Amid the pragmatic banners that graced the Times was a third headline, prominently displayed dead center atop the front page: "Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact." The subtitle added, "Many Flee Homes to Escape 'Gas Raid From Mars' -- Phone Calls Swamp Police at Broadcast of Wells Fantasy."
Luke's introduction is reminiscent of the tag line that introduced the 1974 movie, Macon County Line: "It shouldn't have happened. It couldn't have happened. But it did." Actually, it didn't happen. The film's story was fiction. But many took the tag line at face value and believed the movie to be based on facts.We learn from I Kings 9:27 that Hirams servants "fetched" 420 talents of gold for Solomon. The number is 450 talents of gold in II Chronicles 8:18. At least one of the two accounts is an error.
According to the biblical account of the Exodus, some 3 million 1 Hebrews trekked from Egypt to the Promised Land. According to historians, the entire population of Egypt was 3 million to 4 million at the time of the Exodus. (Some historians suspect the population may have been as high as 6 million. Either way, the biblical estimation — concurred by the Book of Numbers — is painfully unrealistic. It certainly is not historically accurate.)
Equally incredible is the rapid population growth of the Hebrews while in Egyptian captivity. Based on information provided in Genesis 46:27, a mere seventy Hebrews originally found refuge in Egypt.2 It is not reasonable to believe the Hebrew population grew to 3 million in four centuries.
If we use Stephen's higher number of 75 original Hebrews in Egypt (Acts 7:14), we find the tribe would have doubled twelve times in four hundred years. For comparison, note the world population has doubled less than four times during the explosive past four centuries, from about half a billion in 1600 to 6 billion in 2000. In antiquity, population growth was much slower. From the time Abraham is said to have lived (about 2000 BCE) to the life of Israel's King David (1000 BCE), the world population grew about 43 percent, from around 35 million to 50 million.
More telling is the census taken by King David. It reveals a population of four million; a 25 percent increase in about five centuries (II Samuel 24:9). Interestingly, the Jewish population of Israel was about 5.4 million in the first decade of our century, according to the CIA.3
To believe the Hebrew population grew by 4,000,000 percent during four hundred years of captivity in Egypt goes beyond the pale of rational thinking.
In short, Blomberg's bold statement that "theology has to flow from accurate history" should be revisited. This is particularly true considering the Apostle Paul's equally bold statement that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." Did God inspire errors?
Consider, for example, that John's gospel records Jesus' last words: "[H]e said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit." Luke records different words as Jesus' last: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost."
Both cannot be historically accurate.
Land of the outlandish
The gospels contain no "outlandish flourishes" according to Blomberg. That, he says, attests to their accuracy.
Many would disagree. Here are a few of the examples that will provide evidence for "outlandish flourishes" and will testify against the case for Christ.
Reasonable, objective readers would consider the following quote from Matthew 27:52; 53 to be an outlandish flourish. Matthew says that immediately after the death of Jesus "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Is the above quote accurate history? Or is it an outlandish flourish?
What about the appearing of Moses and Elijah to Jesus? Is that an outlandish flourish? Or is it accurate history as the apologists insist?
"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." (Matthew 17:3)
Is it an outlandish flourish or an historical fact that Jesus literally defied the laws of nature and walked on the sea?
"So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid" (John 6:19).
Good fiction sounds authentic
Blomberg is also defends the gospels by insisting they were written in a "sober and responsible fashion." Note that the Wells' War of the Worlds was presented in a sober fashion. And responsible? At least Wells had the decency to include disclaimers citing the story's fictional content.
Again, the introduction to the movie, Macon County Line, was convincing because of its illusion to sobriety and authenticity. Twenty-five years later movie trailers for the Blaire Witch Project startled viewer with the sober and responsible-sounding words, "In October of 1994, three student filmmakers, disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland, while shooting a documentary. A year later their footage was found."If, in fact, "sober and responsible" were the criteria for determining historical accuracy, thousands of novels would require re-categorizing from fiction to history. Will the fundamentalists concede that Darwin's Origin of the Species is credible because of its sober and responsible fashion?
Charging windmills
In the spirit of Don Quixote pointlessly charging windmills, Strobel anticipates two objections then dedicates nearly two pages to answer them.
