Professor Enigma's Official Site

Evidences I

In this essay we’re going to examine some of the more relevant issues concerning biblical criticism. Many pseudo-intellectuals and self-proclaimed "scholars" of this era go to great lengths to discredit the Bible. After all, if it is true, then they do have something to be accountable for and that would upset their whole agenda. Some of the things we’ll focus on are:

1.  The Dead Scrolls—the information contained therein and the effect that they have on Orthodox Christianity
2. Various archaeological evidence for the Bible
3. The JEDP documentary hypothesis
4. Were the NT writers influenced by Greek (Hellenistic) thought? *
5. Was the NT (particularly the Synoptic Gospels and Acts) written before or after the Fall of Jerusalem?

These, in my opinion are some of the hottest issues concerning biblical Christianity today. In many circles these theories are uncritically passed around as fact and used to intimidate those who are "babes in Christ" or those who may not have the time to thoroughly research these issues. After all, nobody has all the volumes in the set. What I will attempt to show is that despite the spin doctoring of so many hot air balloons permeating the Internet and bookshelves across the world, there really isn’t a whole lot of substance to their arguments. As I said you will probably hear things such as: "It has been established by eminent (or "accepted") scholarship that the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) was redacted by four anonymous authors between the 8^th and 5^th centuries BC." That and whole host of other arguments are regurgitated over and over again and sometimes it is difficult to separate fantasy from fact. Let’s get down to brass tacks and begin by examining the Dead Sea Scrolls. (NOTE: All quotations of Josephus come from William Whiston’s translation. I will cite the title, (i.e. Antiquities of the Jews) the book, (i.e. 11) the chapter, and then the particular sub-section of that chapter. Hence, a particular citation will look like this: Antiquities of the Jews 11.2.2)

* I am NOT concerned with the church fathers or anyone else in the second century and thereafter. The NT writers and the foundation of the Gospel as given by them is my focus.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls are arguably the greatest archaeological find of all time. At the very least it has to be considered one of the greatest. Prior to the discovery of these manuscripts the oldest extant copies that we had of the OT were from the early tenth century (circa 980) A.D. (The Masoretic text) Skeptics were sure that if manuscripts of greater antiquity were discovered we would see that the Bible had been seriously redacted over thousands of years. This however, is not the case. While there have been some amazing discoveries, there is nothing seriously damaging to Christianity at all. Now there have been some rogue "scholars" such as the infamous Barbara Thiering and John Allegro (we will examine them later) that have proposed preposterous theories, conspiracies (insert X-Files theme here), cryptic readings, and drug use among the apostles to discredit Orthodox Christianity and the Bible as a whole (cut the music). However, as we will see later, Thiering and Allegro (among others) are not taken very seriously by anyone possessing a brain larger than a walnut, and for good reason.

The first thing that I would like to point out, now that the scrolls are available to anyone and have been published is that there is nothing in there that is sufficiently damaging to Christianity as a whole, nor is there any essential biblical doctrine contradicted.

Let’s begin by examining the evidence concerning this group of people at Qumran. Who were they and when did they live there? There have been a number of proposals made by scholars and the like. Some propose that it was a group of Sadducees, some propose a Pharisaic settlement, some propose the Zealots, some propose that the "well-to-do" of Jerusalem ran there in the midst of the first Jewish rebellion against Rome, and lastly the Essene hypothesis. The Essene hypothesis seems to carry the most weight as of right now. Although there were some similarities between the Pharisees for example, and the boys at Qumran, the differences are glaring.

DSS: When was Qumran inhabited?

First, let’s establish the when of Qumran. When was this community inhabited? For example, hundreds upon hundreds of coins were found at the Qumran settlement but none in the caves so far. Just as we practice in modern times, coins of antiquity were stamped with a date on them. Evidence from coins at Qumran will not give us an exact date of the time of the settlement, but they will provide a rough estimate.

Roland de Vaux in his Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls provides good evidence for dating the time frame with which Qumran was occupied. De Vaux separates Qumran into 4 separate categories. Phase 1a began at or shortly before 140 B.C. though it wasn’t inhabited for long. Phase 1b began during the reign of the Hasmonean ruler and high priest John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.). De Vaux testifies that the settlement grew exponentially from the small number that was present in the earlier part of phase 1a. The water system of Qumran was extended at this time also. Interestingly enough, De Vaux dates the end of phase 1b at 31 B.C., which correlates with an earthquake that Josephus recorded. (Ibid, p. 20-23, trans. D. Bourke) "At this time it was that the fight happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and Antony, in the seventh year of the reign of Herod; and then it was also that there was an earthquake in Judea, such a one as had not happened at any other time…" (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2) Some attribute the damage at Qumran as a Parthian invasion in 40-39 B.C. (James Charlesworth, Revue de Qumran, 10 (1980) p. 213-233) or the result of Antigonus opposing Herod the Great in 40-37 B.C. (B. Pixner, Das Heilage Land, 113, nos. 2-3 (1981) p. 3-14) Either way there was a break in the settlement at Qumran sometime between 40-30 B.C.

De Vaux dates phase II from end of Herod’s reign until 68 A.D. The end came of course when Rome dropped the hammer during the first Jewish Revolt. Phase III picks up where II left off and the Romans occupied Qumran until about 90 A.D.

Other evidence that helps us get an idea of the when of Qumran is the abundance of coins at the site. De Vaux relays this evidence in his Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. As of this time, the oldest coins are five bronze ones dated to the reign of Antiochus III (223-187 B.C.). The youngest coin dates from the third year of the first Jewish Revolt (69 A.D.). (see James Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 22) The majority of coins come before the end of phase II and suddenly break off in 69 A.D.

Other evidence for dating the settlement(s) at Qumran are internal allusions to well-known personages. For example, the Nahum Pesher (4QpNah or 4Q169) mentions "[Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings from Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet." (as cited in Ibid, p. 19) Most scholars believe that this particular Demetrius is Demetrius III Eucurus and this particular Antiochus is Antiochus IV who ransacked Jerusalem in 186 B.C. Whether these particular hypotheses are right or not, the references could come no later than 64 B.C. when the Seleucid (Greek) monarchy came to an end.

Shelamsion (Alexandra Salome) queen of Judea in 76-67 B.C. is mentioned in 4Q322 (4QcalenderC) as "Shelamsion came." In the same document "Hyrcanus the king" (Hyrcanus II) and Emilius (Marcus Aemilius Scarus, Roman governor of Syria) are mentioned. Both of these are first century B.C. personages. 4QapPs & Jon (4Q448) mentions a "Jonathan the King" which some believe to be Alexander Jannaeus, whose Hebrew name is Jonathan. (Ibid, p. 20) However, the preceding statement is probably incorrect because the Hasmonean line of kings was apathetic towards the Essenes. The "Jonathan" mentioned could just as easily be Jonathan Maccabee. (See Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 163) Vanderkam remarks, "Apparently no individual who lived in the first century A.D. is named in the scrolls." (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 20, emphasis mine) Echoing the same sentiments, Jonathan Campbell (not a conservative by any means) writes: "…no concrete historical figure from the first century [A.D.] is named in any sectarian DSS." (Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 179)

This makes a good case for the when of Qumran. So far we see that although Qumran was inhabited for the better part of the first century, the copying of manuscripts, etc, are first and second century B.C. activities. Nothing of major importance (as far as the manuscripts go) occurred at Qumran after 31 B.C. Nothing important until the Romans hit it in 68 A.D. Let’s take a look at the paleographic dates given by those who study the evolution of scribal writing techniques and see what dates they come up with.

The Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) received a paleographical date of 335-327 B.C. but an internal date from within the text put it at 125-100 B.C. The so-called Temple Scroll (11QTemple) received a paleographical date of late 1^st century B.C./ early 1^st century A.D. The Testament of Levi (4Q213) was given a paleographical date of late 2^nd/ early 1^st century B.C. all other texts from Qumran were given paleographical dates in the first or second century B.C. except for the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) which was late 1^st century B.C./ early 1^st century A.D. (Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 18)

Interestingly enough, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) was used to date several of the scrolls. The paleographic date of 4Q534 (Test. of Qahat) was 100-75 B.C. while AMS assigned a date of 388-353 B.C. Since I put virtually no stock in all these flawed dating techniques, this result doesn’t surprise me. However, in all fairness, The Isaiah Scroll’s paleographic date was way off also. Even more interesting, the AMS date in the majority of cases was close to the paleographical date on DSS manuscripts with the exception of 4Q365 (Pentateuchal Paraphrase). The paleographical date given was 125-100 B.C. and the AMS date was 339-324 B.C. (Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 18. Also see Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 58; G. Bonani, et al., Radiocarbon 34 (1992) p. 843-849; A. J. T. Jull, et al., Radiocarbon 37, (1995) p.14)

Taking all of this evidence into account: The internal allusion of the DSS manuscripts, the paleographical dates, etc, the common denominator is these manuscripts were copied and the Qumran settlement was at its height in the first and second centuries B.C. Now that we have concretely established the when of Qumran, let’s see if we can identify the who of Qumran. Who were the guys that penned these manuscripts? Was it the Zealots, Pharisees, the "well-to-do" of Jerusalem, the Sadducees, or the Essenes?

DSS: Whodunnit???

Not much needs to be said against the Zealot hypothesis because as noted above, the paleographical and internal evidence from DSS manuscripts indicate that Qumran was active and occupied long before the Zealots came into the picture. The origin of the Zealots only goes back to approximately 6 A.D. when Judea and Samaria became a Roman province. This caused that famous census which enraged Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee. The DSS manuscripts and settlements at Qumran are far too old for them to be associated with the Zealots. The only possible link is if a band of Zealots fled to Qumran in light of the Roman attack on Jerusalem and subsequently held out at Masada. Other than that, those who hypothesize a Zealot connection with Qumran and the DSS are living a pipe dream.

Were the Sadducees, connected with Qumran and the DSS? Many folks who push this theory will focus on some obvious similarities that the boys at Qumran had with group X. They were all under the umbrella of the same religious belief (Judaism and the High Priesthood) so some similarities are inevitable. But the similarities become very unimportant when viewed in light of the stark differences that the boys at Qumran and the Sadducees had. For example, and most obvious—the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrected state, nor did they betray a belief in angels. (See Luke 20:27-47) Josephus states this of the Essenes:

 

"For their doctrine is this: ‘That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of the most subtle (sic) air, and are united to their bodies as in prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward… These are the divine doctrines of the Essens about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as once had a taste of their philosophy." (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.11)

The Hymn Scroll (1QH) states in part:

"I thank thee, O Lord, for thou hast redeemed my soul from the Pit, and from the hell of Abaddon. Thou hast raised me up to an everlasting height… I know there is hope for him whom Thou hast shaped from the dust for the Everlasting Council… Thou hast allotted to man an everlasting destiny amidst the spirits of knowledge…" (as cited in Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 79-80)

The boys at Qumran apparently did believe in an afterlife, which the Sadducees did not. This belief is compatible with the Essenes, which will be covered shortly.

Another piece of evidence to focus on is angels. The Sadducees did not believe in angels but apparently the inhabitants of Qumran did. For example, The Community Rule (1QS) states in part: "The Angel of Darkness leads all the children astray, and until his end…" (Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 76) The Sadducees would have thought such a belief a bunch of hocus pocus. The identity of Melchizedek is hotly debated amongst biblical scholars but apparently the Qumranites identified him with the elohim (11QMelch) of Psalm 82:1. Melchizedek is the favorite angelic name in 11QMelch. Qumran literature is permeated with angels and apparently they played a large role in their theology. (See Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman (gen. ed.) Vol. IV, p. 687; Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, James Charlesworth (ed.), p. 304-313) The Book of Enoch is permeated with allusions to angels and Qumran produced at least 11 partial copies of this book. This is just another nail in the coffin for those pushing a Sadduceean hypothesis. One last element that we can consider is Josephus’ commentary on the deterministic views, or lack thereof of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

"At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions… the Pharisees they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate… The Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls mean but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power…" (Antiquities of the Jews 13.5.9, emphasis mine)

The Sadducees were at the opposite end of the spectrum concerning human actions. There was no such thing as predestination, while the Essenes believed that all things were predetermined. 1QS states: "From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before they ever existed He established their whole design, and when, as ordained for them, they came into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change." (as cited in Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 76) Evidently the Qumranites believed in predestination but the Sadducees did not. Those who attempt to reconcile the Sadducees with Qumran are living a pipe dream also. Rather than focus in superficial agreements between the two they would do well to explain away the stark theological differences between the two. It’s obvious that the Qumranites were not Sadducees.

Were the Qumranites Pharisees? We have already covered some of this material in the preceding section but I will go over it quickly again. As we have seen above, the Pharisees took the "middle ground" concerning predestination and human affairs while the Qumranites rigidly believed in predestination. The Mishnah (Yadaim 4:7) says: "The Sadducees say, ‘We cry out against you, O ye Pharisees, for ye declare clean an unbroken stream of liquid.’ The Pharisees say, ‘We cry out against you, O ye Sadducees, for ye declare clean a channel of water that flows from a burial ground.’" (As cited in Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 160) The gist of this passage might be hard to ascertain so an explanation is necessary. The Sadducees complained that the Pharisees were too loose in their view of impurity and how it can be transferred. The Sadducees opposed them because they did not believe that impurity could be transferred from vessel to vessel. For example, an impure vessel could transfer its impurity into another vessel. The impurity could be transferred from the pot into the water and hence into the pot the water was being poured. The Pharisees countered by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Sadducees. The Sadducees declared pure a river, or channel of water that flowed from a burial ground. Obviously, if the Sadducees were being consistent, they should have declared that channel of water unclean also. Getting to my point, another document from Qumran, 4QMMT (Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah) states: "Also, concerning streams (of liquid), we say that they have no purity, and that such streams do not separate the impure from the pure. For the liquid of streams and that in the receptacle are alike, being one liquid." (As cited in Ibid) In other words, if one vessel (or the liquid) is tainted, or impure, it will transfer its impurity to all other vessels that the water is poured into. The Qumranites undoubtedly disagreed with the Pharisees on the issue of impurity. For the sake of clarity, the Pharisees would have been considered lax in this respect while the residents of Qumran were very strict. There are other reasons to reject the notion that the Pharisees were responsible for the DSS.

In the DSS themselves there are allusions to the Pharisees and the Qumranites dislike for them. So, Josephus:

"… the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified, and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes." (Antiquities of the Jews, 13.14.2)

Here Josephus relates some events that took place after Alexander Jannaeus’ battle with Demetrius III. The Jews forged an alliance with Demetrius to help overthrow Alexander. The Jews hated Alexander with a passion and one time even urged him to kill himself. (See Antiquities of the Jews, 13.13.5) This attempted coup was not successful and the Pharisees were implicated and singled out for the blame. Campbell writes concerning these events:

"…Jannaeus had eight hundred of his Pharisaic opponents crucified. This cruel act is alluded to in 4QpNah 1:6-7: ‘[And chokes prey for its lionesses, and it fills] its caves [with prey] and its dens with victims … interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive…’ In this passage, which is preceded by mention of ‘[Deme]trius king of Greece’, the ‘furious young lion’ is certainly Jannaeus. Because we know from Josephus that his victims were Pharisees, ‘those who seek smooth things’ must describe the sect’s Pharisaic opponents, who were thought to engage in lax or ‘smooth’ interpretations of the Law. In what follows, 4QpNah 2:2 also dubs the Pharisees as Ephraim…" (Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 68, emphasis his)

In conclusion, the Qumranites were not fans of the Pharisees at all. That just leaves us with one piece of business, were the Qumranites Essenes after all?

DSS: The Essene Hypothesis

A lot of this will be review to what we have already covered. Easily seen from what we have gleaned from the DSS and Josephus, the Qumranites and the Essenes rigidly observed predestination and were very concerned with ritual purity. But that’s not all. Let’s see what else we can learn from classical sources such as Pliny the Elder, Philo, and some more from Josephus.

Pliny the Elder wrote in his famous Natural History (5.73):

"On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes, which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole world, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm-trees for company. Day by day the throng of refugees is recruited to an equal number by numerous accessions of persons tired of life and driven thither by the waves of fortune to adopt their manners. Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on for ever; so prolific for their advantage is other men’s weariness of life! Lying below the Essenes was formerly the town of Engedi, second only to Jerusalem in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm-trees, but now like Jerusalem a heap of ashes." (emphasis mine)

It is very interesting indeed that Pliny locates these Essenes as dwelling on the west side of the Dead Sea. This is more than a mere coincidence. Pliny the pagan would have no reason to manufacture a false account such as this so it is highly likely that this account is correct. The only archaeological evidence of any sort of communal center in this area that Pliny describes is Khirbet Qumran. Some people object and attempt to discredit Pliny’s info by saying that it is unlikely that Pliny would compare Jerusalem with the rather obscure Engedi. My reply would be simple: Why is it unlikely that he would do this? If Pliny (who cites 50+ sources alone in his Natural History) had visited this area or gleaned some info from a source that did, (even though we don’t fully know his intentions) he may have had some reason to compare the rather obscure Engedi with Jerusalem.

A bigger problem is Pliny’s speaking of the throng of refugees being recruited in the present tense. It’s as if it was still happening when Pliny published this work. We know that it was published sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem because he speaks of it being a "heap of ashes." Despite the apparent strength of this objection it is rather flimsy to say the least. Just because Pliny wrote about something in the present tense doesn’t necessarily entail that that it had to exist at the very time Natural History was completed. Khirbet Qumran was a very obscure place so it’s not known for sure whether Pliny knew that it had been ransacked by the Romans in 68 A.D. Taking into account my earlier point about Pliny making good use of external sources he may have gleaned his info from someone else and left the citation as is. He also may have wrote this particular section years before Qumran was subject to Roman occupation and left it as is when Natural History was completed sometime after 70. So the objection that he writes of it in the present tense doesn’t exclude this as a positive identification of an Essene community at Khirbet Qumran.

Another interesting (and much more than coincidental) point is Josephus’ allusion to an unusual Essene rule about spitting. "[The Essenes] also avoid spitting in the midst of them, or on the right side." (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.9) 1QS (a.k.a. Rule of the Community or Manual of Discipline) states: "Whoever has spat in an Assembly of the Congregation shall do penance for thirty days." (as cited in Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 87; also see Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 73, 75)

Philo also provides a lot of useful information about the Essenes.

"There is a portion of these people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate from of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God… [The Essenes] live in villages, avoiding all cities on account of the habitual lawlessness of those who inhabit them, well knowing that such a moral disease is contracted from associations with wicked men… Among these men you will find no makers of arrows, or javelins, or swords, or helmets… they are utterly ignorant of all traffic, and of all commercial dealings, and of all navigation, but they repudiate and keep aloof from everything which can possibly afford any inducement to covetousness… there are no children among the Essenes… they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife." (A Treatise To Prove That Every Man Who is Virtuous is Also Free, 8.75-78; Hypothetica, 11.3, 11.14; as cited in The Works of Philo, (trans) C.D. Yonge)

Philo provides some interesting information that strengthens the Essene hypothesis. Throughout his chronicling of the Essenes he observes that they are pious, non-militant, very disconnected from society, all their property is considered "common" or belonging to the whole community, etc. He even comments on their rigid observance of the Sabbath. The interesting point is his statement that there are no children amongst them, nor do they marry. This seems to contradict the evidence at Khirbet Qumran, where graves of women and children have been unearthed. (See Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 14-15, 90-91)

Josephus further compounds this problem when he says "[The Essenes] neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning." (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.2, emphasis mine) This quote would explain why we find the graves of children at Qumran. Even if Josephus didn’t mention adoption in his dialogue it would be gratuitous to say there is a problem. After all, Qumran was not occupied continuously from the mid 2^nd century BC to 68 A.D. There were obvious breaks in the settlement and some other group of people could have inhabited it and thus, be responsible for those graves. The biggest problem is the statements of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes shunned women and did not marry. Josephus does add that there were other branches of the Essenes that did in fact marry. (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.13) Another possible solution is that in Philo’s case he wasn’t talking about the particular group(s) of Essenes that married, because according to Josephus there were splinter groups that differed on marital views. Pliny’s is a little bit tougher because he describes the location of the Essenes to a tee. As I stated earlier, Qumran was inhabited in "phases" as Roland de Vaux says and that doesn’t necessarily entail that every phase had a group observing celibacy. Other Qumran documents refer to women and children as part of the community. The Damascus Document legislates explicitly for families and even offers guidelines for the entrance of children to the community. It is quite peculiar that none of the DSS explicitly speak on marriage. Another explanation for the female skeletons is that perhaps they are remains of a traveler that died in that region or the women and children were curious observers or relatives of those in the Qumran community. (See Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 90-91)

In conclusion of this section, when one assimilates all the available data that we have from classical sources such as Josephus, Pliny, Philo, and the DSS themselves, it is rather obvious that the Qumranites are Essenes. Let’s focus quickly on some other objections that have been raised in recent years.

DSS: Was Qumran a Fortress?

I see no point in spending a great deal of time on this objection because like many others postulated it is rather unfounded. Norman Golb has erroneously proposed that Qumran was a sort of military outpost or fortress. (See Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, p. 3-14) One point that Gold uses to strengthen his hypothesis is that Qumran itself was destroyed by a military attack. This is true, but why should we believe that the Romans (or any military force for that matter) attack only military installations? Campbell offers some disparaging remarks: "… if Qumran was a fortress, it was an extremely bad one. Its walls, for instance, are not thick enough for effective defence, while the design of the water supply would have laid it open to attack. In these circumstances, the tower would only have offered a temporary sanctuary to the inhabitants of the site." (Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 165) The water system is indeed exposed for long stretches outside the walls. (Also see Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 23-24) A preceding argument of Golb’s was that the DSS are not a product of the Essenes at all, but the "well-to-do" of Jerusalem are responsible for their presence there. (See N. Golb, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124 (1980), p. 1-24; Biblical Archaeologist 28 (1987), p. 68-82) Just picture a group of the Sanhedrin, or what have you, running for their lives with dozens of manuscripts under their arms as Titus closes in. This is more than wishful thinking on Golb’s part. Golb also uses the "Pliny described the Essenes in the present tense" argument that we have already dealt with. Normie’s next objection is that because the majority of DSS manuscripts are biblical, apocryphal, or pseudepigraphical, they had to be a product of wealthy people in Jerusalem. This dog won’t hunt either. The majority of the books found at Qumran were richly imbedded in Jewish heritage so it is no surprise that we find a number of these. Golb’s argument could be used to postulate any Jewish sect as the authors of the DSS. Excluding the most widely used books at Qumran (i.e. Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Jubilees, and 1 Enoch) the majority of the DSS are sectarian documents such as the Community Rule, War Rule, the Habakkuk pesher, and the Damascus Document (CD). This obviously shows a partisan nature at Qumran, which probably wouldn’t be the case if the "well-to-do" of Jerusalem were responsible for the DSS.

Lastly, before we get into the really wacky stuff courtesy of Thiering, Baigent, Leigh, and Eisenman; let us entertain one more "objection." Pauline Donceel-Voute has proposed that Qumran was a villa. (Res Orientales 4 (1993), p. 61-84) She has proposed that Qumran was the residence of some wealthy individual(s) and that the artifacts that De Vaux reconstructed were dining furniture of some sort, not a writing room where the scribes copied the manuscripts. The primary piece of furniture as De Vaux views it was 50 cm wide by 70 cm high and several meters long. Donceel-Voute has proposed that this was a "reclining-sofa" but in actuality reclining sofas were much larger in the ancient world. Sitting on something like this without falling off would have been quite a feat. A recent examination of this shows that this piece of furniture (if it is indeed a reclining sofa) would not have been able to withstand this type of usage. (Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 166; R. Reich, Journal of Jewish Studies XLVI (1995), p. 157-160; Also see Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p 24-26; De Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 29)

Just like all those other theories, this one too falls down flat. Let’s move on now to some really wacky and crazy stuff, courtesy of some of the best ex-circus clowns in the business, none other than Barbara Thiering, Robert Eisenman and Co.

DSS Conspiracy?

Let’s start with Robert Eisenman and his "theories." I have gotten a number of e-mails and the like from people deifying Eisenmen and his "research." This should be expected from those who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Eisenman in particular was the catalyst for all this Dead Sea Scroll deception rubbish.

Bobby got his foot in the door when he began to push (and still does) the "theory" that the Wicked Priest of 1QpHab is none other than the High Priest Ananus and James the Just was none other than James the brother of Jesus. (See Eisenman, Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran and James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher) Josephus writes about James’ execution his Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1).

The Wicked Priest of 1QpHab is probably Jonathan Maccabee. He wasn’t from the priestly line of Zadok and his appointment of the position of High Priest most likely earned him for than a few enemies. At this time the position of High Priest was combined with that of a secular ruler and that would have angered the Essenes and other pious Jews more than a little. The only reason that Eisenman can make such ridiculous hypotheses is that the references to the Wicked Priest, James the Just and the Scoffer of the Damascus Document are cryptic in fashion. The identities of these people are not mentioned in a concrete manner. In fact, Geza Vermes was one of the first to hypothesize that the Wicked Priest of 1QpHab was in fact Jonathan Maccabee. (Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 246; also see Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, p. 151; J. Murphy O’ Conner, Revue biblique 81: 215-244) Some also believe that the "Wicked Priest" is Simon Maccabee. (See F.M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 142-152) Taking into account the references that the DSS makes to people living in the first and century B.C. personages it is highly unlikely that Paul, James (brother of Jesus), or Ananus are mentioned. But some people love a good mystery and just simply latch on to any theory that gets thrown around.

The major text that Eisenman interprets to fit his paradigm is the following text.

1QpHab (interpretation of Habakkuk 2:15) says:

"Woe to him who causes his neighbors to drink; who pours out his venom to make them drunk that he may gaze on their feasts. Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile that he might confuse him with his venomous fury. And at the time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement, he appeared before them to confuse them, and to cause them to stumble on the Day of Fasting, their Sabbath of repose."

This passage refers to Jonathan Maccabee and his ascension to the High Priesthood. He is the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness is the leader of the Qumran sect and his identity remains anonymous.

Eisenman wrongly translates "house of exile" as "place of concealment" and links that with Jerusalem of course. On page 29 of his The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered Eisenman translates fragment 5 of 4QRule of War in a sense that refers to the violent death of the Messiah. He attempts to link this with the death of Jesus.

"… Isaiah the Prophet, [‘The thickets of the forest] will be fell[ed with an axe] (2) [and Lebanon shall f]all [by a mighty one.] A staff shall rise from the root of Jesse, [and a Planting from his roots will bear fruit.’] (3) … the branch of David. They will enter into Judgment with…(4) and they will put to death the Leader of the Community, the Bran[ch of David] (this might also be read, depending on the context, ‘and the Leader of the Community, the Bran[ch of David] will put him to death’) … (5) and with woundings, and the (high) priest will command… (6) [the sl]ai[n of the Kitti[m]…"

Eisenman alludes to the alternative contextual meaning of verses 3 and 4 but maintains his translation and continues to push his Zealot hypothesis. Although there is no concrete evidence that Jews of the Second Temple era expected their Messiah to undergo a political execution Eisenman keeps on pushing. Geza Vermes’ translation is far more likely.

"[As it was said by] Isaiah the Prophet, [The thickets of the forest] will be cut [down with an axe and Lebanon by a majestic one will f]all. And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse […] the Branch of David and they will enter into judgment with […] the Prince of the Congregation, the Br[anch of David] will kill him [… by strok]es and by wounds. And a Priest [of renown?] will command [… the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m…]" (See Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English)

The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. V, p. 246) says that, "the external and internal conflicts of the Teacher and his followers were seen by the pesher as signs of the approaching eschatological era and the End of Days (7:7-14). The Qumranites believed that the day of final judgment was imminent, and hoped to see their wicked opponents punished and their own faithfulness to the true way of the Torah rewarded (8:2; 10:3; 12:14; 13:3)." The Qumranites did believe in a Messiah from the line of David but there is no room whatsoever for Eisenman’s ridiculously fanatic pleadings. They believed in a Messiah that would come and destroy the wicked, not a Messiah that would be executed in a political fashion. Consequently, 4QpNah (Pesher on Nahum) mentions "[Deme]trius King of Greece… the kings of Greece from Antiochus until the rise of the rulers of the Kittim." (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. V, p. 246-247) This pesher is obviously set in a 1^st and 2^nd century B.C. context. In addition, Kittim probably refers to the Roman governors. Moreover, 1QM and 4QM (Rule of War) cite Isaiah 10:34 as a proof text of God’s anointed and God Himself being victorious over the "children of darkness." (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. VI, p. 875-876; Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, 170-175)

1QM also dates from the end of the 1^st century B.C. or early 1^st century A.D. According to Yigal Yadin the tactics and weaponry described therein convey the Roman practice of the time of Caesar and Augustus. (See Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. VI, p. 876) All the concrete evidence to people in the DSS refer to people in the 1^st and 2^nd centuries B.C. Eisenman can only make vague interpolations of cryptic references in the DSS when all other evidence makes his hypothesis seem all the more unlikely.

Lastly, Eisenman just dismisses the paleographical and internal DSS references with a wave of his magic wand. Sorry Bobby, you’ll have to do better than that.

Let’s move on to Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and The Dead Sea Scroll Deception.

