Bwana Bob has once again appointed himself the official historian of the first century, and the results are about as reliable as one of his prophetic timelines.
In his latest piece, (CG7, biblical accuracy, and Lucian of Antioch), Bob Thiel argues that the New Testament canon was essentially complete the moment John finished Revelation, that the Apostle John personally possessed the full 27-book list, and that he handed it off to Polycarp of Smyrna as part of a continuous "Church of God" chain of custody that somehow (after a brief 1,800-year nap) reappears in the Continuing Church of God. The entire argument is classic Armstrongist retrofitting: take real early Christian figures, strip away everything that makes them actual historical Christians, and rebrand them as proto-CCOG members who quietly believed in Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and the whole package.
1. The "John and Polycarp were True COG" claim is pure anachronistic cosplay.
Thiel treats the Apostle John and Polycarp as if they were early members of the same organization that Herbert Armstrong invented in the 20th century and that Bob now claims to lead. John was a Jewish-Christian apostle writing within the first generation of the movement that became the broader church. Polycarp was a second-century bishop of Smyrna who opposed Marcion, accepted the developing four-gospel collection, and operated within the emerging proto-orthodox network. Neither man left any evidence of British-Israelism, the specific Armstrongist calendar, the rejection of the Trinity in the modern COG sense, or any of the other distinctive markers of Thiel's group. Claiming them as "TRUE COG members" is the same move used for every other ancient figure Bob wants to recruit: if they mentioned Scripture or lived in Asia Minor, they must have been secretly running a Sabbath-keeping remnant that matches the 2026 CCOG website.
2. Selective quotation and circular "chain of custody."
Thiel cites Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, the Harris Fragments, Irenaeus, Ignatius, the Didache, and 1 Clement as if they prove a closed 27-book canon under John's personal supervision. What they actually show is that early Christian writers in Asia Minor and elsewhere were using and quoting various apostolic writings and treating them as authoritative. That is normal and expected. It does not equal a formal, fixed canon list that John privately certified and passed to Polycarp like a membership card. Polycarp alludes to and quotes a number of New Testament writings; he does not provide a checklist of all 27 books, nor does any contemporary document record John compiling and sealing the collection. The argument is circular: "The true Church had the canon because Polycarp had it, and Polycarp had it because he was true Church."
3. Ignoring how the canon actually developed.
The New Testament collection was recognized gradually. Some books (the Gospels, Paul's major letters, 1 Peter, 1 John) were widely accepted early. Others (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation) had more varied reception. Athanasius's 367 Festal Letter is one of the earliest clear statements of the exact 27-book list that matches the modern Protestant canon; regional councils later confirmed it. Thiel's claim that the canon was locked once Revelation was written, and that only the "Church of God" in Asia Minor possessed it, requires ignoring the actual historical process and the fact that writings circulated across multiple Christian communities, not inside a single exclusive remnant.
4. The Asia Minor exclusivity argument is special pleading.
Yes, many New Testament books were addressed to or written from Asia Minor. That does not mean the churches there alone possessed or defined the canon, nor that every other Christian community was somehow outside the "true" line. Early Christian literature shows letters, Gospels, and apostolic traditions moving between Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, and elsewhere. Thiel's map of "only Asia Minor counts" is drawn to fit the conclusion that his preferred geography is the only legitimate one.
5. Textual history is pressed into service of the narrative.
The discussion of Lucian of Antioch, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus mixes real textual scholarship with the usual implication that the "true" line preserved the pure text while everyone else corrupted it. This is a familiar pattern in certain Protestant and Armstrongist circles, but it does not demonstrate a continuous COG chain of custody from John through Polycarp to the present.
The pattern is consistent: real early Christians become honorary members of the Continuing Church of God, the historical development of the canon is flattened into a single apostolic hand-off, and any evidence that does not fit is either ignored or reclassified as the work of the "Greco-Roman" church. It is not historical method; it is membership recruitment conducted with ancient names.
Surely the larger splinter groups must have their own researchers and scholars who will either fact check Bob, or glom on to this! (if they've ever even heard of Bob!). Not even Dr. Hoeh went this far, or made such leaps, although Polycarp and Polycrates were always his favorite Antenicene fathers because he saw them as being on the WCG-approved "correct" side of the Quartodeciman Controversy. Uncle Roddy made brief mention of them way back in First Year Bible Class at Embarrassing College all those years ago. Funny, though. I think he only mentioned them once or twice during the entire year, but for reasons only known to himself, he harped on masturbation every single class!
ReplyDeleteBB
Neither man left any evidence of British-Israelism...
ReplyDeleteHow could they, after all? No one realistically could have taught that theory until at least 1492. (Or maybe 1607.)
A feast celebrating the exodus is on the 15th but Nisan/Abib 14 is the first day of UB.
ReplyDeleteThe mislabeled CCOg is the CCOHA.- Continuing Church Of Herbert Armstrong
Bob and the other ACOG "historians" treat historical sources the same way they do Scripture. They cherry-pick information which they believe support their position/thesis and reject/ignore anything which contradicts it.
ReplyDeleteAgreed there Millar/Lonnie…….they do cherry pick info for support. Simply a quest for some/any credibility, which they so desperately need and do not have. Their own divisions speak against them loudly and clearly. Cheers.
DeleteThe COGs never seemed to understand that the Quartodeciman Controversy did not support their beliefs...
ReplyDelete1) This was not about observing the days of unleavened bread; it was about on which day to observe a non Biblical day; it was to observe the death and resurrection of Christ (Pascha) which was not commanded in the Law.
2) It showed that disagreement did not mean disunity contrary to COG practice. Anicetus of Rome wanted to observe this time on Christ's day of resurrection (Sunday...and Polycarp recognized this was the day of the Resurrection). Polycarp thought it better and that it followed John's tradition of observing the Pascal festival on the 14th of Nisan. They did not convince one another but they did part as brothers after taking communion together.
3. Polycarp had no objection to Sunday as the day of Resurrection.
The COGs somehow think the Quarterdeciman Controversy supports the holy days of the Law even when the issue is not about those days but rather the new celebration of CHRIST's Resurrection from death.
Spot on Earl 11:24:34 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Quartodecimans used the Passover date (14 Nisan), but they were not keeping the Mosaic Passover. They were keeping Pascha, the Christian celebration of Christ’s passion. They kept the day when Christ suffered, not the Passover of the Law.
Jesus ate the Last Supper the night before His death - 13 Nisan evening - so the Quartodecimans were clearly not reenacting the Last Supper. Armstrong and his followers twisted this controversy because it needed historical proof that early Christians kept the holy days, even though the actual dispute had nothing to do with the Mosaic festivals. He was adept at bending and twisting things to suit his purposes.