The first windmill presumes that early Christians expected Jesus to promptly return during their lifetimes. If this were true, Strobel imagines critics suggesting, the early Christians would have no motive for preserving the Jesus story. Blomberg provides the jousting lance by noting that the expectation of the Day of the Lord did nothing to deter Old Testament writers from preserving the words of the prophets.
Blomberg offers no instances from the Old Testament to support his theory. While the anticipation of a messiah certainly existed in the latter years of the Old Testament era, there is no presumption that his coming was near at hand.
Score: Windmill one; Strobel zero.
The second windmill to be gouged relates to the things Jesus said. Critics, according to Strobel's logic, say that the early church would have resolved dissensions by contriving quotations of Jesus that coincided with their sides of any given debate.
Blomberg attempts to nail this windmill by claiming that quotes of Jesus were clearly distinguished from the writers of the epistles.
However, if the early Christians attributed favorable commentary to Jesus, they certainly would not have admitted it. So, how does Blomberg know it didn't happen? Jesus' spiel on divorce could have been added by a churchster to favor his/her view. Who could prove otherwise?
Windmill two; Strobel zilch.
2. The Ability Test
Strobel's book offers the second of eight tests by questioning the competence of the gospel writers. We are assured the writers were heavyweights (contrary to the view expressed in the book's first chapter) whose telling of the raising of Lazarus, healing a blind man with spit and mud, and forcing a host of stubborn demons to take up residence in a herd of pigs can be eminently trusted.
This is odd, considering much of the book's first chapter was dedicated to explaining the mysterious Q document. Exactly how would Blomberg or Strobel know anything of the ability of whomever wrote the source document upon which the synoptic gospels are based? No one knows who wrote the Q document, how many writers there were, or if the document even existed!
Depending on whose dates you believe, all four gospels were written decades after the death of Christ. That poses no problem for Strobel and Blomberg. The writers, they decided, must have had super memories. Imagine such a far-fetched polemic being raised in a real court of law: "Your Honor, we have no idea who wrote this testimony, but whoever they were, they must have had super-duper memories because it was written decades after the events described."
Again, this contradicts the first chapter in which the writers of the synoptics depended on the Q document (or Peter) as their source of information. One needs to make up one's mind: Did the gospels emanate from the par excellent memories of the writers? Or were the gospels based on the Q document and information provided by Peter? It also defies the traditional fundamentalist view that the Holy Spirit expressly instructed the writers. According to this centuries-old presumption, no Q document was needed; nor were super memories required. The writers simply penned the words as instructed by the Holy Spirit.
If Blomberg's super-memory theory were true, one could excuse the writers for failing to know if the disciples had rowed 25 furlongs or 30 furlongs. (See John 6:19.) But if the gospels were inspired by the omniscient Holy Spirit, there would be no second guessing. He would have revealed the the precise distance to the writers who would recorded it accordingly.
3. The Character Test
Blomberg is wholly convinced that the gospel writers were "people who had a track record that should be envied." That's a powerful presumption, considering no one knows who they were.
Only Luke and John identify themselves as the writers of the gospels that bear their names. Luke was said to be a physician, but beyond his chosen profession, little else is known. In the previous chapter Blomberg admits that the writer of John's gospel is uncertain. We know the writer claimed to be John. But which John? No one knows.
The writer of Mark is unknown. Some believe it was written by the disciple of the same name. Strobel's book leans toward Mark the Evangelist as the author. Others believe that Mark the disciple and Mark the Evangelist were actually the same person. If Strobel's book is correct -- that Mark the Evangelist is the author -- then one must wonder why he is considered to have a virtuous track record that is to be envied. After all, it was Mark the Evangelist who provoked the ire of Paul by abandoning the apostle during his first missionary journey. Paul effectively "fired" the evangelist, refusing to allow him to participate in his subsequent journeys.
The author of Matthew is unknown. Strobel's book presumes the author to be Matthew the disciple. It is peculiar that in the book's first chapter Matthew is derided for being a former tax collector. In chapter two he is praised for his honesty, truthfulness, virtue and morality.