In this particular "scholarly" work Baigent and Leigh (insert X-Files theme here) attempt to show that the DSS were hidden and suppressed by the Vatican because they contained information that was harmful to traditional biblical Christianity. It’s true that the publication of the DSS was rather slow because of the hoops that many scholars had to jump through just to get a look at them. Another hurdle that had to be overcome was the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem in 1967. The DSS was originally under the auspices of the Jordanian government but that changed in 1967. Another factor is that some of the scholars on the team had so many other things going that translating and publishing the DSS just made the load that much heavier. David Noel Freedman relates:

"I write as a guilty party, since I was assigned responsibility for the Leviticus Scroll from Cave 11 about ten years ago. There have been some diplomatic and other complications, but basically, the reason this document has not been published is that I was overloaded with other obligations and commitments, which claimed my time. That is not an excuse, and I should either have published the scroll or returned it to the team for reassignment. Many if not most scholars harbor optimistic delusions about what they can and will do in the way of productive writing, and even after observing many colleagues fall into the pit, I have followed the same primrose path." (Biblical Archaeological Review, 9/77)

The crux of Baigent and Leigh’s arguments are that the college Ecole Biblique et Archeologique de Jerusalem Francaise created some sort of DSS "cartel" and suppressed the truth from other scholars. The main reason that the Essene hypothesis was proposed, according to these guys was to suppress the truth. We have already gone over in detail the real reason that the Essenes are believed to be responsible for the DSS, so we need not review that. The authors themselves propagate the only conspiracy in the Dead Sea Scroll Deception. There are some things that Baigent and Leigh take for granted. As was stated earlier in this article, Geza Vermes was one of the first to state that the Wicked Priest was none other than Jonathan Maccabee. Vermes and Hershel Shanks were also very critical of the slow process of publishing the DSS. Ecole Biblique also publishes the journal Revue Biblique, which features articles from scholars of many differing opinions and religious beliefs.

A few more examples would be alternative hypotheses put forth by others, such as the Spanish Jesuit Jose O’ Callaghan, who has proposed that extant NT fragments of Mark’s Gospel have been found at Qumran. However, the scripts of the fragments in question are not written in a manner that would be typical of the 1^st century A.D. Father Joseph Fitzmeyer of the Catholic University of America, based in Washington D.C., was very critical of the team’s procrastination in publishing the DSS. These people, if Baigent and Leigh’s conspiracy were true, should be very biased, but on the contrary were more than a little critical (or proposed alternatives) of the DSS team.

It is not surprising that Baigent and Leigh get a lot of their information from Robert Eisenman. His theories are equally flimsy as we have seen and The Dead Sea Scroll Deception is guilty by association. This book is so terrible and biased that Vanderkam called it "a disgraceful display of yellow journalism." (Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 198) A review by a Jewish scholar from the Israel Museum didn’t help out Baigent and Leigh either (Biblical Archaeologist, 6/92).

"This is not the place to deal with all of Eisenman's theories, the primary one of which is that the members of the Qumran community were not Essenes, but proto-Christians cum Zealots. The thesis I wish to discuss is whether the publication of the Scrolls was suppressed due to a Catholic conspiracy headed by the late Dominican priest, R.P. Roland de Vaux. As a matter of fact, the late John Allegro invented the thesis long before Eisenman tried to circulate it. Therefore, Allegro is eulogized throughout the volume. On page 45, the authors, in just three lines, heap on him a series of superlatives: "most dynamic, original and audacious . . . the most spontaneous, the most independent minded, the most resistant to suppression of material." The truth is that Allegro is unanimously regarded as the black sheep of the profession, lacking both in integrity and scholarly standards. His Discoveries in the Judaean Desert V is so replete with errors that the review article of this sloppy piece of work is the only case known to me of a review almost as long as the original. His later books are, to say the least, strange. For instance, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Myth (1979), he ascribes to the celibate authors of the scrolls lewd practices. This makes the index read as if it was borrowed from a sex manual… Allegro alleged that the team headed by de Vaux, which included Catholic and Protestant scholars, was concealing material that robbed Christianity of its originality. Even though he had free access to all the material (a prerogative he abused when he published a pirated edition of the Copper Scroll), Allegro never produced any evidence to back his allegations… the identification of the Dead Sea sect with the Essenes (which Deception opposes vehemently) is not a Catholic invention. It was first suggested by E. L. Sukenik (a Jew) and later, perhaps independently, by A. Dupont-Sommer (a lapsed Catholic priest who was a full-fledged agnostic when the Scrolls were discovered). It is interesting to note, however, that only about a dozen scholars propose identifications other than Essenes for the sect. Of these, almost all are Jewish (most notably, G. R. Driver). Israeli scholars are almost unanimously of the Essene school, with the notable exception of Y. Baer. What is the matter with those Israelis. Aren't they Jewish enough?" (emphasis mine)

Let’s move on to the queen of "low-rent scholarship," Barbara Thiering herself.

In her book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Thiering takes us on a journey that is riddled with errors and blatant fantasy. Just like Eisenman, Thiering makes the attempt to place the DSS in the 1^st century A.D. Also, in like fashion she adduces this evidence from pure fantasy. Thiering believes, despite all the paleographical, AMS, and internal evidence to the contrary, that the dates assigned should be given 50 years of leeway, which would put them in the 1^st century A.D. She forgets that that leeway (if it were true) given could swing the other way and make them 50 years older. In a lot of cases 50 years of leeway still wouldn’t get them in the first century.

What does Thiering propose to bolster her argument? She believes that first century A.D. scribes intentionally wrote in an older fashion as to fool everyone. Evidently, they were also prophets because they somehow knew that this controversy was going to happen. Jonathan Maccabee, early in his life was very popular. However, when he attained the High Priesthood he turned sour. That is why the Habakkuk pesher says that he was, "called by the name of truth when he first arose" but later fell from grace when he "ruled over Israel." Thiering believes that Israel here refers to the Qumranites and not the Jewish people in general. "Truth" also points to its special teaching rather than righteousness. A crucifixion described in the Nahum pesher (4QpNah1) is equated with the Jewish protest (under Pilate) of Roman standards in the temple. This event most likely refers to Alexander Jannaeus and his execution of 800+ Pharisees. Thiering doesn’t think so and put this event in the 1^st century A.D. However, as per usual, Thiering hasn’t done her homework. So, Josephus:

"Now Pilate… sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns, into Jerusalem. This excited a very great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot… [The Jews besought Pilate] to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem… but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground… Pilate… gave a signal for to the soldiers that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. Pilate also said unto them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar’s images; and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were one signal, fell down in vast numbers together… they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised… and gave orders that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem." (Wars of the Jews, 2.9.2-3)

Thiering doesn’t research very well and it’s obvious that she needs a history lesson. Nobody was killed in that event, so one has to wonder where she is getting this. Thiering then identifies the Teacher of Righteousness as John the Baptist, which the Hebrew word moreh, for teacher, could also be rendered "sprinkler" in the sense of a baptizer. She then states that John became the leader of the Essene movement. Later on, "the Wicked Priest" or Jesus Himself pursued John and conflict ensued. Thiering argues that Mark 1:9-11 is a cryptic reference to that conflict. With Thiering’s amazing ability to decode these cryptic references (Michael Drosnin eat your heart out) she is able to reconstruct Jesus’ life in amazing detail. Gospel references to "Galilee" and "Jerusalem" are actually references to "Qumran." Jesus married Mary Magdalene, fathered 2 children and thus became an illegitimate descendant of King David. The transfiguration story doesn’t mean what it says but actually refers to an event where Christ dressed Himself in the garments of the High Priest, eventually eliciting His execution. (Mark 9:2-8) Pilate then rode out to Qumran to conduct the famous trial of Christ. If that wasn’t wacky enough for you, Thiering also pushes the infamous "swoon theory." (See Evidences 2: The S-W-O-O-N Theory)

Just like Eisenman and company, Thiering dismisses all internal allusions in the DSS to persons in the 2^nd and 1^st centuries B.C. as well as all the paleographic evidence. It would make sense to look for the identities of the "Wicked Priest" and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in this time frame. Thiering hasn’t fared any better in reviews of her book.

"Most controversially, Thiering claims that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem but at Qumran, along with Simon Magus (see Acts 8) and Judas Iscariot. All three somehow failed to die on their crosses and were revived in their tombs, with Jesus receiving lifesaving medicinal assistance from Simon Magus. Thus, Jesus never rose from the dead as the divine Savior and Lord. He simply survived the crucifixion, and "it is probable that he died of old age in seclusion in Rome" after A.D. 64. She dismisses the traditional New Testament evidence and quotes a third-century Gnostic source (The Gospel of Philip) that claims that Jesus did not die on the cross. Christianity must give up its supernatural claims and adjust itself to Thiering's non-supernatural explanations. The idea of the supernatural is for "babes in Christ" who cannot handle the hard facts… First, Thiering's entire argument depends on an idiosyncratic dating of the scrolls themselves. We have argued that there is no good reason to date the scrolls as late as she does in order to allow them to refer to Jesus. If this is true, then the scrolls could not be speaking of Jesus and John the Baptist at all, since they were not yet born. [N.T.] Wright comments that ‘this of itself would be enough, in fact, to bring the whole structure toppling down.’" (Doug Grootius, Jesus in an Age of Controversy, p. 167ff, emphasis mine)

Lastly, let’s focus for a moment on John Allegro. He was pretty much the basis for Eisenman and Thiering’s wonderful hypotheses, so not much needs to be said. He totally flushed what was left of his credibility down the toilet when he wrote The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Dr. J.N.D. Anderson, an authority on comparative religion, a professor of Oriental Laws, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the Univ. of London comments that Allegro’s book "has been dismissed by 15 experts in Semitic languages and related fields… as ‘not based on any philological or other evidence that they can regard as scholarly’—and has met with scathing criticism in review after review." (Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History, p. 15)

Allegro also put forth the hypothesis that the Righteous Teacher had not only been martyred but also crucified. (Time, 2/6/56, p. 37; Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of Christianity, p. 95, 99-100) This hypothesis is just as foolhardy. Although from the DSS we know for sure that the Righteous Teacher and his followers were persecuted, there is no such reference to him being killed, let alone crucified. It’s not entirely clear from the DSS exactly what happened to the Righteous Teacher. Did he die of natural causes? Was he killed? This is not clear and any hypothesis put forth by Allegro is pure speculation. (Joe Zias and Charlesworth make short work of Allegro’s theory in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 274-279)

To put it bluntly—Allegro, Thiering, Eisenman, Leigh, Baigent, and the rest of them are the scholarly equivalent of a three-ring circus, no more nor less. So boys and girls, if someone begins trying to pass off these people as good scholars, just be nice and try not to laugh too hard. There is one more piece of business that we have to attend to before we move on. I am not going to focus on any specific work, just debunk the general issue.

Was Jesus an Essene?

Going by our above information it seems highly unlikely, but you get the occasional book or what have you pushing nonsense like this off as fact. There are several things we can look at and show that Jesus and the Essenes would have disagreed on several points. Considering the point of ritual purity, the Qumranites (Essenes) emphasized this a lot. Josephus says, "[The Essenes] think that oil is a defilement; and if one of them be anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body…" (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.3) Vanderkam translates CD 12.15-17 as follows: "(As for) all wood, stones, and dust which are defiled by human impurity, with stains of oil on them, the one who touches them will be impure according to their impurity." (Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 81) One need not look any further than the events in Jesus’ ministry where He allowed a promiscuous woman to anoint Him (Luke 7:36-50), healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; The Essenes were strict in their observance of the Sabbath according to various DSS and even Philo), hanging out with the "scum" of society (Mark 2:13-17; In contrast the Essenes considered all outsiders to be "sons of darkness." They shunned all contact with "outsiders."), etc. There are numerous allusions to events such as these in the Gospels. Jesus healing blind men, lepers, and the like. Jesus even told us when we hold a banquet to invite the lame, the sick, etc., not the well to do, which will inevitably pay you back. (Luke 14:7-14) Jesus also shunned the Pharisees (and the Essenes indirectly) in their legalistic observance of ritual purity in "table fellowship." (Matthew 15:1-2, 20) This would also be in sharp contrast to the Essenes and their strict observance of ritual purity. Josephus writes:

"[The Essenes] assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together… [The Essenes] are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labours on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be obliged kindle a fire on that day, [Pertaining to toilet habits] but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon… although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement… they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors, that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the company of a foreigner." (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.5,9-10)

As one can easily see, the Essenes probably would have accused Jesus of being "loose" in His view of ritual impurity. They would have been utterly shocked about Jesus and His disciples saying that eating with unwashed hands would never defile you. As you can see, the Essenes were very legalistic, which is the hallmark of so many cults today.

James Dunn relays some interesting info:

"No man who is lame (psh), or blind (‘wr), or crippled (hgr), or afflicted with a lasting bodily blemish (mwm), or smitten with a bodily impurity, none of these shall march out to war with them… for the holy angels shall be with their hosts… Fools, madmen, simpletons, and imbeciles, the blind (literally, those who, being weak of eye, cannot see), the maimed (hgr), the lame, the deaf, and minors, none of these may enter the midst of the community, for the holy angels (are in the midst of it)… No blind people may enter it (the holy city and the sanctuary) all their days lest they defile the city in whose midst I dwell, for I YHWH, dwell amongst the sons of Israel for ever and eternally." (1Qm 7.4-6, 4QCDb, 11Qtemple 45.12-14; as cited in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 264, James Charlesworth (ed.), italics in original, bold emphases are mine)

Jesus’ "loose" attitude towards lepers (Luke 7:11-19), the blind (John 9:1-34), the lame (John 5:1-15), and Gentiles (Matthew 15:21-28, 28:19) would have conflicted greatly with the exclusivist Essenes. Make special note of the point where Jesus tells us to invite the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind. Commenting on Jesus’ use of "the poor" in this passage Dunn concludes:

"Jesus, in contrast, was remembered as the one who had been very open to the actual poor, the very much wider circle of those living at or below the subsistence level. Jesus linked the poor equally with the disabled, the lame, and the blind, as special objects of God’s favor. The contrast was evident: A self-styled ‘poor’ who lived by a scrupulous understanding of what and who were acceptable to God contrasts impressively with a Jesus who lived by an understanding of God’s grace as open precisely to those excluded by Qumran… In the Palestinian Jesus movement the table of God was open to all the poor, and not least to the disabled, the lame, and the blind—those specifically excluded by the self-styled ‘poor’ of Qumran." (Ibid, p. 267, bold emphasis mine, italics in original)

Another major disagreement that Jesus and the Essenes would have had is their relationship with "those of the world." (The vast majority of info in the rest of this section can be found in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, chapter 6) We have already covered this in part, but we will go more in-depth on this particular issue. Josephus says that proselytes to the Essene sect "swear to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received from himself…" (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.7) In other words, they concealed their teachings on purpose. But that doesn’t make sense at all. Jesus said, "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father, which is in heaven… For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Matthew 5:15-16, Luke 12:2-3) Jesus would have opposed those who were "secretive" and those that "concealed" their teachings as if they were better than anyone else.

This is exactly how the Essenes operated. 1QS 5.14-20 sums it up pretty well.

"So no member shall be united with him (the foreigner) in his work or in his wealth, lest he defile the member with guilty iniquity, but distance shall be kept from him in every manner… no member shall eat from any of their property nor drink from it, nor take anything from their hands except by payment… For all who are not accounted as in his covenant keep them separate and all that belongs to them… and all their deeds are filthiness before him and uncleanness is in all their wealth." (emphasis mine)

Jesus didn’t and wouldn’t have agreed with such a philosophy at all. Jesus, as we all know was roundly criticized by the legalistic Pharisees for hob-knobbing with tax collectors, sinners, harlots, and the like. Jesus was the epitome of compassion and had no qualms with healing and associating with lepers and the rest of the "outcasts" of society. Jesus also criticized those who were "secretive" and kept to themselves. Let your light shine; don’t put it under a bushel basket. We will shift gears slightly now and focus on the last sentence that I boldfaced, the "wealth of the unrighteous."

Our focus will be on Jesus’ words in Luke 16:1-12, the parable of the unjust steward. "For the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely; for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." (v. 8-9) This is the only time that sons of light (or children of light) are mentioned in the Synoptics and the reference is hardly flattering. Jesus, in no uncertain terms stated that the sons of this world (unbelievers) are wiser (phronimos) than the sons of light. Jesus used the same Greek word in Matthew 10:16 when he says, "be ye therefore wise (phronimos) as serpents…" Some people have interpreted the parable in a way that just doesn’t fit. It is clear from the parable that the steward was unfaithful with his master’s money. Jesus wasn’t telling us to use our worldly wealth to win friends, He was instructing us to make friends of those with "worldly wealth" and not to shun all contact with the "world." Becoming a hermit and forsaking all contact with others is not what Jesus commissioned us to do. If we are to be effective witnesses for our Savior and God then we will have to be "in" the world but we don’t have to be "of" the world.

Let’s get to the point. The Essenes often characterized themselves as the sons of light in the DSS, while those outside Qumran were the sons of darkness. They also wrote quite a bit about the "wealth of unrighteousness" in the DSS. I think it is possible that Jesus (at least indirectly, perhaps more so) was criticizing the Essenes in the parable of the unjust steward. CD 6.14-15 states that the Essenes were "to keep apart from the sons of perdition, to refrain from the unclean wealth of wickedness." (emphasis mine) In the same document (8.5) it says that the wicked "defiled themselves in ways of whoredom and the wealth of wickedness."

Two more interesting passages from the DSS come to mind also.

"And let no man of the covenant of God trade with the sons of perdition except for cash. And let no man make a partnership for trade unless he informs the overseer in the camp and makes a written agreement… And the wealth belonging to men of holiness who walk in perfection—their wealth shall not be mingled with the wealth belonging to the men of deceit who have not cleansed their way to be separated from iniquity and to walk in perfection of way." (CD 13.14-16; 1QS 9.8-10)

We can see clearly from these passages that the Essenes practiced economic separatism, which was exactly the view that Jesus was critiquing in the parable of the unjust steward. Josephus adds to our evidence when he states that the Essenes "cannot give anything to their kindred with[out] the curators [consent]." (Wars of the Jews, 2.8.6) This shows blatant economic separatism.

Jesus opposed this type of attitude vehemently. When Jesus said that the sons of the world were wiser than the sons of light He was referring to those (like the Essenes) who practiced economic separatism. Since the parable is about economics this fits pretty well. Jesus was not telling us to use our worldly wealth to win friends, because almsgiving was a watershed issue to a Jewish audience. Jesus would be speaking redundancy. Here is a crude, but effective example. Suppose a certain Christian started practicing economic separatism like the Essenes. Now that they are doing that they cannot own a computer because Microsoft is infiltrated with the "mammon of unrighteousness." They also cannot buy books from Amazon because they, like Microsoft, have been permeated with the "mammon of unrighteousness." As you can see, this would not be very intelligent at all. We can be "in" the world and not be "of" the world at the same time.

Let’s focus now on the "wealth (mammon) of unrighteousness." The term mammon doesn’t appear in the OT, but is the normal word used for wealth in the Second Temple period. The word used normally is hwn. However, mammon (mmwn) is found frequently in DSS literature and is used interchangeably with hwn.

In 1QS 6.2 wealth is designated by mammon, but in another manuscript of the same passage hwn is used. Another case in point would be 1QS 6.25, where the complete work uses hwn, but the same passage in another copy, as well as a parallel passage in CD has mammon. (See J. Licht, Rule Scroll, p. 105) As we can see, the Essenes at Qumran make no distinction between mammon and hwn.
The Essenes were admonished to "hate all the sons of darkness each according to his guilt in the vengeance of God." (1QS 1.10-11) How could these Essenes have made friends for themselves among the wealth of unrighteousness? Moreover, 1QS 5.16-17 states further speaking of the Essene relationship to outsiders: "no member [of the Qumran community may] eat from any of their property nor drink from it, nor take anything from their hands except by payment." When Jesus said "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light," He was more or less directly criticizing the Essene practice of economic separatism. Even the sons of this world will take help (in an adverse situation) from someone that would be considered "outside" their particular paradigm. Lastly, Jesus said: "And into whatsoever house ye enter… And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give… And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you." (Luke 10:5, 7, 8)

This concludes our short section showing that Jesus would have opposed several Essene practices. Those who try to push the "Jesus was an Essene" hypothesis would do well to explain the evidence conveyed in this section. Lastly, concluding our section on the DSS, we will examine its effect on the Hebrew Bible (OT).

DSS: Its Effect on the Hebrew Bible

For years a lot was said by many super skeptics and the like—that if older copies of OT books were found we would know for sure that the Bible had been seriously redacted throughout the centuries. These questions and more were answered with the discovery of the DSS in 1947 and the following years. After years and years of waiting, the texts at Qumran have been made public and translated into English. However, much to the chagrin of a number of windbags out there, there is no essential Christian doctrine in jeopardy because of the DSS, nor do the "anomalies" among them present any problems. In the following I will present some of the most interesting problems that the DSS has given to the OT. Without further ado, let’s dive right in. (A lot of this info is taken from Campbell, Dead Sea Scrolls, chapter 3 and Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, chapter 5)

Here I will intend to relay the textual problems that have arisen with the discovery of the DSS. One issue that vexed scholars for years was Exodus 1:5 and the number of descendants that came with Jacob to Egypt. The Masoretic Text (MT) reads 70, but the Septuagint (LXX) reads 75. Usually, the MT was favored over the LXX because after all, the LXX was a translation and the MT wasn’t. There is on thing in favor of the LXX, its copies go much further back into antiquity. Compounding this problem, Stephen quoted the LXX in Acts 7:14, showing that the early Christians used the LXX and found it as reliable. Now some folks will begin whining that they should have used the MT instead. My only answer would be why? Because you say they should? It’s not unheard of for people to be bilingual, but when discussing this with pseudo intellectuals, getting them to think for themselves is quite the dental task. But as I always say, trumpet a barrier today and you’ll be laughed at tomorrow when it falls. This quandary was solved with the discovery of 4QExod^a. In this text we find the number of descendants listed as 75. This is far older then any other Hebrew copy we have of Exodus 1, so it is highly likely that this reading is the correct one. It’s ironic that Luke should preserve the correct reading (or at least Stephen knew of it) in Acts 7:14. I guess Luke wasn’t a moron after all.

Our next bit of business pertains to the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a). Many super skeptics and liberals propose a "Deutero-Isaiah," or two or more people authored Isaiah. The crux of this objection is that chapters 1-39 were written by one Isaiah (this section focuses primarily on God’s judgment of Israel for her sins) and chapters 40-66 were written by a second author (this section could be described as optimistic or that God was extending an invitation to receive His grace in spite of rampant sin and rebellion). Is it permissible for an author to convey God’s judgment and mercy in the same literary work? For example, the book of Deuteronomy lists blessing for obedience and cursings for disobedience (chapter 28). Moreover, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 40:3 (Matthew 3:3), 53:4 (Matthew 8:17) and Isaiah 6:9-10 (John 12:40-41) without any hint of dual authorship.

My main point focuses on the Isaiah Scroll. This scroll is dated at 125-100 B.C. and was copied by a single hand. (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. III, p. 471) This scroll is complete with all 66 chapters of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah without any hint of a break after chapter 39. Some may object and say that that doesn’t prove that it was a literary unit in 500 B.C. for example, but that also doesn’t prove that it isn’t. Rather than mire myself in a negative proof fallacy it will be good to comment on this further. If a copy of Isaiah from 500 B.C. were found, the skeptic would just move the goalposts and demand evidence for literary unity in 600 B.C. Trumpet a barrier today and look foolish tomorrow. We may never find a copy of Isaiah that old, but I give the document the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and since we have concrete evidence that it was a literary unity in 125 B.C. I see no need to comment further.

However, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ibid) states, "In conclusion, one can say that the specific contribution of 1QIsa^a as of the other Isaian mss from Qumran, is related to the history of the textual tradition of the book of Isaiah. When one adds to that the witness of the LXX, the mss of Qumran have confirmed that, unlike other biblical books, there was only one text of the book of Isaiah from the 3d century B.C."

The textual differences between 1QIsa^a and the MT (and there are hundreds) relate to misspellings, a slight change in the wording without affecting the context of the passage, etc. In other words, there are no major problems with the book if Isaiah after millenniums of transmission.

Our next piece of business relates to an anomaly in Jeremiah and specifically chapter 10. If you look in your KJV you will see verses 6-8, 10 listed as part of the original because they are indeed found in the MT. However, the LXX lacks these verses. Which are we to trust—the older, but translated LXX, or the original Hebrew of the younger MT? This issue has been resolved courtesy of 4QJer^b. In this particular DSS manuscript, we find that verses 6-8, 10 are also missing. The skeptic will automatically jump up and say, "Look at that, your stupid scribes inserted passages into the text!" This is what textual criticism is all about though—finding the verses that are not in the original and eliminating them.

If you look at those verses in the KJV though, you will see that they are of no doctrinal nature, nor do they seriously affect anything about Christianity. Those passages are simply praises to God and His creative power. There are two ways to look at this particular textual variant.

The scribe inserted these verses (classified as literary expansion) purposely to provide an authoritative commentary against those "false gods" or

They were originally appended in Isaiah as a commentary and a later scribe mistook them as part of the original work

If we found out that the original said for example, "and the King Solomon slew Goliath" we would have a problem but the inserted verses do not present us with anything damaging to the Bible or Christianity as a whole.

It is interesting that Jeremiah is about 1/8^th shorter in the LXX than it is in the MT. The difference may sound great, but once again they are very minor. Among the 6 copies of Jeremiah found at Qumran, five have the longer form, which would agree with the MT, and one has the shorter version (4QJer^b), which would agree with the LXX. The discoveries at Qumran do confirm that shorter Hebrew versions of Jeremiah did exist, but the majority attests to the longer version.

The greatest anomaly, in my opinion lies in 1 Samuel. From what we have covered thus far, it seems that the LXX, though it was a translation is a lot more reliable in some cases than the MT. It has also become apparent that the Essenes did in fact use the LXX because some of the DSS agree with the readings given in the LXX. ¹

The main focus is 1 Samuel 17. In this particular chapter we have a great deal of info given about David’s arrival at the battlefield where he had a rock concert in Goliath’s honor, Goliath’s taunts at the Israeli army, etc. If you look in your KJV for example, you will find 58 verses devoted to this story. ² The LXX however, eliminates verses 12-31, 41, and 55-58. From what we covered earlier it would be gratuitous to assume that the LXX is wrong because it is a translation.

If you read those omitted verses, nothing really changes, in fact, from what I can see it aids the "flow" of the story. The omitted verses change no essential (or non-essential) doctrine and have no adverse affect on Orthodox Biblical Christianity or Judaism for that matter. The first copy of Samuel (4QSam^a) found does in fact support the longer reading as conveyed in the MT. Where did the shorter ending in the LXX come from? That I am not sure anyone can answer at this point in time. But I must reiterate that even if those verses should be missing, they do not provide anything damaging to the Hebrew Bible.

One very interesting find pertains to 1 Samuel 17:4 where Goliath’s height is listed as six cubits and a span. This would be about the equivalent of 9 ft. 9 in. However, 4QSam^a lists Goliath’s height as four cubits and a span, roughly 6 ft. 9 in., which agrees with the LXX. Goliath would still be large by today’s standards and in comparison with the rather meek stature of David. It seems that a later Hebrew copyist misread the number and accidentally listed Goliath’s height as six cubits. The OT does list other rather large individuals so the point of giants in the OT is preserved, but not the height of the Philistine Goliath.

Another interesting quandary that has been solved is the canonicity of the 151^st Psalm. This Psalm is omitted in the MT, but present in the LXX. Prior to 1947 scholars were puzzled as to why it’s in the LXX but not the MT. This question has been answered courtesy of 11QPs^a.

This particular manuscript attests to the canonicity of the 151^st Psalm. Apparently this Psalm was lost, for reasons currently unknown, but is attested in LXX, and at Qumran, both of which are older than the MT.

This lost work also appears at the end of the Psalms just like it does in the LXX. It’s a strongly Davidic Psalm which serves as a good ending to one of the most revered biblical works.

Let’s quickly go over some other finds illuminated by the DSS. Take out your KJV boys and girls and turn to 1 Samuel 10:26-11:4. Courtesy of 4QSam^a we have found some "lost verses" in this chapter. The NRSV preserves these additions, translates them as follows and they are inserted between the end of 1 Samuel 10:27 and the beginning of 11:1.

 

"Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously opposing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan who right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-Gilead. About a month later…"

As you can see, inserting these verses, as found in 4QSam^a aid the flow of the dialogue and tie up loose ends. The most probable reason that these verses were "lost" is because the phrases "but he held his peace" and "about a month later" look similar enough in the Hebrew that a scribe jumped down while copying from another manuscript and didn’t even see that he had skipped several sentences.

Just as interesting, these additions are not found in either the MT or the LXX.

Lastly, Amos 3:9 in the MT (the KJV and NRSV also render it this way) reads "Ashdod" while the LXX (and the New Jerusalem Bible) reads "Assyria." The Hebrew of those two words look similar enough that a scribe possibly mistook the word for something else and thus, we have a variant. It should be noted that whichever word is preferred; the crux of Amos is not substantially affected.

This concludes our section on the DSS and in quick review, there is nothing damaging to Christianity, in contrast to the flag-waving of numerous sensationalists who simply talk just to hear the wind blow. In fact, the DSS, if anything, illuminates and strengthens our study of the Hebrew Bible and Christianity as a whole.

1. Glenn Miller has two articles showing that the Qumranites did make use of the LXX as a good translation. (The LXX/DSS relationship is not the sole subject of either article however) I am NOT saying that the LXX is perfect, but in a lot of cases it’s trustworthy. The claim that all the NT authors quoted exclusively from the LXX is also refuted, as well as the claim that the LXX was rubbish and only biased followers of Christ used it.

