Thoughts from a Sandwich

The Devil Made Me do it

2012-01-31T11:44:00.002-05:00

Have you ever wondered what Satan’s motivation would be?

According to standard Christian dogma, God decides to make some eternal servants--known to us humans as “angels”—and the No. 1 Servant (Lucifer) decides he can stage a coup d’etat and take over God’s position. Of course Lucifer fails, God castigates him to the role of villain, and for millennium thereafter the two bicker and argue. It is all very Greek Tragedy.

Lucifer…or Satan as we shall call him…enters the Garden of Eden with God’s permission and mucks things up for every human thereafter. Satan gets into a bet over Job, and tempts Jesus. Ever since faithfully assuming the role and blame of being Enemy No. 1 on God’s list.

But why would Satan mess around tempting humans, getting involved in human affairs, etc? Look…he would know the book of Revelation as well as we do. It is not some secret code; some hidden language only “true Christians” can read and we have cleverly kept secret from Satan and his spies for the past 2000 years. Satan has read “Left Behind.”

In the end, he is going in the Lake of Fire along with the rest of us heathens. Contrary to popular cartoons, Satan (according to Christian dogma) will not rule Hell. He will not be in charge. He will not be enjoying Jack Chick Torture with sadistic fetish. He will be screaming and whining along with the rest of us heathens.

And Satan…who already tried to take on God once, and has been around since the very beginning…would know this. He doesn’t get reduced time for the more souls that join him; he doesn’t get credit for fewer people in heaven. He does not get more people to rule, the larger the census in hell. He gets the chop with us.

[If some Christian wants to argue Satan thinks he can take on God and win…one wonders what good humans will do in this effort. Does he get a nuclear pitchfork every time an unbeliever dies?]

Oh sure, maybe for the first few centuries, he may have tried to convert a few just to piss God off…but what fun in that? Satan played his biggest trump card in the Garden—now every human is doomed by default to hell. Even better, human nature (again, according to Christian dogma) is such we have a propensity to do more evil.

Satan doesn’t have to do a thing. Heck, God even helps out by occasionally whacking off whole lots of evil people—babies and all—by genocide, tsunamis, earthquakes, flood, famine and volcanoes. Not to mention a war or two. It would be hard for Satan to keep up!

So why would Satan care about tempting humans? Even under Christian dogma…

I ask because Dr. Jones argues the Devil is portraying heaven as boring. That cartoon and modern media’s depiction of heaven, with St. Peter at the Gates, and clouds and harps and singing and time stretching out into tedious infinity is some nefarious plot on the Devil’s part to…I don’t know…keep people from relishing death?

Really? After tempting and observing humans for 1000’s of years (according to Christians) this is the best plan Satan can come up with?

Look, we don’t buy things because we find the competitor’s products undesirable; we buy things because we want them. “Don’t buy Fords—they are only meh.” No, no, no, no. “Buy OUR Car! It will make you Sexy! It will make you go fast! It will save you money!” The only time an advertiser demonstrates the shoddiness of a competitor is to immediately compare it to their own—“Look at how much stain is left when you use theirs; our product removed it better! Faster! Safer! Cleaner!”

If Satan is running down heaven, this is only half the job. The Devil would need to replace it with an alternative even better than heaven. Which got me to thinking…assuming arguendo there was a demi-god Satan, in competition with God, what would Satan do to keep as many people out of heaven as possible (assuming Satan had such a goal?)

What would I do?

Well…obviously one would need to develop on alternative religion. One that was close enough to the truth to sound legitimate, but not sufficient to get one into real heaven. One that claimed a greater reward than real heaven…with less work.

So first we would make it simple to get in. Not too simple—then no one would believe it. Further, make it a little uncertain, so humans keep reassessing their position and re-confirming the little thing they must do. Manufacturers long know the real money is in replacement parts; not just the original purchase.

Make the humans feel good about themselves to further solidify the belief. For example, create the concept of really, REALLY big sins, and as long as they are not doing those…why…the human is just fine. Be willing to mold with the times; as long as the person acts within the current societal norms, they qualify.

Never explicitly quantify a promise. Be opaque. Don’t say, “I will be there at noon on Tuesday;” say, “I am coming soon.” Don’t promise to heal them if they perform the correct ritual; explain you will comfort them. And if (Satan Forbid) they expect some response, make it so it is their fault when the response doesn’t arrive. They are too stupid, too insincere, desire the wrong things, too immature, too human.

Put the reward out of verification…only once you die you will have candy and health and love and peace and money and adulation and power and whatever you want.

In short…if I was Satan and I wanted to create an alternative religion to keep people out of heaven…I would create Christianity. The perfect placebo.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Seven and Final

2012-01-26T09:24:00.002-05:00

And so we come to the final chapter in the book. The one cited by Christian apologists most often. It is broken into two (2) sections—the first on Roman Citizenship (this is the third time Sherwin-White has discussed it) and the second on what he titles, “The Historicity of the Gospels and Graeco-Roman Historiography.”

I just finished an extremely long discussion regarding this section over at Grace and Miracles blog, and am thankful for that discussion to clarify my thoughts. First what Sherwin-White states (with my notations in brackets):

Another example. The internal synoptic divergences, such as arise in the narrative of the trial of Christ, are very similar to those that Roman historians meet in the study of the tribunate of Gaius Gracchus.
…

The objection will be raised to this line of argument that the Roman historical writers and the Gospels belong to different kinds of literature. Whatever the defects of our sources, their authors were trying to write history, but the authors of the Gospels had a different aim. Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed, even if these were not shored up and confirmed by the external guarantee of their fabric and setting. That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional settings. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem [i.e. the Trial], the confirmation begins. For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is over-whelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
What to an ancient historian is most surprising in the basic assumption of form-criticism of the extremer sort, is the presumed tempo of the development of the didactic myths—if one may use that term to sum up the matter. We are not unacquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography, as will shortly appear. The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time, much more remote from the events themselves, than can be the case. Certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event, whether for national glorification or political spite, or for the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas. But in the material of ancient history the historical content is not hopelessly lost.
…
Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.
…
The impression of historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture. Consider the close interdependence of Mark and Matthew, supplementing each other even in particular phrases, yet each with his particular contribution, then Luke with his more coherent and explicit account of the charges and less clear version of the activity of the Sanhedrin, finally John, who despite many improbabilities and obscurities yet gives a convincingly contemporary vision of the political pressure on Pilate in the age of Tiberius.

Taking the synoptic writers quite generally as primitive historians, there is a remarkable parallel between their technique and that of Herodotus, the father of history, in their anecdotal conception of a narrative. [emphasis added]

As we have seen throughout this review, Sherwin-White’s method is arguing by example—he makes an argument, and then finds an example supporting this argument. Of course, the huge error in doing so is that it only takes one (1) counter-example to undermine the argument!

It was pointed out to me that Dr. Richard Carrier addresses Sherwin-White’s claims in The Empty Tomb: (again my clarifying thoughts in brackets)

To be exact, Sherwin-White never used the word ‘legend’ in the chapter [where Sherwin-White discusses historicity in documents and myth development] Craig quotes. Nor does he [Sherwin-White] discuss the empty tomb narrative, or any miracle at all—his [Sherwin-White’s] remarks are confined solely to the trial of Jesus. In this context [the chapter on general historicity and myth development timing] Sherwin-White talks mainly about ‘myth’ (pp. 189,190, 191, 193), case sometimes as ‘propaganda’ (pg. 186), ‘contradictions’ (p. 188), ‘falsification’ (p191), the ‘didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas’ (p. 189), or ‘deliberate…embroidery’ (p. 193), all of which he [Sherwin-White] admits can arise within two generations. He [Sherwin-White] generally has in mind any false story, of whatever origin, that is later believed to be true. Yet his [Sherwin-White’s] argument from Herodotus rests merely on a single case, and even that contains the full admission that a legend was widely believed true at the time. The only difference is that Herodotus challenges it as he [Herodotus] did many claims. But we have not even a single example of such a method or approach being employed by the Gospel authors; they never challenge or even question anything they report, and unlike Herodotus they never once name a single source, or consciously weigh the evidence for or against any claim.

“Thus the analogy with Herodotus fails. The Gospel writers are much more akin to the people who believed the legends, than they are to a careful crucial historian like Herodotus himself, who often doubts them. And yet even Herodotus believed without question many obvious legends (as we shall see), a point Sherwin-White curiously neglects to mention, probably because it would have undermined his argument for the historicity of Christ’s trial. Worst still, Sherwin-White’s one case study [of Herodotus] is so dissimilar to the empty tomb story that no analogy can be drawn between them, and thus it is inappropriate for Craig to employ it in such a way. [emphasis in the original]

An analogy to Sherwin-White’s method: “Cars do not rust within two years. Here is a two-year-old Ford with no rust.” This claim is proven incorrect by one (1) car less than two years old with rust. It only takes one counter-example to undermine the argument. (Why it is such a poor method to begin with.)

Conforming to his typical methodology, Sherwin-White claims “even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition” and then provides the example of Herodotus and Hipparchus.

Carrier provides numerous counter-examples. Including examples within Herodotus, examples with the contemporary writer Josephus, and examples with other historical events—Saint Genevieve and Roswell.

“Here’s a rusty one-year-old car; here’s a rusty one-year-old car; here’s a rusty one-year-old car.”

(Craig’s claim Herodotus made numerous other mythical accounts [and Sherwin-White was aware] only hurts Sherwin-White’s method; it doesn’t help it! Being aware of counter-examples is insufficient; one must address the counter-example!

“Sure Herodotus also claimed PLENTY of cars less than two-years-old had rust.”)

It gets worse. Carrier points out, even in the Herodotus example Sherwin-White utilized, there were counter-examples—legends arising surrounding the Hipparchus’ murder—and that Herodotus’ ability to maintain historicity in the face of these myths is the exception. to the legend. What about the very counter-example in the same account?

“Herodotus was able to pick out the two-year-old Ford without rust amongst all the rusty two-year-old cars.”

It gets even worse. Carrier points out the gospels correlate closer to legendary accounts than Herodotus’ historical accounts:

1) Herodotus challenges conventional legend; the gospels make no challenges.
2) Herodotus names sources; gospels do not.
3) Herodotus weighs evidence; gospels do not.
4) Event in Herodotus’ city; Gospel accounts not in author’s city.
5) Inscription regarding the actual history existed; gospels have no such inscription.
6) Herodotus consciously wrote history; Mark’s Gospel is more akin to didactic hagiography.

“The gospels are 1978 Datsuns, and Herodotus picked out a ’78 Ford amongst ’78 Toyota’s. Toyota’s are more similar to Datsuns than Fords.”*

*The late 70’s Japanese cars were notorious for rust issues.

In short, Sherwin-White (as typical) uses argument by example for this point. Carrier demonstrates how Sherwin-White fails to address counter-examples (made even worse by Craig’s emphasizing Sherwin-White knew counter-examples), fails to address the counter-example implicit in the example used, and fails to correlate the example to the documents in question to see if they parallel the example or the counter-example.

Now how Sherwin-White has been abused…

Christian Apologist authors have assumed, as style, taking quotes from perceived non-Christians to bolster their argument (presumably to claim lack of bias.) Any skeptic discussing the resurrection is certain to hear the Gerd Ludemann (a known atheist!) quote. Discuss Acts, and Sir William Ramsay will make his appearance. Crack open a creationist book; the quotes come spewing forth.

Poor Sherwin-White receives the same treatment. The rest of his book is discarded, overlooked or forgotten. (How many internet Christian apologists who cite Sherwin-White agree with his assessment on Quirinius? Or that Luke disagrees with Mark on the Sanhedrin and is probably incorrect?) But Sherwin-White is not blatantly writing a Christian apologetic book. He is a (perceived non-Christian) historian. And he writes this one itty-bitty line about timing, myth development and “hard historic core.”

Now the Christian apologist author can do what s/he always does: Take the quote from Sherwin-White, tack on some timing and…voila!—they have an “unbiased source” supporting their claim:

P1: Sherwin-White says two generations is ‘too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.’
P2: Mark’s Gospel was written within 2 generations:
Conclusion: Jesus walked on water.

or

Conclusion: Jesus fed 5000.

or

Conclusion: Jesus’ Tomb was empty on Sunday.

or

Conclusion: [insert whatever one pleases]

That’s the con. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because the person is extrapolating far too much from Sherwin-White.

The question is this:

Define “hard historic core.”

Think about it; really contemplate it. It must be something that feasibly (under the Sherwin-White “formula”) will completely and utterly disappear in 3 or more generations. What could it be?

Or look at it another way. Take a myth, like Robin Hood. What is the “hard historic core” of Robin Hood? A brigand? A brigand good with a bow? A brigand, good with a bow who leads men? What requirements are there for the “hard historic core” within Robin Hood? At what point do we differentiate the Robin Hood story from other highwaymen?

Carrier raises this point admirably within the Roswell Alien story. What is the “hard historic core” in that story? Do you know? What was it causing people to believe a saucer crash landed? If there was an actual item from the sky, does that constitute a “hard historical core” not eliminated by years of alien stories?

See…this isn’t how myth-making works! Myths can take actual events and/or people and do one (or more) of three things:

1) Add;
2) Subtract: or
3) Modify.

How can we determine “hard historical core” when one can feasibly argue EVERY myth has a “hard historical core”? (Again, I would point out, under Sherwin-White, it must be something that could disappear in three or more generations, if this is a hard-and-fast formula.) Animals walk in the woods—BAM! Big Foot has a hard historical core. Pontius Pilate really governed in Judea—BAM! The Gospels have a hard historical core.

This is what I thought about Herodotus. What is the “hard historical core” in his fantastical stories? One could argue EVERY story has a historical core. There was Athens, hence the burned Olive tree has historical core. Troy fell, the Trojan horse has historical core.

Do you see what I mean? “Hard historical core” is sophistry giving no real definition and no insight.

This small sentence is “full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.” I understand the Dr. Craig’s want to utilize it. We should ignore the con and ask this one question: Define “hard historic core” with specificity so we can see how it would be utterly lost by the third generation.

It is not how myth-making works. Sherwin-White is not to blame; those trying to bolster this sentence into a formula are.

The reason for this long (and dull) review was to once again dispel the claims made by Christian apologists, once brought to full light.

A blog on being Gay and Christian

2012-01-13T09:41:00.002-05:00

I came across a blog entry , written by a fellow who is:

1) Christian.
2) Gay.
3) Celibate.

And I’d burn every earthly possession I have, empty my bank accounts, quit my job, and terminate every relationship I have for a pill to change over—in a heartbeat—I’d walk away from that pyre buck-naked, unemployed, broke, but straight.

But unlike my heroes of my youth, my secret identity clings to me and I am forced to hide from what is called to be most loving, compassionate place on the planet—the church.

When the basis for the morality—including the forbidding of homosexual acts—is so poor to begin with…it is human-made…I find it impossible to see how charity work performed by Christians out-weighs the abuse doled out by the same hands.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Six

2012-01-09T15:47:00.003-05:00

In Lecture Six, Sherwin-White enters the Galilean world, stating “The material of the Gospels is not capable of the sort of treatment that historians since [William] Ramsay have given to the Acts. From the Graeco-Roman point of view, this poses a problem.” Pg. 123. Sherwin-White then highlights certain aspects of the Gospels.

I found this the most interesting chapter by far.

First, he notes specific historical references are few, and (with one exception) are concentrated at the beginning and the end. The beginning with King Herod the Great, and the end with Pilate.

But even those references give us issue, as Sherwin-White indicates—the “reference to Herod and Archelaus [Herod’s son] keeps bad company in Mathew, is absent from Mark, and even in Luke is involved with the difficult question of Quirinius and his census.” Pg. 123. Sherwin-White will deal with Quirinius in a latter lecture. The sole exception in the middle is reference to Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee with John the Baptist (Matthew & Mark) and appearance four times in Luke.

Sherwin-White continues, “Not only are there no other precise historical cross-references inside the narrative, but he narrative of all three Gospels is largely devoid of other material references that might tie to the Roman period.” Pg 123. For example, the “centurion” with the palsied servant at Capernaum. (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10). He can’t be a Roman centurion, Galilee was not part of Rome until 44 CE. But he is not Jewish either. Sherwin-White concludes (without providing us a reason) he is one of Tetrarch Herod’s soldiers who affected Roman terminology.

He then notes the various coins listed throughout the Gospels. Mark has Roman denarii and Roman quadrans. Matthew has Roman as, Greek didrachma and Greek stater. Luke has denarii, as, Greek drachmae, mina,and lepta. No wonder they needed money-changers in the temple! (Especially, as Sherwin-White notes, the Jewish Temple only took Jewish coins.)

Sherwin-White also discusses taxes, noting the peculiarity of tax-gatherers in Capernaum (Galilee) in Matthew 17:24-27. Curiously the term is ”cesum” (in Greek form) meaning a Roman tax, yet Galilee is not in a Roman province. Other authors have suggested this was a Jewish temple tax, but what is curious is Matthew has Peter obtain a sater--a Greek coin to pay the tax. It is possible the coin could be changed, but if Jesus was performing a miracle, why not get the Jewish coin in the first place?

Sherwin-White does not discuss this anomaly.

He goes on to discuss villages and cities, noting most villages were concern solely with internal affairs. Only a very few cities controlled (by governmental means) areas outside their specific walls. Sherwin-White notes Matthew and Luke “sadly confuse” the terms of city and villages.

By the way, Joesphus notes villages could consist of 15,000 people.

Sherwin-White contrasts the Roman city with the agricultural villages of Galilee in terms of government, topography, and “little kings.” By the end of the First Century (the conquest of Galilee and Judea) the area became more Roman in nature. Thus, Sherwin-White argues, the Galilean parables of Jesus regarding kings, servants and cities reflect a first century Palestine.

Sherwin-White provided interesting information in this chapter, despite Galilee and Jewish history being outside his expertise comfort.

Lecture Seven

Sherwin-White goes over some specifics regarding Roman Citizenship as a whole. Roman citizens obtained a proof of citizenship or registration of birth made before a magistrate and seven (7) witnesses. “Whether Romans carried such certificates about with them…we simply do not know. They were convenient in shape and size, being small wooden diptychs. But it is more likely that they were normally kept in the family archives.” Pg. 148-9. If they were not carried about, Sherwin-White speculates this could be a reason Paul rarely asserted his citizenship rights.

Sherwin-White concludes speculating how and when Paul’s family obtained its citizenship is a fruitless task.

He spends some time, going through Roman nomenclature, and how the various names in Acts do not provide much information as to the status, citizenship or class of individuals, due to lack of specifics. Again, Sherwin-White addresses various scholars’ opinions in this regard. A very dry topic in my opinion, with a great deal of “it is possible” and speculation.

Sherwin-White closes the lecture with a short section on Quirinius. “Luke dates the birth of Christ by connecting it with the census of Judaea taken, as is made abundantly clear in Josephus, when Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Judaea after the annexation of the province in A.D. 6. This date conflicts with that of Matthew, who connects the nativity with the last years of Herod and the accession of Archelaus, ten years earlier. [4 BCE]. Luke’s date also conflicts with his own setting of the nativity of John in the ‘days of Herod the King of Judea.” PG. 163.

Sherwin-White dispenses with the apologetic Quirinus was governor of Syria twice—finding it lacks plausibility. He finds Luke is explicit with dates—such as Luke 3:1, “in the fifteenth year of Tiberius”—and believes Luke is equally deliberate with the dating of the birth. Sherwin-White says, “The taking of the Roman census in Judaea made a tremendous impact in Jewish history. The author of Luke cannot have been under any doubt or confusion when he selected that date. But its selection was a deliberate rejection of the tradition of Matthew, which connects the nativity with Herod and Archelaus.” Pg. 167.

