What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2567&b=Mark

What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 testify that Jesus was the “Son of David.” In fact, the book of Matthew begins with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (1:1, emp. added). The New Testament is also abundantly clear that this Son of David is “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” When the Samaritan woman at the well said to Jesus, “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (John 4:25-26, emp. added). What’s more, just before Jesus’ crucifixion, when the Jewish high priest asked Him directly, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-62, emp. added). Thus, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was both “Christ” and the “Son of David.” [NOTE: The term “Christ” is transliterated from the Greek term Christos, while “Messiah” is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic term Meshiach. Both have as their meaning, “the anointed One.”]

In the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl alleged that Mark 12:35-37 (cf. Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44) “blatantly clashes” with New Testament references of Jesus being “the Son of David” (2008, 34[5]:61). When Jesus asked, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?” (Mark 12:35), Jesus supposedly “rejects the idea that the Messiah is the son of David” (Knohl, p. 61). Knohl claimed:

To demonstrate that the Messiah is not the son of David, Jesus quotes Psalm 110, attributed in the Hebrew Bible to David himself. As the text of Mark (12:36) recites, David speaks in the psalm: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared...” Jesus then recites a passage from the psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.” Jesus then uses this passage to prove his point: “David himself calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ so how is he his son?” That is, David speaks of the Messiah as “my Lord,” rather than as “my son.”The Messiah therefore cannot be a son of David. Using Psalm 110 as his proof text, Jesus here refutes the scribes’ view that Christ, the Messiah, should be a son or descendant of David (p. 61, emp. added).

Knohl went on to state that Psalm 110 is “historically reliable,” and Mark 12:35-37 “must be authentic.” The implication is that those Bible passages which designate Jesus as the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) are unreliable.

Knohl is correct that Psalm 110 and Mark 12:35-37 are “historically reliable” and “authentic,” but he has failed miserably in his interpretation of Mark 12:35-37 (and parallel passages in Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44). When Jesus asked the Pharisees “how is He [the Messiah] then his [David’s] Son,” if David calls Him “Lord,” He was neither denying His credentials to be the Messiah nor the fact that the Messiah would be a “Son of David.” On the contrary, Jesus was trying to get His hearers to understand that the Messiah, though David’s Son, is greater than David, for King David called Him “my Lord.” It was self-evident to first-century Jews that the Messiah would be a descendant of David (Psalm 89:3-4; 132:11-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:1-16; 12:23; 21:9,15; Luke 3:23-38). Jesus was not denying that fact. Rather, He wanted his hearers to reach the same conclusion that Peter previously reached after Jesus asked a similar question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, NASB). Peter confessed to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). How could the Messiah be a descendant of David as well as be the One to whom David 1,000 years earliercalled “Lord”? Answer: He was deity Who put on flesh. This is the truth with which Jesus confronted the Pharisees, and “no one was able to answer Him a word” (Matthew 22:46), because

they believed not in the divinity of Christ. They supposed that he would be only a man.... By propounding the question, Jesus gained two important points: he showed that the promised Christ was to be divine, and he showed that his own claim to be the Son of God was in perfect harmony with his claim to be the Christ. If he is the Christ, then he is David’s Lord (McGarvey, 1875, p. 194).

Jesus, the Son of David, is greater than any man who ever lived, including the greatest king Israel had ever known. He was his “Lord.” Jesus is superior. Interestingly, even the writer of Hebrews referred to Psalm 110:1 as he impressed upon his readers Jesus’ superiority over the angelic realm (1:13).

Knohl’s alleged contradiction, between Jesus’ reference to Psalm 110 in the synoptic gospels and the biblical references of the Messiah being the “Son of David,” is easily resolved when the Bible is “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus rejected neither His being the “Son of David,” nor “the Messiah.” In truth, He was both.

REFERENCES

Knohl, Israel (2008), “The Messiah: Son of Joseph,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 34[5]:58-62, September/October.

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

The Homosexual Conundrum Continues by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2067

The Homosexual Conundrum Continues

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As Western civilization continues its downward spiral into the depths of depravity, due to its militant abandonment of the Christian worldview, one would naturally expect a resulting maelstrom of social and moral confusion. The Christian moral framework has provided cohesion, security, and stability to Western culture, in stark contrast with those countries founded and fashioned on non-Christian ideologies—from Communism (e.g., Russia and Cuba) to Hinduism (e.g., India), to Islam (e.g., Pakistan). Mark it down: rejecting the God of the Bible and jettisoning Christian morality will inevitably result in social anarchy.