2. I am not bashing the KJV, I am simply pointing out some obvious errors that are in it and the fact that they need to be corrected. In my opinion the KJV is a good translation, but not perfect. I am not a KJV "onlyist" and the reasons should be obvious.

Various Archaeological Evidences for the OT and NT

In this section we will examine various archaeological evidences that strengthen our belief in the validity of the Bible. Many times skeptics have trumpeted the "fact" that certain people in the Bible are not known in the ancient world except in the Bible. First of all, why discredit it just because it’s in the Bible? Many times historians take for granted the biographies of the Caesars and what not, why single out the Bible? The only reason is that they need to apply a double standard. They need to be consistent with their judgment, but many times they’re not.

Just as quick examples: It was once thought that the Hittites as well as the Babylonian king Belshazzar where mythical characters made up by a group of pious Jews (see Evidences 2), but in fact the practice of archaeology has proven that these people did in fact exist. For centuries the only known testimony to their existence was the Bible.

There’s a great deal of people out of the Bible that we don’t have concrete archaeological evidence for their existence. Moses, Abraham, Adam, and Aaron being prime examples. We may never find any pertinent archaeological evidence to prove that these guys existed, but we have enough to prove that the Bible is, speaking historically, an accurate document.

A couple more things need to be pointed out before we begin. Those who say for example, "Moses never existed, we don’t have any proof that he existed" are just making an argument from silence. Absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily entail an evidence of absence. David Merling comments that, "Nonevidence is not the same as evidence. Other conquests, whose histories have never been questioned, have been investigated for evidence of destructions. The lack of evidence among these sites should cause all archaeologists to question the use of nonevidence." (David Merling, PhD dissertation, Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Feb. 1996; as cited in Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 156) Another thing that must be pointed out is the limitations of archaeology. In short, archaeology cannot prove that God exists, archaeology is, as one person put it, "the study of durable rubbish." Archaeology can prove that the Ten Commandments existed, but it cannot prove that God was the person that originally wrote them. (Don’t write into me saying that Moses broke the original ones, it’s just an example for crying out loud!) With that finished, let’s begin with this section.

Archaeological Evidence

I am not going to go in a specific order, nor am I going to start with the oldest evidence and work my way towards NT times. I am going to start with what I think to be one of the greatest archaeological finds ever, the Mesha Stele (or Moabite Stone).

This stone inscribed in circa 840 B.C. (See Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, Charles Pfeiffer (ed.) p. 33) and contains some of the oldest references to biblical characters. Skeptics have always been quick to point out that one of the bible’s main characters King David is mythical. First of all, the bible mentions him why wouldn’t that be enough? Usually it is just a bias that the document is guilty until proven innocent. If they only applied the same logic to biographies of the Roman Emperors and such. Good thing people like this aren’t on the faculty of classic’s departments in this country or any study of history would be riddled with stupidity. However, like usual that barrier, given enough time was smashed.

The Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele (which will be discussed later) both mention a "House of David." Logically, if there was a "House of David" there must have been a "David." French scholar Andre Linde has identified the reading of a formerly illegible line, "House of D…" on this Stele with the historical biblical King David. The term "House of David" occurs in the OT 20 some times and is synonymous with the historic founder of this line of Judean kings all the way to Christ. The Mesha Stele also contains such phrases as "the land of Omri" and "the house of Omri," but scholars haven’t doubted the historicity of Omri because of this. (Also see The Ancient Near East, Vol. I., James Pritchard (ed.), p. 209-210) Why then do they doubt the historicity of David?

So, J. Andrew Dearman:

"The date of MI [Moabite Inscription] proposed here would agree with the consensus of paleography for a mid-9^th century date, c. 840-830 B.C… The initial observation—that the Moabite language seemed similar to the classical Hebrew—has been largely confirmed; nowadays, it appears that Moabite had more similarities with Hebrew than with old Aramaic… With the political and economic domination of Moab with Israel during parts of the 10^th and 9^th centuries, it is not surprising that Moabite would be similar to Hebrew, or since Ammonite would be Moabite’s closest Transjordanian neighbor, that these two languages have a number of elements in common." (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. IV, p. 708, emphasis mine)

This confirms the Biblical account that Moab was subservient to Israel for some time, so long in fact that their language reflects classical Hebrew even more so then old Aramaic. ¹

The Tel Dan Stele provides even more info on the historicity of David and preceded the discovery of the Mesha Stele. Professor Avraham Biran, director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew Union College, excavated it. The important lines (7b-9) read: "I killed Jehoram son of Ahab king of Israel and I killed Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the House of David." As you can see we have enemy attestation to Israel’s favorite son, King David. Biran, concerning the Tel Dan Stele remarks, "Its lines speak of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which from the Bible we know was constant between Israel and Damascus. In this fragment a king of Damascus, Ben Hadad, is apparently victorious… But what was really thrilling was to find that he defeated a ‘king of Israel of the House of David!’" (as cited by Randall Price in his interview with Biran; The Stones Cry Out, p. 169) King David can no longer be thought of as a mythical invention of some pious Jew in the post-exilic era.

King Jehu assumed Israel’s throne in 841, killed Ahab’s sons, the priests of Baal (2 Kings 9-10), and lost Transjordan to Syria, etc. He had a very lengthy reign of 28 years and did pay tribute to Shalmaneser the Assyrian king although this is not recorded in the Bible. So Pritchard: "The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri; I [Shalmaneser] received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king (and) wooden puruhtu. (The Ancient Near East, James Pritchard (ed.), Vol. I, p. 192, emphasis his)

The evil king Ahab is also mentioned in Assyrian texts. Although he was wicked, he was most likely was the most powerful king ever in the Northern Kingdom. Shalmaneser mentions him in a text where a coalition of kings, including Ahab opposed him in his march west.

"[Shalmaneser] departed from Argana and approached Karkara. I [Shalmaneser] destroyed, tore down and burned down Karkara… [The king of Karkara] brought along to help him… 10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab the Israelite [among others]… I slew 14,000 of their soldiers with the sword, descending upon them like Adad when he makes a rainstorm pour down. I spread their corpses (everywhere). Filling the entire plain with their widely scattered (fleeing) soldiers. During the battle I made their blood flow down the hur-pa-lu of the district. The plain was too small to let (all) their souls descend (into the netherworld), the vast field gave out (when it came) to bury them." (Ibid, p. 190-191, italics in original, bold emphasis mine)

The existence of Ahab (and other kings as we shall soon see) was taken for granted. One curious thing is missing from Shalmaneser’s account. He mentions killing a myriad of soldiers and chariots, etc., but curiously omits details of any tribute. The fact that he didn’t get any tribute shows that he didn’t win the battle. This account does obviously mention some things that would be considered supernatural, but these Assyrian texts are generally considered to be historically reliable. Why then is the Bible guilty until proven innocent? The double standard is glaring here—Assyrian texts, pertaining to historicity are taken for granted and the Bible is taken with a pinch of salt. There is no good reason to do this and until someone comes up with a viable reason that the Bible, like all other documents of antiquity will be innocent until proven guilty also.

Assyria did go against their normal pattern of behavior and did in fact assist Israel in its conflict with Syria. In II Kings 13 we read about the Syrian oppression of the Northern Kingdom under Jehoahaz. Commenting on these events Alfred J. Hoerth writes:

"Second Kings 13:5 simply states that in response [to Jehoahaz’s plea for help] ‘the Lord gave Israel a deliverer, so that they escaped from under the hand of the Syrians.’ Archaeology seems to have filled in the details of this verse, identifying the deliverer as King Adad-nirari III of Assyria… ‘I marched against the country… I shut up [the] king of Damascus in Damascus, his royal residence. The terror-inspiring glamour of Ashur, overwhelmed him and he seized my feet, assuming the position of a slave of mine. Then I received his own palace in Damascus, his royal residence, 2,300 talents of silver corresponding to 20 talents of gold, 5,000 talents of iron, garments of linen with multicolored trimmings, a bad inlaid with ivory… and countless other objects being his possessions.’" (As cited in Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 327-328, also see Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Pritchard (ed.), p. 281-282)

King Menahem ² (752-742, see II Kings 15) of Israel learned a hard lesson indeed. For a time, the Assyrian empire was weak and Israel was able to prosper, as they didn’t have to worry about the pesky Assyrians. That came to an end when Tiglath-pileser came on the scene and the Assyrians, under his leadership were about to form the most devastating war machine that the world had ever known. Most people were intelligent enough not to oppose him because of his military might. In another Assyrian text we learn that Tiglath received tribute from Menahem of Samaria. (See The Ancient Near East, Vol. I, p. 193)

Incidentally, other than Jonah’s trip to Nineveh, this was Israel’s first contact with the Assyrian empire. (See II Kings 15:19. Pul is the alternative Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser) Once again the Bible proves to be historically accurate when compared to Assyrian texts.

Menahem died and was succeeded on the throne by Pekahiah, (742-740) who had a very short reign due to his assassination. II Kings 15:23-25 relates that Pekahiah had succeeded Menahem, reigned 2 years, did evil in the sight of the Lord, and was assassinated by Pekah, son of Remaliah. Pekah had a long reign of 20 years but it wasn’t a good one. He continued in the evil practices began by Jeroboam and was eventually assassinated by Hoshea during Tiglath’s deportation of the Israelites. One Assyrian text relates that Israel "overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria." (The Ancient Near East, Vol. I, p. 194) Although the Bible doesn’t attribute Hoshea’s ascension to the throne as a "puppet" like the Assyrian text indicates, two things are clear. One, the Bible is correct in this account and is historically accurate, and two, Hoshea began his reign as a vassal to the Assyrians.

With the death of Tiglath in 727, those nations subject to Assyria seized the moment and attempted to thwart the Assyrian war machine. Hoshea was one of these that attempted to seize the moment. (II Kings 17:1-4) Hoshea wasn’t powerful enough to pull this off and was forced again to "give presents." But once wasn’t enough for Hoshea, he had to try it again, this time in the form of not only ceasing tribute, but calling on Pharaoh So ³ for help. This did not pan out and after three years of siege, Samaria fell (722 B.C.) and Israel was no more (II Kings 17:5-6). Shalmaneser V began the siege on Samaria but Sargon II finished it. Once again Assyrian texts relate this event: "I besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as booty 27, 290 inhabitants of it. I formed from among them a contingent of 50 chariots and made remaining (inhabitants) assume their (social) positions. I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king." (Ibid, p. 195)

2 Kings 18:19-19:37 relays some very important events that are written about in Assyrian literature. Sennacherib, the king of Assyria was threatening Jerusalem with attack. His representative related that under no uncertain terms Jerusalem was going down. Hezekiah thumbed his nose at the Rab-shakeh and against all odds held out against the mighty Assyrians. Sennacherib, staying true to the Ancient Near East (ANE) practice of tip toeing around a failure:

"As to Hezekiah, the Jew he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth-) ramps, and battering-rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers… [Hezekiah] I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were leaving his city’s gate… Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver…" (Ibid, p. 200-201, emphasis mine)

2 Chronicles 32:3-5, 30 & 2 Kings 20:20 inform us of some of the preparations that Hezekiah made for the coming Assyrian onslaught. Hezekiah repaired and raised up all the broken parts of the wall of Jerusalem, but he is best known for stopping up all of the springs outside of Jerusalem (to prevent the Assyrians from having access to water, 1 Chronicles 32:4) and redirecting the Gihon Spring to the pool of Siloam inside the city to keep them from surrendering because of thirst.

"[…when] (the tunnel] was driven through. And this was the way in which it was cut through: —While […] (were) still […] axe(s), each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed (the rock), each man toward his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the head(s) of the quarrymen was 100 cubits." (Ibid, p. 212, brackets in original)

This inscription was found in the rock wall of the lower entrance to Hezekiah’s tunnel in 1880. The Bible puts this event in the 14^th year of Hezekiah, which would be circa 701 B.C. This would have been a massive undertaking that would have given way to many a sore back, as well as the competition for oxygen as the workers moved further. The route of the tunnel is hardly straight and it meanders to and fro often, even going outside the walls near the end and then going back inside. It seems that the indirect route was not due to the diggers being incompetent, but they seemed to have been following, and thus enlarging an already existing natural water channel. (See D. Gill, Biblical Archaeology Review, 20/4:20-33, 64 (1994); D. Cole, Biblical Archaeology Review, 6/2:8-29, (1980)

Remarking on the Siloam Inscription the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (p. 530, 532-533) remarks:

"The construction of ‘the pool and the conduit’ by means of which Hezekiah ‘brought water into the city’ (II Kings 20:20 RSV) is justly recognized as one of the great engineering feats of antiquity. He first built the Siloam reservoir itself, enclosing it within the fortifications located in the southwest quarter of Jerusalem… and intending then to divert the Gihon waters from the ‘old’ or ‘lower’ pool… into it through the Siloam tunnel… Hezekiah’s tunnel has continued to bring water into Jerusalem from the time of its construction to the present day. The writer of the Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus mentions it (48:17), apparently indicating that its existence and purpose were still known in the second century B.C… The Siloam inscription was written in flowing characters that are independently dateable to the time of Hezekiah, so that 700 B.C. cannot be too far from the actual year of its engraving, probably by a member of one of the crews that dug the tunnel… Like the Mesha stone, this inscription is characterized by dots, which separate words from each other. The script itself is a beautifully executed form of the cursive Phoenician consonantal alphabet, no vowel sounds being represented in ancient Hebrew. Although certain consonants were used as vowel indicators in later times, such use is virtually non-existent in the Siloam inscription except at word-end."

With the antiquity of this inscription confirmed and Hezekiah’s tunnel located we have no good reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this account. There is abundant archaeological evidence available to confirm that the Bible was written as a historical account, intending to convey accurate history. How could the author have described this in great detail if he was just "reflecting" on events that occurred centuries ago? Although we are not 100 % sure who authored the sections in I Kings and II Chronicles that focus on Hezekiah, one thing is for sure, they were either an eyewitness to these events or were transcribing the words of an eyewitness.

Relayed by Randall Price and discovered by Gabriel Barkay was an extraordinary archaeological find to say the least. Predating the DSS by several centuries, 2 amulets were found in Cave 25 at Ketef-Hinnom with a benediction very similar to Numbers 6:24-26.

"Cave 25 was subdivided into smaller areas under the supervision of Gordon Franz from New Jersey. Inside also was a student of dine, Judith Hadley… She called me over and showed me an object still in the ground, which looked like a cigarette butt. It was purplish grayish… It was made of silver foil, 99 percent pure—something which has biblical connections because it mentions being purified seven times as silver [Psalm 12:6]… we found another object of the same nature—rolled up to form a small cylinder… When these objects were unrolled… we found that they were covered with delicately scratched characters in the ancient Hebrew script. The surprise was that the first word to be identified and deciphered was the name of the Lord, the tetragrammaton, the unpronounceable name which is sometimes Anglicized as "Jehovah." Now we discovered that on both amulets we have a text which is also similar to the book of Numbers 6:24-26, known as the priestly benediction which is used in Jewish prayers and in Christian liturgy until this very day… These are the earliest biblical verses that we own, and they predate the famous Dead Sea Scrolls by several centuries. And these are the only biblical verses we have that date back to the time of the Davidic dynasty, the time of the Judean monarchy, the time of the First Temple period." (Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 241)

This does provide somewhat of a problem for the JEDP crowd, much to their chagrin these liturgies where being used in the First Temple period, but according to them the Pentateuch wasn’t finished until the 5^th or 4^th century B.C., long after the temple was leveled by Nebuchadnezzar.

Shifting gears somewhat, we get our verification of Biblical history in some cases, not from parallel Assyrian or Babylonian accounts, but from excavations.

Will Dever (hardly a biblical conservative) writes concerning the similarity of gates found at Hazor, Megiddo, and Jerusalem. The Bible attests to Solomon building Hazor and Megiddo, so we would not be surprised to find similarities between the city gates there and Solomonic gate types.

"The story of the discovery of the nearly identical Solomonic city gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer is well known… following his own excavations at Hazor (1955-58), where a nearly identical inner gate and casemate wall were discovered in Stratum X on the Acropolis, Yadin again turned to the plan of Macalister’s ‘Maccabean Castle’ and made the brilliant suggestion that here was a hitherto unrecognized Solomonic city gate of similar type. He cited the text of I Kings 9:15-17, and further suggested that all three gates ‘were in fact built by Solomon’s architects from identical blueprints.’ The subsequent excavations at Gezer, led by myself and others (in 1964-67), completed the excavation of the buried Gezer gate (Stratum VIII) and dated it on ceramic evidence to the tenth century B.C., dramatically confirming both Yadin’s intuition and the biblical record… the parallels between the three Solomonic gates alluded to in I Kings 9 and those brought to light by excavation are so close that we must posit royal supervision in the construction of the fortified, provincial administrative centers in the tenth century B.C." (Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 104, 106)

This is a very rare case where actual structures mentioned in the Bible turn up in very favorable condition. Usually, evidence this old has been victimized either by vandals (as was the case with the Siloam Inscription) or the annals of time. Will Dever has been instrumental, directly and indirectly in several verifications of the Biblical record from Solomon’s time. One particularly interesting point is that Solomon, having no native Israelite tradition in art and architecture had to employ Phoenician artists and architects to build his temple. The OT testifies to this in several places, such as I Kings 5-8. If Solomon did indeed employ foreigners to build his temple as well as many other structures, it logically follows that his structures should somewhat resemble Canaanite and Syrian structures. So, Dever:

"Megiddo provides our most complete data. From the Chicago excavations we have several structures, notably Building 1482 and particularly Building 1723, probably the governor’s palace. The latter is at the south of the mound just inside the city wall, a splendidly constructed building of ashlar and rubble-filled masonry similar to that of the Stratum Va-Ivb Solomonic gate. The enclosed compound, with its own triple-entryway gate, measures some sixty meters square; the main structure is twenty meters by twenty-two meters and has a dozen rooms surrounding a central court, as well as a tower staircase indicating a second floor. This palatial structure has properly been compared with the Assyrian-style bit hilani familiar from contemporary sites to the north—especially as Zinjirli… Sakcegozu and Karatepe in Anatolia, Tell Tayinat in Syria, and Tell Halaf in Mesopotamia… the tripartite ground plan of the Biblical description of the Solomonic Temple features three rooms arranged along a central axis: the outer ulam or vestibule, the central hekhal or court, and the innermost devir or ‘Holy of Holies.’ Until a few years ago no examples of such tripartite temples were known outside of Biblical description, but in the 1930s… Tell Tayinat in Syria turned up a ninth-century temple which closely fitted the Biblical description and thus confirmed the Phoenician provenance of the basic temple design, in accordance with I Kings 5:8." (Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 107-108, 111-112, italics in original, bold emphasis mine)

Again, the Bible was the first known witness to a temple of this kind. Does that automatically make it suspect? For some it does, but only because of their presupposition against the Bible. If some texts from the time of Alexander the Great attested to this they would have no problem with it, even in light of no archaeological evidence, but as I have noticed, the Bible is scrutinized further. Once again, those that trumpeted an error were left with egg on their faces.

If the Bible is correct in so many insignificant details, then how can the skeptic contend that it was written "long after the fact" with no intent to preserve literal history? Many Assyrian texts, for example, mention events with a "supernatural appeal," are these accounts then discarded? If the answer is no then there is no good reason to discount the Biblical account. If the Bible was not written in a historical motif then why is it correct in so many details that have escaped in the sands of time only to be revealed millenniums later via archaeology?

One of the most important events in the OT is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Many biblical minimalists glibly state that this event is fantasy and part of a literary tradition amongst the early Jews. What makes this seem highly unlikely is the number of times Sodom is mentioned outside of Genesis (28 times and 10 times in the NT) in the context of a literal city, which was literally destroyed. But let’s put that aside and demolish another pitiful skeptical argument.

For the sake of space I will not regurgitate what I have covered elsewhere pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah. (See Evidences 2: The Ebla Tablets) However, there is some new material (R. Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 109-124) that I would like to cover. At a site known as Bab edh-Dhra numerous excavations have been done and it seems that this is synonymous with biblical Sodom.

Outside of this town they have found a massive cemetery containing literally thousands of bodies. There is extensive fire damage to this site and there were several feet of ash covering it. There were also bricks turned red from intense heat, charred posts and roof beams, and even the cemetery exhibited the effects of this, yielding several ash deposits there also. Another curious piece of evidence was the curious fact that all the buildings there had been burned—from the inside out! Every single charnel house ⁴ at the site was determined to have caught fire on the roof—the roof subsequently caved in and then engulfed the rest of the structure. What’s more, the obvious question is how did these charnel houses—miles away from the cemetery all catch fire and burn to the ground like the rest of the town? A skeptic cannot explain it away as an earthquake causing a fire because they would still have the enigma of all the roofs catching fire first and then the rest of the building going up. If it were an enemy camp coming to wreak havoc why on earth would they burn the charnel houses? Were they afraid that the residents of those buildings were going to attack them? In the city there is no evidence of the buildings burning from the inside out because of erosion.

Along the shoreline south of Bab edh-Dhra is es-Safi, identified with Zoar (which was not destroyed), Walter Rast and Thomas Schaub’s excavations discovered three more cities, one between Bab edh-Dhra and es-Safi, known as Numeira, and two south of es-Safi known as Feifa and Khanazir. It was determined that all of these cities were abandoned circa 2450-2350 B.C. At Numeira one layer of ash was over seven feet thick, despite the fact that it was heavily fortified, which pretty much excludes the idea of an enemy doing such extensive damage.

This area has also yielded evidence of abundant deposits of asphalt, petroleum, and natural gas. (See American Journal of Archaeology 40 (1936), p. 323-344) The fact that these cites form a line along the southwest end of the Dead Sea, show extensive damage from fire—along with the abundance of flammable materials, it seems that we have indeed found the "Five Cities of the Plain" mentioned in Genesis 14. Bab edh-Dhra is the largest and furthest north of the five cities; thus, it is most likely that this is biblical Sodom. Linguistically Numeira can be connected to biblical Gomorrah because the modern Arabic designation preserves the original biblical Hebrew title. (The Stones Cry Out, p. 410, footnote 19)

In conclusion of our discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the whining of skeptics and "internet gurus," it seems that the biblical "Five Cities of the Plain" have been identified. The aspects of their destruction fit the biblical account all too well to be coincidental—couple that with the extra-biblical references to these cities and the match fits like a glove. To those who are looking for excuses to deny the truth that is in the Bible and foremost, to Christ Himself, let Sodom be a reminder to you what God can and will do when He spits in His hands and says, "alright, enough is enough!"⁵

Let’s continue with one little (but interesting) kernel of New Testament history. Other evidence of this sort has already been covered in Evidences 2: Other Archaeological Discoveries.

This first piece of evidence is nothing earth shattering in my opinion, but it’s rather interesting nonetheless. In January 1986 a severe drought substantially lowered the waters of the Sea of Galilee. This was responsible for revealing the remains of a long buried, primitive fishing boat. After a hasty, but painstaking process of removing the boat from its final resting place it was brought to the Yigal Allon Museum. Radiocarbon dating, which I put very little stock in, did surprisingly date it to the period 40 B.C.-40 A.D., which would make it shortly before or possibly contemporary with Christ Himself. Pottery and coins in the surrounding mud where this was found also support a 1^st century A.D. milieu. It also fits the numerous references in the Synoptics to the fishing boats that would have been used in Jesus’ time.

It was determined that this boat ⁶ was very seaworthy and could have been sailed or rowed, depending on the preference of the helmsman. It was designed for a crew of five, four rowers and the aforementioned helmsman. It also had room for considerable cargo or up to ten passengers. The account in Mark 1:20 shows us that after James and John left the boat, their father was left was his servants, implying that there were still several people left after their departure. This passage also implies that fisherman were not a bunch of country bumpkins as some have made them out to be. John evidently was wealthy enough to have servants. Although, fisherman were still considered "lower-class" citizens by Roman standards—they weren’t as bad as the normal stereotype makes them out to be. (Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, p. 79-84)

1. This can be seen in the book of Daniel, where portions of it were written in Aramaic (Daniel 2:4-7:28), which would be consistent with the tongue of the Babylonians whom he was exiled under. The argument that Daniel used Greek and Persian words points to a late date is also faulty. See Evidences 2: Biblical Prophecy

2. Those who question the chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah should look at Edwin R. Thiele’s treatment of this issue on pages 317-318 of Archaeology and the Old Testament. He lists basically 5 points that need to be considered. The years of a king’s reign were credited according to the accession or non-accession years. The former system gave the king was given credit for the year he died. The remainder of the year was treated as the "accession period." The latter still gave the old king credit for the year he died but the new king would count the remainder of that same year as his "first year."

Israel and Judah alternated between the accession and non-accession chronologies. This was usually due to a new king’s desire to conform to whichever system was in use by the country that was the most powerful in the ANE at that time.

Kings could start their regnal year according in either the month of Nisan (springtime) or Tishri (fall). This difference would make for many a difficulty in calculating exactly what year each king began and ended a reign. Taking point # 1 into account would only make the process all the more difficult. If one country went according to Nisan and one according to Tishri this would mean that the regnal years of the two countries would only agree with each other six months of any given year.

The kings of Israel and Judah sometimes had their sons rule with them as coregents, with both receiving full credit for the overlapping years of their reigns.

If a scribe referred to the events in another country he used his particular calendar, even if it differed from the way the calendar that the other used.oHoudfghsdfg

3. So has been identified as Osorkon IV. See Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, p. 371-376, 2^nd Edition and Andre Lemaire in Biblical Archaeology Review 21/6:48-52 (1995). Lemaire reports on an Egyptian-style seal with Hoshea’s name, which belonged to one of the king’s high-ranking officials. It reads, "belonging to Abdi, servant of Hoshea." (See Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 335, footnote 20)

4. A charnel house is where the residents of this particular city buried their dead. Their dead were buried in a building (made of mud bricks) that was right on the surface of the earth. Usually this was not the case, but in this particular city (Bab edh-Dhra) this is how the dead were disposed of.

5. God doesn’t literally have hands. This is a figure of speech. To all those Muslims attempting to put Abraham at the Kabah instead of Mesopotamia with his nephew Lot—you would do well to refute the evidence in this section. Circular arguments, dogma, whining, changing the subject and pleading will not be admissible evidence. Have a nice day. J

6. The boat was 26.5 ft. long, 7.5 ft. wide and 4.5 ft. high. As you can see it was a rather large boat. As I noted in this section, it seems that Zebedee had servants with him, which would not require him to be extremely wealthy (at least by Roman standards), but not dirt poor by any means. Some have alleged that fishermen in 1^st century Palestine were too poor and uneducated to have contributed to any of the literature of the NT (notably Peter). Glenn Miller has also made short work of this contention. The first section in Miller’s article deals with refuting this dogma.

Dismantling JEDP

The JEDP documentary hypothesis has been passed around uncritically ever since Bultmann got his foot in the door and radical German scholarship changed the face of biblical research forever. Under the JEDP documentary hypothesis, depending on whom you talk to, it is thought that the Pentateuch (sometimes including Joshua—hence Hexateuch) was NOT written in the second millennium B.C., but instead in the 9^th-8^th to 5^th-4^th centuries B.C. When one gets down to brass tacks, their case is surprisingly flimsy and a lot of their contentions rest on speculations, assumptions, and just plain question begging. Dever jumps on board saying

 

"As scholars have long known, this lengthy epic narrative—the major part of the Deuteronomic history—was not compiled until the seventh century B.C., and the version that we now have in the Hebrew Bible did not take final form before the post-Exilic period in the fourth century B.C. The Deuteronomic historiography was obviously a late construct, a theological one which deliberately overemphasized the themes of the exodus from Egypt, the holy war, and the covenant as extensions of the ‘promised land’ motif. Nevertheless, the Deuteronomist also preserved earlier materials with alternative views, such as portions of Judges." (Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 83)

Throughout his book Dever ¹ labels those who actually believe the Bible as fundamentalists. If that’s what Dever wants to think of those who don’t have his milquetoast theology that’s just fine with me. The argument that writing (See Evidences 2: The Ebla Tablets) didn’t exist in Moses’ time has been debunked, so that argument is no longer valid. As one can readily see, Dever’s proclamation that the Exodus is obviously a late theological construct is pure speculation. I will attempt to validate these points in this study.

I. Internal testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch

II. Similarities between the Pentateuch and other writings of the 2^nd Millennium B.C.

III. Other evidence for Mosaic authorship and the historical reality of the Exodus

IV. The Israeli infiltration into the land of the Canaanites

I. Let’s start with the internal testimony of the Bible as far as who was responsible for authoring the Pentateuch. The OT and the NT confirm throughout that Moses was responsible for authoring the Pentateuch. Let’s see what the OT says first.

Joshua 8:32 states, "And he wrote upon stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 1:8 and 23:6 say: "This book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou meditate therein day and night… do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses." 1 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 14:6, and 2 Chronicles 23:18 attest: "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes… As it is written in the Law of Moses… according unto that which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses… As it is written in the Law of Moses." Lastly, Ezra 6:18 and Nehemiah 8:1, 14 confirm: "… As it is written in the Book of Moses… they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses… they found written in the Law which the Lord had commanded by Moses…" Daniel 9:11, 13 state, "… the oath that is written in the Law of Moses… as it is written in the Law of Moses." Lastly, Malachi 4:4: "Remember ye the Law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Notice that all those citations refer specifically to a written law and not an oral tradition. So we have solid testimony from the Bible itself. ²

Josephus alludes to the "twenty-two books [of the OT], which contain the records of past times; which are justly believed to be divine… five belong to Moses, which contain his laws…" (Against Apion, 1.1.8) With that let’s look to the internal testimony of the NT.