All would be well and good, but Luke confuses the date with John the Baptist’s birth at the time of Herod.

Sherwin-White gives no solution to this problem, except saying Luke may be trying to “link” the Messiah’s birth to the last Messianic Prophet—John the Baptist. Sherwin-White concludes, “Luke should mean what he wrote.” Pg. 171. It would appear Sherwin-White would place Jesus’ birth in 6 CE, according to Luke, and decide it is beyond his acumen to find a way to explain the problem of Luke referring to John the Baptist being born around the same time, yet in a period 10 years later.

And this is typical Sherwin-White. Say one thing, note the counter argument and then “Harumph. Aren’t we glad that is settled?” leaving you to scratch your head as to what the conclusion is, or how he reached it.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Five

2012-01-04T11:20:00.002-05:00

Sherwin-White enters the next lecture about Paul’s various trips to cities, as recorded in Acts. The first anachronism Sherwin-White addresses is the question of how Paul could be beaten by authorities (Acts 16:22 & 2 Cor. 11:25) when Paul indicates it is unlawful to beat him as a Roman Citizen. (Acts 22:25).

Sherwin-White goes through a number of examples regarding various communities, their authorities and their jurisdiction to impose law. He notes it is possible authorities could exceed their powers and concludes, “the narrative agrees with the evidence of the earlier period that a Roman Citizen of any social class was protected against a casual beating (without trial), whereas the humiliores of the late empire had lost this protection.” Pg. 76 I had great difficulty following Sherwin-White’s analysis, nor how he came to this particular conclusion. I finally gave up.

Sherwin-White notes the charge in Philippi was in two forms: 1) causing a riot and 2) introduction of alien religion. However, Sherwin-White correctly indicate the official position of Rome was to prohibit certain religious practices, typically if such practices did not cause a disturbance, they were allowed to continue. With occasional crack-downs. This charge, Sherwin-White says, “…though it is unusual, it is not entirely unparalleled in Julio-Claudian usage.” (pg 82)

Sherwin-White states the procedure followed in Ephesus was that reminiscent of the first and Second Century. Acts does not show detailed knowledge of any other city, as compared to Ephesus. When discussing the other cities, Acts uses far less specifics, and general titles, rather than the correct term for Clerk of the City, etc. Although Acts is aware of the correct and fairly unusual title of Thessalonica’s city magistrates.

I found Sherwin-White quite dry at this point, in referring to these events. It did seem he generally wanted to favor Acts, rather than be critical. Where Acts was accurate, it was highlighted. Where Acts was not, it was excused.

The next Lecture dealt with Paul appearing before the proconsul Gallio. (Acts 18:12-17) Where the proconsul actually turns on the accusers and drives them out. Sherwin-White says, “It is not certain that the charge made against Paul at Corinth was intended to refer primarily to Hebraic Law, though Gallio found it convenient to take it that way….It is the way of Acts to summarize and at times to garble the charges variously brought against Paul.” Pg. 101

Sherwin-White responds to many claims by critics, including the lack of specific charges, and that we do not know a proconsul Gallio of Achaia. (It is unlikely such a minor official would be recorded within the histories we have.)

And finally, within this lecture, Sherwin-White addresses who Paul would see in his appeal to Rome. It is extremely unlikely he would have been taken to Nero himself, as Nero avoided all jurisdictional functions. He also addresses criticism regarding the two-year delay, concluding it was possible for such a delay to occur.

Curiously, Sherwin-White notes Seneca, one of Nero’s principal advisors, attempted to instill clemency in Nero, and states, “Perhaps Paul benefited from the clemency of Nero, and secured merely a casual release. But there is no necessity to construe Acts to mean that he was released at all.” (pg 119)

Sherwin-White gives us no information as to who Paul would have seen in Rome, or what would have happened to him.

Interesting Post

2011-12-30T09:55:00.001-05:00

Stumbled upon this blog post: Why I am Not a Christian over at dia pente blog that has some good information. My favorite line: “The Holiday Season is schizophrenic. Hanukkah celebrates the defeat of a guy who got rid of the laws of Moses, but Christmas celebrates the birth of a guy who got rid of the laws of Moses “

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Four

2011-12-20T14:38:00.002-05:00

Before I continue on with Paul’s interaction in Acts of the Apostles—a brief interlude to remind us of two obvious concepts. In fact, so obvious, you will immediately read it, and only one word will come to mind. “Obvious.” Yet for some reason we enter biblical studies and become muddled, foggy and eventually ignored.

1) Just because it is historically accurate, does not make it historical. Just because an event is historical, does not mean we have a historically accurate account.

I enjoy reading the background on movies at Internet Movie Database. All sorts of information—actors, budget, gross revenues, quotes, trivia—including a section on “goofs.” One goof often listed is anachronisms—items, quotes or events in movies out of place.

For example, the action/adventure Where Eagles Dare is a World War II drama. Yet imdb notes, “If you look really carefully you can make out that the timer used on the bombs (in particular the one on the cable car) is a Heuer Sebring, a model that wasn't made until around 1958.”

Obviously they were not using 1958 timers in 1944. It is a mistake. Now, the movie has 1000’s of details correct—uniforms, salutes, trucks, cars, motorcycles, parachutes, radio rooms, etc.—yet all those correct details do not make the story factual. It does not become historical if the movie maker used correctly dated times.

We understand it is these anachronisms cluing us in as to errors in the story.

Secondly, even though we know something happened, we may not have historically accurate information. We have differing copies of the Gettysburg Address, and are not certain what Lincoln’s precise words were. Does that mean he did not give the Gettysburg Address? Of course not. And we can be reasonably certain of being extremely close to what he said. Just not 100% accurate.

Because a story has correct details does not make it history. Because a story has incorrect details does not make it completely fiction.

I point this out, because at times it seems we battle two extremes within biblical studies. On the one hand, there are those who insist every detail MUST be true, or the whole thing should be thrown out as a shame. “Jesus couldn’t be born when King Herod the Great was alive and Quirinius was governor, therefore Jesus was never born.” On the other, there are those who claim some details are accurate, so the whole thing must be true. “Since there really was Pontius Pilate, heaven has golden streets.”

This “all-or-nothing” would seem to be part of what Sherwin-White is battling. Scholars who indicate not knowing what Paul was precisely charged with on certain occasions so it never happened. However, Sherwin-White then pendulums too far (in my opinion) to excusing anachronisms calling into question the account’s historicity.

It seems to me we approach these stories just like any other historical account. Provisionally, understanding errors do not eliminate the necessity of it being historical, but give us pause as to why the errors occurred.

Christians would be far better served if they avoided Herculean twists to align Jesus’ birthdate, accept Luke modified the date to conform to Luke’s intended point, and move on. Jesus could still exist. Jesus could still be the Son of God. Jesus could still have been crucified, buried and rose again. Just Luke got it wrong when it came to Jesus’ birth. (Coincidentally, this is exactly what evangelical Christians do with the Second Century gospels on Jesus. Still claim he was a child at one point, and could do extraordinary things, and was the son of God, etc. Just that the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was wrong. Alas, they avoid making the same claim about Luke, because it is within the covers of their leather-bound, family heirloom.)

2) Is it remarkable Luke got details correct?

Imagine I told you to write a Batman comic including a storyline about Bruce Wayne being on trial. I suspect you would include things like a prosecutor, attorneys, a judge, possibly a jury. It would be in a courtroom, there would be counsel tables, perhaps a court reporter and bailiff. You would include words like “Objection!” and “Sustained!” Phrases like “Call your next witness” and “Please be seated.”

Thanks to books, television, plays and movies, most people have general knowledge how a trial runs. 2000 years from now, I would review it and could point out dozens, if not 100’s of details you got precisely correct. The correct general charge, the correct order, the correct language, the correct players, the correct system.

Yet we know it is a story about Batman—a completely fictional account.

The question I have is this—given a person who could read/write Greek, was generally knowledgeable regarding governorships, travel, and geography of the First Century Mediterranean, would we equally expect such a person to have general knowledge regarding legal actions sufficient to provide the broad details we have?

Simply put, could Luke have the knowledge to completely make-up the legal inter-workings with Paul, the same as you could make up a trial about Batman? If so, how remarkable is it he gets these broad concepts correct?

Keeping this in mind, the next two (2) lectures Sherwin-White deals with Paul’s trial before Felix and Festus in Judea.

Sherwin-White addresses “moderns” (pg. 49) regarding question as to what the specific charges would be. “In the scene before the Sanhedrin, Paul defends himself sophistically from charges of what one may call heresy….” (pg. 49) or stirring up civil disturbances.

This accusation—“stirring up civil disturbances”—is supported by letter from Claudius against Alexandrians, “stirring up a plague and disturbances for the Jews throughout the world..” (pg. 51)

Paul’s accusers (Asian Greeks) disappear, thus putting the case on “cold storage” for two years. Also interesting the inquiry into Paul’s province, as this could well be forum domicilii but Felix keeps the case. Perhaps because Cilicia did not have Roman authority at the time (it was under client-kings.) By the 4th year of Nero it did. (Did Luke place this event too early? If so, Sherwin-White excuses it: “If Acts has made a slip in implying that Cilicia was already a separate province, the slip is venial, because within two or three years that was the situation.” (pg 57) This is what I mean by Sherwin-White excusing what could be an anachronism revealing lack of historicity.)

Sherwin-White makes only brief mention of Paul’s citizenship; he will deal with Roman Citizenship in a later lecture.

The next lecture regards Paul’s interactions at the cities. The pattern is roughly the same: Paul enters the city, starts to preach in the synagogue. Jews bring complaints to the city leaders, Paul skips town. Repeat at the next stop.

Sherwin-White makes the point the accounts, including the punishments, the persons involved, etc. conform to what would probably happen in the latter 1st century. There is nothing reflecting late Second Century here. I do think this is a stronger point to support Acts was not a late 2nd Century work. In other words, Luke did not put a 190 CE timer in a 60 CE event.

Basically, Sherwin-White notes the stories contain broad general knowledge, conforming to the broad general knowledge we have of the period. With an occasional anachronism that Sherwin-White excuses, and I question what direction it would point us in.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Three

2011-12-16T10:17:00.000-05:00

Trial of Jesus

There were two (2) trials: one before the Jewish authorities—the Sanhedrin, the other before the Roman Authority—Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Sanhedrin

Sherwin-White responds to two (2) claims:

1) Whether the Sanhedrin could take place at night; and
2) Whether the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment.

Some quick background, if the reader is not familiar. (Again, Sherwin-White presumes the reader is, and provides little insight.) I will use our traditional day/night, not the Jewish system of sundown to sundown.

Jesus has the last supper, Passover sedar, which lasts until midnight on Thursday night. Extremely early Friday morning (traditional “Good Friday) Jesus is praying. The famous “take this cup from me” and “sweat like blood” scene. Still wee hours of morning, Jesus is arrested, and taken before the Sanhedrin. He is then tried before the Sanhedrin, allegedly for blasphemy. Friday morning (sunrise) the Sanhedrin takes Jesus to Pilate for sentencing.

Both Matthew (Matt. 27:1) and Mark (Mark 15:1) indicate Jesus’ appearance before the council occurred in the Thursday night-Friday early morning period. Luke, however, has Jesus held by the guards until the morning and then commences the council. (Luke 22:66)

Sherwin-White states Matthew-Mark’s timing is more accurate, and Luke’s is “less probable.” (Sherwin-White’s words.) He bases this on two things:

1) He cites numerous anecdotes where Roman officials got up early in the morning to perform their work. If the Jewish authorities wanted to get Jesus to Pilate in time, they would have to complete their trial process before Pilate was “done for the day” if you will.

2) The fire. Luke 22:55 states a fire was kindled to keep warm. (Where Peter commences his three-part betrayal of Jesus.) If the trial was to not take place until the morning, reasons Sherwin-White, why have a fire?

Unfortunately, I found this analysis unsubstantial for a number of reasons:

a) Sherwin-White never addresses the issue about Luke copying Matthew and/or Mark. If Luke deliberately changed the timing of the council—where did he get his information from? If it is “less probable,” doesn’t this impact Luke’s credibility? Where else did Luke take more certain data and make it less likely?

b) Sherwin-White never addresses the fact this took place during Passover. Jerusalem would have been busting at the seams with people. This is a large Jewish holiday, involving preparation, (removing the leaven from the house) and a family ritualistic feast ending at midnight. Frankly, the timing (prayer, arrest, council and conviction from midnight to 6 a.m.) would be inconceivable within such a short time frame during this period.

Arguably the reason Pilate was in Jerusalem, rather than the capital of Caesarea, was heightened security concern. Pilate was not “working a regular day” and then finishing up for an early round of golf on Friday—Pilate was there to handle concerns like this, anticipated to occur.

c) The fire could easily be fatigue by Luke, or Luke copying Mark with little thought as to why it would be noteworthy to start a fire.

d) Sherwin-White never refers to the Tracate Sanhedrin that lays out explicit rules for trials, and condemning an individual. The Tracate Sanhedrin was violated numerous times and ways in the Gospel accounts, yet Sherwin-White never responds to it. More on this in a minute.

The second issue regarding the Sanhedrin was whether they had the power to commit capital punishment. Specifically John 18:31 indicates the Jews did not have the authority to kill as punishment.

Sherwin-White notes other provinces where only the Roman governor could execute the accused. He indicates this power was jealously guarded by Rome.

Now, Sherwin-White does recognize the story of Stephen (Acts 7) and James, the brother of Christ in Josephus. Both accounts regarding the council ordering death. Sherwin-White excuses both as anomalies for differing reasons. Stephen because it was more a lynching than an execution, and James because it was done explicitly when no governor was present—Judea was between Procurators.

Although I think those are reasonable explanations, one does wonder which it was—were Stephen and James exceptions or anecdotes? Was John wrong and Acts correct or Acts correct and John wrong? Further, what happens in one province does not necessarily prevail in another. The story indicates Jews had the ability to determine who would die or live within the Barabbas story. If Rome was willing to allow this “custom” (dealing with capital punishment) how can we be so certain it did not allow the Sanhedrin to have the right to capital punishment in violation of its religious laws, albeit not in Roman civil laws?

But most importantly, I was disappointed and would like to have questioned Sherwin-White about the Tracate Sanhedrin. This document gives specific outline regarding how to try different types of cases—specifically crimes involving death as a punishment. How to execute (hanging or stoning) and specifics about how to perform the execution.

It very clearly anticipates the Sanhedrin had the power to inflict capital punishment. Now, the document is dated to the later part of the Second Century. BUT, as I stated earlier, if Sherwin-White utilizes Second Century documents, to claim a basis in the first Century, couldn’t we do that as well with the Tracate Sanhedrin? Claim it was utilized earlier, but not codified until the Second Century?

Trial before Pilate

Sherwin-White was better here. The ground was more familiar for him.

Accusers were the priests, Pilate “investigated” the charges of Jesus being an instigator, as “King of the Judeans,” and without a response from Jesus, was forced to convict. Sherwin-White (as I stated in the earlier blog entry) notes accused where asked thrice as to their innocence and guilt. Sherwin-White relies upon Pliny the Younger (early Second Century) and presumes this was a continued practice from the First Century. However, Sherwin-White notes question put twice to Jesus in Matt. and Mark, once in Luke and thrice to accusers in Luke.

He makes no notation as to whether this is an exception to the “3 times” rule or a development of the “3 times” rule, so we are left puzzling to the significance.

Sherwin-White indicates there were three graduated levels of beating - fustes, flagella, verbera where fustes would mean a warning or threat, and Sherwin-White praises Luke for being historically accurate when Luke records Pilate offering fustes. (Luke 23:14-16)

Sherwin-White also discusses the curious side trip of Pilate sending Jesus to Herod, only recorded in Luke.

Under Roman law (as well as our own), “venue” is the determination where the legal proceedings must occur, given the parameters of the action. In America, this is more important in civil matters than criminal matters—we are all familiar with criminal actions taking place where the crime occurred. If you rob a bank in Florida, the trial will be in Florida, regardless if you are from Kansas, or Virginia or Iowa.

The Roman law recognized two (2) possible venues: forum delecti (where crime occurred) as compared to forum domicilii (where one lived). This charge—causing insurrection by claiming to be King of the Judeans, would be forum delecti --where the crime occurred.

Thus it is curious why Pilate would ever involve Herod Antipas. According to the accusers, Jesus claimed to be King of the Judeans, and was stirring up trouble throughout “all of Judea, beginning with Galilee.” (Luke 23:5). Luke then states, “And as soon as Pilate knew that Jesus belonged to Herod Antipas’ jurisdiction, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.” (Luke 23:7)

But wait a minute…according to Sherwin-White, this crime would be forum delecti--where the crime occurred. According to the accusers, Jesus claimed to be “King of the Judeans” and while Jesus may have started in Galilee, this insurrectionist action was taking place in Judea. The very obvious venue would be…Judea.

Herod Antipas was tetrarch over Galilee—a completely separate country. Why would Herod Antipas have jurisdiction over Jesus? The crime was in Judea, the venue for the crime is where it was committed…finding out Jesus was from a different country would make no difference.

Sherwin-White fails to adequately deal with this conflict. Why would Pilate not follow forum delecti? (Sherwin-White does mention Herod the Great had the unusual right to extradite [bring back] offenders who fled Herod’s jurisdiction, but here Herod Antipas was not requesting for extradition. Further, Herod the Great could ONLY extradite for crimes committed within Herod’s jurisdiction. Again, this was a crime alleged to occur in Judea. Even Sherwin-White recognizes Pilate’s authority over Galileans for such crimes. [Luke 13:2])

The reason I bring all this up, is that Sherwin-White concludes: “But Luke is remarkable in that his additional materials—the full formation of the charges before Pilate, the reference to Herod, and the proposed acquittal with admonition—are all technically correct.” (pg. 32)

I did not see how that followed, given the blatant violation of venue by even sending Jesus to Herod in the first place.

While interesting from a very broad aspect regarding legal actions within Jesus’ trial account, there were too many anomalies left unanswered for me to be satisfied with Sherwin-White’s account.

Matthean Priority v Markan Priority

2011-12-11T11:48:00.001-05:00

Over at Tough Questions Answered, I was discussing various topics with Walter Tucker, and this subject came up. I have always wanted to a person who held to Matthean priority respond to some questions I had, Walter Tucker is a pleasant person, so I am posting this up for him to respond. When he has an opportunity—no rush.

In brief, Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels (because they present the same “view” or “synoptic” of Jesus’ ministry) and it has long been noted there is literary dependence amongst them. They copied each other in some way, Dr. Wallace has written a good introductory article on the subject.

Of course, the question immediately followed—who copied whom? Various solutions have been presented. Although a few die-hard adherents hold Luke was the first, the others copied from his Gospel, and even fewer hold to John being first (although not copied by the Synoptic Gospels), the real fight is whether Matthew was first—Matthew Priority—copied by Mark, or Mark was first—Markan Priority—copied by Matthew.

Two primary reasons I cannot be convinced by Matthean Priority, are: 1) harder readings and 2) fatigue.

