9. Chronology
I. Copying From the Past, part 1
The dictionary tells us that chronology is: ‘ascertaining the true periods or years when past events or transactions took place; and arranging them in their proper order according to their dates.’1 and that is what we must do, ‘put things in their correct order’. Unfortunately, in the secular world the idea that the oldest discovered is the original and all other are the copies:
Archaeologists have discovered what seems to be remains of the world's earliest religious worship site in the remote Ngamiland region of Botswana. Here, our ancestors performed advanced rituals, worshiping the python some 70,000 years ago2
This idea is also supported by the evolutionary thought that permeates much of academic scholarship and archaeological work. The oldest fossil found, is the ancestor of the rest, so they say. Yet, for the believer we must not travel those paths for so much has not been uncovered and we need to be careful since putting the past into a correct chronology is not that simple.3 We have missing information, edited histories, erased events from different ancient societies.
Similarly it is important to avoid the kind of embarrassment caused in some scholarly circles by the assumption that the Egyptian historical sources were as reliable factually as they appeared to be at first sight. It is now known that the bulk of such material is propaganda rather than history, and that it was composed in order to present to future generations a ‘correct’ view of what happened…In evaluating ancient Near Eastern records that purport to be historical, the reader must also bear in mind that the facts may possibly have been modified somewhat, or even falsified, in order to accomplish some specific purpose.4
In other words, much like recent historical works, the ancient works were written not solely by honest authors and agendas, bias, and other influences played a part and the modern scholar or history buff must be discerning, for the ancient world was not following Christian ideals, thus their works were subject to the same corruptions that apply to today’s writing world.
Far too often, scholars blindly accept all ancient works as ideal, perfect views from the past and do not factor in the reality that the ancient people were as dishonest or as far-fetched as many modern authors are today, or in recent history. One can cite the book, Chariots of the Gods, as one example of this faulty work that was published and we can point to the late Ron Wyatt’s videos and claims as another prime example of how all work is not factual, nor written with the truth in mind.
As an example of this bad chronological work, we will look at two examples; the first will be the flood stories and the second will look at the life and times of Christ. It is a known fact that many people believe that the Biblical writers copied from earlier published works like the Gilgamesh Epic or the Old Babylonian version or even the Atrahasis6 but a logical look at things will tell a different story.
First, the Israelites never had the reputation of copying anyone, in spite of all the charges leveled at them by modern scholars, who claim that the Israelites first heard of the story during their Babylonian captivity.
Moreover, many scholars note that the biblical story seems to borrow directly from the flood myths of other civilizations in the ancient Near East…There are significant differences in the accounts as well. But the fact that the biblical story tracks these others so closely, says Professor Michael D. Coogan of the Harvard Semitic Museum, suggests that the Genesis flood is the clearest example of direct dependence on other ancient myths5
Unfortunately for the modern scholars, it was the Old Babylonians who had that reputation as they freely did participate in copying older works,
The scribes of the Old Babylonian period were very zealous copyists and went to great lengths to preserve the literature that came down to them from the past, especially the archives of the Third Dynasty at Ur6
We have no such records stating that the Israelites participated in such practices. Even the Biblical authors who mention other works do not confess nor state that they copied from other sources (see the books of Kings and Chronicles). They refer to the rest of the deeds of the kings that are written in other books, but their work was not to write a complete history and such reference would be natural to provide the reader with a proper document to investigate the complete history.7
As to the charge that the Israelites copied from the Babylonians, (or first heard of the flood account), it does not hold water as no scholar who holds to this idea has ever presented any physical or empirical evidence to support their accusations and the following undermines their claims as well:
The great importance of this inscription, [Atrahasis], which was copied about the time of Abraham, from an older tablet…is that it will require that the prevailing view that the Hebrew traditions were borrowed from Babylonia.8
The discovered evidence is falling on the side that the Biblical chronology is correct and that the Hebrews did not copy from secular nations. They did not need to and there was no real purpose in doing so for once the lie was uncovered, that would be the end to any nefarious agenda that spawned such a false work.
