America, outspoken ridicule of the inspiration of the Bible has become commonplace in universities, the entertainment industry, and beyond. One such dismissal of the credibility of the Bible is seen in the smug exclamation: “The Bible is simply a book of Jewish fables and fairy tales.” Apart from the heartbreaking sadness in the heart of any Christian who hears such a brazen statement, the level of ignorance possessed by the speaker is appalling. After all, the United States of America was founded in the bosom of the Bible and it exerted a profound influence on American culture for nearly two centuries before it came under relentless attack by sinister forces in education, politics, entertainment, and organizations formed to undermine its influence. Nevertheless, the Bible deserves a fair consideration before being subjected to such a cavalier, unstudied dismissal.

Consider the dictionary definition of a “fable”:

• Merriam-Webster: “a fictitious narrative or statement: such as (a) a legendary story of supernatural happenings, (b) a narration intended to enforce a useful truth especially one in which animals speak and act like human beings”
• Cambridge Dictionary: “a short story that tells a moral truth, often using animals as characters.”
• Webster’s New World College Dictionary: “1. a fictitious story meant to teach a moral lesson: the characters are usually talking animals; 2. a myth or legend; 3. a story that is not true; falsehood.”
• Collins Dictionary defines “fairy tale” as “a story for children involving magical events and imaginary creatures.”

One cannot help but be reminded of the famed Aesop’s fables or the folktales of Uncle Remus and the Brothers Grimm. However, to suggest that the Bible as a literary entity may be largely characterized as fable betrays either a deep commitment to bias or an abject unacquaintance with the contents of the Bible.¹

Overwhelming Evidence

An incredible array of evidences exists to demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Bible. For example, unlike fable, biblical literature is saturated with references to specific people and places that have been historically authenticated. Time and time again, when skeptics have challenged its historical claims, the Bible has been consistently vindicated. This brief article will provide the reader with a few examples (out of many) of amazing accuracy in each of six categories: history, geography, topography, science, medicine, and prophecy.

Historical Accuracy

At one time, skeptics insisted that the nation of the Hittites, mentioned so frequently in the Old Testament (nearly 60 occurrences of the term, e.g., Genesis 23:10; 26:34; Joshua 1:4), never existed. No known evidence was available to verify their historicity. This circumstance provided fodder for those who dismissed the divine authenticity of the Bible. As Wright explained in his 1884 volume The Empire of the Hittites:

Now, although the Bible is not a mere compendium of history, its veracity is deeply involved in the historic accuracy of its statements; but the Hittites had no place in classic history, and therefore it was supposed by some that the Bible references to them could not be true. There was a strong presumption that an important people could scarcely have dropped completely out of history, but the strong presumption did not warrant the unscientific conclusion that the Bible narrative was untrue. It was just possible that classic history might be defective regarding a people of whom sacred history had much to say…. The arguments against the historic accuracy of the Bible, based on its references to the Hittites, are never likely to appear again in English literature. The increasing light from Egypt and Assyria reveals to us, in broad outline and in incidental detail, a series of facts, with reference to the Hittites, in perfect harmony with the narratives of the Bible.²

It was Hugo Winckler who in 1906 excavated Bogazkale—the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire—an expansive site of over 400 acres.³ Since that time, studies of the ancient Hittites have proliferated. A veritable host of comparable discoveries could be cited that reinforce the same conclusion, including the fact that at least 63 people mentioned in the Old and New Testaments have been verified by actual inscriptional evidence.⁴ The New Testament writer Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands, most of which have been historically verified. He even alludes to 95 people, 62 of whom are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, and 27 of whom were civil or military leaders.⁵ The Bible has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be historically accurate.

Geographically

The man who has gone down in history as the “Father of Biblical Geography” is Edward Robinson. He is credited with instigating the first serious and extensive explorations of Palestine in order to verify the Bible’s geographical accuracy.⁶ He succeeded in identifying nearly 200 biblical sites. Since that time, literally thousands more have been verified. For example, some scholars once considered the account of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon to be a bit of fictitious romance. However, not only has Sheba been located in southern Arabia, the Sabaean people were known for their trade exploits as reflected in the Queen’s camel caravan of spices, gold, and precious stones (1 Kings 10:2). As a book from antiquity, the Bible stands alone in the extent to which its geographical accuracy has been substantiated.

Topographically

Topography refers to the layout of land, i.e., the three-dimensional surface configuration of its physical features, including mountains, valleys, plains, elevations, etc. Incredibly, the Bible has shown itself to be topographically accurate. For example, we are informed in Genesis 12:8 that when Abraham moved from Moreh to the mountain east of Bethel, “he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east.” Any map of Bible lands will confirm this configuration. In Joshua 7:2, “Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel.” This topographical arrangement is also easily verified. In Acts 8:26, Phillip was commanded to “go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” Not only is Gaza southwesterly from Jerusalem, the elevation literally descends from Jerusalem to Gaza, from approximately 700 meters (2,300 feet) to 35 meters (115 feet). Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. The Bible is topographically accurate.

Scientifically

The Bible is also scientifically accurate—though it was never intended to function as a science book. While not written in modern scientific jargon, its passing allusions to scientific realities are represented accurately. Note the following listing of but a few scientific facts:

• The Laws of Thermodynamics: Genesis 2:1; 2:2; Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:26; Hebrews 1:11
• The water cycle (condensation-precipitation-evaporation): Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3; Amos 9:6
• Innumerable stars: Genesis 15:5; Jeremiah 33:22
• The parting of light: Job 38:24
• Trenches on the ocean floor: Job 38:16

These are but a small sampling of the Bible’s uncanny accuracy in matters of science.

Medically

The Bible manifests supernatural acquaintance with modern medical procedures that were far ahead of their time. Ancient civilizations certainly had their notions of medical thinking. But for the most part, their ideas are associated with superstition and ignorance. Not so with the Author of the Law of Moses. Consider just five:

• Avoiding communicable disease from dead bodies: Numbers 19:12
• The principle of quarantine: Leviticus 13:45-46
• Necessity of human waste disposal: Deuteronomy 23:12
• Optimum time for circumcision surgery: Leviticus 12:3
• Blood as the key to life: Leviticus 17:11-14

Prophetically

The Bible’s divine origin is particularly on display when one examines its predictive prophetic utterances. The general timeframe of the creation of the books of the Bible has been well established. A host of prophecies in the Old Testament can be demonstrated to have been spoken hundreds of years before their fulfillment. Again, here is a listing of only a few:

• The fall of Tyre: Ezekiel 26
• Zedekiah would not see Babylon: Ezekiel 12:8-13
• The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Daniel 9:26
• The fall of Babylon: Isaiah 13-14; Jeremiah 50-51; et al.
• Babylon would be conquered by a man named Cyrus: Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-7
• The rise and fall of Alexander the Great: Daniel 8:5-8

Again, these are only a handful of the incredible number of inspired predictions that riddle the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. The Bible, in fact, contains hundreds of prophecies. Over 300 pertain to the life of Christ on Earth.

Summary

A “book of Jewish fables” or “fairy tales”? Such characterizations cannot—and never will be—sustained. No archaeologist’s spade will ever uncover the home of the seven dwarves or the palace of the wicked queen. But King Ahab’s ivory palace has been discovered and excavated (1 Kings 22:39).⁷ The location of the briar patch into which Brer Bear tossed Brer Rabbit never existed. But Hezekiah’s water tunnel really exists (2 Kings 20:20).⁸ Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel, and Gretel were not actual historical personages. But the Assyrian King Sargon II, whose historicity was initially questioned since his name occurred nowhere else in ancient literature, was found to have actually lived (Isaiah 20:1).⁹ Indeed, the Bible surpasses all other books in human history—which is precisely what one would expect if its Author is God. The great tragedy is that so many have dismissed the Bible on the flimsy ground of popular hearsay, depriving themselves of the marvelous self-authentication provided within its pages. Here, indeed, is the Word of God—a message from Deity Himself—announcing His desire that all people be saved in order to be with Him in heaven for all eternity, thereby avoiding the only possible alternative of endless suffering in hell.

Endnotes

The post "A Book of Jewish Fables"? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man’s need you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it…. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations’” (Exodus 12:1-14).

The average Jew no doubt connected the symbolic significance of being fully clothed for travel with their imminent hasty exodus from the land. The smearing of animal blood on their doorposts might have seemed odd, but it was specifically explained as the means by which God would “pass over” them when executing the plague against the firstborn of Egypt:

And it shall be, when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?” that you shall say, “It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households” (Exodus 12:26-27).

However, two additional directives were given, one of which must have raised eyebrows:

In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones (Exodus 12:46).

Later generations of Israelites would have understood the significance of remaining in their homes while eating—since the blood on their doors kept their firstborn from being slain:

[N]one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you (Exodus 12:22-23).

But the second directive pertaining to the breaking of the bones of the lamb must have perplexed even that first generation of Israelites. The stipulation was repeated to the Israelites after their departure from Egypt:

On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it (Numbers 9:11-12).

Successive generations of Jews, no doubt, would have been very careful in butchering, carving, and eating the Passover lamb to avoid breaking bones. But why? Undoubtedly, Israelite children would have asked their parents, “Why does God not want us to break any of the lamb’s bones?” The parents would have had no definitive answer—since God had not explained Himself. No clue was given to the Jews through the centuries that might explain the significance of refraining from breaking the bones of the Passover lamb.

Over five centuries later, King David wrote an inspired psalm in which he expressed his gratitude for the protection and care of God in dealing with his enemies.¹ In that Psalm, David extols the goodness of God in providing him with protection from his enemies—even to the point of preserving the bones of his body from being broken by those who wished him bodily harm:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken. Evil shall slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous shall be condemned. The LORD redeems the soul of His servants, and none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned (Psalm 34:19-22).

No Jew in David’s day would have had any reason to extract more meaning from the psalm than that which appears at face value, i.e., God cares for His people (in this case, David) and guards them amid the onslaught of the wicked.

