Adam Allred vs. Historic Christianity

The Christian Case — Apologetics & Doctrine

Testing the Claims: A Look at Adam Allred's Case Against Historic Christianity

A popular online voice says the Bible is a tool, not a source, and that certainty itself killed Christ. Here is what the evidence actually shows.

BY RAJKUMAR RICHARD W.J.F.

Adam Allred is an entrepreneur and influencer who leads an online fraternity called DGHBoy Nation, built around a mission to bring men back to strength and purpose.¹ He speaks often about God and says he values Scripture. But over the past several months, a series of his videos have made sweeping claims about the Bible, the crucifixion, and the nature of religious authority — claims that broke sharply from what the historic Church has always taught. Christian apologist Wes Huff responded publicly, and the exchange between the two spread widely online.²

Below are Allred's central claims, tested one at a time against the historical and biblical record.

The Claims, Tested

Claim 01

"The Bible was literally compiled hundreds of years later by a pagan emperor for political reasons... voted on by a bunch of politicians and bishops in a room."³

This claim does not survive contact with the historical timeline. All 27 books of the New Testament were written within the first century — decade(s) after Jesus, not centuries.⁴ And the Church did not wait for permission from an emperor to start using them.

Around 95 AD, a church leader named Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church in Corinth. That letter is saturated with New Testament material: he quotes the Letter to the Hebrews repeatedly, explicitly names and quotes Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and draws on Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.⁵ Scholars who have studied the letter closely conclude he clearly had Matthew and Luke in front of him too, treating them as trustworthy accounts.⁶ That is one writer, one generation removed from the apostles, already leaning heavily on what we now call the New Testament — more than two hundred years before Constantine was born.

This pattern was not unique to Clement. Across the wider body of early Christian writing, the Gospel of Matthew alone is quoted roughly 700 times, compared with only about 16 total citations of apocryphal, non-canonical material.⁷ If the early Church were genuinely uncertain which writings were trustworthy, actual usage on the ground would look far more scattered. Instead, it shows near-total agreement, centuries before any council met.

By the 170s AD, a document called the Muratorian Fragment already lists most of the books we have today — still more than 150 years before Constantine.⁸ When the Council of Nicaea convened in 325 AD, it addressed the nature of Christ and the date of Easter. It did not vote on, or even discuss, which books belonged in Scripture.⁹ By the time Athanasius wrote out the complete list of 27 New Testament books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD, he was not inventing a canon — he was recording a consensus the Church had already lived by for generations.¹⁰

No Historical Evidence Institutionally Verified: NT Books Are 1st Century

Worth Noting Clement does not use the formal word "Scripture" for these New Testament passages the way he does for the Old Testament; he weaves the material in without a citation formula. Scholars call these "allusions" rather than direct quotations.¹¹ This is a fair distinction to hold — but it strengthens the case rather than weakening it. Even without formal citation language, the sheer density of New Testament material already shaping Christian thought this early shows how quickly these writings became central, not centuries later under imperial decree.

Claim 02

"Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew. And He didn't come to create a religion."¹²

HE was Jewish — that much is true and uncontested. But the claim that HE did not come to found anything does not match HIS own words. HE said plainly that HE came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, not to abolish them (Matthew 5:17). HE built HIS Church on the foundation of the apostles (Matthew 16:18), instituted the Lord's Supper as an ongoing act of remembrance, and commissioned HIS followers to baptize and teach every nation (Matthew 28:19–20).

Fulfilling centuries of prophecy and establishing a covenant community that would carry HIS teaching to the world is not the opposite of religion. It is the foundation of one.

Partially True Conclusion Not Supported

Claim 03

"Theological certainty is spiritual death. It was those who claimed to know God and speak for God who ultimately crucified God's Son."¹³

This account flattens a far more complicated history. When Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, it was not a small circle of certain theologians who shouted for crucifixion — it was the broader crowd, driven by fear, political pressure, and disappointed expectations of what the Messiah should look like.¹⁴

It is also incorrect to paint every religious leader as HIS enemy. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, defended HIM against unjust judgment and later helped bury HIM with honor (John 7:50–51, John 19:39). Joseph of Arimathea, another respected council member, gave up his own tomb for HIM (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). John 12:42 records that many priests and Pharisees believed in HIM, even if quietly, out of fear of social consequences.

