Blog

Person of the Century

On X today, February 2, 2026, Charles Krauthammer nominates Winston Churchill for Person of the Twentieth Century.  I concur.

For Christmas a few years ago my daughter-in-law gave me Andrew Roberts’ Churchill biography.  I thanked her as follows.

March 7, 2020

Dear Mary,

I just finished Andrew Roberts’ Churchill and I want to say again, thanks!

It was quite a few years ago that I first realized how indebted we are to “the Greatest Generation,” and I have since then had a heightened interest in the history of the 50-year period prior to my birth in 1949.  One of my regrets is that I did not quiz my parents more closely about their experiences.

But now I realize for the first time the extent to which we owe our freedom and prosperity to one man.

Roberts concludes by saying (p 975) that if Hitler had delayed the Anschluss [the annexation of Austria] and Czech crises for a few years, Churchill’s moment would have passed.  Halifax would have become Prime Minister, and he would have sought, quite reasonably, to discover Hitler’s terms of peace.  Those terms might not have been very onerous, since all Hitler needed at that moment was a single front.  Churchill saw that if the Soviets were alone, they would more likely face defeat; whereupon there would be nothing to prevent Hitler from disavowing the settlement with England, who in turn, then, would also have been alone.  Then it would have been too late for the US to re-arm.

Churchill maintained that it was the British people who had the lion heart, and that he merely “had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.”  Roberts denies that: “[I]t was much more the case that Churchill had the lion heart and also gave the roar, and in so doing taught the British people to rediscover the latent lionheartedness in themselves.”  (p 980.) 

Whether one believes in Providence, as I do, we can only regard these things with gratitude and awe.

By the way, thanks, too, for the WhatsApp call the other day for Leona to chat with us.  So great to see her walking and flourishing as she is clearly doing in every way.  Thanks for thinking of us.

Love,

Tom

Just a Bystander

In his outstanding book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2d ed. 2017), Richard Bauckham observes that referring to the Jesus disciple who cut off an ear of the servant of the High Priest as “’one of those standing near’ (Mark 14:47) is an odd way to speak of one of the Twelve.”1  In the Gospel of John, we learn that it was Peter who wielded the sword; and Matthew and Luke, without naming Peter, do at least identify him as “one of Jesus’ companions” (Matt. 26:51), or as “one of . . . Jesus’ followers” (Luke 22:49-50).  Why is Mark being so cryptic here?

If you’re like me, you barely paused when you read that text for the umpteenth time.  But if you stop and think about it, it really does seem puzzling.  Who was this fellow who was “standing around?”  As John’s readers later find out, it wasn’t just some random stranger who assaulted the High Priest’s servant – it was Peter, for heaven’s sake!  Why not say so?

Citing Thiessen2, Bauckham offers a cogent explanation.  By assaulting the High Priest’s servant, Peter had placed himself in grave danger of arrest.  By withholding the name of the assailant, Mark sought to protect Peter from that danger.  This is a case of “protective anonymity.”  John could name Peter because John wrote at a time when Peter was beyond the reach of the High Priest (i.e., he had already been killed).

It happens that there are several other important figures in the drama of Christ’s Passion who are also anonymous in Mark.  There were the young man who left his robe and fled naked from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51); the woman who anointed Jesus with a jar of expensive perfume (Mark 14:3-9); the owners of the donkey Christ rode into the City (Mark 11:1-3); and the man who led the disciples to the upper room for the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-16).  Have you ever stopped to wonder why are all of these are unnamed in Mark?  By offering plausible resolutions to these mysteries, Bauckham strengthens our confidence in the accuracy of Mark’s narrative.

Bauckham proposes that in each of these instances Mark was acting to protect Jesus’ followers from reprisal by Christ’s enemies by keeping their identities secret.  In the case of the young man who abandoned his garment, presumably he could have retained it had he not been resisting arrest.  The owners of the donkey and the upper room also may have justly feared reprisal – it was not much later that a disciple of Jesus was murdered at the instance of the Jewish leaders (Acts 7); James, a leader of the early church, was later martyred (Acts 12:1-2); and an attempt was made on Peter’s life too (Acts 12:3).