It should be remembered that Strobel's book advises us in chapter one that, had early Christians simply adopted the names for the synoptic gospels, they would have selected more credible personalities. That runs contrary to the point being made in the character test; that Matthew, Mark and Luke were men of great integrity.
Remembering that Peter is considered by Blomberg to be the source for Mark's gospel and, in turn, for much of Matthew's gospel, Peter's track record deserves special consideration. Let's review his character references.
Jesus personally rebuked Peter. Matthew's gospel give the details: "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (See Matthew 16:23.)
Upon the arrest of Jesus, Peter denied him three times. (See Luke 22:34.)
In his later years Peter was confronted by the apostle Paul "to the face, because he was to be blamed." (See Galatians 2:11.) Paul was annoyed with Peter for under minding the universal grace aspect of the gospel message by snubbing gentiles.
Is Peter's track record to be envied? Can we trust the man who was called "Satan" by Jesus, who repeatedly denied Jesus, and who later infuriated the Apostle Paul with his heretical antics to be a credible source?
4. The Consistency Test
Strobel's book attempts to make the case for Christ by declaring the gospels to be "extremely consistent with each other." It is peculiar how the case is made in the section.
First, it is peculiar that on this point Strobel's book abandons its core thesis. The essence of the book is to apply strategies used in contemporary courts of law to prove the veracity of the gospels. But regarding the question of consistency, Blomberg decides that the test, instead, should be "ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them."
Second, it is peculiar that Strobel defends the gospels for not being identical. If the gospels were identical, he notes, the authors would be suspect of conspiring to coordinate their stories in advance. It is peculiar because no one expects the gospels to be identical. If they were, only one would have been added to the canon.
Third, it is peculiar that Blomberg praises the gospels for not being "too consistent." Would apologists prefer the gospels to be inconsistent? Apparently. On page 46 we read, "Fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistent and harmonized." However, the tone changes dramatically when we come to the section concerning corroboration. There we learn on page 50 that, "corroboration is invaluable in assessing whether a writer has a commitment to accuracy."
It appears there are discrepancies among the pages of Strobel's book. And that causes one to wonder: Is it possible to be consistently inconsistent?
Coping with Contradictions
Strobel calls to the witness stand three straw men described as "ostensible discrepancies among the gospels." More specifically, the book presents three hand-picked examples of contradictions in the gospels. The apparent intent is to demolish the objections. So how does Strobel's book fare in answering these three contradictions when cross examined? Let's see.
The Centurion
First to be called is the Roman centurion mentioned in Matthew. Strobel notes that, while Matthew says the centurion approached Jesus, Luke claims that Jesus was approached by elders. Blomberg is called upon to explain.
We learn from Blomberg that the centurion vicariously approached Jesus through a group of elders. Therefore, both accounts are reconciled. Before we accept Blomberg's explanation as gospel truth, we should ask if similar occurrences are included in the gospels. In John chapter 3 and 4 we discover that Jesus vicariously baptized converts through his disciples. So, we conclude, that the gospel writers did, in fact, mention similar occurrences when one person is said to have done something that was, in reality, performed by others.
But there is a stark difference between Matthew's account of the centurion personally approaching Jesus and Jesus personally baptizing his converts. John is careful to advise his readers that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." Matthew adds no such disclaimer, but leaves his readers to assume the centurion personally approached Jesus. Though Blomberg could be correct in his assessment, the fact that Matthew makes no effort to clarify his claim allows the contradiction to stand.
Blomberg ignores the context of the Matthew account. And apparently he has good reason. Matthew presents his readers with a dialog between Jesus and the centurion in which the centurion refers to himself in first person, something that would have been cumbersome, if not impossible, to occur had Jesus conversed with a group of the centurion's friends. (In Luke's account Jesus was summoned by elders, but was intercepted by a second group simply identified as "friends" of the centurion. It is with this second group that the conversation ensued.)
The Man (or Men) from Gadara
Second to be called to the witness stand is an unnamed man from the town of Gadara. At least Matthew says he was from Gadara. And therein lies the contradiction. Mark and Luke say the man was from Gerasa.