These leaders held real theological certainty — and it led them to discipleship, not violence. What actually drove the crucifixion was pride and the fear of losing power and status, not certainty about God itself.

Documented: Crowd Involvement Oversimplified Conclusion

Claim 04

The Bible was "written, rewritten, translated, re-translated, filtered through kings, priests and politicians."¹⁵

There is a kernel of truth here wrapped in an exaggerated conclusion. Manuscripts were copied by hand. Copying mistakes did happen. Differences between manuscripts do exist. Translations do vary. Christian scholars do not hide any of this.

But none of it proves we cannot know what the original writers said. This is precisely why the discipline of "Textual Criticism" exists — scholars compare thousands of manuscripts against one another to reconstruct, with very high confidence, the earliest attainable text. According to textual critics, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. Having minor variation between copies is an entirely different thing from having no reliable text at all. Textual variation is not textual chaos.

Documented: Manuscript Variants Exist Conclusion Overstated

Claim 05

The Bible has been "argued over by 45,000 different Christian denominations who all swear they're the ones who are right."¹⁶

This is a rhetorically strong line, but a weak argument. Interpretive disagreement does not prove a source is unclear or unintelligible — people disagree about constitutional law, science, economics, and history too, and nobody concludes from that disagreement that the underlying documents don't exist or contain no meaningful content.

The "45,000" figure itself is also commonly misleading, since different counting methods lump together individual congregations, denominational families, and loosely connected traditions in very different ways.

Weak Argument

Claim 06

"The Bible is a tool, not the source. Dogma is a trap. Go directly to God."¹⁷

There is something worth affirming here. Christians should not worship the Bible — they worship God. If Allred is warning against turning Scripture into an idol, that concern has real merit.

But he sets up a false choice: either worship the Bible, or discard its authority. Historic Christianity has always held a third position — worship God, and trust Scripture because it is how God has revealed HIMSELF. The book is not the object of devotion, but it is not merely "a tool" either. Its authority rests entirely on who it comes from. Scripture, both the Old and the New Testaments, is inerrant (original autographs), infallible and trustworthy.

Legitimate Concern False Dichotomy

The Better Path Worship God because Scripture reveals God — not the Bible instead of God, and not God instead of Scripture.

Claim 07

Go "directly to God" rather than relying on Scripture, tradition, or trained teachers.

This sounds spiritually attractive, but it runs into an unavoidable problem: how do we know it is actually God speaking, and not simply our own impressions? If everyone "goes directly to God," we immediately run into contradictory claims — one person says God confirmed reincarnation, another says God confirmed the resurrection, another says God denied Christ's divinity entirely, another says there is no personal God at all. Private spiritual experience cannot, by itself, settle which of these is objectively true.

This is exactly why Christianity does not simply say "seek God." It says God has revealed HIMSELF — and that revelation becomes the standard by which subjective spiritual impressions are tested, rather than the other way around. Scripture, both the Old and the New Testaments, is absolutely infallible and trustworthy.

Epistemologically Unstable

Claim 08

A broader appeal to intellectual humility — skepticism toward anyone claiming certainty, particularly credentialed experts.

There is a healthy instinct buried in this. Christianity does not require intellectual arrogance, and humility is a genuine virtue. But there is a real difference between humility and skepticism. Humility says: "I might be wrong, so I should examine the evidence carefully." Skepticism says: "Nobody can really know anything, so certainty itself is suspect."

The first keeps a person honest and teachable. The second collapses under its own weight — if someone insists "you cannot know anything with certainty," the fair question to ask is simply: "are you certain of that?"