We know that just about every nation in the modern world has a flood myth in their ancient lore and legends:
Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.9
It is a common fact and what most secular scholars do not know, or will acknowledge, is why all these different people have the same event in their history. To answer this question, we need to turn to the Biblical account and show how the chronology chronology can provide the answer to these mysteries:
So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his son’s wives with him…So God blessed Noah and said unto him: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal,Meschech, and Tiras…The Sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan…The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram…Now the whole earth had ne language and one speech…So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth…therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused all the languages…and scattered them abroad…10
Noah and his sons, and their wives experienced the flood, they lived for hundreds of years afterwards and it is no small leap to conclude that they told and re-told the story to their descendents. As their descendants began to stray from God once again, it is not hard to figure that the devil worked in people’s mind and distorted the events of the flood as he led them to one false religion to another, and one false written rendition to another.
The archaeological world doesn’t deny this with proof, in fact, the evidence points to this as truth for there is no rational explanation for so many nations around the world, both modern and ancient, to have flood stories. Secular archaeologists and biblical scholars fail to produce any historical evidence for such a multitude of similar catastrophes happening so far back in history that would compel the societies to record them for future generations.
There just is none, and we know that even recent modern floods do not get recorded into legends that are made a part of the actual history of a nation like Noah’s flood has.
II. Copying From the Past, part 2
It has been said that the gospel writers copied from more ancient religions to create their ideal in Jesus Christ. This section will focus on only one of those religions, Zoroasterism, as there are just too many to deal with effectively here and to do so would also be redundant. This false religion was founded by Zoroaster,
Zoroaster was a religious reformer of ancient Persia (now Iran) and the founder of the pre-Islamic religion of Zoroastrianism. Thought to have lived about 300 years before Alexander the Great, Zoroaster (Zarathustra in Greek) had a religious vision when he was about 30 years old, and for the next decade travelled throughout Persia preaching and running afoul of the established religious authorities11
It is said that he, eventually, influenced the monotheistic religions of the Middle East:
Zoroastrianism is considered an early influence on Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and one of the first monotheistic religions. It emphasizes that good and evil are separate entities at war with each other12
Yet no proof has been produced to substantiate this claim. We do know that he actually did live in the past, though that date is unsure, as he is mentioned by at least two other historical authors,
Zoroaster is first mentioned by a Lydian historian of the 5th century B.C. Plato mentions Zoroaster in Alcibiadesin connection with Magian teachings, and Plutarch gives a summary of Zoroaster's religious doctrine and cosmology13
And by the religious writings of the cult he founded,
The main sources for the life and career of Zoroaster are the Avesta, the sacred book of the Zoroastrians, the oldest and most reliable source; later Zoroastrian literature, among which Denkart, an encyclopedic work in Middle Persian, stands out; and non-Zoroastrian works, which include Persian, Arabic, Armenian, and classical histories.14
But that is where the historical evidence ends and the unverifiable claims begin. The claims attributed to Zoaraster are as follows:
It is said by some critics that:
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason." He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind." He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a Eucharist. He was the "Word made flesh." Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.15
This is where the problem comes in, for the earliest copies we have of Zoroaster’s writings come from the 13th century AD, long after the gospels were written, and in fact the information that tells us about Zoroaster was written 300 years after the gospel writers had written their works.
However, almost everything we know about Zoroaster come from texts written over 300 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and the earliest existing copies of these texts are from the 13th century. 16
But this is the reality for most false religious writings who claim that the gospel writers copied from them. All their works, which refer to the main points of Jesus’ life, are dated to well after the time of Christ.
This example also exposes a double standard in the secular worlds of archaeology and biblical scholarship, for they will readily accept these post-dated works, even though the only copies we have are written hundreds of years after the supposed author’s death. The gaps between the copies and the original works are so large that it is inconceivable that legend and exaggeration did not creep into books during the editing and copying stages.