The gospels claim the man was possessed with a legion of demons. Jesus ordered the demons to leave and, after a bit of complaining, they complied. Having exited the man the demons entered into a herd of swine who were thus compelled to stampede over a cliff and plunge into the Sea of Galilee. Matthew says this happened in Gadara. Luke and Mark say it happened in Gerasa. Gadara was close to the Sea of Galilee allowing the pigs to make a short jog before diving to their deaths. But Gerasa was located some forty miles southeast of the sea, meaning the herd of swine would have had a long way to run.
Blomberg attempts to resolve the contradiction by supposing that archaeologists have uncovered a village he calls "Khersa" near the Sea of Galilee that may well be the Gerasa mentioned by Mark and Luke. That solution, besides being an obvious stretch, bears three problems: First, it is highly unlikely that two towns with the same name would exist within fifty miles of each other. Second, even if Blomberg was correct, placing a second Gerasa close to Galilee doesn't resolve the contradiction. Whether the towns were fifty miles apart or fifty feet apart, the contradiction continues to constitute an error.
If Blomberg's Khersa was incorrectly called "Gerasa" by Mark and Luke that, intrinsically, constitutes an error, particularly since it would be confused with the larger city of the same name in Perea. That is bothersome, considering fundamentalists portray Luke as astute in his geography.
Ignored by Strobel's book is the fact that Matthew indicates there were two men possessed by demons while Mark and Luke record only one man. All three accounts mention the herd of swine.
It is interesting that apologists appeal to archaeology when it seems to support their views. Yet, they ignore it when it disagrees with biblical accounts. Archaeologists, for example, believe the village of Bethlehem was uninhabited at the time Jesus was born. They also have a problem finding a cliff anywhere near Gadara over which the herd of swine would have plunged.
Luke's Lackluster List
Third to be called to the stand is Luke himself. Long hailed by fundamentalists as a stickler for accurate details, Luke's geneology of Jesus' ancestors is loaded with questionable information that two thousand years of scholarly review has yet to resolve. Strobel's book would have us believe it's a stalemate. Cross examination points to bogus buffoonery.
Two genealogies tracking the ancestry of Jesus are presented in the gospels. They are obviously different. The efforts to reconcile -- or at least explain -- the differences between the two has been attempted by students of the Bible for nearly twenty centuries. Blomberg offers two commonly suggested explanations.
First is the notion that one genealogy, found in Matthew, tracks the ancestry of Jesus' adoptive father, Joseph. This gives Jesus legal right to the throne of David, according to Blomberg. The other genealogy, found in Luke, traces the ancestry of Jesus' natural mother, Mary. This provides evidence that Jesus is genetically descended from King David.
Second is the theory that both genealogies trace the family of Joseph. Luke's version "is Joseph's human lineage" while Matthew's version "is Joseph's legal lineage."
The fact that the conflict cannot be resolved with certainty allows it to stand. That, however, may not be sufficient to satisfied gullible Christians who seriously embrace the gelastic aspects of Strobel's book. It is certainly not sufficient for objective realists who believe the discrepancies within Luke's list reach much farther than Strobel has indicated.
Let's cross examine.
First, Luke includes twenty generations from Adam to Abraham. This conflicts with two Genesis accounts where only nineteen generations are cited.
Luke records, "...which was the son of Sala [Salah], Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad..." (See Luke 3:35;36.)
This conflicts with the Genesis record that reads, "Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah..." (See Genesis 11:12 and 10:24.)
Cainan, who Luke also correctly listed as the son of Enos (See Luke 3:37;38), is included twice. This copyists' error cannot be be glibbly erased by presuming the Genesis account simply omitted a generation. Aphraxad was thirty five years old when Salah was born. There is little room for an interim generation.
Second, Luke's genealogy includes descendents of Nathan (David's son) who are not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and, as far as anyone knows, never existed.
Third, Matthew names Jehoiachin as the father of Salathiel. Luke claims that Neri is the father of Salathiel. Neri is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and, like the descendents of Nathan, is obscure.
Fourth, Luke list Zerubbabel twenty-two generations after Daivd. Matthew list Zerubbabel sixteen generations after David.
Fifth, Matthew names Jacob as the father of Joseph (Jesus' father). Luke says Joseph's father is Heli, another unknown personality.