But all of this shines a bright light on another mystery in Mark’s Gospel, namely, Peter’s denial of JC (also recorded in all three of the other Gospels).  Was this a deliberate betrayal?  Peter was now in the courtyard of the High Priest, whose servant Peter had assaulted a very short time earlier.  When he was challenged as a disciple of the accused, Peter, thinking only of himself and how he might avoid immediate arrest and possible execution, panicked, and he resorted to the only expedient immediately available to him, namely, concealing his relationship to Jesus.  It was only when the cock crew that he remembered his pledge.

It gives every believer immense comfort to know that Peter – even Peter – was later restored in his relationship to Jesus.  If that is possible, then there is also hope for me.

But that is not all!  As a bonus Bauckham’s insights afford us a means of establishing the early authorship of Mark and the entire New Testament.  In John’s Gospel the identities of the assailant and the woman who anointed Jesus are revealed.  As mentioned above, there is a cogent explanation for the difference between Mark and John.  John did not write until Peter and Mary had died and were thus beyond the reach of Christ’s enemies.  When would that have been?  Bauckham’s estimate: Mark would have written very early, probably between 30 A.D. and 60 A.D.  I would venture to say it would have been very much toward the earlier of those dates, since Paul’s letters were written prior to Mark, and Matthew, Luke, and Acts were all written after Mark but before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

ENDNOTES

1Bauckham, 184.

2Thiessen, The Gospels (186-187; apparently out of print).

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE A Comment

Thomas Alderman, November 29, 2025

All three Synoptic Gospels – Mark, Luke, and Matthew – contain Jesus’ discourse concerning future events, known as “the Olivet Discourse” because He delivered it while gazing from the Mount of Olives at the magnificent Herodian Temple across the Kidron Valley.

The Discourse poses a number of hermeneutical challenges, but one in particular causes some to stumble.  Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple.  He also predicts His own return “in clouds with great power and glory.”  But then He emphasizes that “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”  Manifestly, the generation living when Jesus spoke has been gone a long time – yet Christ has not returned.  Did Jesus make a mistake?  Or did the Gospel authors err in recording what He said?  And if He or they erred in this instance, where else might they have erred?  Is the New Testament reliable at all?

According to William L. Lane, author of the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) Book of Mark,1 “In the Gospel of Mark there is no passage more problematic than the prophetic discourse of Jesus on the destruction of the Temple.”2  Other scholars concur: Hans Bayer, Professor Emeritus, Covenant Theological Seminary, declares it to be “one of the more difficult things to understand in the Gospels.”  At the same time, since the Olivet prophesy is among the most difficult New Testament texts, its vindication, if that were possible, would be of interest to the honest seeker.  Many have therefore attempted to rescue the Discourse with various explanations as to how Jesus’ predictions could all have been true.  I set myself to understand those attempts in the hope of reaching an opinion on the question.

Continue reading “THE OLIVET DISCOURSE A Comment”

Timothy and William Paley

Readers of this blog have been favored with the observations of Lydia McGrew, detailing many “unintended coincidences” in the New Testament where otherwise unrelated narratives corroborate each other in surprising ways. (Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017); June 3, 2025 joshualetter post.)  McGrew is following in a venerable tradition, of which one of the earliest and greatest exponents was William Paley (1743-1805).  Today Paley is more famous for the revival of the argument for the existence of God from design in nature, but he deserves as much credit for his exposition of scripture.  Here is one of Paley’s unintended coincidences:

[W]hen I read, in the Acts of the Apostles, that when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, “behold a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess;” and when, in an epistle addressed to Timothy, I find him reminded of his “having known the holy scriptures from “a child,” which implies that he must, on one side or both, have been brought up by Jewish parents; I conceive that I remark a coincidence which shows, by its very obliquity, that scheme [collusion] was not employed in its formation. 

William Paley, Horae Paulinae (Hardpress 2017, Kindle Location 106.)

If collusion is excluded, and if several accounts are all compatible, the only plausible explanation is that the reason they are consistent is that they all reflect what actually took place.  And the greater the number of such accounts, and the more detailed they are, the greater our confidence in that conclusion.  At least equally important is the confidence which we thereby also gain in the reporters’ commitment to the truth generally.