A few examples to illustrate this point:
Manethos: Manetho, also known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos who lived during the Ptolematic era, circa 3rd century BC… Although no sources for the dates of his life and death remain…The earliest surviving attestation to Manethos is that of Josephus' Contra Apionem, "Against Apion." Even here, it is clear that Josephus did not have the originals…The king-list that Manethos had access to is unknown to us17
And then for other writers, we have the following,
Tacitus: the roman historian who wrote his annals of imperial Rome in about A.D. 116…His first 6 books exist today in only one mss. and it was copied about A.D. 850. Books 11-16 are in another mss. dating from the 11th century. Books 7-10 are lost
Josephus: we have 9 Greek mss. of his work The Jewish war and these copies were written in the 10th, 11th & 12th centuries. There is a Latin translation from the 4th and Russian materials from the 11th or 12th
Homer: There are fewer than 650 Greek mss of it (Illiad) today. Some are quite fragmentary. They come down to us from the 2nd & 3rd century A.D. and following when you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 B.C….18
And,
Caesar: The Gallic Wars, composed between 58 to 50 BC, there are several extant mss, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.
Livy: Of the 142 books of his Roman History (59BC –AD 17) only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 mss of any consequence, one from the 4th century.
Thucydides: His history was written about 460 to 400 BC and is known to us from 8 mss, the earliest belonging to about AD 900 with the same true for Herodotus.19
The double standard is well known in academic circles as F.F. Bruce once complained:
Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the original20
But they do so with the Bible, even though we can date a few of the Biblical books to within 8-10 years of Jesus’ resurrection and one as late as 68 years approx. (the Gospel of John written approx. AD 100), with the rest in between.21 Thus we can see that there can be no possibility for legend, exaggeration or even editing of Jesus’ life to enter in because the dates are so close to together and, as Paul mentioned, many of the eye-witnesses, both for and against Christ, were still alive.
It would be impossible for the gospel writers to copy, as charged, other false religions for their opponents would put a stop to their lies and end Christianity before it even got started. We can further illustrate the validity of the gospel writers by comparing the facts about the date of authorship of the biography of the founder of Islam, Muhammad:
The first full-length biography of the Prophet of Islam did not appear until 150 years after his death…Unfortunately, the original form of this book is lost to history. It exists only in a later revised and shortened…version by Ibn Hisham, who died in 834, sixty years after Ibn Ishaq, and in fragments quoted by other early Muslim writers…22
The same can be said for the Muslim holy book, The Koran;
While Islamic apologists generally assert with pride that the Quranic text has never been altered and there are no variants, there are some indications even in Islamic tradition that this is not the case.23
What this all means is that what is true for the Bible, its unaltered state, its original work, etc., is not achieved by those who found and write for false religions. It can be concluded that in the past, as they saw the popularity of the Jesus’ message, that the followers of the false religions altered their texts to make it look like the gospel accounts and be more attractive to those outside of the false beliefs who were in need or searching for something special.
The true chronology in both of these instances show that the Biblical account, in spite of the fact the physical documentation may not be as old as the alternative forms, is the original and that all else are copies, created by those who did not want to follow the truth and used by evil to lead people away from God and salvation.
A close look at the accusations against the Biblical writers will show that the charges are frivolous and would not stand up to any amount of scrutiny and that because of the gap between the secular authors’ original work and existing copies provide enough evidence to turn the charges against their supporters.
10 Alternative Texts
I. The Documentary Hypothesis
This section is being included, not so much for its archaeological impact or influence, for only 1 of the following three alternative documents being discussed here has actually been discovered archaeologically. The other two are used by scholars to influence biblical scholarship and steer people’s attention away from the truth.
Much of the scholarship of the Hebrew Bible and especially of the Pentateuch since 1878 has been dominated by the Documentary Hypothesis1
Thus it is important to say a few words on each of the three sets or individual alternative documents that influence people’s opinions about the Bible. The first group of documents that are needed to be focused upon are the ones titled, JEPD or commonly known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
These works are considered by many scholars, mostly secular, to be the source information for Moses and other Biblical writers. They feel that Moses and the remaining authors were too far removed from the events they describe, for the most part, and were in need of earlier source material to put in their Biblical books.
Scholars have long since known that such of these stands of the literary tradition in the Hebrew Bible, now so skillfully woven into a whole, is in turn a composite work written and edited by a group of anonymous authors.2
Unfortunately, this belief raises too many questions about the validity of these so-called contributors to the Bible. We know they were anonymous so the first question is who were they? Were they Israelites? Were they observers from other civilizations? Were they inspired of God to write these sources? These questions need to be answered so that we can take the works from the realm of men and place it under divine authorship where they belong.