Sixth, the notion that Mary is descended from David (some suggest that Heli was Mary's father; Joseph's father-in-law) is countered by the fact that Mary's cousin, Elisabeth, was a Levite. (See Luke 1:5).
Seventh, it should be noted that Luke was a gentile who would not be familiar with Jewish geneologies. While Luke was meticulous in identifying contemporary names and places, his efforts at constructing a genealogy seems to have been a simple matter of filling in blanks with bogus names.
5. The Bias Test
In this brief segment of Strobel's book we are compelled to believe the sincerity of the gospel writers somehow lends credibility to their mythical ramblings relating to the life of Christ. While it is hard to imagine that the gospel writers -- whomever they may have been -- wrote with personal gain in mind, that hardly qualifies their stories as truth. Such blind dedication to religious beliefs is common.
6. The Cover-Up Test
To make his case for Christ, Strobel informs his readers that the gospels include information that would not be expected had the writers been less than honest. These include "hard sayings" of Jesus, information that would gender difficult questions, and situations unflattering to principle characters. In other words, there appears to be no cover-up. The conclusion drawn by Strobel is that the gospels were written with impecable veracity.
Strobel's argument has some merit. The gospels do, in fact, include material that would not be expected had the writers been preparing a presentation for a court testimony or ad copy for sales brochure. But does their inclusion of such information necessitate honesty and accuracy? Let's cross examine.
First, we must be mindful that synoptic gospels were a collection of rumors that related to the life and ministry of Jesus. In today's culture these rumors would be referred to as urban legends. The objective of the writer(s) of the Q document -- if it existed -- would have been to create a written database of oral information. The goal was not to weed out objectional material, but to be inclusive of the stuff people were saying and generally believing. The writers probably believed it themselves.
Second, we must be mindful that virtually none of the New Testament was orginally written to a general audience. Luke's gospel, for example, was intended for one person. Many of Paul's epistles were addressed to individual churches. While the writers undoubtedly expected their writings to be circulated, they never realized that their words would be cherished for two millennia as the inspired word of God. The gospel writers had no indication that their works would become a perennial world-wide best seller. Had they known the extent of their audience, they may have been more particular in what they wrote and how they wrote it.
Third, we must be mindful that the writers' policy of inclusion lent to their writings' popularity. Anyone who has stood five minutes at a grocery store check-out is familiar with gaudy tabloids. Demons being cast in a herd of swine has the same appeal as UFO sightings. One can image the healdines, "Five loaves and two fishes fed thousands," "Miracle man walks on water," "Lepor miraculously healed!" or "Bethany man raised from dead."
The popularity of tabloids is also largly due to their inclusion of gossip; most of it less than flattering. They include sensational stories that, like the gospels, are believed by large numbers of gullible people, but rejected by rationalists. By presenting the human side of the story mixed with sensationalism, the gospel writers appealed to human nature. In so doing they unwittingly applied the formula used today by tabloid publishers.
Fourth, we must be mindful that the urban legends surrounding the Jesus cult invariably cast him in contrast with those around him. Jesus was portrayed as the ideal messiah-teacher which contrasted with his less-than-perfect disciples.
Fifth, the miraculous feats attributed to Jesus and the super natural occurances that surrounded his life confirm the gospels are bogus.
Sixth, we should note that the gospels are purportedly inspired by God; at least that's the belief of the fundamentalists. We can understand how humans would include questionable and conflicting information. But if the writings were truly directed by the hand of God, such debatable and irresolvable aspects of the New Testament (and there are many) would have been clarified.
Some have suggested that God intentionally littered the Bible with difficulties to compel us to dig for truth. The net result has been ecclesiastic confusion that has not been resolved after two thousand years of intense study and debate. The inclusion of irresolvable difficulties does not point to honest writers. Rather, it proves the Bible is not inspired of God.
7. The Corroboration Test
Amid the flood of archaeological evidence that supports New Testament claims may be found a miserly trickle of suggestions that could question biblical accuracy. At least that seems to be the summation of Strobel's effort to make his case for Christ using a test of corroboration.
Cross examination proves otherwise.