Harder Readings

There is a premise in higher criticism (what this study is generally called) that the Harder reading is the primary reading. The thought behind it being subsequent editors or copiers would modify the reading to make it less difficult. I cannot improve on Dr. Wallace’s statements:

There are several passages in Mark which paint a portrait of Jesus (or the disciples, etc.) that could be misunderstood. These passages have been altered in either Matthew or Luke or both on every occasion. It is the conviction of many NT scholars that this category is a very strong blow to the Griesbach hypothesis—and one which has not been handled adequately by Matthean prioritists.29 Among the several possible passages which scholars have noticed, the following are particularly impressive to me. Still, the cumulative effect is what makes the biggest impression.
(1) Mark 6:5-6/Matt 13:58—“he could not do any mighty work there except . . . ”/“he did not do many works there . . . because of their unbelief.” On this text Farmer comments: “the passage offers no clear indication that . . . Matthew has ‘toned down’ a phrase in Mark which ‘might cause offense or suggest difficulties’.”30 But this ignores the verbs used, for Mark suggests inability on Jesus’ part, while Matthew simply indicates unwillingness (oujk ejduvnato vs. oujk ejpoivhsen). Cf. also Mark 1:32-34/Matt 8:16/Luke 4:40 for a similar text.
(2) Mark 10:18/Matt 19:17/Luke 18:19—“Good teacher . . . Why do you call me good?” (in Mark and Luke) vs. “Teacher . . . Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matthew). The text, as Mark has it, might imply that Jesus denies his own deity. It is apparent that Luke did not read it that way, but Matthew probably did. Indeed, in the Holtzmann/Streeter view, Matthew and Luke copied Mark independently of one another. Thus what might offend one would not necessarily offend the other.31
(3) Mark 3:5/Luke 6:10—“he looked around at them with anger/he looked around on them all.” Matthew omits the verse entirely, though he includes material both before and after it (12:12-13). That Luke would omit a statement regarding Jesus’ anger is perfectly understandable.
(4) Mark 1:12/Matt 4:1/Luke 4:1—“the Spirit drove him into the desert” (Mark)/ “Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit” (Matthew and Luke). Mark uses the very harsh ejkbavllw, while Matthew and Luke use (ajn)avgw, a much gentler term, to describe the Spirit’s role in bringing Jesus to the desert for temptation.
(5) Mark 8:24-26—the different stages of a particular healing story, omitted in Matthew and Luke. The blind man is partially healed the first time by Jesus, then fully the second time. This is the only healing story in the synoptic gospels which required two stages. Perhaps this was the reason for its omission in Matthew/Luke, or perhaps it was the fact that saliva was used as the means of healing.32
(6) Mark 3:20-21—The statement that Jesus’ mother and brothers tried to seize him because they said that he was insane (ejxevsth). Neither Matthew nor Luke have this verse, apparently because it would cast aspersions on Jesus’ mother and brothers.

My First question to Walter Tucker: Why would Mark make the readings harder?
Fatigue

Here I cannot improve on Mark Goodacre’s article regarding fatigue:

Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout. Like continuity errors in film and television, examples of fatigue will be unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative. They are interesting because they can betray an author's hand, most particularly in revealing to us the identity of his sources.

The clearest way to explain the phenomenon is to illustrate it. Though he did not use the term 'fatigue', G. M. Styler, in his famous article on Marcan priority, draws attention to a strong example, the Death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.14-29 // Matt 14.1-12). (5). For Mark, Herod is always 'king', four times in the passage (vv. 22, 25, 26 and 27). Matthew apparently corrects this to 'tetrarch'. This is a good move: Herod Antipas was not a king but a petty dependent prince and he is called 'tetrarch' by Josephus (Ant. 17. 188; 18. 102, 109, 122) (6). More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses into calling Herod 'the king' halfway through the story (Matt 14.9), in agreement with Mark (6.26).

Styler points further to a more serious inconsistency in the same verse. The story in Mark is that Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a grudge against him,

'But she could not because Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.' (Mark 6.19f).

In Matthew's version of the story, this element has dropped out: now it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed (Matt [47] 14.5). When Mark, then, speaks of Herod's 'grief' (perilupoV) at the request for John's head, it is coherent and understandable: Herodias demanded something that Herod did not want. But when Matthew in parallel speaks of the king's grief (kai luphqeiV o basileuV, Matt 14.9), it makes no sense at all. Matthew had told us, after all, that 'Herod wanted to put him to death' (14.5).

The obvious explanation for the inconsistencies of Matthew's account is that he is working from a source. He has made changes in the early stages which he fails to sustain throughout, thus betraying his knowledge of Mark. (7) This is particularly plausible when one notes that Matthew's account is considerably shorter than Mark's: Matthew has overlooked important details in the act of abbreviating. (8) It would be difficult, one would imagine, to forge a convincing argument against this from the perspective of Matthean priority. (9)

Of course the evidence of one pericope alone will not do to establish Marcan priority. It will be helpful, therefore, to turn to Michael Goulder who, in two inspired but brief surveys, draws attention to this 'widespread' phenomenon and lists several examples. (10) One of the most striking is the story of The Cleansing of the Leper (Matt 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45 // Luke 5.12-16). (11) Here, just after the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), Matthew is returning to triple tradition material. He resets the scene by introducing, as often, 'many crowds' (8.1). This soon leads Matthew into difficulties since, like Mark, he has Jesus' injunction to the leper, 'Tell no-one, but go, show yourself to the priest . . . ' (Matt [48] 8.4 // Mark 1.44). As it stands in Matthew this is inexplicable: a miracle that has been witnessed by many crowds is to be kept secret. The parallel in Mark makes it clear how Matthew has become involved in the contradiction: Mark does not have crowds; the leper meets Jesus privately and the command to silence is coherent. That Matthew is involved in docile reproduction here is all the more plausible given the little stress in his Gospel on the secrecy theme that is so prominent a feature of Mark.

We might add a third example that equally points to Matthew's use of Mark, the story of Jesus' Mother and Brothers (Matt 12.46-50 // Mark 3.31-35 // Luke 8.19-21). Here Matthew has returned, once more, to triple tradition material after a section of double tradition material (Matt 12.33-45). The transition between the different kinds of material is smooth, with Matthew's characteristic, 'While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold . . . ' (Matt 12.46). However, the apparent ease of progression from one pericope to the next masks an incongruity, a genuine continuity error in Matthew's account. As in Mark, the mother and the brothers of Jesus are 'standing outside' (eisthkeisan exw, Matt 12.46; Mark 3.31: exw sthkonteV). This makes perfect sense in Mark where Jesus and his disciples are in a house (3.20: kai ercetai eiV oikon) (12) but it makes no sense in Matthew in which no house has been entered and the most recent scene change was a departure from the synagogue, with many following Jesus, in 12.15.

So my second question to Walter Tucker: Fatigue makes sense when looking at Mark --> Matthew. But not Matthew --> Mark. Why would Mark incorrectly refer to Herod as King, if copying from Matthew and he saw “tetrarch”? Doesn’t this infer Matthew (and Luke if one reads the entire article) were copying and demonstrating fatigue?

Thanks, look forward to your responses.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part Two

2011-12-09T11:24:00.000-05:00

The first chapter. (They are titled “Lecture” and presumably align with the Lectures Sherwin-White gave in 1960-61) For obvious reasons, the first thing Sherwin-White presents is the Roman legal system.

He notes the Proconsul (or principal Roman authority—in the Trial of Jesus, the Prefect Pontius Pilate) had imperium--ability to wield power. Specifically capital punishment. The legal proceedings had three phases:

1) Formulation of charges and penalties.
2) Proper formal accusation by interested party.
3) Case heard by person holding imperium in tribunal, assisted by advisory committee and friends (consilium) (pr. 17)

Sherwin-White indicates, of the three legal systems listed in Wikipedia, the one he will utilize in comparing the New Testament accounts is cognitio extraordinarem. (If you are interested, you can review a rough Outline of Roman Legal Systems)

If you read the Wikipedia article, you may note the cognitio system, within the article, is dated to the late Second Century CE. Which is a problem as the events in the New Testament are in the mid-First Century CE.

Sherwin-White, however, dates the system back to the relevant time frame, by first relying upon Pliny the Younger to indicate Pliny used cognitio when interrogating Christians, and therefore—according to Sherwin-White—the system was in place as early as 111-112 CE. Ah…but this doesn’t quite move it back to mid-First Century, does it?

To do that, Sherwin –White refers to an incident with the Proconsul of Sardinia in 69CE where the proconsul appeared to use the three (3) elements of cognitio. He also uses a document that he refers to “a mixture of party journalism and historical novelette” (pg. 22) to claim there remains a historical core within that document to believe cognitio was used as early as Claudius. (41-54 CE)

However, I found inconsistency within this approach. First, how do we know what was practiced in the Second Century necessarily correlates with the First Century? We will deal more with this in the future, but to give an example, Pliny the Younger gives the accused three (3) opportunities to recant. Shewin-White notes Jesus was questioned twice in Matthew and Mark, and only once in Luke. Was there a triple attestation required, but incorrectly recorded in the Gospels? Had the triple attestation not developed yet? Although Sherwin-White refers to Pliny the Younger, and the repeated questions, he fails to address the difference between Christ’s trial and Pliny.

Or another example, when (later) discussing the Sanhedrin not having the ability to perform capital punishment, the two examples of Stephen and James the Just are excused by Sherwin-White as anomalies. Exceptions to the rule.

Notice the convenience in this method. If I want to relate something back from the Second to the First Century, I claim it was long tradition, only recorded in the Second with barest elusive references in the first. If I do NOT want to relate it back, I call the previous counter-examples as exceptions. It is a win-win; either way I can claim historicity. Why isn’t the “historical novelette” and Sardinia examples equally anomalies? Why aren’t Stephen and James’ death elusive references to the Sanhedrin’s ability to doll out capital punishment?

Notice how one can take either position. Sherwin-White wants his cake and eat it, too.

There are two (2) problems needing discussion. I will touch more on this in my next blog entry, to give some background before hitting the next chapter—Trial of Jesus.

(1) We don’t have a great deal of information about the legal proceedings within this period. We are piecing together what procedures are required from stories, accounts, some legal documents. But even this is sporadic. Worse, the events in outlying countries could vary, depending on the country, its own legal systems, its status with Rome, etc.

(2) These accounts are not trying to give us rigorous legal scenarios. They mention legal interactions only within the scope of a much larger picture. Jesus’ story is about his ministry—not “The Trial of Jesus.” Acts is about continuity between Christian generations, including Paul’s trials and tribulations. While this involves legal wrangling, the author is not attempting a full legal analysis of what happened to Paul.

Sherwin-White attempts to pull too much out of too little.

Book Review – Sherwin-White. Part One.

2011-12-08T10:58:00.002-05:00

As I’ve discussed the Gospel accounts with Christian, I keep running into a certain book--A.N. Sherwin-White’s Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.

Dr. William Craig refers to Sherwin-White. Norm Geisler refers to him. Dr. Gary Habermas cites Sherwin-White. Dr. Mike Licona does as well.

Vinny, over at Do You Ever Think About the Things You Do Think About? has written
a number of blog entries regarding apologists’ abuse of Sherwin-White.

Primarily, Sherwin-White is cited for two reasons:

1) To support the historicity of the New Testament documents when he says, “So it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospels narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism that the more advanced exponents of it apparently maintain—as far as an amateur can understand the matter—that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written.” Pg. 187.

2) The accounts were written too close to the events to be entirely mythical. “Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.” Pg. 190.

As the book is 192 pages, and these oft-quoted sections are at the very end, I thought it would be enlightening to go through the book and report my findings. See what led Sherwin-White to this conclusion.

Unfortunately, this was not the easiest book to follow, and it became difficult for me to cohesively present what was precisely being stated, and any thoughts on the subject. Therefore, I will start somewhere in the middle and work my way around, hopefully covering most of the issues presented.

What makes this book difficult to follow?

1) Because Sherwin-White was replying to various scholars’ positions. (the book was originally published in 1962.) He would often respond to “Mommsen” (wrote in 1897-1907) or “Juster” (1914) or “Lake” (1920). It was like hearing one side of a telephone conversation. One could pick out the claims of these authors, but only by the response. Sherwin-White was not laying out his own case for a proposition—he was explaining why other’s propositions were not accurate. He was reacting.

He presumed the reader was familiar with these authors, and their positions, and therefore only provided their stance by reference.

2) He presumed the reader had ready access to other material. For example, on page 79, he states, “This is not the place for yet another discussion of the rather hackneyed theme of the relation between the Roman State and foreign cults.” With a footnote, “JTS, n.s. iii (1952), 194 ff. contains my own views, to which I have nothing to add.”

3) He presumed the reader knows Latin. One can expect to read:

“The law itself belonged to the period of the Principate of Augustus. The text runs in Ulpian: “lege Iulia de vi publica tenetur qui cum imperium potestatemve habetet civem Romanum adversus provocationem nacaverit verberaverit iusseritve quid fieri aut quid in collum iniecerit ut torqueretur.” This text is a summary of something much longer, but uses the terminology of Republican legislation. A citation from Marican adds: “lege Iulia de vi davetur ne quis reum vinciate impediatve quominus Romae intra certum tempus adsit.” The text in the Sententia Pauli substitutes the terminology of a later age in some places, but adds in somewhat convincing early phraseology: “qui…condemnaverit inve publica vincula duci iusserit” among the forbidden acts. It also adds a list of exceptions, beginning: “qui artem ludicram faciunt, iudicati etiam et confessi.” These are unlikely to belong to the original law, but the first item, the exclusion of actors should belong to early Principate.” Pg 57-58.

I’ll confess--my Latin is beyond rusty. It is non-existent, except for pro bono (free legal work.)

4. Finally, Sherwin-White was not precise in his conclusions. He left open-ended statements, and I was often scratching my head thinking, “What are you saying here? Is it correct? Not correct? More likely, less likely?” I will provide examples throughout this review.

Sherwin-White indicates his purpose in his Preface, “It may be useful if someone from the Roman side looks again at the old evidence, even where there is no new material and appraises the New Testament setting in terms of modern Romanist developments. No doubt I in turn will be quickly found to suffer from just that same lack of focus in dealing with Judaic and Christian material which is outside my sphere.

“Scholars attempting to deal with two worlds of this magnitude need two lives. We must appear as amateurs in each other’s fields. A Roman public law and administration man such as myself cannot be fully acquainted with New Testament scholarship and bibliography over so great an area I must venture to trespass on. But one may learn what are the questions requiring answers, and one may show how the various historical and legal and social problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian. That, and only that, is the intention of these lectures.” Pg. v-vi.

What surprised me after reading this book was how little he talked about generational requirements in myth development (not at all until the very end) and how qualified he made his statements regarding the historicity of the Gospels and Acts. In other words, the very things he is cited for, are not the primary focus of his book.

God vs. Us: A Divorce

2011-11-22T12:40:00.003-05:00

“I love you.”

Do you remember the first time you ever hear that sentence? Probably not—most likely it was first spoken by a parent or loved one when you were just a baby. It is doubtful you would remember the first 100 times you heard those words. And even if you recall, you didn’t know what it meant at the time.

As you grew, you heard it over and over. Books, plays, movies, real life. Sometimes directed at you—often overheard throughout living. And with the re-telling, the phrase’s significance grew—we understood it meant something. We learned in the second-grade it was a weapon: “Johnnie loves Sally! Johnnie loves Sally!” We learned as teenagers it had consequence, avoiding the “L” word until one’s relationship reached a certain commitment level. We learned it had impact.

Eventually learning it can be a hard word to implement.

Growing up, we understood (even when we didn’t like it) our parents loved us when they punished us. They explained it. They didn’t give us everything we wanted when we wanted it, but there was love. Once we had children of our own, we understood (and hopefully attempted to communicate) we love them when distributing punishment or withholding their demands.

We learned it loving others romantically. It is the reason we cry (or some of us) when the climatic scene finally arrives in the movie: “Because……….I love you!”

Certain phrases are jarring contrasted with “love;” when the wife claims her husband loves her, even though he beats her, we think, “That is wrong!” The boyfriend who stays with a girl after she sleeps around with other guys, claiming he knows she loves him. We shake our head.

All of us, in observing relationships, understand there is a point where we categorize the action as “loving” and where we would claim it is not.

Growing up Christian, we are told, “God Loves you.” We had buttons and bumper stickers; signs and bookmarks. Our No. 1 Hit starts off, “For God so Loved the World…” “Jesus Loves you.” “Jesus Loves the little Children; all the Children of the world.” [Funny, I don’t remember the Holy Spirit doing much loving.] It was the first verse we learned; it was the first song we sung.

It should therefore come with no surprise we reached a point where we thought….well….God loved us. With all that entails within the resounding reverberation and pitch of the word.

Does that mean we thought God would give us whatever we wanted? Of course not—we understood our parents did not, yet still loved. Does that mean we expected to always be happy? Don’t be silly, we understand the commitment of love within a marriage, even though we aren’t always giddy and giggling.
We truly, truly get it—when it comes to love, there would be times God would have to make hard decisions, causing us to not like the results, but we would still be loved. When we were told, “God Loves You”—we didn’t expect an ATM Machine; we expected the word “love” to mean what it means in other similar contexts.

However there is one significant difference. In all our other relationships, we can communicate, with those involved, or with others, to learn, grow and differentiate as to what is love. With God there was only silence. We are left in continual speculation—guessing how this or that conforms to what we understand is love. Sure, others provide their own (conflicting) guesses, but that is all it is—conjecture on the human’s part.

“God, why did my 16 year old son have to die?”
Silence.

“Is it because he had lived long enough, and you wanted him home?”
Silence.

“Was it a testimony to others, giving them a chance to get right with you?”
Silence.

So we grapple and postulate; others giving their own theories, and arrive at some queasy solution. An uneasy restlessness, often wondering if we got it quite right. Always willing to re-evaluate and guess again.

For many deconverts this silence grew into a disconnect; it become more and more difficult to use a word so well understood—“love”—that when applied to God held little-to-no relation to everything we understood the word to mean. A “loving” God would allow ten-year-old boys to be raped by football coaches? And allow it to continue for years because the person involved were people of privilege? That is the BEST a “loving” God could do?

And already I hear some Christian say, “We can’t explain it….but maybe _________” and then provide some poor excuse for God’s absence. If you can’t explain it—shut up. Shut up with your easy explanation of “Why God allows kids to starve in Africa” when your car is strewn with McDonald’s wrappers. Shut up with your theologically overbearing rationalization as to why a “loving God” allows this atrocity or that tragedy because we are too insignificant to understand such a infinite creature.

If that is your excuse, stop saying “God loves you.” Because even you aren’t buying the product.

Over at Black, White and Gray, ,Bradley Wright is doing a series of posts regarding deconversion. (The first is here.) In this recent installment, he discusses an observed reason for deconversion—namely a “God who Failed Deconverts” by not answering prayer.

He states:

I am struck by how much these accounts resonate with sociological theories of human relationships, especially those coming from social exchange theory. This theory describes humans as judging the value of relationships in terms of costs and benefits. One variation of social exchange theory, termed equity theory, holds that people are satisfied with their relationships when they get the rewards that they feel are proportional to the costs that they bear. An inequitable is unstable, and it usually occurs because a person thinks they receive too little for how much they give.

Many of the testimonies given by former Christians described a broken relationship with God as one might talk about a marital divorce. They are emotional, even bitter at times. They contain the language of inequality. The writers did so much for God – praying, attending church, following God – but God did not do enough in return.

As usual with Christians attempting to understand deconversion, (and with genuine respect) Bradley Wright doesn’t get it.

We didn’t gauge God as, “I didn’t get enough for what I put into it.” We realized it made no sense to call God “loving” when the results we saw were nothing but. It is the abused spouse coming to terms that one doesn’t beat one’s wife, and receive approval for being “loving.” They must stop making excuses for the spouse.

In the same way, we came to terms with the fact we were making excuses for God. We, too, were trying to explain away these actions as loving—actions we would never accept the label of “love” in any other relationship. We, too, tried to apologize for God, using weighty meaningless terms, but our own words were now ringing as hollow.

We didn’t abandoned belief in God, because we weren’t getting what we wanted; we came to realize the patent ridiculousness of fitting the word “love” (and a whole host of other words) to a creature we immediately and in complete contradiction, claimed we did not understand. One who was silent when asked. One who allows any human, anywhere to make excuses for it, without support, disapproval or response of any kind.