Over 1,000 years later, Jesus assumed bodily form on Earth (Hebrews 10:5). At the end of His 33 years, He was taken by the Romans at the behest of the Jews and crucified in keeping with Roman execution protocol. Here is John’s inspired report of the final details:

Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken” (John 19:31-36).²

Why did the Jews request that Jesus’ legs be broken? Archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis³ explains:

Normally, the Romans left the crucified person undisturbed to die slowly of sheer physical exhaustion leading to asphyxia. However, Jewish tradition required burial on the day of execution. Therefore, in Palestine the executioner would break the legs of the crucified person in order to hasten his death and thus permit burial before nightfall. This practice, described in the Gospels in reference to the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus (John 19:18), has now been archaeologically confirmed. Since the victim we excavated was a Jew, we may conclude that the executioners broke his legs on purpose in order to accelerate his death and allow his family to bury him before nightfall in accordance with Jewish custom.⁴

This explanation squares with the biblical text: the reason given for the Jews’ request was their concern that the body of Jesus not remain on the cross once the Sabbath ensued. So the breaking of the leg bones of a crucifixion victim was directly connected to the hastening of the victim’s death. Further, the inspired writer juxtapositions the criminals’ status with Jesus’ status on the point of whether they were still alive. The soldiers broke the legs of the criminals, but the reason given for not breaking Jesus’ legs was that they “saw that He was already dead” (vs. 33).

Observe that both David’s words in Psalm 34 as well as John’s late first century quotation of those words in John 19 constitute ambiguous prophecies. Granted, John connected the Davidic messianic prophecy with the condition of Christ on the cross. But more than likely, neither he, nor David, nor any other Jew from 1,500 B.C. to A.D. 30 was able to fathom any further significance and “put it all together.” It was not until the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the church of Christ at Corinth (Cir. A.D. 55-57) that the wonder of Bible inspiration on this point achieved clarity.

In a context in which Paul urged the congregation to take public action against an immoral member, he added a remark that had relevance to their predicament, but which had a marvelous, broader significance for all Christians for all time: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Just as Jesus predicted, the Passover found its fulfillment in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:16).⁵ After more than a millennium and a half of obscurity and virtual silence, suddenly the mysterious Mosaic prohibition was solved. The rationale for refraining from breaking any of the bones of the Passover lamb under the Law of Moses was that one day in the distant future, the Lord of Heaven and Earth would assume human form and take upon Himself the sins of the world by being executed on a Roman cross. And as that unjust sentence was being carried out, when Roman soldiers would ordinarily bring their sadistic torture to the culmination and climax of death by breaking the leg bones of the victim, they found that “He was already dead.” This incredible bit of minutia—this miniscule detail that went virtually unnoticed by those gathered on that occasion outside Jerusalem at the far flung outer extremities of the mighty Roman Empire—was of monumental significance and earth-shaking import. How could Moses or David have known that centuries far beyond their own day, unknown, unnamed Roman soldiers in first century A.D. Palestine would refrain from breaking the bones of the Messiah because “he was already dead”? They could not have known—not without supernatural assistance.

Three incredible details—the bones of the Passover Lamb of Mosaic religion were not to be broken, Jesus’ bones were not broken by the Romans, and His sacrifice on the cross enabling Him to be our Passover—intertwined to bring to fruition marvelous meaning from the mind of God for all mankind. In revealing the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit had in mind the coming of Christ and anticipated minute details about Him that neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles grasped:

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Four human writers, each engaging his own mind to report inspired minutia, were nevertheless overseen by a single divine Mind (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit did just what Jesus said He would do: teach and explain things to them they could not grasp at the time (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13). Indeed, who could have ever sorted out these profound mysteries? No mere human. What Moses wrote (Exodus 12:43-46; Numbers 9:11-12), followed by what David wrote (Psalm 34:19-20), supplemented by what John reported (John 19:31-36), and brought to climactic fulfillment with what Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 5:7), could only have been orchestrated by the infinite, eternal mind of Deity Who transcends time and place.

“Who has declared this from ancient time?

Who has told it from that time?

Have not I, the LORD?

And there is no other God besides Me,

A just God and a Savior;

There is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).

Endnotes

The post Proof of Bible Inspiration: The Passover appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers is the Director of the Graduate school of Theology and Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

The personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible is יהוה (YHWH). Occurring over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, this name is by far the most common way of referring to God. Translations and traditions have developed a number of ways to represent this name respectfully without crudely spelling out “Yahweh.” English translations have typically chosen “Lord,” following the custom intitated by the Septuagint, and perpetuated in the Latin Vulgate. Normally, the small caps typeset (“lord”) is used in mass-produced English translations to mark YHWH as the underlying Hebrew, as opposed to “Lord,” which normally renders the Hebrew ’ādôn. Some Jewish traditions, however, choose to render YHWH as “HaShem” (literally, “the name”). The ASV (1901) is unique among mainstream translations in opting for “Jehovah” as the preferred translation for YHWH. To be clear, none of these renderings is a translation per se. They are merely reflections of respect for the personal name of God.

Respect for the Name of God

Respect for the personal name of God was an established custom already in the earliest history of Israel. Proper esteem for the Name is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), and cursing the Name is a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 24:10-16). After all, one’s name stands in for his or her essence (which is why changes of names are important). With the Bible placing such importance on the name of God, it is no surprise to find Jewish people in the post-biblical period going to great lengths to reverence the name YHWH.

Some Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts have the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew, a more archaic form of the Hebrew language. Instead of יהוה in the traditional block characters, the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew appears as . The name of God is the only word in those manuscripts written in this fashion—indicating respect. Likewise, when the translators of the Old Testament into Greek rendered the personal name of God, they chose the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “lord.” This may indicate that Jews as early as the third century B.C. were already pronouncing the Hebrew term אדון (’ādôn), meaning “Lord,” when they encountered YHWH in the text. Fear of mispronouncing the holy, personal name of God perhaps led them to develop the custom of not pronouncing it at all. Consequently, we have no sure idea how the name ought to be pronounced at any stage of the language.

Where Did “Jehovah” Come From?

The word “Jehovah” is a Medieval mistranscription from the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. It takes the consonants of the divine name YHWH and combines them with the vowels of another Hebrew word, ’^adōnāy (“my lord”). How such a combination occurred might be worth explaining a little more, so we begin by discussing briefly the consonantal nature of the Hebrew language and the Masoretic vowel additions.

Hebrew is a language of consonants. Vowel sounds are spoken of course, but are not traditionally written. This custom dates to ancient times. As a result, we are unable to determine exactly how the Hebrew language in the Old Testament era was pronounced. Concern, however, to preserve the precise pronunciation of the text led a group of Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages, known as the Masoretes, to invent and apply vowel symbols to the traditional consonantal text. The two oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible—the Aleppo and Leningrad codices—feature these vowel markings.

Jewish scribes were very traditional, and thus scrupulously copied the text exactly as they received it, even if they were certain they were passing along an erroneous reading. When the Masoretes encountered a text they believed to be corrupt, or one that made no sense when read publicly, they marked the word or phrase with a marginal correction known as the q^erî, literally meaning “it is read.” What was copied in the body of the text came to be known as the k^etîv (“it is written”). When one read the Hebrew text publicly, he was supposed to replace the k^etîv with the q^erî for the sake of accuracy, or, in the case of the name of God, respect. The name of God is the most common k^etîv/q^erî combination in the Hebrew Bible. Because the name of God is so common, however, the Masoretes simply placed the vowels of the q^erî around the k^etîv rather than utilizing the marginal system.

The Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible reflect the ancient custom of pronouncing ’^adōnāy (ah-dohn-EYE) as the q^erî in place of YHWH as the k^etîv. The term ’^adōnāy is a fitting choice of q^erî. First, the noun ’ādôn occurs 775 times in the Old Testament, over 400 times in reference to God. Second, the suffix –āy is a marker of the first person singular (in address), making the q^erî appear as a personal claim on the part of the reader. In other words, the public reader of Hebrew Scripture is understood to mean “My Lord said to Moses,” or “Let them praises give my Lord.” This was intended as a symbol of respect, but the need for a more literal rendering of the name of God than the standard “Lord” created the desire to use this made-up Masoretic term in English transliteration.

The word “Jehovah” first appears in A.D. 1381. It is easy to understand where it came from. Someone simply transcribed the Masoretic q^erî into a European language. In other words, someone simply took the vowels of ’^adōnay and placed them around the consonants of YHWH. This yields the name “Jehovah,” more or less. The Aleppo and Leningrad Codices of the Hebrew Bible write the nonsensical יְהוָה (Y^eHVāH), which takes the vowels of ’^adōnay (except for the ō) and places them around the consonants of YHWH. They attempt to preserve in writing a tradition of reading.

English readers are probably wondering exactly how YeHoWaH becomes Jehovah. To explain, the Y in English represents the sound J in certain other languages. The raised ^e is a “half-vowel,” and represents a hurried sound of barely distinguishable vocalic value (this is why ’^adōnāy starts with an ^a, but the Masoretes point YHWH with an ^e). This “shewa,” as it is often called, is transcribed as e in the European languages. H is H. The long ō sound is reinserted (absent in the Masoretic q^erî) from ’^adōnāy. W is pronounced in many languages as the English v. The ā of ’^adōnāy is represented as a. And, again, H is H. Taken together, this yields the word “Jehovah.”

The name Jehovah fell into fashion in early English translations. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and others used the term Jehovah, at least some of the time, to represent the Hebrew YHWH. The term occurs only four times in the King James Version of the Bible (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4). A mixture of “Jehovah” and “Lord” remained consistent in most English translations. The English Revised Version (1885), and its North American counterpart the American Standard Version (1901), choose “Jehovah” as its standard rendering of יהוה (YHWH), a name it uses over 6,800 times. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses also consistently uses the name Jehovah. More recent translations have not followed suit, preferring “lord” to “Jehovah.”

The question arises, then, is “Jehovah” the real name of God? The answer is a clear and firm “no.” First, the Masoretes themselves would not allege “Jehovah” represents the name of God. As we have discussed, the k^etîv is inspired and sacred, whereas the q^erî is a Masoretic protection on the way the text ought to be read. By adding the vowels of ’^adōnāy to YHWH, they never intended to create a new word, but to mark a respectful reading of the personal name of God.

Second, the vowel sounds the Masoretes added to the text represent a reading tradition much later than the biblical text itself. To get a sense of how much pronunciation can change in this length of time, watch online videos of the Canterbury Tales read with contemporary English pronunciation. Does this sound anything like modern English? Even if Hebrew pronunciation remained remarkably static over that period of time (a period of 1,000 years!), the fact that the name was not transmitted with vowels renders certainty in pronunciation simply impossible. The Masoretes preserved a reading tradition passed down in their time, not necessarily one dating to biblical times.

Third, the Masoretes did not actually give the name Jehovah or its Hebrew equivalent. Remember, the Masoretes omit the ō vowel from the q^erî, yielding the nonsensical Hebrew word Y^eHWāH (it is nonsensical since every Hebrew consonant must have an accompanying vowel; the middle “H” does not). So, the builders of the make-believe word “Jehovah” added something the Masoretic Hebrew does not have in the first place.

