In case you were curious, the horse pictured is not the actual Trojan horse, just a replica for chubby tourists to stick their heads out of. There is actually no real evidence of Homer’s epic battle actually happening, but considering it happened some 3000 years ago that is no surprise. There were also something like seven versions of the city of Troy. They just kept building on top of the location. Our guide said there was evidence of a big battle at some point (though he didn’t know what the evidence was).

The city was pretty ingeniously defended though. They had huge 12 foot stone walls that sloped slightly to give people situated on top an easy angle to attack anyone who might try to climb. On top of the 12 foot stone walls, a wall of clay was built with holes in it for archers.

The main entrance ramp

There was a huge main entrance with a big ramp leading up to it, but in the case of invasion it would have been closed and relatively easy to defend. The best idea I thought were the side entrances. These were smaller and probably very heavily trafficked. To deter invaders they built walls on either side like a hallway and then a sharp turn to get to the door. This prevented anyone from being able to easily maneuver a battering ram in there. Even if they did get it in there, they couldn’t make the sharp turn to use the battering ram because of the wall behind them.

The side entrance to the ancient city of Troy

So if you were under the impression that people in ancient times were not as smart, how many of you would have come up with that idea?

Paul did not write the book of Romans.

Actually I don’t really think Paul wrote most of those so called “epistles.” It’s all there in Romans 16:22. A guy named Tertius wrote the book of Romans.

Alright, so it really isn’t as controversial as I make out. More that likely Tertius was just Paul’s amanuensis. That means someone who writes what someone else dictates, like a stenographer. Paul was very educated or so he thought in Galatians 1:14. He more than likely knew at least four languages and probably wrote his own copy of the Hebrew Bible while he was studying in Jerusalem. So he was more than capable of writing all 13 of the epistles attributed to him. But he was also a very busy man as you see in 2 Corinthians 11:24-28. So to help him out one of his disciples wrote down as he dictated, Tertius being the lucky guy to write Romans.

You would probably be correct in assuming that most of Paul’s letters were dictated to an amanuensis. It seemed to be a common practice to dictate letters, but allow the author to write the last few lines themselves as a sort of signature. You can see this at the end of many of Paul’s other letters such as 2 Thessalonians 3:17 and Colossians 4:18 and 1 Corinthians 16:21. This would have authenticated the source, as well as made it more personal. Similar to the modern day practice of checking to see if the signature in a salutation was written by hand with a pen or printed on there.

Tertius is never mentioned again in the Scriptures. His name means “third son” which have caused many to think that Quartus (“fourth son” from Romans 16:23) might have been his little brother. Both being the children of uncreative parents. But Tertius does have one thing going for him. I (heretically) imagine people discussing the books of Romans in heaven and Tertius just sitting back saying, “Oh did you like that…cause I wrote it you know.”

References:

• ISBE
• Holman Bible Dictionary
• Romans 16:22-23
• 1 Corinthians 16:21
• 2 Corinthians 11:24-28
• Galatians 1:14
• Colossians 4:18
• 2 Thessalonians 3:17

• The Acts of Paul and Thecla, a 2nd century apocryphal book, described the Apostle Paul as small in size, bald-headed, bow-legged (or bandy-legged), with meeting eyebrows and a large, red and somewhat hooked nose. See image at right.

• Paul had at least one sister according to Acts 23:16

• He knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and probably Latin.

• As a Roman Citizen he likely had a first middle and last name. The first two would have been common to the family. The third was his personal name which was Pallus. Greek writers would have only recorded Paul though since they likely had little understanding of Latin and the three name system. Saul was his Jewish name.

• It is probable that the Apostle Paul was not around in Jerusalem during Jesus’ ministry since he is never mentioned. Rabbis were supposed to have a trade in order to support themselves. After learning from Gamaliel in Jerusalem, he probably went back to Tarsus. He would have practiced his father’s trade of tent making and then gone back to Jerusalem (sometime after Christ’s death or close to), maybe to join the Sanhedrin.

• More than likely Paul was married since parenthood was a requirement to be a candidate for the Sanhedrin and Jews did not usually remain celibate. His wife may have died early since there is no mention of her.

• Paul rarely quotes Jesus directly. Some of these instances are found in Acts 20:35 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

• Paul did not jump directly into his missionary journeys. He spent three years in Arabia after his conversion and then went to Jerusalem for fifteen days. From there he went back home to Tarsus and lived there for about eight or nine years. Then Barnabus tracked him down and asked Paul to be a leader of a Christian church in Antioch, which he did for a full year. Approximately fourteen years after his conversion, the Apostle Paul finally embarked on his first documented missionary journey.