We realized the true difference between the Christian’s “loving God” without plausible explanation and a God who doesn’t exist. None. No difference at all, except the growing recognition “no God” makes a whole lot more sense than “a loving God who doesn’t act loving, but we assume he IS loving, because any other possibility is too scary to even contemplate.”

It was not a divorce. In a divorce, the other person is still alive. There is still a relationship, an understanding of past love, and the possibility of future love with another.

This is a death. We see now God was never there.

God is gone, not an ex-spouse.

When Doubting, avoid Thinking

2011-11-15T14:49:00.002-05:00

I remain on Credo House’s mailing list, receiving notification of C. Michael Patton’s recent blog entry concerning doubt.

What struck me was how the response proposed was one-sided when doubts arise regarding Christianity. The first point, recommended focusing on the Resurrection, rather than minor issues such as inerrancy or evolution vs. creationism. (Curiously, this came across as a concession minor issues were a lost cause.) He states:

Therefore, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I would set down all other studies, including conversations with those who are representing another religion, books about atheism, or the destiny of the unevangelized. Just to focus on this central issue of Christianity. There is so much good stuff out there on this subject, but I would start here and graduate tohere and here . Listen or watch to the debates with William Lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection.

(I was secretly pleased I guessed the books before clicking on the link. Habermas & Licona’s “Case for the Resurrection” then Licona’s “Historiography of Resurrection” and finally N.T. Wright’s “Resurrection of Jesus.”)

Notice what is missing from the list? Yeah…any skeptical books. Now I will grant you, there are not many non-theists writing on the Resurrection, but even a mention of “The Empty Tomb” or possible Loftus’ work, or Erhman’s concerns would have been interesting. What was more interesting was the suggestion to “set down” conversations “with those who are representing another religion.”

Why? Why, when doubting, must one only look to one side of the issue?

The third point Patton makes solidifies his intentions—he recommended “fellowshipping” (that’s Christianize for “socializing” or “relationshiping.”) He notes:

One normally becomes emotionally predisposed to those of their immediate fellowship. “Following the crowed” is a very effective means of being persuaded of the most unlikely beliefs. In fact, I have often said that if I hung around the flat-earth society members too long (and there is a flat earth society!), I may begin to doubt that the world is round. This is not because the arguments or evidence is persuasive, but simply because of implicit emotional control of belief that such constant fellowship affords.

I believe his concern is for Christians to begin assuming the beliefs of non-Christians because of emotional attachment. Ironically, the very action he fears is the very action he suggests the Christian engage—only hang around flat earth society….er….Christians…and one will become emotionally attached to the arguments one assumes.

I find it very telling skeptics not only encourage fellow skeptics to read non-theist literature, but ALSO theistic literature. I, too, would recommend Licona if one wants to study the Resurrection. I, too, would recommend non-believers engage with Christians, or “fellowship” with them. But I go farther and recommend one also engages and reads people holding to alternate views.

What would you think if I told you to ONLY read what non-theists write, or ONLY associate with non-theists? Does that sound like a person who is confident regarding the strength of their position or one who fears weaknesses would be exposed if someone dares inform themselves?

Bad Law Makes Bad Cases

2011-11-04T11:00:00.001-04:00

How are lawyers like nuclear weapons? Because if the other side has one, you have to get your own; once launched they can never be recalled and when they hit the ground, they screw everything up forever.

Michigan, being on the forefront of nothing, has no anti-bullying law. The State Board of Education does provide for a Michigan Anti-Bullying Policy, however, no legislation mandates even a single school district adopt the policy. There have been previous attempts to pass such legislation, all having quietly dropped from sight.

“…that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression; or a mental, physical, or sensory disability or impairment; or by any other distinguishing characteristic.”

However, this year the State Senate has decided to correct this oversight, and yesterday passed Senate Bill 137 mandating each school district implement and enforce a policy on bullying.

Good for us, right? Well…as the saying goes, the two things you should never see getting made are sausages and laws.

I suspect (with no confirmation of any sort, mind you), someone in committee worried that a statement such as “I think being gay is immoral” may be interpreted as bullying, and feared a Student stating a religious conviction would be considered a “bully” for having done so.
Stories such as this: Student expressing their opinion regarding homosexuality being immoral could generate such concern.

Therefore, SB 137 added a clause never seen in any previous submissions of the bill, providing the following exception:

“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.”

The (Democrat) minority leader expressed her frustration with the exception. Her statement on video is recorded at the Huffington Post article.

On the one hand, I understand the reason behind the exception. We do not want to temper or quash a student’s freedom of expression. However, the minority leader is precisely correct, by creating this exception, the law opens a HUGE loophole that every single lawyer, even the ones fresh from law school, understand can allow for bullying.

This exception does not protect a person from striking, kicking or beating, but so what? Those actions are criminal anyway, without the necessity of a new law. The concern is (since everyone has experienced it, either by being a bully, by being bullied or observation of bullying) how to prohibit this action. And verbal bullying is what this law is designed to prohibit. (There are provisions regarding using telecommunication devices. You can’t hit someone across Facebook.)

Yet now, if the bully continues to berate the student, “Hey, gaywad. You’re so gay. What’s up, faggot?” They can cite their religious belief and this is merely freedom of expression.

The law literally gives them to provision (and arguably the endorsement) to do so.

This is a bad law. We shall see how the Michigan House addresses it.

UPDATE: Looks like the language will not stay in the bill. Shows what a different world we live in, with the internet causing such an outcry the Michigan Senate Republicans agree to back down on this.

Your Argument is Invalid, Sir

2011-10-07T10:17:00.002-04:00

So you ask me to write a contract. After considerable time (and even more considerable cost) I present a 54 page, bound document with embossed paper. It includes every clause imaginable, taking into consideration every contingency; it even includes a section on the Rule Against Perpetuities, Dower, Curtsey and Nuclear War. There are headings and definitions and an index, and, notarized signature lines with triple attestation.

The notice requirements are detailed as to means, time, place, with intricate specificity. Everything anyone could ever hope to be in a contract is included. You are suitably impressed.

However, you see a small section at the very end stating the other party can modify any provision in the contract at any time for any reason--it doesn’t have to be in writing--without any notice to you.

Now how impressed are you? What good are all those sections, clauses and words, if the person can take it all away with a mere thought? Why bother with specific notice requirements as to time, date, means, etc. when the other person can say tomorrow, “Meh. I can change that” or even “I don’t have to send any notice at all.”

Makes the other 53 ¾ pages pretty worthless, doesn’t it? Somehow, I don’t think I will be paid for preparing such a contract!

I noticed a similar approach recently where the Christian apologist makes this long argument, but at the end says, “Unless God convinces you, this argument won’t be persuasive.” So why bother with the argument in the first place?

If your argument won’t convince absent Divine Intervention; what good the argument? If a God decides to get involved, why waste time with the puny humans’ words?

Dr. Clay Jones wrote a blog entry entitled Let’s Connect the Moral Dots for “Good” non-Christians where his stated goal was:

We need to connect these dots for the non-Christians who are adulterous murderers in their hearts but still believe they are good people. If we do, they might recognize their sinful condition and cry out for the grace available through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

Boz correctly pointed out using Bible verses to convince a non-Christian they are really a murderer is probably not the most effective means. Dr. Jones replied “The Holy Spirit does the convicting. We just speak the truth.”

I see. So all that quoting of verses, and words and framing of thoughts was 53 ¾ pages of detail. All of which is irrelevant if the last sentence is, “but none of this matters if the Holy Spirit isn’t interested in giving you the secret handshake.”

This was later reiterated when Vinny questioned the splitting of hairs between the difference of a person refraining from an immoral action for selfish reasons (which according to Dr. Jones was bad) as compared to a person repenting of an immoral action for selfish reasons (which according to Dr. Jones was good.)

And what is the difference between those two persons? Simple—God picked one over the other according to Dr. Jones.

There you have it. All the words, argument, theories, discussions and interactions in the world won’t make a bit of difference.

If God wants you—you get it. If He doesn’t—you are screwed.

This creates an incredible exclusion for the apologist. They never have to fear regarding the quality of their arguments. No matter how bad the claims are made, if we aren’t convinced, it is God’s doing.

Bad Advertising

2011-10-04T14:51:00.001-04:00

Humans believe what motivates themselves would motivate others. Therefore, they often advertise a product with what they think is compelling. A man who likes fast cars will advertise the speed a car accelerates. A soccer mother, however, would advertise convenience in carrying multiple children and their paraphernalia. A cost-conscious person focuses on gas mileage; another may point out luxury.

If, however, the person buying is not motivated the same as the seller, no matter how much the seller emphasizes what the seller thinks important…it won’t work.

This point was brought home to me recently when a distant in-law wrote the following on their Facebook:

A teenage girl about 17 had gone to visit some friends one nite & time passed quickly as each shared stories of the past year . She ended up staying longer than planned & had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a small town & she lived only a few blocks away . As she walked along under the elm trees Diane asked God to keep her safe from harm or danger . When she reached the alley ............which ... was a short cut to her house she decided to take it. However halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he was waiting for her . She became uneasy & began to pray asking for God's protection . Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness & security wrapped around her . When she reached the end of the alley she walked right passed the man & arrived home safely . The following day she read in the newspaper that a young girl had been raped in the same alley just 20 mins . after she had been there . Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy & the fact that it could have been her she began to weep . Thanking the Lord for her safety & to help this young woman she decided to go to the police station . She felt she could recognize the man so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a line up to see if she could identify him . She agreed & immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before . When the man was told that he had been identified he immediately broke down & confessed. The officer thanked Diane for her bravery & asked her if there was anything they could do for her . She asked if they would ask the man 1 question . Diane was curious as to why he did not attack her . When the police asked him he answered " Because she wasn't alone , she had two tall men walking on either side of her ." Amazingly whether you believe or not , you're never alone. Did u know that 98% of teenagers will not stand up for God ? God is always there in your heart & loves you no matter what & if you stand up for him he will stand up for you !! I bet 93% of the ppl who read this wont re post

Or course Snopes.com ferrets out how unverifiable this story is.

Normally, I would shrug and think it another Christian meme being spread, but he added an interesting comment. “Why we share our faith.”

Huh?

I can understand why another Christian would be self-righteously pleased with how God protects one of their own—but do they realize what this comes across to a non-Christian?

This is a story about a young girl being raped. There is nothing “wonderful” to share here, nothing uplifting, nothing compelling us non-Christians to cry out, “What a benevolent God!” This story might be half-way interesting if it had Diane call the police, who picked up the guy admitting he was going to rape someone but didn’t. How God intervened to prevent a terrible crime. (Although even that is problematic.)

Instead what this says, if you pray the right prayer and God is happy with it, you won’t get raped. Too bad for the women whose heart isn’t right with Jesus. Or (because Christian females are raped too) doesn’t pray the right prayer.

This doesn’t make non-Christians pause and think, “Hey, there’s a God I want to know more about.” Rather, it poignantly raises the Problem of Evil—a perennial thorn in the Christian’s side.

The story, of course, is fake. Why a Christian thinks it is remotely compelling to a non-Christian is beyond me.

Electing Judges

2011-09-23T10:40:00.000-04:00

Most people will only appear before a Judge one or two times in their life. A traffic ticket, minor issue with the landlord. Unsurprisingly, absent those few instances, the judges within the judicial system are completely unknown to the public.

How many times have you entered the voting booth and not have a clue about any person running for judicial office? Of course…why would you? It will never make a difference to you whether “Smith” or “Jones” becomes the local magistrate…until you are in front of them…

You will then discover Judges have a broad power termed “discretion.” It means, within certain parameters, they can do what they want and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. For example, in Michigan we have sentencing guidelines to standardize punishment. Theoretically, one should receive the same sentence whether the crime was committed in Wayne County, Kent County or Ontonagon County. The probation department prepares a report, assigning values depending on actions within the crime (how many victims, was a weapon involved, etc.) and the defendant’s past criminal history.

Once that number is determined, it is plugged into a “grid,” providing the minimum sentence the defendant will serve. The number could be “0 – 12” for example, meaning the minimum sentence imposed by the court will be 0 months to 12 months. (The maximum sentence is always determined by the crime. E.g. “Mayhem” will always result in a maximum sentence of 10 years. MCL 750.397.)

It is possible to have a minimum range as broad as “0 – 36”—meaning the judge has the full discretion to allow the defendant to walk out the courtroom OR put them in prison for 3 years. And no appellate court will set aside either sentence. How would you like one person to have that much control over what you will be doing for the next 3 years?

Or take a monetary case. Even a simple case involving $10,000, the judge can decide to award $0; $5,000; or $10,000 dollars. Think the Plaintiff was probably a little in the wrong? Shave the amount down to $7,500. Think the Defendant should pay something, even if the Plaintiff has no case? Give ‘em $1,000.

Time and again, we walk out of courthouses, and client says, “Where did the Judge come up with THAT number?” I shrug—it is within Judge’s discretion. They wanted a particular result and managed to mangle a way to it.

Now think about a small business in a community. Hospitals getting sued for malpractice and suing to collect bills. A Management company taking numerous tenants to court. These are businesses appearing before the courts dozens, even thousands of times. Not just once.

When the judge is running for re-election, it behooves the business to provide monetary and political support, knowing how many times they will be appearing in the Judge’s court over the next six years.

More important than the business, we lawyers understand how many times we will be appearing in that courtroom. And it is to our benefit to provide monetary and political support to the winning judge. Will we get a murderer off because we put the Judge’s banner in our yard and contributed to her campaign? No. Will we get an extra adjournment if we want it? Very likely.

Needless to say, Judgeships become political creatures. They prevail on three factors: 1) gender (females have a slightly better chance), 2) Name recognition and 3) Advertisement. To get one’s name out (for the recognition) costs money. Often the judge voted in is the one who spends the most. Plain and simple.

What if you felt wronged by a local business and take them to court, only to face a business (who contributed to the judge’s campaign), represented by a lawyer (who contributed to the judge’s campaign)? Would you be concerned? Understand, most judges do not like being reversed on appeal, so they will not deviate too far from the law…but within their discretion, they have a wide variety of options. What are the chances that discretion will bend in your favor?

One can start to see the concern in electing judges. First, we are back to high school; voting the most popular to become Class President, not necessarily the most qualified. Second, the mechanics of election (and re-election) invite political favoritism. Whether we admit it or not.

All this was going through my mind as I read this article on the Iowa Justices who ruled gay marriage was constitutionally protected in Iowa. See, in Iowa, they apparently attempted to reduce the political impact by interviewing and appointing Supreme Court Justices on merit, rather than popularity. To get input from the State Bar as to who was qualified, and question them before even allowing them on the ballot. (In Michigan, any lawyer who as been licensed for 5 years could potentially run and sit on the Michigan Supreme Court. They wouldn’t have to ever be a judge—indeed they wouldn’t have to practice law a single day! Just be licensed.)

Alas, after ruling in favor of gay marriage, the Tea Party targeted these three judges (labeling them….can you guess? Starts with “act” and ends with “ivist.”) and for the first time in their career, they had to respond in a political campaign to defend their positions. Of course, they bungled it, and lost.

The Tea Party declared it a victory—“We showed ‘em!” I see it as a loss to the judicial system. Iowa—you are better served by having qualified persons interviewed and recommended than having John Q. Public picking “Francis O’Brien” because they saw his sign more than his competitors.

Round and Round We Go

2011-09-14T11:14:00.002-04:00

Matthew’s Gospel uniquely records a relatively well-known instance regarding resurrection of other persons at the time of Jesus’ resurrection:

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matt. 27:51-53 (NKJV)

Dr. Licona, in his recent word, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach deals with these two verses on pp. 548 – 553. (Alas, only p. 553 is available on google books.)

Dr. Licona notes other contemporary authors (Cassius Dio, Josephus, etc.) included miraculous events at the times of great king’s deaths. That it was a common literary device of the time to denote significance. He then concludes Matthew is using a similar literary poetic device when referring to the resurrection of the saints.

The difficulty though, is how to determine what historicity the author(s) were assigning to these claims. If the Roman historians really did think earthquakes happened, stars aligned, swords appeared in the sky, miraculous births occurred—all as signs something important was happening—would Matthew likewise be claiming these signs really did occur?

If the Roman historians were, in essence, making this events up (or at the least doing very little confirmation regarding the claims), is Matthew likewise doing so?

Personally, I see this as a difficulty in consistent methodology when comparing contemporary Roman historians to the Gospel accounts; but what do I know?

This is not the reason I write. Other Christian authors have become disenchanted with Dr. Licona’s position; concerned he has committed apostasy by abandoning inerrancy when claiming these events did not actually, historically happen.

At the beginning of August, 2011 Dr. Geisler wrote an open letter to Dr. Licona concluding, “Indeed, if the principles of your historical approach (of using extra-biblical material as determinative of the meaning of a biblical text) were used consistently on the Bible, then it would undermine orthodoxy by dehistoricizing many crucial passages of the Bible.”

[This presents a huge problem for Dr. Geisler. The Protestant Bible does not include a Hebrew or Greek Lexicon. How does Dr. Geisler propose to determine the meaning of the Greek text, without knowledge as to what the Greek meant? The Bible does not include a history of the Roman world. How does Dr. Geisler propose to date a verse like Luke 3:1 referring to Emperor Tiberius’ reign without outside knowledge as to when Tiberius reigned? No--everyone utilizes extra-biblical material as a determinative of the meaning of a biblical text. We have to, as the Bible is not (nor does it claim to be) a complete authority on every item discussed.

Indeed, Dr. Geisler utilizes extra-biblical material. Here he just doesn’t like the fact the extra-biblical material is uncomfortable with his position.)

Dr. Licona failed to respond. So on August 21, 2011 Dr. Geisler wrote his second open letter to Dr. Licona. He expresses his adamant concern Mike Licona is no longer subscribing to the standards required by ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) and its “standard view of inerrancy” as proclaimed by ICBI (International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.)

Dr. Geisler reiterates, “There is something more important than having a seat at the table of contemporary scholarship; it is putting Lordship over scholarship when necessary.” (emphasis added.)

Dr. Geisler puts his methodology in plain sight: if scholarship disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible--no matter how solid the facts, evidence, argument and proof--he will ignore scholarship to maintain his belief.

On September 8, 2011 Dr. Licona responded with a note on his Facebook page. (As not every one is on Facebook, I linked to Wintery Knight’s blog.)

Of course, Dr. Geisler almost immediately countered with his third installment within this saga, all but calling for Dr. Licona’s removal from the ETS: “The ETS and ICBI framers have drawn a line in the sand, and Licona has clearly stepped over it. Only a clear recantation will reverse the matter and, unfortunately, Licona has not done this. Let's pray that he does.“ (emphasis in original)

JP Holding weighed in on the issue and (I think) accurately summarized the problem:

Geisler's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting history as history.

Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as a poetic device.

Geisler's view of Licona's view of Matthew 27: Matthew is reporting a poetic device as history.

As we have noted, one cannot "dehistoricize" a text that was never intended to be taken as historical. Geisler continues to miss this point and thus continues to misapprehend Licona's views with respect to inerrancy.

“Dr” James White sides with Dr. Geisler (curiously indicating he hasn’t read Dr. Licona’s book) but then takes a pot shot at Dr. Geisler for not responding to one of James White’s problems.

Other Christians are taking one side or the other (in the particular comments within that blog, “Nick” (Dr. Licona’s son-in-law) engages with Christians adhering to Dr. Geisler.)

I found two (2) things interesting about these exchanges:

1) If like-minded Christians cannot agree over a few clauses, whether they are historical or not, whether they are inerrant or not, whether to trust scholarship, even what method to utilize to determine these questions—what chance do we non-Christians have of debating “true” Christianity?