Amid the flood of archaelogists who specialize in antiquities relating to Bible events, only a misery trickle are fundamentalists. The point should be obvious: If archaeological evidence conclusively corroborated with the gospels, we would expect the archaelogists, themselves, converting en masse to evangelical Christianity. They are not.
The objective of archaelogists is to neither prove nor disprove the veracity of the gospels. Their objective is to uncover the facts and, when necessary, make appropriate interpretations. To date they have discovered nothing that compels them to accept the gospels as accurate history.
That is not to say that archaelogical discoveries never corroborate biblical accounts. Often they do. But such discoveries frequently conflict with biblical accounts. Here are two of many examples.
Archaeologists discovered that the Essenes religious sect practiced hygiene in accordance to their interpretation of the mosaic law. Rather than leaving their latrine uncovered where fecal material would dry in the desert, they buried it. This allowed infectious agents to live, grow and multiply resulting in much misery and possibly death for many of the Essenes. (See news release from University of North Carolina at Charlotte, November 16, 2006.)
According to the Archaeological Institute of America, the town of Bethlehem may have been uninhabited at the time of Jesus birth. "[T]here is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus," the magazine states. (See Archaeology, Volume 58 Number 6, November/December, 2005.)
More importantly there are no archaeological discoveries that conclusively corroborate gospel tales of supernatural happenings. There are none!
8. The Adverse Witness Test
The essence of this test -- that the absence of disenters proves the gospel story -- may seem shallow to rationalists, but it appears to be a weighty argument in the minds of misbelievers. Therefore, it cries aloud for cross examination.
The theory proposed by apologists follows this logic: If the gospel story were not accurate, there would have significant opposition to its lies. That is not true.
First, the absence of immediate opposition to the resurrection served to suggest the story may well have been concocted years after the crucifixtion.
Second, the absence of mass conversions proves the resurrection story was not believed. Had the resurrected Jesus continued his ministry forty days after the crucifixion, the evidence would have been so ovewhelming that virtually everyone would have immediately believed. They did not believe because there was no evidence.
Third, emergence of alternate gnostic gospels were, in a sense, denials of the traditional gospel stories.
Fourth, it is interesting that Strobel notes that " In later Jewish writings Jesus is called a sorcerer..." His point is that even Jesus' opposition believed he performed miracles. Giving credit where due, it is important to highlight Strobel's honesty. By including the word "later," he indicates that the accusations of sorcery were not immediate reactions to gospel myths, but were responses once those myths were deeply imbedded in the Christian paradigm.
Jewish leaders also accused Jesus of being the illegitimate son of Joseph. Does Strobel consider their opinion valid on this point as well? Does he consider that the bastard allegation was made during the life of Jesus, not many years later? Does he consider that it is included in the canon?
Fifth, no answer is a "no" answer. In other words, Some things are so absurd that they don't merit a significant response. Urban legends typically draw little opposition; not because they are true, but because they are absurd. NASA invested virtually no time countering rumors that the Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon was a studio production. Using Strobel's logic, NASA's refusal to debate with conspiracy theorists would constitute agreement.
Sixth, once the tales of the supernatural began to circulate, there may have been significant chatter denying the tales of the miraculous. But the stories were so bizarre that they didn't merit written theses. Considering that illiteracy was common, serious scholars could not be expected to dedicate their time, ink and parchment to such nonsense.
Those who comprised the cohesive Jesus movement, like many such cults, were driven by fervent religious devotion. In their minds, they had good cause to commit their beliefs to writing. While the movement faced serious and often violent opposition, no anti-Jesus cult existed that mirrored the devout religiosity of the Christians. None would have bothered to commit in writing their opposition to silly legends. Such silence does not prove concurrence, but indicates that none but Christians took the Jesus story seriously enough to write about.
There was no movie made to expose the errors of The Blair Witch Project, no extensive expose' refuting Macon County Line, no hour-long radio program challenging the veracity of Orson Well's broadcast, few bother to argue with moon-landing conspiracy theories or bigfoot sightings, and no early writings questioning the integrity of the gospels. The myths were common knowledge.
Seventh, the eventual advent of a growing Jesus cult did attract disbelief. The book of Acts records opposition to Paul's preaching. It ranged from passive disagreement to violent opposition.