Conclusion

The term Jehovah is less than 700 years old. Even its Hebrew near-equivalent can date no earlier than the Masoretic application of vowels to the consonantal text in the Middle Ages. The same holds true for the spelling “Yahweh,” although scholars feel confident this form is much closer to the original pronunciation (based partially on ancient transliterations). That said, is it more respectful to use the name Jehovah? Some think so. Those who stringently defend the use of the name Jehovah argue their position on the basis of its being more literal and more original. However, we have observed that the term “Jehovah” is neither original to the Bible nor to the Masoretic tradition. And it is simply inaccurate to use an English transliteration of a Hebrew word that was never intended to be pronounced in the first place. The Jewish tradition is careful not to misuse the personal name of God, distancing itself with epithets such as “the Lord” or “the Name.” A biblical Israelite, if transported to modern times, would not understand what “Jehovah” even meant since it isn’t actually a Hebrew word. The name Jehovah is no more literal, no more respectful, and no more accurate than the more commonly used lord.

The post Where Did “Jehovah” Come From? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as Director of the Graduate School of Theology and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from F-HU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

A minority of Christian voices through the centuries have insisted on stressing the Jewishness of Jesus.¹ Already in the New Testament, we learn that some Christians were retaining Jewish customs and doctrines in an attempt to create a hybrid religion. These attempts met stern apostolic criticism (e.g., Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:16). Generally, as Christianity transitioned from a majority-Jewish to a majority-Gentile religion, these voices were steadily muted. However, a resurgence of the Jewish Jesus movement has led a number of people to allege ecclesiastical conspiracies to “cover up” the Jewishness of Jesus. Among the sensational claims is the alleged “change” of the name of God’s Son from Yeshua to Jesus.

Before we analyze the rationale and legitimacy behind the question of the name, let us affirm two incontrovertible truths. First, Jesus was a Jew. Scripture is clear that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17). Therefore, Jesus (or Yeshua, if you like) lived His entire life as a Jew under the Law of Moses. The name has nothing to do with His Jewishness. Second, His name in Hebrew was indeed Y^ehōshūa‘, or more likely in Aramaic Yēshūa‘. Growing up in the Galilee region, Jesus would have almost certainly spoken Aramaic, and He would not have heard His name as “Jesus.” Indeed, the Syriac translations of the New Testament spell the name Yēshūa‘.² The New Testament, however, is not written in Aramaic or in Syriac, but in Greek. And the English name “Jesus” is a transliteration based on the Latin, which is based on the Greek, which is in turn based on the original Aramaic.

Alleged Reasons for the Name “Change”

“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” This maxim is taught to third-graders and college students alike. Still, it doesn’t seem to sink in. People continue to read websites that propagate fictional conspiracy theories to allege the name of God’s Son was changed from its pure Hebrew form to its current corruption. And here are a few of the most common reasons why.

First, it is alleged that early Christians—even the authors of the New Testament!—were racists. They wished to erase the Jewishness of Jesus from the record in an effort to make Him seem “Christian” and “Gentile.” This simply isn’t true. First, every author of the New Testament seems to possess a Jewish background of some kind, and most were born Jewish (cf. Galatians 2:15). Second, Paul can boast not only of his Jewish lineage (Philippians 3:5), but also claim, “I am a Pharisee” (present tense!) long after his conversion (Acts 23:6). Third, where there is racism in the New Testament, it is usually against Gentiles rather than Jews (Galatians 2:12-16; cf. Romans 2:14).

Second, some would never lay such an allegation as racism at the feet of the Apostles, but they have no qualms about hurling this insult at the Catholic Church. They believe the early church falsified manuscripts of the New Testament in order to erase “Yeshua” and insert the more Western-sounding “Jesus.” There is no evidence for such a claim. We have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and approximately 19,000 New Testament manuscripts in other early languages, such as Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. In addition to these direct copies, we have tens of thousands of pages of early Christian writings, some of which are from Jewish-Christian groups. The name of Jesus occurs hundreds of thousands of times collectively in these ancient documents, and none of them speaks to a conspiratorial name change. If the “change” from Yeshua to Jesus was an early Catholic conspiracy, it is the best-executed cover-up in world history.

Third, it is occasionally alleged that the name Jesus is an attempt to insert paganism into Christianity. A few (very, very few) argue the name “Jesus” means “hail Zeus.” I suspect someone somewhere noticed the pronunciation of the name, especially in a language such as Spanish, sounds strikingly like “Hey-Zoos.” This must be a furtive nod to the chief god of the Greek pantheon, right? Not in the slightest. The New Testament was not written in English or Spanish, but in Greek. In Greek, “hail Zeus” would be chaire zeu, which bears absolutely no phonetic resemblance to “Jesus.”

How Did We Get from Yeshua to Jesus?

Although Jesus probably grew up in Galilee hearing His name as Yēshūa‘, it is not the case that the Christian world moved from Yeshua to Jesus. This is because Yeshua and Jesus are not different names, but different pronunciations of the same name. Different languages hear sounds differently. The Hebrews of the Old Testament era heard the name of the Persian king as “Ahasuerus” whereas the Greeks heard it as “Xerxes” (compare ESV with NIV in Ezra 4:6). If your name is Peter in the United States or Great Britain, you are Petros in Greece, Pietro in Italy, Pierre in France, and Pedro in Spain. Did each of these languages change your name!? No. These languages simply pronounce the same name in different ways. And so it is with Jesus. The Greek Iēsous represents the Aramaic Yēshūa‘.

But what about the meaning of the name? Those who argue in favor of the superiority of the name Yeshua insist that the Hebrew form means “salvation” whereas the Greek form is meaningless. This is true, and I believe every Christian should know the name of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic means “salvation.” However, Peter-Petros-Pietro-Pierre-Pedro means “rock” only in the Greek language. It is meaningless in the others; yet none of us seems bothered by this problem, and no one insists on a consistent, universal pronunciation as Petros. Second, Matthew already felt the need to explain the name of Jesus in his Gospel (Matthew 1:21). And it is routine in the New Testament to translate the meaning of certain foreign words (e.g., Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41; John 1:38, 41). If the inspired writers were content to use the medium of the Greek language, while also providing explanations, is it wrong of us to follow their example?

Third, there is more than one “Jesus” in the New Testament. In the genealogy of Christ a certain “Jesus son of Eliezer” is named (Luke 3:29). Then there is the Jesus also known as Justus (Colossians 4:11). Finally, the Old Testament hero Joshua is known in Greek transliteration as Iēsous, his name being indistinguishable in Greek from Jesus the Christ (Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8, KJV).

Conclusion

Technically, if the New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, Yeshua would have been the form the authors used. But it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. So the authors represented the name as it was known in Greek. The name “Jesus,” in fact, was well-established in Greek transliteration as Iēsous thanks to the Septuagint, where it is found over 250 times. The New Testament authors did not change the name from Yeshua to Jesus, nor did the early Catholic Church.

Whenever modern theorists insist on the name Yeshua, they are contending for a position the New Testament authors themselves never took. The name of Jesus appears over 900 times in the Greek New Testament, every single time as Iēsous. If one travels to Israel, one will find the name of Jesus is still pronounced “Yeshua” today. But not in China, nor in Russia, nor in any European, North, or South American country will he or she find this pronunciation. The spelling and pronunciation of the name of Jesus is not a matter of conspiracy, but of culture.

Endnotes

The post Jesus or Yeshua? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, composed by David in the 10^th century B.C., Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).

While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners,³ others question the historicity of such a claim.⁴ In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers.⁵ Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment.⁶ Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).

The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.

Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.

But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers’ need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.

In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.

Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:

Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back.⁷

Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.

ENDNOTES

¹ H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 8; cf. Gleason Archer (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 440.

² Albert Barnes (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint), pp. 193ff.

³ E.g., Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p.161; J.W. McGarvey (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), p. 725.

⁴ E.g., Alfred Edersheim (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.), 2:591-592.

⁵ William Davis (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton), 3:2651.

⁶ A.T. Robertson (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel), p. 147.

⁷ Flavius Josephus (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 3.7.4:203.

The post Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Consider another great event whose historicity is set forth in Scripture as factual:

Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” …So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (Genesis 11:1-9).

The great Joseon (Chosun) nation was a Korean dynastic kingdom that flourished for five centuries (1392-1897).² During the 17^th century, Korea was largely closed to the West and somewhat of a mystery to Europeans. But for a group of wayfaring Dutchmen on a journey to Japan, that all changed in 1653 when their ship “De Sperwer” (The Sparrowhawk) was shipwrecked on Jeju (formerly Cheju-do) Island off the coast of South Korea. The 36 survivors were taken into custody by the local prefect and, within a year, transferred from the island to the capitol of Seoul on the mainland where they spent the next 12 years. At the end of 13 years, in September 1666, eight survivors managed to escape to Japan. One of those survivors, Hendrick Hamel, spent the ensuing year in Nagasaki writing an account of his observations and experiences in Korea, which was published in 1668 under the title Journal van de Ongeluckige Voyage van ‘t Jacht de Sperwer. In what was essentially the first Western account, Hamel provided the world with a firsthand description of Korean society and culture. Only recently was his account translated accurately by a Dutchman based on the original manuscript.³

Apart from his fascinating assessment of Korean life in the 17^th century, Hamel provides a portrait of religious life, including the customs and practices of Confucianism. At one point in his narrative, he makes a passing remark concerning the beliefs held by the Confucian monks: “Many monks believe that long ago all people spoke the same language, but when people built a tower in order to climb into heaven the whole world changed.”⁴ Keep in mind that Hamel encountered the monks’ belief circa 1660. No one knows for how long this belief was part of the religious traditions of Korea. Hamel claims that “many” of the monks believed the matter, and that the event occurred “long ago.”

Observe that the belief of the non-Christian monks regarding the Tower of Babel contained four salient points that explicitly and directly connect with the biblical account:

1. The entire world’s population spoke a single language;
2. The people constructed a tower;
3. Their stated goal was to climb into heaven;
4. Their efforts affected the entire world.

All four of these features are included in the biblical record found in Genesis 11:

1. “[T]he whole earth had one language and one speech” (vs. 1).
2. “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower” (vs. 4).
3. “a tower whose top will reach into heaven” (vs. 4, NASB).
4. “So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city” (vs. 8). 