We so often hear how skeptics debate straw people, or only take on the fringes, but never battle the core, correct Christianity. Yet here is a simple matter where Christians engage in tremendous battle, and no progress appears as to which (if any) is the “correct” interpretation.

2) I am bemused that Dr. Geisler is as concerned (if not more) Dr. Licona is included in a group—ETS (Evangelical Theological Society)—when Dr. Geisler feels Dr. Licona should be excluded. Geisler wants it clear to the world that Dr. Licona is a heretic.

And wants fellow ETS members to join him in dishonorably discharging Dr. Licona.

Christians are unhappy with atheists; they abhor apostates.

(Edited to Add:

Now Albert Mohler has also joined the fray, on the side of….drum roll, please…..Dr. Geisler.)

When Politeness Fails

2011-08-16T10:21:00.002-04:00

Over at Gullible’s Travels D’Ma wrote of a recent conversation with a Sunday School teacher, asking the question almost every deconvert hears in one form or another—“Why don’t you go to Church anymore?”

Eventually, your friends, family and colleagues notice a change. You don’t scream out “Praise Jesus!” when your friends declare good news. You don’t post, “I’ll pray for you” on Facebook in response to bad news. You restrict your involvement in Church….drop out of leadership positions…stop singing in the choir….skip more and more Sunday night services………then more and more Sunday morning services…..

Either they seek you out, or (more likely) bump into you at a local establishment. After the few awkward exchanges—“How’s your spouse?”—the inevitable occurs; “We don’t see you at Church anymore…what’s up?” Like D’Ma, I demurred. “Oh, we were looking for a different direction.” “We started attending a different church.” “Our friends invited us to attend elsewhere.”

All true, mind you. Well…half true. O.K….maybe 1/8th true. The real reason was that I deconverted, and am no longer interested in worshipping a non-existent creature. I am no longer interested wasting my time singing songs with no meaning, reading verses out of context, and hearing sermons pandering to the least common denominator of emotional need.

There is no place for an atheist like me in a church.

At the time, I thought my justification for the half-truths was valid. My wife (understandably) was aghast at the turmoil created, and dreaded any confrontation on the subject. D’Ma mentioned it, but unless you have been imbedded in a church, you may not understand it—there is a gossip train like no other within the Christian community.

Yes, one attended church to worship God. Yes, we attended church to socialize with like-minded people. But we also attended to learn news. Who was divorcing whom? Whose kid was in trouble? Who got sick, lost a job, entered a cult? Alas—most times the news was lackluster at best. Christians generally shared only innocuous difficulties—“hard week at work,” “brother-in-law in car accident,” that sort of thing. Some times we had to look for the news—an ugly hat, a bratty child, a poor disposition.

And in the car, on the way home, spouses would share the news. Oh, the conversations that take place in cars between church parking lots and homes! As children we knew (and certainly as my children know) when the parents talked in very quiet voices on the way home from church—THAT was a conversation worth listening to!

It was rare one got big news—and a deconvert would be big news. Almost on par with an affair. (Sexual sins are more titillating.). Certainly equal with divorce. Better than a kid going to jail. This is news one is busting to share. Of course, it will be done in the politely worded, correct form of a prayer request—to be sure! To just blurt it out would be crass, crude and dangerously close to gossip. To blurt it out, and finish with “…we need to pray for him/her” is not only socially acceptable—it is doing God’s Work!

And (if it even lasted until Sunday), the news would spread quickly. The No. 1 conversation (and this would definitely be one of those “quiet conversations”) would be me. Us. And the question on everyone’s lips would be “Why?” Immediately followed by speculation. All gilded under “Christian concern” you understand.

Our marriage would be dissected. Our past Christian work evaluated. Smug self-praise assumed—“I always thought there was something wrong.” Because Christians presume one only deconverts for immoral purposes, they would find themselves free to fantasize about what my purpose was; indulge in both reckless character assassination AND thoughts normally forbidden.

My wife loathed the thought of this. I have slightly thicker skin, but this still would not be very pleasant. She dreaded it; I demurred. I shrank away with small excuses and polite put-offs.

And it didn’t make a damned bit of difference. We still managed to creep into prayer lists. The few I shared with, shared with others. I was a sermon example; those “in the know” immediately knew who the pastor was talking about. We still lost the friends we thought would stick by us; (hardy har har. Who were we to think our situation would be different?) we still became the outsiders.

And—like all such gossip—newer and juicer tidbits came along, relegating my deconversion to the dustbins of gossip history. With nothing more to feed the story—alas for them, I didn’t divorce my wife or declare my self a Satanist, or do anything exciting at all—it dropped and disappeared.

Leaving behind one musty uneasiness—because I didn’t address my deconversion, they don’t have to. Now when we meet, there is a slight cumbersome undertone where they know I am an atheist, they know I know they know, and yet no one addresses it. It is not so much an elephant remaining in the room, as an elephant that just leaves as we enter. A moment we see it, and then the elephant passes. Leaving us with inane, surface conversation for fear the elephant will thunder back in at any moment.

I continue to do this from politeness. I dislike confrontational Christians; likewise I presume most Christians do not appreciate a confrontational atheist. Like asking the proverbial “How are you doing?”—this isn’t a request to hear the person’s every mental and physical well-being. It is a form of greeting in our culture. In the same way, if a Christian acquaintance sees me in the fruit department at the local grocery store—they aren’t looking for a conversation comparing Matthean priority over Markan priority!

Yet I tire of it. I tire of the polite dance performed, forcing the conversation to the barest depth of relationship. With former acquaintances I welcome the shallow words as means to escape; but with my own family I find it bordering on insane—I am an atheist, time to face up to the fact! Either learn to laugh with it, learn to cry with it, or learn to ignore it—but learn to live with it!

I cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to confront deconversion head-on at the time. (Of course, not having a time machine, my wife could have become furious and I would be writing this as a divorcee right now. We never know.) I wish I could have stated, “I deconverted.” Let them know Sunday School teachers deconvert. Pastors deconvert. People you thought were the greatest spiritual leader you ever personally knew…deconvert.*

*Not that I am remotely claiming I was—I am thinking of other deconverts whose paths I’ve crossed.

Let them know life is NOT polite. It is messy. It is hard. It sometimes involves more than surface greetings and polite non-committals. Things are happening they can either choose to address or choose to ignore—but they ARE happening.

Please understand this is not a primer for what to do when deconverting. Although I mentioned D’Ma, I am absolutely not saying she should announce by billboard any change in beliefs—far from it. I empathize completely with the situation she is in. I would do the same; I DID do the same.

These are the words of a person seven years post-deconversion. A person who has found other friends and other relationships, with a few lingering family interactions and occasional acquaintance encounter. A person who avoided confrontation out of politeness and gained by it………nothing.

Michigan Warrior Dash 2011

2011-08-08T11:01:00.000-04:00

Each Warrior Dash is different, with varying obstacles. This description will only fit for my experience.

Our friends have a membership in a camping community, so we reserved a couple cabins for the crew, planning on spending the night before and after. Friday went up and enjoyed a good evening of fishing, fires and general friendship.

Woke up to Eggs, bacon, sausage and pancakes. Saturday proved to be hot (91 degrees) without a cloud for any relief. The Dash sends off runners every 30 minutes—our time was 2:00 p.m. Had two (2) couples, plus me and my son, who just turned 14; the minimum age to run was 14 and his birthday was in June so he was either the youngest or the next to the youngest. Had about 10,000 runners on Saturday, and 9,750 on Sunday.

There were tents to buy merchandise, tents to get food (primarily huge turkey legs) and tents to get beer. The whole thing was extremely well-organized. Got our numbers, timing chips (which also turned out to be the token for free beer), and walked around for a bit, enjoying the other people in costumes.

Considering a band, beer and some testosterone—you might think this was only one step removed from a Hollywood depiction of a biker bar. It was not. Nothing seemed crazy or out of sorts.

The race itself.

It is a 5k (3.1 miles) that normally, with these types of numbers, one would expect the winners to be in the 16:30 range. Our overall winner was 22:30—giving an idea how much time the obstacles added.

We run for about ½ a mile before the first obstacle. This is good because it stretches out the runners. The first is a series of tires/junk cars. I told my son to be careful, either step within the tires or you might trip by trying to walk on the tires.

I, of course, walked on the tires (faster) and tripped on the very last one. My son found this funny. Another ½ mile run (this is really stretching out the crowd nicely) and our second obstacle. Go though a stretch of water with logs at about waist level. (Chest level for my son.) Now we will run the rest of the race soaked. Makes the shoes heavy.

Had a cargo net stretched horizontally. (Fastest way to do it is roll.) A series of over/unders where you go over a wall, and then under barbed wire. Climb a wall with ropes. This is a video tour of our course, if you interested.

They stretched a series of bungee cords in a number of criss-cross patterns. I found the fastest way was to lift up the bungees, and stoop under all of them. Some of the people stepping over the bungees I was lifting up gave out shouts of “Hey! I’m stepping over that!” I can’t help it if you are doing it the slow way. It is a race…

There were rumors of a “mystery obstacle.” As we run through the woods we hear laughs and shouts ahead. Not sounding good.

Imagine a steep ditch (normally you would go up it, using your hands) Now fill the bottom with about 3 feet of sludge/mud. It was like walking through sewage. Or so I would imagine. Alongside the ditch, there were two mud-covered logs. One would be tempted to go over the logs, to avoid the mud. I watched a number make it about ½ way and then fall in anyway. I told my son to just run through the mud.

(Even though his pace is slower than mine, I ran with him to make sure he could do the obstacles. If I had to do it again, I might not—he was fine.)

Unfortunately, the mud had a number of logs in it, which is why my shins took the beating they did.

The best bit was that at one point the mud dropped to 4 feet deep. My son went in right to his chin.

But now, crawling out, we found the real difficulty. The hill was mud covered and steep. Every step you took forward, you slid back two! There were ropes to use, but too many people, and you still had to crawl up to the rope. This was, by far, the hardest obstacle.

There was a blackout where you crawled for 30 feet in darkness. (HOT!) An up-and-down narrow wooden bridge. Wall climb with rope climb down, and then vertical cargo nets.

Two leaps over fire (small fires, nothing much to worry about.) and the mud pit. The pictures tell the story better than I.

The crowd hung around the mud pit and cheered people on. Generally they liked anything dramatic or unusual. My son came up with a great plan. We went back-to-back, took two steps, did a quick-draw and then fell in as if we shot each other. Hence the way we went in.

Our friends did a leap frog.

Sadly, on Sunday one fellow dove in too deep and became paralyzed from the chest down.

I can’t really tell you how well I did, since I did not run my normal pace. I figured I would normally have run it in about 29:00. (I run 5k in 21:30)

As DoOrDoNot’s husband is doing this, I thought I would give a few suggestions. Take a change of clothes. You will get everything dirty. They had a shoe contribution, we all contributed our shoes. You may not want to keep yours.

Bring flip-flops or sliders for after. Bring a garbage bag to put the clothes you were running in…in. You do not want these to touch anything.

Bring some wipes for your face. They have a rinsing off station, but it is not sufficient. Bring a Q-tip or two. I got dirt out of my ears for the next three days.

Have a blast. You will be addicted. I am already signed up for next year. July 28, 2012 at 1 p.m.

Argument from Silence on Dating of Acts

2011-07-22T14:29:00.002-04:00

In dating ancient documents, we attempt to determine a terminus a quo (point after which the document was written) and a terminus ad quem (point before which the document was written.) Absent direct internal dating by the author (“In the third year of Tiberius’ reign” for example), we generally determine the terminus a quo by the last chronological date within the document, and the terminus ad quem by the date the document was referenced and quoted.

For a simplistic example, if the last event in a book was Pearl Harbor and the book was referenced by another author in 1950, we would date the book from 1941 – 1950. Obviously in ancient documents, the ranges tend to be larger.

Utilizing New Testament documents, Mark references the Jewish revolt in Mark 13, so we date the work—the terminus a quo--at the fall of Jerusalem. Being 70 CE. And, for purposes of this blog entry only, we can see Papias referencing a Gospel written by Mark in his writing of 110-140 CE. for our terminus ad quem. Therefore (if this was any other work) we would date Mark 70 – 140 CE and think nothing of it. A scholar who discussed Mark as having been written in 71 CE would be on equal footing as one who indicated 140 CE. (Imagine that!)

It should be noted, though, determining when the Gospels were referenced is not that simple. See Dr. Carrier’s excellent blog entry regarding just how convoluted this can become.

However, for many Christian apologists—they see this as a problem. They want the Gospels to be earlier. “The Earlier, the Better” is their battle cry. The problem being, the Gospels themselves do not indicate when they were written. So we have to analyze it; and simple analysis comes up with dates much too inconvenient.

Matthew copies Mark, but Matthew doesn’t provide us with any information regarding when IT was written. (For example, if Matthew dated its own work to 90 CE, we would then derive a 70 – 90 CE date for Mark. Since Matthew referenced Mark.) Luke also uses Mark. Luke also fails to provide us with any limiting information. So we are still left with this 70 CE – 140 CE (or more) dating for the Gospels.

Mmm….how to get around this? *snaps fingers*

Luke wrote a second book—Acts. (We know it is the second, because in it he refers to his previous book: the Gospel. Acts 1:1-3) If we can date the second Book, then the first book—Gospel of Luke—must come before it. First comes before second. And if we can date the Gospel of Luke, as Luke copies Mark, we can date Mark.

Date Acts to 65 CE, then Luke has a terminus ad quem of 65 CE and Mark would have a terminus ad quem of 65CE. (We can’t know how long it was before one followed the other, or one copied the other, so traditionally we use the same date. Extrapolating “10 years” or “5 years” is merely an apologetic tool, and should be abandoned in light of what historians actually do.)

But…unfortunately…Acts also doesn’t provide any internal dating either. We are left with the same problem as the Gospels. Leaving us the same general dating: 70 – 140 CE.

This is where the Argument from Silence comes in. The apologist attempts to show an event occurred where we know the dating, and if the person fails to list it, presumably the document was written before that date.

For another simplistic example. If we found a document referencing the greatest wars in history, and it failed to list World War II, we would presume—under an Argument of Silence—the document was written before 1941.

Understand an Argument from Silence is NOT a logical fallacy. As we like to say in the legal world, “It goes to weight, not relevance.” It may not be very credible, but it is not, in and of itself, a fallacy.

The apologist generally uses 2 (sometimes 3) events which they indicate MUST have been included in Acts if it was written after those events, and therefore Acts (and Luke and Mark) were written prior to those events:

1) Paul’s death;
2) Jewish revolt; and
3) (sometimes) the outcome of Paul’s trial.

Since these events occurred before 64 CE (so the apologist claims), Acts (and Luke and Mark) must have been written before 64 CE. Giving us a terminus ad quem for all three of 64 CE.

Let’s break down the elements of an Argument from Silence—we need a minimum of two items:

1) What it is the author is silent about; and
2) The purpose of the writing itself.

Take the claim, “Tiger Woods shot a hole-in-one in last week’s Golf Tournament.” (“1” in our list above.) Now I claim it could not possibly have happened, because it is not listed in the magazine I hold in my hand. The magazine is silent; by virtue of the Argument from Silence…didn’t happen.

But what magazine am I holding? If I am holding Cosmopolitan the Argument from Silence is not very strong. Because the nature and purpose of Cosmopolitan has nothing to do with golf scores, whether Tiger Woods did or did not shot a hole-in-one—indeed whether he even played golf that weekend—would not be included within the Magazine.

Obviously, if I am holding Golf Digest then the Argument of Silence has great weight—the nature and purpose of Golf Digest IS to report such things as Tiger Woods shooting a hole-in-one.

Again, we need two things: 1) what fact is claimed missing and 2) whether the document’s purpose would include such a fact.

Continuing with our Tiger Wood’s example, what if our fact was that Tiger Woods defined the new personage that teenage girls found attractive? In that Argument of Silence, whether Cosmopolitan reported it holds greater weight than Golf Digest.

What I often see, in the Argument of Silence from apologists regarding the dating of Acts, is one or both of these elements overlooked. The apologists just keeps repeating, “Acts would have reported Paul’s death if it had happened. Acts would have reported Paul’s death if it had happened. Therefore it was written prior to his death.” Yet the apologist fails to plug Paul’s death in the two essential elements.

The first thing we have to look at. When and how did Paul die? And immediately we have a problem.

The author of 1 Clement (60 -140 CE) knows Paul is dead. He does not say when. He does not say how. Acts of Paul indicates (as tradition) Paul was beheaded under Nero, but Tertullian claims it a forgery. Leaving the apologist in a bit of a quandary—do they rely upon a forgery, because it says what they want to hear? Or do they reject the other items contained in Acts of Paul, because it is a forgery?

We don’t know how Paul died. We don’t know when. How can we say the author of Acts would certainly include Paul’s death, if we don’t even know how and when he died? Would the author have included it if Paul died by shipwreck? By disease? By a knife fight in an alley? By being martyred? By other Christians?

The apologists want to assume Paul died a glorious death, without first doing the hard work of proving how Paul died.

As to the second element, scholars have noted numerous purposes under Acts whereby Paul’s death would not be listed. It is also important to note the author of Acts, at the time of the writing, knows Paul is dead. Acts. 20:25-38.

The outcome of Paul’s trial is equally problematic. Did he win? Did he lose? Did it even happen? Again, if Paul died from disease prior to the trial, this makes perfect sense why it wasn’t listed. Or if he lost. We simply don’t know, and to speculate what happened adds silence upon silence, removing all but a feather’s weight of credibility.

(Sometimes people claim Luke wrote so much about the trial leading up to the ending and he wouldn’t have mentioned it at all if Paul lost. Not true—if Paul lost, that is all the MORE reason to give the long-winded substantiation. In my practice, at times, I ask the question, “Have you been convicted of a felony?” I receive two answers:

1) “No.”
2) “Let me tell you what happened….”

No one says outright, “Yes, I was convicted”—first they want to give an explanation. Like Luke does for Paul.)

Paul’s death and Paul’s trial are extremely weak Arguments from Silence, as we don’t know the underlying facts, let alone why the author would choose or choose not to include it. But that’s not true for the Jewish Revolt. THAT event we DO know about. Why didn’t Acts include it?

Which brings us back to purpose. Why would Acts include it? Acts is about the conflict Early Christians had with the Jewish leaders, an explanation of the missionary work, and a demonstration regarding the continuity between first generation Christians (disciples) and the third-generation Christians (recipients) via the second-generation Christian Paul.

The Jewish Revolt has no bearing on the missionary work, or the doctrinal continuity, and therefore would have no need to be included. The typical reason listed would be to paint the Jews in a bad light under the first purpose listed.

However, we have to look at Acts itself. It discusses Jews vs Christians as compared to Romans vs. Christians, painting the Romans in a positive, receptive light, and the Jews as the belligerent, confrontational type. The entire book deals with Christians interacting with others.

The Jewish revolt had to do with internal Jewish problems (conservative v more modernistic) and Jews vs. Romans. The Revolt had NOTHING to do with Christianity.

I have always been curious, to the people who claim Acts would have mentioned the Jewish Wars if it was written in 90 CE.

Where?

Where would Acts include the Revolt, and how would it work its way into the passage? The book ends in approximately 62 CE—is the apologist claiming the author would have extended the book on to include the events of 70 CE? Why?—there were no Christians involved! The recipients would state, “That is nice and all, but what does it have to do with us?” Absolutely nothing.

Is the apologist stating the authors would have included it a prophetic statement? Luke already did in his first book, copying Mark 13.

Other than the apologist’s compelling need to date Acts early, there is no reason for the revolt to be included. It is outside the purview of the book.

