A New Approach to the Christ Myth – No Reason for Jesus

A New Approach to the Christ Myth – No Reason for Jesus

 jesusicon

Most people attempting to disprove the literal existence of Jesus Christ (mythicists) do so by demonstrating the plethora of parallels that exist between the Christ myth and the various earlier myths which were in circulation in and around the regions in which the Gospels were first produced.  They point to the twice-born giver of wine and life, Dionysius, the resurrected Osiris, or the Son of God, Horus, who was one with his father, among many other examples.  Mythicists also demonstrate, with solid evidence, the philosophical origins of Jesus’ alleged revelations, which we now know were first penned by more ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Persians, for example.

The purpose of this small essay is to approach the Christ myth from another angle, one which has been, by and large, overlooked.

The Reason for Jesus Christ

Christ came, they say, to redeem mankind from their fallen and sinful state, which, according to Christian and Jewish theology, is the result of the ‘original sin’ described in the “Fall of Man” narrative.  The Fall of Man refers to the original disobedience of the first two humans allegedly created by the “one true God” and can be found in Genesis chapter 3.  It is an etiological (explanatory) myth, tacked onto the end of the creation myths found in Genesis 1 & 2, which serves to explain the evils of this world.  The first three chapters of Genesis are linked to one another, albeit in a rather conflicting manner, so to begin, let us start at the beginning.

Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.  No, wait, that’s not right!  The original Hebrew reads;

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. (Read Right to Left)

Transliterated it reads;

Bur’ashyth Bur’a ‘Elohim ‘Ath HShamayim V’ath H’aurtsh

And correctly translated it reads;

In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth.

                                                                                           ~Genesis 1:1

The gods (plural) ‘Elohim,’ is an epithet applied by the so-called ‘E’ writers of the Old Testament and it is a term used to describe multiple gods.  Of course, there are defenses for this polytheistic term, most of which have been thoroughly debunked by textual, historical and archaeological scholars.

Here are three such scholars:

Bart Ehrman (Biblical Scholar):

There is good evidence that at different periods of history, Jews in fact, believed that there were multiple gods.  You can find this even within the Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Bible.  Within the Ten Commandments, “you shall have no other gods before me,” says the Ten Commandments, well, you need to think about that for a second…no other gods before me? Well, that presupposes that there are other gods, it’s just that they’re not to be worshipped before the god of Israel.”(1)

Rev. Archibald Henry Sayce (Professor of Assyriology at Oxford):

“Elohim is a plural noun, and its employment in the Old Testament as a singular has given rise to a large amount of learned discussion, and, it must also be added, of a learned want of common sense. Grammarians have been in the habit of evading the difficulty by describing it as a “pluralis majestatis,” “a plural of majesty,” or something similar, as if a term in common use which was grammatically a plural could ever have come to be treated as a singular, unless this singular had once been a plural….We may take it for granted, therefore, that if the Hebrew word Elohim had not once signified the plural “gods,” it would never have been given a plural form, and the best proof of this is the fact that in several passages of the Old Testament the word is still used in a plural sense. Indeed there are one or two passages, as for example Gen. 1:26, where the word, although referring to the God of Israel, is yet employed with a plural verb, much to the bewilderment of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian commentators who followed them.  It is strange how preconceived theories will cause the best scholars to close their eyes to obvious facts.” (2)

Ze’ev Herzog (Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Israel):

“And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.” (3)

So, Jesus cannot be the one true son of the one true God, because the Jewish theology, upon which the Christian religion has been theologically established, was originally polytheistic, as has now been thoroughly established by archaeological, biblical, textual and historical scholars.

I seem to have digressed, so for sake of brevity let us move past all of the other flaws and problems with the first pages of Genesis and go straight to the Garden of Eden and the so-called, “Fall of Man.”

The Fall of Man, In A Nutshell

Once upon a time God created a beautiful garden graced with every type of plant, fruit and animal (Genesis 2:8).  There was every single kind of tree and plant pleasant to the sight, from tropical plants to temperate flowers, all side by side (Genesis 2:9).  The tropical plants were maintained by a complex system of hydroponic lighting and heating, whilst the temperate flora and fauna were cooled with outside air conditioners.  There were dinosaurs and birds living in harmony and most importantly, there was man, and by man, I mean a male human being, created from dirt, a dirt-man, if you like (Genesis 2:7).  Let us ignore the chapter before this one, in which we were previously told that men and women were created and blessed simultaneously (Genesis 1:27), for such nitpicking is only going to sully the narrative.