Christianity and the Bible have nothing to fear from the unbelief, skepticism, and hostility of infidelity. The more information surfaces from history and nature, the more the Bible is confirmed in its uncanny accuracy and supernatural endowment.⁵

Endnotes

¹  See Kyle Butt and Harrison Chastain (2015), “Noah’s Flood and The Epic of Gilgamesh,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5194&topic=100; Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=64.

²  The following historical details are gleaned from Gari Ledyard (1971), The Dutch Come to Korea (Seoul, Korea: Royal Asiatic Society); Keith Pratt and Richard Rutt (2013), Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary (London: Routledge).

³  Hendrik Hamel (1668), Hamel’s Journal: And, A Description of the Kingdom of Korea, 1653-1666, trans. Jean-Paul Buys (Seoul, Korea: Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1994 edition).

⁴  Ibid., p. 61.

⁵  My thanks to Shane Fisher, missionary to Korea, for calling my attention to this  fascinating incident.

The post Babel: More Historical Confirmation of the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Bryant holds two Masters degrees as well as a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Old Testament from Amridge University. He has participated in archaeological excavations at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional memberships in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Archaeological Institute of America, and the International Society of Christian Apologetics.]

A paper published on July 27, 2017 sparked a series of headlines questioning the accuracy of the Bible. A study demonstrated that comparing the DNA of modern Lebanese with ancient Canaanites revealed a striking similarity between the two.¹ By comparing the genomes of five inhabitants of the city of Sidon (from roughly 3,700 years ago) with 99 persons living in modern Lebanon, researchers estimated that the genetic similarity between the two is about 93 percent. Based on these findings, it is argued by some that the Canaanites were not destroyed as the Bible alleges.

Headlines after the publication of the study ran with the story, with several of them stating flatly that DNA evidence had proven the Bible wrong. David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, noted that numerous headlines (many of them originating in the United Kingdom) seemed to take a deliberate swipe at the Bible.² He listed a dozen headlines from various news outlets that directly challenged the truthfulness of the biblical account of the conquest.³

In an age where attention-grabbing headlines can determine the number of clicks an article gets—as well as the amount of potential revenue from advertisers—this allegation is no surprise. However, it does expose the stunning biblical illiteracy in society today. To be fair, it may have been that the authors of the news articles simply took the following statement from the study at face value:

[T]he Bible reports the destruction of the Canaanite cities and the annihilation of its people; if true, the Canaanites could not have directly contributed genetically to present-day populations. However, no archaeological evidence has so far been found to support widespread destruction of Canaanite cities between the Bronze and Iron Ages: cities on the Levant coast such as Sidon and Tyre show continuity of occupation until the present day.⁴

Although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33). One of the clearest failures recorded in the book of Judges is that the tribe of Dan in particular (or a large segment of it) remained nomadic instead of taking the territory allotted to it (Judges 18:1). The text indicates that this tribe had particular difficulties, later losing some of the land they had taken previously (Joshua 19:47).

The northernmost border of Israel’s territory was found in the allotment given to the tribe of Asher, which included the cities of Tyre and Sidon (Joshua 24:24-31). The text states that the Israelites failed to take this territory, so that the people of the tribe of Asher “lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out” (Judges 1:31; 3:3). Both Sidon and Tyre seem to have remained as independent city states. King Hiram of Tyre made treaties with both David and Solomon many years after the conquest (2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1; 9:13). Later prophets denounced the Phoenician cities of Tyre⁵ and Sidon,⁶ treating them as foreign political entities. The Bible never indicates that the Israelites conquered these cities or killed their populations.

The Homeric epics of the Iliad and Odyssey mention Sidon, known in the Bible as the home of Jezebel and her father Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31). Jezebel’s royal seal—donated to Israel’s Department of Antiquities in the early 1960s—identifies her as the “daughter of the king.”⁷ The city of Sidon had a succession of kings and was powerful enough that the term “Sidonian” became virtually synonymous with the term “Phoenician.”⁸ There is no indication—either historical or biblical—that the Israelites ever conquered the city.

Tyre was a powerful and wealthy city also, enough so that it was able to establish colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is no coincidence that Tyre experienced a golden age beginning precisely at the time when the Bible indicates that its king made important trade agreements with David and Solomon.⁹ Tyre had a long succession of kings who often ran afoul of more powerful nations. For instance, the famed Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (747-727 B.C.) defeated a second Hiram of Tyre ruling in the eighth century.¹⁰ Later, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar plundered the city, which was subsequently razed by Alexander the Great in fulfillment of prophecy (Ezekiel 26).¹¹ The biblical portrayal of Tyre—including its wealth, its continual problems with other nations, and eventually its destruction—agrees with the ancient evidence.

The Bible and ancient inscriptions both indicate that Israel never defeated Tyre or Sidon, a fact that seems to have eluded some critics. That the modern inhabitants of Lebanon should share such genetic similarity with their ancient ancestors should not be surprising. Phoenicia always remained independent of Israel despite any political or economic connections the two may have shared. Far from undermining the biblical text, the most recent findings concerning Canaanite DNA support the accuracy of Scripture.

Endnotes

¹  See Marc Haber, et al (2017), “Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 101, August, http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8.

²  David Klinghoffer (2017), “For Culturally Illiterate Science Reporters, Canaanite DNA Yields Occasion to Slap Bible Around,” https://goo.gl/Pv3idN.

³  E.g., Shivali Best (2017), “Bronze Age DNA Disproves the Bible’s Claim that the Canaanites Were Wiped Out: Study Says Their Genes Live On in Modern-day Lebanese People,” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4733046/Canaanites-ancestors-modern-day-people-Lebanon.html; Chris Graham (2017), “Study Disproves the Bible’s Suggestion that the Ancient Canaanites Were Wiped Out,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/28/study-disproves-bibles-claim-ancient-canaanites-wiped/; Ian Johnston (2017), “Bible Says Canaanites Were Wiped Out by Israelites But Scientists Just Found Their Descendants Living in Lebanon,” https://goo.gl/6xXTCs.

⁴  Haber, et al, p. 275.

⁵  E.g., Amos 1:9-10; Zechariah 9:3-4; Ezekiel 26:1-28:19.

⁶  Jeremiah 24:22; Ezekiel 28:20-24.

⁷  See Marjo C.A. Korpel (2008), “Fit for a Queen: Jezebel’s Royal Seal,” Biblical Archaeology Review, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/fit-for-a-queen-jezebels-royal-seal.

⁸  Philip C. Schmitz (1992), “Sidon” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 6:17.

⁹  H.J. Katzenstein (1992), “Tyre” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 6:687.

¹⁰ Edward Lipinski (2006), On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 153 (Leuven: Peters), p. 187.

¹¹ See Kyle Butt (2006), “Tyre in Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 26[10]:73-79, October, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790.

The post Canaanite DNA and the Biblical Canon appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While this question has been posed by many people from many different contexts, we want to confront the reasoning of some who deny any supernatural descriptions for biblical events. This type of blatant denial of any supernatural elements is a ploy toward an ultimate denial of God. Rather, when we consider the historical reality and the blending of both God’s supernatural power with God’s establishment of physical laws, we find a full account that has both investigative and descriptive power to understand the unique events depicted in Scripture.

A Matter of Timing

As we discuss the timing of the crucifixion, we need to note the particulars necessary for solar and lunar eclipses to occur. First, a solar eclipse involves the Moon passing between Earth and the Sun, casting its shadow on Earth. This means that the Moon’s phase is always a New Moon during solar eclipses. In contrast, a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and Moon, casting its shadow across the Moon. During a lunar eclipse the Moon’s phase is always a Full Moon.

As an overview, here is the timeline for the relevant events of the crucifixion. According to Mark 15:25, Jesus was crucified at the third hour of the Jewish day or 9 a.m. which, from the context, we can understand as the initial placement of Jesus on the cross. Then at the sixth hour (12 p.m. noon) there came darkness over all the land for a duration of three hours until the ninth hour or 3 p.m. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). At this point, Jesus cried out three of His recorded sayings on the cross: “My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34); “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” (Luke 23:46); and “It is finished” (John 19:30). At the point of Jesus’ death, the darkness appears to have ended, as each account describes the darkness lasting for three hours, then Jesus giving His life.

With the particulars of both the crucifixion timeline and the necessary timings of eclipses established, we can address whether a solar or lunar eclipse could be a possible explanation for the darkness that occurred. We can quickly rule out a lunar eclipse as the cause, since lunar eclipses do not affect the appearance of the Sun and would not have any impact during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

When we consider solar eclipses, there is a definite affect on the Sun and the daylight levels as they occur. Solar eclipses, especially in the narrow path of total solar eclipses, have dramatic periods of darkness. However, we can confidently say that the darkness during Jesus’ crucifixion was not the result of a solar eclipse event. This statement can be made based on the timing particulars that the Bible defines: first, the time of the month that the Jewish Passover occurs and, second, the duration of darkness outlined by the text.

Jesus’ trial and crucifixion happened near the feast of the Passover, which occurs every year in the same month and the same day of the month. According to Leviticus 23:5, the Passover began on the evening of the 14^th day of the first month. Important is the fact that the accounting of Jewish time is based on a lunar calendar, where each month follows the lunar cycle beginning on the New Moon. This connection can be seen by the Hebrew word often translated as month, chodesh, which originates from a root meaning “new.” In context, this word is either translated as “month” in regards to time, or as “New Moon” in regards to a physical description. We can see a use of the physical “New Moon” translation in the account found in 1 Samuel 20 involving David and Jonathan: “And David said to Jonathan, ‘Indeed tomorrow is the New Moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king to eat. But let me go, that I may hide in the field until the third day at evening’” (20:5). Here we have the New Moon (chodesh) used in conjunction with a time period of waiting till the “third day” of the month. Thus since Jesus’ crucifixion happened near the middle of the month at Passover, the phase of the Moon was near a Full Moon instead of a New Moon, which is the complete opposite for a solar eclipse in apparent and physical orientation.

While the time of month for the crucifixion completely dispels the possibility of a solar eclipse, reasoning based on the darkness duration provides additional evidence for a supernatural origination. The Bible describes a three hour timeframe for the darkness (Mark 15:33). As we consider a solar eclipse, it is true that the entire event can be approximately three hours. However, this period includes the entire process from the point when the Moon begins to cover the Sun until the Moon finally completes its recession off the Sun. The partial eclipse phase of a total solar eclipse is a gradual process of slowly dimming to a point of maximum eclipse, then slowly brightening after maximum. This gradual variation does not match the succinct description of darkness over all the land that the Bible defines. Those who have witnessed a total solar eclipse would agree that “darkness” does not characterize the Earth until the brief maximum darkness phase of the eclipse. The duration for the maximum darkness of a total eclipse, however, is only a matter of minutes, not hours. The 2017 total solar eclipse that crossed the United States only had a maximum duration of two minutes and 40.2 seconds.¹ In fact, the maximum duration possible for any total solar eclipse is less than seven minutes.²

Conclusion

When we reach the climax of God’s plan at the cross, we see God using all elements of the event to highlight the incredible uniqueness of Jesus’ innocence, sacrifice, and love. One of these elements was God causing a great, supernatural darkness to cover the land and extend to the point of Jesus’ death. This darkness was not a simple coincidence, nor was it simply some usual event. Rather, it played a part in showing those at the cross then, and those who come to the cross today, the crucial message of salvation that Jesus brought to the world.