One instance of the convoluted consequences of ejecting God from society is seen in a recent court decision in Canada—where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a five-year-old boy may have three parents—two mothers and a father. The father and one of the women are the boy’s biological parents. The second “mother” is the lesbian partner of his biological mother (Schnurr, 2007). Such “alternative family structures” are becoming increasingly common as the social fabric of civilization is rewoven to accommodate the pluralistic propensities of people who have degenerated into the dismal morass of pagan immorality, i.e., amorality.

In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).

Observe that the high Court insisted that the stability of a nation and its proper progress rely on the home composed of one man for one woman for life—the precise declaration of God Himself (Genesis 2:24). Departure from that social norm results in the destabilization of society. No wonder in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the sentiment of the Founders and early Americans regarding what will happen if Christian morality is abandoned:

What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and...what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston..., emp. added).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S.C. 1848).

Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), 114 U.S. 15; 5 S. Ct. 747; 29 L. Ed. 47; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1732.

Schnurr, Leah (2007), “Canadian Province Says Child Can Have 2 Moms,” Reuters, January 3, [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/wl_canada_nm/canada_parents_ca_col.

What Do the Finches Prove? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1652

What Do the Finches Prove?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Coming to terms in a discussion means that each party understands what the other means when a certain word or term is used. Any discussion in which terms are not agreed upon can quickly turn into a quagmire of misunderstanding and confusion. For instance, the assertion is made: Evolution has occurred on Earth. The most important aspect of the assertion centers on what is meant by the term “evolution.” If, by evolution, one means that living organisms have the genetic ability to alter their appearance in minor ways over a period of time, such an assertion would be accepted by both creationists and evolutionists. If, however, the term “evolution” is defined to mean organisms can genetically mutate into other kinds of organisms over millions of years, gradually changing from simple organisms like amoebas into complex organisms like humans, then the majority of creationists would certainly disagree with such an assertion.

The real confusion enters when one definition is used but then replaced (using “sleight of hand” tactics) by the definition that is not agreed upon. For instance, science writers and textbooks often state that evolution is a fact. As evidence, they point to tiny variations in the size of a finch’s beak, color in a moth population, or length of a neck bone, and they say these minor variations prove “evolution.” Then, they say, since evolution is a proven fact, we know that monkeys and humans “evolved” from a common ancestor. By paying close attention, one can ferret out the “trick” and see that the definition of “evolution” was switched from “small changes within the same kind of organism” to “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.”

Understanding this situation becomes increasingly important when reading literature produced by those in the scientific community. In the July 14 issue of Science, Peter and Rosemary Grant presented a paper titled “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches.” The thesis of the article is that one particular species of finch (Geospiza fortis) “evolved” a slightly smaller beak due to the arrival of a larger-beaked finch (G. magnirostris) competing for larger seeds of the Tribulus cistoides plant during a severe drought (Grant and Grant, 2006).

Randolph Schmid, an Associated Press author who wrote about the Grants’ latest article, opened his summary of their findings with these words: “Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it—by evolving” (2006). Notice what Schmid did in his introduction. He commingled two separate definitions of evolution into his statement, falsely equating the two. The generally accepted definition for the concept of evolution proposed by Darwin is “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another,” often called Darwinism. But the “evolving” accomplished by the finches on the Galapagos Islands was simply “small changes within the same kind of organism.”

Schmid interviewed Robert Fleischer, a scientist who works with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who stated that the Grants merely had documented an instance of “microevolution” (small changes within the same kind of organism). Yet, the titles of the articles by both Schmid and the Grants misleadingly imply that Darwinian evolution has been proven by the finch research, and Schmid goes so far as to make this bold claim in his introductory paragraph.

What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...”), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article forScience, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell its demise.

Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” exactly as stated in Genesis 1:24, small changes in beak size, body weight, or skin color notwithstanding.

REFERENCES

Grant, Peter and Rosemary Grant (2006), “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches,” Science, 313[5784]:224-226, July 14, [On-line], URL: http:// www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/224.

Schmid, Randolph (2006), “Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt= AtMK7RaDjqo_NxNgdj2Hih.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBH NlYwM3NTM-.

“Study: Darwin’s Finches Rapidly Evolving” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.macnews world.com/story/dP6qz1wCRQQfO4/Study-Darwins-Finches-Rapidly-Evolving. xhtml.What do the finches prove?

Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=317

Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Any honest student of the Bible must admit certain biblical episodes seem to be problematic when encountered for the first time. Upon further investigation, however, the apparent difficulties in the text vanish and the meanings become increasingly clear. One episode in the life of Jesus that historically has been misunderstood by some Bible believers and misrepresented by the skeptic is Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Mark records the episode as follows:

For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).

Based on a cursory reading of the text, one may be startled that Jesus referred to this Gentile woman as a “little dog.”