Mark 12:19 states: "Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise his seed unto his brother." The preceding verse directly correlates with Deut. 25:5. John 1:17 testifies, "For the Law was given by Moses." Paul states in Romans 10:5: "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law…" Luke 2:22 and Hebrews 9:19 state: "And when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished… For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law…" Jesus testifies to the Mosaic authorship of the Law in John 7:22-23.

Other verses that you could look at are: Luke 20:28, John 1:45, 8:5, 9:29, Acts 3:22, 6:14, 13:39, 15:1, 21, 26:22, 28:23, 1 Corinthians 9:9, 2 Corinthians 3:15, and Revelation 15:3. As far as the Bible and Josephus are concerned, Moses penned the Pentateuch. Although some of it was passed down to him, indicated by the Hebrew toledoth (these are the generations of; see Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:19; 36:1, 9; 37:2), he was the compiler and finisher of this great work.

II. What similarities can we see between the Pentateuch and other documents from the 2^nd millennium B.C.? As is (or should be) well known there are stark differences between documents from the 1^st and 2^nd millenniums. If we can identify several things that the Pentateuch (Torah) had with documents from the 2^nd millennium and differences from the 1^st millennium; that would bolster our case for the rise of the Torah in a 2^nd millennium milieu.

George Mendenhall, a pioneer so to speak in the study and dismantling of the JEDP documentary garbage comments that the covenant type, found in the 2^nd millennium BC in Deuteronomy "cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the great empires of the late 2^nd millennium BC. When empires again arose, notably Assyria, the structure of the covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different, Even in Israel, the writer submits that the older form of covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy." (Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, p. 30) Pertaining to the "order" of first and second millennium treaties—the earlier form almost invariably places divine witnesses between stipulations and curses; this is never found in later treaties… The highly consistent order of the earlier treaties is replaced by more randomness. Pertaining to content it is stated that the customary historical prologue of the 2^nd millennium BC it totally absent in later treaties. The 1^st millennium BC treaties are also lacking in the earlier usage of blessings in conjunction with those cursings. (See Deut. 28 for a case in point; Kenneth Kitchen, The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, p. 95-96)

Kitchen also states that if Deuteronomy and the other passages displaying this form "first took fixed literary forms only in the 9^th to 6^th centuries BC and onward, why and how should their writers (or redactors) so easily be able to reproduce covenant-forms that had fallen out of customary use 300 to 600 years earlier (i.e. after about 1200 BC), and entirely fail to reflect the 1^st millennium covenant forms that were commonly used in their own day?" (Ibid, p. 100) Kitchen further demolishes JEDP by saying:

"The present writer cannot see any legitimate way of escape from the crystal-clear evidence of the correspondence of Deuteronomy with the remarkably stable covenant form of the 14^th-13^th centuries BC. 2 points follow here. First, the basic structure of Deut. and much of the content that gives specific character to that structure must constitute a recognizable literary entity; second, this is a literary entity not of the 8^th or 7^th century BC but rather from ca. 1200 BC at latest. Those who so choose may wish to claim that this or that individual "law" or concept appears to be of later date than the late 13^th century BC; but is no longer methodologically permissible gaily to remove essential features of the covenant-form on a mere preconception (especially if of 19^th century [AD] vintage) of what is merely thought—not proven—to be late." (Kitchen, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, J. Barton Payne (ed.), p. 4, emphasis his)

Even the radical critic Gerhard Von Rad admits that the "comparison of the ancient Near Eastern treaties, especially those made by the Hittites in the 14^th and 13^th centuries BC, with passages in the OT has revealed so many things in common between the two, particularly in the matter of form, that there must be some connection between these suzerainty treaties and the exposition of the details of Jahweh’s covenant with Israel given in certain passages in the OT." (Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, p. 132)

Just for a little icing on the cake Alfred J. Hoerth, former director of Archaeology at Wheaton College and a participant of numerous excavations attests on pages 175-176 of his Archaeology and the Old Testament.

"Early 2^nd millennium B.C. law codes normally begin with title and prologue glorifying the king who had proclaimed the laws that follow, then there are blessings and cursings for those who keep or break these laws. Column two shows the more complex, but very consistent pattern of the late 2^nd millennium treaties: the title identifies the chief partner; then comes a historical prologue to show how past benefits from the chief partner should inspire the vassal to grateful obedience to the stipulations that follow. There are provisions for the text to be preserved in the vassal’s chief temple, for regular reading to his people as reminder of its terms. The gods of both parties are witnesses and guarantors of the pact, enacting the curses and blessings on those who disobey or obey its terms. A treaty of covenant was ratified by an oath and solemn ceremony, and mention of sanctions against one who breaks it. After c. 1200 B.C. this elaborate arrangement disappears. During the 1^st millennium, treaties had only four elements, the title plus the terms, curses for infringement and gods of witness in no fixed order. Strikingly, the biblical covenant in Sinai, Moab, and Shechem (Ex.; Dt.; Jos. 24) agree in content and form with the late 2^nd millennium treaties, and not those of the 1^st millennium."

It seems that the treaty or covenant arrangement in the Pentateuch and Joshua fit a 2^nd millennium motif far better than a 1^st millennium one.

Further parallels exist between the Pentateuch and ANE laws. Pritchard (The Ancient Near East, Vol. I, p. 141, 161) lists several items from the Code of Hammurabi (1728- 1686 B.C.): "If a seignior [man] has stolen the young son of a(nother) [man], he shall be put to death… If a son has struck his father, they shall cut off his hand. If a [man] has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy they shall destroy his eye… If a [man] has knocked out a tooth of a [man] of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth." Exodus 21:15-16, 24, 26-27 read: "He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death… Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot… And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake." One would expect such similarities, because after all, the Hebrews did live around such peoples in early Mesopotamia.

III. Liberal scholars, internet gurus, armchair experts and the like are all prone to dismiss the testimony of the Torah with a wave of their magic wand. One interesting point raised is that the Hebrew Tabernacle, in all its glory could not possibly be the handiwork of a group of wandering desert nomads such as the Hebrews. This is obviously a priori just like all other objections. So Kitchen:

"[The Egyptian Tent of Purification] is a framework of long beams along the top and bottom separated by vertical rods and corner-posts on three sides of a rectangle, with a lintel beam and other horizontal ‘roof beams’ across the top. The entire structure was of wood, was throughout overlaid with gold, had hooks for curtains all round, and consisted entirely of beams and rods fitting together with tenons in sockets for rapid and customary erection and dismantling, just like the Hebrew Tabernacle 13 centuries later… the Tent of Purification (ibw) to which the corpses of royal and exalted personages were borne for the rituals of purification both before and after embalmment. From pictures in the Old Kingdom tombs, it is clear that these portable ‘tents’ were sizeable structures having hangings of cloth (like curtaining) upon a framework of vertical poles or pillars linked along the top by horizontal bars and beams—again, directly reminiscent of the Tabernacle… Hitherto-neglected Egyptian evidence for prefabricated structures for the religious and other uses definitively refutes the charge of late fantasy with very early examples of the constructional techniques so airily dismissed."(Kitchen, "Some Egyptian Background to the Old Testament," The Tyndale House Bulletins, Nos. 5 & 6, 1960, p. 9-10)

Another point that needs to be brought up is that if you’re going to invent a history of your nation, as liberals surmise the Jews did with the Torah in the post-exilic period—you don’t make up the story that your entire nation has descended from slaves who were oppressed by the Egyptians for 400+ years. If I were going to "make it up" I would put on rose-colored glasses and paint myself as an avenger and conqueror, not a group of milquetoast slaves getting pushed around by the Egyptians.

Another point that must be made is the lack of references in the Pentateuch to places like Jerusalem, Shiloh, the divided kingdom, etc. If the Torah was penned during and after the post-exilic period then we should see these things mentioned. Manley sums it up well:

"If the author be a reformer addressing the people of Judah groaning under the evils of Manasseh’s rule, he is wonderfully successful in concealing the fact. He encumbers his programme of reform with a number of obsolete, impracticable and irrelevant laws; he betrays no hint of the divided kingdom, or of the promises to David; and whilst the possibility of a king is envisaged, the civil law entirely ignores his existence. The author of Deuteronomy issues laws, which he expects to be obeyed; this is not the attitude of the reforming prophets, who call upon Israel to repent over laws that have been broken. This contrast with the prophetic utterances goes down to the very heart of the book, and colours the legislation throughout. From this aspect also the only time which provides a suitable background for the legislation is the pre-prophetic period." (G.T. Manley, The Book of the Law, p. 121)

Pertaining to the obvious geographical antiquity of Deuteronomy Manley states further:

"… the details appear to be too accurate to be due either to chance or to oral tradition. The account of the journeyings in chapters 1-3 is altogether realistic and quite unlike an introduction prefixed to a collection of old laws; it bears every sign of originality. The views described and the features of the Moabite country reproduced must have been seen by human eyes; the antiquarian notes also belong to the period and are not the result of archaeological research. The omissions also are significant: there is no hint of Jerusalem, nor of Ramah, dear to Samuel’s heart, not even Shiloh, where the tabernacle came to rest. Everything points to its historical character and early date." (Ibid, p. 64)

If one reads through the Pentateuch, they will find several phrases used habitually, and by that we can determine the most important thoughts. Research concludes that the most common phrases are: 1. Memories of the past in Egypt. 2. Yahweh’s covenant for protection from Canaanite influence in the land. 3. Entry into the land 4. National unity (with no mention of the split kingdom of the 7^th century BC) 5. Sin and cleansing (all of an exceedingly different nature for the 8^th century BC denunciations for moral evils) 6. Blessings when the land will be entered. (Ibid, p. 28-36)

The main object of Deuteronomy is to protect the Israelites against Canaanite influences, totally foreign to the 9^th through 7^th centuries BC. Pertaining to the argument from some that P is a perfect fit for the Post-Exilic period; this also falls flat on its face. Here are some features present in P but absent from the Post-Exilic period: 1 Tabernacle 2. Ark 3. The Ten Commandments 4. Urim and Thummim 5. Day of Atonement 6. Cities of refuge 7. Test of adultery by ordeal 8. Wave offerings 9. Korban. Features present in P and in the pre-exilic period, but omitted from the post-exilic period. 1. Circumcision (heavily emphasized in pre-exilic Joshua and Samuel) 2. Significance of blood 3. Leprosy 4. Nazarites 5. Various offerings. Features absent from P, yet prominent in the post-exilic period. 1. Divine name "Yahweh of hosts" (86 occurrences in post-exilic authors) 2. Signing and music as central in worship 3. Scribes 4. Use of sackcloth 5. Designation of central sanctuary as the "temple" 6. Mention of legislation concerning the post-exilic industrial revolution 7. City of Jerusalem (See James Kelso, Archaeology and Our Old Testament Contemporaries, p. 39; Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, p. 196-199)

If P is the last source recorded, it follows that no other sources in the Pentateuch should have knowledge of P. As Driver says, in essence, D should be ignorant of P. (S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 137) Deuteronomy 14:3-20 is almost identical to a passage in Leviticus. Forcing Driver to observe: "that it is borrowed by D from P—or at least from a priestly collection of toroth—rather than conversely, appears from certain features of style which connect it with P and not with D… If so, however, one part of P was in existence when Deuteronomy was written." (Ibid, p. 137-138)

This list is taken from Kitchen’s The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (p. 150-151); substantiating the claim that P was known in pre-exilic times: Deuteronomy 15:1 focuses on the year of release (also found in Leviticus 25:2); Deuteronomy 23:9, 10 focuses on ceremonial impurity, also found in Leviticus 15; Deuteronomy 24:8 prescribes a law of leprosy given to the priests (Leviticus 1 and 14). Here are a few more quickly. Amos 2:11, 32: Nazarites forbidden wine (Numbers 6:1-21); Amos 4:5: Prescription of leaven in sacrifices, free will offerings (Leviticus 2:11, 7); Amos 5:22: Burnt, meat, and peace offerings; (Leviticus 7 and 8); Amos 5:21: Solemn assembly (Leviticus 23) Hosea 12:9: Dwelling in booths (Leviticus 23:42) So this conclusively proves that D and other writings in the Pentateuch were NOT ignorant of P. P, at least in some form was around when D was penned, it was well-known in pre-exilic times. ²

James K. Hoffmeier, in his excellent work entitled Israel in Egypt relays a very interesting tidbit concerning the price of slaves (p. 83-84). In Genesis 37:28 we are informed that Joseph was sold by his brothers for 20 pieces (shekels) of silver. This was the going price for a slave in the first half of the 2^nd millennium and by the second half of that same millennium it had increased to thirty shekels. Many believe that this particular story originated in the first millennium—however, by then the price had risen to fifty or sixty shekels. Is the accuracy of the price that Joseph was sold for just a petty coincidence or a minor detail that points to a pre-1500 B.C. milieu? For the JEDP hypothesizer it would be hard to explain this away. My guess is that they would just make it disappear with a wave of their handy dandy magic wand.

Another objection that Hoffmeier makes short work of is the statement that the biblical author(s) didn’t identify the particular Egyptian ruler by name—instead opting for the general usage of Pharaoh. Many pseudo-intellectuals, including the popular Muslim website Islamic Awareness ³ allege an error in the Biblical identification of the Egyptian ruler. This allegation has been thoroughly flattened, and as is common with Muslim "apologists" they don’t research very well and use of all things non-scholarly encyclopedias—which my friend J.P. Holding calls, "top flight sources for top-notch third-grade research." So Hoffmeier:

"Throughout Genesis and Exodus, the well-known title ‘Pharaoh,’ derived form pr ^c3, literally ‘great house,’ is used. As a reference to the palace, this expression goes back into the Old Kingdom, but as an epithet for the monarch, it does not occur until the Eighteenth Dynasty, sometime before the reign of Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.). By the Ramesside period (1300-1100 B.C.), ‘Pharaoh’ is widely used and continued to be popular in the late period. From its inception until the tenth century, the term ‘Pharaoh’ stood alone, without juxtaposed personal name. In subsequent periods, the name of the monarch was generally added on. This precise practice is found in the Old Testament; in the period covered form Genesis and Exodus to Solomon and Rehoboam, the term ‘pharaoh’; occurs alone, while after Shishak (ca. 925 B.C.), the title and name appear together (e.g. Pharaoh Neco, Pharaoh Hophra)… The appearance of ‘pharaoh’ in the Joseph story could reflect the New Kingdom setting of the story, or, if its provenance is earlier (i.e.. the late Middle Kingdom through Second Intermediate Period), its occurrence in Genesis is suggestive of the period of composition… … Another factor that might account for the absence of Pharaoh’s name in the exodus narratives is that it was normal in the New Kingdom inscriptions not to disclose the name of Pharaoh’s enemies… Thutmose III’s campaign against the rebellious coalition at Megiddo was fomented by the king of Kadesh (on the Orontes) who is named ‘that wretched enemy of Kadesh…’ in the annals of Thutmose III and in the Gebel Barkal stela... What can be concluded from the normal Egyptian scribal practice of omitting the names of Pharaoh’s enemies? Surely historians would not dismiss the historicity of Thutmose III’s campaign because the names of the kings of Kadesh and Megiddo are not recorded. It seems unlikely that Thutmose and his scribes were not aware of their enemies’ names." (Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 87-88, 109-110, bold emphasis mine)

Miller notes that

"The assertion that Moses is the principal author of the present text of Genesis need not mean that it came from his hand exactly as we have it now. To the contrary, one may confidently assume that the work has undergone post-Mosaic redaction. The main reason such a redaction would have taken place was not to substantially change the book in any way but rather to make it intelligible to a later generation of readers. Genesis is written in standard Hebrew, archaic forms notwithstanding. Although one may well argue that the Pentateuch played a major role in the development of standard Hebrew, there is no reason to think that there could not have been any revisions to keep up with semantic developments in the Hebrew language. In addition, the location of geographical settings by names that were common in a later period is an indication of redaction. The most well-known example is the reference to Dan as a place name in Genesis 14:14, an obvious anachronism. But it proves no more than that the text has undergone some revision. The same may be said of the reference to Israelite kings in Genesis 36.31."

Kitchen puts it all in perspective by saying it is "normal practice to assume the general reliability of statements in our sources, unless there is good, explicit evidence to the contrary. Unreliability, secondary origins, dishonesty of a writer, or tendentious traits—all these must be clearly proved by adduction of tangible evidence, not merely inferred to support a theory." (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testamenţ p. 29)

Is it illegal to revise the text to help later readers understand what it’s conveying? The preceding objection only arises when someone totally misunderstands the compilation of the Pentateuch—but I guess ignorance is bliss. All Islamic Awareness succeeds to do is set up a straw man and beat the stuffing out of it.

One last point has to be made before we shift gears. In the Pentateuch the Egyptian practice of omitting the names of monarchs is followed, but when we get to the time when the Assyrians and Babylonians were in power—the biblical books written with that background followed the Assyrian tradition of naming the monarch. During the Divided Kingdom we see this practice readily displayed: Sargon II is named in Isaiah 20:1; Sennacherib is named in II Kings 18:13-19:36; Pharaohs Shishak (I Kings 14:25, II Chronicles 12:5,9), Neco II (II Kings 23:29-35; II Chronicles 35:20) and Hophra (Jeremiah 44:30); Tiglath-pileser III (II Kings 15:29) and Shalmaneser V (II Kings 17:3) just to name a few. It wouldn’t make much sense (If the JEDP crowd is accurate) for an exiled Jew in Babylon to write sections of the Pentateuch and exclude the name(s) of ruling monarchs. These and other points make the JEDP documentary hypothesis indefensible.

It’s a fitting show of contempt for Egypt that the reader of the Exodus narratives learns of Yahweh and His power over all the earth while the once great and powerful name of that particular Pharaoh disappears in the sands of time.

Staking another claim to the validity of the Pentateuch, Hoffmeier (p. 138-140) relays some strong evidence for Egyptian elements present in Exodus 2:1-10. Space will not allow for me to show every word that is of Egyptian origin in the Pentateuch, but these passages in Exodus will suffice to drive the point home.

"Basket" or "ark" in Hebrew is tebat and derives from the Egyptian db3t. This etymology has been acknowledged by Hebraists (See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 1017) and Egyptologists (See Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache, Vol. V, p. 561). Egyptian db3t means "coffin," "box," or "sarcophagus," and is attested as early as the Middle Kingdom (2106-1786 B.C.) and continues into Coptic as taibi. The Egyptian root is definitely behind this word, but most interesting in my opinion is the fact that tebat is NOT used in the OT after Exodus 2 and the only other time it’s used at all is in Genesis 6-9, being synonymous with the "ark" of Noah. The interesting point is the theological aspect of the usages of this word. Just like the "ark" of Noah saved the Hebrew race, the "ark" that Moses’ mother employed saved him and allowed Moses to be raised up to save the Hebrews from Egyptian oppression. This relationship suggests some kind of thematic connection between the stories and the Egyptian etymology of this word cannot be easily discarded.

"Bulrushes" or "papyrus" is the Hebrew gome’ and is derived from the Egyptian km3. As I noted earlier, experts in Hebrew lexicography, Koehler and Baumgartner recognize this etymology. Examples of this etymology have been found in the Ramesside period in the Lansing Papyrus, where it is rendered kmy, and the Anastasi Papyrus 4, where it’s rendered gmy, illustrating the k and g interchange reflected in the Hebrew writing of gome’. This word is indisputably of Egyptian derivation.

The "river" in Exodus 2:5 is undoubtedly the Nile. The predominant Hebrew word is nahar, but the word used here is y^eor. This word appears only nine times after Exodus 17:5, in Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. The Hebrew y^eor is a transliteration of the Egyptian itrw, the word for Nile (See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 358). The absence of the t in the Hebrew writing presents no difficulties because the Hebrew spelling, in fact, reflects the Egyptian vocalization beginning with the 18^th Dynasty (See New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas (ed.), p. 834).

Finally, the Hebrew sapah, the river’s "brink" or "bank" is related to the Egyptian word spt. There are several other Hebrew words for "edge" or "bank," it is nonetheless one of the words commonly used in Egypt for the Nile’s edge, spt, written in Exodus 2:3 and 7:15, as well as in the story of Joseph (Genesis 41:3, 17). Taking into account the fact that there are several other words that could have been used, the fact that the term that is commonly used in Egypt was chosen, can’t be considered just a coincidence.

If the Pentateuch (and especially Exodus 2) was written and edited during the Divided Kingdom or sometime after—it’s highly unlikely that the writer would have had any familiarity with these terms. Moreover, if the narrative of Moses’ birth story was "borrowed" form Mesopotamia as some Bultmannites suggest, then where did these Egyptian terms come from? Even the name "Moses" is a derivative of the Egyptian root msi, which was very common in theophoric names throughout the Egyptian New Kingdom (See Hermann Ranke, Die Agyptischen Personennamen, Vol. I, p. 164-165).

JEDP: Evidence for the Exodus

Continuing with section III of the JEDP documentary "hypothesis" let’s look at some evidence in the Pentateuch that would fit an Egyptian milieu. In the so-called Instruction for Merikare, we can see a strong foreign presence in northern Egypt. King Khety Nabkaure (First Intermediate Period, 2190-2106 B.C.) relays some information to his about his treatment of foreigners and advises him to follow suit. Lines 91-94, 104-105 are particularly interesting and translated by Hoffmeier (p. 55).

"Now speaking about these foreigners, as for the miserable Asiatic, wretched is the place where he is; lacking in water, hidden because of trees. Many and difficult are the paths therein because of mountains. He has not settled in one place. Food causes his feet to roam about. He fights since the time of Horus. He does not conquer nor is he conquered. He does not declare war, (but) is like a thief darting about in a group… Look, it is the door [////] the delta, they having made a canal to Herakleopolis."

Similarly, the Prophecy of Neferti, dated to the 12^th Dynasty under Amenemhet I (See Hans Goedicke, The Protocol of Neferyt) or Senusert I (See Donald Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, p. 68) gives us more information concerning an influx of foreigners into Egypt. Montuhotep II Nebhepetre had just reunited Egypt and the Egyptian hierarchy was addressing the problem of Asiatics (foreigners). This text mentions in part that, "Asiatics have come down to Egypt… One will build the ‘Walls of the Ruler,’ life prosperity and health, to prevent Asiatics (^c3mw) from going down into Egypt." (As cited by Hoffmeier, p. 58-59)

Intertwining the "Walls of the Ruler," with the Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (See Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, Vol. I., p. 5-11): This story opens with the death of Amenemhet I (ca. 1960 B.C.) and continues in the reign of his successor, Senusert I (ca. 1971-1928 B.C.). Although we are not clearly informed why Sinuhe fled Egypt, we do glean some interesting info from this Egyptian story.

"… I came to the Wall-of-the Ruler, made to oppose the Asiatics and to crush the Sand-Crossers, I took a crouching position in a bush, for fear lest the watchman upon the wall where their day’s duty might see me… [Upon the point of death] I lifted up my heart and collected myself, for I had heard the sound of the lowing of cattle, and I spied Asiatics. The sheik among them, who had been in Egypt, recognized me. Then he gave me water while he boiled milk for me… Ammi-enshi—he was a ruler of Upper Retenu—took me and said to me: ‘Thou wilt do well with me, and thou wilt hear the speech of Egypt.’" (Emphasis mine)

We can see several things from this story in particular and other narratives that we have looked at. First, we know that there was a wall (or canal) of some sort erected at Herakleopolis to stem the tide of foreigners entering the Delta. Herakleopolis was right on the Nile, which was the life-blood of Egyptian agriculture and served as a fitting place for foreigners to enter the rich and fertile Delta. Apparently, there was also some sort of influx of people out of Egypt as reported by Sinuhe, because he would also "hear the speech of Egypt" during his self-imposed exile. Hoerth (Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 90) gives us some needful insight:

"… Sinuhe’s father-in-law, Ammi-enshi, has an Amorite name. Therefore, the Amorites had definitely arrived in Palestine by the time of the story… The story reflects a tribal society similar to that pictured in the Book of Genesis. In each account, one man controlled an extended family. When Sinuhe prepared to return to Egypt he turned his property over to his eldest son. The primacy of the eldest son is obvious in the patriarchal stories, most noticeably in the lives of Jacob and Esau. The setting of the story was a time of tribal armies, serfs, and servants. The full story of Sinuhe reveals a Palestine in which there was crime, attack, plunder, murder, and captivity—conditions also found in the patriarchal narratives. The story of Sinuhe mentions bows and arrows, shields, battle-axes, javelins, and daggers. This array provides some idea of the weaponry available to Abraham’s militia in Genesis 14. Like Abraham, Sinuhe never lost his outsider status, Abraham considered himself a sojourner in Palestine, and the people of Sodom called Lot an ‘alien.’ Later on, Jacob worried that the local populace would unite against him. The story of Sinuhe illustrates how threatening life could be for an outsider."

This account agrees with the Torah on such issues as a foreign influx into Egypt, the "outsider" status of foreigners, and the primacy of the eldest son. Is it just mere coincidence that this info should be reflected in the Torah? It would seem rather remarkable for a Hebrew in the Divided Kingdom to reflect back in time so well as to agree with Egyptian texts of relatively the same time frame.

Further bolstering the idea of a great influx of Semetic peoples into Egypt is a stela, found in 2 parts in 1913 and 1914 in Sudan. This stela dates to the 33^rd year of Amenemhet III ³ (ca. 1810 B.C.) and alludes to this defensive framework erected to thwart the incursion of Semetics into Egypt. This stela mentions the consignment of 35,300 bricks north to the "Walls-of-Amenemhet, the Justified." Hans Goedicke explains that the "Walls of the Ruler" of The Story of Sinuhe and The Prophecy of Neferti directly coincide with the "Walls of Amenemhet" of the aforementioned Kerma stela. Furthermore, Goedicke surmises that this defensive structure alluded to in the stela were a direct effort to reinforce the Delta against a real threat from Canaan. (Hoffmeier, 60)

Adding to that we have Middle Kingdom (ca. 2050-1800 B.C.) testimony to Asiatics (^c3mw) entering Egypt. The Brooklyn Papyrus, dating to the 12^th or 13^th Dynasty contains a ledger with the names of servants of an Egyptian estate. 40+ references in that document are labeled ^c3m or ^c3mt (feminine) and express names of Northwest Semitic type indicating their Syro-Palestinian ethnicity. With forty or more in this estate alone, it’s likely that the number across Egypt as a whole was rather large. There is also a reference in an inscription of Amenemhet II that reports that campaigns in the Levant resulted in the capture, and imminent deportation of over fifteen hundred prisoners of war. (Ibid, 60-61)

We can see a real Egyptian effort to thwart a foreign threat out of Canaan from textual references. This would agree with the testimony of the Pentateuch on a foreign presence in Egypt.

Now that we can see some viable evidence for the existence of Asiatics in the Delta, what evidence do we have for the Israelite exodus from Egypt? In this section I will show some viable evidence for the Exodus, as well as respond to some common (but rather flimsy) skeptical objections to the Exodus narrative.

Skeptics are very quick to point out that the Egyptians make no mention of Moses at all, nor do they make any direct reference to the Exodus. As I noted earlier, it was a common Egyptian practice to omit the names of enemies—a sordid way of thumbing their noses at the opposition. IF they did make mention of problems with the enslaved Israelites it would be highly unlikely that they would mention the Hebrew responsible for making Pharaoh look like a fool. Hoerth (p. 164) surmises that

"There are no specific Egyptian references to the sojourn, the exodus, Joseph, or Moses. For two reasons this silence is not surprising. First, any record of Joseph was lost in the Egyptian purge of Hyksos history… Second, since the Egyptians has little interest in recording setbacks it is unlikely that the Exodus and its attendant problems would have been recorded."

Peter Freeman, writing in the popular magazine Bible Review (2/91, p. 29) imagined what an Egyptian testimony to the Exodus would have looked like.

"A spokesman for Ramesses the great, Pharaoh of Pharaohs, supreme ruler of Egypt, son of Ra, before whom all tremble in awe blinded by his brilliance, today announced that the man Moses had kicked his royal butt for all the world to see, thus proving that God is Yahweh and the 2,000-year old culture of Egypt is a lie. Film at 11:00."

The deafening silence from Egypt about the Exodus is understandable. The Assyrians, just like the Egyptians and other great empires weren’t about to shout their military failures from the rooftops. We know that the Egyptians sometime deported conquered peoples as trophies of war, ⁵ so let’s now focus on Egyptian evidence for forced labor, an antecedent to the Exodus from Egypt.

The Papyrus Leiden 348, dated to the rule of Ramesses II informs us of the "Apiru who are dragging stone to the great pylon of… Ramesse-miamun…" Because the text is broken at this section we’re not able to discern the exact name of this structure but we do know that the Apiru (possibly the Hebrews) were engaged in forced labor. Papyrus Leiden 349 again mentions the Apiru being engaged in this forced labor. It has also been shown that in the Old (2700-2190 B.C.) and Middle Kingdoms (2106-1786 B.C.) quotas for brick production was established by high-ranking officials and the Louvre Leather Scroll even records the shortfalls in brick production. (Hoffmeier, 116-117)

It was not uncommon for Egypt to use forced labor in their building projects. This is a watershed issue. So it seems that the testimony in Exodus of the Hebrews being engaged in this reflects an actual historical event, not a mythical tale spun by some Jewish scribe in the Divided Kingdom. I’m not going to focus on the when of the Exodus at this time, I’m simply attempting to show that it is and was a historical reality. It seems that scholars have yet to agree on a date for the Exodus.

The last piece of evidence we will focus on is literary considerations for the 10 plagues. What evidence do they give us to supplant the JEDP documentary hypothesis?