Endnotes

The post Was the Darkness of the Crucifixion Merely an Eclipse? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the tenth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. For then the king of Babylon’s army besieged Jerusalem, and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, which was in the king of Judah’s house. For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up, saying, “Why do you prophesy and say, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it; and Zedekiah king of Judah shall not escape from the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him face to face, and see him eye to eye; then he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there he shall be until I visit him,” says the LORD; “though you fight with the Chaldeans, you shall not succeed”’?” (Jeremiah 32:1-5).

So, according to Jeremiah, Zedekiah would see Nebuchadnezzar “face to face” and “eye to eye.”

Ezekiel’s prophecy possessed comparable specificity of those future events:

And in the morning the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, has not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, said to you, ‘What are you doing?’ Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “This burden concerns the prince in Jerusalem and all the house of Israel who are among them.”’ “Say, ‘I am a sign to you. As I have done, so shall it be done to them; they shall be carried away into captivity.’ “And the prince who is among them shall bear his belongings on his shoulder at twilight and go out. They shall dig through the wall to carry them out through it. He shall cover his face, so that he cannot see the ground with his eyes. I will also spread My net over him, and he shall be caught in My snare. I will bring him to Babylon, to the land of the Chaldeans; yet he shall not see it, though he shall die there” (Ezekiel 12:8-13).

This remarkable prophecy predicts, in uncanny detail, the events that followed the two year besiegement of Jerusalem. In an effort to elude the Babylonian army that breached the walls and stormed the palace, Zedekiah passed through an escape portal near the royal gardens with his face disguised and fled into the night with a sack of personal effects over his shoulder. Headed through the Jordan Valley with his attendants, his Babylonian pursuers overtook him on the plains of Jericho and transported him to the little village of Riblah on the northern frontier of the land of Canaan where Nebuchadnezzar had set up his headquarters and judgment seat during his campaign against Jerusalem.

These two prophecies were issued by two separate prophets—one living in Jerusalem and the other having been transported to Babylon a decade earlier as a result of Nebuchadnezzar’s second campaign against Jerusalem in 597 B.C. Yet, with amazing precision, they speak of future events as if their certainty cannot be questioned. But how could Zedekiah actually see Nebuchadnezzar and speak to him in person, face to face, and also be brought to Babylon (as per Jeremiah), and yet not see Babylon (as per Ezekiel)? He would see the King of Babylon, but not see Babylon, though he would die there? These prophecies must have evoked puzzlement from those to whom they were uttered.

Yet, as always, the Bible’s remarkable inspiration is demonstrated by the historical facts. When the Babylonians overtook Zedekiah and transported him to Riblah to face Nebuchadnezzar and receive judgment for his rebellion, we are informed what happened: “So they took the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and they pronounced judgment on him. Then they killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:6-7; cf. Jeremiah 39:7). Mystery solved. Zedekiah actually saw the Babylonian king with his own eyes—before the king gave orders for Zedekiah’s eyes to be gouged out. Bound with bronze fetters, he was then taken to Babylon—where he lived with permanent blindness, never able to see Babylon—until the day of his death while still in exile. The Bible transcends all other books in human history.

The post Bible Inspiration: Zedekiah Would “Not See” Babylon? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Robert Veil, Jr. formerly served as a district attorney for the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office (Maryland), and previously maintained an active private law practice. He currently preaches in Martinsburg, West Virginia.]

The Bible is the most unusual and remarkable book we have ever encountered. It is unusual in that it claims to be the product of divine inspiration. And this book has had a remarkable influence, felt around the world for centuries. The book is morally good and pure, but upon examination we see that it is much more than a good book. Surviving countless attacks and criticisms, continuing as the world’s best seller, the Bible has been examined and cross-examined far more than any other book ever written.

As a prosecutor, I was required to examine cases with a critical eye, preparing them for presentation to a jury. All cases had their strengths and weaknesses. They had to be examined carefully and a decision had to be made concerning their prosecution. It had to be decided whether each case had merit, and whether there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving it to a jury if necessary. If the case lacked merit, it was not proper to proceed. And this decision had to be made based upon the strength of the evidence, not upon personal preferences, political considerations, or even the level of certainty or commitment of the police officer who initiated the charges.

When I look at the Bible, I see a strong case for its inspiration. The evidence is not only compelling, it is overwhelming. The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as opposed to merely a work of man, can be established in several ways. It can be established from a philosophical standpoint inasmuch as the derivation of truth and knowledge from God Himself is consistent with an inspired revelation of His will. It can be established from a logical or rational series of arguments, or an historical study, or a survey of nature itself—which reveals God as well. But as a prosecutor, I am also impressed with the evidence of inspiration within the Bible itself. When I look at the Bible carefully, I notice several things which strongly argue for its inspiration by God:

1. When I examine the Bible, I see that the Bible claims to be inspired by God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The literal meaning of the Greek word translated “inspiration of God” is breathed out by God or God-breathed. This claim is unique and sets the Bible apart from the vast body of world literature. Except for a few later imitations, other books basically account for their own origin through purely natural means. But throughout the Bible, it claims to be from God.

I recognize that critics will object that the Bible’s own claim of inspiration cannot be considered on the ground that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.” But such an objection would be overruled, for it ignores standard and accepted practice in other proceedings. We routinely allow the accused in criminal cases to speak for himself, although in this country he is not required to do so. Even in civil cases, where the burden of proof is much lower, we allow the defendant to speak in his own behalf when his character is called into question. If the Bible is to be accorded a fair trial, its own claims of inspiration must be carefully considered along with all other evidence.

The Bible claims its own inspiration forthrightly. It makes no apology, and shows no hesitation in stating that it and its central figure, Jesus Christ, are from God. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death…. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:22-23,32). So as a starting point, we note that the Bible claims to be of divine origin.

Sometimes people will deny that the Bible is from God, arguing that it is merely a “good book.” I recall one of my early school teachers telling the class that the Bible was written by “a good man” long ago. On the contrary, if the Bible is not truly the product of divine inspiration, it is not good, and it was not written by good people, because they steadfastly contended that it is. They would be more accurately described as deceivers or liars, because their amazing claims were false. It is also noteworthy that even the most radical Bible scholars do not argue that the book was composed by a single author.  Although there is considerable debate about specifically when and by whom some of the various books of the Bible were written, it is universally admitted to be the product of a number of writers over many years, a point to be developed further below.

2. When I examine the Bible, I observe that, the critics’ claims notwithstanding, the Bible is amazingly consistent with itself. There is a grand procession throughout. This fact is actually very compelling when it is recognized that the Bible consists of 66 separate books written by approximately 40 different writers with varying and diverse backgrounds. These writers included fishermen, a tent maker, a tax collector, a shepherd, kings, prophets, historians, social activists, statesmen, etc. Most of these writers never knew each other personally, making collusion in the composition of the Bible impossible.  They could not “get their story straight” before writing. Further, each of the books were originally written in one of three different languages, from three different continents around the world. It was written over a period of approximately 1,600 years, yet consistently develops one main story—a central theme, without contradiction or inconsistency.

The development of a grand theme, with contributions made thereto in the earliest books of the Bible, gradually unfolded, and completed throughout the latter books, is an amazing accomplishment, and unexplainable without divine intervention. For example, in the earliest books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, the writer introduces the concept of the Passover lamb, with its many similarities to Jesus Christ. The male lamb was to be spotless and without blemish, a perfect specimen. It was to be killed by the shedding of blood, and the blood was to be applied to the dwelling houses of those to be saved from the final plague (Exodus 11ff.). The Passover feast itself contained remarkable similarities to the Lord’s Supper, though instituted hundreds of years earlier. These attributes are interwoven with the manner in which the lamb was to be killed, the actual shedding of blood, and the application of it to the houses of a selected people. How could these characteristics have been devised without a knowledge of what was to come? That is, how could the invention and detailed description of the Passover appurtenanceshave been accomplished by someone completely unaware of how these details would later align with the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world?

Bible students call this phenomenon “typology.” It involves the pre-figuring of places, things, and events by Old Testament “shadows,” which look forward to and foretell future fulfillment. The Old Testament “types” are sometimes extremely detailed, and they have astonishingly appropriate applications in the New Testament “antitypes.”  From an evidentiary standpoint, they are unexplainable without divine guidance of the Bible writers. No human author, without assistance, could have foreseen the application and fulfillment of the detailed types they described. The operation of random chance can no more explain this occurrence than the dropping of the pieces of a complex jigsaw puzzle from its box onto a table could yield the completed result. The finished picture becomes visible upon examination of the various New Testament writings. Added to this is the fact that these New Testament writers had no control over the work of the Old Testament writers who foretold these matters. How is this explainable absent divine intervention?

3. When I examine the Bible I see objectivity. Although perhaps not totally inconceivable, this is surprising if the writing of the book was not superintended by God.  The Bible relates both the good and the bad concerning its heroes. That is not typical of human works, although it can sometimes be accomplished with concerted, strained effort. But given the multiplicity of Bible writers, it would be difficult to explain how all of them succeeded in such objectivity.

The Bible often includes information which seems, at first, to argue against its point. It includes “challenging” passages, which might have been easily omitted. For example, in Job 2:3 the Bible quotes God as saying to Satan, “And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” It is not surprising that Bible critics have seized upon this passage in an effort to disparage the God of the Bible, and to deny its inspiration. They claim the verse teaches that God personally set Job up for failure. Indeed, the verse on the surface seems to say this, and it is only upon deeper study of the verse with its immediate and more remote context that the true meaning appears. But why was the verse included in the first place? It would have been easy, had the work been of mere human origin, to avoid this and other difficult statements. Had we, in our limited wisdom, been composing the Bible in an effort to palm it off as the work of God, would we have included such statements? The fact that these difficult passages appear in the text is strong evidence that it was not written by humans unconstrained by a higher influence. There is an over-arching hand which gives to the text a higher meaning, understandable only upon a reading of the work as a whole. The ancient Bible writers, who were not always privy to these other, clarifying passages, would not have written this way, but for the control of inspiration. In other words, since most of the Bible writers did not have access to the other portions of the Bible as they wrote, it is not likely that they would have inserted statements understandable only upon comparison with those other portions. If they were writing with only their own uninspired wisdom, they would have omitted such passages altogether.