Then we need to ask, why did they feel the need to compose a history of God’s action in this world? Or why they focused on Israel and not some other nation? These questions would merit an answer if it wasn’t for one important fact. The documents ‘known by scholars for some time’ and held in the Documentary Hypothesis simply do not exist.
As the theory grew, however, it soon became possible to speak of the J,E,P,D,L,K, & S documents as sources from which the Pentateuch was written over a period of time. But all these ‘sources’ were purely hypothetical ones abstracted from an internal investigation of the Pentateuch. No one had ever seen a document either with these materials or labeled as any of the sources.3
K.A. Kitchen said it a lot better and was far more expansive in his rebuttal:
With the evolutionary ladder gone, what happens to the biblical literature? Where do JEPD, now belong, if the old order is now a chimera? Or, in fact, do they belong at all? They [JEPD] exist only in the minds of their modern creators…and as printed in their published studies, as theoretical works abstracted out of the standard text of the Old Testament books that we do have. This very simple fact needs to be stressed. Our resourceful Biblicists are not sitting on some secret store of papyri or parchment that contains such works. The Dead Sea Scrolls show no sign of them whatever…4
This is something that the believer needs to be well aware of and very secure in the knowledge of this fact. The Documentary Hypothesis, and its members, is purely fiction and do not pertain to anything scriptural nor are or were inspired by God. Anyone who relies on such works you can be sure to know that they are not speaking the truth and can discount, if not outright dismiss, their words and points.
It must be noted that both quotes refer to how these secular scholars arrived at their theory. It was through restricted study of the Old Testament itself and by seeing the different names of God used in different parts of the Bible, which lead them to conjure up this piece of utter fiction. We can say the words ‘utter fiction’ because the hypothesis is not based upon anything archaeologically scientific,
The first problem with the Documentary Hypothesis concerns the lack of empirical evidence. There is no biblical text discovered in any manuscript that preserves the kind of distinctions that appear in the sources proposed by this theory.5
Presenting the proper evidence is key and if the supporters of this, or any alternative theory to the Bible, cannot provide some sort of legitimate and credible evidence to support their view, then one is free to ignore what they claim for their claim is false. {this may be turned around on the believer for there are many things we cannot present physical evidence for but we have enough proof for other parts of the Bible to speak of the veracity and truthfulness of all claims made by it, whereas, the Documentary Hypothesis has no such luxury}.
Again, we must turn to Kenneth Kitchen to illustrate this point clearly:
Modern guesswork, as we all know, is often extraordinarily and breathtakingly clever and ingenious…But…it does not constitute fact, and cannot be substituted for it. I might choose to dream up a theory that the Ramesside kings of Egypt also once built pyramids in Egypt, twice as big as the Great Pyramid. But absolutely nobody is going to believe me unless I can produce some tangible, material evidence in its favor. And we require, likewise, some kind of clear, material evidence in favor for a J, E, D, or a P, or an h, from outside of the extant Hebrew Bible. The standards of proof among biblical scholars fall massively and woefully short of the high standards that professional Orientalists and archaeologists are long accustomed to and have a right to demand. Some MSS, please! 6
The supporters of this hypothesis have yet to produce one shred of extra-biblical evidence for these documents and that they were actually used as source material by the biblical authors. Their claims only come from observations from internal examinations of the Pentateuch and from a lack of comprehension of biblical truths.
There is no point in laboring the point because the truth of this theory is quite evident, it is a made up theory to demote the word of God from divine authorship to human, thus rendering its words meaningless.
Q
This document is the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament’s so called Documentary Hypothesis. It is far more limited though as it is not applied to 5 books or more of the New Testament but only to two, Matthew and Luke. Why just these two, we do not know and it is not really explained that well.
This theory was constructed when scholars noticed certain similarities between the three synoptic gospels.
Now it is striking that the greater part of the non-Markian material common to Matthew and Luke consists of sayings of Jesus. This has led to the conjecture of another earlier source document on which both Matthew and Luke drew for their common non-Markian material, the document usually referred to as ‘Q’ and envisaged as a collection of sayings of Jesus.7
The first problem seen here is that Matthew was an eye-witness to almost all of Jesus’ sayings and acts, thus he would not need a source document for he had firsthand knowledge of the facts and He had the help of the Holy Ghost, as all the biblical writers had, to record correctly everything that God wanted in Matthew’s book.