The Argument of Silence is too weak to overturn the basic principles in dating ancient texts.

Close-Minded Me

2011-06-24T09:54:00.001-04:00

In another discussion, I was informed:

You are the first skeptic to essentially tell me that his mind is closed to what I have to say, and most of the skeptics have also been very friendly, so I always end up giving them the benefit of the doubt and putting time and effort into answering their questions.

Link

My initial reaction was to respond (due to the generally negative connotation), “Hey, I’m not close-minded. I’m as open as the next person,” but I started thinking about it.

Am I really?

In point of fact, I am close-minded about a number of topics. And is that really all bad?

Take an extreme example—the heliocentric theory of our solar system. The idea the planets (including Earth) rotate around the sun. Although I’ve never been in a spaceship, I have seen the evidence, including the paths of other planets, the sun, the moon, the shadows all pointing to a heliocentric theory.

Indeed, you could say I am quite close-minded regarding the topic. Perhaps, even in my persistently stubborn state on this subject, it would be possible to persuade me different. So I may qualify as only 99.99% close-minded. (If that does qualify.)

BUT, in order to change my position, one would need to present some very compelling argument; doing so immediately, forcefully and with strong evidence. Merely asking a question, such as, “If the Earth orbits the sun, how come we see the sun move across the sky?” will never be sufficient.

As I pondered the concept of close-mindedness, I realized we spent our first 18 (or more) years being taught this very topic. We were given homework assignments, quizzes, tests—all designed to close our mind regarding possible alternatives. “2+2=4” Not “5;” not “giraffe.” We close our minds to water’s chemical composition being “H2O.” To “You’re” being a contraction of “you” and “are” and not possession. The list, as you can see, goes on and on.

The list goes on and on. Yes, there are occasions when we learn new information, and realize what we thought was so certain (and perhaps had closed our minds), may not be reality. Newtonian physics comes to mind.

And that is the word I hinged upon—“new.” I looked up the definitions, to see what the common usage would be when utilizing these terms. Google god came up with:

Open-minded: “Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.”

Close-minded: “Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.”

In both definitions, the word “new” sprang at me. Is it “close-minded” to be unreceptive to old ideas?

At one point does one study a topic enough to say, “Unless someone presents something new here, I have made my decision”?

The reason I ask—I have studied Christianity. I am very familiar with the fundamentalist Christian position. I know the arguments, the argument style, even the authors, books and sites they will point to.

And I am unconvinced. Must I hear it again to be “open-minded”? How many times must I hear a proposed resolution to a contradiction in the Bible before I come to the conclusion it is a compilation of human documents? How many times must I hear the excuses…er…”apologetics” for the differences between the God of Tanakh and the God of the New Testament?

Are we not entitled to reach a point of saying, “Look. I’ve studied this. I am unconvinced. Unless you present something new--some bold evidence or intensely compelling argument at the onset--I have no need to re-capitulate (for the 100th time) why I was unpersuaded before”?

So I guess, if one wants to call me close-minded because Presentation Number 101 (presenting nothing new) fails to convince, just like Presentations Number 1 – 100 failed to do so…well…I am fine with that.

Why Apologetics Don’t Convince

2011-06-01T16:38:00.002-04:00

In every criminal trial, the defense attorney performs an obligation—presenting a possible scenario creating reasonable doubt their client is guilty.

See, each trial has certain facts. A witness who claims a person matching the Defendant’s description was at the crime. Doctors who testify to the cause of death or injury. Police officers explaining data taken from the scene. Exhibits. Fingerprints. Blood results.

And those facts led the police to arrest the accused as a suspect. Those facts led the prosecutor to authorize charging the crime. Those facts led the magistrate to bind the defendant over for trial. And now those very same facts will be displayed to a group of neutral jurors, who are very likely to equally find the most reasonable conclusion is that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

This is where the defense attorney steps in. She must explain an alternative interpretation to the facts. Just because the Defendant was captured in the video right before the robbery, doesn’t mean he entered the store. Just because the Defendant’s fingerprints are on the gun, doesn’t mean he pulled the trigger. Just because the technician claims the blood results are one thing, doesn’t mean we have to trust them.

The Defense attorney constantly presents “possibilities.” Not probabilities (not their job.) Something…anything…to give the jurors an opportunity to say, “No, maybe there is enough doubt here, we should not convict the Defendant.”

Two things happen; the second sometimes more interesting than the first.

1) Jurors--despite all these “possibilities”--overwhelmingly convict Defendants.

See, the jurors understand the Defense attorney’s job. They understand the inherent bias—unless the attorney has no other choice, everything must be bent toward the scenario whereby the Defendant is not guilty. If someone sees the Defendant arrive at the crime scene at 7 p.m., and another witness sees them leave at 7:30 p.m., Defense counsel will argue the Defendant left at 7:01 and came back at 7:29. That is their job.

“It is possible the Defendant could leave and then come back…” “No one saw them there the entire time…”

Yet jurors realize people rarely are under constant surveillance. That people rarely come onto a scene, leave it immediately, and come back later. While it is certainly a “possibility”—not a probability.

They understand, taking into consideration the other facts, the high likelihood the Defendant arrived at 7 and stayed until 7:30.

In every trial we bob and weave and dance and twist, showing over and over how there is another “possibility” to the prosecutor’s theory. The jurors look with sympathetic eyes and quietly reject the “possibility” for the probability. The fact set conforming to their ordinary life experiences.

“We find the Defendant Guilty.”

2) The second phenomenon is that often Defendants become convinced by their own press. They hear the attorney present these possibilities and the alternatives begin to solidify in their minds. Rather than just “possibilities” they become stronger and strong probabilities. Soon they becomes facts—“It’s not on video, is it?”

The Defendants begin to think their case is pretty good. Real solid. They could win this thing! Their relatives in the galley are impressed with the lawyer cross-examining the police officer. The technician admitting they are not 100% certain—there is room for error. The fact all these “holes” are seemingly punched in the prosecutor’s case.

Besides, O.J. heard “Not Guilty” because of that glove. Every movie (except To Kill a Mockingbird) has the Defendant acquitted in a triumphant Perry Mason twist.

Defendants begin to believe the “possibilities” are sufficient. They are not.

“We find the Defendant Guilty.”

I find this same attitude amongst Christian apologetics. As if “possibilities” of alternative interpretations fitting the Christian’s desired conclusion are sufficient to overcome the overwhelming probability to the contrary. (How many times have we seen “possibilities” offered as a response to contradictions?)

And, likewise, Christian apologists believe their own press. They begin to think these “possibilities” are substantial enough to overcome the probabilities.

We completed a discussion regarding the old chestnut of Jesus predicting the parousia within the lifetime of the listeners, and how it did not occur. Anete Acker did an admirable job, playing the part of the Defense Attorney/Christian apologist, giving about the best answer she could.

But in the end, it is just like the Defense. All those “possibilities” do not sustain over the more obvious probabilities; whether Jesus actually said it or someone put those words in his mouth—they were incorrect.

Apologetics do not convince, because we non-believers look to probabilities, not possibilities. We understand the Christian apologist (just like Defense counsel) will bob and weave and twist the scraps of facts we have to conform to their necessary interpretation. We are not bound by such doctrinal or theological limitations.

We don’t care whether it was recorded Jesus predicted something and it was correct or not. We have no purchase in this game.

Thus we are not convinced, any more than jurors are.

Can’t Argue with this Logic

2011-05-31T09:45:00.002-04:00

The proof Satan exists is that he has deceived you into thinking he doesn’t exist.

QED

What the Large Print Giveth; the Small Print Taketh Away

2011-05-27T12:03:00.002-04:00

Obviously, one week (and a few thousand years) later—no Rapture has been forthcoming.

I smiled at all those “true believers” who smugly smacked down Rev. Camping’s predictions with the gloating scorn, “Ha! No one knows the hour of Jesus’ coming. Who was Harold Camping to proclaim such a thing?” Stabbing out Matthew 24:36 like a weapon.

Yet curiously, many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—believe the Rapture will occur. And many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—declare it could happen this very afternoon. And those same people—just like Harold Camping—urge you to “get right with God” or else you could be too late, ‘cause it could happen today. (Why is there is always a hint of gleeful revenge when we say, “No” as they look forward to showing US who was correct?)

Aren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.

Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?

I wonder if he regrets putting that clause in the contract….

Ripple Effect

2011-05-17T11:24:00.001-04:00

The United States was developed under an interesting, mutli-faceted balancing act. Not only the famous Checks-and-Balance within the three branches of the Federal Government, but balancing individual states sovereignty while maintaining the country’s unity.

One such concern was to have states recognize other state’s judgments and decrees, thus the framers included the Full Faith and Credit Clause within the United States Constitution—each State must give “full faith and credit” to the other States’ public acts, records and Judicial proceedings.

This has been so fully implemented; we hardly think anything of it. We don’t stop at the Ohio border to get a new Driver’s license, registration on our vehicle or insurance. We understand our Michigan License is valid in any of the other 49 States. Even if we may not meet the requirements of the other states to have a Driver’s license!

Part of my work includes “domesticating Judgments”—filing and enforcing judgments from other States against Michigan residents. Whether the rights or benefits under that judgment would be available in Michigan is irrelevant—if the judgment is valid under Oregon Law, we domesticate it here and enforce it just as if Oregon Law was in effect on the Judgment.

So everyone was happy enforcing other State’s decrees (with few hiccups) until…

Same Sex Marriage.

See, we even recognized marriages from other States. Even through Michigan does not have Common Law Marriage—if someone was married in such a fashion elsewhere—we recognized them as married here. If a person did not meet the age requirement here, but did where they were married—they were still just as married.

Anyone who has moved from one state to another knows they did not have to re-perform a marriage ceremony under the new State’s requirements. The new State recognized the old State’s marriage decree.

But this would mean…if two fellows were married in Massachusetts…under the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause…Michigan would have to recognize the marriage! Once one state had same sex marriage—all the states would!

Panicking, U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act indicating, in spite of the U.S. Constitution, no state would have to recognize the same sex marriage of another. Thus avoiding the perceived issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been too timid to take up the problem whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.
Occasionally problems will go away if ignored. This is not one of them. If your ankle hurts for a few hours after running—you can probably ignore it. After a few weeks—time to get medical attention.

The problem of recognizing same sex marriage will not go away. It will not be ignored.

’The question of how a state defines the institution of marriage must be decided by the people and their representatives, not activist judges,’ said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute.

Texas Supreme Court may decide conflicting Same Sex Divorce Cases.

Unfortunately for Mr. Sasser, it is not that simple. States ARE allowed to define (through their people and representatives) the institution of marriage. But States are part of a Union. Which operates under the United States Constitution. Which clearly states, regardless how an individual State defines marriage—it must give full faith and credit to other States’ legally instituted marriage.

Now States such as Texas are wrestling with whether they can divorce such couples—even if they can’t get married in Texas. What about same sex couples who adopt children, move to Texas, and then divorce?

We are infamous for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring issues. Ironically, while ignoring them, lives move on, and people search for solutions in the legal system. When the legal system (that CANNOT ignore the problem) does provide a solution, half the populace (the ones ignoring the problem until that very moment) cry out, “Activist Judges!”

Here, as there are conflicting opinions, we probably could get both halves to make the same battle cry.

It is time this is brought to head. Tell your friends, “I am for/against gay marriage. And here is why.” Tell your congresspeople. Tell it in your votes.

This state of limbo, where the legal system is left to wrestling out solutions will not last.

While I give a nod to President Obama’s no longer utilizing the argument the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional (while he still enforces its implementation), I want it overturned. Trashed. Either repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (unlikely given the current make-up.)

Journey’s Beginning

2011-05-13T15:52:00.002-04:00

Apparently Blogger Ate Yesterday's post. Which was:

Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.

And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…

I don’t care.

(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)

I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.

It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!

And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”

Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.

Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.

Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?

Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?

If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)

In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.

And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.

Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….

…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.

Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.

Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.

Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.

I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.

But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.

I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.

And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.

Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.

I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.

Journey Beginning

2011-05-12T11:09:00.000-04:00

Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.

And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…

I don’t care.

(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)

I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.

It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!

And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”

Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.

Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.

Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?

Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?

If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)

In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.

And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.

Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….

…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.

Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.

Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.

Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.

I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.

But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.

I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.

And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.

Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.

I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.

Gospels as Histories, iTunes U. Part Four

2011-04-27T10:20:00.002-04:00

After listening to the final lecture, I was left with the same puzzlements carried throughout the first three—what exactly is the point here, and what method are we using? However, after reflection I may have stumbled on a possible solution. (How’s that for being definitive? *grin*)

Dr. Bauckham focused the final lecture on current trends in historiography, indicating the current emphasis is on “micro-history.” The history of minor persons. The life of a baker in the 16th century sort of thing. Rather than focus on the elite, or focus on monumental characters such as military, political or social leaders and the masses’ reactions to them—the concept to see what the “common person” experience was during the time in question.

An example he utilized was the Syro-Phonecian woman in Mark 7:24-30. Although (again) the methodology was muddled in that the story was about her interaction with the Messiah, son of God, Savior of the World. She enters, performs her small part, and then exits. Not exactly sure how that was her “micro-history.”

Dr. Bauckham also mentioned the numerous pericopes, each giving their own little “micro-history” if you will.

I found the fourth lecture dry, and uninformative.

It struck me…eventually…what he may have been doing.

It would seem he was going through current trends in historiography—“history from below” and “micro-history”—and determining how the Gospels would fit within such determinations. Odd considering he started off with a qualifier regarding the use of modern techniques on ancient works, and the first lecture attempting to pigeon-hole the Gospels in ancient genres.

I find this of questionable significance. Much like my arguing the Gospels should be in the “800’s” for literature under the Dewey Decimal Classification rather than the “200’s” for religion. Or the “900’s” for history. Do you see how meaningless that is? The Gospels are what the Gospels are—the fact we have subsequently developed a library system so one can find books does NOT mean the books MUST fit the category. Placing the Bible in the Fiction section of your local bookstore does not make it fiction.

In the same way, utilizing current historical methods does not make the Bible “history from below” or “micro-history.”

The titles of this lecture looked interesting. In the end, the lectures themselves failed to deliver, in my opinion.

Gospels as Histories, iTunes U. Part Three

2011-04-22T12:17:00.000-04:00

Now the wheels suddenly go back on the bus. This was (by far) the most interesting lecture in this series, making me glad I stuck with it.

Dr. Bauckham focuses on two examples for similarity to the Gospels—the Biography of Appollonius of Tyana and Life of Homer

Appollonius, allegedly lived during the 1st century, and would therefore be a contemporary of Christ. He was a philosopher, miracle-worker and holy man who defied the Roman Emperors. Not surprisingly, his story has been compared to Christ—indeed the reason we even know of Appollonius is that later writers attempted to differentiate Appollonius from Christ.

Dr. Bauckham focused on a few issues:

1) He noted Appollonius was an elite. Although he did give up his wealth.

2) Appollonius focused more on the elite. Two examples given were Appollonius finding a treasure to help a wealthy person avoid debts, and him providing a dower for a girl he raised from the dead.

[Bauckham did not mention these works, but it was interesting to me the similarities to Acts of Paul & Acts of Peter. Which also had interaction with the elites in town by the apostles. And people dying and reuniting for marriage.]

Eventually Dr. Bauckham differentiated it from Christ as the Gospels were more “bottom up” (from the common person perspective) and Appollonius was an elite catering to elite.

The second work was even more fascinating to me—Life of Homer.

One must remember how influential The Odyssey and the Iliad were within this culture. These works were seen as THE way to write. They were performed for the common people, utilized for teaching and the characters were well-known types exemplified throughout contemporary writing.

Not surprisingly, people were interested in the author—Homer. (Who lived 100’s of years earlier.) This first century work was Homer’s biography, explaining how he was an illegitimate child, raised by a hard-working single mom who eventually married a school teacher. Homer goes blind (of course) within the story, and becomes a vagrant, scraping out a living, but generally receiving charity.

Homer finally becomes a schoolteacher, establishing some secure income. Many of the persons he meets along his journey become the characters within his epic works.

Bauckham differentiates Life of Homer, as this was written about a person long dead, rather than a contemporary. He puts it as a biographical genre, closer to novel then historical.

The thing I found so intriguing was how Bauckham attempted to differentiate these works by specifics when talking about genre. If I wrote a biography about George Washington, it would (by necessity) be about a person who existed 200 years ago. If I wrote a biography about Oprah, it would be about a contemporary. While the sourcing may (or may not!) be more substantial—doesn’t the genre stay the same? Aren’t they both biographies?

Whether I write about kings or paupers—aren’t they both biographies?

I found this interesting because when talking about what qualifies as a bios Dr. Bauckham found strength in the generality of the definition, to encompass a great many possibilities. Yet here he dismisses works from being the same genre because of specifics.

A question arising through this discussion—did the Gospels develop a unique genre? I think these two works, as presented by Dr. Bauckham greatly diminish such an argument. We have other works within the same time frame that would appear to be the same genre.

Finally, Dr. Bauckham mentioned “agency” to demonstrate this was a “bottom up” work. He indicated the “agency” of Christ’s death was the crowd. (The common people.) I found this to be a bit hair-splitting. Didn’t the Chief priests stir up the crowd? Arguably they were the agents. Pilate was convinced and gave the order. He was the agent, right? Actually, Christ had to die for all our sins—do the stories indicate we are the agents? Yet this was God’s plan—was Christ the agent?

It seemed to me, one could bend the “agent” for Christ’s death to about any entity one desired.

Gospels as Histories, iTunes U. Part Two

2011-04-18T10:22:00.002-04:00

History “from below.”

Here, the wheels start to come off the bus a bit. This particular lecture bored me, as it covered very familiar territory for me. Not sure I would have continued after this, but for our discussion.

Bauckham goes on to indicate we should not use 21st century historical methods to apply to the histories of the 1st Century, due to the differing cultures, methodologies, etc.

Yet then he goes on to say, “But we can current historical method to provide illumination and some insight.”

So…can we use them or not? Again, he straddles the fence nicely, allowing one to both do so and not.

Another introductory statement he made that greatly concerned me was how we shouldn’t bother studying who the gospels were written to--as if such study was a waste of time. Personally, I think it is extremely important to know the intended audience. Imagine if Mark was written as a play to a Roman audience to mock the start-up religion. Wouldn’t that have a huge impact in how we view Markan historiography? Or if Matthew is written to a Judaic community? Or Luke written to a predominately female audience?

I think such questions are imperative to our study of the gospels.

A current historical trend he mentions, is to do history “from below.” Rather than typical history about the elites—the movers and shakers in a society such as political, military or academic leaders—look at history from the perspective and about the common crowd.

He admits the farther back we go, the less material we have to do history “from below” as people (prior to the 20th Century) focused more on the elites. He notes Greco-Roman History tended to be written “by the elite; for the elite.”

He then goes through some of the social classes of the society. Anyone who as interacted with me, knows if they ever ask for a book recommendation, I am sure to include Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. You may note the second author of the work is Richard Rohrbaugh, who Bauckham mentions a number of times at this point of the lecture.

Again, this is my review, I’m not saying this might be interesting for someone else, but for me this was dull. Due to his time constraints, Bauckham could barely hit even the highlights, so I learned nothing new here.

Essentially, there were social classes in Roman Society—some were better off than others.

I suspect he is leading up to saying the authors of the Gospels were in the lower classes, and were doing history from below.

This is about all I can say for the second lecture.

Gospels as Histories, iTunes U. Part One

2011-04-15T14:28:00.001-04:00

Over at Like a Child’s Blog I recommended looking at courses on iTunes University as such courses are 1) free and 2) convenient. DoOrDoNot suggested listening and discussing a course together; D’Ma and I readily agreed. Anyone else is free to join as well.