Hoffmeier (p. 145-155) draws largely upon the work of one, Greta Hort to show some pertinent knowledge that would have arisen only from an actual sojourn in Egypt. Let’s take the ten plagues in order and analyze them one by one as Hoffmeier has done via Hort.

Greta Hort hypothesizes that the plague of blood resulted in an inundated Nile because of four factors mentioned in Exodus 7:20-24. The Nile rises in July-August, crests in September and becomes reddish in appearance because of Roterde, particles of soil that are suspended in the water. The Bible tells us that the Nile was turned to blood, the fish died, it gave off a foul odor, all of this occurring because of millions of flagellates (Euglena sanguinea and Haematoccus pluvialis). This would also increase the reddish tint of the Nile, account for the foul smell and undrinkable state. Hort goes on to say that the five following plagues (Frogs; Lice, Gnats, or Mosquitoes; Insects; and Pestilence) were caused by the first.

Frogs are known to invade the Delta near the end of the inundation of the Nile in September-October. Exodus 7:25 informs us that after "seven days were fulfilled,"—indicating that a week had passed between the first and second plagues. Decomposing fish and bacillus anthracis caused the death of the frogs (Exodus 8:13).

The KJV translates kinnim as "lice" while others such as the RSV, NAS, NIV, and Greta Hort prefer "gnat." It has been pointed out that "gnat" refers to some type of mosquito, which Hort also favors. The flooding of the Nile is always followed by a considerable amount of mosquitoes, which could lay their eggs in pools of water left by the retreat of the Nile.

The Hebrew arob translated "flies" could possibly be dog flies, renowned for their ferocious biting, based on the LXX reading kunomuia. Hort believes that the outbreak of this plague is consistent with this kind of mosquito and incidentally was the cause of the 6^th plague.

The fifth plague affected only the animals that were in the field and was devastating to the Egyptians. Hort surmises that this plague resulted from anthrax spread by the frogs of the 2^nd plague.

Sh^echiytah translated "boils" means "to burn, inflammation, i.e. ulcer." This plague affected both humans and animals, the culprit possibly being Stomoxys calcitrans (possibly the fly of the 4^th plague). These flies would have spread this infection further when they came in contact with the rotting flesh of the animals of the field (5^th plague) and in turn spread it further when in contact with humans.

The first six plagues are closely associated and seem to form a concise pattern. They resulted from a purely natural succession ⁶ of unrelated events, in which the inundation of the Nile was the catalyst. The 7^th-9^th plagues are not related to the first 6 in any manner, but those three also are a by-product of naturally occurring circumstances. The tenth plague is the only one of the 10 that cannot be explained by any naturally occurring thing short of an outright epidemic. The only problem is that epidemics do not discriminate as to kill only the firstborn.

The seventh plague consisted of thunder, lightning, and hail (Exodus 9:13-35). This not only caused severe damage to crops, but also terrorized the Egyptians because hail was not commonplace there. Some skeptics may point out that verse 32 states, "the wheat and the rie were NOT smitten, for they had not grown up,"—therefore this has to be an error. Why were the wheat and rie not destroyed? The statement that the wheat was not destroyed is not problematic because the wheat would not have appeared (although it may have been planted) until after the plague of the hail. Although the wheat was planted before barley and flax, was not harvested until 1-1^1/2 months after the barley. This further bolsters Hort’s thesis that the first six plagues were connected to the flooding of the Nile and the other four occurred in the months following the flooding.

The eighth plague is pretty cut and dried as far as I am concerned and poses no problems whatsoever. Locusts were well known in Egypt and the ANE and can cover 150 miles at a time, annihilating all vegetation and crops in their path. The Chicago Tribune (3/25/88) even ran an article about a locust plague in North Africa that saw so many locusts that at times the sun was blotted out. Hundreds of miles and tons of vegetation were destroyed by these ravenous insects. The thought of a locust plague in Egypt is not far fetched at all.

The three days of darkness (Exodus 10:21-29) has received a fair amount of scholarly attention and some propose that is was the by-product of a great sandstorm. Although many reject the idea, Hoffmeier accepts it, in part because of his involuntary participation in two of them—the first in 1967 while on a train and another in March of 1995 while waiting to board a plane in Luxor. In the former he notes that the Nile Valley was covered by a brownish cloud that could literally be felt (Exodus 10:21). He also notes that cars were driving with their headlights on in the afternoon because of the magnitude of this storm. The latter caused his plane to be delayed and he also notes that these storms (khamsin) can last up to 3 days. Hort adds that because of the crops being destroyed by hail and/or locusts, this would have kicked up even more dust and magnified the effects of this plague.

In conclusion to this section Hoffmeier says: "In view of the literary considerations reviewed above and the fact that Hort’s thesis works logically and moves with Egyptian seasonal changes, is it just coincidence that the redactor organized the divergent, even supposedly contradictory, traditions into a form that makes perfect sense in an Egyptian setting?" (p. 149)

Lastly, before we move on let’s demolish a common straw man erected by numerous armchair scholars—just how many people left Egypt in the Exodus?

Skeptics are quick to point out that an exodus of 2 million or more Hebrew people out of Egypt at any time was impossible and the evidence lacking. Granted, it would be difficult for 2 million people to leave Egypt when the population was only about 3 million and not leave some kind of trace. Furthermore, it would be difficult for 2 million people to maneuver the Re(e)d Sea crossing and the narrow Sinai passes. Hoerth (p. 177-178) offers a solution to this problem.

The Hebrew eleph (Strong’s #’s 504-505), commonly rendered "thousand" sometimes refers to a unit or tribal subsection instead. We can see a case in point in Judges 6:15 where the very same word is rendered "family" instead. If this applies to Numbers 1 and 26 (and it’s possible) it would read for example: "The number of the tribe of Simeon was 59 units (which contributed a total manpower of) 300 (Numbers 1:23). When the census lists in Numbers 1 and 26 are rendered in this manner we get a grand total of 598 units which yielded 5,500 men at Moses’ disposal (Numbers 1:46). Known armies of this era had roughly the same amount. Add children, wives, elderly, and any other men not listed and you get a rough estimate of 15,000-20,000 people involved in the Exodus. If this is the case, and it seems possible when one takes into account the example from Judges 6, this cast of millions becomes unnecessary. There is one more problem that must be dealt with however. The totals given in Numbers 1:46 and 26:51, yielding a total of 598 and 596 alafim (plural for elef), must be rendered "thousand" or this doesn’t work. Some people might just state that this was just a later addition to the text but I don’t buy that. If Numbers 1:46 originally recorded 598 alafim (or units) which translates to 5,500 men able to go to war—then a later scribe copying this passage, forgetting or not realizing that elef had two meanings in the same sentence totaled the differing uses of alafim to get the amorphous total of 603,550. The same applies to Numbers 26:51.

The fact that elef can and does have two different contextual meanings in the Hebrew cannot be ignored. This reconciliation is absolutely plausible ⁷ especially in light of the problems that would arise from millions of people being involved in the Exodus.

This concludes section III of our critique of the JEDP documentary hypothesis. Now let’s turn our focus to the Israelite conquest of Canaan and some critiques of the nonsense coming out of the skeptical camp.

IV. The Israelite infiltration into the land of the Canaanites

In this section we will examine evidence for the historical reality of the Israelite infiltration into Canaan, as well as critiquing some of the methodology of biblical minimalists and armchair scholars all over the Internet.

JEDP: The Promised Land

Let’s get right down to brass tacks and supplant one of the greatest weapons (which also happens to be a straw man) of the JEDP hypothesizer, the (supposed) Israelite destruction of Canaanite cities.

Those suffering from an acute case of intellectual paralysis are very quick to state that there is no evidence for this "whirlwind conquest" by Israel in Canaan. "They destroyed all those cities, where’s the evidence for this?" Will Dever (Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 57-58) provides us with a chart supposedly showing the lack of evidence for destruction of Canaanite cities such as Bethel, Debir, Eglon, Gaza, etc. All Dorothy has succeeded in doing is erecting a straw man and beat the stuffing out of it. There is good reason to be skeptical of Dever’s preconceived notions about the nature of the conquest.

Because the Albright-Wright ⁸ school of thought was very insistent upon a "whirlwind conquest" skeptics think that the lack of evidence for destruction at the majority of Canaanite cities shows that the Joshua and Judges narratives are fiction. The only problem is that the Albright school was not right.

"… of a total of sixteen clearly said by the Bible to have been destroyed, only three have produced archaeological evidence for a destruction ca. 1200 B.C.: Bethel, Lachish, and Hazor… Of the remaining thirteen sites, seven claimed by the Bible as Israelite destructions either were not even occupied in the period, or show no trace of destruction… In conclusion, it may be stated confidently that the archaeological evidence today is overwhelmingly against the classic conquest model of Israelite origins, as envisioned in the book of Joshua and in much Biblical scholarship until recently." (Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 61, emphasis mine)

The book of Joshua implies that only three cities were destroyed by fire—those being Ai, Jericho, and Hazor (See Joshua 8, esp. v. 17-19 and 28; Joshua 6, esp. v. 24; Joshua 11, esp. v. 11). Pertaining to Hazor, in 1996 Amnon Ben Tor’s archaeological team discovered the charred remains of the Late Bronze Age palace—replete with deliberately decapitated statues of Canaanite deities which correlates directly with Deuteronomy 7:5, "Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire." (See Hoffmeier p. 35 & 48, footnote 90)

But what about those other cities that were supposedly "destroyed?" The Bible itself answers that question. Let’s go back to the chart given by Dever (Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 57-58) and look at the other cities. For the sake of space we won’t delve into all of it but a brief outline should suffice. Dever speaks for the Bible (rather than letting it speak for itself) and says that Bethel was "destroyed." He then references Joshua 8:17 and Judges 1:22-28 to prove this. Now we know for sure that Ai was burnt to a crisp, but this is not the case with Bethel. The Hebrew nakah (Strong’s 5221), translated "smote" means, "to strike, (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively) beat, give wounds, punish." This does NOT absolutely mean that this city was annihilated. Joshua 8:17 simply states that "no man was… left in Bethel," the reason being that the Israelites had coerced all the inhabitants of the city to pursue them. The Israelites, learning from their recent failure at Ai, avoided a direct assault on the city and instead used a different tactic—draw your enemy out into the open and ambush them. This text is simply relaying the fact that the residents of Ai and Bethel took the bait. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Bethel was destroyed. Those whose primary sources consist of those adjacent to the checkout line in K-Mart might fall for this, but does Dever think that nobody will check him out and see the holes in his essay? Dever then puts Lacish in this category also and references Joshua 10:31. Just because the Israelites fought against a city, or took a city doesn’t mean that it was destroyed. It doesn’t take a degree from Harvard to figure this out. This is Dever’s methodology and it’s seriously flawed to say the least. This is the strategy of all those seeking a contradiction in the biblical and archeological evidence. It must also be pointed that even though Joshua may have killed all the inhabitants of the city, this also does not entail that the city itself was also destroyed.

The same goes for Dever’s point about Debir. This city was besieged and captured, but not destroyed. Nakah is also used in Judges 1:12. This same point also applies to Makkedeh, Eglon, and Jerusalem. To reiterate, the only cities in the Joshua narrative that were burned to the ground were Ai, Hazor, and Jericho. We must also take into account that "there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." (Joshua 13:1)

Hoffmeier (p. 43-44) sums it up pretty well:

"… the idea that the Israelites would have destroyed and leveled cities indiscriminately, makes little sense for they intended to live in this land. A scorched-earth policy is only logical for a conqueror who has no thought of occupying the devastated land… Israel is said to have occupied ‘a land which you have not labored, and cities which you had not built’… This suggests that the arrival of the Israelites did not significantly affect the cultural continuity of the Late Bronze Age and may explain why there is no evidence of intrusion into the land from outsiders, for they became heirs of the material culture of the Canaanites." (Emphasis mine)

Echoing the same sentiments

"Most of the captured cities were not destroyed. In fact, Hazor is singled out as the only city burned out of quite a number captured in the north. The Hebrews did not come to destroy but to occupy the land and keep it in as good a condition as possible. The few exceptions of destroyed cities (e.g., Jericho, Ai, and Hazor) do not invalidate the general rule… Nevertheless, there is a strong counterargument regarding the silence of the archeological record vis-B-vis the Conquest. Other known conquests in world history, well attested in historical documentation, also have little archaeological evidence to substantiate them. These include the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, the Norman conquest of England, and the Arab conquest of Palestine. And yet, of course, no one would deny the authenticity of these events (The Bible and the Ancient Near East, (4th ed.) Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg, p. 172-173, emphasis mine)

The dating of these fortified Canaanite cities is hardly an exact science. Dever, Donald Redford, et al., are very dogmatic at times in the certainty of their dates. Another thing that we have partially covered and must be reiterated is the fact that the Israelites intended on inhabiting this land and they also adopted some of the culture of the Canaanites, therefore, it would be hard to adduce direct evidence for a takeover short of an outright "blitzkrieg."

Before we illustrate some of the problems with Dever and Donald Redford’s dogmatic assertions that the archaeological record totally contradicts the Joshua narrative, we need to discuss the Merenptah Stele—erected by Pharaoh Merenptah (ca. 1207 B.C.), this granite document is the oldest reference to Israel as a people outside of the OT. It reads:

"The princes are prostrate, saying ‘Mercy!’ Not one raises his head above the Nine Bows. Desolate is Tehenu; Hatti if pacified; Plundered is Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist, Israel is laid waste, his seed is not." (As cited in Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, Vol. I, p. 231, emphasis mine; also see Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 376-378; Hoffmeier, p. 27-31 for a discussion of this; Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 43; Hoerth, p. 228-231)

The interesting point about this document is that all other nations are mentioned in a context of a literal land, while Israel is mention in a context of a people, "his seed is not." Commenting on this and other discoveries ⁹ Hoerth (p. 228, 230) says

"The determinative for Israel, however, is one used for less-settled people. Therefore, shortly before 1200, an Egyptian scribe identified Israel as less politically established in the land—a picture of keeping with the situation reflected in the first half of the period of the judges… An interesting confirmation of Merenptah’s campaign into Palestine came to light with the reexamination of battle reliefs on a wall of the Karnak Temple in Thebes. These reliefs had been credited to Ramesses II, but it was found that they actually carried the royal cartouche of Merenptah and had been commissioned by him. Three of the battle scenes depict attacks on fortified cities, and one of the cities is identified as Ashkelon… The fourth battle scene depicts the defeat of an army in open terrain. This scene, Yurco argues, provides the earliest depiction of Israelites and gives, as he describes it, a ‘perfect match between the text on Merenptah’s Stele and Merenptah’s reliefs.’ Further, Yurco thinks the ‘reliefs provide striking confirmation of accumulating archaeological evidence that the initial Israelite settlements were in the highlands and that they were open, dispersed villages with no substantial fortified towns.’" (Emphasis mine; Frank Yurco quote from "3200 Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt." Biblical Archaeological Review, 16/5:20-38)

The Merenptah Stele also shows us that Israel was NOT an established nation and that would explain why they are referred to as a people and not a land. ¹⁰ This is also consistent with the position of the Book of Joshua.

By now I think we have done a fine job of demolishing numerous dogmatic (and unfounded) assertions by the JEDP crowd. There really is no good reason to deny the veracity of the Pentateuch unless one holds to dogmatic presuppositions that amount to nothing more than a whole lot of hot air.

Contrary to the dogma of Will Dever, Donald Redford and others, the "dating" of archaeological sites, etc, is not an exact science. There are also other factors that could be responsible for an anomalous date—but don’t expect these JEDP "yes men" to illustrate that. It’s much easier to go on glibly regurgitating their points without thinking critically.

For example

"A detailed comparison of this version of the Hebrew takeover of Palestine with the extra-Biblical evidence totally discredits the former. Not only is there a complete absence, as we have seen, in the records of the Egyptian empire of any mention or allusion to such a whirlwind of annihilation [1], but also Egyptian control over Canaan and the very cities Joshua is supposed to have taken scarcely wavered during the entire period of the Late Bronze Age [2]. Far more damaging, however, than this argument from silence [3] is the archaeological record. Sites such as Hormah, Arad, Jericho, 'Ai, and Jarmuth had indeed suffered violent destruction, but this had been during the Early Bronze Age or at the end of Middle Bronze and during the Late Bronze Age they had lain unoccupied (save for squatters) [4]; others such as Kadesh Barnea, Heshbon, and Gibeon were not to be settled until the Iron Age [5]. Those sites that do show massive destruction at the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age, about 1200 B.C., can as easily be explained as victims of the movement of the Sea Peoples [6]. The regions of Edom and Moab, represented in Numbers as sedentary states [7], supported only a few cities in the Late Bronze Age maintaining the north- south trade route to Damascus; the Edomite and Moabite kingdoms, which Numbers wrongly understands to be already in existence, did not put in an appearance before the ninth century b.c. [8] Finally, the overall archaeological survey of settlement patterns in the final two centuries of the second millennium B.C. does not show destruction at a single point in time, but rather a gradual settlement of pastoralists (not completed until the tenth century) [9] first in the hill country and then in regions densely populated by sedentary inhabitants. (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, p. 265)

And

"...the destruction of the lower city at Hazor...has been dated earlier than the estimate of c.1225 BCE by Yadin....if it is moved as early as 1250 BCE, it is less likely to have been connected with the Israelite settlement..."(Will Dever in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, E.S. Frerichs and L.H. Lesko (eds.), p. 77)

Dever claims to be able to make decisions on a 25-year swing, as well as being equally dogmatic about the "dating" of stratum. There are several things that must be noted and I will quickly illustrate them in conclusion of our section on JEDP. Israel Finkelstein in his Living on the Fringe—The Archeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (p. 109) admits "at present it is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to differentiate between the pottery of the late 11th and that of the early 10th centuries BC even at excavated sites." Further compounding the problem is that sometimes another culture will borrow the style ¹¹ of another one. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, "Palestine in the Late Bronze Age", p.216 (edited by Eric M. Meyers) an example is given of a Late Bronze Age culture borrowing a Middle Bronze style. Taking this into account, the "evidence" might fool the archaeologist into believing that there was not Late Bronze inhabitation when there really was! This criterion also applies to buildings (See Amihai Mazar, Archaeology and the Land of the Bible, p. 21). At Hazor we have the example of a stone altar taken from a Middle Bronze II building and used in a Late Bronze IIA building (See The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, "Hazor," p. 597).

One armchair scholar once said, "If the Joshua narrative were true, then we should see some physical evidence of this. There isn’t any, so the Joshua narrative is obviously false." This is a commonly parroted objection of those who don’t really do any research but are looking for quick single-paragraph objections as opposed to diligent research. This too, has been undermined sufficiently.

Finkelstein throws out the "no evidence, therefore no occupation" baloney—and for good reason. He notes that the biggest difficulty pertaining to material remains in these arid zones is the variances between being sedentary (those who build it and leave it) to nomadic (those who don’t build). With this in mind (and the Israelites could be described as nomadic for some part of their time in Canaan, as noted in the context of the Merenptah Stele), we can easily see why some of the evidence is lacking. (See Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe—The Archeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages, various references, esp. p. 10, 30, 94) There are known examples of historical occupation, attested by inscriptions or literary data, which left absolutely no trace of remains. (Ibid, p. 27) One must also take into account that in the ANE, contrary to modern times, cities moved, Ai and Jericho being two examples. The former was in at least two locales and the latter at least three.

Finkelstein (Ibid, p.133) surmises

"Sherds belonging to earlier occupations of a site almost always find their way into later strata. Consequently, when a stratum is dated according to a collection of sherds, rather than assemblages of vessels, which was the case in Bennett's excavations, this may confuse the dating… Indeed, in almost every multi-period highland site west of the Jordan, intensive building activity in later periods removed all architectural traces of the scanty earlier occupations. This happened because the basic building technique in the highlands was always to remove all earlier material in order to establish the walls directly on bedrock." (Emphasis mine)

Finkelstein (Ibid, p. 27-30) then gives several examples of peoples mentioned in literary sources but left no trace in the archaeological record. These could be categorized as "invisible nomads." I will cite 4 examples that he gives.

Edom and Seir in the Late Bronze Age (referred to in numerous Egyptian documents, will Egyptologists now deny the existence of Edom because of this? Moreover, will they deny the veracity of Egyptian documents because of this error?)

Arabs in Neo-Assyrian times (referred to in numerous royal records of Tiglath-Pileser II, Sargon II, Esarhaddon, etc.)

Bedouin of the Medieval period (referred to in Bedouin historical sources)

Even Bedouin tribes in the first part of the 20th century!! (known from modern sources)

These points cannot be simply dismissed arbitrarily. If future inhabitants are removing the remains of the previous inhabitants, then that would make it look like there was no previous habitation. Compound it with the fact that earlier shards of pottery, etc., almost always find their way into later strata, one can readily see why these "absolute dates" of Redford and Co. are immediately suspect. Those nomads were really there; they just left no trace in the archaeological record. If this is true, then how can one contend that the Joshua narrative is false just because of "absence of (direct archaeological) evidence?"

 

"Yet, the archaeological record is anonymous, and its use to prove any historical theory must be accompanied by a rigorous critical approach to the archaeological material itself. Archaeologists tend to determine precise dates of destruction, for example, on relatively flimsy evidence. In the discussion of the Israelite conquest it would therefore be best to treat the archaeological evidence with circumspection and to avoid basing far-reaching conclusions on it." (The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, (ed.) Amnon ben-Tor, p. 285)

Lastly we have the problem of erosion at such sites as Khirbet Rabud and Jericho. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (edited by Eric M. Meyers) says under "Rabud, Khirbet." "Because, like so many hill country sites, most of Khirbet Rabud is eroded to bedrock, remains of ancient occupation were discerned only in a narrow strip adjacent to the city wall, in two trenches…" (p. 401) Pertaining to Jericho, Kathleen Kenyon, possibly the most notable excavator at this site writes

"Jericho, therefore, was destroyed in the Late Bronze Age II. It is very possible that this destruction is truly remembered in the Book of Joshua, although archaeology cannot provide the proof. The subsequent break in occupation that is proved by archaeology is, however, in accord with the biblical story. There was a period of abandonment, during which erosion removed most of the remains of the Late Bronze Age town and much of the earlier ones. Rainwater gulleys that cut deeply into the underlying levels have been found." (New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, s.v. "Jericho," p. 680)

These and other problems ¹² must be identified and dealt with other than in a manner that consists of "absence of evidence." I have shown that there is ample reason, from the Bible itself and from common archaeological evidence—that we don’t find much direct evidence for the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Contrary to the whining of some, there is good evidence to back up the Pentateuch as being composed in the 2^nd millennium B.C., as well as the Joshua narrative and its historical reliability. This concludes our section on JEDP, and the only bad thing about the JEDP argument, is the argument itself.

1. Dever (Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, p. 130-131) also errs when he equates the worship of the Canaanite deity El with the same El mentioned in the Bible. He believes a bull shrine discovered 5 miles east of Dothan is irresistibly connected to the Israelite "cult," and thus the Hebrews borrowed the name of the God of Israel from the Canaanites. Other than a few notable biblical discoveries Dever’s book is pure rubbish. This claim is so stupid that only those who do their research at the magazine rack in Wal-Mart would be so gullible as to accept it. Hoerth (p. 220 footnote 23) states "the terms El and Baal are used in the Bible to refer to Israel’s god, but this does not imply any borrowing or pagan taint. El is the generic name for god in the northwest Semitic group, and Baal could be applied to any god." Glenn Miller has also come to a similar conclusion in his essay. Those who attempt to link Israel’s El with the Canaanite El are grasping at the proverbial straw.

2. Glenn Miller has a great article refuting some common objections to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It would do a skeptic good to deal with all the info that I have conveyed in this section, as well as Miller’s. Good luck.

3. Not much more needs to be said here on this issue, just the usual misconstruing of the facts by people like these. Their contention is a complete misunderstanding of how the Pentateuch was compiled by Moses, and henceforth translated as time went on. See here for further rebuttal to this baseless Muslim contention.

4. Amenemhet is credited with starting the 12^th Dynasty, but he was called "son of someone," also indicating that he was not of royal blood. He also began the practice of coregency, letting his son Senusert rule with him for the last ten years of his reign. This was probably done to avoid the haggling and possible conflict that would crop up at the death of the current Pharaoh. A text relating the death of Amenemhet (and posthumously attributed to him) tells the story as if he had written it himself! (See Hoerth, p. 138-139) This might make the passage in Deuteronomy 34 that reflects Moses’ death seem not so far fetched. I am not saying that Moses wrote his own death narrative, what I am suggesting is that it is not uncommon for this to be done at the conclusion of a revered man’s life. Also see my Islam for a further explanation of the death of Moses. Will scholars now discount the historicity of Amenemhet because of this? Not bloody likely chap.

5. For example Hoffmeier (p. 113) notes that Thutmose III is credited with taking 340 prisoners of war at Megiddo and hundreds more in later military campaigns. In addition, the Memphis Stela records Amenhotep II’s military campaigns resulting in the capture of over 100,000 prisoners of war. This figure seems greatly inflated but it’s not the usual Egyptian hyperbole—reflecting the capture of hundreds of thousands and myriads. This figure is likely the grand total of all campaigns to erection of the Memphis Stela. Interestingly, Egyptologists haven’t rejected the historicity of these accounts.

6. When I say a "natural sequence of events" I am not trying to propose some naturalistic theory for everything in the Bible as some do—what I am proposing is that these events are not some far-fetched out of this world scenario dreamed up by a Hebrew redactionist. The sequences of the first six plagues are independent, but yet intertwined by known occurrences following the yearly inundation of the Nile. God so chose to work through Moses to smite Egypt at this time, via natural occurrences, albeit the timing was providential and the plagues intensified.

7. 20,000 people could have left Egypt at the time of the Exodus (the when of the Exodus is not my concern at this time) and would not have left a substantial dent in the population. Reiterating my point, 2 million people, including animals, children, and the elderly would have had a difficult time maneuvering the narrow passages in the Wilderness. I concur with Hoerth who says we must come up with explanations better than the popular "God could do it." I’m an empiricist for the most part—not denying the importance of faith, but shaking my head at blind faith. God has not commissioned us to be ignorant, but to be ready and study (II Timothy 2:15, I Peter 3:15, Colossians 4:6).

8. Albright was very vehement in his proclamation that Lacish, Meggido, Beth-Shan, Jerusalem, Gezer, etc., were destroyed in Israelite military conquests. (See G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology, various ref., esp. p. 69, 80-83) A lot of the info in this section comes from Hoffmeier (chap. 2) and an article authored by Glenn Miller. I have also cited other sources.

9.Another Egyptian text dating from ca. 1175 B.C. recounts a great battle between Ramesses III and the "Sea Peoples" (commonly associated as the Philistines). The Philistines are mentioned in this text and they appear in the Bible as Israel’s contemporaries and opponents for control of Canaan. (For illustrations see Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures and Trude Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture)

10. Some people object to the translation of the Merenptah Stele—saying that it does not refer to Israel as a people. Of the eight toponyms mentioned in this stele, Israel is written with a different determinative than the others, and this determinative is consistent with the Egyptian identification of Israel as a group of people not yet politically established in Canaan. (See Kurt Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Vol. IV, 781-786)

11. This may be the case with the Israelites (which I noted earlier in my article), for example, employed foreign architects and workers to erect Solomon’s Temple. When the Israelites left Egypt and began to integrate into the Canaanite land, they had no architectural culture from which to draw upon. We must also take into account (as already discussed) that the Israelites did NOT burn every city to the ground save three and intended on inhabiting it. Thus, it is very probable that they adopted certain aspects of the Canaanite material culture and sometimes it might seem as if there was no settlement when there actually was.

12. For more information see the rest of Miller’s article that I reference in # 8.

Were the NT Writers Influenced by Hellenistic Thought?

This is yet another skeptical axiom, passed around uncritically by numerous "armchair scholars" and the like. ¹ This contention is no doubt a priori just like the JEDP one. When one begins to really dig into the issue, aside from reading the simplistic nonsense of Acharya S., they will find that it has not a leg to stand on. But don’t expect those suffering from an acute case of intellectual paralysis to give any sort of objective look at the information. With that, let’s put another ignorant contention to rest.

Hellenism: The Cult of Mithra

Let’s start with the mystery religions, which Mithraism is the paramount claim to have been borrowed from by Christianity. Nash criticizes some of the ignorant methodology of the "Christianity borrowed from the mystery religions" crowd.

"Many of the publications that purport to find signs of an early Christian dependence on the mystery religions repeat a number of fundamental errors. In many cases they ignore important differences between different cults or between different stages of the same religion so as to suggest too great an agreement among the mysteries… Another common fault encountered in many discussions of the mystery religions is the use of careless language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices and then marvel at the awesome parallels they think they have discovered… A good recent example of this can be found in Godwin’s book Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium, as a ‘blood baptism’ in which the initiate is ‘washed in the blood of the lamb.’ An uniformed reader might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), whereas a more knowledgeable reader will regard Godwin’s description as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity. One should also be one the watch for the exaggerations and oversimplifications that abound in this kind of literature. One will encounter exaggerated claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord’s Supper and similar ‘sacraments’ in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged ‘resurrections’ of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail." (Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, p. 125-127, emphasis mine, this book was formerly known under the title Christianity and the Hellenistic World)

Anyone studying this issue has to be aware of the spin doctoring that gets used quite frequently in this subject. Another thing to watch out for is the "bait-and-switch" tactic. A pseudo-intellect will show some second or third century evidence from a Christian author or anyone else that seems to parallel a mystery religion in some aspect and then read that evidence back into the first century mystery religions. This is not sound logic, but then again we should consider the sources. Most likely, if there was any borrowing at all, it was Mithraism borrowing from Christianity and not the reverse. When someone begins passing garbage like this around make sure you ask them to show you concrete 1^st century evidence that the Mithra cult observed whatever they may be trying to point out. Odds are that this was observed by the Mithra cult, but only well after the 1^st century. If they just get mad (which usually ends up being the case) and cannot cite any evidence (with references thank you) then the conversation is over.