The second problem that is seen here is that of course there will be similar material recorded in each book. All three are talking about 1 man and his life, thus it stands to reason that there would be overlap and common material. Luke, in the first chapter of his book, even stated he researched carefully before writing thus it stands to reason that he would use some of the same material recorded in other works.
There is no need to create a ‘source’ document to explain why the Synoptic Gospels hold similar material. It should be pointed out that many histories that are written on the very same subject, e.g. World War 2, would contain similar information for there is only one way things took place and if one wants to be credible then they must include the truth regardless of the fact that others have recorded the same conversations and acts.
We could dismiss the theory on ‘Q’, like many secularists dismiss the Synoptic Gospels, for it has the same glaring error-filled similarities as the Documentary Hypothesis. First, no one has ever seen this document, and no other mss. refers to it or is labeled with its name.
The issue of whether ‘Q’ includes or presupposes the knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection is debated by scholars. Because of the non-existence of this document it is rather difficult to argue conclusively as to its content.8
A second problem that is similar to the JEPD idea is that it is a complete hypothesis, a theory drawn the sayings and teachings of Jesus, gleaned from the internal investigations of biblical scholars.9
And there are other similarities that, if we applied the standard the secular scholars apply to the Bible, it would not stand up to scrutiny and be exposed for the fraud that it is. Unfortunately, this does not stop scholars from trying to reconstruct this document, even though there is no external manuscript or ancient referral to this document.
The result in more recent times has been a multiplication of reconstruction of the Greek text of ‘Q’, in whole or in part. The sayings of ‘Q’ presented here in Greek and English is based on the collaboration of a team of scholars who, since 1985, have been working together as the international ‘Q’ project.10
This work brings up a couple of glaring omissions. First, where is this information being drawn from? There is no ancient ‘Q’ document in existence, either in whole or fragmentary form. Which leads us to the second omission, how will they know they got the correct sayings in their ‘reconstruction’? They have nothing with which to compare or use to correct their work. It is all a product of their subjective opinions which have no hope in being verified.
There is one more issue that needs to be addressed which comes with this topic of the document of ‘Q’.
One might ad that the reluctance to approach scholarship on ‘Q’ seriously has much less to do with its hypothetical character than with its novel implications…The problem with ‘Q’ is not that it does not exist but that it tends to call into question some of the cherished historical conclusions of the last four or five decades of New Testament scholarship. Scholars having strong commitments to those conclusions can handily avoid defending them…by dismissing as hypothetical the document that is causing most of the trouble.11
Clearly the author of those words makes a false accusation and assumption. We do not declare it hypothetical because it is causing trouble but because the supporters of this theory cannot provide one shred of credible and legitimate evidence that it every existed (another similarity with the Documentary Hypothesis).
They are merely taking the Synoptic books and gleaning out similarities and claiming this must have come from another source, which is just not so. We also do not take ‘Q’ seriously because of the fact this reconstruction, as said earlier, is purely subjective and depends upon the opinions of men who cannot attest or find documents that attest to this ‘Q’s existence. It is merely their own opinion based upon nothing but misguided observation.
We also dismiss ‘Q’ because it does not call into question ‘some of the cherished historical conclusions’. We do so because it is a nuisance and a waste of time. None of the Biblical writers needed ‘source’ material for they had the aid of the Holy Spirit and were inspired to write the words we find in their books today.
‘Q’, like JEPD, is not real and the believer can, like JEPD, dismiss the arguments and points that appeal to it for there is nothing scriptural, spiritual, or historical about this document and is just another fictitious invention from someone’s overworked imagination and is not the product of God. Until they can produce the verifiable, legitimate and credible manuscripts or ancient referrals, then ‘Q’, like JEPD, is not viable, true or even worthy of consideration.
III. The Nag Hammadi Library
This group of codices is actually somewhat archaeological for they were discovered back in 1945 by a non-professional.