Admirable Instinct Self-Defeating When Absolute

The Bottom Line

Adam Allred raises fair concerns about pride, legalism, and turning Scripture itself into an idol — these are real struggles that have appeared throughout Christian history and deserve honest attention.¹⁸ But when those concerns turn into historical claims about how the Bible was formed, or philosophical claims about certainty and private revelation, the argument breaks down against the actual evidence. His call to simply "go directly to God" ends up quietly placing his own personal interpretation in the seat of final authority — the very outcome he says he is trying to avoid.

Endnotes

1. Adam Allred is described as the founder of DGHBoy Nation, an online community focused on masculinity and personal development.
2. Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com, Nov. 23, 2025.
3. Statement made by Adam Allred in a video posted to Instagram, Nov. 3, 2025, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com, Dec. 11, 2025.
4. The dating of New Testament composition to the first century (roughly AD 45–100) is the consensus position across the range of mainstream New Testament scholarship.
5. 1 Clement, chapters 36 and 47, cited in etimasthe.com, "Clement of Rome's New Testament," 2018.
6. Ibid.
7. Statistic on Matthew citations versus apocryphal citations drawn from a presentation by Wesley Huff, cited in Engage Apologetics, "Quotes from Church History on Scripture, the Gospel & More."
8. The Muratorian Fragment is widely dated by textual scholars to the late second century (c. AD 170–200).
9. The Council of Nicaea's official concerns — the Arian controversy, the nature of Christ, and the date of Easter — are documented in the surviving conciliar record; no canonical list was addressed.
10. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (AD 367), the earliest surviving document to list exactly the 27 books of the New Testament.
11. Bruce Metzger's observation that Clement does not explicitly label New Testament references as "Scripture," cited via uasvbible.org, "First Epistle of Clement."
12. Statement made by Adam Allred, Nov. 3, 2025, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com.
13. Statement made by Adam Allred in a follow-up video responding to Wes Huff's critique, cited in Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," Nov. 23, 2025.
14. The crowd's choice of Barabbas over Jesus is recorded in Matthew 27:15–23, Mark 15:6–14, Luke 23:18–23, and John 18:39–40.
15. Statement made by Adam Allred, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com, Dec. 11, 2025.
16. Ibid.
17. Statement made by Adam Allred on Threads, Nov. 3, 2025.
18. Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com, Nov. 23, 2025.

Key Sources and Further Reading

• ChurchLeaders.com — "Wes Huff Responds to Claim the Bible Was 'Compiled Hundreds of Years' After Jesus by a 'Pagan Emperor for Political Reasons'" (Dec. 11, 2025)
• Jacob Billings — "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com (Nov. 23, 2025)
• Etimasthe.com — "Clement of Rome's New Testament" (2018)
• BobThune.com — "The Church Fathers: Clement of Rome"
• NTCanon.org — "The Development of the Canon of the New Testament"
• Engage Apologetics — "Quotes from Church History on Scripture, the Gospel & More"
• Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (AD 367)
• The Muratorian Fragment (c. AD 170–200), earliest known partial list of New Testament books

Written by Rajkumar Richard W.J.F. — The Christian Case

How “Undesigned Coincidences” Enhances The Reliability Of The Bible?

            Those interested in learning more about the reliability of the Bible should study the very interesting topic of “Undesigned Coincidences.”  

            Christian analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew, who has written a book entitled Hidden in Plain View, defines undesigned coincidences as, “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn't seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.”¹

            An article in Christianity Today further explains this, “In other words, an undesigned coincidence occurs when multiple passages of Scripture include details that at first seem unrelated but which, upon further reflection, fit together in a way that only makes sense if both accounts are based on the same underlying historical truth.”²

            How do undesigned coincidences enhance the reliability of the Bible? The same article states, “Undesigned coincidences are subtle enough that it would be pointless for a fabricator to make them up. But on analysis, they provide valuable internal evidence of the reliability of the New Testament histories. The only plausible explanation for their occurrence is that the authors were carefully recording real events.”³

            Consider two examples of undesigned coincidences from the New Testament:⁴

One of the simplest coincidences concerns Herod’s reaction to the commencement of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew 14 reports that Herod “said to his attendants, ‘This is John the Baptist. He has risen from the dead!’” (v. 1). But how would Matthew know what the king said to his servants in the privacy of his palace? A skeptic might conclude that he was taking liberties with the truth.