Skeptics such as Acharya S. (and others) will state that Mithra was born on December 25^th and guess who else was? This foolish objection isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. NOWHERE in the NT is that date associated with the birth of Christ. The December 25^th date was simply a Catholic invention and furthermore, was NEVER observed by Paul, Peter, or any of the apostles. Maybe they should get a hold of Michael Drosnin—perhaps it is "encoded" somewhere in there?

Mithra is purported to have been "virgin born" and this indeed raises more than a few eyebrows. The fact of the matter is that Mithra was not born in a cave, but out of a rock that became a cave! Can rocks be virgins? Mithra was also born an adult, which pretty much does it for that contention. (See David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, p. 36) The shepherds that witnessed the birth of Mithra create a big problem because this supposedly was a time when humans hadn’t been created yet! (Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, p. 132) This is a wonderful example of punctuated equilibria, Stephen Jay Gould eat your heart out!

Mithra supposedly had 12 disciples or so the story goes. Varuna was the companion of the Iranian Mithra ² and the Roman Mithra had two torch-bearing sidekicks, Cautes and Cautopatres. He also had a number of animal companions (a dog, scorpion, lion, and snake) but not 12. Freke and Gandy, grasping at the proverbial straw say

"Jesus meets his death alongside two thieves, one of whom ascends with him to heaven, while the other goes to hell. A comparable mythical motif is found in the Mysteries. A common icon pictures two torchbearers either side of Mithras. One of these figures has his torch pointing upward, symbolizing the ascent to heaven, and the other has his torch pointing downward, symbolizing the descent to hell." (Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries, p. 51, emphasis mine)

First of all, Freke and Gandy fail to reference where this is found in Mithraic art or literature—how in the world is anyone going to "check them out" and see if this is true? Where is this "common icon" and from when does it date? They do reference a quote from J. Campbell (Occidental Mythology, p. 260) that says, "They [the two torchbearers seen with Mithra] have been compared to the two thieves crucified with Christ…" Sorry boys but I don’t give a twit who has compared it, I want hard evidence. This is a case where a parallel is drawn from scanty evidence, for there is no hint of any kind of death here, or anyone going to hell, or any hint of Mithra being crucified, which will be our next order of business. Even more amazing, how on earth do Freke and Gandy determine that these torchbearers are thieves?

Richard Gordon (Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World, p. 96) states bluntly that there is "no death of Mithras." If they don’t die, then they certainly don’t resurrect. Moreover, there is nothing in Mithraic literature even remotely referring to a crucifixion or resurrection.

Another point that must be made is that many times skeptics will fail to reference their material ³ and just be spouting hearsay about some alleged parallel. Holding catches Acharya doing this and Freke and Gandy are also guilty parties. Many times the evidence they use to show a parallel is second or third century, which is too late to have influenced any of the NT writers.

Freke and Gandy then ramble

"In the Mysteries of Mithras initiates enacted a similar resurrection scene. Having accomplished his mission on earth, Mithras was said to have ascended to heaven in a sun-chariot. Like Jesus, who sits at the right hand of the Father after his ascension, Mithras was believed to have been enthroned by the God of Light as the ruler of the world. Also like Jesus, Mithras was said to be waiting in heaven for the End of Time, when he would return to Earth to awaken the dead and pass judgment." (The Jesus Mysteries, p. 56)

This might sound like some detailed research, but there is a big problem. The reference about "Mithras ascending to heaven" is linked to a quote from Tertullian—the only problem is that is after the first century, too late boys and girls. In Holding’s article he has already shown that Cumont committed a huge fallacy in his statements that Iranian Mithraism was the same as Roman Mithraism. This is not the case and it’s not surprising that Freke and Gandy rely heavily on his work The Mysteries of Mithras.

The statement that the Mithras were promised immortality is really a moot point. What belief system doesn’t have immortality as part of it? Does this now mean that Islam also borrowed from Mithraism because it also promises immortality? This is a good example of skeptics desperately trying to find some kind of parallel. This goes right with the supposed parallel that Jesus and Mithra were good teachers. Who isn’t going to proclaim that their leader was a good teacher? As Holding says, "He was a great god, he taught us nothing!" What next, a parallel supposing a link between S-A-N-T-A and S-A-T-A-N? They are so close in spelling, there has to be some significance to it. Only those too lazy to do some actual research (consisting of more than reading the material in the local doctor’s office) will parrot arguments such as these.

Our next order of business is the alleged parallel with Easter. The Mithra cult allegedly had an observance similar to Easter. Acharya, as well as Freke and Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries, p. 54-57) push this hypothesis.

"In the fourth century an anonymous author tells us that Christians and followers of the Mystery godman Attis were both struck by the remarkable coincidence between the death and resurrection of their respective deities. This gave rise to bitter controversy between the adherents of the rival religions." (Ibid, p. 54, emphasis mine)

Freke and Gandy, staying true to form read fourth century evidence back into the first century. We have already noted their blatant misuse of references (or nonuse) and evidence that is too late to have influenced Christianity. What irks me is that skeptics will gloat that we have no extant copies of Mark from the first century, for example. This shows that the Gospels were "seriously redacted" and altered to hide damaging material. Then, showing their obvious double standard will read fourth century mystery religion material as if it was first century evidence. Will someone please give the emperor a robe? Who was this "anonymous author?" Obviously, we don’t know at this point, nor will do we know if he was reliable or just passing along more misinformation.

As for the Sunday observance, this is found in Roman Mithraism, but not in Iranian Mithraism. IF any borrowing did occur, it was the cult of Mithra borrowing from Christianity.

The last "parallel" that I will cite is the belief that Mithra was the "great bull of the Sun" and sacrificed himself for world peace. This is another gross oversimplification. Mithra did not sacrifice himself in the sense that he died, nor was he the great bull of the sun, but instead slew the bull. Mithra’s "sacrifice" cannot be termed as a willing sacrifice as Christ’s death was—it’s better understood that he took a heroic risk and died. Moreover, the death of Christ was for the sins of men, not for world peace. Christ was very clear that there wouldn’t be absolute peace until sometime after His initial atonement on the cross. For lack of a better phrase, this argument is a whole lot of bull (grin).

Dealing another deathblow to this argument, David Ulansey, an actual authority on Mithraic studies surmises, "…the teachings of the (Mithraic) cult were, as far as we know, never written down… [We] have been left with practically no literary evidence relating to the cult which would help reconstruct its esoteric doctrines." (Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, p. 3)

Basically, those purporting a Mithraic connection to Christianity have not a clue what they’re talking about. With that done, let’s delve into some more objections posed by propagators of this hypothesis.

Hellenism: The Cult of Isis and Osiris

It is hypothesized by several Wal-Mart University grads that Osiris was "resurrected," which as we shall prove is a morbid stretch of the imagination. Nash (The Gospel and the Greeks, p. 136-138) shows how flimsy this alleged parallel is.

The most popular description of this story has Osiris being murdered by his brother Seth, who proceeds to stick Osiris’ body in a coffin and then deposits it in the Nile. Isis then discovers the body and returns it to Egypt. This irritated Seth enough that he found Osiris’ body, cut him into 14 pieces and scattered them abroad. Isis, being his persistent self, rediscovered the pieces of Osiris’ body. This is where it gets a little hairy. Those looking for a parallel with the resurrection of Christ will be adamant that Osiris was also resurrected. Some even go so far as to propose that Osiris’ dead body coming to life in the Nile also is a connection to baptism!

Not even every version of this story has Osiris coming back to life; others make him king of the underworld. (See Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, p. 261) Nash comments that, "the fate of Osiris’s coffin in the Nile is about as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis." (The Gospel and the Greeks, p. 138)

The reports of ritualistic washing as part of admission into this cult are second century A.D. practices, too late to have been an influence on Christianity. Wagner remarks that "This washing has as little as possible the appearance of a sacrament; evidently it was not intended to produce ‘regeneration’ or anything of the sort. The purpose of it seems to have been cleanliness, which was naturally regarded as a preparation for the holy rite that was to follow." (Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, p. 260; as cited in Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, p. 138) In conclusion Nash (p. 138) states

"During its later, mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis; and Serapis is often thought of as a sun god. It is clear that the post-Ptolemaic, mystery version of the cult was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god." (Emphasis mine)

Hellenism: Cybele and Attis ⁴

Cybele, also identified as the "Great Mother," was well known in the Hellenistic world. (See Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism and J. Ferguson, The Religions of the Roman Empire) Cybele began as a goddess of nature and is subtly similar to the cult of Dionysis. The cult of Dionysis was notorious for sexual orgies that characterized some of their "rites." The male worshippers of Cybele went so far as to castrate themselves and thus become eunuch-priests of this cult. Cybele eventually became the mother of all gods and goddesses, as well as the "mistress" of life.

Roman citizens weren’t allowed to partake in the cult of Cybele until the reign of Claudius, when a spring festival (March 22-27) was held in their honor.

The primary myth in this cult relates that a handsome, but unfaithful Attis was driven insane by his lover, Cybele. This insanity eventually drove Attis to castrate himself and he died shortly thereafter. This event caused Cybele great sorrow and thus introduced death into the world. Cybele then restored Attis to life and that in turn brought nature back to life. With that, people are quick to see a "resurrection" in this and a parallel with the resurrection of Christ. The "resurrection" of Attis is no truer than the "resurrection" of the weeds in my driveway every spring. It wasn’t until the later Roman versions of the festival did this "resurrection" assume more prominence. Anderson further points out in his Christianity and Comparative Religion (p. 38):

"As for the motif of a dying and rising savior-god, which has so often been compared with the unique event which gave birth to Christianity, Metzger points out that the formal resemblance between them must not be allowed to obscure the great differences in content. In all the Mysteries which tell of a dying god, he dies "by compulsion, and not by choice, sometimes in a bitterness and despair, never in a self-giving love." There is a positive gulf between this and the Christ who asserted that no man could take his life from him but that he laid it down of his own will (John 10:17, Matthew 26:53); the Johannine pictures of the cross as the place where Jesus was "glorified"; and the Christian celebration of the Passion as a victory over Satan, sin and death. Similarly, there is all the difference in the world between the rising or re-birth of a deity which symbolizes the coming of spring (and the re-awakening of nature) and the resurrection ‘on the third day’ of an historical person." (Emphasis mine)

Furthermore:

"In the wild orgies of worship associated with that (cybelene) mystery religion, some devotees, voluntarily wounded themselves, and, becoming intoxicated with the view of blood (cf. Kings 18:28), with which they sprinkled their altars, they believed they were uniting themselves with their divinity. Others sacrificed their virility to the gods… During the ceremonial rites dedicated to the Great Mother, a young man stood beneath a platform upon which a steer was slaughtered and showered himself with the animal’s blood. After the blood bath, the gore-covered mystic offered himself to the veneration of the crowd. The ceremony was known as the taurobolia… The Egyptian goddess Isis was honored especially by "women with whom love was a profession"… The morals of the cult of Isis and Osiris were viewed by the Roman community at large as very loose, and the mystery surrounding it excited the worst suspicions… Persia introduced dualism as a fundamental principle of religion, and deified the evil principle. It was taught that both evil and the supreme deity must be worshipped… The Persian Mazdeans brought the dimension of magic to their rites and made their "mysteries" a reversed religion with a liturgy focused on the infernal powers. "There was no miracle the experienced magician might not expect to perform with the aid of demons… Hence the number impious practices performed in the dark, practices the horror of which is equaled only by their absurdity: preparing beverages that disturbed the senses and impaired the intellect; mixing subtle poisons extracted from demonic plants and corpses already in the state of putridity; immolating children in order to read the future in their quivering entrails or to conjure up ghosts… The initiation ceremonies usually mimed death and resurrection. This was done in the most extravagant manner. In some ceremonies, candidates were buried or shut up in a sarcophagus; they were even symbolically deprived of their entrails and mummified (an animal’s belly with entrails was prepared for ceremony). Alternatively, the candidates were symbolically drowned or decapitated. In imitation of the Orphic myth of Dionysis Zagreus, a rite held in which the heart of a victim, supposedly a human child, was roasted and distributed among the participants to be eaten… In the Dionysis and Isis mysteries, the initiation was sometimes accomplished by a "sacred marriage," a sacral copulation." (Paul Fisher, Behind the Lodge Door: Church, State and Freemasonry, p. 273-274; Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 15^th Edition, s.v., "Mystery Religions.")

With that, there is no good reason to suggest that the Attis myth had any influence on Christianity. All proponents of this theory can do is point out superficial similarities—while ignoring the major differences and without taking into account the lateness of the rise of these mystery religions in Rome.

Another supposed parallel is the taurobolium, in which the initiate of the cult would stand in a pit as a bull (or goat or fawn) was killed on a platform above them. The initiate would sometimes rear back and swallow the blood of this animal and be covered with it. Many proponents of this theory call this a parallel to the "washed in the blood of the Lamb" of Christianity (Revelation 7:14, I Peter 1:2). Some also allege a parallel with Paul’s teaching of baptism in Romans 6:1-4.

"As Fairweather noted, the cult of Cybele made no use of the taurobolium until the second century A.D… According to Robert Duthoy, not one existing text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and resurrection of Attis… According to Wagner, ‘the taurobolium in the Attis cult is first attested in the time of Antoninus Pius for A.D. 160. As far as we can see at present it only became a personal consecration at the beginning of the third century A.D. The idea of a rebirth through the instrumentality of the taurobolium only emerges in isolated instances towards the end of the fourth century A.D.; it is not originally associated with this blood bath.’" (Nash, p. 153-155, emphasis mine; Wagner quote from Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, p. 266; also see Fairweather, Jesus and the Greeks, p. 283)

It is also far more likely that being "washed in the Blood of the Lamb" had its origins in the OT and Judaism, not the mystery cults. The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15) was consecrated with the shedding of the blood of an animal. Just as a spotless lamb or bull was substituted for the sinful people in the OT, Jesus became our spotless sacrifice in the NT. Miller also adds some needful insight:

"Such an understanding helps explain why obedience precedes rather than follows the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The latter phrase gives concreteness and vividness to Peter’s brief glance at Christian conversion.  "sprinkling with the blood," recalls the Jewish sacrificial system, particularly as seen from a distance or in retrospect by the early Christians. The apparent origin of the (sprinkling) terminology is the ceremony described in Numbers 19 in which ashes from the burning of a red heifer are mixed with water and sprinkled for purification on those who have defiled themselves by contact with a corpse (the phrase "water of sprinkling," occurs repeatedly in Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21 LXX). In Barn. 8, this passage in its entirety is applied to Christ’s redemptive death, its imagery of sprinkling being associated with Jesus’ blood rather than with water and ashes (Barn. 5.1; 8.3; in the NT cf. Heb 9:13–14). More significantly, Hebrews uses the same language (where the LXX did not) in connection with the institution of the Mosaic covenant: Moses built an altar at the foot of Sinai, and when he had sacrificed cattle he threw half of the blood against the altar; the other half he put in bowls, and read aloud to the people out of the scroll of the covenant the Lord's commands. When they promised to obey all that the Lord commanded, Moses took the bowls and threw the remaining blood at the people, saying (in the words of Heb 9:20), "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you" (cf. Exod. 24:3–8; Heb 9:18–21). In Hebrews, the blood of the covenant poured out by Moses corresponds to the "blood of sprinkling" shed by Jesus, the "mediator of the new covenant" (Heb 12:24; cf. 10:29). The participants in this new covenant are invited to "draw near with a true heart in the full confidence of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse a guilty conscience and having the body washed in pure water" (10:22). Peter lacks the direct reference to Christian baptism (although cf. 3:20), but the close connection between obedience and sprinkling suggests that Exod 24:3–8 is as determinative for his imagery as for that of Hebrews. Without speaking explicitly of a "new covenant" or the "blood of the covenant" (which may in his circles have been reserved for the Eucharist, cf. Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:25), Peter relies on language that had perhaps become already fixed among Christians as a way of alluding to the same typology. To "obey" was to accept the gospel and become part of a new community under a new covenant; to be sprinkled with Jesus’ blood was to be cleansed from one's former way of living and released from spiritual slavery by the power of his death (cf. 1:18). Peter’s choice of images confirms the impression that he writes to communities of Gentiles as if they were a strange new kind of Jew. (Emphasis his)

In closing to this section, I find it worthwhile to point out one more fallacy in the reasoning of one, Timothy Freke. He, as well as his co-author often cite some of the early church fathers testimonies as to the numerous similarities between the mystery cults and Christianity.

"How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray." (Freke and Gandy, p. 27-28, emphasis mine)

Their chapter entitled "Diabolical Mimicry" is possibly the worst representation of a theory I have ever read. As we have seen, Freke and Gandy (either because they’re sloppy researchers or just good liars) ignore the fact that these mystery religions in Rome were stark in contrast to their alleged origins in the ANE. Iranian Mithraism was much different then its "offshoot" in Rome, as was the Attis cult in Rome far different from the one in Egypt. Even ignoring that fact, Freke and Gandy give the game away by admitting that all their alleged incriminating evidence amongst the church fathers comes from the second century or shortly thereafter. The entire NT was completed before the second century so IF any borrowing occurred, it was in the reverse. I must thank Timmy and Pete for being so candid. I’ll close with a quote from David Wenham.

"The synoptic saying about knowledge of the kingdom’s ‘mysteries’ has two forms, the Matthew/Luke form as above and the slightly different form in Mark 4:11… The reference to ‘mysteries’ has led some to postulate a background for the saying in the Greek mystery religions. But the saying has an excellent Jewish and Palestinian background since the idea of ‘mysteries’ being concealed and revealed is important in Jewish apocalyptic literature, for example, the Book of Daniel, and the Dead Sea Scrolls… Some have suggested that Paul was influenced by the Greek mystery religions in his concept of dying and rising with Christ. But this hypothesis is unnecessary and unlikely: Baptism is a very Jewish phenomenon, and there is little doubt that it came to Christians directly or indirectly from John the Baptist. For John baptism was very much associated with the advent of the eschatological day of the Lord, and this eschatological dimension continues in Christian baptism. But for Christians like Paul the decisive eschatological events are the death and resurrection of Jesus; it is thus intelligible that baptism as the rite of initiation into the saved eschatological community should come to be associated with Jesus’ saving death and resurrection. There is therefore no need to invoke the mystery religions to explain Paul’s baptismal teaching. It is, however, possible that the Jesus-traditions that speak of taking up the cross and sharing in the sufferings of Jesus were influential." (David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? p. 83, 155-156, emphasis mine)

Hellenism: Paul the Gnostic?

Freke and Gandy (chap. 8) again delve into the realm of fantasy—attempting to prove that Paul was a Gnostic. They begin with a quote from Elaine Pagels.

"Much of what passes for ‘historical’ interpretation of Paul and for ‘objective’ analysis of his letters can be traced to the second-century heresiologists. If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic, how could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher? How could they say they are following his example when they offer secret teaching of wisdom and Gnosis ‘to the initiates?’ How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own, citing his words as decisive evidence against the ecclesiastical doctrine of bodily resurrection." (Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 9-10; as cited in Freke and Gandy, p. 159, italics in original, bold emphasis mine)

The reasoning of Pagels, as well as Freke and Gandy (which makes them guilty by association) is seriously flawed. In essence, what they’re saying is if another faction can butcher and twist the teaching of someone, as well as take it way out of context (Paul in this case) to make it "fit" their theology, then you must have really been one of them. This is not sound methodology, but one should expect this type of nonsense from these authors. So what do Freke and Gandy have as evidence to show that Paul was really a Gnostic? Let’s see if their "theory" holds up shall we?

They begin by glibly accepting Gnostic testimony that Paul taught and integrated with the Gnostic sect. ⁵ The problem is, this testimony comes from the second century, a century late and a roll of quarters short.

"…the great Gnostic sages of the second century [A.D.] called Paul ‘the Great Apostle’ and honored him as the primary inspiration for Gnostic Christianity. Valentinus explains that Paul initiated the chosen few into the ‘Deeper Mysteries’ of Christianity, which revealed a secret doctrine of God. These initiates had included Valentinus’ teacher Theudas, who had in turn initiated Valentinus himself." (Ibid, p. 159, emphasis mine)

We’re referenced again to Pagels’ work and more importantly a passage written by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 7.17) supposedly showing that "Theudas had received secret teachings from Paul." (Freke and Gandy, p. 294, footnote 3)

"And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger heretics… Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a [person’s] name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides, although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth]; for as the teaching, so also the tradition of the apostles was one." (Clement, Stromata 7.17; as cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, (ed.) J. Donaldson and A. Roberts)

All Freke and Gandy show is that the Gnostic sect alleges that Paul was "one of them." This seems like the crux of their argument, glibly accepting what second century Gnostics allege as the truth. Also, nowhere in that section is Paul supposedly to have taught Theudas in private. It only says that he was Paul’s pupil. Rather then get into a "my word against yours" argument, let’s get into some specifics and see if Paul really exhibited teachings synonymous with the Gnostic cult. Let’s first consider Paul himself and how he reacted to some of the pagan cults.

One thing that should be pointed out immediately is Paul’s apparent opposition to the gods of Greece in Acts 14. Zeus and Hermes in Greek literature were synonymous with the Jupiter and Mercury of Roman literature. Paul was so shocked that he tore his clothing in protest. In Greek tradition the appearance of a deity was the occasion for divine honors to be given out and this would explain the actions of the people in Acts 14—deifying Paul and Barnabas. Little more needs to be said other than Paul vehemently opposed this and attempted to turn them to the one true God. Paul even calls their gods "vanities."

Let’s quickly go over some more relevant passages where Paul spoke or acted against some of these cults. In Acts 16:16-24 we read of Paul’s exorcism of a "spirit of divination" from a Philippian slave girl and subsequent jailing for it.

Paul tells us in I Corinthians 10:20: "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."

In Acts 19:24-41 Demetrius stirs up a riot in response to Paul’s preaching against the Goddess Diana (Artemis). Diana was regarded as the goddess of hunting, as well as the "mother goddess" of all nature in some parts of the Greco-Roman world. Her status of "mother goddess" is consistent with the pagan New-Age Gaia hypothesis. The Ephesians were also very aware of Paul’s belief that man-made idols weren’t gods at all. (Acts 19:26) With that, it seems a bit of a stretch to conclude that Paul had any association with these pagan cults, unless one proposes that Acts was written long after Paul’s lifetime (this contention will be knocked down later).

Freke and Gandy also play the "Paul was anti-Law" song, which is a favorite pet argument of Muslims. I have refuted this in my Wiles of Islam article. So was Paul a Gnostic? Let’s get down to business.

Freke and Gandy are seriously guilty of implanting Christian terminology into the heretical Gnostic view and then are amazed to find them there. But this is not their only line of argumentation:

"It is only inadequate translation that conceals the fact that Paul’s letters are full of characteristically Gnostic phrases and teachings… For example, Valentinians claim that Paul initiated Christians into the ‘Mystery of Sophia,’ which probably included the myth of the goddess’ fall and redemption, and quote as proof his First Letter to the Corinthians, in which Paul writes: ‘We speak of Sophia among the initiated.’ If you are wondering why you have never come across this decidedly Gnostic line of Paul’s before, it is because it is usually translated as ‘We speak wisdom among the perfected,’ which doesn’t make a lot of sense but at least sounds orthodox!" (Freke and Gandy, p. 164-165, emphasis mine)

The Greek teleioo (Strong’s 5046) translated "perfect" (not initiate as Freke and Gandy want) means, "complete, (in various applications of labor, growth, etc.); completeness, of full age, man, perfect." It comes from telos (Strong’s 5056) which comes from the primary tello, which means, "properly the point aimed at as a limit, by implication; the conclusion of an act or state, result," and so on and so forth. The only bad translating that is being done is by the authors themselves. They also gratuitously assume that since Paul mentions wisdom (sophia) he must be referring to the pagan Greek goddess. Other then playing the "all the translators are biased" card they accomplish nothing. If Paul were going to use the Greek term for initiate, the operative word would have been mystes, NOT teleioo. Lastly, Valentinius lived in the second century, not the first and didn’t go to Rome until 140 A.D., long after Paul had died.

In addition, Nash (p. 185) points out that Paul never uses mystes or telestheis, two very important pagan terms. Many may attempt to make hay with other Pauline terminology, which may or may not be somewhat associated with pagan terms. Wagner writes that, "When those terms that frequently occur in the mystery cults are compared with Paul’s vocabulary, one comes to the conclusion that Paul knows only those words that have been common property for a long time, and then he uses them in a sense that does not correspond with the specific meanings accorded them in the mysteries." (Ibid, p. 185, emphasis mine)

Pertaining to Paul’s use of the Greek musterion (Strong’s 3466, occurs 20 times in his writings) it has nothing to do with the heretical Gnostics, but simply points to the "mystery" of the Gospel, God’s great proclamation that through Christ Jesus the redemption of sinful man is now possible. Even before Paul’s conversion Jesus Himself spoke of the "mysteries" (musterion) of the Kingdom of God (Luke 8:10, Matthew 13:11, Mark 4:11). This redemption is inexplicable unless under the umbrella of Biblical tradition. Paul’s only "mystery" is God’s secret, His decision to save men through Jesus. This mystery is not to principally be kept in secret, only formally kept hidden by God, but now revealed to all men. Some people are spiritually deaf and may not receive it, and the manner in which it’s received has nothing to do with gnosis or "initiations," simply acceptance of that message and the righteous lifestyle that it entails.

Freke and Gandy regularly appeal to the heretical Gospel of Thomas ⁶ and the writings at Nag Hammadi to bolster their hypothesis that Christianity borrowed from Gnosticism. This is another huge flaw in their logic, supposing that simply because Christian texts were found side-by-side with Gnostic writings proved they were linked to each other. This only proves that Gnostics had knowledge and interaction with Christians, not necessarily that either borrowed from each other. Their argument that Paul grew up in areas permeated with paganism thusly proves that he himself was a pagan is also faulty. That sounds just as ridiculous as, "Canada is primarily a hockey nation and therefore Tommy from the Yukon Territory couldn’t be a great soccer player." Freke and Gandy are so open-minded that they let their brains fall out.

Let’s see if there really is any evidence for pre-Christian Gnosticism that would bolster Freke and Gandy’s case.

Many people (Timmy and Pete included) make the huge mistake of believing that since non-Christian Gnostic documents were discovered at Nag Hammadi they are examples of pre-Christian Gnosticism. Again, this is hardly sound logic.

The crux of the argument lies primarily on two documents found a Nag Hammadi, The Paraphrase of Shem and The Apocalypse of Adam. Edwin Yamauchi writes concerning the final translation of all the findings at Nag Hammadi:

"Now that the entire Nag Hammadi corpus has been translated, we can be sure that there are no unexploded bombshells. That is, the vast majority of the fifty-two tractates are Christian Gnostic compositions from the second and third centuries. The case for pre-Christian Gnosticism can be argued from only a handful of the ‘non-Christian tractates’ which had been known before, the most important of which are The Apocalypse of Adam and The Paraphrase of Shem." (Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, p. 130; as cited in Nash, p. 253, bold emphasis mine)

Bultmann was the first to propagate this garbage and probably the biggest fallacy in his theory was his analysis of the Gospel of John, allegedly a Gnostic document. He assumes this and then uses the aforementioned work as the foundation for his reconstruction of pre-Christian Gnosticism. Talk about paddling about in a circle. The assumption that the complete growth of later Gnosticism was already existing in pre-Christian Gnosticism just begs the question. This is the basic fallacy of those who contend that Christianity borrowed many of its rites and beliefs from other worldviews. One cannot read a first century text with second century rose-colored glasses, nor should one read a second century pagan text with first century glasses.

Gnosticism was adamant that the flesh itself (this view is also held by Stoics, which will be examined later) was evil and their goal was to escape this bodily prison. Salvation was not obtained by faith or works, but by gnosis or some special knowledge of one’s true condition. Some Gnostics urged abstinence from sexual intercourse because the creation of women was the source of evil and procreating would only multiply the evil and suffering (matter itself is also regarded as evil). In contrast, Carpocrates urged his followers to indulge themselves in deliberate promiscuity. The salvation of women was essential on them one-day becoming men again and returning to the conditions of the Garden before Eve was created. (See Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, "Gnosticism")

Wilson sums it up well in writing:

"… gnosis delivers its possessor from this evil world of matter, to Paul the evil consists in sin, from which Christ by His death has set men free… To Paul, the alienation of man from God is not due to his creatureliness, but to his disobedience, his failure to comply with the demands of a righteous God. Thus the forgiveness of sins marks off Christianity from all its competitors. The Gnostics transformed forgiveness of sins into release from fate, from the bondage of the flesh, from matter; in a word, they changed the distinctively Christian view into the current Hellenistic conception." (R. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 130; as cited in Nash, p. 260)

In review, there is no evidence for any pre-Christian Gnosticism, despite the flag-waving of certain individuals—the likes of Freke and Gandy. Just because Paul uses some general terminology of certain cults doesn’t mean that he got it from them, nor does it mean that he applies it in the same context. Rather, he was using a general term that was common at the time. It is a serious logical fallacy to assume that Paul was a Gnostic because they say he was one of their teachers (albeit from second century texts). It’s also fallacious to assume that Paul borrowed from the Gnostics when it is far more likely that they borrowed their terminology from him. The Gnostics did not create their terminology and language ex nihilo, but took it from Paul and contorted to fit their theology. ⁷

Hellenism: Paul the Stoic?