Further, it is a mark of authenticity to include negative or undesirable traits about the people held out as heroes. It is not typical for human witnesses to volunteer weaknesses or undesirable concessions about themselves in their own case. If the Bible writers were liars trying to convince us to follow them, it is inconceivable that they would contradict that aim by making themselves look bad. Most people want to bolster their position, and we generally tend to minimize or omit information which detracts from our message or makes us look bad. But the Bible does not do this. It delivers both the positive and the negative, the good and the bad about the characters used to tell its story. Peter, for example, is presented as the strong right hand of the Lord Himself, a pillar in the early church. Yet, in other passages he is presented with the most embarrassing of human foibles. We are given his impetuous nature, his lack of faith or conviction, his racial bias, and even his denial of Jesus Christ. David, an undisputed hero of God and his people throughout the history of Israel, and a forefather to Jesus Himself, is described as indulging in the most humiliating of sins, including sexual perversity and murder. Would these salacious facts be included had the writing of the book not been superintended by God?

4. Upon examination of the Bible, I notice what J.W. McGarvey called the “restraint” of inspiration.[1] There are many examples; it is a fascinating characteristic of the Bible and unexplainable if it is the work of mere man. Essentially, we have people and momentous events, of great interest to our human curiosity, disposed of in brief sentences leaving us longing for more. This, too, is unlike the work of uninspired men, who tend to run on and on about matters in which they have a great interest. One would think, for example, that the biblical character of Samson, whose exploits have been of keen and thrilling interest to millions, would have been accorded more than three chapters (Judges 14-16). Or, to use McGarvey’s example, the death of James, one of the apostles, would have been described in great detail, instead of only 11 words (Acts 12:2).

How are we to account for this circumstance? The matters which seem less interesting, and yet in the grand scheme of the book as a whole have greater significance, are given more attention. Whereas the matters which appeal to our human curiosity, but in reality have minor import in the overall story, are passed over quickly. Does this not show the guiding force of a superior wisdom in the composition of the entire Bible?

Those new to Bible study are often confounded by the insertion of genealogical records. The names are sometimes difficult to pronounce, and one at first wonders why they are included at all. The Bible contains about 24 genealogical lists, strategically distributed throughout its pages. Many of them include supplemental historical information in addition to the names themselves. Taken together, they amount to a progression of generations leading to the Messiah. Further, they place Him into a human history or framework. Surely, the original writers could not have foreseen the significance of these records. It is only upon closure of the final pages of the New Testament that their significance begins to dawn upon us. Their evidentiary value in connecting the Messiah to human events is meticulously established. No other person in all of human history is so carefully documented from a genealogical perspective. And while the individual writers of the Bible may not have seen the importance of including such laborious and tedious details, the God who inspired the overall work obviously did.

5. Upon examination of the Bible, I see that it is uncanny in its accuracy. Like the old anvil which withstands the blows of countless hammers, it proves to be correct time and time again. I recently watched as a nationally known atheist and Bible critic debated the existence of God. Although referring to the many embarrassing errors within the Bible, he produced none. I suspect he knew that such alleged “errors” have been put forth time and time again, only to be capably answered upon closer examination. No other book has been subjected to such treatment and withstood such attacks.

6. I see in the Bible the most enduring of books. It has long outsold all others, and has been treasured and preserved through the centuries as a priceless work of wisdom and guidance. Countless generations have largely ordered their lives from its principles. It has been translated and proclaimed at great personal risk. Men have given their lives in its proclamation. Even in our own country, the Bible provides support for our founding principles, continues to be revered by many, and is made readily available upon demand.  In our transient and disposable culture, this is no small feat.

What do I see when I examine the Bible? I see a book that I would not hesitate to take before any reasonable trier of fact. I would be willing to submit it in a fair comparison against all others. I would not shrink from relying upon it. I am confident in its power and dependability. I see the marks of inspiration upon it and the hand of God within it. I see consistency, objectivity, restraint, accuracy, and endurance. In short, I see the inspired Word of God.

REFERENCE

The post A Prosecutor Looks at the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary staff writer Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is completing Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral studies at Amridge University where he is a Ph.D. candidate. He holds professional membership in both the American Schools of Oriental Research as well as the Society of Biblical Literature.]

As with most of the early books of the Bible—particularly from Genesis to the early chapters of 1 Samuel—skeptics and critics label the Joseph story as the work of later authors (see Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, pp. 67-68). According to the documentary hypothesis (popularly known as the JEDP theory), the Pentateuch as a whole is composed of several different documents edited together by redactors, or editors. The Joseph story is no exception. Critics claim it is the product of multiple authors living between the 10^th and 6^th centuries B.C., if not later.

The Bible recognizes Moses as the author of the Pentateuch (Exodus 24:7,27-28; Numbers 33:2; Joshua 8:32; 2 Chronicles 34:14). Critics reject the Mosaic authorship of this material, with most denying the existence of Moses as well. This denial is built upon the assumptions inherent in the documentary hypothesis, whose adherents rarely take Egyptian evidence into account. The fine details of the Joseph story do not point to a Hebrew scribe writing in the 10^th-6^th centuries B.C. Rather, they point to an author who was intimately familiar with Egypt and who included Egyptian loanwords and other details of Egyptian culture in his work. To summarize some of the important Egyptian details in the Joseph story, consider the following points:

• Joseph is sold for 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28). Babylonian records indicate that this was the average going rate for a slave in the first half of the second millennium (Kitchen, 2003, pp. 344-345), but later rose due to inflation. The prices given in the Bible in later texts correspond to the prices at the time those texts were written. At the ancient cities of Nuzi and Ugarit in the mid- to late-second millennium, the price was 30 shekels and more, which is reflected in the Mosaic law (Mendelsohn, 1955, p. 68; cf. Exodus 21:32). Still later in the first millennium, the price went up to 50-60 shekels, which seems to be reflected in the ransom for Menahem of Israel (2 Kings 15:20). Later authors would not have been able to research these minute details in order to make the account believable, nor would anyone have thought about doing so. If the Joseph story had been written when critics claim (closer to the 6^th century B.C.), the price asked by his brothers should have been somewhere around 60 shekels instead of 20 (Kitchen, 2003, p. 345; cf. Kitchen, 1995, 21[02]). If the Joseph story was written after the exile, we would expect the price to have been as high as 90-120 shekels. On a further note, Leviticus 27:4 establishes the price of 20 shekels for a male slave younger than 20 years of age (Joseph was 17—Genesis 37:2; see Wenham, 1978, pp. 264-265).
• Joseph is thrown into prison, which the Egyptians called the “Place of Confinement” (Aling, 2002, p. 99). These were rare in the ancient Near East and seem to have been found only in Egypt. The Mosaic Law never mentions prisons, and does not seem to have a close parallel to our modern concept of them. If later Israelite authors had invented the Joseph story, it would have been highly unlikely that they would have included this feature.
• Joseph likely serves as an overseer (Egyptian imy-re per) in Potiphar’s house. His service and promotion fits very well in an Egyptian context (see the discussion of relevant titles for this office, as well as Joseph’s promotion, in Hoffmeier, 1996 and Kitchen, 2003).
• Joseph is able to interpret dreams. This was a vital aspect of life in ancient Egypt. Those who did so were specialists who consulted dream books, examples of which have been discovered by archaeologists (e.g., Papyrus Chester Beatty III, currently housed in the British Museum). Joseph proves his superiority by interpreting the king’s dreams without any access to these reference works.
• Joseph is brought before pharaoh after being shaved and dressed appropriately (Genesis 41:14), something that was done in Egypt but not among Semitic peoples (see Fried, 2007). The Beni Hasan tomb painting depicts Canaanite merchants around the same time as the patriarchs wearing beards and having full heads of hair. Although pharaohs were depicted wearing beards, it is clear that these were false (whether in paintings or on statuary, a close inspection will reveal the strap along the jawline that held the beard in place).
• Jacob and Joseph are both embalmed or mummified. The text also mentions Joseph’s coffin (Genesis 50:26). Although extremely sparse, the details given in the Bible match what scholars know about the process from ancient records. The biblical text states that 40 days were required for mummification (Genesis 50:3). This seems to be a rounded number that agrees with an Egyptian text known as “The Ritual of Embalming,” which states that the beginning of the embalming process began four days after death and continued for 42 days (Brier, 1994, p. 45).
• Joseph is described as being 110 years old. We know from ancient Egyptian records that this was the ideal age at the time of death, essentially a way of saying that a person had lived a rich, full life. The Bible later records this figure at 70 or 80 years (cf. Psalm 90:10). Over half of the references to this lifespan in Egyptian literature occur during the same general period as the one in which Moses lived (Kitchen, 2003, p. 351). Thus, this number preserves an expression that appears to have been the most popular during the period in which Moses received his education.
• Linguistic clues provide important insight into when the Joseph narrative may have been put into written form. The word for the Nile River used in the text when Pharaoh discusses his dreams is ye’or rather than the more common Hebrew term nahar. The word ye’or is an Egyptian loanword for “river” that was used in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.) onward (Sarna, 1966, p. 218). Likewise, the term for the grass eaten by the cows is akhu, another Egyptian loanword. Sarna notes that the reference to cattle may be significant as well. They were an important part of the Egyptian economy, while sheep played a minor role. The situation was reversed in Palestine.
• One of the supports for the early second millennium devotion to writing of the Joseph material is the phrase “the land of Rameses” (Genesis 47:11) which came into common use in the 13^th century and fell into disuse after the 12^th century (Kitchen, 1991, p. 118).

The Egyptian details of the Joseph story are what we would expect to find if someone educated in Egypt had been the one to put this story into written form (cf. Acts 7:22). Alan R. Schulman states: “It is quite clear that the person who either wrote, or wrote down, the Joseph sagas had an exceedingly intimate knowledge of Egyptian life, literature, and culture, particularly in respect to the Egyptian court, and, in fact, may even have lived in Egypt for a time” (1975, p. 236). This is precisely what we find in the Bible’s statements about the life of Moses. Put simply, the Joseph story could not have been the invention of a Hebrew scribe in the first millennium.