Now, memory of the past can be lost, and the past can be misrepresented, but the past itself is fixed.  Some of it can be remembered, and some of it can even be documented.  For example, Lee Harvey Oswald either acted alone or he did not, and nothing we do or say today can alter the fact.  If an account exists which cannot be falsified, we consider that it may be true; but if there are several accounts of the same events and none of them separately, nor all of them together, can be falsified – that is, if combined they all describe a single, coherent set of facts – then absent collusion, our confidence in their veracity climbs, until we begin to say we know what took place.

That is what we find in the New Testament.

I hope to elaborate on that theme in these pages in the near future.  In the meantime, Gary Habermas helps us to appreciate the consistently singular quality of the NT writings:

 Arguably the best example here is the work of Sir William Ramsay, the famous archaeologist and professor at the universities of Oxford and Aberdeen at the turn of the twentieth century.  Trained in nineteenth-century German liberalism at the University of Tubingen and holding to those views, he was a noted archaeologist and authority on  the history of Asia Minor.  Through his excavation of this region, and contrary to his own opinions on the New Testament, he began to change his view concerning Luke, Paul, and Acts.  After decades of research in this area, expressed in several major books on these subjects, he had distinguished himself as perhaps the greatest authority of his day on these subjects.  To sum up his research, Ramsay concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”  [Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, Kindle Location 891, citing William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 4th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920), 222.]

Maybe it’s not so surprising that both Paul and Luke wrote about Timothy.  But this is merely one of a great proliferation of such examples demonstrating the truthfulness and the accuracy of the authors.  The impression of veracity will never be felt if all you do is look for anomalies.  No, one must look at the endlessly repeated instances of meticulous investigation, research, and reportage, and eventually realize, “All of this really happened!”  And then you realize, “I am free, glory to God!”

ps. Listen to “Who Is Theophylus?” with Shane Rosenthal of The Humble Skeptic at https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/who-is-theophilus

Archaeological Find Powerfully Supports the Gospel of Luke

Luke addressed both his Gospel and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles to one Theophilus – or in the case of the Gospel, to “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3), indicating he was a person of rank.  Scholars have debated for centuries who this personage may have been.  Now, the discovery of an artifact from First-Century Jerusalem may have solved the mystery.  What’s even more exciting is the light which the solution sheds on the meticulous accuracy of Luke’s accounts.

In 1983 archaeologists discovered an ossuary, a bone box, which bears the inscription, “Theophilus the High Priest and his granddaughter Joanna.”

The Jewish historian Josephus records that a Theophilus was the Jewish High Priest from A.D. 37-41.  Could Luke have been corresponding with the leader of the Jewish Sanhedrin?

The name of Joanna appears twice in the Bible.  First, at Luke 8:1-3, it is said that she was among those accompanying Jesus as He went from town to town preaching the Kingdom of God:

The Twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others.  These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

And at Luke 24:1-10, we see that Joanna was among the women who went to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning, thereby becoming one of the very first witnesses to the Resurrection:

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.  It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.  [vv. 9-10.]

But here is the really amazing part.  Luke 24, verses 8-11 constitutes a chiasm.  According to Google AI, a chiasm is

a literary device with a symmetrical structure, often described as an A-B-C-X-C’-B’-A’ pattern. It presents a concept and then repeats it in reverse order, creating a balanced and memorable structure. This structure highlights the central idea, which is typically found at the peak of the chiasm.

So here is the chiastic structure of Luke 24:8-11:

A: They remembered his words (v. 8)

B: The Eleven (v. 9)

C: The others (v. 9)

D: Mary Magdalene (v. 10)

X: Joanna (v. 10)

D’: Mary, mother of James (v. 10)

C’ The others (v. 10)

B’ The apostles (v. 10)

A’ They did not believe these words (v. 11)

The chiasm sends a message to the reader: This is important. Pay attention!

Renowned Bible scholar Richard Bauckham concludes that the appearance of Joanna’s name at the focus of the chiasm reflects Luke’s intention to emphasize her significance as a witness to the empty tomb.