Unless, that is, the skeptic in question happened to notice an obscure phrase in the Gospel of Luke. On a totally different topic, Luke 8 lists a number of women who were following Jesus. One of them is named as “Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household” (v. 3).

The second passage explains the first. Matthew could have known about Herod’s comment to his servants because the wife of one of those servants was a follower of Christ. And yet the connection is incredibly oblique. If the Gospels were fabricated, Luke would have had no particular reason to invent this detail. The best explanation is that the pieces fit so well because they are both true.

Another coincidence is even more striking. In John 6, Jesus asks Philip where to buy bread just prior to the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 (v. 5). Why Philip? John gives no explanation. Yet elsewhere, in unrelated passages, he does mention something that turns out to be relevant: Philip was from Bethsaida.

There is no obvious connection between these two pieces of information until one turns to the Gospel of Luke. Luke 9 notes that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred near Bethsaida (v. 10). Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread because he was a local.

If the Gospels were fabricated, there would be no particular reason for John to report that Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread. There would be no particular reason for listing Philip as a native of Bethsaida. There would be no particular reason for Luke to situate the feeding of the 5,000 near Bethsaida. Further, the details are so randomly strewn through the accounts that they are obviously not an attempt at subtle harmonization. Once again, the best explanation as to why the puzzle pieces fit so well is that they are all true.

            Undesigned coincidences are not only found in the New Testament. They are found in the Old Testament also.

            Here is one such example from an article authored by Christian Apologist Jonathan McLatchie:⁵

Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Endnotes:

¹https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/unique-evidence-for-the-new-testament-interview-with-lydia-mcgrew-about-unintended-coincidences-1

²https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/august-web-only/defending-accuracy-of-scripture-one-coincidence-at-time.html

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://jonathanmclatchie.com/undesigned-coincidences-in-the-scriptures-an-argument-for-their-veracity-part-1-old-testament-examples/ 

Websites last accessed on 13^th June 2022.

Five Credible Reasons To Believe The New Testament

             Find below five credible reasons to believe the New Testament.

            1. Internal Evidence: The New Testament claims to be truthful and factual (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1).

            2. External Evidence: Archaeology affirms the New Testament. There is ample evidence to corroborate the credibility of the New Testament. A recent discovery (in December 2021) of a 2000-year-old second synagogue that may have been visited by the Lord Jesus is a classic case in point.¹

            3. Confirmation by Eyewitnesses: Another instance is that of Apostle Paul’s affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection, “...historians trust that Apostle Paul preserved an oral tradition about Christ’s resurrection that goes back to the early Christian church or the Jerusalem apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church narrates Christ’s resurrection from the perspective of the eyewitnesses and also as a written record of Christ’s resurrection closer to the time of Christ’s resurrection, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).”²

            4. Criterion of Embarrassment: “If a report in the Gospels provides data that would have been embarrassing to the early Christian movement, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since it is unlikely that the author would have invented content likely to detract from the cause for which he wrote. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Mark reports that Peter rebuked Jesus and that Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have invented and preserved a tradition that casts him in such an unfavorable manner.”³

            5. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources: “If a source that is unsympathetic or even hostile toward the Christian faith provides a report that agrees with the Christian reports, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since the unsympathetic or hostile source would not have the bias carried by the authors of the Christian reports. This is called the criterion of unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil and mischievous superstition (Annals 15.44). This identifies him as an unsympathetic source. So, when he reports Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate, a report entirely compatible with what we find in the Gospels, historians can have more confidence that the event had occurred.”⁴

            “Unsympathetic or hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following about Jesus Christ:

            1. Christ’s miraculous birth.

            2. Christ’s claim to be God and the Messiah.

            3. Christ performed the miraculous.

            4. Jesus was persecuted by the Jews.

            5. Jesus’ gory death through crucifixion.

            6. The empty tomb.

            7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.