Pilate does not benefit from a huge amount of ancient evidence outside of the Bible. The first reference we have of him is from the historian Tacitus in one of the popular extra-biblical references to Jesus. It just says that Christ was “put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” There was also a stone with Pilate’s name carved in it found in the 60s which is the only archaeological evidence of Pilate with his title in the New Testament (prefect).

Then we have various stories from Josephus about Pilate’s failure to effectively deal with the religious society that was Judea. In one story, Pilate used sacred treasure to pay for aqueducts to bring water into Jerusalem. When a crowd gathered to protest, Pilate ordered some soldiers to dress in civilian clothes and sneak into the crowd. When Pilate gave the signal, the soldiers turned on the crowd and beat them until they scattered.

According to Josephus, Pilate’s downfall was when a Samaritan man claimed to be able to show the Samaritans where Moses hid some sacred vessels. When a large group assembled to climb the mountain where they were hidden, Pilate’s calvary attacked them and many were killed. The Samaritans complained to the legate of Syria, Vitellius, that Pilate was guilty of murder. Vitellius removed Pilate from office and ordered him to travel to Rome to stand trial under the emperor Tiberius. During his journey to Rome Tiberius died, so Pilate escaped judgment in the confusion.

That is the last somewhat credible source we have on Pilate. There are various later writings from the 3rd to 5th century where the stories of his suicide come from. That story says that Pilate arrived to stand trial in front of the emperor wearing Jesus’ seamless robe from John 19:23-24. Because Pilate was wearing the robe, Caesar could not say a harsh word to him. However it was later taken off of Pilate and the emperor sentenced him to death. Pilate didn’t wait and committed suicide.

While it would be a nice sermon additive to say that the anguish over allowing Jesus’ crucifixion was too much for Pilate, we just do not have enough credible evidence that this is true.

Jesus did have one more secret. The most notable instance of what is called the Messianic Secret is found in Mark 8:27-30. Jesus instructs His disciples not to reveal to anyone that He is the Messiah. Jesus also requests this occasionally from people He heals such as in Mark 1:43-44 or Mark 5:43. He also commands demons to be quiet and not speak His name in Mark 1:34 and in Mark 3:12. Almost every instance of Jesus requesting secrecy is found in the Gospel of Mark, though Matthew and Luke both mention it at least once.

In the early 1900s, Wilhelm Wrede wrote a book about the Messianic Secret and claimed that it was added by Mark after the fact. He claims that Jesus did not ever think He was the Messiah and that Mark (and the rest of the NT authors) sensationalized Jesus and made Him into Messiah. Wrede claims Mark added the Messianic Secret in an attempt to give a reason for why Jesus was not accepted by many as Messiah until after His death. I do not believe that any legitimate Biblical scholars hold to this idea, but it was a very popular idea amongst critics.

So why was it that Jesus tried to keep His identity a secret? We can preface this by saying that Jesus became more willing to publicly identify Himself as Messiah later in His ministry. Also remember that those He heals and commands not to speak of His identity, disregard it and tell others about Him anyways like the former leper in Mark 1:40-45.

Here are a few reasons why Jesus might have been somewhat secretive about His identity:

1. The most common answer is that a publicly broadcast declaration would have made Him into a militant figure. Many think that the expected Savior was to be the Savior we know of in Revelation who wipes out entire armies. Claiming to be Messiah yet not restoring Israel to prominence was problematic for many, so He would be labeled as a heretic. The religious leaders would have had direct evidence to convict and kill Jesus much earlier had He done this. We would miss out on most of His teaching. Imagine how much shorter the Gospels would have been if He announced it first thing and then was killed.
2. Another reason He was secretive could be to downplay His affect on the purely physical things. Jesus tells both demons and those He healed to be silent because curing physical ailments was not His primary goal. For example, do you get everything fixed your mechanic recommends or do you just try to patch it up so your car runs for tomorrow?
3. If Jesus began His ministry claiming Himself as Messiah, He would have had nothing else to back it up. I bet David Koresh of the Branch Davidians would have had a little more clout if he had performed countless miracles before he declared himself Messiah. We can look back at Jesus’ teaching and miracles and see that they are consistent with what the Messiah should look like.
4. I think a good final reason is explained by Jesus Himself in Mark 4:10-12. Jesus wanted people to be able to choose Him and determine from their own hearts and minds if He was Messiah. Of course how that free will balances with God’s sovereignty is a whole other Bible study.