At first, the all-knowing and wise God thought the animals might make good companions for the man (Genesis 2:18), but soon discovered that this arrangement wasn’t working too well, what with all the serious injuries Adam was sustaining due to his numerous advances toward some of the tigresses and lionesses, so the God decided to dose the man with divine drugs and put him in a deep sleep (Genesis 2:21).  Whilst the man was sleeping, the God came down and removed one of his ribs (Genesis 2:21), filled a bathtub with ice and placed the unconscious man therein.  When the man awoke to find himself in a bathtub full of ice, he was shocked and a little chilly, to say the least.  Unaware of his missing rib, he gazed upon one of the most curious creatures he had ever seen and he called her “woman-where’s my dinner!?” (Genesis 2:23).  This ‘woman-where’s my dinner,’ was created by the God to act as his slave (Genesis 2:20) and to help him populate the garden with human beings, for whom she would have to cook, clean, have sex with and then, after all that, be told to shut up while they all watched TV, or whatever the equivalent was back then.  We are unsure of the entirety of their exploits in the garden, but what we do know from the first chapter, is that the gods created them in their own image (Genesis 1:26), stupid, and without knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2 – 3).

Notwithstanding their incompetent nature, these newborn children were left virtually unsupervised, which we might well forgive the God for, as he was a first time parent with a lot on his plate.  Growing bored with the banality of watching these two fools frolic around day in and day out, the God decided to plant a tree in the middle of the garden, a tree that was endowed with magical fruit which bestowed upon the taster, the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6-7).  Possessing an unwavering zeal for ignorance, the God warned these two newborns not to eat this fruit (Genesis 2:17).  Naturally this warning was completely lost on these two ignoramuses, as they weren’t the products of intelligent design, or at least, were not designed to be intelligent and so, with the help of a walking and talking snake, the most cunning beast of the field (Genesis 3:1), a creature that the God thought it wise to bestow such intelligence upon, they fell prey to temptation and ate the fruit (Genesis 3:6).  These two infantile humans had no idea that disobedience was a bad thing, because they hadn’t eaten the forbidden fruit yet, and given the negligence of the moronic God who placed these two idiots in a garden inhabited by the most cunning beast of the field, we might excuse their misdeed, but he did not and subsequently cursed every human descendant, even you and me.  So there you have it, the Fall of Man, in a nutshell.

But what if this Fall of Man never took place?  What if, as crazy as it may sound to some, this whole account is myth?  What impact would this have upon Christianity, a religion that today, is intrinsically linked with human history?  I shall reveal the consequences of this in just a moment, but first, let’s look at a small fragment of the mountain of evidence that exists, which demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that both the Garden of Eden and Fall of Man are fictitious myths, myths adopted in large part from the more ancient religion(s) of the Babylonians and Sumerians.

Exhibit A – Contradictions

If the story of creation found in the first few chapters of Genesis is a real and reliable account of the divine creation of the universe, the earth, plants, animals and humans, then we would expect it to be without contradiction.  If contradictions did exist, then this would indicate that the account is not the product of an infallible God, but that of fallible human authors.

If we compare the account of creation in chapter one of Genesis to the account of creation in chapter two, we notice irreconcilable differences.  For example, in the first chapter of Genesis, the earth emerges from the water and is therefore saturated with moisture (Genesis 1:2, 6-7), whilst in the second chapter, the ground is dry and requires moistening (Genesis 2:5-6).  In the first chapter, the order of creation is different to the second, with birds and animals being created before man (Genesis 1:24-26).  Fowls that fly are made from the waters in the first chapter and from the dry ground in the second (Genesis 1:20 vs. Genesis 2:19).  In the first chapter man is created in the image of the gods (Genesis 1:26 vs. Genesis 3:22), whilst in the second he is made from dirt (Genesis 2:7) and only becomes like the gods after eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:22).  In the first, man is made to be the Lord of the whole earth (Genesis 1:26) and in the second, made only to dress and keep the garden in Eden, only (Genesis 2:15).  Finally, man and woman are created as a set in chapter one (Genesis 1:27) and separately in chapter two, with woman being a kind of afterthought (Genesis 2:21-22).

Notwithstanding the different epithets applied to the gods in chapter one (Elohim – the gods) versus chapter two (Yahweh-Elohim – Lord of the gods), these are the primary conflicts that exist between the two separate etiological myths found in the first chapters of Genesis.  This has a devastating impact upon the credibility of the second and third chapters of the book of Genesis, within which we find our Fall of Man narrative, for chapter two is impeached by chapter one and chapter three cannot stand without chapter two, as these two chapters are intrinsically linked.