It is also conceivable that Luke intended to send a personal message to Theophilus in particular – on the supposition, arguably, that the chiasm would have some special significance to him.  Thus, “Theophilus!  Your own granddaughter is a witness to the Resurrection!  If you have any questions, you may direct them to her.”  Perhaps Theophilus had a close, confidential relationship with Joanna, such that he might be highly likely to credit her testimony.  Perhaps Joanna, during an interview by Luke, encouraged him to address his Gospel to Theophilus.  Perhaps Theophilus then became one of that “great company of the priests,” referred to at Acts 6:7, who “were obedient to the faith.”

At a minimum, the chiasm and the possible connection between Joanna and Theophilus seem to reflect Luke’s meticulous research and attention to detail – a circumstance adding to the reader’s conviction of the historicity of the astonishing events which Luke recounts.[i], [ii]

[i]Incidentally, Luke employs chiasm again at Luke 24:13-35.  See https://www.chiasmusxchange.com/2015/04/02/luke-2413-28/.

[ii] Other sources: Frank Turek, Cross-Examined.org, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-6NeP7ENRk; Shane Rosenthal, “Luke’s Key Witness,” humbleskeptic.com, May 31, 2025, https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/joanna-an-obscure-disciple-or-lukes.

Hidden in Plain View

Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017).

INTRODUCTION

God has providentially, miraculously bestowed upon us many excellent proofs of the veracity of the authors of the Fourfold Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.  Indeed, the Gospels by every measure show themselves true.

Certainly one of the most important ways God has ordered things so as to assure us of His Word, has been to provide not just one detailed account of Jesus’ ministry, but four accounts.  Trial lawyers know quite well that whenever two or more witnesses testify about the same event, it will be nearly impossible for either of them, if false, to escape detection if he is subjected to skilled cross-examination.  That is because a manufactured account by definition will clash with what actually happened.

By the same token, if two witnesses to the same event are both truthful, each of their accounts will match reality; and matching reality, they will not be contradictory, though in many cases they might differ in a number of respects.  They will fit together like pieces of a puzzle and will constitute a single coherent account.  What’s more, the very differences in their accounts will often be such as to rule out collusion.

One consequence of this is that if the testimonies of two witnesses are compatible, then barring collusion, one may be relatively confident that one has uncovered the truth.  If one has four witnesses whose testimony is compatible, truth is virtually guaranteed.

In regard to the earlier comment about skilled cross-examination, it must not be overlooked that the Gospel accounts have been subjected to two thousand years of withering cross-examination by biblical scholars, lawyers, historians, and archeologists, and have never been falsified.  To the contrary, the more we have learned about Jesus from extra-biblical sources, the more thoroughly the Gospels themselves have been vindicated.

Of course a profusion of witnesses also entails a greater chance of inconsistencies among them, or seeming inconsistencies.  This is to be expected, even if the witnesses are truthful.  Two witnesses will almost never give identical accounts.  If they did, one would immediately suspect collusion.  But depending on the complexity of the subject of their testimony, two truthful witnesses will almost always describe events somewhat differently.  They may have observed different aspects of the same event, or they may have observed from different locations.  But despite such differences, their testimonies will match reality, and, matching reality, upon careful consideration they will also be seen to match each other, providing the investigator with heightened confidence that the truth has become known.

One early proponent of the integrity of the Gospel accounts was William Paley (1743-1805), who observed that “. . . [P]erfection is no accident.  It is the effect of truth.  Nothing but truth can preserve consistency.”

Now quite recently another biblical scholar has examined the Gospels with this principle in view.  Philosopher Lydia McGrew, in Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017), shows that the four Gospel narratives, by providing differing accounts of many of the same events, corroborate each other in surprising detail, negate collusion, and amplify the conviction of the authors’ honesty and accuracy.  McGrew provides 41 examples from the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles, one of which I propose to discuss here: Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000.

WOE TO YOU, BETHSAIDA!

At Matthew 11:20-24, the Evangelist says that “Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.  “Woe to you Korazin!  Woe to you, Bethsaida!” Jesus said.  “If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”   Why did Jesus denounced woe upon Bethsaida?  What “mighty acts” did he perform there?