It was settled we would listen to Gospels as Histories--a four part lecture by Dr. Richard Bauckham. (If the iTunes Link does not work, it is under iTunes U/Humanities/Religion. Scroll through the pages ‘till ya find it.)

I am familiar with Bauckham, having read Jesus and the Eyewitness: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimonies--as this covers similar ground, so far my impression is much the same.

How does one review an audio course? I decided to listen as I normally would; my commute takes 45 minutes, so an hour lecture would be spread over one day, with a long break. I don’t take notes while driving—in keeping with that, I didn’t take notes for this lecture. If I forgot something that means it didn’t resonate enough for memory.

Simply put, I listened as my ordinary routine, and here are a few thoughts after the first lecture:

I found, at times, Dr. Bauckhan’s accent to follow. My mind worked a bit harder, sometimes figuring out what the word was after. Two examples. He referred to a genre in Greco-Roman literature as “acuna” (as far as I remember)—where a person is praised. I’ve tried finding the word, and cannot.

Or he mentioned making up a word “biographee” or “biographeed” (again it was difficult to tell which, because if there was a “d” at the end of the word, it was very soft) as being the person to whom a biography was about. Say this sentence out loud, “The biography about the biographee places the biographee within the world of the biography.” As you can see “biographee” and “biography” sound amazingly the same!

He laid out the genres in Greco-Roman writing:

1) Historiography*;
2) Bios (biography);
3) Novel
4) Acuna (?) – praise of a person.

*Dr. Bauckham points out (correctly, in my opinion) there is a difference between “history”—what happened and “historiography”—the actual recording of what happened. The records we have, and utilize, are peoples’ stories about events, including the person’s biases, impressions, preferences, choice of words, etc. It may not be precisely what actually happened.

He then indicated genres did not have rigid demarcations—genres are porous, blending and merging, sometimes utilizing elements of other genres. In indicating the gospels are bios he stated “of course the most closely related genre would be histories.”

I wondered why? Couldn’t acuna (?) be closely related? Or novels?

Then Bauckham went on to relate how histories were considered more reliable when written by people who were actually involved in events, then slightly less reliable if written by contemporaries and finally the least reliable if written by persons long after the events occurred. He claimed it was “plausible” if histories were considered this way, then the close genre of bios would be too.

Ah…THERE’s the Bauckham I remember from his book. I felt (again this is my impression) he tended to make an argument to stretch to a point which was plausible, but then in the next chapter take the point as a certainty to make his next stretched point. Eventually, I felt like saying, “What a minute—isn’t this speculation upon speculation? Isn’t this getting thinner down the line?”

Here we have bios genre that can utilize elements from historiography genre. And we have historiography which tended to favor contemporary accounts. Therefore, according to Bauckham, bios genre favored contemporary accounts See what I mean?

I also wondered about Mark’s use of chiasm—a Greco-Roman element within novels—as being a merger of bios genre with novel genre. Not to mention the typography similar to midrash in aligning Tanakh stories with Jesus’ accounts.

Bauckham then stated some writers of historiography would (to boost credibility) falsely “insert” themselves into their stories. I wonder if Bauckham will talk about Matthew? (He indicates in his book one of the reasons he does not think Matthew was the author of the Gospel was Matthew’s “insertion” into the story of Levi to make himself one of the disciples.)

Three categories of bios were given:

1) Political or Military Figures;
2) Philosophers
3) Holy men.

Baukham noted that traditionally Jesus was placed in the “philosophers” category, due to his teaching. He then goes on to argue it would be more appropriate to place the bios in the political arena, as the Gospel authors considered Jesus to be the Messiah. He utilized the beginnings of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate the authors considered Jesus as a King. He did not deal with Mark (the Messianic Secret) nor John’s prolific teaching.

Curiously, Bauckham argued the gospels are NOT like bios in that they are unique—they are discussing a Messiah, not a philosopher. They are discussing the son of God—not a king. I found this to be both question-begging and a bit of “having one’s cake and eating it, too.”

Question-begging as ALL biographies are unique. Indeed, the very reason one biographs a particular biographee with a biography, is their unique nature. Ghandi was unique. George Washington was unique. Alexander the Great (who Bauckham acknowledges comes close to Jesus in terms of bios) was unique. So what?

Further, it was bothersome he wanted to equate a genre—biography or bios--as applicable when convenient, and then abandon it when it was not, because Jesus was unique. Thus leaving us with no method whatsoever, so why talk about genre at all?

At this point (after Lecture One) I am left with the familiar feeling—can any one really approach the Gospels as a literary work? It seems we all—even Bauckham—have baggage when doing so. We can read the Lives of Roman emperors and discuss which events occurred. But come to the Bible and all of a sudden the methodologies become mixed. Many become consumed with pursuing an agenda.

Next will be Part Two

If Today was your Last Day

2011-04-14T10:43:00.002-04:00

While flipping through the radio, I chanced upon Nickelback’s song, “If Today Was Your Last Day.” --a song sentimentalizing the concept to not put off until tomorrow what you should do today. Carpe Diem.

Nice thought, but I contemplated upon it…no one could really act this out. Think about it—if today was your last day, would you go to work? Probably not. So should you not go to work every day? If today was your last day, would you exercise and eat healthy? Or would you eat that huge piece of chocolate cake without worries regarding carbs or sodium or calories? Or consequences.

Frankly, if I lived every day as if it was my last, I would not function in society. Curiously, as I contemplated upon the thought, I realized there was not one social connection I would feel compelled to rectify, or person I must re-connect to. However, there were a few I would like to (finally) give responses I have always desired, but restrained myself. Again…not the best example of living every day as if it were your last.

The song and motto are to nudge you. Give you the occasional boost to avoid putting off forgiving someone, or resolving a conflict. Or to avoid grabbing life by the horn, thinking you will “someday” try bungee-jumping instead of doing it when the opportunity presents. But it isn’t meant to be taken literally, down to each minute action.

For many Christians (most?) this is similar to their approach on Hell. For the most part, we lived as if Hell wasn’t a looming reality. We didn’t do everything to prevent people from going there; we didn’t evangelize 24 hours a day. We worried more about what people thought of us than if they were damned.

Once in a while, we’d hear a rousing sermon on Hell and (like hearing a Nickleback song) think, “Hey, I need to do something about this. Take it seriously” but soon we would languish back to our normal lives. Concerned about gas prices, continued employment and whether we should have pot roast or baked chicken.

We figured it was easier for the preacher or missionary—heck, it was their job to worry, rant and rave about hell, right? For us, it was real (just like today COULD be your last day), but we let God sort that business out. Up to Him whether one gets in or not. (‘Sides, being a Calvinst removes one a tiny step away from the responsibility of determining who is or is not in hell.)

American Christians for the most part are as worried about Hell as they are that this is their last day on earth.

Pastor reveals another Pastor’s rape

2011-03-18T10:43:00.002-04:00

We often hear (and some deconverts actively been involved) in church “cover-ups.” Where an incident occurs, and it all disappears in a hush-hush manner. Some member is no longer a Sunday School teach and stops attending.

Recently, a a pastor in Georgia—Shaun King learned another pastor—“Bishop” Alvarado was molesting boys. And he tweeted it.

Now Christians are taking sides—some supporting King’s actions. Others making death threats.

No need for analysis; the situation speaks for itself.

Homosexual Sex is the Problem—not Marriage

2011-03-11T10:10:00.001-05:00

We have all had discussions with people who are trying to convince us of something. At times our intuitive senses set off alarms, thinking, “I hear what you are arguing, and it sorta makes sense, but isn’t there a deeper rationalization going on here? Do you have a different motive than this pietistic approach?”

Like when your children petition for pizza because “Pizza is healthy” (it has all four (4) food groups, right?) when you know they haven’t gained some new desire to eat a balanced meal—they want pizza because it tastes good!

I recently discussed the homosexual marriage issue with Ten Minas Ministries--the oft-used approach of “I’m not going to argue against same sex marriage from a biblical perspective; I will prove it wrong without utilizing Divine Command ethics.” It boiled down to the simple proposition: (1) Same-sex marriage results in homosexual sex acts, (2) Homosexual sex acts are immoral, so therefore (3) Same-sex marriage should be banned to prevent immoral acts.

Now, I recognize the numerous holes within this proposition (the greatest being proof—outside Divine Command—that homosexual sex acts are immoral), but I did appreciate it for its refreshing honesty. Christians aren’t against gay marriage; they oppose all forms of homosexual sex. In other words, they don’t want to ban gay marriage; they want to ban homosexual sex.

Unfortunately for the Christian in America, ever since Lawrence v Texas any law banning homosexual sex* (or heterosexual sex acts) is deemed unconstitutional. Unenforceable. Worthless. They can petition all day—they could even get a legislature to pass a law—and it would do no good. Homosexuals could still have sex.

*consent is assumed for this blog entry.

The battle cry of “Ban Homosexual Sex” is a loser, both from a political correctedness standpoint and a political effectiveness view.

So if you can’t eliminate it from happening, what is the next best thing? To reduce it as much as possible, I should think. Yet that raises the crucial question--How does banning homosexual marriage reduce homosexual sex? The simple answer—it doesn’t.

The push to ban homosexual marriage is basically retribution for the Christian’s inability to ban what they REALLY want declared illegal—homosexual sex itself. And all the arguments have the taint of disingenuous justification. The complaint, “It is unnatural!” comes from heterosexuals enjoying the exact same “unnatural” oral, hand and anal sex. (To put a blunt note upon it.) The criticism from celibate priests it fails to procreate. (Oh the irony!) The Mormons crying for “traditional” marriage. *Cough, cough.*

Like the child trying to convince us they have an interest in being healthy, when we realize they really want to eat something they like; we see this for what it is.

So step up—stop cowering behind the façade of “protecting marriage.” Ask for what you really want—a ban on all homosexual sex. Instead of a marriage amendment to the US Constitution; ask for a homosexual amendment to the US Constitution.

Let us see the arguments for what they are.

A Helpful Quote

2011-03-07T19:45:00.001-05:00

“If people are opposing me, I am clearly doing something right. Also, look at how many people use me. That ALSO means I'm right. Because both being opposed and being affirmed confirm what I already feel about myself.”

Here

Is the Bible Human or Divine? Neither or Both?

2011-03-02T09:58:00.001-05:00

A frustrating aspect in discussing with Christians is how often they utilize one method or system in a conversation, but in another utilize the exact opposite. As outsiders—as skeptics—this causes us to question if they are looking for any rationalization to support the argument. Even if they have to disagree with what was said earlier.

I was part of a Long comment interaction over at Grace & Miracles, touching on a variety of topics. From historicity within New Testament Documents, apologetic tactics, inerrancy and inspiration.

I happened to be conversing on theopneustos (inspiration); other participants were talking about contradictions. As I read through, it struck me how on one hand Christians claim the Bible is confined by human limitations; yet on the other they think the Bible does not have such human limitations.

For example, one criterion given for determining which writings were theopneustos was time—had to be written within the apostolic period. When I asked why, it was pointed out how memories fade, legends are introduced, and we expect greater reliability closer to the event.

That is true. All things being considered equal, we give higher weight to accounts closer to the events. Humans do tend to forget or modify memories. Humans do introduce legend for their own agenda. Accounts are lost to history.

But isn’t that a human limitation? Let’s face it—we’re talking about a God interacting (in some way) on certain writings, unlike any other writings in all recorded time. Does a God forget? Is a God limited by the human mind’s frailty? Couldn’t a God “inspire” a document written today about an event in 3127 BCE that is 100% historically accurate?

Or is a God hampered by the human conduit it must use?

What made this particularly interesting was the parallel conversation about contradictions.

Besides humans forgetting, and introducing agenda, and modifying memories—do you know what else humans do? They contradict each other. They correct what they perceive as a mistake by another author. Yet the Christian defending inerrancy would not concede such a human limitation within the Bible.

Do you see the irony? One Christian claiming (under “inspiration”) a human limit upon God; another Christian refusing to recognize an equal human limitation in another aspect.

We see this with slavery. Both the broad claim it was Christianity that did away with slavery upon the human recognition of its evil; and the reluctant shrug that it was the best God could do was to “temper” slavery within the Tanakh.

That the genocides committed by the Hebrews were the best God could do with what he had, due to human limitations. Yet the doctrines within the Bible are pure God—no such human limitation. No human tampered with what God really wanted.

That God could “inspire” writings, but it took Christians 100’s of years to sort out which ones he did. (And still debate as to Canonicity.) That humans modified texts (such as the ending of Mark), and we find those by textual criticism, purging them out. But no human could have modified the original story.

Bart Ehrman is coming out with a book about Forgeries in the First Century. Including within the New Testament writings. (No surprise here to anyone studying the pseudopauline corpus.) I imagine a few Christians will be up in arms over the term “Forgery.”

Why? Humans forge. If God is limited by Humans’ ability to act, observe, remember, modify and converse, yet still manage to muddle through with a bit of “inspiration”—couldn’t this God equally work through the human limitation of forgery?

So which is it? Is the Bible the best a God can do, while utilizing the weak link of humanity, thus incorporating error, memory limitations and even forgery? Or is the Bible some great work where we have no such limitations, and shouldn’t claim human inabilities as an excuse for what is there?

Death of James the Disciple

2011-02-11T10:49:00.001-05:00

I discuss “not willing to die for a lie” often enough, and I already chronicled Peter’ history (and some Paul), I am placing this blog entry to extrapolate on James the Disciple, son of Zebedee.

First the Players:

Jesus had many disciples (Luke 10:1); twelve were primary. (Matthew 10:1) Of the 12, three held an even closer relationship—Peter, James and John. James and John were brothers, sons of Zebedee. Only these three were present at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1). Only they were given affectionate names by Jesus. (Mark 3:16-17), and saw the ruler’s daughter raised from the dead (Mark 5:35-43). These three were the ones with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Mark 14:33).

But of the three, James is treated like the red-headed step-child. Peter (by tradition) goes on to become a leader in the church, the first Pope, author of two (2) canonical works, and testimony for a third. John (by tradition) goes on to also become a leader in the church, author of five (5) canonical works, and the longest living disciple—the sole non-martyr.

James? James does…well…nothing. In the Gospels he is never listed as solely stating or performing an action—he is always linked with his brother John. (See Mark 10:35; Luke 9:54). He is never listed as a leader in the Church. Indeed, his solitary moment in the limelight (what we will be discussing) is the dubious distinction of being killed in a parenthetical statement within the introduction to a glorious story on another Disciple—Peter.

For those of you familiar with Star Trek: James was the red-shirted crewmember beamed down to the planet.

His brief part:

Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover. Acts 12:1-4

Our second player then, is this Herod. What is this about? [Note, this king’s name was “Agrippa” and the other historical documents refer to him as such. Only Acts refers to him as “Herod.” To avoid confusion, I will refer to him as “Agrippa” from now on.] To understand this, we need a little history. (Some of this will come up in our sources later.)

Herod the Great ruled Israel (Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea and Batanea) from 37 BCE to 4 BCE. (This is the Herod famous for the Slaughter of the Innocents.) King Herod was paranoid about his family assassinating him, so he killed his own sons, including Aristobolus. Aristobolus had a son (Herod’s grandson)—Agrippa. When Herod died in 4 BCE, the kingdom was split amongst three sons (who managed to stay alive)– Herod Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (killer of John the Baptist) became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip received Batanea.

Herod Archelaus was a rotten ruler, so in 6 CE, at the people’s request, Judea became a province of Rome. This instigated the famous census of Luke 2.

In the meantime, our Agrippa is growing up in Rome. If he is one thing, it is an opportunist; unfortunately, he is a poor money manager, and frequently finds himself in debt. Both monetarily, and favors to others for bailing him out.

In 34 CE, he encourages Caligula to seize the throne from Tiberius. Tiberius, none too pleased, tosses Agrippa in prison. However, Tiberius conveniently dies, Caligula becomes Emperor, and Agrippa’s fortunes are restored. Even better, Philip (Agrippa’s uncle) had died without children, so Caligula gives Agrippa Philip’s territory—Batanea—and the title “King.” A title no Israelite had since Herod the Great.

Herod Antipas is unhappy with his nephew having a higher title, and attempts to steal it. Caligula repays this exploit by exiling Herod Antipas and increasing King Agrippa’s government to include all the land Herod Antipas had in 39 C—Galilee and Perea.

Caligula eventually goes totally insane, and is replaced by Emporer Claudius (41-54 CE.) Again, King Agrippa hitches his wagon to the correct star at the right moment, and Claudius gives him Judea and Samaria in 41 CE (in addition to what Agrippa had before). King Agrippa now rules the same territory (with the same title) as his grandfather, Herod the Great. Alas, not for long, as he dies in 44 CE.

Second the Incident

This occurred when King Agrippa ruled in Jerusalem from 41-44 CE. Acts 12 starts off, “About this time” meaning we are to look at the verses prior to give us point of reference. However, this is problematic since Acts 11 (vs. 28-30) ends with a famine that didn’t occur until after King Agrippa died. (around 46 CE.) Either Luke is mistaken, Luke has deliberately modified the chronology (which makes no sense to start a differing chronology with “about this time”), or—if one prefers the novel inerrantist approach—Acts 11 was only talking about a prediction of a famine. The prediction occurring while Agrippa was alive; the famine not occurring until a few years later.

Regardless, we cannot narrow this down any more than 41–44 CE.

Next we should look at the disposition of King Agrippa—why was he harassing the church? The Catholic Encyclopedia would like to claim it was due to his fervent religious belief. However, Josephus paints Agrippa as magnanimous:

Now this king was by nature very beneficent and liberal in his gifts, and very ambitious to oblige people with such large donations; and he made himself very illustrious by the many chargeable presents he made them. He took delight in giving, and rejoiced in living with good reputation. He was not at all like that Herod who reigned before him; for that Herod was ill-natured, and severe in his punishments, and had no mercy on them that he hated; and every one perceived that he was more friendly to the Greeks than to the Jews; … But Agrippa's temper was mild, and equally liberal to all men. He was humane to foreigners, and made them sensible of his liberality. He was in like manner rather of a gentle and compassionate temper. Accordingly, he loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.

However, there was a certain mall of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king was absent at Cesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews. But the general of Agrippa's army informed him that Simon had made such a speech to the people. So the king sent for him; and as he was sitting in the theater, he bid him sit down by him, and said to him with a low and gentle voice, "What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law?" But he had nothing to say for himself, but begged his pardon. So the king was more easily reconciled to him than one could have imagined, as esteeming mildness a better quality in a king than anger, and knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion. So he made Simon a small present, and dismissed him.

Josephus can be taken with a grain of salt here. He paints King Agrippa far nicer than he probably was. For example, Josephus goes on to relate King Agrippa’s death (similar to the account in Acts 12), stating other men referred to him as a god, and he declined, claiming their proclamations had doomed him. The picture here is a little TOO good.

We have no further information as to why Agrippa would attack the Church. It wouldn’t be their monotheism—Jews were monotheistic. Nor would it follow the typical Roman persecution—Agrippa would not require Christians to sacrifice to other gods! Indeed, at this early stage, the church was still grappling with its obligation to the Law, and many continued to follow Jewish traditions.

Early Christians were accused of Cannibalism and incest (due to misunderstandings of their rituals.) Numerous Christians defended against these accusations. This demonstrates we cannot know for any certainty why (if he did at all) Agrippa would pursue the Church.

It is important to note Luke (with very few exceptions) portrays the persecution of the early church by the Jews and claims the Gentile authorities were favorably disposed towards Christianity against the Jews. Personally, I am persuaded Luke was writing at a time to evangelize to gentiles, and desired to avoid claims of Roman persecution, by laying all the blame to the Jews. This incident would follow such a pattern.