Jesus’ statement in this context certainly has not escaped the notice of the skeptical community. The prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 421 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2006).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, racially slurred, and offensive. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4), which would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

TO THE JEWS FIRST AND ALSO TO THE GREEKS

In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the church at Rome, stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

HOW FAR CAN AN ANIMAL ILLUSTRATION BE TAKEN?

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).

So before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was wrong. It seems that they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” [On-line], URL: http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/ 090703.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Wells, Steve (2006), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

What Happened to the Body? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1120

What Happened to the Body?

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Q.

Christianity is based in its entirety on the claim that Jesus arose from the dead. Is there any actual evidence to support such a claim?

A.

The unexpected happened. He told them it would; He even told them how. They simply refused to believe. Thursday, Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem with His friends; Friday, He was dead. His battered, lifeless body was removed from the cross and carried away. Friday night it was there—undisturbed. All day Saturday it was there—under guard. Sunday dawned. The tomb was empty. What happened to the body?

Jesus Christ met death face-to-face, and defeated it. The tomb was empty Sunday morning because Jesus was alive. Tombs are for the dead—not the living. By His resurrection, every claim Jesus made regarding His deity was confirmed “with power” (Romans 1:4). He not only kept His word that He would be raised, but He fulfilled a thousand-year-old prophecy by David (cf. Psalm 16:1-2; Acts 2:24-36).

In an age devoid of active miracles, people often wonder if such a claim can be proved. The answer is “yes!” A compelling case for the resurrection can be made from the information contained in the Gospel records. This article will present some of that material, and will answer common alternative theories employed to explain away the resurrection.

THE EMPTY TOMB

If Jesus was raised, His tomb had to be emptied. His bodily resurrection is indefensible if He remained in the tomb even one hour of day four. If the tomb was occupied Monday, Jesus is less than divine, and there is no hope in Him as Savior. This makes the witness of the tomb all-important.

Before discussing the evidence from the tomb, however, two preliminary points call for attention. First, was Jesus placed in a tomb? The Bible is clear on this point. His interment was witnessed by at least four individuals. Joseph of Arimathea received permission from Pilate to bury Jesus (Mark 15:43-45). He and Nicodemus hurriedly prepared and entombed the Lord’s body (John 19:38). Their activities were observed by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph (Mark 15:46-47). Then, on the next day, the chief priests and Pharisees requested of Pilate that a guard be provided for the tomb (Matthew 27:62-65). They necessarily believed Jesus’ body remained there at the time of their request. This request was granted and a guard was sent. It is inconceivable that Pilate (who was responsible for maintaining the body of Jesus) would have sealed and set watch over a tomb that he did not believe was occupied. Hence, at least four people saw Jesus’ body in the tomb on Friday. The Jews, Pilate, and the guards acknowledged its presence on Saturday.

Second, Jesus was not buried in just any tomb; it was a new tomb. This is significant when one remembers that a dead man was once miraculously revived when his body was placed into the tomb that contained Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:21). Instead, Jesus was put into a tomb “in which no one had yet been laid” (John 19:41). The Lord’s resurrection was a unique event that could not be attributed to such a factor.

With these facts established, consider how the tomb offers powerful evidence of the Lord’s resurrection. First, it was impossible for Jesus to escape from the tomb without being detected. This is seen in various ways.

• All four of the Gospel records explicitly declare that the Lord was dead prior to entering the tomb (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:44-45; Luke 23:46; John 19:32-34).
• The tomb was cut out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60). Tombs, like caskets, generally are not equipped with back doors!
• The cave opening was blocked by a massive stone (Matthew 27:60).
• The stone was affixed with a seal, and watched by soldiers (Matthew 27:66).

Obviously, it was impossible for Jesus to leave that tomb (apart from the resurrection miracle), let alone to do so without detection.

Second, the tomb did not contain the body of Jesus after the dawning of Sunday. This evidence is gleaned from those on both sides of the issue.

• The empty tomb was seen by at least six of Jesus’ followers: Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10), Mary (the mother of James) and Salome (Mark 16:1-8), Joanna (Luke 24:10), and Peter and John (John 20:2-8).
• The empty tomb was probably seen by at least a few Roman guards (Matthew 28:2,11-15).
• That the tomb was empty was not denied by the antagonistic Jews (they merely attempted to explain why it was empty).
• That the tomb was empty was loudly proclaimed on the day of Pentecost in the presence of literally thousands of Jews who most certainly would have denied it if they could (Acts 2:24-36).

WHO MOVED THE STONE?