Exhibit B – The Garden in Eden

If the Garden of Eden was not a real place, then the setting for the Fall of Man is erased from reality and subsequently, the event itself is left as nothing more than a fictitious myth.  The present consensus amongst archaeologists, Assyriologists and scholars of comparative mythology, is that the Garden of Eden narrative was adopted by the Hebrews from their Babylonian captors sometime during the exilic or even post-exilic period (from the 6th century~).

The location of the Garden of Eden is described in the book of Genesis as being close to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which just happens to be the exact location of ancient Babylonia, or Sumer, the land of the Chaldeans.  George Smith’s mentor at the British Museum, assyriologist, Sir Henry Rawlings, noted that there is not only a striking similarity between the Babylonian region of Karduniyas or Ganduniyas with the Garden of Eden mentioned in the Bible, but also an agreement with regards to the ancient Chaldean account of the sword guarding the garden which turned in all directions.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

                                                                                                                ~Genesis 3:24

Referring to this sword and the Garden of Eden, George Smith stated that:

Eden is a fruitful place, watered by the four rivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Gihon, and Pison, and Ganduniyas is similar in description, watered by the four rivers, Euphrates, Tigris, Surappi, and Ukni.  The loss of this portion of the Creation legend is unfortunate, as, however probable it may be that the Hebrew and Babylonian traditions agree about the Garden and Tree of Knowledge, we cannot now prove it. There is a second tree, the Tree of Life, in the Genesis account (ch. iii. 22), which certainly appears to correspond to the sacred grove of Anu, which a later fragment states was guarded by a sword turning to all the four points of the compass. (4)

The description of this sword guarding the tree of life that turns in all directions represents a peculiar and obscure detail, one which indicates that it was directly copied by the Hebrews.

With regards to the Chaldean origin of the Garden of Eden, George Smith concluded:

There are coincidences in respect to the geography of the region and its name which render the identification very probable; the four rivers in each case, two, the Euphrates and Tigris, certainly identical, the known fertility of the region, its name, sometimes Gan-dunu, so similar to Gan-eden (the Garden of Eden), and other considerations, all tend towards the view that it is the Paradise of Genesis.  There are evidences of the belief in the tree of life, which is one of the most common emblems on the seals and larger sculptures, and is even used as an ornament on dresses; a sacred tree is also several times mentioned in these legends, but at present there is no direct connection known between the tree and the Fall, although the gem engravings render it very probable that there was a legend of this kind like the one in Genesis. (5)

As a final note on the parallels between these two mythological gardens, let us look at the name ascribed to the famous garden in the book of Genesis; The Garden of Eden.  If we examine the title of this famous garden, we will notice that it is not a garden called Eden, but rather, a Garden in a place called Eden (see Gen. 2:8).  But where is this Eden?  The Bible gives us references to its location, being somewhere proximate to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, as well as two other rivers, the Pishon and the Gihon:

Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

~Genesis 2:10-14

Both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located in Mesopotamia.  As for the other two rivers, there locations are not so easy to pin point, for no extra-biblical records exist that describe their true locations, which has led to much speculation over the centuries.  No one knows the location of the River Pishon, or the land it supposedly flowed around, Havilah, as both the River Pishon and the land of Havilah are only found within Jewish Biblical and Apocryphal writings.  Thus, the location of these two land marks are either fictitious or have been lost to us in the wastes of time.  But what of the River Gihon and the land called Cush, the second set of coordinates mentioned in Genesis?

Cush or Kush is mentioned in the Bible and has been said by some biblical scholars to describe the land we now call Ethiopia. (6)   However, there are no water ways which connect the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia to any river on the separate continent of Africa, where the land of Ethiopia sits.  Thus, it is impossible that the River Gihon, said to surround the entire land of Cush, could be a reference to a river which is both proximate to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and at the same time, encircle the country of Ethiopia.

There is another explanation as to the possible location of Kush, one which keeps the mythological Garden of Eden in Mesopotamia, close to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and at the same time hints at the true origins of the Eden myth.