This is not an exhaustive list of reasons at all. Feel free to leave some other possible reasons in the comments. Some theologians even think Mark crafted his gospel around the Messianic Secret. The first half Mark is allowing the reader to identify whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. And after Mark 8 when the disciples identify Him as Messiah, Mark shows us what kind of Messiah He was and how one might follow Him.

Jesus was not at all silent about being the Messiah, but it is obvious that He seemed to avoid projecting that out there to the entire world at certain times. Besides if everyone already knew for sure He was Messiah, what are Christians supposed to do after His death? Just show up and tithe?

References:

• Commentary on Mark (PDF)
• Commentary on Matthew (PDF)
• On Mark’s “Messianic Secret” Motif
• The Messianic Secret in Mark

The basic idea is that the Gospel writers probably used sources in order to write their Gospels, otherwise they chance forgetting stuff. These sources could have been written, oral, divinely-inspired and their own memory. Mark seems to be the first Gospel written since almost all of it is incorporated into the other two Gospels. While Matthew and Luke have quite a few similarities, they also have huge chunks that are totally unique to themselves. So the question is where they got those 250 verses that they have in common? One of the proposed answers is Q.

It is very coincidental that the verses that Matthew and Luke have in common are mostly sayings of Jesus. Many scholars think that the first and third Gospels used Mark’s Gospel as a reference, but also a document that listed sayings of Jesus, which has become nicknamed Q. There is no archaeological evidence that Q (short for German quelle meaning source) ever existed. There is only one potential reference in all of ancient literature and it is very weak. A 4^th century historian named Eusebius quotes a very early church father named Papias who live from about 80 to 155 AD. Papias said “Matthew composed the logia (translated sayings or Gospel?) in the hebraidi (translated Hebrew or Aramaic?) dialect.” Some people think that this reference is to Matthew’s Gospel which was possibly written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Others think that this is a reference to a compilation of sayings written in Aramaic.

It would be logical for the early church to have a compilation of Jesus’ sayings for a few reasons. Q would have been good material to give to new converts for memorization. If Jesus wanted His words remembered He probably spoke poetically just like the Old Testament prophets. And many of the sayings that are similar in Matthew and Luke are written poetically. While some of the sayings are nearly verbatim between the two Gospels, there are others that only resemble each other, such as the Beatitudes. However Matthew, a Jew, would have used an Aramaic version of Q whilst Luke, a Greek, would have used the Greek translation.

While it is not impossible for Q to exist, remember that not only has there never been a manuscript found, but it is never definitively referenced by any ancient author. If you are still concerned with Matthew and Luke sharing these 250 verses, you might seek other solutions with other hypotheses. While I might appear confident that Mark was the first Gospel, until the 17^th century it was universally held that Matthew was the first.

There are a huge amount of other theories that should be considered, but I won’t address them here since I’m already confused. You might start by investing in a book with the four Gospels parallel to each other.

References:

• Synoptic Problem Summary (PDF)
• Possible Contents of Q
• In-depth Look at the Gospels
• The Synoptic Problem
• Ten Reasons to Question Q
• More info related to Q than you will probably read

Prepare yourself for a new big word. The practice of pseudepigraphy became quite common in the 2^nd century. Pseudepigraphy is the act of writing a book or letter and naming one of the Apostles as the author of the piece you just wrote. There are numerous examples of this such as The Gospel of Peter or the Apocalypse of Peter. Both of these books claim that Peter was the author, yet the internal evidence and the external evidence show that it is not consistent with Peter’s other writings and that the early church did not accept these as a part of Scripture. There is a very large amount of people today who say that the Apostle Peter did not write the book of 2^nd Peter, but that it was probably written by someone else claiming to be him sometime in the 2^nd century after all the Apostles had died.

One of the main reasons for the doubts surrounding 2^nd Peter is the lack of quotations by early church fathers. Though a few of the early church fathers do quote the epistle, 2nd Peter is quoted the least of all the books in the New Testament. Origen obviously believed in the authenticity of 2^nd Peter since he is the first to quote it by name and goes on to quote the epistle six times, but he did say that there were people who had doubts about it. There are a few earlier quotations by authors like Justin Martyr and Clement that appear to be from 2^nd Peter, but the book is not named. If this book is a victim of pseudepigraphy, it needed to be written and to have gained a wide acceptance before these early church fathers could be aware. Since Justin Martyr died around 165 AD it seems unlikely that there would have been enough time for this “scam” to have established itself as fact.