One of the tomb’s most impressive features was the immense stone that acted as its door. Matthew used the Greek phrase lithon megan to describe the stone (27:60). This two-word combination is the source of our modern term, “megalith” (i.e., large stone). Mark and Luke report that the four women who came to the tomb wondered who would move the stone for them (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:10). Mark calls the stone “very large.” How large is “very large”? While we may never know, it is safe to assume that four women could move a fairly large stone without help; yet, apparently the force needed to move this stone exceeded their combined strength (Mark 16:3). If these women didn’t move it, who did? Can we rationally conclude that it was moved by a brutally beaten, crucified, and allegedly dead man? The record indicates that an angel of the Lord was dispatched from heaven to accomplish the task (Matthew 28:2).

Someone might contend that the stone could not have been too heavy since Joseph rolled it in place by himself (Matthew 27:60). But this is only partially correct. The stones used for this purpose often were set in a sloping groove with the low point in front of the tomb’s opening. While it may have taken many men to move and scotch the stone up and away from the doorway prior to burial, one man easily could have removed the block and allowed gravity to draw the stone down the slope into its proper resting position. Also, it is possible that the stone was set in place by a number of men under the direction of Joseph. After all, when we say that Alexander conquered the world, we do not mean that he did so without the aid of an army!

Moreover, the stone was not just nudged aside to allow a single man to slip through, but it actually was moved completely away from the tomb (John 20:1). The moving of the great stone by the angel was an event of such magnitude that Matthew tells us the soldiers “shook for fear of him, and became as dead men” (28:4). It is no wonder they left their post and returned to the city to make a report to the chief priests! Adding to their fear of this supernatural sighting was the fact that the tomb they were guarding was opened and empty. Perhaps they reasoned that if the Jews knew the circumstances, they would not press charges against them for losing custody of the body.

The impressive evidence from the tomb and stone may be summarized as follows. On Friday, at least four witnesses saw Jesus’ dead body placed into a previously empty tomb. The tomb was sealed with a stone too large for four women to move. Jesus’ presence in the tomb was acknowledged by friend and enemy alike on Saturday, when the stone was affixed with a Roman seal (McDowell, 1981, p. 59). On Sunday the stone had been moved and Jesus’ body was gone!

WHY BRIBE THE GUARDS?

The Jews’ primary effort to prevent the disciples of Jesus from making any resurrection claims for their Master served as one of the strongest evidences supporting those claims. Matthew recounts the incident:

The next day, after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together before Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, I will arise after three days. Command therefore that the tomb be made secure until the third day to guard against his disciples stealing the body and saying, He has been raised from the dead. The last deception will be worse than the first.” Pilate replied to them, “Take guards and go and make the tomb as secure as you can.” They departed and secured the tomb, sealing the stone, and stationing the guards (Matthew 27:62-66; McCord, 1988).

Although they did not believe Christ, the Jews realized the importance of His words. The passage implies that the Jews were obtaining a Roman guard. Some scholars contend that Pilate told the Jews to take their own temple guard for the task. This seems unlikely. In the Greek, the phrase, “Take a guard” is in the imperative. It was a “curt permission” to take guards (Robertson, 1930, 1:239). Why would the Jews approach Pilate to request a Jewish guard? If they used their own guard, they would have been open to criticisms should the body turn up missing. Why would the temple guard fear Pilate’s reaction (Matthew 28:14)? It seems more probable that the Jews wanted a Roman guard to prevent Jesus’ disciples from stealing their Lord’s body.

As noted above, the guards were terrified when the angel moved the giant stone away from the tomb. They left their post and some of them returned to the city to report the incredible event. No doubt fearful of what would become of them, they went to the Jews (to plead for help?). The record continues:

When they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, “Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day (Matthew 28:12-15).

The guards were left with an empty tomb, and the Jews were faced with a dilemma. They had to deal with not just an empty tomb, but also eyewitness accounts (from neutral witnesses) of the resurrection of Jesus. What could they do? Three options were possible: they could accept the testimony and believe in the One they crucified; they could complain to Pilate about his incompetent soldiers; or, they could enact a cover-up. They were not yet willing to accept this Jesus as the Messiah. If they complained to Pilate, he might either believe or slay the soldiers. If he believed them, the Jews would be defeated. If he slew them, the Jews would be left with an inexplicably empty tomb. There was really only one option for them—a cover-up. So they bought a false report and circulated it in all directions. However, contrary to their desire, everywhere that false report traveled, so went one important fact—the tomb was empty!

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES

Some persist in doubt. They reject the possibility of Christ’s resurrection and offer various explanations for the data.

The Swoon Theory

Some have suggested that Jesus did not actually die. He just fainted (“swooned”) and merely seemed to be dead. Thinking He was dead, His friends buried Him according to custom. After resting upon that cold stone slab, the Lord’s body naturally revived; thus revived, He moved the stone and exited the tomb (carefully avoiding being spotted by the guards). This view is utterly without foundation and collapses after even the most cursory glance at the evidence.