The year 1945 witnessed an amazing discovery at Nag Hammadi…In the month of December, an Arab peasant accidentally discovered 13 papyrus codices bound in leather.12
This set of codices can be identified as the Coptic Gnostic library13 but certain clarifications need to be made:
Coptic means Egyptian…and the Nag Hammadi library maybe called a Coptic library, but with qualifications. The most obvious way in which the Nag Hammadi library may be described as a Coptic library is in terms of language of the texts. In general, the texts of the Nag Hammadi library do not represent the perspective of the Coptic Orthodox Church…but all the texts in the Nag Hammadi library are written in the Coptic language.14
So that there is no confusion, this library, and all of its ‘gospels’ or other works, are purely from the Gnostic beliefs which is an ancient heresy that has never gone away. The theory is that, and this is held by many secular scholars, the reason we have the current books in the Bible is that there was a struggle for authority in the 2nd century AD and the orthodox church won out, and subsequently banned and buried these alternate works.15 The writer, Elaine Pagels, has another description for them as well
She concludes that Gnosticism remains, even today, ‘a powerful alternative to what we know as orthodox Christian tradition.’16
Gnosticism and the Nag Hammadi library are not an alternative to the Bible in any form and cannot be considered as such. There is a reason for why they remained buried for almost 2 millennia, they are not the truth and are products of later centuries than the 1st which held the life and ministry of Christ. There writings are dated to well after that time and long after all the eye-witnesses were dead.
When were the Gnostic Gospels and other extracanonical sources written? All of the Gnostic Gospels and extracanonical sources were written in the second century or later. Typical dates range from AD 140 to 160 …These writings are viewed as simply too late—written at least one hundred years after the death of Jesus, or fifty to eighty years after the New Testament Gospels were written.17
There are , of course, arguments from the supporters of these ‘gospels’ that they were written earlier but they fail to produce credible documentation to support their ideas18 One of the main reasons why, in contradiction to Ms. Pagel’s accusations, and it has to deal with the criteria that the early church placed for inclusion in the Biblical canon.
Basically the church had 3 criteria…First, the books must have apostolic authority—that is, they must have been written either by apostles themselves…or by followers of apostles…Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the rule of faith. That is, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative. And third, there was the criterion of whether a document had continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.19
The Nag Hammadi library achieved no such stature and failed to meet the criteria as seen earlier by their dates of production and the following:
The evidence remains circumstantial, but archaeological and codicological work has provided tantalizing hints that may help resolve the mystery of who produced and who buried the Nag Hammadi codices…On the basis of information from the pottery remains and the Wadi Sheikh Ali and the cartonnage from the codices themselves, we may conjecture that Pachomian monks most likely compiled the Nag Hammadi codices and later buried them by the cliff.20
That and the fact that we have no idea who actually wrote each work, as it is well known that alternatives to the real scriptures were passed out containing known names of disciples and associates of Jesus in hopes of attracting the unwary to their false beliefs.
One final word on this library and its failure to be accepted by the ancient church and included in the Biblical canon. The books that were accepted were done so for the main reason, as described by the late Dr. Metzger:
You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics…when the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined…These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.21
In other words, the books found in the Nag Hammadi library did not have any authority whatsoever and that is the reason why they were not included in the biblical canon, as well as buried for 1900 years approx. No amount of arguing can change these facts. The books contained in this library are false teachings and must be removed from the believers’ acceptance list of information. They do not shed any new light upon Jesus, His words, or His ministry.
On this last point, Brown judges that ‘we learn not a single verifiable new fact about Jesus’ ministry and only a few new sayings that might plausibly gave been his.’ Fitzmyer agrees, but in stronger terms: The Coptic texts of Nag Hammadi tell us little that is new…22
It is also noted that the whole library ‘cites most of the canonical New Testament books and borrows often from those works23, while the New Testament authors do not return the favor.
It is safe to conclude, that the alternative works discussed in this chapter do not amount to much more than false teachings meant to lead people, including believers, away from the truth found in the Bible and contain nothing of value except lessons on what to watch out for when one crosses these and similar works paths.
11 Conclusion
Archaeology is, like all sciences, a limited field, subject to the corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin and it is vulnerable to the schemes, strategies, and influences of fallible man, who seek their own ideas not God’s.
It is also subject to the opinions of men who make this field their life’s work and who think they know more about the past than anyone else. In a way they do and in a way they don’t, for they ignore what the Bible says, ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ and continue to re-write history according to their own ideas.
As it has been shown, there is no objectivity in this field as all archaeologists and bible scholars, both professional and amateur, try to make their mark on a field that provides far too little definitive evidence for them to create that romantic past as that evidence continues to point everyone towards the biblical record and not some alternative.
I believe it was Ernest Wright who said it first, and it still holds true today, ‘there has not been one archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible false. He is right for it is not the evidence that tries to upend the biblical record but those secularists who do not believe the Bible and who use their theories, conjectures and hypothesis to say that the Bible isn’t true.
Which is why the believer has to ‘consider the source’, for if the archaeologist or the biblical scholar do not believe then one can be secure in the knowledge that they are not presenting the truth and the believer then knows what to do. Consider the evidence ignoring what latest theory is being offered and look to God in what to learn and how to place the evidence correctly, for His glory and for the truth. For the believer, there is no other way and they must be discerning, not blindly accepting when it comes to anything, let alone archaeological, being presented to them.
There will always be someone who says, ‘look at all the evidence we have’ well in reality we have thousands upon thousands of pieces of pottery but we do not have that number in texts, mss., inscriptions, monuments, or even cities, and so forth. It is a very incomplete picture and to understand it all, to put it all together we must rely on the Bible or that evidence simply just does not work.
Then there will always be those who say, ‘well, that’s your interpretation,’ and will then proceed to present their own ideas which have a minute chance it will hit upon the truth. Interpretations are like noses, everyone has one and they will not agree, usually, which means that the believer needs to discern between the truth and the error, discarding the latter and retaining the former.
People do not want to accept the biblical record, even those who claim to be Christians yet follow alternative ideas like theistic evolution or some other off-track belief, thus the believer has their work cut out for them when dealing with other people and the archaeological record. Remember if it disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong. The Bible is never wrong no matter what some expert says, as the believer needs to realize that they do not have the keys to understanding the Biblical message or all of its passages.
The Bible makes that very clear, thus expert or not, if they are not Christian, or they believe alternatives and claim the Bible is in error, you know that they do not know what they are talking about because the Holy Spirit is not in them, leading them to the truth and greater understanding.
It is interesting to watch archaeologists argue over which era a piece of evidence or people belong in, like they are doing brain surgery, yet they are arguing over long dead people and things and basically over a span of a few short years. Archaeological eras are not an authority, they are not written in stone, and there are, like everything else in the field of archaeology, highly prone to manipulation. The origin of the measuring stick called eras or periods has exposed how misleading they are because it was done haphazardly, for we know that stone, bronze, iron was used throughout the world’s history at the same time.
The past was no different than the present and people developed as they chose, not in a linear line to please modern archaeologists who wanted to keep their records neat. It is this subjectivity that carries forward to dating the evidence. One of the drawbacks to archaeologists, and I am not sure if many of them realize this or not, but they are NOT experts in construction, they are not experts in religions or religious affairs, they are not experts in government and so on and their opinions, their interpretations and their conclusions reflect this fact.
In reading Israel Finkelstein, it soon became apparent that he did not have a clue as to what the word ‘renovation’ meant as he uses the work that the successors of Solomon did to Solomon’s buildings as evidence to down date the remains and claim that Solomon did not build and was not a great king over a large empire.
It is little things like this that undermine and expose the secular archaeologists’ conclusions in dating the physical evidence they discover. They do not know all the ins and outs of the daily life that goes on today or even in the past thus their ideas are in some ways misleading because they do not have all the facts and they do not consider these little details.
This is clearly illustrated when they deal with the subject of education. Because the archaeologist, or biblical scholar for they dig as well sometimes, does not find what he or she are looking for, they immediately dismiss the concept of schools for all people, or that the society was educated. Too often large buildings are misidentified as temples when in reality they could be meeting houses, auditoriums, or even schools.