Another thing that anyone can notice is the big differences in the style and content of 1^st and 2^nd Peter. In 2^nd Peter, the author refers to himself as Simon Peter while in 1^st Peter he leaves out the Simon part. Of the 543 words in 1^st Peter and the 399 in 2^nd Peter, there are only 153 in common (in the Greek not your NIV). There are some similarities as well, such as the phrase “May grace and peace be multiplied to you” and the theme of the second coming of the Lord is dominate in both. Many people attribute the style differences to Peter using a different amanuensis or scribe for the second letter.

It is no secret that the book of 2^nd Peter has had a rough time fitting in with its peers. This is not the only time we have talked about 2 Peter and I can promise you that it won’t be the last. Even though there are a lot of questions surrounding the authenticity of 2^nd Peter, there is probably too much evidence supporting it to just write it off. I have in no way (as usual) covered all of the aspects of this interesting debate so I encourage you to read up and decide for yourself. And if you think you know who owns the fish, send me your answer.

Thanks to Seth for helping me recover this article from the abyss that is the internet.

References:

• The Authenticity of 2nd Peter (PDF)
• The Authenticity and Authorship of 2nd Peter

When researching this passage more, you’ll often find it referred to as the pericope adulterae, meaning “the passage of the adulterous woman”. This passage is an interesting one because more than likely it was not included in the original text written by John. As your parenthetical comments probably say, most of the very early manuscripts do not contain the pericope. Many of the manuscripts before the sixth century that do contain it, place it in a different location. Some have it after John 7:36 or John 7:44 or John 21:25. A few scholars believe the style resembles Luke’s writing more than John’s, which could explain one manuscript that places it after Luke 21:38. Still other manuscripts contain the passage where your Bible does, but mark it with an asterisk. You also might want to know that no early church father quotes it for at least 600 years after Christ and early verse-by-verse commentaries skip it and move on to 8:12. Try reading that part of John and omit the pericope. It actually seems to flow better since John 7:52 is some what of a cliffhanger.

The proponents of the pericope point out that over 900 newer manuscripts do include it. There is also speculation that the passage was written by John but removed early by insecure husbands who thought the passage might embolden their wives to commit adultery. After all, humans are historically very good at manipulating the Bible for their convenience (see basically all of church history). Giddy-up.

Most every smart guy today though recognizes that the evidence against pericope adulterae is too much. Of course the question we must then ask is, where did it come from and is it to be considered “inspired”? The overwhelming majority are of the opinion that this was not in the original text but perhaps was an accurate, yet oral tradition that never made it in writing. In an attempt to preserve this story, it was inserted into John’s gospel, which might explain the varied locations in different manuscripts. So what do you think…would you teach on this passage? It does (at least to me) show Jesus doing something quite unexplained and potentially quirky, but a good teacher can come up with a number of explanations why Jesus would write on the ground. After all, He had man hands.

References:

• John 7:53-8:11
• NET Bible Commentary
• A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

The most well known of the “lost books” of the New Testament were written by Paul to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, we find out that this is not Paul’s first correspondence with the Christians of Corinth. Paul founded the Church there in Acts 18:1-11 and then stayed in Corinth for a year and a half. Sometime after that and before writing 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote the actual first letter to the Corinthians. Looking further we see that not only was there one lost letter, but 2 Corinthians 2:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-12 indicates a second lost letter. Some think that these verses only point to 1 Corinthians, but the timeline seems to indicate that it is a fourth letter. In 2 Corinthians, Paul references a visit that was painful, yet it was apparently short enough not to be mentioned in Acts. This painful visit is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians, so it was likely made sometime after. So in reality our 1 and 2 Corinthians should really be known as 2 and 4 Corinthians. Some argue that since 2 Corinthians does not have a good flow and is very choppy that maybe these lost letters were combined into the one book.

In Colossians 4:16, Paul recommends that they read a letter from the Church at Laodicea. This could possibly be a reference to another non-extant letter or it maybe referencing another book. It is possible that the book of Ephesians was not written specifically and exclusively to the Church at Ephesus, but that is another story for another time. Paul does not say the letter to Laodicea, but the letter from Laodicea. He may have just been referring to a letter that Laodicea had in their possession, possibly the one we now know as Ephesians. And while we are at it, check out Ephesians 3:3. Some think that this is another reference to a lost epistle, but more than likely it is an internal reference to Ephesians 1:9-10. You might also speculate whether or not 3 John 1:9 refers to one of John’s known writings (Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation) or another letter.