First, the body was acknowledged as dead by all parties involved. The Romans (who were experts at crucifixion) saw He was already dead and did not need to have His legs broken (John 19:33). Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus had died so quickly, and investigated the matter (Mark 15:44-45). The followers of Jesus knew He was dead, for they began to prepare Him for burial, and even anticipated the coming of Sunday so they could finish the job. The Jews were sure He was dead, otherwise they would not have been so concerned with keeping His disciples from stealing His body (Matthew 27:62-66).

Second, no one who has been scourged, nailed to and hung upon a cross for six hours, and has had a spear pierce his side, is going to wake up capable of rolling away a stone that four women could not move!

Third, if this theory were true, the Jews would have been more successful claiming that Jesus had only swooned than in manufacturing an excuse for the empty tomb.

Fourth, where is Jesus now? The divine record has Him appearing for only forty days after His alleged swoon—what of the rest of His life?

Fifth, can any clear-thinking person really believe that the apostles lived persecuted lives and died as martyrs for a cause they knew to be false, or that Jesus would have been so cruel as to be the cause of such (either directly or indirectly)? Everything we know of Jesus mitigates against this thought.

The Wrong Tomb Theory

Some suggest that although Jesus was actually dead and buried, His followers accidentally went to another tomb that was empty. This theory hardly deserves mention; it defies nearly every detail of the resurrection narratives and leads to the absurd conclusion that not only His friends, but His enemies, and the Roman soldiers all went to the wrong tomb. On the contrary, the Gospel records mention that the interred body was seen by at least four people. How long would it take before someone recognized the mistake? After all, Joseph of Arimathea surely knew how to locate his own tomb, and easily could have corrected this error. Finally, Paul told of more than five hundred witnesses who did not see the empty tomb, but who had seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Friends Stole the Body

The most common theory suggests that Jesus’ friends stole His body while the guards slept. This was the story circulating when Matthew wrote his history (Matthew 28:15). But, where is the evidence that the guards slept? How could the disciples have moved the stone and kept from waking the guards? Why would the Jews have paid the guards to say the very thing that they tried to avoid in the first place? The whole reason the Pharisees asked Pilate to grant them a guard was to keep the disciples from stealing the body!

This view implies that the disciples knowingly devoted their lives to a falsehood. But, J.P. Moreland points out, “the disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility, and martyrs’ deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie” (1987, pp. 171-172).

Enemies Stole the Body

Some might aver that Jesus’ body was stolen by the Jews to keep the disciples from doing so. Hence, they took the body and hired a guard to watch an already vacant tomb. But this is ridiculous. If they stole the body, why did they not expose the disciples’ lie? Instead, they maintained the unprovable position that it was really the disciples who took the body. They never produced the body. What did they have to gain by concealing the most powerful evidence conceivable against the resurrection? Imagine how devastating it would have been for the disciples, had the Jews paraded Jesus’ rotting corpse before the many thousands on Pentecost. Such an act would have strangled the infant church in its crib.

God Stole the Body

One of the most unusual theories regarding the resurrection of Jesus was penned by Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Our Lord’s human body was, however, supernaturally removed from the tomb; because had it remained there it would have been an insurmountable obstacle to the faith of the disciples, who were not yet instructed in spiritual things—for “the spirit was not yet given.” (John 7:39.) We know nothing about what became of it, except that it did not decay or corrupt. (Acts 2:27,31.) Whether it was dissolved into gases or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love, of Christ’s obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows (1912, 2:129).

Obvious problems with this theory are numerous. Not only does it deny the plain teachings of Scripture, but it implies that the disciples’ faith in the resurrection was based upon a falsehood. In other words, they believed the Lord was raised, and had irrefutable proof of it—when in fact He wasn’t. This makes God guilty of deliberate deception.

The Hallucination Theory

Another alternative theory is that the disciples never actually saw the Lord’s risen body—they only imagined they did. However, the biggest hindrance to this view is that many of these eyewitnesses were not easily convinced. Thomas was hardly alone in his skepticism concerning the resurrection. When the women went to the tomb on Sunday they found it empty. Their first reaction was one of bewilderment, not belief (Luke 24:4). Remember the disciples’ reaction to Mary’s incredible report? They had been with Jesus and had no doubt heard Him say many times that He would rise again, and yet Mark wrote: “And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe” (Mark 16:11). Jesus later rebuked them for this unbelief (Mark 16:14). They should have expected His resurrection, but obviously they did not. Jesus was also disappointed in the two disciples from Emmaus for failing to believe in the resurrection claims (Luke 24:25). Even at nightfall of the resurrection day the disciples were still doubting (Luke 24:38). The point is this: at first, these witnesses were unwilling to accept the fact of the resurrection.