            8. Disciples’ martyrdom.

            9. Early Christians’ regular worship. 

            Does the skeptic need more proof than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If after learning this information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the Historical Jesus, then it seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for truth.”⁵

Endnotes:

¹https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2022/01/five-significant-biblical.html

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-should-we-believe-christs.html

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2020/02/reasons-for-existence-of-historical.html

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 27^th February 2022.

Five Significant Biblical Archaeological Discoveries Of 2021

            Every year the Bible’s credibility/trustworthiness is further augmented by archaeological discoveries. These are five significant biblical archaeological discoveries of the year 2021:

1. Second Synagogue in Magdala (December 2021)

            A second 2000-year-old synagogue was discovered late last year. Biblical archaeologists consider it plausible that this synagogue could have been visited by the Lord Jesus!¹ If so, this discovery affirms the ministry of the Lord Jesus as stated in Matthew 9:35.²

            This synagogue is located at Migdal (or its ancient name Magdala), which is also the birthplace and the hometown of Mary Magdalene.³

2. Gideon’s Jug (July 2021)

            A fragment of a pottery jug dated 1100 years before Christ was discovered in July 2021, “An ostracon (a pottery sherd with writing) bearing the name Jerubbaal, has been unearthed at Khirbat er-Ra‘I, located near the ancient city of Lachish. Jerubbaal (“Let Baal contend against him”) was the nickname that Gideon was given after he destroyed the altar of Baal (Judges 6:32). The ostracon dates to the 12th-11th century BC (ie. the time of the Judges) based on typology and radiocarbon dating from organic samples taken from the same archaeological layer in which it was found. The name Jerubbaal is only ever used for Gideon in the Bible, and this is the first discovery of it in an archaeological context.”⁴

            This jug need not necessarily belong to the biblical Gideon because Gideon lived 100 years prior to the dating of this jug.⁵ “Regardless, this discovery is significant in that it affirms the name Jerubbaal was used during the time the Bible describes.”⁶

3. Dead Sea Fragments (March 2021)

            Additional Dead Sea Scroll parchments were discovered for the first time in almost 60 years! These parchments included verses from Zechariah 8:16-17 and Nahum 1:5-6 written in ancient Greek. This discovery was significant because of the presence of “two interesting aspects: (1) A special treatment for the Tetragrammaton (the transliteration of the Hebrew name of God in four letters YHWH), and (2) Evidence of changing words to improve a new translation.⁷

4. Sandstone Inscription of the Egyptian Pharaoh Hophra (June 2021)

            “A stela naming the Egyptian Pharaoh Wahibre (known as Hophra in Hebrew, Apries in Greek) was recently found by a farmer who was cultivating his field; he immediately turned it over to the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities... The Bible records that King Zedekiah rebelled against the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 17:15), who had placed him on the throne (2 Kgs 24:15-17), and turned to Egypt for help. Hophra’s army marched to Zedekiah’s aid, and Nebuchadnezzar’s army withdrew from attacking Jerusalem (Jer. 37:5-8). It will be interesting to see if the recently-discovered stele of Hophra is related to this campaign. Pharaoh Hophra is mentioned by name in Jeremiah 44:30, which reads, “This is what the LORD says: ‘I am going to hand Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt over to his enemies who seek his life, just as I handed Zedekiah king of Judah over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the enemy who was seeking his life.’”  It should be noted that, the stela was discovered in Ismailia, Egypt, only 29 miles south of the ancient city of Taphanhes, where Jeremiah had been taken (Jer. 43:6-7) and from where he made the prophecy against Pharaoh Hophra (Jer. 44:1).”⁸