Identifications are often made by what is not found, but one must be too careful and not hasty as a lot of the past simply just does not survive thus to identify something because one does not find a schoolbook or a writing pad (or whatever else one is looking for) is irresponsible and unprofessional. There was an article recently that has finally gone against the accepted theory constructed to fit the large amounts of figurines discovered from ancient homes and cities.
It finally states, and it is a position I have held for some time now prior to its publication, that all those figurines were not goddesses but knick knacks, just like the ones modern women collect today. It should come as no surprise as ancient women were no different than their modern counterparts, they thought the same, had the same desires and so on, which is why I can say that the ancient world was not illiterate for the mothers would not want their children to grow up dumb and be robbed of opportunities to be a ‘success.’
Secularists in this field just do not want the ancient people to be like them, they want to be superior to those of the past and their arrogance shows in their lectures, their books and their articles. They have so little yet they speak so big.
Believers need to be wary when it comes to the discovery of texts that speak of Christ but originate from unbelievers. They are not an alternative to the Bible but a path to destruction. There is only one Bible, one path to salvation and it is not found in long lost religious writings or cults. These manuscripts are not an insight to the Bible or of the early Christian life; they do not shed light on the Bible or its truths.
What they do do is tell us that the ancient world has its share of people who did not believe and who altered studied the bible much like the modern secular bible scholar of today. I am sure Philip Davies would not want to be thought of as a believer in the Old Testament as written if his study were found and it held Christian books on the bible.
We cannot lump all people into one category simply because old mss. were discovered in their possession, there were non-believers back then that studied their beliefs and may have held onto scripture to make their alternative look more attractive to a hurting world, much like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do today.
Secular people would have mss. and other Christian works in their possession for they would be studying the arguments of the ancient apologist and sees where they could trip them up. Believers must keep a sharp eye out when someone starts talking about ancient ‘religious writings’ and how they may be the proto-type for the gospel writers or that they were the victim in a long power struggle fought long ago.
The believer would need to ask for evidence to back up such views and not be lulled to sleep because of the smooth tongue of the scholar who is presenting the material. They must also keep in mind that anything other than the Bible, even in ancient times, are false teachings and need to be dismissed and fought against.
Learning about the true chronology would help for it will fight off the confusion that comes when unprepared Christians are caught unawares when an unbeliever says that the Epic of Gilgamesh is an older record than the Biblical account of the flood thus the biblical account is the copy or that the law of Moses is a copy of the code of Hammurabi.
God does not copy; He institutes, and if the believer traces the chronology back to the beginning, they would see that the law code was established long before either Moses or Hammurabi were even born. It was established before Cain was punished for his crime of murder or else God could not judge him and send him away from his family.
Knowing the true chronology and couple it with the true reasons, the believer can withstand many an assault by an unbeliever who only looks at the evidence sans influence from the Bible. They will use their standards, or the standards of the secular professional, which does not line up with the Bible and is an incomplete picture, then draw their own conclusions.
They do not care about the Biblical record, and at times they will ask for physical evidence but we will not be able to provide them with all the evidence they seek, for the Bible is a book of faith and God grants just enough evidence to support a person’s faith in it and Him but we will not receive so much evidence that that faith is destroyed.
Archaeology is a mere tool, it is not a final authority, it is not the authority, and it is a method by which we can gain more information about the Bible, the customs it describes and the words it uses. The secular world has elevated it and the rest of the scientific fields because they reject God as the authority and need to replace the void with something else.
Why? Because secular man does not want to be a servant, they want to be the top dog and they want to write the past in their way so that they do not have to consider the future as describe by the Bible. If they change the past, they hope to change their future and avoid the condemnation that is to come and is part of their chosen lifestyles.
Unfortunately for them, the truth is the truth and it does not change because the secular archaeologist or bible scholar wants it to. They can try to change the past all they want but it does not change what really took place and it does not alter their future. God’s judgment will come regardless of what they believe or what they deny.
The believer needs to stand with the truth and use archaeology and its discoveries in the proper manner, to lead people to Christ and to find the truth so that their lives are much better. Believers do not need to fear learning, to fear gaining knowledge, or to fear intelligence for God wants us to do and have all those things so we can do what He commands and asks us to do. Archaeology is a great tool, and it shores pones faith making them better Christians, if they use it well, intelligently and wisely.