Kush may have originally been pronounced ‘Kish.’  If so, then Kush or Kish, would more than likely find its etymological root in the name of a very famous ancient Sumerian city, Kish, which would make a lot more sense with regards to the description of a place close to both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.  It is probable that the authors of Genesis chapter two were describing a land somewhere in Mesopotamia, for the reason that we have two definite landmarks which still exist today, those being the aforementioned, Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Hebrew and Semitic vowels can be interchangeable, as they do not appear in written texts.  For example, the name David, appears in the Hebrew Texts, transliterated as DVD, and Yahweh as YHWH, etc.  Thus, the ‘U’ in Kush, may have originally been an ‘I,’ or ‘Y’ making it Kish/Kysh, the name of our well known Mesopotamian city in Sumer.   Further, in support of this proposition we may observe that the word Kush, as it is popularly transliterated into English, is rendered, ‘KVSH,’ however the ‘V’ or Hebrew character, ‘Vav,’ when substituting a vowel as is the case here, acts as the ‘U’ sound, and is interchangeable with the ‘Yod,’ or ‘Y,’ which, if substituted, would render the transliteration, KYSH, pronounced Kish.  For evidence of these interchangeable characters, we may cite the work done by two nineteenth century professors of theology and Assyriology, F. Delitzsch and C.F. Keil, who in discussing the interchangeable nature of these two Hebrew characters, demonstrated that the Hebrew word ‘Havah,’ meaning ‘Eve,’ was interchangeable with Hebrew term ‘Hayah’, which also means Eve, demonstrating that the Vav and Yod characters were interchangeable. (7)

This makes more sense, especially when we discover that the person called Kush or Kish, in chapter ten in the book of Genesis, who was the grandson of Noah, was also the father of both Havilah (Gen. 10:7), the very name of the land described as being encircled by the Pishon River in Genesis chapter two, and Nimrod, “the mighty one” (Gen. 10:8-10), of whom it was said:

The first centers of his (Nimrod’s) kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, inShinar (Sumer). From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.

                                                                                                                        ~Genesis 10:10-12

Kush/Kish, is the father of Nimrod, who, according to the biblical legend, was the first King of Mesopotamia, which means that his father, Kish, was the Patriarch of Mesopotamia, possibly referring to an ancient Sumerian character, from whom the name of the real city of Kish was derived.  It may have been that the author(s) of Genesis was attempting to assert that the original patriarch of Mesopotamia, which is often called, the “cradle of civilization” was Ham, the father of Kish and grandfather of Nimrod, the first Mesopotamian King.  This may also be supported by the fact that Ham is also described as the father or original patriarch of the land of Canaan (see Gen. 9:18), a land whose people were the political, social, philosophical, theological and possibly even the biological descendants of not only the Egyptians, but of the Mesopotamians as well, the two largest, most influential and ancient empires in that region.

Based on the evidence above and the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located in Mesopotamia, we may assert with some confidence, that the author(s) of the second chapter of Genesis, or at least the relevant parts thereof, alleged that the Garden in Eden was located somewhere in ancient Sumer, or Babylonia.

This brings us back to the question at hand; where was Eden?   If, as we have seen, the authors of the book of Genesis were trying to establish that Eden was in Mesopotamia, then we must investigate the issue upon Mesopotamian terms, so to speak.  We can do so by asking one simple and logical question.  From a mythological point of view, what would have existed in that area called Eden, before God planted a garden there?  Prior to the planting of the garden in Eden, the area would have been nothing more than a desolate land, an open country, an uncultivated steppe or plain, which is exactly what the word ‘Eden,’ or ‘Edin’ means in the ancient Sumerian language. (8)

The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary concurs with both the scholars at Oxford and the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia, saying:

“Although traditionally identified with the Hebrew word meaning “luxury, pleasure, delight” {eden), Eden is more probably to be related to a Sumerian word meaning “plain, steppe” or the like [edin).” (9)

Reading through the ancient Sumerian tales contained on the tablets discovered in Mesopotamia and deciphered by Assyriologists at Oxford University, it becomes apparent that the origins of the Eden myth are to be found within the ancient Sumerian mythology, which date back to somewhere around the middle of the fourth millennium BCE. (10)

He (The god Enki) raised a holy crown over Eden. He fastened a lapis-lazuli beard to the high Eden, and made it wear a lapis-lazuli headdress. He made this good place perfect with greenery in abundance. He multiplied the animals of the high Eden to an appropriate degree, he multiplied the ibex and wild goats of the pastures, and made them copulate. Enki placed in charge of them the hero who is the crown of the high Eden, who is the king of Eden, the great lion of the high Eden, the muscular, the hefty, the burly strength of Enlil — Šakkan, the king of the hills. (11)

**

Its vineyard “Black garden in Eden”, planted near the house, is a mountain oozing wine and grows in a place with fearsomeness and radiance. (12)

 **

Ninegala, the holy….With her, Eden is filled with a glorious garden. (13)

So we see that not only were primary narrative components copied from the earlier polytheistic religions of the Babylonians and Sumerians, but that the very word itself, Eden, was also adopted as the title of this mythical land.

No Reason For Jesus

Let us now travel full circle and re-examine the alleged reason for Jesus’ earthly advent, based on the information we have canvassed and in light of his inherent ties to these now debunked myths.

