All too often people reject all of Josephus’ testimony about the existence of Jesus because of some obvious Christian additions.  Respected Jewish scholar Geza Vermes demonstrates that such radical rejection is unwarranted.

I have been taking my congregations through Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  The commentary that I have been using as my primary tool is Galatians by Richard Longenecker from the Word Biblical Commentary series.  Longenecker was my New Testament professor during my M.Div. days at McMaster Divinity College.  This is a very helpful commentary for any study on this important book of the New Testament.  Longenecker interacts with much of the scholarship regarding the relevant issues.  Longenecker’s use of rabbinic traditions is both a strength and a weakness.  It is interesting to see what the rabbis were saying about the issues that the Galatians were dealing with.  But sometimes it is easy forget that these traditions, at least in their written form, are much later than the New Testament.  Still, this would be a good addition to any biblical library.

Is the resurrection of Jesus just a matter of faith or can we speak of it historically?  N.T. Wright does a great job in this short video of explaining how we can speak of the resurrection historically.

I recently read a very good book by John N. Oswalt called The Bible Among the Myths.  It is common to see claims that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is of the same genre as other ancient myths.  This seems possible as the Old Testament is filled with supernatural events, fantastic details and various themes familiar from ancient myths.  Oswalt goes beyond the surface similarities by going into detail regarding the true nature of myth.  Fantastic details are common to myths but myths are really defined by a worldview described as continuity.  In contrast, the biblical worldview centers on transcendence.  Oswalt is extremely balanced in that he does not deny similarities with mythology.  Rather he demonstrates that the differences are based on foundational issues rather than the surface similarities.  One of the interesting aspects of this book is Oswalt’s investigation into the nature of history.  Unlike ancient myths that have no interest in history, the Bible is filled with history.  Oswalt confronts some of the critical scholars who have competing theories regarding the relationship between the Old Testament and history.  Overall, this is a very good book for understanding the Old Testament in particular and the Bible in general, especially in its larger cultural and religious context.

The Church of Scientology in France is in lots of legal trouble.  You can read the story here.  This group, started by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, has been controversial since it began.  The prosecution actually tried to get it banned in France but failed.  It amazes me that seemingly intelligent people are willing to pay large sums of money for religious ideas invented by a sci fi author.

I just finished reading a book by Franz Cumont called The Mysteries of Mithra.  Mithras was a popular mystery religion god that was contemporary with the beginning of Christianity.  Because of this, people often look to Mithras as an influence on the story of Jesus.  While this book is not intended to be apologetic, it has much information that is damaging to the Jesus myth hypothesis.  Cumont shows that Mithraism did not become popular until the end of the first and really more into the second century.  It also became popular in different parts of the Roman Empire so that it did not come into conflict with Christianity until the later second, and especially the third and fourth centuries.  Because of all this, it is unlikely that it had any influence on the origins of Christianity.  In addition, despite popular claims, Mithras was not born of a virgin and was not a dying and rising god.  Mithraism really was a religion of the Roman military and it is difficult to see how the earliest Jewish Christians would be open to their beliefs.  While Cumont is sometimes guilty of using Christian terms such as church, baptism and last supper in describing Mithraic practices, this is still a useful tool in understanding the false claims of the Jesus myth hypothesis.  This is an older book but it is still a classic and is worth reading by anyone interested in these issues.

I recently listened to an audio course on apologetics by Dr. Charlie Self from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.  I spent a number of years as a Pentecostal and I  must say that I did not find much interest in the academic side of the faith.  But I must say that this apologetics course is quite good.  It is solidly academic but also very practical.  You will find Dr. Self moving from teaching to preaching and back again.  He is very balanced on what he teaches and people from a variety of backgrounds will find his teaching useful.  You can find his lectures here.

Most of us take the phrase “Judaism” for granted, even in its ancient setting.  Josephus scholar Steve Mason had a very interesting article on what the word “Judaism” really means in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.  You can read the article here.  I found it quite fascinating.

As I have read numerous books, articles and blogs on apologetics, I have come to a conclusion: there are two types of apologetics.  The first type of apologetics is one that seems to be aimed at encouraging believers.  All too often it is done by poking fun at and ridiculing other belief systems.  There is a dark tone to it and it seems to be telling believers that they should feel good about themselves because at least they are not like those atheists/Muslims/Jehovah’s Witnesses/etc.  Often counter-cult apologetics falls into this category.  There is a place for encouraging the believer but it does not have to be done at the expense of ridiculing others.  The second type of apologetics is that which seeks to build bridges to others.  It looks for areas of agreement and does not seek to argue every obscure point of doctrine.  It attempts, not to prove Christianity true, but to present Christianity as a reasonable faith that is worth consideration by the skeptic.  While I hope to encourage believers on this blog, I do not want to disrespectful to others (and I apologize if I have been).  However, my main concern is to build bridges to others and to equip believers to do the same in their own context.  Hopefully, the content of this blog will be helpful in that purpose.