Had they been predisposed to believe the reports of the resurrection, we might wonder if they simply believed what they wanted to about the matter. On the contrary, here were people who initially were skeptical and required evidence for belief. If they had believed all along that they would see the Lord alive again, then isolated hallucinations might have taken place among the mentally unstable disciples (if there were any). But, hallucinations do not occur in people of stable mental condition (unless artificially induced). Regardless, the empty tomb remains unexplained by this theory.

CONCLUSION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION

If compelled by the evidence to believe the resurrection, what is its relevance? First, the resurrection is the strongest single argument for the deity of Jesus (Romans 1:4). If He was raised from the dead as David prophesied, and as He so often promised, then He must have been deity! If He was not raised, then David spoke of another, and Jesus was a liar.

Second, the resurrection is the foundational principle upon which Christianity is built. Paul linked the reality of salvation to the fact of the resurrection; refute that fact, and Christians are a truly pathetic lot (1 Corinthians 15). Christianity is either the one true religion of the one true God, or it is a farce—the reality of the resurrection determines which.

Third, the fact of the resurrection is the greatest source of genuine hope available in this transient and confusing world. If Christ was raised, Christians will be raised (1 Corinthians 15). Since Christ was raised, He took away the power of death. His resurrection made it possible for Him to keep His promise to prepare a heavenly home for the faithful (John 14:1-4). No one fact offers more hope or assurance than does the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

REFERENCES

McCord, Hugo (1988), McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel(Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).

McDowell, Josh (1981), The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers).

Moreland, J.P. (1987), Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Russell, Charles Taze (1889), Studies in the Scriptures (New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society).

The Skeptic’s Faulty Assumption by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1173

The Skeptic’s Faulty Assumption

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

One of the skeptic’s favorite tactics in an attempt to discredit the God of the Bible is to insist that God is a cruel, heartless, vengeful God Who capriciously sends floods or armies through the land destroying innocent men, women, and children. Skeptics especially like to focus on the children. How could a loving God send Saul and his army to destroy all the Amalekites, including the “infant and nursing child?” Steve Wells claims that “God just wanted to see some more innocent people killed” (2001). Or, how could a loving God send a flood to destroy all the people of the Earth, including the innocent babies? The argument goes something like this: (1) the God of the Bible is supposed to be good and loving; (2) the God of the Bible kills innocent children; (3) therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good and loving.

At first glance, this logic seems to make sense. When examined more closely, however, there lies within this syllogism a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption built into this line of reasoning is that death is always, in every circumstance, an evil thing. With the assumption built in, the second premise should read like this: The God of the Bible kills innocent children, and death of anyone innocent is always a bad thing. The assumption that death, especially the death of innocent children, is always bad, stems from the skeptic’s adherence to pure naturalism. If this physical life and material world are all that exist, then to take an innocent person out of this physical world is inherently evil, according to the skeptic.

Yet, the same Bible that tells about a God Who takes the physical lives of innocent children also informs the reader that this physical world is not all there is to existence. In fact, the Bible explains that every person has a soul that will live forever, long after physical life on this Earth is over (Matthew 25:46; see also Thompson, 2001). The Bible consistently stresses the fact that the immortal soul of each individual is of much more value than that individual’s physical life on this Earth. Jesus Christ said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

Although the skeptic might object, and claim that an answer from the Bible is not acceptable, such an objection falls flat for one primary reason—the skeptic used the Bible to formulate hisargument. Where is it written that God is love? The answer: in the Bible in such passages as 1 John 4:8. Where do we learn that the Lord did, indeed, kill or order the deaths of babies? Once again, that information comes directly from the Bible. Where, then, should we look for an answer to this alleged discrepancy? The answer should be the Bible. If the alleged problem is formulated from biblical testimony, then the Bible should be given the opportunity to explain itself. As long as the skeptic uses the Bible to formulate the problem, we certainly can use the Bible to solve the problem. The biblical solution to the alleged problem in this instance is that every person has an immortal soul that is of inestimable value.

With the value of the soul in mind, let us examine several verses that prove that physical death is not necessarily evil. In a letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul was writing from prison to encourage the Christians. His letter was filled with hope and encouragement, but it also was tinted with some very pertinent comments about the way that Paul (and God) view death. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul wrote:

For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better (emp. added).

According to the skeptic, the death of an innocent person is always, in every case, an evil thing. In these verses, however, Paul lays that faulty assumption to rest. Paul, a faithful Christian, said that death was a welcome visitor. In fact, Paul said that the end of his physical life on this Earth would be “far better” than its continuation. For Paul, as well as for any faithful Christian, the cessation of physical life is not loss, but gain. Such would apply to innocent children as well, since they are in a safe condition and go to paradise when they die (see Butt, 2003).