One more reference worth noting is Jude 1:14-15. Here Jude quotes, though not verbatim, the Book of Enoch, which is not included in the canon. Enoch, as seen in Genesis 5:18-24, is the great-grandfather of Noah and is one of the two people in the Old Testament who did not die. There are actually three books attributed to Enoch, but most scholars believe that someone else wrote them and used his name or in bigger words, it is pseudepigraphal. Jude quotes roughly from the first of the books of Enoch in Enoch 1:9 which says:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Jude is probably not unique in his usage of an outside non-Biblical source as Luke 1:1-4 implies that Luke used many outside sources to make his gospel accurate and thorough.

Some may use the missing books as an excuse to label the Bible as incomplete, but even though other things were written by Jews in Old Testament times, Jesus, who knows what’s inspired, sees fit to only quote those we have canonized. This must mean that some writings just don’t have what it takes. I wonder if God has to explain to Paul, “No offense, those other letters weren’t bad, but I’ve seen better.”

References:

• The Book of Enoch
• Are there Lost Books of the Bible?
• 1 Corinthians 5:9
• 2 Corinthians 2:3-4 ; 2 Corinthians 7:8-12
• Acts 18:1-11
• Colossians 4:16
• Ephesians 1:9-10 ; Ephesians 3:3
• 3 John 1:9
• Jude 1:14-15
• Genesis 5:18-24

Well that does in fact seem to be the case for two Holy Spirit-inspired Biblical authors named Matthew and Mark. There are two instances when Matthew and Mark quote the Old Testament and then seemingly attribute the quote to the wrong author. Matthew’s “error” can be found in Matthew 27:9-10 while he is showing that Judas fulfills OT prophecy by throwing his betrayal payment back into the Temple. It seems that Matthew is quoting Zechariah 11:12-13, yet he attributes the quotation to Jeremiah. Mark’s instance comes in Mark 1:2-3 where he is validating the ministry of John the Baptist with OT scripture that says a messenger will come before Messiah. Mark gives a shout out to Isaiah for this, though the quote he writes seems to be a combination of Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Mark’s quotation is the only Old Testament reference inserted by himself in the entire book. All the other OT references in Mark are when Jesus is speaking, so maybe we could give Mark a pass for inexperience, but come on Matthew, you should know better.

Remember when looking at OT quotes that many of the NT authors used the Septuagint as their reference. The Septuagint is not the basis for our translation of the Old Testament today (as discussed here), so many of the references do not match up word for word. Even though the Septuagint varies in some ways from our OT, usually it is quite simple to determine which verse the author is referencing. The Matthew error might even be explained by the difference in the order of books in his Bible compared to ours.

At some point Jeremiah was the first book in the section of the Hebrew Bible devoted to the prophets. Since Zechariah was also in the prophets section, some think that Matthew just referenced Jeremiah because it was the defining book of the section. Of course there is not much evidence that the Book of Jeremiah had the number one spot in the prophets section when Matthew was writing and he does not appear to quote closely enough the words of Zechariah. So maybe Matthew really does want us to look at the Book of Jeremiah.

It is possible that Matthew was pointing us to Jeremiah 19:1-13. This passage speaks of Israel’s rejection of God for other gods and Jeremiah breaks the potter’s flask, foreshadowing God’s reaction. It seems to be a very close parallel to what was happening in Matthew’s time. In Jeremiah 18:11 we have a promise from God that he will destroy the nation that rejects him and ironically after Israel rejects Jesus, they are defeated and exiled a few years later in 70 AD.

Matthew’s combining a reference to Jeremiah with some of the verbiage of Zechariah leads many to think that Matthew may have seen the condemnation of Christ as another instance in a long history of Israel rejecting God. The practice of combining quotes and attributing the more notable author may not seem so strange since it is also found in Mark 1:2-3.

Mark’s quote, attributed to Isaiah, does not seem to be just one verse, but a combination of Isaiah 40:3 , Malachi 3:1 and maybe even Exodus 23:20. The idea of the messenger being in the wilderness and making a straight path for the Lord may have been Mark’s more important point which is why he credits Isaiah. Yet he didn’t want to leave out the fact that it was also a fulfillment of what Malachi said. He also could have only said Isaiah because he was a more well-known prophet.

Although bibliographies and footnotes are done a little different today, what we might notice with these two verses is that the events of the Gospels resonated with the whole of the Old Testament not just certain parts. It was a continuation and the pinnacle of God’s plan for mankind.

References:

• Matthew 27:9-10
• Zechariah 11:12-13
• Mark 1:2-3
• Isaiah 40:3
• Malachi 3:1
• Jeremiah 19:1-13
• Exodus 23:20
• Soniclight Commentary on Matthew (PDF)
  
• Soniclight Commentary on Mark (PDF)
• The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible