Were the Earliest Christians Only Concerned About Oral Tradition?

First, early Christianity was not an oral religion. Sure, traditions of Jesus were transmitted orally, but this is not the same thing. We cannot confuse a medium of transmission with a mentality (or disposition) of early Christian culture. I have argued elsewhere that early Christianity was a religion of textuality, even if most its adherents were illiterate (as were most people in the ancient world). For more, see my Question of Canon, 79-118.

Second, the authors represented in the Apostolic Fathers were obviously literate. Not only were they producing written sources, but they show awareness of (and interact with) other written sources. Indeed, the letter exchanges in early Christianity were rapid and extensive (see such exchanges in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians as one example).

So, if these authors were quite textually oriented, why should we assume they mainly drew on oral tradition? Of all the people in early Christianity likely to be influenced by written texts, it would’ve been these authors!

Third, by the time these authors wrote in the second century, earlier generations of Christians had already exhibited significant interactions with written texts. For instance, the authors of Matthew and Luke seemed to know Mark (and possibly Q) and interacted with these writings textually. John may have known the texts of the Synoptics. And all of these Gospels interacted with the text of the OT.

So, if first-century Christians interacted often with written texts, then why would we assume Christian writers in the second century only used oral tradition?

Fourth, a number of times the Apostolic Fathers actually mention that they know of written Gospels! As just one example, Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis and wrote around 125AD (see inset picture!). He tell us plainly about the written gospels of Mark and Matthew:

The Elder used to say: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he [Peter] remembered. . . . Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.

What’s particularly noteworthy is that Papias received his information directly from “the Elder” who is no doubt “John the Elder” he mentions elsewhere as a follower and disciple of Jesus himself. Thus, although Papias is writing around 125 AD he is actually referring to a much earlier time when he received this tradition, probably around 90AD.

Here, then, is the key point: Papias attests to the fact that at the end of the first century, one of the primary ways Christians were receiving Jesus tradition was through written gospels, two of which were named Matthew and Mark (!). This fact alone should challenge the notion that only oral tradition can/should explain all citations in the Apostolic Fathers.

In sum, there’s little doubt that oral tradition still played a role in the second century and beyond. But, the evidence above suggests that there’s little reason to prefer oral tradition as the default, catch-all explanation for the Gospel tradition in the Apostolic Fathers.

On the contrary, the “bookish” nature of early Christianity, and its deep textual identity, suggests that we should be open to the idea that these authors—at least sometimes—knew and used written Gospel texts.

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/were-the-earliest-christians-only-concerned-about-oral-tradition-2/

The Faithfulness Of God In Our Temptations

         "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

         The Apostle Paul reminds us that God will guide us during times of temptation. We are assured that He will provide a means of escape from times when we may be more especially inclined to sin. This does not mean that God will make matters easier or more bearable for us, but that He will sustain us. Most of the time, the only way for us to get out of our troubles is to go through them.

         A noteworthy point should be extracted from this text: every potential urge to wrong God, neighbor or self has been experienced by mankind. We are not alone in our sufferings. Others have been where we have been before. Temptation is not unconquerable. Thus, we have reason to be encouraged. God is faithful. He is greater than all of our temptations. And, if we succumb to temptation, God is just to forgive us and cleanse us of from our sins upon repentance from them (1 John 1:7-9).

A Topical Scripture Cross Reference Study On Sanctification

• Sanctification Involves God Conforming Believers To The Image Of His Son Jesus Christ:

          -"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:28)

            *God is sovereign over the process of salvation from beginning to end. Its end goal is to make us perfectly holy like Jesus Himself is. This experiential righteousness is distinct from the righteous standing that God accords to us in Christ.
          -"This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ephesians 3:11)

           *It is a part of the eternal plan of God to restore us to a state of perfection after the sin of our first parents. Perhaps we are better off in Christ than Adam and Eve ever would have been had they never sinned and failed to live up to the moral standard that displays His divine splendor. World history is orchestrated in a way that brings glory to God.

• This Growth In Holiness Is A Consequence Of Being Filled With The Holy Spirit:

          -"to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." (Ephesians 4:22-24)
          -"...Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

           *We become more like Jesus Christ, not with regard to physical appearance, but moral qualities unique to Him. The imagery of clothing is used of us discarding old and rebellious ways. This is done by God's grace. It is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit.

• The Holy Spirit Works In Us So That We Can Please And Glorify God:

          -"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

            *This text balances divine sovereignty with human responsibility.
          -"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

            *Both the power of God and human exertion are at work in this process. Sanctification is brought about through faith. Its source is the Spirit of God.

• Believers Gradually Become More Like Christ In Terms Of Character As They Continue Serving The God Who Consecrated Them:

          -"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit." (Galatians 5:22-25)

            *The above characteristics are acquired by us in a state of grace. They do not represent man in his fallen state. No one has power in himself to live out the Christian life. The Holy Spirit enables us to bring forth fruit that is pleasing to God. 

• The Process Of Sanctification Involves Human Effort:

          -"Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1)

            *Sanctification by faith alone may sound like a teaching of Paul, but the idea is actually misguided and incorrect. We act out what God brings about in us. Faith and obedience are included in this aspect of salvation.

Revelation 2:23 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

        "And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds." (Revelation 2:23)

        It can readily be deduced from this text that Jesus Christ is a divine self. He is the one who rewards people according to their deeds, whether they be good or bad. He is our Judge. We are accountable to God because He is our Creator.

        Furthermore, Christ's right and authority to judge us is rooted in His omniscience. He is divine in the same sense as the Father and Holy Spirit are divine. He is God incarnate. The Lord has fully comprehensive knowledge of everything.

        Jesus Christ searches the hearts and minds of people. He knows everything about us all. There is not a thing hidden from His sight or unknown to Him. 

        Christ in this passage quotes Jeremiah 17:10. God Himself in the verse from the Book of Jeremiah is speaking. Nonetheless, Christ makes a formal application of those exact attributes to Himself. He could do this only if He were God.

Against Claims Of The Four Canonical Gospels Having Anonymous Authorship

        One claim raised to undermine the credibility of the four canonical gospels is that they were not written by the traditionally ascribed authors. Rather, unknown people during the end of the first to early second centuries created embellished records of Jesus Christ ministering and performing miracles. However, there are no good reasons for us to dismiss the four gospel narratives as being circulated legends or myths.

        First of all, any and all available manuscripts of the four gospels have the same titles designating their respective authors. All copies of Matthew have the same name. All copies of Mark have the same name. All copies of Luke have the same name. All copies of John have the same name. The titles of the traditionally attributed authors are present on all of the manuscript copies of the gospel narratives.

        Secondly, we have no early Christian rejection of the traditional authorship of the four gospels. A few examples of patristic support would include Irenaeus, Papias, Tertullian, and the church historian Eusebius. There exists no other tradition which conflicts with conventional claims of authorship.

        Thirdly, the four gospels are named after unimpressive individuals. Matthew was a tax collector. Luke was not even an apostle. If the four canonical gospel narratives were forgeries, then it would have been far more probable that the authors used names of better known people such as Peter or Thomas. After all, that is the pattern we observe amongst heretics who produced their spurious works during the second and third centuries.

         If the four gospels were forgeries, then how come the four gospels contain embarrassing details regarding the twelve apostles? For instance, Peter denied Jesus Christ three times in a row (Luke 22:54-62). Matthew records Christ calling Peter Satan and a stumbling block (Matthew 16:23). Judas betraying Him to the chief priests and students of the Law also serves as a perfect example of embarrassing details. Paul prior to his conversion persecuted Christians. If the four gospel narratives were forgeries, then we should not expect their authors to incorporate such shameful and humiliating details regarding these people.

        Even if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the original canonical gospels were anonymous, that point by itself would still not rule out traditional authorship attribution. Michael J. Kruger says the following:

        "For one, this did happen from time to time with Greco-Roman biographies. We do have examples of formally anonymous biographies, so this would not have been unheard of (e.g., Lucian’s Life of Demonax, Secundus the Silent Philosopher, Lives of the Prophets, Arrian’s Anabasis, and Sulpicious Severus’ Life of St. Martin ). But, Armin Baum has suggested another, and even more fundamental reason. Baum has argued that the Gospels were intentionally written as anonymous works in order to reflect the practice of the Old Testament historical books which were themselves anonymous (as opposed to other Old Testament writings, like the prophets, which included the identity of the author). Such a stylistic device allowed the authors of the gospels “to disappear” and to give “highest priority to their subject matter.” Thus, the anonymity of the Gospels, far from diminishing their scriptural authority, actually served to increase it by consciously placing the Gospels “in the tradition of Old Testament historiography.”

Ignatius Of Loyola And Submission To The Roman Catholic Church

          "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed." (Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, Thirteenth Rule)

          Whether or not we understand Ignatius as using hyperbole in this excerpt, is a side issue that does not change the implications of his thoughts about the authority of Rome. It remains clear as day that he taught the almost unconditional surrender of the intellect and will to the Papacy. According to him, that teaching office essentially defines reality. No dissent is allowed on matters it has officially spoken on, no matter how seemingly trivial that they may be. The "infallible" dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are to be embraced unquestioningly by all the faithful without exception. We have an example of this in play with a more recently defined dogma like the Assumption of Mary. Whether or not one affirms such an idea, it is hard to imagine what kind of harm rejecting that would do. Consider this excerpt from Apostolic Letter Est Sane Molestum, by Pope Leo XIII:

          "To scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]."

          This is the kind of mindset that lies behind the words of Ignatius of Loyola. It gets to the very heart of the nature of Rome's claims to authority. It explains why Roman Catholics can still accept dogmas like transubstantiation, even after they have shown to be philosophically untenable. A similar problem is in play when one confronts Mormons with the reality that all their religious claims about history have been debunked by archeological findings. The issue is not that such people are morons, but they have been conditioned in such a way as to accept ideas that outsiders would quickly dismiss as absurd. Consider this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Religious Discussions:

          "By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: “Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicae personae liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholica disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.” (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.)"

          The life of Galileo Galilei is an illustration of how Rome dealt with "heretics." He provided evidence of a sun-centered universe by making observations through a telescope. His rediscovering of the wisdom of the ancient Greeks made him popular in the streets of Italy, but Pope Urban VIII summoned him to answer to a tribunal in 1633 for challenging the status quo or face torture if he did not show up. The latter was issued as a threat, but not carried out. Daniel J. Boorstin, in his work titled The Discoverers, p. 325-326, recounts the letter in which Galileo was forced against his conscience to publicly renounce what he taught. A small excerpt is presented here as follows, "...after an injunction had been lawfully intimated to me by this Holy Office to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immobile, and that the earth is not the center of the world and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach, in any way, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine..." Jesus and the apostles never in a million years would have dreamed of churches having this kind of power over the lives of people.

          God has ordained the existence of government offices for our own good. They exist to keep the peace and maintain societal order. We should submit to our leaders to the extent that their decisions are sound and godly. Good governments, by our standards, would defend the rights of people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Autocratic governments, by contrast, dictate the terms by which everybody else lives and imposes harsh penalties on people who fail to fall in line with said orders. Roman Catholic moral theology nowadays emphasizes freedom of conscience in decision making, but one has to wonder whether that was driven by changing times. Rome certainly does not have the same degree of power and influence that it used to have. However, the pope wields a considerable amount of power over loyal followers, a kind that Christ never authorized bishops in the church to use.

          There are other religious organizations in modern contexts which further help to illustrate the futility of Ignatius of Loyola's approach to obeying the pope. The Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society is known for thought control. For example, they are forbidden by their church government to obtain blood transfusions. They have regulations as to what they can even look up on the internet. Mormonism is another example of a group whose leaders have established all sorts of legalistic rules and regulations. Mormons are forbidden to drink coffee and tea because they have caffeine. In the same vein, the Church of Rome has dietary regulations on various holidays as a requirement for salvation. What all three groups have in common is that adherents are made to obey an authoritarian leader. The hierarchies of these three religions claim to play an indispensable role in the salvation of their followers. Rome unwittingly embraces fideism, and its teaching on the eucharist illustrates this point quite well.

          There are harmful effects of authority that is not able to be kept in check. The New Testament gives us the liberty to individually choose whatever days to observe and foods to eat in thanksgiving and glory to God. The original teachings of Jesus and the apostles centered around spiritual enlightenment, compassion, and the individual's relationship with God. The early Christian message was more about guiding people through moral and ethical principles, not imposing a rigid, authoritarian structure. Jesus often challenged the religious authorities of His time, emphasizing inner faith over strict adherence to external rules. The Apostle Paul called out Peter for potentially splitting the Christian church as he ceased eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-16). God is the only one who we owe unconditional submission of the intellect and will (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29; James 4:7). It is to Him alone that we owe unconditional surrender.

Does Colossians 2:8 Condemn Philosophy?

        "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

        A number of well-meaning Christians understand Paul to be expressing disapproval of us engaging in philosophy. However, this interpretation of his words fails to take into consideration the original context in which this passage was written.

        Earlier, Paul said that we are to teach and proclaim the gospel in a state of wisdom (Colossians 1:27-28). He emphasizes properly knowing the mystery of God, which is the Person of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:2-3). Philosophy necessarily involves the acquisition of wisdom.

        There exists good philosophy and bad philosophy. The former is rooted in sound theology. The later is rooted in human speculation. Philosophy is not to be developed apart from or against the content of divine revelation. It is bad kinds of philosophy that we must condemn.

        Paul exhorted the church at Colossae not to be deceived by various customs and practices rooted in Jewish and pagan mysticism (Colossians 2:16-23). In so doing, he was very much setting forth a philosophical proposition. Everybody engages in philosophy at some level.

Zechariah 3:1-5 And Imputed Righteousness

       "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by." (Zechariah 3:1-5)

       In this text, we see Satan laying the charge of Joshua the high priest being unfit for his position. The filthy garments that he wore were representative of sin. Joshua was not qualified to be in a priestly office for that reason. It follows that he could not offer up sacrifices for the people. Thus, no forgiveness of sins could be obtained for the Jews.

       The filthy garments had to be removed from Joshua. God gave to him a set of pure garments so that he could fulfill his position as high priest. This turban had an inscription which read as: "Holy to the Lord" (Exodus 28:36-38). God Himself carried out the work of bestowing new garments on Joshua. He saved the Israelites from complete destruction. God clothed them in His own righteousness.

      The act of God providing a new garment for His people gives us a picture of Him putting away our sin and giving to us a foreign righteousness which is His. This incident shows us how God justifies sinners. Instead of giving to us the eternal punishment that we deserve because of our sins committed against Him, God out of His love for us has chosen to exercise mercy. Jesus Christ cloths us in His righteousness in order that we be reconciled to a holy God and render service that is acceptable to Him.

More Than Half Of The Arabian World’s Young Adults Want To Leave

Lack of trust in Islamist governments, spike in non-religious identity are among chief reasons, report finds.

The results of a recent survey in the Arab world show that more than half of the region’s young adults are considering emigrating, and an increasing number of people are identifying as “non-religious.”

The Big BBC News Arabic Survey, a joint assessment by BBC News Arabic and Arab Barometer, a Princeton University-based non-partisan research network, is the largest in-depth survey ever carried out in the region….Fifty-two percent of the respondents aged 18-29 said they were considering emigrating to another country.

The survey indicates that 70% of young Moroccans are thinking about leaving their country and almost half of all the population in Sudan, Jordan and Morocco, and a third of Iraqis, are considering emigrating. “The number itself is alarming and has several components,” Dr. Mohammed Masbah, director of the Moroccan Institute for Policy Analysis in Rabat, told The Media Line.

“Politically, there is a lack of confidence in the government as youth believe the government cannot solve their problems,” Masbah said. “Socioeconomically, youth unemployment is high; the belief is it will get worse.”

However, the desire to emigrate has not increased universally across the region. Since 2013, it has decreased in the Palestinian Territories, Algeria, Sudan, Yemen and, most substantially, in Lebanon.

Abdul-Wahab Kayyali, a research associate at Arab Barometer, explained to The Media Line in an email that the yearning to emigrate in Lebanon might have decreased for several reasons. Some estimates put the number of people in the Lebanese diaspora at 15 million to 20 million people compared to the 5 million Lebanese in Lebanon, he noted.

“Many Lebanese are already immigrants, and many of those who want to immigrate have already done so,” he explained.

Economic factors were cited in the survey as the predominant reason for emigration. Conflict and instability that have recently plagued Yemen, Sudan, Algeria, Libya and the Palestinian Territories have increased the rate of economic deterioration."

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/More-than-half-of-Arab-worlds-young-adults-want-to-leave-survey-593746

The Grand Design: Is God Unnecessary?

"To explain our existence on the planet Earth, Hawking and Mlodinow simply claim that there are many planets so one must have the conditions necessary to support higher life forms. This statement is both naive and unscientific for we have enough information about the requirements necessary for a planet to support higher life forms that we are able to do a rough estimate of the probability of finding even a single planet like the earth. Many of the required parameters can be found in the book Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee....The astrophysicist Hugh Ross has done a rough estimation of the probability of finding a single earth-like planet by chance based on 322 parameters known to be necessary if a planet is to support higher life forms. He has taken correlations and longevity factors into account as well as the fact that there are at least 1022 planets in the visible universe. His order-of-magnitude calculation comes up with a probability of 10-282 for finding one planet capable of supporting higher life forms in the entire visible universe. Hawking and Mlodinow are wrong. Even with a lot of planets we should not expect to find one suitable for our existence purely by chance.

Finally, in regard to the laws of physics that seem to be finely-tuned to allow life to exist, Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to M-theory, the most recent and encompassing string theory. String theory proposes that the fundamental entities that make up our universe are "vibrating strings of energy." M-theory holds a lot of promise as a scientific theory, including the development of a consistent quantum theory of gravity, which has been an elusive goal for about 100 years. M-theory requires that there are 11 dimensions of space-time. M-theory has about 10500 possible configurations, and allows for the possibility that there are many universes. If ours is just one of many universes (a multiverse), with different laws and parameters of physics in every different universe, then just by chance one of the universes would have the laws and parameter falling in the necessary range to be able to support life. We are here because we happen to be in the right universe. There are many problems with proposing M-theory as the solution to the anthropic principle problem. Of course, the first problem is that, as with the no-boundary condition, there is no scientific evidence that M-theory is true, so a belief in M-theory is not based on science at all. Second, there are few, if any, definitive predictions of M-theory. For instance, we don't know if any of the "other" universes would actually be created or just have the potential of being created. When The Grand Design was published there was overwhelming criticism that M-theory would be invoked as the answer to the anthropic principle problem. For instance, in Scientific American, John Horgan wrote, "M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. ... Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything... Hawking is telling us that unconfirmable M-theory plus the anthropic tautology represents the end of that quest. If we believe him, the joke’s on us."1

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of The Grand Design is that the attempts made to support Hawking's and Mlodinow's case are, in many cases, simply unsophisticated, unsupportable, naive, and even fallacious. I believe that in a college class on logic, philosophy, or religion, this book would receive a failing grade. For example, the question is posed, "Are there any exceptions to the laws of physics?" or "Are miracles possible." The answer given is, "…the modern scientists answer to question two [exceptions to the laws of physics]…is…a scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds only when some supernatural being decides not to intervene." This is a clear example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Hawking is dismissing miracles outright because they don't fit his preconceived definition of what science is. If this were your answer to the question of miracles in a logic class I guarantee you would get an F.

Consider also the quote from the book mentioned in the first paragraph of this blog, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or someone as smart as Stephen Hawking, to realize how ridiculous this statement is. Gravity works within the space-time dimensions of our universe so it is impossible to invoke gravity as the cause of our universe. The physicist Gerald Schroeder wrote, "Therefore if the laws of nature created the universe, these laws must have existed prior to time; that is the laws of nature would be outside of time. What we have then is totally non-physical laws, outside of time, creating a universe. Now that description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe."2

Many scientists and scholars who read the book The Grand Design were extremely disappointed that the arguments presented were poor and simplistic. In The New York Times, Dwight Garner wrote, "The real news about The Grand Design is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is."3 I'm tempted to quote dozens more of the negative reviews to emphasize my point, but I'll let you look them up if you need more persuasion.

Once again, we see that the conclusions most consistent with the known facts from scientific observations and theoretical calculation are that the universe seems to have a transcendent beginning and seems to be designed with humans in mind, two ideas consistent with the teachings about the God of the Bible. This attempt by Hawking and Mlodinow in The Grand Design to circumvent such straightforward conclusions is entirely inadequate, illogical, and invalid. If you are looking for reasons to make God "unnecessary" you will have to look elsewhere."

https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/08/the-grand-design-is-god-unnecessary.html