We have yet another contention from the skeptical camp—the belief that Paul was a Stoic. Just in case the Mithra theory doesn’t work you can fall back on the "Paul was a Gnostic" theory. If that one doesn’t work then we’ll say that Paul was a Stoic. ⁸

Again, those whose best research consists of the material at the magazine rack in the local drug store will use arguments such as these. The lack of critical thinking is glaring here. We will also examine briefly Nash’s criticism of those who see Stoic teaching in Peter’s writings. Let’s see how well this theory holds up shall we? ⁹

For starters it does not surprise me a bit that Freke and Gandy jump on the fact that Paul quoted a Stoic in Acts 17:28. ¹⁰ To say that Paul was Stoic because he made one passing reference to someone associated with them is rather bizarre in my opinion. Paul wasn’t some dough head that just fell off the turnip truck, he was an educated man very well acquainted with the people of Palestine. What better way to gain the attention of Stoic philosophers that he interacted with then to quote one of their own? I can quote a few lines of the Pet Shop Boys off the top of my head—does this then mean I’m a groupie?

Some allege that Paul and Seneca (1-65 A.D.) had a lot in common and were in cahoots so to speak. Although it may seem like a powerful case on the surface, deep down Seneca’s theology would have been considered apostasy to Paul. On the flip side, Seneca probably would have though Paul was equally as crazy. He probably understood a lot more about what Paul was really saying despite the "just so" propaganda of Freke, Gandy and the like.

"The Stoic world is an ideally good organism, all of whose parts interact for the benefit of the whole. It is imbued with divine reason (logos), its entire development providentially ordained by fate and repeated identically from one world phase to the next in a never-ending cycle, each phase ending with a conflagration (ekpyrosis). At the lowest level, the world is analyzed into an active principle, god, and the passive principle, matter, both probably corporeal… the four elements air, fire, earth, and water, whose own interaction is analogous to that of god and matter: air and fire, severally or conjointly, are an active rational force called breath (Greek pneuma, Latin spiritus), while earth and water constitute the passive substrate on which these act, totally interpenetrating each other thanks to the non-particulate structure of body and its capacity to be mixed ‘through and through’… Stoic ethics is founded on the principle that only virtue is good, only vice bad. Other things conventionally assigned a value are ‘indifferent’ (adiaphora), although some, e.g., health, wealth, and honor, are naturally ‘preferred’ (proegmena), while their opposites are ‘dispreferred’ (apoproegmena). Even though their possession is irrelevant to happiness, from birth these indifferents serve as the appropriate subject matter of our choices, each correct choice being a ‘proper function’ (kathekon)—not yet a morally good act, but a step toward our eventual end (telos) of ‘living in accordance with nature.’" (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, (2^nd ed.) Robert Audi (gen. ed.), "Stoicism," emphasis mine)

Under the Stoic view, one could be a virtuous pedophile or torturer. There was no such thing as "sin," only "errors" or "mistakes," not following the "proper function of the divine plan." It may not be your "proper function" to be wealthy and famous, rather, it might be "nature’s plan" for you to give up your wealth for others. Stoics shun genuine human emotion in pursuit of some spiritual nirvana that will shed the shackles of the flesh.

"With Seneca error or sin is nothing more than the failure in attaining to the ideal of the perfect man which he sets before him, the running counter to the law of the universe which he finds himself placed. He [Seneca] does not view it [sin] as an offense done to the will of an all-holy all-righteous Being, an unfilial act of defiance towards a loving and gracious Father. The Stoic’s conception of error or sin is not referred at all to the idea of God. His pantheism had so obscured the personality of the Divine Being, that such reference was, if not impossible, at least unnatural." (J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, p. 296; as cited in Nash, p. 76)

The Stoics were in stark contrast to Paul in several ways. First, Paul did believe in objective morality, while that would be foreign to a Stoic. Second, Stoics were pantheists and would have thought it quite curious to believe in an all-loving transcendent God. Third, Stoics believed (at least in a loose sense) that all men (as well as matter and "god") are "brothers," which may seem somewhat similar to the Christian view. Actually, Christianity exposed the concrete fact that all men are not brothers. The same God created us all, however, not everyone will turn to Christ and be forgiven. Christianity does extend the invitation to make all men brothers through Christ. These stark differences cannot be ignored and only a blatant misunderstanding of Paul would lead one to believe that he was a Stoic. Evidently, from reading the works of several proponents of the theory that Christianity borrowed from various worldviews—Paul was not only a Gnostic in disguise, but also a Stoic and a dabbler in the mystery religions of Rome.

One last objection I would like to entertain in this section is the allegation that Peter displays some Stoic undertones in his writings. As noted earlier Stoics believed that each "world phase" or era precedes the next in a never-ending cycle—each cycle ending in a conflagration (destruction).

The basic allegation is that II Peter 3:7, 10, 12 display this Stoic belief. Nash (p. 78) makes an important point that Stoic writers had completely discarded this doctrine by the middle of the 1^st century B.C., therefore to say that Pete was borrowing from the existing Stoic teaching of the 1^st century A.D. becomes gratuitous. The Stoic conflagration was a slow-moving process that took an "awful long time" to complete. Moreover, it was not the product of a conscious decision by a transcendent God, rather a naturalistic process with no real "purpose." The conflagration of II Peter is a sudden event caused by a personal Entity. The Stoic conflagration has more of a pantheistic motif if you will; in contrast Peter speaks of it as part of a larger Divine judgment of mankind. Lastly, as already noted, this Stoic conflagration was an ever-occurring event, while the biblical one is a once-for-all judgment. The new heavens and earth created by God are not a repetition of past occurrences, rather the final condition of everlasting fellowship with our Creator God.

In conclusion, despite the bombastic, simplistic parallels churned out by numerous parallelomaniacs, the evidence, when analyzed critically is wanting. There is no good reason to posit that the NT writers were in influenced (in the strong sense) by any pagan belief systems. Although they may have used some general terminology that was common in 1^st century Palestine, to take a giant leap to all-out borrowing is jumping the gun. I see no need to review further as I believe I have conveyed the message clearly and shown that the evidence put forth by the skeptical camp are completely unfounded and ludicrous. Any skeptics wishing to prove this hypothesis would do well to refute the evidence conveyed in this section and erect a more convincing case of their own. Good luck.

1. I cannot possibly go through all the skeptical objections in this article as they keep inventing new myths every time they get refuted. One article that I will draw upon is J.P. Holding’s article on Mithraism. For the sake of space I cannot go through all skeptical objections, so I will just reference here several of Holding’s articles that refute objections not so commonly used (well, maybe by now they’re common, grin). Beddru, Zoroaster, Dazhdbog, Alcides, Hesus, Zalmoxis, Alexander of Abonuteichos, Prometheus, Attis and last but not least, Chu Chulainn. I will refute some of the general issues, without getting into every little skeptical objection. Those wishing to prove the Hellenistic influence would do well do refute my information in this section (from several scholarly works), as well as the plethora of information Holding has. Interestingly, the cult of Islam commonly makes this "objection," as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Witnesses do NOT suggest that Paul was a Gnostic or Stoic for example, but simply that later biblical writers and "Christians" in general misinterpret his writings in a "Hellenistic" fashion.

2. Holding also conclusively shows that Iranian Mithraism was markedly different than Roman Mithraism. Basically, the only similarity that Iranian and Roman Mithraism had was an association with the sun, which was popular in many religions of the ANE. In fact, the bull-slaying motif is not found in any artwork or otherwise in Iranian Mithraism, demonstrating in part that Iranian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism were stark in contrast. At the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies in the 1970s, the lack of evidence of an Iranian/Roman connection led Mithraic scholars to suspect that Roman Mithraism was "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult." (Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies, p. XIII) These are actual scholars in Mithraic studies; contrary to the non-specialists that Freke, Gandy, Acharya, and the like make use of. Cumont’s work is outdated, although he could be considered the cornerstone of Mithra scholarship.

Nash is also critical of the fallacy of equating Iranian Mithraism and the Roman version.

"Mithra appears first in Iranian religion as the twin brother of the Zoroastian god Ahura Mazda. In later Zoroastrian literature he assumes more prominence as a judge of the dead; but it was the Syrian version of the cult of Mithra that finally reached Rome. Attempts to read facets of the later Syrian development of the cult back into Iranian version must be questioned… Swedish scholar G. Widengren claimed that an excavation at Dura (Europos) is a Mithraeum that points to the possible presence of a Mithraic cult before the end of the first century A.D… But Widengren’s suggested dating has been rejected. He himself admitted that, "the evidence is very uncertain." According to other scholars, including M.J. Vermaseren, excavation reports suggest that the Dura Mithraeum that Widengren dated so early should be dated much later, in A.D. 168… Vermaseren states that, "no Mithraic monument can be dated earlier than the end of the first century A.D…" (Nash, p. 147-148; Widengren quote from Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, p. 452; Vermaseren quote from Mithras: The Secret God, p. 29)

Lastly, Mithraism was the chief adversary of Christianity, having a large following in the Roman army in 200 A.D. (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "Mysticism" in Everett F. Harrison, (ed.) Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 366)

3. Freke and Gandy (as well as Acharya) fail miserably on two counts. First, the majority of evidence for Mithraic parallels comes after the first century, which would be too late for the NT writers. Second, they fail to reference their material, which is absolutely high schoolish. Citing references is the first thing one should do, their failure to do so only shows that they either have something to hide or they’re poor researchers.

When I began thumbing through The Jesus Mysteries it didn’t take me long to identify this. In their attempt to find a parallel in the virgin birth, Freke and Gandy (p. 32-33) state the Dionysus was born in an "ox stall." (boukolion) They then state that the word usually translated "stable" in the gospels, katalemna, (Strong’s 2646) literally means "cave or temporary shelter." (They fail to give us book, chapter, and verse where this is found. However, it is used in Luke 2:7 and simply means, "a lodging place." Which is only attained by implication. The proper and normal meaning is to "break up or dissolute a journey.") The NASB, KJV, and NKJV translate oikia as "house." (See Matthew 2:11, Strong’s # 3614) These are really the only verses in the NT that hint at the actual building or structure where Jesus was born. There was no room for them at the inn so she laid Jesus in a manger, hence the tradition that He was born in a stable of some sort. Two other common words are oikodespotes (Strong’s 3617) and oikos (Strong’s 3624), which is the root of the two aforementioned words. Where are Freke and Gandy getting this? Incidentally, none of these words "literally mean cave" but simply refer to a "structure" or "dwelling."

They then go on to say that there was a "widespread early Christian tradition that Jesus was born in a cave." They also fail to reference this "fact." They also pull the Jesus and Mithra were born on December 25^th garbage, which has already been refuted.

Another tactic (although most authors aren’t as deceptive as they are) used by Freke and Gandy is lack of direct quotes. For example, their pitiful attempt to find a parallel in the Eucharist they reference an inscriptional Mithraic quote from Justin Martyr (another post first century author mind you). "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." (Freke and Gandy, p. 49) They reference us again to Godwin’s Mystery Religions in the Ancient World (p. 28), for the answers. The problem is that Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but curiously leaves out any and all documentation such as the date of the text or where it was found! Vermaseren (a student of Cumont’s) notes that the source of this saying is a medieval text and the source is Zarathustra, not Mithra. (M.J. Vermaseren, Mithras the Secret God, p. 103)

We must thank Freke and Gandy for referencing so well the fact that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity. To point out all the errors in The Jesus Mysteries it would take at least a 10-volume set—Allegro’s The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is this book’s lone rival in ignorance.

4. See again Nash (p. 138-143)

5. Their logic is amazing. They will arbitrarily reject NT info that can be precisely shown (See Evidences 2) to be of first century origin and glibly accept Gnostic testimony about Paul being associated with them. I believe the Emperor has no clothes! Another point that never ceases to amaze me is when there are common terms between Paul and the Gnostic heretics for example, it’s always arbitrarily assumed that Paul borrowed from the Gnostics, without the reverse ever being considered. Is this sound logic?

6. Many wish to stuff the Gospel of Thomas into the Canon, despite the large amount of evidence against its inclusion. It obviously differs from the Synoptics and John, so someone is definitely wrong. The facts are however, against its inclusion because it was composed no earlier than 150 A.D. and it shows dependence upon the Gospels for its information. Gnostics, as well as anyone else wishing to include the Gospel of Thomas in the canon would do well to refute Glenn Miller’s essay on it. The subject of the Canon is a broad and exhaustive category, which I will not go into at length here because of space.

7. Interestingly, Freke and Gandy arbitrarily assume that there was pre-Christian Gnosticism (even if there was that still wouldn’t prove borrowing by Paul) and that the Gospel of Thomas was composed in the first century. They provide absolutely no evidence in their book for any first century Gnosticism, but instead quote personages from the second century onward. This only amounts to question begging.

8. Freke and Gandy (chapter 10) play the "Jesus never existed" trump card last of all. Forget about all the evidence pointing toward the truth of the Resurrection, let’s just eliminate the founder of this religious movement and kill several birds with one stone (See Evidences 2: The Historical Jesus). This camp is getting smaller and smaller by the day and for good reason. It seems that the best counter to all the non-Christian evidence for the existence of Christ is to complain that all the historians were biased and that it’s all just a big conspiracy. In this same chapter they also push the "Exodus is allegorical" theory, which I have demolished in my section on JEDP. For the sake of space I will point out just one more interesting tidbit from our good friends. They state on page 196 in no uncertain terms that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus being born to a young woman and not a virgin. See my Answer Series for a rebuttal to this. The Hebrew most certainly refers to a virgin in the sense we understand it and NOT a young woman.

9. Primary source is Nash (chapter 4). I have cited other sources also.

10. Just a quick note—among the skeptical camp it is often asserted that Acts was written in the second century or sometime thereafter, depending on who you read. However, when looking for "dirt" on Paul they will for a moment grant the authenticity of certain biblical statements to bolster their contention. Such logic never ceases to amaze me.

When was the New Testament written? ¹

This is an ultra-important question because if the NT was written centuries after the time Jesus lived then it seems extremely unlikely that it could, or would accurately reflect His life. However, if it were written shortly after his lifetime then that would dramatically increase the chances of it being an accurate portrayal of Him and the events surrounding Him.

This usual skeptical objection goes something like, "The NT was written long after Jesus lived and the writers seriously redacted the biographies of His life." It was all written so long after He lived that they all just "made it up." I have heard this enough that it comes out my ears, to the point of being nauseating. ² We mustn’t forget the commonly regurgitated objection that the authors all are anonymous.

I’m going to go in no particular order and just defeat a handful of the most common skeptical objections to the early authorship of the NT. It is my contention that the Gospels and Acts were written by eyewitnesses, or were transcribing the words of eyewitnesses.

Of course, the first objection to Mark is that nobody really knows who wrote it. It surely wasn’t Mark; it must have been some deceptive Christian forging it as if written by him. Skeptics also commonly forget (and hence delve into a double-standard) that this same criterion, when applied to other non-biblical manuscripts would yield the same result. As I noted in my section on the JEDP, there are for example, several Assyrian texts that allude to battle A, led by king C, which have no direct archaeological or non-Assyrian testimony to. Does this now mean that we will conclude that king C never existed or battle A never took place? The double standard becomes very evident when we begin talking about the Gospels.

Skeptics (and Muslims) unwittingly get themselves into trouble when they presuppose that the Gospels were all anonymously authored sometime after the fall of Jerusalem until the end of the 1^st century. How was it that not one, but four anonymous documents were crammed down the throats of believers all over Palestine without any hint of controversy over who actually wrote it? Actually, if these gospels had their names attached to them long after the fact, then why isn’t there evidence from somewhere of a controversy about who really wrote it? We should have testimonies to multiple authors of these documents if they circulated anonymously. If they were written long after Jerusalem fell then believers in the post 90s would have had no Gospel tradition to draw from, as it would be doubtful that Papias, Irenaeus, and company would have invented a tradition for the Gospels at the drop of a hat without any challenge. It is also extremely unlikely that the Gospels would have circulate anonymously for decades and then someone arbitrarily attached the names to them—even more miraculous is that they got the entire church to follow their lead!

Another point that must be made is that if one was to just arbitrarily attach a name to any of the gospels, three of the four authors (John being the odd man out) don’t seem qualified. You have Matthew, who was an apostle, but a sleazy tax collector. Mark deserted Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:36-41) and wasn’t an apostle. Luke wasn’t an apostle either and like Mark, isn’t mentioned very often in the NT. If you were going to attach a person’s name to an otherwise anonymous work, the synoptic authors wouldn’t be very high on the list. The "source document" or "Q" (quelle) theory of higher German criticism would also create problems because now we are supposed to believe that Luke and Matthew drew their primary info from an anonymous document! Martin Hengel, in a careful study of practices associated with the distribution of literature in the ancient world, has observed that unambiguous titles were considered important in properly identifying widely circulated written works. (Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, p. 64-84) He then reiterates:

"… the strange uniformity and early attestation of the titles of the Gospels excludes the possibility that for a long time they had been circulating anonymously in the communities or even that, as in the case of some apocryphal texts from Nag Hammadi, they had received their titles as a secondary addition or that those titles had even been changed. For if they had circulated anonymously and had been given their titles only at a secondary stage and independently of one another in different communities, because a title was needed for announcing the reading in worship, this must necessarily have resulted in a diversity of titles, as can be illustrated by many examples from antiquity. On this assumption the question why these particular titles. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, i.e. of very different authors, were added also remains quite unexplained. There is no trace of such anonymity… we should not forget that simply of the second-century Christian writings known to us by title, around 85 % have been lost. The real loss must be substantially higher. Our knowledge is therefore very fragmentary and the extant witnesses are more or less chance ones. Therefore the argument from silence, which is popular in the history of early Christian literature, and indeed in some circumstances necessary, easily leads to false judgments. Nevertheless the fact remains that it is utterly improbable that in this dark period, at a particular place or through a person or through the decision of a group or institution unknown to us, the four superscriptions of the Gospels, which had hitherto been circulating anonymously, suddenly came into being and, without leaving traces of earlier divergent titles, became established throughout the church." (Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 54-55)

We’ll let those who deny the veracity of the Gospels and their authorship give a better reason for how anonymous documents floated around Palestine for decades and then were assigned titles to "stabilize" the church against all the apocryphal gospels. Let them also give a better explanation for the unanimous second century testimony to the authorship of the Gospels, the titles assigned them, as well as their origin. If they fail to do this then those wonderfully simplistic, "critical" arguments of theirs will go down the tubes. No suitable explanation has been given for the arguments so far in this section and I surmise that one will never be given. Odds are that the skeptics will change the subject to something else or erect a straw man in desperation.

Hengel writes that, "Anonymous works were relatively rare and must have been given a title in libraries. They were often given the name of a pseudepigraphical author… Works without titles easily got double or multiple titles when names were given to them in different libraries… The unusual titles of the Gospels already indicate that the evangelists are not meant to appear as ‘biographical’ authors like others, but to bear witness in their works to the one saving message of Jesus Christ." (Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 48-49, emphasis his) In conclusion, there is no good reason to suggest that the Gospels circulated around the Roman Empire anonymously for decades before having titles arbitrarily assigned to them. Skeptics will have to do better than their usual explanation because it simply just doesn’t work anymore.

Shifting a bit to the testimony of some of the early church fathers Irenaeus writes

"Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the Law—[principles], which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.7; as cited in The Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, all citations from the Church Fathers are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers or The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers unless otherwise noted)

Eusebius writes

"Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. It is the following words: ‘This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’ These things are related by Papias concerning Mark." (Eusebius, Church History of Eusebius, 3.39.14-16; as cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, (ed.) Schaff and Wace)

Commenting on the above passage Wenham comments:

"It is not possible in this quotation-within-a-quotation to be certain where the words of John the Presbyter end. They may not go as far as the above translation by Kirshopp Lake ³ takes them. The ‘as I said’ sounds more like Papias than the presbyter, so it is probably best to attribute only the first sentence to John, though the comment which follows is of course written on the basis of what Papias had learnt from him. The main thrust of the whole statement appears to be a contrasting of the recollections of Mark derived from the preaching and teaching of Peter with the more orderly arrangement of the gospel of Matthew." (J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, p. 137)

Wenham relates further on 4 key points that the first sentence of Eusebius’ quotation (from Papias) shows us.

That Mark became Peter’s "interpreter," are not used exclusively of the translator of foreign languages. They are use more generally of one who interprets, expounds or explains. It is necessary then, to take the term "interpreter" in the sense of "translator," for Peter was regularly in situations, for example in Antioch (Gal. 2:12) and Caesarea (Acts 10:34), which show that he must have spoken Greek. Peter having a role as a leading apostle in the Church shows us that he was almost certainly bilingual, and Aramaic and Greek would have served him in all normal circumstances.

He wrote ‘accurately’. He kept a single aim in view: ‘to make no false statements.’

He wrote fully. He set down ‘all that he remembered,’ aiming ‘to leave out nothing’ and including works as well as words: ‘the things said or done by the Lord.’

He wrote ‘not in order.’ The gospel of Matthew with its great sections of discourse is pre-eminently an orderly arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, which Mark, with its greater emphasis on the Lord’s actions is not. Papias is particularly concerned to bring out Mark’s derivation from Peter’s relatively unstructured oral teaching, which Peter used to adapt to the needs of his hearers as necessity demanded. It is the stories, which formed the staple diet of Peter’s teaching that Mark put together in his gospel. It is possible that ‘not in order’ may have a secondary, apologetic motive. The order of Matthew’s pericopes of course differs considerably from that of Mark, and Papias may be attempting to justify the differences. But it has to be said that there is nothing directly to suggest this; even less is there any suggestion that Matthew’s order is more chronologically accurate than that of Mark.

Pertaining to Matthew’s Gospel the church fathers are also unanimous as to its author. Some of these include: Papias (60-130), Irenaeus (130-200), Pantaenus (?-190), Origen (185-254), Eusebius (260-340), Epiphanius (315-403), Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386), and others. Eusebius writes concerning a statement made by Papias: "But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’ And the same writer uses testimonies from the Epistle of John ⁴ and that of Peter ⁵ likewise." (Eusebius, Church History…, 3.39.16; as cited in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. I)

Justin Martyr attests that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are "memoirs of the apostles." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66-67)

With that, we have solid testimony to the authorship of the Gospels and the early time frame in which they were composed.

The focus now shifts to the when of the NT, when was it written? My main focus will be the Synoptics and Acts, but I will bring some other NT writings into the picture with some relevant tidbits on them.

The 1 million dollar question is: Was the NT written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem? Robinson summarizes the importance of 70 A.D.

 

"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period—the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and with it the collapse of the institutional Judaism based on the temple—is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark." (John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, p, 13)

The religious climate forever changed after Titus and his minions dropped the hammer on Jerusalem in 70. The focal point of Judaism; the temple was turned into a heap of ashes. In the case of the NT, the silence is deafening pertaining to this event. We would expect that an incredible event such as this would have left some kind of dent in the writings of the primitive church. As Robinson surmised above, this would be the most datable and significant event in Palestine, possibly being the watermark for dating some of the NT literature, but the surprising fact is that this event is basically ignored as whole in 1^st century Christian writings. "Explanations for this silence have of course been attempted. Yet that simplest explanation of all, that ‘perhaps… there is extremely little in the New Testament later than A.D. 70 and that its events are not mentioned because they had not yet occurred, seems to me to demand more attention than it has received in critical circles." (Ibid, p. 14) The super-skeptic might retort, "Enigma, that’s an argument from silence, you accuse us of that habitually, aren’t you employing a double-standard?" Not at all and here’s why: First of all, this wasn’t just "any normal event" for John Q. Public in the first century. We’re talking about the pinnacle of Judaism being leveled. The very High Priesthood, which adamantly opposed Jesus, was without a "home." Moule surmises: "It is hard to believe that a Judaistic type of Christianity which had itself been closely involved in the cataclysm of the years leading up to A.D. 70 would not have shown the scars—or, alternatively, would not have made capital out of this signal evidence that they, and not non-Christian Judaism, were the true Israel. But in fact our traditions are silent." (C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 123; as cited in Robinson, Redating the New Testament, p. 14, emphasis mine)

In fact, Eusebius (Church History…, 3.5.3) interpreted the destruction of Jerusalem as God’s justice on those who committed violent acts to Christ and the Apostles. A common objection that one will run into is the fact that Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6) and this is just a product of the disciples making Jesus "prophesy after the fact." If this is true, then they sure did a poor job. One would expect these "zealous" followers of Christ to gloat openly about the occurrence of the actual event and not just alluding to the possibility of it occurring. Even more perplexing is the fact that after the Jesus gives His dialogue about the stones of the temple being thrown down, the disciples ask, "When will these things be" and the question never gets answered. In fact, in all 3 cases there is no more discussion about the destruction of the temple. The mere fact that there is no connection between the disciples question (about the when of the destruction of the temple) and Jesus’ answer suggests that these passages were not a product of editing in retrospect to the already charred temple. Robinson comments on Mark 13:14-16.

"It is clear at least that ‘the abomination of desolation’ cannot itself refer to the destruction of the sanctuary in August 70 or to its desecration by Titus’ soldiers in sacrificing their standards. By that time it was far too late for anyone in Judea to take to the hills, which had been in enemy hands since the end of 67. Moreover, the only tradition we have as to what Christians actually did, or were told to do, is that preserved by Eusebius apparently on the basis of the Memoirs of Hegesippus used also by Epiphanius. This says that they had been commanded by an oracle given ‘before the war’ to depart from the city, and that so far from taking to the mountains of Judea, as Mark’s instruction implies, they were to make for Pella, a Greek city of the Decapolis, which lay below sea level on the east side of the Jordan valley. It would appear then that this was no prophecy shaped by events and cannot therefore be dated to the period immediately before or during the war of 66-70." (Ibid, p. 16-17)

Another piece of evidence for a pre-70 milieu is Matthew 24:20. This passage makes more sense in the pre-70 era then after. It most likely alludes to the legalistic Jewish observance of movement on the Sabbath day. It looks as though Mark (13:18) has omitted an aspect in this tradition that was no longer significant for the Gentile church. The slight addition of Matthew 24:20 certainly doesn’t necessitate a post-70 compilation and instead illuminates a pre-70 one and a Pharisaic discipline stricter than the one in Matthew’s circle (See Matthew 12:1-13). C.H. Dodd (More Synoptic Studies, No. 6, ‘The Fall of Jerusalem and the "Abomination of Desolation"’ p. 79) writes concerning Luke 21. "Not only are the two Lucan oracles composed entirely from the language of the Old Testament, but the conception of the coming disaster… is a generalized picture of the Fall of Jerusalem as imaginatively presented by the prophets. So far as any historical event has coloured the picture, it is not Titus’ capture of Jerusalem in AD 70, but Nebuchadnezzar’s capture in 586 BC." Thus, Robinson concludes:

"Luke has preferred to concentrate on the destruction of the city rather than the temple. The last reference, veiled or unveiled, to the sanctuary having disappeared, despite his retention of the opening question about the fate of the temple buildings (21:5-7). The answer therefore is even less precise, though there is now a definite reference to devastation and not simply to desecration. Reicke indeed argues that by replacing Mark’s ‘abomination of desolation standing where he ought not’ with ‘Jerusalem surrounded by armies’ Luke actually makes it more certain that he is not writing after the event. For ‘if the Gospel of Luke is supposed to have been composed after the historical siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the evangelist must be accused of incredible confusion when he spoke of flight during that siege, although the Christians were known to have left Judea some time before the war even began in A.D. 66.’" (Robinson, Redating…, p. 28, italics in original, bold emphasis mine)

If Luke just invented this "after the fact" he only created more problems because there was no escaping the city once it was encircled. In Luke 21:21 the reference to "let[ting] them which are in Judea flee… let them which are in the midst depart out and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto," is applied to the city and has nothing to do with a siege. In Mark (13:15) and Matthew (24:17) it’s applied to a man’s house as in the close parallel in Luke 17:31. This could indicate someone fleeing their house and leaving all their possessions behind in a local persecution rather then a military siege. In conclusion, there is no good reason to believe that the Synoptics were penned after 70 in examination of the passages relevant to the destruction of the temple.

Moreover, C.J. Hemer, in his The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Chap. 9) gives us 13 points that show that Acts (and consequently Luke also) was penned before the Fall of Jerusalem. 1) There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem 2) No hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 3) No hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution 4) Acts has an optimistic tone (If it was written after 66 that would probably not be the case thanks to Nero) 5) The author betrays no knowledge of Paul’s letters. The very disjunction between Acts and the epistles is best explained by an early date. 6) There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62, which would have suited Luke’s apologetic to a Roman audience. 7) Gallio’s tolerant attitude to Paul in Acts 18:14-17 does not seem to be obsolete. 8) The prominence of the Sadducees belongs to the pre-70 situation; 9) as does the relatively sympathetic attitude to the Pharisees; 10) as does the prominence of ‘God-fearers’ in the synagogues; 11) as do details (he mentions nine) pointing to an early milieu. 12) The controversies over the temple have greater relevance in the pre-70 era. 13) The use of "Jesus" and "Christ" seems primitive.