5. Missing Wall of Biblical Jerusalem (July 2021)

            The “Israel Antiquities Authority announced the groundbreaking discovery of the eastern section of Jerusalem’s Iron Age wall. The wall, stretching along the eastern slope of the Kidron Valley, was uncovered in the City of David Archaeological Park, a short distance from the Temple Mount. Stamps seals and other objects found along the wall allowed the excavators to date the wall to the Iron Age, indicating that it was likely part of the fortifications built by King Hezekiah (Isaiah 22:9), as he prepared for the Assyrian invasion (c. 701 B.C.E.). This also would have been the very same wall that was ultimately destroyed during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem about a century later (2 Kings 25:10).”⁹  This discovery “conclusively proves that Jerusalem was strongly fortified during the time of the kings of Judah.”¹⁰

ENDNOTES:

¹https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/december/biblical-archaeology-top-10-discoveries-new-artifacts-2021.html

²https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

³https://www.timesofisrael.com/second-ancient-synagogue-found-in-migdal-alters-ideas-of-jewish-life-2000-years-ago/

⁴https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁵https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/december/biblical-archaeology-top-10-discoveries-new-artifacts-2021.html

⁶https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁷https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2021/05/latest-dead-sea-scrolls-discovery-what.html

⁸https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁹https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/missing-wall-of-biblical-jerusalem-discovered/

¹⁰https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/2021s-top-ten-stories-in-bhd/

Websites last accessed on 12^th January 2022. 

The Red Letter Words In The Bible Are Not The Words Of Jesus!

            For quite some time I believed that the red letter words are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when I came to understand that these words may not be the exact words of Jesus, I was disappointed.

            Two questions are in order: (1) Is it certain that the red letter words are not the words of Jesus?  (2) If so, how does it impact our faith in the Lord Jesus?

            First, how do we know for certain that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus?

            New Testament scholar, Daniel B. Wallace claims that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus, “Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” ¹

            Dr. William Lane Craig believes that every serious student of the Gospels should avoid the use of the red letter editions of the Gospels. He writes:²

The Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus taught in Aramaic. So even a red letter edition of the Greek New Testament would not give us the actual words of Jesus.

Granted, Jesus probably spoke Greek, at least enough to get by in his trade as a carpenter, since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, as a result of the pre-Roman conquests by Alexander the Great. Even though the Romans spoke Latin, in their dealings with Palestinians, they probably conversed in Greek—hence, the arresting centurion’s question to Paul: “Do you know Greek?” (Acts 21.37).

But in teaching his fellow Jews Jesus would naturally have spoken Aramaic. So what we have in the Gospels are Greek translations of what Jesus claimed and taught. Only rarely do we get glimpses of the original Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, as for example, Jesus’ words from the cross given in Mark: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Mark 15.34).

Moreover, we need to keep in mind that in a culture that lacked even the device of quotation marks, the distinction between direct and indirect discourse can be blurred. Read the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel 3.10-21, ignoring the quotation marks introduced by the English translators, and ask yourself where John’s direct quotation of Jesus ends and John’s commentary begins. Or read Galatians 2.11-21 about Paul’s public dispute with Peter and ask yourself where Paul stops recording what he said at the time and begins his present reflections upon what happened. It’s not clear. So in a culture where the distinction between direct and indirect discourse is not always clear, giving a paraphrase or the gist of what a person said rather than his very words is perfectly acceptable.

The Gospel writers employed common techniques of their day in giving the teachings of Jesus, such as paraphrase, summary, omission, clarification, contextualization, and so on.

So it’s very misleading to print Jesus’ words in red, as though we have the original words of Jesus recorded there.