Matthew doesn’t tell us – there is no other reference to Bethsaida anywhere else in Matthew.   We must turn to the Gospel of Luke.  Luke 9:10 says that when the apostles returned from their missionary journey, Jesus took them to Bethsaida, and the crowds followed Him there.  Jesus preached to them and healed them, and later that day He miraculously fed the 5,000.  Is that what Matthew was talking about?  Yes it is.  But neither Matthew nor Luke tell us anything about the people failing to repent.

We keep looking.  Go to the Gospel of John, Chapter 6.  After feeding the 5,000, Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee, and the people followed Him.  When they found Him, He told them, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.”  John 6:26.

So what do we have?  Luke tells us about the feeding of the 5,000; Matthew tells us where that was done; John tells us of the people’s deplorable spiritual condition: rather than lament their sin, the people are only concerned about their appetites.  And Matthew records the denunciation of woe.  Each Evangelist provides a part of the story, but they all mesh together perfectly to provide one complete and coherent account.

Now, Mark also records the feeding of the 5,000, but he doesn’t record the location, or the people’s motives, or the denunciation of woe.  This shows that Matthew, Luke and John are independent of Mark.  The differences among them, in turn, also tend to negate collusion.

But there is more!  Why did Jesus, at John 6:5, ask Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?”

He did it to test him, of course; but it was natural for Jesus to ask Philip.  Why?  John 1:43-44, which records Jesus’ initial call to Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathaniel, just happens to mention that Philip, Andrew, and Peter were all from Bethsaida!

And even more.  Three Gospels mention the fact that there was grass in the place where the feeding of the five thousand took place (Mark 6.39, Matt 14.19, John 6.10), but only Mark emphasizes its color: “Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass.” Does the color of the grass matter?  It may not affect the nature of the miracle Jesus was about to perform, but it does enable us to fit the several accounts together.  John 6:4 states, “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” It was springtime!  And Mark, describing also the feeding of the 4,000, shows that Jesus “told the crowd to sit down [not on the grass, but] on the ground.”  This enables us to distinguish the feeding of the 4,000 from the feeding of the 5,000, establishing that they were probably two separate miracles.

CONCLUSION

Why are there four Gospels?

It takes very little faith, in my opinion, to recognize divine Providence in the fact that we have four independent records of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.  It would be difficult to think of a more powerful means for God to use to ensure that His Truth would become known, than a multiplicity of detailed accounts.

As noted earlier, McGrew has provided dozens more examples of “unintended coincidences” showing the NT text to be richer than many of us realized.  My favorites include Jesus before Pilate and Joseph’s tomb.  For an enjoyable and encouraging read, I heartily recommend it.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

– Jesus (John 5:24)

Be Ready!

Apologetics Tools are now available!

Here are concise summaries of several recent posts to joshualetter, designed to be easily remembered so as to equip believers to be ready to address many of the concerns often raised by those who are seeking the truth.

Suggestions welcome!

SEVEN PRACTICAL APOLOGETICS TOOLS

1. The pioneers of modern science were virtually all Christians and were scientists specifically because of their religious beliefs.  In particular, they were scientists because they believed in a rational God who created an intelligible universe and man as a rational being capable of comprehending that universe.  For more information, see Thomas Alderman, Science and Religion: Exploding the Myth of Conflict, (a five-part series)(go to www.joshualetter.com and search for “exploding”).

2. The universe had a beginning and must therefore have had a cause outside itself.  That cause had to be timeless, immaterial, and inconceivably powerful.  More info: joshualetter.com, subject index: The Cosmological Argument for God.

3. The laws of physics are incomprehensibly fine-tuned for life.  The most plausible explanation (if not the only plausible explanation) is that they were intended to be that way by a cosmic designer.  More info: joshualetter.com, subject index: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe.

4. Objective moral values exist.  The most plausible explanation is that they are rooted in the character of a good Creator.  More info: joshualetter.com, subject index: The Moral Argument for God.

5. Jesus’ disciples were transformed by His post-Resurrection appearances from cowering fugitives to fearless evangelists.  Many of them died for their proclamation; none recanted.  The best explanation is that they truly encountered the risen Christ.  More info: joshualetter.com, search field, “minimal facts.”

6. The authors of the New Testament were honest and had ready access to the eyewitnesses of the events in the life of Jesus.  More info: joshualetter.com, search for “honesty.”