I don’t entirely agree with # 5, as it presupposes that Luke would have a need to quote directly from Paul’s letters, although the argument does seem somewhat sound on the grounds that Paul and the Jewishness of the Gospel of Christ were not some new "illegal religion" as some opponents of Paul tried to accuse him of. It could also be stated that Luke had no need to convey Paul’s teachings, for he was still alive and one could travel to the local synagogue and hear him live and in living color. The other points are completely sound and make a strong case for a pre-70 milieu of Luke-Acts. Paul does however; betray knowledge of Luke’s gospel. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul ⁶ states: "FOR THE SCRIPTURE SAITH, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn’ and, ‘the labourer is worthy of his reward.’ The former is an allusion to Deuteronomy 25:4 and the latter is an allusion to Luke 10:7, showing that Paul had a knowledge of Luke’s Gospel. There was no such thing as quotation marks in Greek, so Paul alluding to this had to be first hand reference with Luke’s gospel. This view is also supported by G.R. Berry in his The Interlinear KJV: Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (p. 186, 545).

Another point that should be made is the abrupt and somewhat unorthodox ending of Acts. We have Paul living in his "own hired house" for two years and Luke breathes not a word about his death. From chapter 9 on, the majority of the Book of Acts is about Paul and his extensive travels. Taking this into consideration, especially all the minute details concerning Paul, one has to wonder why Luke left the climax out. I think the obvious answer is that Paul wasn’t dead yet and his trial was pending. Luke writes extensively about the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) and the death of John’s brother James (Acts 12), why does he curiously leave out Paul’s martyrdom if he’s writing after 70? Moreover, as Hemer noted, why does Luke also leave out the death of James, Jesus’ brother at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62? If Paul were really dead when Luke wrote this, and his readers would know this—Luke would be damaging his credibility by leaving out the straw that broke the camel’s back!

Luke apparently was very concerned with the persecutions/trials that were taking place and the deaths of these individuals would have most certainly bolstered his apologetic. In fact, Luke alone chronicles each of these events concerning Jesus: His trial before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71), hearing before Pilate (Luke 23:1-7), appearance before Herod (Luke 23:8-12), the substitution of Barabbas for Jesus and Jesus’ sentencing (Luke 23:13-24), the severing of the ear of the High Priest’s servant (Luke 22:50-55) and Jesus’ rebuke of "vigilante" justice.

The whole chronicle of Stephen’s martyrdom and the controversy about whether Jesus or the temple is the focus of Judaism becomes completely irrelevant if he is writing after 70. If that was the case all Luke had to do is chronicle Stephen’s speech and conclude, "Look at your wonderful temple, how great do you think it is now?"

Adding to Hemer’s points: In July 64 Rome was badly damaged by fire and Nero saddles the blame on the Christians, probably in an effort to exonerate himself. Nero then proceeded to execute as many Christians as he could get his hands on. If Luke were writing after 64 then would he have any good reason to omit the greatest persecution of the early church? An appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11) would have been a false hope and entirely out of the question! "Hey Paul, I think you should appeal to the guy that just had several people of your theological persuasion executed. I think he might be able to help you."

The primitive language of Luke-Acts is convincing evidence for a pre-70 milieu. As Hemer noted the terms "Jesus" and "Christ" are primitive, adding to that—the phrases, "on the first day," and "the breaking of bread," as well as the Jews being called "the people" would be somewhat confusing to a later Gentile audience. If written after 70 it would require some kind of explanation—one that Luke curiously doesn’t supply us with.

John Mauck, in his Paul on Trial writes concerning his research on the title "most excellent" given to Theophilus.

"… what people were addressed as ‘most excellent’ in Roman times? Traditional Bible teaching explained ‘most excellent’ as a title for a Roman official. Was that teaching correct or could these words or that title have been used with any person? Intrigued, I located a Tufts University classics website to search an extensive database of Greek and Roman writers, using English, Latin, or Greek words, to quickly locate the usage of ‘most excellent’ among ancient authors. The Bible teachers had been generally right on this point, ‘Most excellent,’ as a form of address, was used primarily as a title for rulers or governmental officials (except by the obsequious Cicero, who would call a cow ‘madam’ if he thought she would give him more milk)." (p. VII)

If Luke, or some anonymous author was just inserting Theophilus’ name in this document, without having any real correspondence with him, or just inventing Theophilus out of thin air, he was setting himself up for disaster. For if Theophilus was not real, or if we wasn’t a high-ranking government official (and instead some country bumpkin) then someone was going to have a heyday with this error. If this were just an invention out of thin air then it would be seriously counter-productive. It would be much more effective to omit the "most excellent" title or Theophilus altogether. By being so specific, Luke was in essence, inviting others to "check him out." Somebody might object and say, "Hey, Luke didn’t tell us what rank Theo had. He was making it up." The response is simple, "Luke wasn’t writing with fools like you in mind either. He was writing for Gentiles in the 1^st century." A 1^st or 2^nd century government official could easily prove/disprove Luke’s assertion about Theophilus. Paul: You better tell them Theo’s position in the government, someone 2 thousand years from now might ask about it. Luke: Nah, they’ll figure it out, nobody could be that intellectually crippled.

Super skeptics are constantly squawking that Mark was composed late, no earlier than 65 A.D., although some put it later. It depends on whom you study, but most of the time you’ll be hard pressed to see many people put it before 65. It is then cited that Luke depends on Mark (I agree, although Luke doesn’t solely rely on Mark) and thus Luke-Acts is well after 70, possibly all the way into the 2^nd century. It has been shown that there is no good reason to date Acts after 70 (or even 62-64), then, if Luke relies somewhat on Mark, he must be even earlier.

Some critics (See Maddox, Purpose of Luke-Acts, p. 8) allege that Mark 15:21 conclusively shows that this Gospel is a late construct. The critic presupposes that Simon, who was young enough at the time of the crucifixion to carry Jesus’ cross, is now better known through his children. This supposedly shows that Mark was composed late. It would take time for the oral traditions to be handed down to Mark, adding the time for circulation of this document for Luke to make use of it, and viola, you have a post-70 Markan Gospel. To this I respond: Baloney. This argument could be used to show a late date for Mark, but could as easily be used to support an early date. If Simon was twenty when he carried the cross and his sons were infants, it would take perhaps twenty years for them to be renowned enough for Mark to write about them. However, if Simon was forty when he carried the cross and his sons were 20 and 18 respectively, they could have become well known in the church in five years. This hypothesis could yield a date for Mark anywhere from the 50s to the 90s, so not too much should be read into it. Paul does mention a Rufus in Romans 16:13 although nobody is sure if it’s Simon’s son or not as far as I know.

Pertaining to # 7 in Hemer’s list I think this is a powerful argument. We have Gallio, another well-known government official cited by Luke in detail. ⁷ This account could have easily been proved/disproved by anyone in or associated with the Roman government. Gallio was the son of Seneca the Elder and brother of Seneca the Younger, the Stoic philosopher. The latter asserted of Gallio: "No mortal is so agreeable to any one person as this man is to everyone." (Seneca, Nat. Qurest. 4a, praef. 11) Gallio was a big hitter, as he was a notable jurist and was named by Claudius in an inscription at Delphi as his friend and proconsul. (See Bruce Winter, Tyndale Bulletin, 50.2 (1999): 213)

Winter also observes that Gallio became proconsul in July of 51, did not serve very long, but the incredible prestige that would have come from his family credentials (not to mention his brother being one of Nero’s top advisers) would have made his verdict in Acts 18 a forceful legal precedent. Gallio was a very popular, powerful, and well-known man in the 1^st century. Paul is brought before him by "the Jews" on the accusation that he is inciting improper worship o God, contrary to Mosaic Law. Just as Paul is about to make his defense, Gallio throws them all out, basically saying, "Hey guys, he’s not guilty of some crime or lewd offence, the argument is based on interpretation of your law, not Roman law, so get out of my face!" The Jews, seeing that they had made no progress proceeded to take out their frustrations of poor old Sosthenes. This was a major point for Luke. A nonpartisan, such as Gallio, saw nothing wrong with Paul’s message, therefore, if we are to be fair there is no reason for Rome to give credence to the trumped up charges of "the Jews." In essence, Luke was saying that there is nothing wrong with Paul’s message and it’s not a threat to Rome at all.
Thus, there is no good reason at all to date Luke-Acts after 62 A.D. If Luke is totally dependent on Mark as some surmise, then that would push Mark back into the 50s.

Pertaining to Matthew, ⁸ we also have good evidence of a pre-70 milieu. Matthew is apologetically motivated against the Sadduceean and Pharisaic opponents of early Christianity and the temple controversies, as we have noted, would be irrelevant if after 70. One necessary case in point is Matthew 12:5-7, where the disciples are plucking and eating corn on the Sabbath while walking with Christ. The Pharisees take objection to this and accuse Jesus of violating Mosaic Law. Jesus rebukes them and says, "That in this place is one greater than the temple." Matthew would be spouting irrelevant generalities if he were writing after the destruction of the temple. The Sadducees fell from prominence after 70 (as noted by Hemer) but Matthew contains no less than seven allusions to them while the other synoptic writers are limited to one. His obsession with the Sadducees argues for a pre-70 milieu also. In Matthew 17:24-27 we see another attempt to trap Jesus in a deceptive fashion. The topic is the temple tribute, provided for its upkeep. If written after 70 we have another blatantly irrelevant detail. Even the Mishnah (Shek. 8.8) states that the half-shekel dues are applicable only while the temple stands.

Lastly, we move again to the martyrdom of Jesus’ brother James. Symeon, the son of Clopas, Joseph’s brother, succeeded him as bishop of Jerusalem. This tradition is widely attested to (See Eusebius, Church History…, 3.11, 32.1-6, 4.22.4) although Robinson cautions us that some of it is sensationalized. The connection is made with the "Mary wife of Clopas" (John 19:25) who is possibly the "other Mary" of Matthew 27:61, who is thus identified as the mother of James and Joseph (Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:56). If this Symeon was the son (although not mentioned as the son of Clopas) who succeeded James in 62 one would expect some mention to be made of it. Even if Symeon were not the son of Clopas, his succession of James as bishop would be a notable event. However, the Gospel writers were curiously silent about any such succession.

In review: First, the hypothesis that the Gospels were circulated anonymously for decades is fallacious. The evidence gravitates toward a concrete tradition for the Gospels and the authors’ names attached to them. Second, there is good evidence (especially in Luke-Acts) that the Gospels were composed before the Fall of Jerusalem. Let’s shift our focus now to some textual evidence for early composition of the Gospels. Let’s shift our focus to a rather thorny issue in Acts. What about the "we" passages? Is Luke just making these up out of thin air?

When was the NT written? The "We-Passages" of Acts

Colin J. Hemer tackles this issue (See Hemer, chapter 8) and gives us four categories that the "we passages" of Acts are predominantly placed in.

The author was an actual participant/witness in these voyages/travels

A reproduction of the author’s diary or notes where he was present

The author is reproducing the notes of another person and may or may not have edited them significantly

The author is spinning the event out of whole cloth and it rests on nothing factual

These can and are applied to Luke’s "we-passages" that are present in Acts. A.D. Nock (See Nock, Essays, 2.827-828), a well-known authority on ancient literature knew of only one possible parallel for the emphatic use of a questionable "we" in consecutive narrative outside literature that was demonstratably false. Hemer notes that even that one case is "keenly debated." (Hemer, p. 317) It seems that the skeptical crowd prefers points 3 and 4 the majority of the time and the usual presuppositions against the Gospels (which we have already covered) prevail as alleged defeaters of the authenticity of the we passages. V.K. Robbins (See Robbins, Biblical Research 20 (1975), p. 5-18; also see C.H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts, p. 215-242)

Hemer states, "Robbins seeks to isolate a narrative genre for sea-voyages, as being conventionally rendered in the first person plural, and cites extensive examples from ancient literature alleged to be in support of his contention." (Hemer, p. 317)

We are then directed to the Voyage of Hanno 1-3 (See Geographici Graeci Minores, (ed.) C. Muller, 1.1-14 for this text) where the opening two sentences are in the third person and the remainder of the document in the first person plural. Hemer rebuts, "But the opening is a formal heading which gives the explorer’s commissioning, and it should be printed as a prefatory paragraph, as it is by its editor, and not as part of a continuous undifferentiated narrative, as it is in Robbins’ rendering." (Hemer, p. 317-318)

Robbins’ use of The Antiochene Acts of Ignatius doesn’t work either as the "we passage" comes in during a sea voyage and extends beyond it. It works to separate Ignatius from his cohorts, including the narrator. Hemer in conclusion provides us with some important points that undermine this hypothesis that Luke just "spun it out of whole cloth."

"If the writer were attempting to carry a conviction by inserting an implicit eyewitness claim, why did he do this sporadically? If the claim was true, this is natural enough, for his presence was sporadic. But it would have been remarkably disingenuous in a redactor. Why did he make his claim so inconspicuously? The pseudepigrapher might be expected to make his point much more emphatically, to ensure that his reader could not miss it." (Hemer, p. 321)

These points cannot be ignored, for Luke, if he was inventing this on a whim, he does it in a rather curious manner. Furthermore, Luke includes the "we passages" in land journeys and not every sea journey in Acts includes a "we passage." Robbins misreads and misapplies texts as Hemer shows, just to "prove" his point. If someone was going to invent participation in an event, wouldn’t they be forceful and make sure the readers knew they were there? Luke simply implies participation, albeit in somewhat restrained terms.

When was the NT written: It’s all Greek to me

It is commonplace among Muslim "apologists" and others that the Gospels were all composed in Greek, and the supposed problem is that none of the NT writers had any familiarity with Hebrew, thus they wrote in Greek. This alleged problem is just that, an unproven allegation. Many proponents of this assume that people can’t be bilingual, they also ignore the fact that there is underlying Aramaic evidence in the NT.

As we have already noted, church tradition posits Matthew first recording his "oracles" in Hebrew. That in and of itself doesn’t prove a whole lot but the accumulation of relevant data will support this position. IF there is good underlying evidence of Aramaic to Greek translation in the NT, then that would be more concrete evidence for an early composition of the NT.

For starters, Jesus probably knew Greek as well as Aramaic because of His conversations with Pontius Pilate at His trial (He would have had to been fluent in Greek to do this. There is no hint of an interpreter being present) and His conversations with the servants of a Roman centurion. (Luke 8) He would have had to know Greek to do this. Ian Wilson (Jesus: The Evidence, p. 62-63) notes:

"… one fascinating indication of Jesus’ apparent familiarity with Graeco-Roman theatre, and also of the possibility that he may well have been able to speak rather more than just the local Galilean version of Aramaic, derives from the notable frequency in the gospels in which he is represented as using the word ‘hypocrite.’ This occurs no less than seventeen times in sayings of his throughout the synoptic gospels, most frequently appearing as an expression of disapproval either towards the Pharisees (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15; Mark 7:6; Luke 6:42; 13:15), or as in two instances in the Luke gospel, towards ‘the crowds’ (6:17; 12:56). Because the word derives from Greek, English New Testament translations almost invariably give it unchanged from this. But what this fails to convey is that in Jesus’ time the image it carried was that of a play-actor, one who spoke behind a dramatic mask, and thereby a pretender. So Jesus seems to have been using specifically theatrical imagery – and pejoratively. Equally important, modern scholars have pointed out that ‘hypocrite’ has NO equivalent in either Hebrew or Aramaic. So Jesus had either to be bringing in a specifically Greek word to make his point – or actually to have been fully speaking Greek at the time." (Also see Richard Batey, ‘Sepphoris: An Urban Portrait of Jesus’, Biblical Archaeology Review, 18, 5, May/June 1992, p. 59; Joseph Fitzmeyer, ‘Did Jesus speak Greek?’ Biblical Archaeology Review, 18, 5, Sept/Oct 1992, p. 58)

This evidence seriously undermines the "NT writers wrote in Greek because they didn’t know Hebrew or Aramaic" argument. Further bolstering my contention Wilson writes extensively on the underlying Aramaic flavour in the Gospels. ⁹

Dodd notes of John’s account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate:

"But leaving aside for the moment the question of historical accuracy, let us ask where could the evangelist have got this account? Matthew and Mark could give him no help. Luke might have given him a hint about the formulation of an indictment in a Roman court; but if he knew Luke he has just ignored him. But I doubt very much whether a writer whose work we must place late in the first century and in a Hellenistic environment, could have invented such a persuasive account of a trial conducted under conditions which had long passed away. It is pervaded with a lively sense for the situation as it was in the last half-century before the extinction of Judean local autonomy. It is aware of the delicate relations between the native and imperial authorities. It reflects a time when the dream of an independent Judea under its own king had not yet sunk to the level of a chimaera, and when the messianic idea was not a theologumenon but impinged on practical politics and the bare mention of a ‘king of the Jews’ stirred violent emotions; a time, moreover, when the constant preoccupation of the priestly holders of power under Rome was to damp down any first symptoms of such emotions. These conditions were present in Judea before A.D. 70, and not later, and not elsewhere… While there is evidence of some degree of elaboration by the author, the most probable conclusion is that in substance it represents an independent strain of tradition, which must have been formed in a period much nearer the events than the period when the Fourth Gospel was written, and in some respects seems to be better informed than the tradition behind the Synoptics, whose confused account it clarifies." (C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 120)

There is a growing body of evidence that John’s Gospel arose in a strictly independent milieu from the Synoptics. John may have known of the Synoptics, but it’s apparent in his Gospel that he is basically, as a rule, independent of them. Numerous examples ¹⁰ could be cited but a few will suffice, beginning with an analysis of Mark 6:4, John 4:44, and Luke 4:24. So, Dodd:

"The one part of it which is undoubtedly traditional is the saying quoted in verse 44, which has parallels in Mark (followed by Matthew) and Luke… Here we observe once again a now familiar phenomenon: the Johannine version of a saying does not follow closely any one Synoptic version, but is nearer in some respects to one of the Synoptics and in other respects to another. Here John agrees with Luke in bluntly denying that a prophet is ever accepted (honoured) in his [patris, translated "native-place," Strong’s 3968], without making any statement regarding his status elsewhere, while Matthew and Mark say that the prophet is honoured everywhere except in his [patris]. On the other hand, John agrees with Matthew and Mark in speaking of the ‘honour’ the prophet enjoys everywhere except at home, while Luke speaks of ‘acceptance’, which is perhaps a shade more modest than honour. The actual difference in meaning is negligible, but as in similar cases it would seem less likely that John combined two other versions (whether by direct copying for through confused reminiscence of both) than that Mark, Luke and John all drew the saying from variant strains of tradition We need not therefore assume that the saying reached our evangelist embedded in a context corresponding either to Mark’s or to Luke’s. In Luke, the [patris] is, by clear implication, ‘Nazareth where he had been brought up’, but whether a town where you were brought up, but where you were not born, is properly called your [native-land] is doubtful, and Luke certainly believed Jesus to be born at Bethlehem. In Mark the [native-land] is not identified by name, but he has placed the incident of the rejection of Jesus in his [native-land] in a Galilean context." (Ibid, p. 239-240, emphasis his)

Thus we see, at least in this case (and Dodd references several others) that the Johannine Gospel has a "different ring" then the Synoptics. Much of his information, or tradition, if you will, cannot be sufficiently traced to some passage(s) in the Synoptics. Those who spout simplistic arguments such as, "Mark was the earliest Gospel, he obtained a lot of the material on the sayings of Jesus from "Q" and the later Gospel writers followed suit. Mark was the foundation of the Gospel material," are really drowning us in a quagmire of generalization. Ockham’s Razor will do them no good here. Dodd provides us with a few more interesting kernels of topographical information beginning with Ephraim:

"The uncertainty about its exact location is in no way unfavourable to the view that John is here reproducing traditional information. It is rather favourable to it, since an author writing at Ephesus late in the first century would scarcely be aware of, or interested in, an obscure Palestinian town, and any mysterious or symbolic meaning of the name is out of the question. From verse 55 [chapter 11] the author is laying the scene for the momentous events of the impending Passover, and apparently composing freely. But in 54 there is a reasonable probability that he has preserved traditional material… The place-names actually introduced merit some consideration. A certain range of names is common to all gospels, and these we may fairly assume belong to the basic tradition: the Sea of Galilee, the River Jordan, the Mount of Olives: Judea, Galilee, Transjordan; Capernaum, Bethsaida; Jerusalem, Bethany, Golgotha. In addition to these John has Cana-in-Galilee, Tiberias (and Sea of Tiberias); Samaria (with Luke), Sychar, Aenon, Salim, Bethany-beyond-Jordan, Ephraim; Bethseda, Siloam (with Luke), Kidron, Solomon’s Portico, Gabbatha (Lithostroton); also, allusively only, Bethlehem. Of these, Tiberias (Sea of Tiberias) is probably not traditional. Apart from this, Cana is the only place in northern Palestine known to John but not to the Synoptics. The large range of northern names which occur in the Synoptics is for the most part absent, including Gennesaret, Chorazin, Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi, Magadan (Magdala), the Country of the Gerasenes (Gadarenes, Gergesenes), the territory of Tyre and Sidon, as well as, in Luke, Nain, Trachonitis, Abilene and Ituraea… [John] has nine names of places in Judea, Samaria or the Jordan valley not know to the Synoptics. The preponderance is marked. Is this accidental? … In any case his tradition, so far as we know it, was poor in northern material, while it preserved memories of places and events in the south unknown to the tradition followed by the Synoptics. It would seem natural to infer that the milieu in which the tradition behind the Fourth Gospel was transmitted is to be sought in Jerusalem and the south rather than Galilee and the north." (Ibid, p. 243-245, italics in original, bold emphases mine)

It seems that John indeed was drawing upon a tradition that was, for the most part independent of the Synoptics. Let’s examine briefly some evidence more evidence for early composition of the Gospels and their underlying Aramaic flavour. ¹¹

"Had the gospel been written in 60 or 90 [A.D.], writers could not have mastered the extensive material, especially if they were writing in Greek without a knowledge of Aramaic and without Aramaic documents. For example, how could a modern day Japanese reproduce Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address with no knowledge of English and without a copy of it? It is more reasonable to suppose that the Gospels were written early in Aramaic and in their native setting. Later, Jewish and Syrian Christians translated them into Greek just as translations are made today on the mission field. These translators know the Koine or vernacular Greek but they were not sufficiently familiar with Greek idioms and they thought their own Aramaic idioms would carry the same meanings in Greek. This is why translators render such Semitic idioms as ‘he breathed on them’ which means in Aramaic ‘he gave them courage, or he encouraged them.’ Today when a foreigner thinks in his own language and speaks in English, his idioms become just as meaningless… [Quotation of Luke 14:26 in the KJV] The Aramaic Peshitta text reads: ‘He who comes to me and does not put aside his father, and mother…’ This is more in keeping with Jesus’ teaching about loving and honoring one’s parents… The Aramaic word saneh has many different meanings in Aramaic. It does mean ‘to hate, despise, dislike,’ but it also means ‘to stand up, to put out (a light), to snuff out (a candle), to set to one side, and a threshing floor’… [Quotation of Mark 10:30 in the KJV] The Aramaic text reads: ‘Who shall not receive now, in this time a hundredfold, houses and brothers and sisters and maidservants and children and fields and other worldly things, and in the world to come life everlasting.’ The Aramaic word amhatha, means ‘maid servants’ and the word emhatha, means ‘mothers.’ Therefore, the better rending is ‘handmaidens or maid servants’… the Aramaic word radhoopya from the Semitic root rdp which means ‘to chase, banish, pursue, follow, and persecute.’ A proper translation would be ‘pursuits’ and not ‘persecutions’… [Quotation of Luke 14:5 in the KJV] The Aramaic text reads: ‘And he said to them, which one of you, if his son or his ox should fall into a pit on the sabbath day, would not immediately pull and bring him out?’ The Greek translator confused the Aramaic word breh, ‘his son,’ for hmareh, ‘his donkey.’ The translator probably thought that the first part of the word was blotted out since the word that followed ‘son’ was ‘ox.’ So, he thought the original word was ‘ass.’ However, Near Easterners, in their parables or sayings, are more likely to link a human being with an animal for emphasis rather than link two animals in their proverb." (George M. Lamsa and Rocco A. Errico, Aramaic Light on the Gospel of Matthew, p. xxxix-xlii, emphasis in original)

Interestingly, the NASB translates Luke 14:5 as: "Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well…" Either translation wouldn’t effect any major or minor doctrinal position of Christianity, but it is subtle little examples such as these that provide us with some insight into the Aramaic foundations of the Gospels.

This concludes this article and I pray that those of you who have an open mind and are honestly seeking will see that the traditional (and overused) skeptical arguments are rather paltry. John 14:6

1. Also see Evidences 2 for more information on the early origin of the NT. Paul’s writings are NOT my primary focus at this time, as he is well known to have died before the conflagration of Jerusalem and his writings exhibit material that can easily be placed within 10 years of the death of Christ. See the aforementioned article. The Gospels and Acts are my primary focus. Also see Evidences 2: What did Jesus say? and Did the Disciples just make it up?

2. I find Muslims making contentions such as these quite often. They all plagiarize Bultmann through and through, not realizing that the same presupposition the drove him to posit these theories, when applied to the Qur’an would yield the same verdict from the skeptical camp. It is such uncritical thinking by Muslims that lead to events such as this. Interestingly enough Martin Hengel notes that, "we have only one biography of Muhammad (who died in 632), by Ibn Hisham (who died in 834, 212 years after the Hijra), which has incorporated parts of the lost earlier biography by Ibn Ishaq (died 767). Although the chronological distance from the historical subject in the Muhammad biography is much greater [when compared to the NT], the historical skepticism of critical European scholarship is substantially less here." (Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 6) Muslims fail to realize that this sword is two-edged and cuts both ways.

3. Lake’s translation is found in Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke on page 137. It reads as follows: "We are now obliged to append to the words already quoted from him (Papias) a tradition about the Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he expounds as follows. ‘And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles (variant readings in the Greek), so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points (certain matters) as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.’" The variant readings pose no problem as they are either rendered "discourses" or "oracles" and MS. authority equally supports the two Greek words. See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume I for discussion of this.

4. Pertaining to the authorship of I-III John (See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 154, footnote 19) we have some more testimony in that area also. Eusebius writes "But now the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed." (Church History…, 3.24.17, emphasis mine) The Muratorian Fragment credits John with 2 epistles and Irenaeus quotes from the second one, though not distinguishing it from the first. Clement (Stromata, 2.15) quotes directly from I John and adds, "John says in his larger Epistle," alluding to the fact that there were at least two. The lack of direct quotes from the 2^nd and 3^rd Epistles isn’t problematic because of the shortness of them and the minor importance of their doctrinal contents. Origen cites the 1^st Epistle habitually, but never quotes from the latter two. Eusebius quotes him as saying, "He [John] has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine…" (Church History…, 6.25.10) Weiss (Einleitung, p. 469) adds, "inasmuch as the second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch as the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirely aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription of them both to the author of the first, viz. to the apostle." Lastly, the designation as "the elder" is not so foreign as Peter (I Peter 5:1) designates himself as an "elder."

5. The authorship of I Peter by Peter is not disputed at all amongst the church fathers. However, II Peter has been widely disputed over and over again and is a much tougher nut to crack. It must be noted that Eusebius lists II Peter in the "disputed" category, NOT the "rejected" category. (Church History…, 3.25.3) Those rejecting the canonicity and genuineness of II Pete should refute this first.

6. For a defense of the Pauline authorship of I and II Timothy see here and here.

7. See Mauck, Paul on Trial, p. 133-135

8. See Robinson, Redating the New Testament, chapter 4

9. Wilson writes: "To this day the broad outlines of Streeter’s hypothesis remain the basis for much synoptic literary criticism, and the clues to underlying Aramaic sources are indeed there. In the Luke gospel, for instance, which includes ‘exclusives’ such as the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, there occurs the following saying: ‘Oh, you Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and plate, while inside yourselves you are filled with extortion and wickedness… Instead give alms from what you have and then indeed everything will be clean for you.’ (Luke 11:39-41)

Although ‘give alms’ appears to make no sense, it occurs in the very earliest Greek texts, thereby showing that any error in transcription has to have occurred at a very early stage. All then becomes clear when we discover that the Aramaic zakkau (to give alms) looks very similar to dakkau (to cleanse). That the original saying genuinely did refer to ‘cleansing’ rather than ‘giving alms’ can be checked because Matthew includes a parallel passage in what we may now judge to have been the correct form: ‘Blind Pharisee! Clean the inside of cup and dish first so that the outside may become clean as well…’ (Matthew 23:26) As has been remarked by Cambridge theologian Don Cupitt, this conveys more clearly than any amount of Bultmannesque theology that whoever wrote Luke in its ‘original’ Greek did not compose his material out of nothing, but had struggled with an earlier Aramaic written source that he was obviously determined to follow even if he did not fully understand it.

A similar understanding is detectable in the Matthew gospel, notable for its remarkable ‘Sermon on the Mount’ passages. When translated from Greek into Aramaic, some of the passages take on such a distinctive verse from that Aramaic must have been the language in which they were first framed, rather as happens when the ostensibly dull-sounding words ‘On the bridge at Avignon’ are translated back into their original French. According to the Dutch Roman Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeeckx, the lost ‘Q’ also seems to have had an original Aramaic text, then, as in the case of the synoptic gospels, becoming translated into Greek and adapted for Gentile consumption… to have the most authentic underlying Aramaic flavour of all is that of John." (Emphasis his, Also see Cuppitt, Who was Jesus? p. 52-53; Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, p. 30)

10. For more info, see Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 233-247

11. See Lamsa and Errico, Aramaic Light on the Gospel of Matthew. I do NOT necessarily agree with all of their points, but they do however, make a strong case (in a chapter by chapter analysis), for an Aramaic foundation of the Gospel of Matthew. This is more compelling evidence for early composition of the Gospel, well before 70.