What we want to show is that the Gospel writers gave an accurate representation of what Jesus of Nazareth said and taught. This is where New Testament historical-critical scholarship can be helpful. Scholars will sometimes say that in a particular teaching attributed to Jesus, we hear the very voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox); that is to say, something that renders very closely (in Greek) what Jesus said. His teaching on the Kingdom of God would be a good example. Everyone recognizes that the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom or reign lay at the heart of the teaching of Jesus. On other occasions, scholars think that we have the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, that is, a Greek expression that translates almost verbatim what Jesus said. His use of the expression “the Son of Man” as a term of self-reference would be a good example. Instances of this sort would have the best claim to be printed in red; but then we artificially mar the Gospels by such a device...

The use of red letter editions of the Gospels ought to be shunned by serious students of the Gospels, since the device is fundamentally misleading as to the nature of the Gospel accounts.

            It is now clear that the red letter words need not necessarily be the very words of the Lord Jesus.

            Second, how does this impact my faith?

            Although I was disappointed that the red letter words may not be the very words of our Lord Jesus, I am thankful to the New Testament scholars for their integrity and honesty in reporting the truth.

            We may not possess the original writings of the Biblical authors (the autographs). But we possess an embarrassment of riches of the New Testament manuscripts. The field of Textual Criticism offers us a way to retrieve the writings of the autographs from the available manuscripts. Thereby, we understand that the Bible we have is the same as that of the autographs (99.5% pure and without any doctrinal distortion). Thus we are confident of the reliability of the New Testament.

            The fact that the Bible is reliable and that it records the very thoughts or the very voice of Jesus offers me the greatest confidence and comfort. The icing on the cake would have been the authenticity of the red letter words. But it does not matter!

Endnotes:

¹https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/red-letter-gospels

Websites last accessed on 13^th November 2021.

 

How To Answer Difficult Questions From The Bible?

          A few days ago, a prominent personality posted an apparent contradiction from the Bible on his social media page. He had thousands of ‘likes,’ hundreds of ‘comments’ and ‘shares.’

            This person did not discover a new contradiction from the Bible. He did not ask a question that had the potential to destroy Historic Christianity.

            He merely posted an asked and answered question/contradiction! He asked a question that many have asked before.

            Christian theologians and apologists have answered this apparent contradiction. Hence, there is no need for anyone to lose their faith in Historic Christianity because of this question or similar questions.

            The question he asked was answered decades ago:¹

GENESIS 1:14—HOW COULD THERE BE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN WAS MADE?

PROBLEM: The sun was not created until the fourth day, yet there was light on the first day (1:3).

SOLUTION: The sun is not the only source of light in the universe. Further, the sun may have existed from the first day, but only appeared or became visible (as the mist cleared) on the fourth day. We see light on a cloudy day, even when we can’t see the sun.

This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.

            Now, this is what we need to understand.

            Had he genuinely sought an answer to this question as an honest seeker, a simple search on the internet would have yielded him the answer. But no! The actual reason that motivated him to ask this question was to plant seeds of doubts in the minds of naïve Christians.

            How do we respond to such tirades against Historic Christianity? When we encounter such rants against Historic Christianity, do remember that all these questions have been asked and answered reasonably well. So instead of being perplexed, all we need to do is to understand the dynamics of solving an apparent contradiction from the Bible.

            First, what is a Bible difficulty? “A Bible difficulty is an apparent problem posed by the biblical record. It might be called an error, a mistake, a difficulty, a challenge, a contradiction, or any number of other terms. Critics of the Bible are sometimes hostile in their claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions" or "difficulties," but these apparent problems are also brought up by committed Christians wanting to make sense of God's Word,”² says an article posted on the website of the ‘Focus on the Family’ ministry.  

            Second, how do we solve Bible difficulties? The same article says, “Essentially, handling Bible difficulties is a matter of hermeneutics or interpretation (specifically, biblical interpretation). But other factors also come into play when interpreting, such as looking for a reasonable explanation, carefully making comparisons to other passages when necessary, and in general puzzling through possible answers and satisfactory resolutions to apparent problems.

