Free Faith on Trial by Pamela Binnings Ewen Page A

534 (2nd Cir. 1992).
    95. Matthews Roofing v. Community Bank & Trust Company of Edgewater , 194 Ill. App. 3d 200, 206, 550 N.E. 2d 1189, 1193, 141 Ill. (1990); American Laser Products, Inc. v. National Imaging Supplies Group, Inc., No. 94 C 7624 (1st Dist. 1996), LEXIS 3520 (1996), 55. (An agency relationship need not depend on an express appointment but may be created by the situation of the parties, their actions, and other relevant circumstances.) Also see Pappias v. Middle Earth Condominium Assn., 538 (agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence); Wargel v. First National Bank of Harrisburg , 121 Ill. App. 3d 730, 460 N.E. 331, 334, 77 Ill. Dec. 275 (5th Dist. 1984) (an agency relationship must be determined by analyzing the parties’ actual practices).
    96. Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists, 25.
    97. Ibid., 26.
    98. Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(4)(B).
    99. Strong, McCormick on Evidence , vol. 1, Section 10, 40.
    Chapter Four
    1. Bruce, The New Testament Documents , 34–35, particularly Theodor von Zahn, Dom B. C. Butler, and Dom John Chapman.
    2. Eusebius, “H.E. iii. 39,” in Bruce, The New Testament Documents , 38. For a general discussion of this issue, see Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 32–38.
    3. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament , 209.
    4. The fellows of the Jesus Seminar have taken the position that a work referred to as the “Gospel of Thomas” evidences the existence of a Q document because the Gospel of Thomas contains no narrative and is composed solely of quotations, or “sayings” of Jesus. Clearly the Gospel of Thomas itself does not evidence the Q document because it is dated much later than the Gospels, even considering the most conservative orthodox dating. The Coptic version of this work was found in 1946 in Egypt together with a group of texts, referred to as the Nag Hammadi texts. These are codices believed by most scholars to be dated to the third and fourth centuries ad, although Greek fragments of a version of this Gospel may be dated as early as the end of the second century. They reflect the thinking of an unorthodox group of people living in the second century, commonly referred to as Gnostics. Although these texts are important in that they show the beginnings of wide acceptance of the teachings of Christianity at that period of time, many scholars do not believe they offer any new understanding of the New Testament. See Bruce, The New Testament Documents , 98. For a contrary view that appears to be based solely on speculation, see The Five Gospels, tran. and commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).
    5. For a discussion, see Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? , 31–32.
    6. Thiede and D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus , 135.
    7. The text was found in the Wadi Muraba, inventory and plate number 164 (Thiede and D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus , 137).
    8. Thiede and D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus , 136.
    9. The comparison is suggested by Bruce in The New Testament Documents , 32.
    10. Burton H. Throckmorton Jr., Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels , 4th ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979).
    11. Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:52, King James Version, as compared to 1956 Throckmortion study .
    12. John R. Kohlenberger III, ed., The Precise Parallel New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
    13. See Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels .
    14. Ibid., 171, 175, 177, 183, 185, setting forth corresponding passages in Luke 22:52 (a portion of the sentences); 61 (quotation only, contained in the last sentence of this passage); 22:62 (entire sentence); 23:3 and 23:44 (a portion of a sentence); 23:52 (a portion of a sentence).
    15. Some authorities believe the original Gospel of Mark ended with verse 16:8, in which various women followers of Jesus are reported to have visited the tomb three days after the burial of Jesus, only to find the tomb empty and an