Taken together, the details above generate some important questions about the authorship of the Joseph story and the assumptions made by many modern interpreters. Why does the text include terms popularized in the Egyptian language during the time in which Moses would have lived? Why do Egyptian concepts fill these stories when they are absent in later texts that critics claim to have been written at the same time as the Pentateuch? Why is it that chronologically-sensitive details in the Joseph story fit well within a context of the early second millennium, while critics claim it was written in the early first millennium? These questions demand a reevaluation of the skeptic’s position, which tends to be haunted by the twin spectres of unfounded skepticism and anti-biblical bias. The Bible presents a far more believable author of this material than the contrivances of its critics.

REFERENCES

Aling, Charles (2002), “Joseph in Egypt: Part III,” Bible and Spade, 15[4].

Brier, Bob (1994), Egyptian Mummies: Unraveling the Secret of an Ancient Art (New York: Quill).

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press).

Fried, Lisbeth S. (2007), “Why Did Joseph Shave?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 33[4], July-August.

Hoffmeier, James K. (1996), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1991), “Israel Seen from Egypt: Understanding the Biblical Text from Visuals and Methodology,” Tyndale Bulletin, 42[1], May.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1995), “Patriarchal Age: Myth or History,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 21[02], March/April.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Mendelsohn, Isaac. (1955), “On Slavery in Alalakh,” Israel Exploration Journal, 5[2].

Sarna, Nahum M. (1966), Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History (New York: Schocken Books).

Schulman, A. R. (1975), “On the Egyptian Name of Joseph: A New Approach,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 2.

Wenham, Gordon J. (1978), “Leviticus 27.2-8 and the Price of Slaves,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 90.

The post The Mosaic Authorship of the Joseph Story appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is a doctoral candidate at Amridge University. He has participated in an archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Archaeological Institute of America.]

The patriarchal narratives of Genesis are some of the most beloved passages in the Bible. They are also some of the most heavily criticized. Before the middle of the 20^th century, many scholars assumed the historicity of the patriarchs. In the 1970s, two minimalists published what is regarded by many in academia as one of the greatest of one-two punches in the history of biblical studies. John Van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975) and Thomas Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974) each questioned the historicity of the patriarchs. Their study was so influential in academic circles that, since that time, few scholars have written in support of the historicity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Van Seters and Thompson are much like other critics who feel quite comfortable in approaching the Bible with a level of academic condescension and suspicion that is nearly unparalleled in other disciplines. Although their work was helpful in weeding out faulty assumptions and recognizing instances of misuse of archaeology, their objections go too far and are flawed. Scholars have answered them accordingly. In his book The Bible in its World (1977), Kenneth Kitchen first tackled the objections raised against the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Others scholars have followed (see Millard and Wiseman, 1983; Yamauchi, 1994).

Ancient Near Eastern scholarship has continued to vindicate the patriarchal narratives. One particularly interesting piece of archaeological data comes from the modern village of Beni Hasan, which lies 160 miles south of Cairo. It is home to 39 monumental tombs of Egyptian officials from the Middle Kingdom Period (2050-1650 B.C.), in addition to a few tombs from the Old Kingdom Period (2686-2186 B.C.). The tomb of a nomarch (governor) named Khnumhotep II is particularly interesting for the study of the patriarchs.

The walls of Khnumhotep’s tomb contain paintings portraying scenes from his life. The most famous, however, is a depiction of a caravan from Canaan. The accompanying hieroglyphic inscription indicates that there were 37 members of this caravan. The exact purpose of their visit is debated among scholars, but most agree that it was some kind of commercial venture (Hoffmeier, 1996, p. 61).

The differences between the Egyptians and the Canaanite merchants depicted in the scene is immediately obvious. While the Egyptians wear their customary white linen kilts, the merchants wear multi-colored garments. The clothing worn by the men is a sign of their wealth. This calls to mind the passim of Joseph that sparked jealousy in his brothers (NOTE: the Hebrew word passim, or “coat,” is difficult to understand because it appears only twice in the Old Testament. While interpretations include “long-sleeved,” “multi-colored,” and “decorated,” it would appear that being multi-colored would be an attractive possibility, since to have such a garment would be quite costly). The merchants also have full heads of hair with beards. This differed from Egyptian men, who shaved their heads and faces (cf. Genesis 41:14).

The Beni Hasan tomb painting recalls two important details about the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. First, each of the patriarchs spent time in Egypt. The fact that they traveled in groups—as in the case of Jacob prior to his encounter with Esau (Genesis 33), as well as his move to Egypt with the extended family (Genesis 46)—also fits the biblical text.

Second, the fact that the merchants move relatively freely in Egypt is reminiscent of Egyptian-Canaanite relations prior to the Hyksos invasion. Prior to the arrival of the Semitic rulers known as the Hyksos (c. 1750 BC), Egyptian rulers allowed settlers from Canaan to settle temporarily in the northeastern corner of the country during times of famine (although they did build a line of forts to regulate the visits of these visitors). The border was permeable, and visits from Canaanite people were often permitted. This changed after the Egyptians drove the Hyksos from Egypt.

The Hyksos were foreign rulers who took control of the northern part of Egypt. Scholars are uncertain whether they came to power by peaceful infiltration or military invasion. What is indisputable is that this takeover engendered hatred on the part of the Egyptians. After the Hyksos had been expelled by pharaoh Ahmose I (c. 1560 B.C.), the Egyptians became somewhat xenophobic and had a particular dislike for Canaanite peoples (often calling them “wretched Asiatics”). The fact that the book of Genesis preserves this memory of Egypt’s permeable borders means that the stories had to exist prior to seventeenth century B.C., when the Hyksos invaded. Later Hebrew scribes could not have known these historical details and would have had no reason to invent them.

Although the patriarchs are not mentioned by name in any extant historical or archaeological sources, this should not be cause for concern among Christians. Archaeology rarely speaks to any single individual, especially when it comes to those who are not nationally or internationally known (e.g., kings, high-ranking political officials, and important religious figures). It also shows that the narratives in Genesis fit with the proper time period. Later scribes could not have known some of the details presented, meaning that the text of Genesis is not a later fiction as many critics attempt to claim. Far from showing the unreliability of the Bible, archaeology has proved to be one of Scripture’s strongest allies.

REFERENCES

Hoffmeier, James L. (1996), Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1977), The Bible in its World: The Bible & Archaeology Today (Carlisle: Paternoster Press).

Millard, Alan and Donald J. Wiseman (1983), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

Thompson, Thomas (1974), The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).

Van Seters, John (1975), Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Yamauchi, Edwin (1994), “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography” in Faith, Tradition and History. Alan R. Millard, James K. Hofmeier, and David W. Baker, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

The post The Beni Hasan Tomb Inscription and the Patriarchal Period appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Perhaps the most dominant viewpoint in biblical studies concerning the biblical text is that the Bible contains significant amounts of mythology borrowed from Israel’s neighbors (although we should quickly add that truth is not determined by majority opinion). This presumption has dominated biblical studies for nearly two centuries. But as additional texts have surfaced, more cautious scholars have backed away from this viewpoint. Indeed, myth was once seen as pure fiction, but now scholars are beginning to realize that this may not necessarily be the case. The belief that myth may contain small nuggets of historical truth is gaining popularity, even if we recognize that tales of the gods were nothing more than the work of inventive scribes. So where does this leave the Bible? The question we must ask is this: is the Bible pure myth, or is it something else?

We must first determine what we mean by “myth.” It is a notoriously difficult term to define, and scholars use it with a variety of nuances (see Kreeft and Tacelli, 1994, pp. 212-213). Some define it as any story including the supernatural. Most separate myth from legend, with the former being stories about the gods, and the latter being stories—with varying degrees of historical truth—about human beings. In modern parlance, some use it to refer to fiction, especially the body of stories about a particular character (e.g., the mythology of Superman or Captain America). But if we look at the term as it bears on the sacred texts of the religions in the ancient Near East, it has a clearly defined usage.

In his book The Bible Among the Myths, Old Testament scholar John Oswalt notes the radical differences between mythological texts and the Hebrew Bible (2009). The Bible and ancient myth came from two fundamentally different worldviews. Although he identifies nearly a dozen different points, we will examine four in particular.

THE MORAL CHARACTER OF DEITY

In the Bible, God’s moral character is    identified with holiness and righteousness. To be more accurate, it is His character that defines holiness. His attributes set the standards for behavior. They are ethically and morally pure and upright. Furthermore, since He is perfect and cannot fundamentally change (Malachi 3:6), He can become neither any better nor any worse. His goodness is celebrated throughout the Bible (Psalm 16:2; 31:19; 107:1). He cannot be tempted or tempt another (James 1:17), or look upon evil with any measure of approval (Habakkuk 1:13). Individuals mirror God’s holiness, in part through ethical living (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16).

The gods of the ancient Near East often commit evil acts and frequently give themselves over to debauchery. In Egyptian myth, the chaotic god Seth murders his brother Osiris and dismembers the body. In an Egyptian myth titled “The Contendings of Horus and Seth,” Seth attempts to rape his nephew Horus during a contest over who will take Osiris’ place (Lichtheim, 2006, 2:219). Rape is a common theme in the Greek myths, where women and even goddesses are violated with a frequency that would shock many modern readers. In the Atrahasis Epic, the gods are outraged because humanity is keeping them awake at night. They attempt to silence humanity through various means, including disease and famine, and finally send a flood to destroy humanity for the sake of a good night’s sleep (see Foster, 1997). The gods are not above getting drunk, either. In one Ugaritic text, called “The Myth of El’s Banquet,” the Canaanite god El (or Ilu) becomes inebriated, and on his way home meets an unidentified animal which causes him to soil himself and fall down into his own excrement (see Pardee, 1997). Such inglorious stories are nowhere to be found in the Bible about God. The God of the Bible can in no way be compared to deities of human invention.

THE VIEW OF MANKIND

The biblical account of mankind’s creation is the most complete and noble of any in ancient Near Eastern literature. Other accounts of man’s creation must be pieced together from various fragments (as in Egypt), or else depict man as little more than an afterthought (as in Mesopotamia). Regardless of the specific tradition, the requirements are clear: man is created to serve the gods, to perform services for them, and, should they fail, incur divine wrath. As Walton observes:

while Israelites viewed man as created to rule, Mesopotamians viewed him as created to serve…. The fact that the Israelites viewed man as the centerpiece of creation afforded him a certain dignity, undergirded by the fact that he was created in the image of God. In contrast, Mesopotamians did not see man as created with dignity. Human beings achieved their dignity by the function they served (1989, p. 29).