            Theologically liberal approaches to the Bible, on the other hand, often simply accept contradictions as part of a flawed record. But if the Bible is God's Word, and if God is all knowing and all powerful, it stands to reason we should be able to trust the Bible.”³

            This article offers useful tips to handle Bible difficulties:⁴

Here are some tips gleaned from the late Gleason Archer's fine book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 1

"Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not found it yet." In other words, Archer is accepting the Bible as an accurate, authoritative collection of documents – God's inspired Word. Once a case has been made for this fact, then it stands to reason that the Bible should not contain any serious discrepancies in the manuscript copies. If you come across a Bible difficulty, there should be one or more reasonable explanations for it.

"Carefully study the context and framework of the verse in which the problem arises until you gain some idea of what the verse is intended to mean within its own setting." This is a key point of biblical hermeneutics – the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Context matters significantly. Keep in mind the context of a particular verse in a book, as well as the context given the broader teachings on the subject throughout the entire Bible.

"In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization." This helpful tip applies more to the four New Testament Gospels than anywhere else, though there certainly are parallel accounts of historical events in the Old Testament as well. There's no doubt that the Gospels contain various accounts from different perspectives, but these accounts should be able to be reconciled. Critics would not be happy if the four Gospels were identical in their reports of certain events, accusing the authors of collusion. Ironically, however, they aren't happy with the differences either. The best approach is to study the passages and find a way to harmonize them without compromising the essence of the text.

"Consult the best commentaries available, especially those written by Evangelical scholars who believe in the integrity of Scripture." A good commentary is a valuable resource. Many alleged Bible difficulties are addressed in such books. One helpful series is the Expositor's Bible Commentary(Zondervan). With the rise of Bible software, many commentaries are now included in these packages as well.

"Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text." This is an important point, especially when it comes to apparent numerical discrepancies. While Christians who adhere to inerrancy believe the original Bible manuscripts contained no errors whatsoever, they do grant that copies may contain a small number of errors. These errors or variants, however, do not change any key Christian doctrines.

"Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber." Again and again throughout history, the archaeological evidence has supported the biblical record, not contradicted it. The evidence is clearly on the side of the Bible. Be wary of the latest news story claiming to debunk some key aspect of Christianity on the basis of recent findings that have yet to be studied in detail by qualified scholars. For more on the archeological evidence for the Bible see The Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan).

In addition to Archer's helpful tips for handling Bible difficulties, When Critics Ask also offers its share of useful insights. Here's a selection of the advice: 2

"Mistake 1: Assuming that the Unexplained Is Not Explainable." This ties into Archer's advice "that an adequate explanation exists." Be confident that if you encounter a Bible difficulty, there is a reasonable explanation.

"Mistake 2: Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent." This is not treating the biblical text fairly. As with other historical documents, let's grant it the benefit of the doubt unless clear evidence says otherwise.

"Mistake 3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God's Infallible Revelation." Usually the problem with alleged Bible contradictions and difficulties is with our interpretation, theology, or approach to the text, not with the actual text itself. We make mistakes, but God doesn't.

"Mistake 4: Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage." Again, context is supremely important when handling Bible difficulties. In most cases, a careful reading of the passage(s) in question, in their proper contexts, will resolve apparent difficulties.

"Mistake 5: Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones." This is a key concept to keep in mind when approaching Bible difficulties that fall into the category of an obscure or particularly challenging passage. We may not be able to completely understand or explain the isolated passage in question, but given the broader context of the Bible and clear teachings on the subject elsewhere, we should be able to come to a good consensus on the matter at hand. A concept known as the perspicuity of Scripture is relevant in such cases. This means that the Bible is clear in essential matters.

            Finally, remember that every difficult question from the Bible has been reasonably answered, “Does the Bible contain some difficult passages? Yes. Are they unresolvable? No. Whenever a critic or sincere believer comes across an alleged Bible difficulty, it has always been answered. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness …" (1 Timothy 3:16, NIV)”⁵

Endnotes:

¹http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Genesis_1.14.php

²https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-i-handle-bible-difficulties

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on August 21, 2018.