7. While it is true that many errors were introduced into the New Testament in the course of being manually copied, scholars have succeeded in identifying and correcting virtually all of those errors – as even skeptical New Testament scholars have acknowledged.  More info: joshualetter.com, search for “recovery.”

Find this helpful? Share it with your friends!

Questions? Contact us at:  

editor.joshualetter@thomasowensalderman.com

What About Laplace’s Protoplanetary Disc?

Today I was thinking about one of the arguments for naturalism (atheism) that I discussed in a recent oral presentation.

Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) was a French scholar who contributed to the eclipse of theistic science in the 19th Century by observing that the origin of the solar system could be explained mechanically.  Under the force of gravity, a “proto-planetary disc” formed, and as it collapsed and became denser and denser, it clumped together, forming a system of star and planets.

My only comment at that time was that that was all very fine, but where did Laplace suppose the gravity came from?

And that, of course, remains a perfectly good critique; but today it dawned on me that there is a lot more that can be said.  Readers of this blog know about stellar nucleosynthesis, whereby the elements of the periodic table (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, iron, chromium, etc., etc.) are by-products of the fusion reactions still taking place in the stars.  When the stars reach the end of their life cycle, they collapse and explode, spreading these elements into space, where they become the material for another generation of stars, which continue the process.  Eventually all 90 naturally-occurring elements are formed and spread abroad in space.  It was those materials which formed Laplace’s proto-planetary disc, which became our sun and our home, the Earth.

They also became our food source.

What is even more wonderful is that as that magnificent cosmic process produced our planet, it at the same time assembled all the elements we need for all our bodily functions; and we take those nutrients into ourselves whenever we consume plants grown in the soil or the animals that consume them.

Now, while the majority of our bodies are made up of common elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, some “exotic” elements are present in trace amounts: silicon, fluoride, iron, zinc, copper, lithium, manganese, iodine, cobalt, chromium, selenium, and molybdenum.  In large proportions many of these elements would be extremely toxic to us, but are required in very small quantities for proper bodily function.  And that is what we have: lots of carbon for our muscles and bones, and trace amounts of copper, zinc, selenium, and iron, essential for healthy hearts. Why did stellar nucleosynthesis produce all the elements in exactly the right proportions that we needed in order to thrive?

And there is more!  Our planet has a surfeit of iron and uranium, much more than is typical of most planets.  And it’s a good thing, too, as it is the molten iron core of our planet which produces the magnetic field which surrounds the Earth and deflects the solar wind which otherwise would strip away our atmosphere, and it is the uranium whose decay produces the heat that keeps that iron core molten so that it can circulate and produce that magnetic shield!

Glory to God!

Post Withdrawn

In July 2024 I published in these pages a review of Michael Licona’s recent book, Jesus, Contradicted, in which he advocates for the theory that the Gospels are instances of an ancient form of historiography which tolerated and even encouraged writers generally (that is, whether secular or sectarian) to slightly misrepresent facts when to do so would “improve” the text.  I am removing that post.  I am doing so with some sadness, as I have been and remain a Licona fan.

But I just finished reading Lydia McGrew’s The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices.  McGrew convincingly challenges Licona’s thesis on many grounds.  It may be fair to say that the controversy has to do mostly with a difference among scholars as to the lengths to which they are willing to go in order to harmonize Gospel texts which on their surface appear to contradict each other.  McGrew might go to great lengths to do so; Licona, not so much.

I may or may not attempt a review of McGrew’s book.  In the meantime, I do highly recommend it.  If you read it, you may understand why I am withdrawing Licona: I’m not comfortable leaving the review of Licona up without some kind of disclaimer, but I’m also not comfortable writing a disclaimer that doesn’t do justice to both Licona and McGrew, and I think that could take a very long time.  Indeed, I think it must be the case that this controversy will continue to be hotly contested at the highest levels of scholarship, in which case I’ll be better off on the sidelines for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, I do recommend McGrew – and Licona too, as long as you commit to reading McGrew soon after.

Of course there are scores of reviews of both Licona and McGrew on Amazon – almost all glowing.  I believe you’ll be encouraged by McGrew’s vindication of a high view of the integrity of the Gospel accounts.