He adds that humanity was originally created “in a barbarous state,” with humanity being “an unplanned afterthought, created for the sake of convenience” (p. 30).

The biblical account of Creation is vastly different from its Near Eastern counterparts. Man is the apex of creation. He has dignity because of who he is, not what he does. He is created as a kind of governor or viceroy charged with stewarding God’s creation (Genesis 1:28). Furthermore, this creation was prepared with man in mind (cf. Genesis 1:29-30), for his use and enjoyment. Although he is also created to worship his Creator, it is not a wearisome task. The New Testament further reveals that worship is also meant for the benefit of fellow believers (Acts 2:46-47; Ephesians 5:19), in addition to giving honor to God.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEITY

What the gods required of humanity in other cultures could not be known with any accuracy. The most a person could do was to infer the will of the gods based on their circumstances. If all was well and life was going smoothly, then it was apparent that the person was indeed doing the gods’ will. Should they suffer misfortune or tragedy, it must have meant that the person had offended the gods. It became their task to determine which god they might have offended through omens and offer the appropriate sacrifices. This was no easy task, and could be viewed as something of a guessing game. In contrast, God clearly outlined what He expected of mankind with precision through His spokesmen. His will is revealed clearly as a matter of public record, made known through readings to the people (Deuteronomy 31:9-13). The people were warned before punishment, rebuked afterwards, and told specifically what needed to be done to please God.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

The biblical authors had a worldview by which history was viewed as linear. The past, present, and future all had great importance. Specifically, the past served as a reminder, which God makes clear is important enough to signify with memorials, such as piles of stones (e.g., Joshua 4:19-24), or the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-39). The future is also important in the biblical worldview, as we see in the prophet Joel’s concern about the coming Day of the Lord (Joel 2:1-11), or Christ’s teaching about His impending return (Matthew 24:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The biblical writers considered all phases of time to be important.

There was virtually no understanding of history in the modern sense among the cultures of the ancient Near East. The Near Eastern view of history was cyclical and assigned little importance to the past or to the future. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus (circa 484-425 B.C.) is called the “father of history” for good reason—prior to his time there was little or no recording or analysis of the past for its own sake. Historiography, as we know it, did not exist (an exception may be seen in the Babylonian chronicles, which record the history of Babylon from the eighth century through the third century B.C.). The past had very little importance outside its use as propaganda by monarchs interested in glorifying themselves (see Oswalt, 2009, pp. 111-137).

CONCLUSION

Mythology is much more than exciting stories filled with fantastic monsters, magic, and imaginative details. It is a way of thinking—a worldview. Careful comparison of the biblical text with myth makes it clear that the Bible and ancient Near Eastern mythology are not merely different from one another—they are radically so. Even a cursory reading is enough to give most people a feeling that the Bible and myth are quite different, even if they immediately may not be able to put their finger on why. Thanks to the discovery and study of ancient texts, the differences are easy to detect. The Bible, unlike Near Eastern mythology, has an air of dispassionate objectivity that puts it in a category by itself. The Bible and ancient mythology are so different from one another that any allegations of wholesale borrowing on the part of the biblical authors must be rejected by those who handle the ancient evidence with care.

REFERENCES

Foster, Benjamin R., trans. (1997), “Atra-Hasis” in The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill).

Kreeft, Peter and Ronald Tacelli (1994), The Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press).

Lichtheim, Miriam (2006), Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume 2: The New Kingdom (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Oswalt, John N. (2009), The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Pardee, Dennis, trans. (1997), “Ilu on a Toot” in The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill).

Walton, John H. (1989), Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

The post Did the Hebrew Writers Borrow from Ancient Near Eastern Mythology? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]

Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.

The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:

Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).

Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).

Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).

Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.

Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).

The post Was Jesus Married? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The nineteenth century was the seedbed of comparative religion, which sought to analyze and discover the connections between various world religions. Critics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were guilty of glossing over important differences for the sake of making connections between different religious traditions, including Christianity. Usually these connections were highly dubious in nature, and no real scholar uses this approach today. While it can be shown that some ancient pagan religions migrated, developed, and influenced others over time, Christianity is a different matter altogether.

Critics today—who almost universally have no training in ancient religion, philosophy, or languages—can be quite adamant that Christianity plagiarized ancient mythology when constructing the Bible and its supposed mythological traditions about Jesus. This idea is found in documentaries such as Bill Maher’s Religulous, Brian Flemming’s The God Who Wasn’t There, Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist, the Movie, as well as in publications such as those by Dorothy M. Murdock’s The Sons of God, The Christ Conspiracy, and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. All of these promote the idea of the “mythic Christ.”

Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.

Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academician, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts (this generally holds true for all proponents of the Christ myth theory). More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.

The work of Higgins and Massey was picked up and continued most famously by Kersey Graves, who authored the book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (1919). This woefully outdated book is still standard reading for militant atheists. Unfortunately, Graves’ fans do not appear to realize that his book was based on the work of our two error-prone amateurs. To make matters worse, Graves did not appear to consult the original myths himself. It appears that he may have even falsified some of his work. In all of the cases of his “crucified saviors,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died salvific deaths, that is in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.

The chart below gives the names of the gods that Graves and others traditionally claim were crucified saviors. The problems become apparent rather quickly:

Upon even a cursory inspection, it becomes clear that none of the so-called “crucified saviors” were actually crucified. Indeed, none of them are saviors, dying for the sins of humanity. Self-sacrifice was not involved. Instead, many did not die at all, or died an accidental death, or were murdered. Worse yet, none of them resurrected from a tomb. A few of the divine figures on the list were revived (or deified), but in a different manner than the Christian concept of resurrection. In short, this list consists purely of non-crucified non-saviors. Why are these connections made if they never truly existed? In short, it is due to careless research and preconceived biases that are immune to evidence.

While the idea of the pagan or mythic Christ draws from a variety of ancient mythologies, it is heavily influenced by Egyptian mythology, perhaps because the early proponents of this theory worked primarily with myths from Egypt. They also made connections based on preposterously thin evidence. Some examples of the typical connections include the following from Gerald Massey’s book Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ:

• Jesus’ casting of a group of demons  calling themselves “Legion” into a group of pigs, which is equated with a story in which Horus turns someone into a pig (1996, pp. 62-63).
• Jesus and Horus are each claimed to have had two mothers—two Marys for Jesus, and the goddesses Isis and Nephthys for Horus (p. 118).
• Herod the Great, despite being a well-known figure to historians, is equated with Herrut, the Typhonian Serpent (p. 95).

In their book Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Porter and Bedard summarize Massey’s position this way:

[H]is conclusions rely on exaggerations and forced parallels that too often used later interpretations o the Gospels, rather than the primary texts themselves. To make matters worse, Massey cites numerous parallels without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. Massey also begins the practice…of describing Egyptian myths with biblical language in an attempt to find a causal link (Porter and Bedard 2006, p. 30).

If the idea of a “crucified savior” had been as common as the critics allege, then it would not have been included among the criticisms leveled against the early Christians. The apostle Paul stated that the cross was a stumbling block to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23), which would have been quite strange if the Greeks recognized any of the so-called “crucified saviors” mentioned by Graves and others. Justin Martyr admitted that preaching a crucified Christ appeared to be madness: “[The opponents of the church] say that our madness lies in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place to the unchangeable and eternal God, the creator of the world” (Apology I, 13.4). If everyone had crucified gods, then they would not have criticized the Christians for having one, too.

The picture that quickly emerges when looking at the original sources is one of exceedingly poor research on the part of the critics. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, but their litany of errors is academically unacceptable. At times, even other skeptics and atheists chide their fellow unbelievers for their careless work. Writing a review of Zeitgeist, the Movie in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, leading skeptic Tim Callahan is highly critical of the “sloppy assumptions” in the documentary, concluding, “Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids” (Callahan, 2009, p. 67).

Some of this sloppy work includes failing to cite sources properly. Graves was not the only one guilty of failing to cite his sources or inventing material out of whole cloth. Of the pseudo-scholars in the 19^th and early 20^th century who promoted the Christy myth theory, apologist J.P. Holding says,

Kersey Graves…assures the reader that he has before him plenty of original documentation for his claims of crucifixion parallels, but…doesn’t have room to include any. And this is the rule, not the exception. Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site [sic]a single source document (Holding, 2008, p. 376, italics in orig.).

Because of its manifold problems, the idea of the mythic Christ is difficult even for many atheists to swallow. On the anti-Christian website fidels.org, historian and atheist Richard Carrier lists ten major problems with Graves’ work, the last of which is that “Graves’ scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked” (Carrier, 2003). Scholars see Graves’ work as worthless. Critics find it absolutely indispensible, perhaps because there are no scholarly treatments that agree with their presuppositions.

The Christ myth theory has not been answered by many scholars, simply because they choose not to waste their time debunking fringe theories. Experts are usually preoccupied with teaching and research, with a few of them engaged in archaeology and other academic pursuits as well. This leaves little time for answering the preposterous claims of the “Christ mythers.” (In personal e-mails to three leading New Testament scholars, each noted that the Christ myth theory holds no place of respect in modern scholarship. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary said, “[T]his whole discussion is considered beyond the pale and beyond belief, even with liberals.” When asked whether the paucity of scholarly material on the pagan Christ was because scholars do not waste their time on “crackpot theories,” Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary said, “I think you have got the reason you cannot find stuff.” Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary confessed, “I do not know anything about this issue…. I am tempted to think it is the lunatic fringe.” The issue is so intellectually bankrupt that liberal scholarship does not endorse it, and other scholars may not even be familiar with it).

Critics will always “discover” parallels between Christianity and pagan religions in the attempt to make believers look foolish. Ironically, this quest only demonstrates their own academic shortcomings. Time and time again Christianity demonstrates its uniqueness among the world religions. It is the hallmark of truth for a world in desperate need of history’s one and only crucified Savior.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim (2009), “Greatest Story Ever Garbled: A Critique of ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’—Part I of the Internet Film Zeitgeist,” Skeptic, 15[1]:61-67.

Carrier, Richard (2003), “Kersey Graves and the World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html.

Graves, Kersey (1919), The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Christianity Before Christ (New York: Peter Eckler Publishing), sixth edition.

Holding, James P. (2008), Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press).

Massey, Gerald (1996), Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Whitefish, MT: Kessenger).

Murdock, Dorothy M. (2009), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Seattle, WA: Stellar House).

Porter, Stanley E. and Stephen J. Bedard (2006), Unmasking the Pagan Christ (Toronto, ON: Clements Publishing).

The post The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World appeared first on Apologetics Press.