Other verses in the Bible show that the loss of physical life is not inherently evil. The prophet Isaiah concisely summarized the situation when he was inspired to write:

The righteous perishes, and no man takes it to heart; merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness (57:1-2, emp. added).

Isaiah recognized that people would view the death of the righteous incorrectly. He plainly stated that this incorrect view of death was due to the fact that most people do not think about the fact that when a righteous or innocent person dies, that person is “taken away from evil,” and enters “into peace.”

The psalmist wrote: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15). Death is not inherently evil. In fact, the Bible indicates that death can be great gain in which a righteous person is taken away from evil and allowed to enter peace and rest. God looks upon the death of His faithful followers as something precious. Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic to legitimately charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm always will result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes…while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255.

Thompson, Bert (2001), The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

The Mosaic Authorship of the Joseph Story by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5218

The Mosaic Authorship of the Joseph Story

by	Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary staff writer Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is completing Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral studies at Amridge University where he is a Ph.D. candidate. He holds professional membership in both the American Schools of Oriental Research as well as the Society of Biblical Literature.]

Few success stories in the Bible are more memorable than that of Joseph. Betrayed by his brothers and later accused of a crime he did not commit, Joseph narrowly avoided death on two separate occasions. In spite of the personal hardships he suffered, God had a plan to use him to save countless lives. Thanks to divine providence, he stood triumphant at the right hand of the pharaoh as one of the most powerful men, not only in Egypt, but in the world.

As with most of the early books of the Bible—particularly from Genesis to the early chapters of 1 Samuel—skeptics and critics label the Joseph story as the work of later authors (see Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, pp. 67-68). According to the documentary hypothesis (popularly known as the JEDP theory), the Pentateuch as a whole is composed of several different documents edited together by redactors, or editors. The Joseph story is no exception. Critics claim it is the product of multiple authors living between the 10^th and 6^th centuries B.C., if not later.

The Bible recognizes Moses as the author of the Pentateuch (Exodus 24:7,27-28; Numbers 33:2; Joshua 8:32; 2 Chronicles 34:14). Critics reject the Mosaic authorship of this material, with most denying the existence of Moses as well. This denial is built upon the assumptions inherent in the documentary hypothesis, whose adherents rarely take Egyptian evidence into account. The fine details of the Joseph story do not point to a Hebrew scribe writing in the 10^th-6^th centuries B.C. Rather, they point to an author who was intimately familiar with Egypt and who included Egyptian loanwords and other details of Egyptian culture in his work. To summarize some of the important Egyptian details in the Joseph story, consider the following points:

• Joseph is sold for 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28). Babylonian records indicate that this was the average going rate for a slave in the first half of the second millennium (Kitchen, 2003, pp. 344-345), but later rose due to inflation. The prices given in the Bible in later texts correspond to the prices at the time those texts were written. At the ancient cities of Nuzi and Ugarit in the mid- to late-second millennium, the price was 30 shekels and more, which is reflected in the Mosaic law (Mendelsohn, 1955, p. 68; cf. Exodus 21:32). Still later in the first millennium, the price went up to 50-60 shekels, which seems to be reflected in the ransom for Menahem of Israel (2 Kings 15:20). Later authors would not have been able to research these minute details in order to make the account believable, nor would anyone have thought about doing so. If the Joseph story had been written when critics claim (closer to the 6^th century B.C.), the price asked by his brothers should have been somewhere around 60 shekels instead of 20 (Kitchen, 2003, p. 345; cf. Kitchen, 1995, 21[02]). If the Joseph story was written after the exile, we would expect the price to have been as high as 90-120 shekels. On a further note, Leviticus 27:4 establishes the price of 20 shekels for a male slave younger than 20 years of age (Joseph was 17—Genesis 37:2; see Wenham, 1978, pp. 264-265).
• Joseph is thrown into prison, which the Egyptians called the “Place of Confinement” (Aling, 2002, p. 99). These were rare in the ancient Near East and seem to have been found only in Egypt. The Mosaic Law never mentions prisons, and does not seem to have a close parallel to our modern concept of them. If later Israelite authors had invented the Joseph story, it would have been highly unlikely that they would have included this feature.
• Joseph likely serves as an overseer (Egyptian imy-re per) in Potiphar’s house. His service and promotion fits very well in an Egyptian context (see the discussion of relevant titles for this office, as well as Joseph’s promotion, in Hoffmeier, 1996 and Kitchen, 2003).
• Joseph is able to interpret dreams. This was a vital aspect of life in ancient Egypt. Those who did so were specialists who consulted dream books, examples of which have been discovered by archaeologists (e.g., Papyrus Chester Beatty III, currently housed in the British Museum). Joseph proves his superiority by interpreting the king’s dreams without any access to these reference works.
• Joseph is brought before pharaoh after being shaved and dressed appropriately (Genesis 41:14), something that was done in Egypt but not among Semitic peoples (see Fried, 2007). The Beni Hasan tomb painting depicts Canaanite merchants around the same time as the patriarchs wearing beards and having full heads of hair. Although pharaohs were depicted wearing beards, it is clear that these were false (whether in paintings or on statuary, a close inspection will reveal the strap along the jawline that held the beard in place).
• Jacob and Joseph are both embalmed or mummified. The text also mentions Joseph’s coffin (Genesis 50:26). Although extremely sparse, the details given in the Bible match what scholars know about the process from ancient records. The biblical text states that 40 days were required for mummification (Genesis 50:3). This seems to be a rounded number that agrees with an Egyptian text known as “The Ritual of Embalming,” which states that the beginning of the embalming process began four days after death and continued for 42 days (Brier, 1994, p. 45).
• Joseph is described as being 110 years old. We know from ancient Egyptian records that this was the ideal age at the time of death, essentially a way of saying that a person had lived a rich, full life. The Bible later records this figure at 70 or 80 years (cf. Psalm 90:10). Over half of the references to this lifespan in Egyptian literature occur during the same general period as the one in which Moses lived (Kitchen, 2003, p. 351). Thus, this number preserves an expression that appears to have been the most popular during the period in which Moses received his education.
• Linguistic clues provide important insight into when the Joseph narrative may have been put into written form. The word for the Nile River used in the text when Pharaoh discusses his dreams is ye’or rather than the more common Hebrew term nahar. The word ye’or is an Egyptian loanword for “river” that was used in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.) onward (Sarna, 1966, p. 218). Likewise, the term for the grass eaten by the cows is akhu, another Egyptian loanword. Sarna notes that the reference to cattle may be significant as well. They were an important part of the Egyptian economy, while sheep played a minor role. The situation was reversed in Palestine.
• One of the supports for the early second millennium devotion to writing of the Joseph material is the phrase “the land of Rameses” (Genesis 47:11) which came into common use in the 13^thcentury and fell into disuse after the 12^th century (Kitchen, 1991, p. 118).

The Egyptian details of the Joseph story are what we would expect to find if someone educated in Egypt had been the one to put this story into written form (cf. Acts 7:22). Alan R. Schulman states: “It is quite clear that the person who either wrote, or wrote down, the Joseph sagas had an exceedingly intimate knowledge of Egyptian life, literature, and culture, particularly in respect to the Egyptian court, and, in fact, may even have lived in Egypt for a time” (1975, p. 236). This is precisely what we find in the Bible’s statements about the life of Moses. Put simply, the Joseph story could not have been the invention of a Hebrew scribe in the first millennium.

Taken together, the details above generate some important questions about the authorship of the Joseph story and the assumptions made by many modern interpreters. Why does the text include terms popularized in the Egyptian language during the time in which Moses would have lived? Why do Egyptian concepts fill these stories when they are absent in later texts that critics claim to have been written at the same time as the Pentateuch? Why is it that chronologically-sensitive details in the Joseph story fit well within a context of the early second millennium, while critics claim it was written in the early first millennium? These questions demand a reevaluation of the skeptic’s position, which tends to be haunted by the twin spectres of unfounded skepticism and anti-biblical bias. The Bible presents a far more believable author of this material than the contrivances of its critics.

REFERENCES

Aling, Charles (2002), “Joseph in Egypt: Part III,” Bible and Spade, 15[4].

Brier, Bob (1994), Egyptian Mummies: Unraveling the Secret of an Ancient Art (New York: Quill).

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press).

Fried, Lisbeth S. (2007), “Why Did Joseph Shave?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 33[4], July-August.

Hoffmeier, James K. (1996), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1991), “Israel Seen from Egypt: Understanding the Biblical Text from Visuals and Methodology,” Tyndale Bulletin, 42[1], May.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1995), “Patriarchal Age: Myth or History,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 21[02], March/April.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Mendelsohn, Isaac. (1955), “On Slavery in Alalakh,” Israel Exploration Journal, 5[2].

Sarna, Nahum M. (1966), Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History(New York: Schocken Books).

Schulman, A. R. (1975), “On the Egyptian Name of Joseph: A New Approach,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 2.

Wenham, Gordon J. (1978), “Leviticus 27.2-8 and the Price of Slaves,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 90.