From its earliest writer, Paul, Christian theology has linked the reason for Jesus’ earthly incarnation with the Fall of Man.  From Paul’s Epistle to the Romans we read:

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam), how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.                                                                                                     ~Romans 5:15-16

Following this, Christian commentators, theologians and preachers throughout the centuries have propagated this theological position.  It is the central axis upon which rests, the Christ myth.

In the late 2nd century, Irenaeus linked not only Christ with Adam, but Eve with Mary, saying:

“As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel and so fled from God after disobeying his word, Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel, and bore God in obedience to his word. As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God; thus the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve.  Christ gathered all things into one, by gathering them into himself. He declared war against our enemy, crushed him who at the beginning had taken us captive in Adam, and trampled on his head, in accordance with God’s words to the serpent in Genesis: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall lie in wait for your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.” (14)

Irenaeus was describing the fallacious ‘proto-evanglium,’ which attempts to esoterically link Genesis 3:15 with Jesus’ advent, making prophecy out of nothing and misinterpreting Hebrew Scripture to turn a mythical snake into Satan, for which there is absolutely no theological justification.(15)  Regardless, it does demonstrate how Christian theology is and has always been, rooted in the first few chapters of Genesis, without which, Jesus’ purpose is rendered redundant and obsolete.  For if there was no fall, then there was never a need for redemption and subsequently, no need for a redeemer.

Conclusion

Christianity, at least as it has come down to us today, is hinged upon the alleged historicity of both the human Jesus and the miracles surrounding his alleged existence, both with regards to the Christ myth itself and its theological basis, i.e., the Fall of Man.  Subtract its historical foundations and you obliterate its legitimacy.  To this end, many mythicists have focused their attention on demonstrating the lack of genuine historical testimony for both the human Jesus and the Christ of the Gospels; they have roundly established the adopted nature of the mythos that forms the very substance of the Christ myth, and in so doing, have aided efforts to eradicate the collective coma of Christianity from contemporary society.  But if the very reason for Christ’s advent comes from the first few chapters of Genesis, which most would agree it does, then attacking the reason for Christ, may well be the next frontier in mythicism.  Having said all of this, I do concede that neither this essay nor any mythicist to date, has successfully uprooted the mundane historical human Jesus, a man who may have possibly been the template for the legends/myths at the heart of the Christian religion, yet this approach may assist in debunking the fantastic and unfounded foundations of the theologically grounded Christ myth.

If, as we have seen, the first chapter of creation impeaches the second, then key narrative features central to both the second and the third chapters, i.e., the creation of the tree of knowledge, the creation of Eve after Adam and the Fall itself, are rendered unreliable accounts of the past.  This being the case, the credibility of the Fall of Man narrative is rendered mythical, rather than historical, thereby cutting away at the very foundation of the Christian’s historical Christ.  Finally, in discovering that the Garden of Eden, the very setting of the Fall narrative, was an adopted myth, the existence of original sin inextricably associated with this setting has been successfully impeached, along with the reason and subsequent existence of the legendary/mythical Christ himself.

References

 

1. Bart D. Ehrman. From Jesus to Constantine: A  History of Early Christianity. The Teaching Company.

(2004). Lecture 2: Religious World of Early Christianity.

 2. Rev. A. H. Sayce. The “Higher Criticism” and the Verdict of the Monuments. E. & J.E Young and Co.

(1894).  p. 84.

3. http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/notes/item/15

4. George Smith. The Chaldean Account of Genesis.

Scribner, Armstrong and Co. (1876). p. 88.

5. Ibid. pp. 305-306.

6. Zenaide A. Ragozin. The Story of Chaldea: From the Earliest Times to the Rise of Assyria. The  Knickerbocker Press. (1886). p. 189.

7. C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Vol. 1. T&T Clark. (1885). p. 106.

8. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Faculty of Oriental Studies. Oxford University.  (2006); Glossary (E); http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcsllemma.php?sortbylemma=lemma&letter=e; Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum. Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd Ed. Vol. 7. Thompson Gale. (2007). p. 388.

9.  Paul. J. Achtemeier. Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary

Revised Edition. Harper Collins, (1989). p. 267.

10. Leonard W. King. A History of Sumer and Akkad.

Chatto  and Windus. (1923). p. 65.

11. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature.

Faculty of Oriental Studies. Oxford University. (2006):

 http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslgloss.php?lookup=c113.349&charenc=gcirc

12.  Ibid. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslgloss.php?lookup=c217.779&charenc=gcirc

13.   Ibid. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslgloss.php?lookup=c40816.C.11&charenc=gcirc 

14. Irenaeus. Against the Heresies. Book 2. 

15. Paul. J. Achtemeier. Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary Revised Edition. Harper Collins, (1989).

p. 975.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s