Additionally, Luke writes a lengthy tale regarding Stephen’s martyrdom and the events surrounding it (Acts 6:8-8:1); whereas no information is provided regarding James’ death other than the general statement of persecution, and that James died by the sword. Luke then follows James death with the story of Peter escaping from Prison by a miracle. (Acts 12:3-19)

Luke is writing a story about Peter escaping from prison, once again drawing from Euripides. Hellenistic fiction often included accounts of “wonderful characters” escaping from prison through divine intervention. In Bacchae it was a divine escapee for a devotee who had been jailed by a tyrant attempting to stop a cult. (Sound familiar?)

In short, Luke is writing about Peter’s miraculous escape in the manner familiar to his audience. Luke injects James’ death to introduce an element of danger—Peter was in fear for his life when rescued by God. King Agrippa had already killed James…Peter was next!

James’ death has nothing to do with “die for a lie.” He was killed like a Star Trek red-shirted crew member as a plot device.

Third the Sources

We receive our first hint James was killed in Mark 10:35-40:

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask."

And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?"

They said to Him, "Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory."

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

They said to Him, "We are able."

So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared."

Biblical scholars claim Jesus’ statement that James and John will “drink the cup I drink” is intended to be a prophesy foretelling their martyrdoms.

[See Matthew 20:20-23 for an interesting demonstration of Matthew’s use of Mark. Useful for arguing Markan Priority in the Synoptic Problem. Matthew, disliking the pride demonstrated in James and John, takes this question from their mouth, and indicates their mother asked it. Matthew cleaning up Mark. But then Matthew suffers from fatigue, and continues with Mark’s Jesus’ reply, having Jesus say, “Are YOU willing to drink my cup?” meaning James and John’s mother! Then Matthew has the brothers reply to a question posed to their mother. Fatigue.]

This raises an interesting problem. John wasn’t martyred, according to church history. See Acts of John. (Although Tertullian (Chp. 36) indicates John was dipped in boiling oil and survived, so maybe this is sufficient.) So if this was a prophecy about James and John suffering martyrdom…why didn’t John?

Indeed it is this problem that causes Ben Witherington III to claim John WAS martyred and another John wrote…John. Of course, the problem with this alternate view is how it conflicts with church history.

We have no other documents from the first century. None from the second.

Eusebius refers to Clement of Alexandria’s writings probably written sometime around 200 CE called, “The Eight Hypotyposes.” Within them, Eusebius reports Clement of Alexandria stated James’ accuser was converted by James’ demeanor and was beheaded with James. However, it should be noted Later writers considered Clement’s Hypotyposes to be “fables.”

Possibly around 200 CE (it is difficult to date the document, as its authorship is questioned) Hippolytus (listing all the disciples’ deaths.) states James was killed by Herod the Tetrarch. Curious that Hippolytus implies it was Herod Antipas who caused the death, as compared to Agrippa. Note this document calls the ruler “Herod” instead of “Agrippa” and states he was a Tetrarch, not a king. It is very likely the author confused Herods.

James’ account follows our typical pattern. A brief account with in the First Century writings, with little detail as to why or how the person was killed. A long silence, and then the flurry of writings at the end of the Second Century, typifying the person as a martyr. This follows the pattern established by the genre. See Martyrdom of Polycarp (150-160 CE), Acts of Paul, Acts of Andrew (all 150 -200 CE) and even Lucian. 165-170 CE.

James died as a plot device to introduce an element of danger within a story about Peter.

Arguing for the Resurrection

2011-02-04T15:13:00.001-05:00

Jon, at Prove Me Wrong runs a Bible Study/atheist group (it works; don’t knock it!). Its people have a broad continuum of knowledge regarding the Bible. Anywhere from those who have studied their entire life to others only knowing the fellow holding the “John 3:16” sign at football games.

Some are deconverts; some life-long atheists. Some more familiar with Catholicism; others with Pentecostal movement. A mixed bag generating wide input. Jon asked me to lead the group on the topic regarding Jesus’ Resurrection.

As I was preparing, I first encountered the concern regarding the different levels of knowledge. While I didn’t want to bore those who know the gospels forward and backward, on the other hand there would be no gain to jump in on whether Joseph of Arimethea existed or not, if people didn’t even know who he was. [In fact, after the talk, one fellow did come up to me and say he never knew Jesus was buried in another person’s tomb. My fears were well founded.]

My second consideration was how to present the material in such a way, so a person can understand the controversies involved. There are so many possible rabbit trails; it can be confusing to the listener whether I am presenting the predominant Christian view, a less traditional Christian view, or a skeptical position.

I decided the easiest way to present was to role-play a Christian apologist—present the basic information and Christianity’s position as a Christian apologist would, utilizing a signal. When I held a white-board marker, I was being the Christian apologist; set the marker down, I explained why what I just said may not be necessarily true. I think (I hope) it generally worked.

If you are with me so far, I prepared to plan a case for the resurrection as if arguing on behalf of Christian apologists everywhere. I looked at it like a lawyer—if I represented the Resurrection Account and I was attempting to persuade an impartial (or in this case, generally hostile) audience, what would I use to persuade? What would I not? What evidence would I emphasize; what would I de-emphasize.

Now the best approach (in my opinion) is the minimal facts argument perfected by Dr. Habermas, Dr. Craig and Dr. Licona. It can be presented quickly, has an intuitive flow with it, there is easily accessible data to back up the individual supporting points, and the counter-arguments can often take longer to explain. No sense reinventing the wheel—I would present the case the popular apologists do. There is only one problem--a significant problem--it doesn’t work.

Dr. Licona, in his latest work, The Resurrection of Christ concludes:

The only legitimate reasons for rejecting the resurrection hypothesis are philosophical and theological in nature: if supernaturalism is false or a non-Christian religion is exclusively true. Pg. 608

If that is not clear, I will explain. The world can be broken down into three (3) types of people:

1) Non-theists;
2) Theists who don’t believe in Christianity exclusively; or
3) Theists who believe in Christianity exclusively.

Dr. Licona implies the historical evidence is convincing to the third category—people who are already convinced of resurrection anyway! In other words, one has to be 99% there, before the evidence can take them the remaining 1%. If the only reason to reject the Resurrection is that one doesn’t believe in God, or doesn’t believe Christianity, it follows a necessary requirement TO believe in the resurrection are 1)Belief in God, and 2) Exclusive belief in Christianity.

Simply put—the evidence alone is insufficient.

I prepared this handout to give the basic information and some additional pointers. And then I utilized the minimal facts, more to inform than convince.

As I prepared, I was surprised what points I would abandon (if I was a lawyer arguing the case). Here are a few:

1) Earlier dating of the Gospels compared to late dating is irrelevant.

We often see this battle where the more traditional conservative biblical scholars seem to attempt to get the gospels as early as possible to get them closer to the eyewitnesses, to make them more believable.

But in a historical analysis…so what? Many of our historians of the time are even later than late dating of the Gospels. The example I used was Tacitus and the Roman Fire. The Fire occurred in 64 CE. Tacitus wrote over 50 years later, in 117 CE. No one questions his work because it is “too late.” (Although he is slightly better than the gospels, as he was reviewing some written records.) If Jesus died in 30, and Matthew as written in 80 CE—this puts it roughly in the same time period.

The argument over dating of the Gospels, frankly, loses the forest for the trees. Early or Late date, the timing is equivalent to many historical documents we accept.

2) Any attempt at reconciling the appearances.

Anyone seeing a debate watch the apologists shuck and jive away from doing so. There is a reason—once stated the reconciliations lack the ring of truth in an argument. One has the women splitting up, popping up here, going there, and the disciples running around like wild hooligans to make them align.

Don’t.

Again, I turned to Tacitus. He records where Nero was, and the destruction of the Rome Fire. Which is different than Suetonius. Who are both different than Cassius Dio. Yet does anyone argue whether the Fire occurred because of these varying details? Of course not.

In the same way, treat the Gospels equally. Yes they disagree. Don’t tell anyone this, but they are not all historical in every detail. Sorry. And you may even need to pick one to the exclusion of another. (Gasp!) But attempting to align all accounts is just not believable. No neutral party would accept it.

3) The empty tomb is important. But not for the reason you think.

Many apologists attempt to claim the empty tomb is relevant because the non-believer MUST account for what happened to create the situation of an empty tomb on Sunday morning.

Wrong—the empty tomb is part of the story. The famous analogy is apt: “There must be an Emerald City; where else would the yellow brick road lead to?” See, the yellow brick road is part of Wizard of Oz. Not an independent fact for the story to accommodate.

In the same way, the empty tomb story could easily have developed many years after the resurrection story was in circulation.

BUT…

I would argue this is an unnecessary irrelevant fact, that it is more likely to be true because it is so unnecessary.

Think about it. Imagine we have a resurrection story. Completely and utterly made up. There you are…say 50 CE…and you have Jesus coming back from the dead. What day do you have him come back?

Paul says Jesus Resurrected on the “third day” (1 Cor. 15:4) according to the scriptures. Not sure exactly what scripture Paul is talking about…

Be that as it may, if you kill him on Friday (day before Sabbath) [Mark 15:42], add three days—out he pops Monday. Simple as pie. Matthew even makes it worse by insisting Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, (Matt. 12:40) causing inerrantists headaches, trying to reconcile.

If you are making it up—why cause all the problems? Seems to me, the simplest solution is have Jesus die on Friday, fester for three days, and come out on Monday, resolving all these issues.

Unless the tomb really was empty on Sunday, and therefore even those proclaiming resurrection “three days” after death were stuck with an inconvenient fact.

As a lawyer, arguing for the Resurrection, the key point I would continually emphasize was the Disciples proclamation. Something happened to cause them to abandon traditional Judaism for this variance. I would emphasize the early statements of Paul regarding Resurrection, the later writing in Acts of speeches utilizing the event, and the gospels themselves recording the appearances.

I would stay away from Joseph of Arimathea, the women, and the soldiers. Those elements of the story are weak. Focus on the initiation of the belief.

Alas, this is a two-way sword. One could equally say, something must have happened to Joseph Smith, or Mohammed or David Kuresh or Sun Myung Moon, or how every other religion started.

Couldn’t they equally be viable?

I was recently asked what I would utilize to argue for the Resurrection. I would use the minimal facts (it glosses over the problems, and covers the necessary points), realizing it was doomed to failure. The only recourse after that would have to be reliance on supernatural intervention—say something like, “The Holy Spirit must give inward witness.”

If Minimal facts (Disciples reporting appearances of Jesus) was insufficient to convince their friend—Thomas—who had more and better opportunity to observe, inspect and investigate than I, why should it convince others who have less?

Finally (because it comes up over and over and over) I would stay away from this rotten argument, “You are predisposed against miracles so you won’t believe it.” Telling someone they don’t believe what I am trying to convince them to believe (as I know they don’t believe it) is not saying much for the strength of my argument.

Of course they don’t believe it!—that is the very reason I am trying to convince them to do so! If they already believe it—I wouldn’t need to convince them by argument, now would I?

Happy Groundhog Day

2011-02-02T11:36:00.001-05:00

I heard (from an unreliable source) the original concept of Groundhog Day included Bill Murray being stuck for thousands of years. Imagine waking up to ”I got you Babe” every day. For 2000 years!

If you could live the same day over and over for exactly 10 years—what would you do? Would you teach yourself piano? A language? Watch every movie available? Learn a trade? Or would you laze your way through it; biding your sentence until complete?

More importantly, where do you want to be 10 years from now? Do you want to learn something? Just survive? What are you doing to reach that goal?

Damascus Road

2011-01-28T10:52:00.001-05:00

I was asked:

Let’s suppose you were to have a dramatic experience as you were getting into your car. Blinded by light from heaven, you hear an earth shaking voice that says, “B-E-L-I-E-V-E!” You turn to your neighbor’s house and they run out the door exclaiming, WHAT WAS THAT? Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that this really did happen to you. Would you believe? I mean, would you believe that God is real? Would you believe that God really can communicate? Would you believe that supernatural miracles are really possible and that you actually experienced this first hand? Or would you dismiss it as dishonest or at least not to be trusted?

This comes up occasionally—what would the atheist do if Jesus appeared to them? A common response, “I would have a full mental examination!” or “I would check myself into a hospital!”…but would you?

I’ve had the rare opportunity to work with mentally challenged people. It is not as if one part of the brain acts rationally, and the other side is acting irrationally. And the rational part keeps telling the irrational part, “Be quiet! I know I am not actually hearing voices” and the two are bickering children in the back seat.

The mental difficulty interweaves within the rationale. It becomes part of the person’s entire experience. It is part and parcel of who they are. They really, truly believe the government is utilizing dentists to monitor people by filings. They can drive, order movies, work—but part of the wiring tells them it is equally rationale to believe this fantasy. It is as real as our belief the police will come if you call “911.”

If I had a vision of Jesus, it is very possible I wouldn’t get a mental examination because I wouldn’t see the need to do so. Just like the schizophrenic who hears voices—they will not get one either, because the voices (to them) are real. It is not as if my rational brain could “trump” my irrational brain.

More importantly, though, what about the same question to Christians? What if God appeared and told you to kill a dog? Or kill your own children? If the person holds to the Tanakh God, he has ordered children killed before. Numbers 31:17; 1 Samuel 15:3. Indeed if the same Christian insists in absolute objective morality, it would be perfectly moral for God to ask again. Nothing whatsoever preventing it.

This is demonstrated as a useless question. If we are in control of our mental facilities, we (both the Christian and the non-theist) will dismiss such apparitions. We both would dismiss (or greatly question at the least) a vision of God outside our perceived notion. What if the Christian saw Shiva? Or YHWH? Again—the Christian expects the appearance to conform to their notion of what God is—they most likely would dismiss it.

So I ask the same question back, “Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, God really did appear to you and told you to kill your children. Would you believe that is what God wants you to do? Would you believe God adequately communicated his desires? Would you believe you experienced this first hand? Or would you dismiss it as dishonest or at least not to be trusted?

“What if God told you to kill your neighbor’s children?”

Hittites, skeptics, and hearsay

2011-01-21T12:53:00.001-05:00

I apologize for this; I don’t generally like to create a post out of comment discussions, as it becomes disjointed. However, as you will see, this will simply be easier to read by putting in posting form. We continue our search for a skeptic who stated, “Hittites never existed.”

For Lurkers, the newest name proposed by Dave Armstrong in our Parade of Characters is E.A.T.W. Budge - prolific writer who wrote extensively on Egyptian history from 1885 – 1930.

We don’t have a specific writing from Sir Budge denying the existence of the Hittites; what we have are the writings of Melvin Grove Kyle (a contributor to The Fundamentals (1909) if that means anything to you!) where Kyle reports, “In 1904 one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said to me: ‘I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites…’”

No name, situation or context is given for this anonymous quote. Dave Armstrong argues (persuasively, in my opinion) Melvin Kyle is implicating Sir Budge with this quote, without directly attributing it to Sir Budge. The documentation provided by Dave Armstrong supports this position:

1) In 1912 (three years after The Fundamentals), Melvin Kyle wrote The Deciding Voice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism. At pg 105, he states:

Some had even gone so far as to say, though not often for publication, that “no such people as the Hittites ever existed.” Budge, in his History of Egypt, says: “The Kheta, who are, no doubt, the people referred to by the Assyrians under the name of Khatti, have been identified with the Hittites of Holy Scripture, but on insufficient grounds,” and again, “In passing it must be stated that the commonly accepted identification of the Kheta with the Hittites of the Bible is as yet unproved, since it rests only upon the similarity between the Hebrew name Heth, and the Egyptian name Kheta.”

The citation of Sir Budge immediately following the statement about Hittites not existing implicates Sir Budge either directly stated it, or supports it in his writing.

However…we encounter our first problem. Melvin Kyle is quote-mining. Sir Budge wrote a multi-volume set of History of Egypt in 1902. The second quoted sentence comes from Volume Six, page 34 [corrected link] where Sir Budge states

In passing it must be stated that the commonly accepted identification of the Kheta with the Hittites of the Bible is as yet unproved, since it rests only on a similarity of the Hebrew name Heth and the Egyptian name Kheta; on the other hand it may readily be conceded that the people who built the fortress temples of Baghaz-Köi and Eyuk belonged to the same race, if they were not actually the same people, as the Kheta depicted on the Egyptian monuments.

Whoops! Did you catch that? Melvin Kyle only quotes Sir Budge up to “Egyptian name Kheta” and then stops. I don’t know about you, but if I continued a sentence with “on the other hand” I would appreciate being quoted entirely! Sir Budge specifically states it is “readily conceded” the people who built the fortress (the Hittites), belonged to the same race as the Kheta, “if not actually the same people.” (his words.)

Sir Budge is NOT stating, “The Hittites never existed.” He is indicating is that the connection between the Kheta and the Hittites has yet to be proven at the time of his writing. Now look at the first quoted sentence by Kyle Melvin which comes from Sir Budge’s History of Egypt Vol. 4, pg 136 (1902)

The Kheta, who are no doubt the people referred to by the Assyrians under the name of Khatti, have been identified with the Hittites of Holy Scripture, but on insufficient grounds, and similarly the Khabiri have been identified with the Hebrews.

Again, Sir Budge questions whether Kheta is correctly identified with the Hittites. Not whether the Hittites existed at all.

1n 1906, archeology confirmed Kheta was referring to the Hittites.

Sir Budge wrote a book The Dwellers by the Nile which was originally published in 1885, but updated. I cannot confirm publication date of the copy linked, but in it, Sir Budge states at pg 53:

[F]or it was from this race the Khita nation, so celebrated for having waged war successfully against Ramses II, and recently identified with the Biblical Hittites, sprang.

(It appears in his later works Sir Budge refers to “Kheta” as “Khita.”) Reasonably, this was updated some time after 1906—after the discovery linking the two. If we review The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archeology published 1893, but updated 1925, Sir Budge repeatedly refers to the “Hittites” as historical without qualification.

At best what we have is a scholar who questioned the sufficiency of proofs whether “Kheta” was referring to the Hittites. Notice he carefully qualifies his statement. He doesn’t say, “Kheta does not refer to the Hittites” nor does he say, “The Hittites didn’t exist, so Kheta can’t be the biblical Hittites.” He says the case is “unproven.”

Further (contra Melvin Kyle’s quote-mining) Sir Budge states whether Kheta refers to the Hittites or not—If Kheta is not actually the same as the Hittites, they must be the same race. How could one claim Sir Budge was stating “the Hittites did not exist”? How could the Kheta be the same people, or at least the same race, as a myth?

Upon gaining new information, Sir Budge readily accepts Kheta and Hittites are the same.

Now to the second document.

2) Melvin Kyle’s entry on Archeology in the International Bible Encyclopedia (1915?) states,

Then grave doubts in the past have been raised concerning the Hittites Occasionally it has been boldly said that "no such people ever existed" (compare Newman, Hebrew Monarchy, 184-85; Budge, Hist of Egypt, IV, 136)

Uh-oh. Do you see those two cites? That first name may be familiar to you—Francis William Newman. He was a previous contestant in our Parade of names and we already blew out of the water the allegation Newman said, “Hittites don’t exist.” Indeed, he demonstrated he did think Hittites existed. And the second citation we have just demonstrated doesn’t hold water, either.

Realizing these entries are not enough, Dave Armstrong claims Sir Budge made an oral statement to Melvin Kyle, who did not attribute it to Sir Budge out of friendship. Curiously, the only support given is that they were in the same occupation (really? Everyone in the same occupation are friends?), and that Melvin Kyle didn’t attribute the quote to Sir Budge.

The second support is question-begging: We know they are friends, because Kyle didn’t attribute the quote to Sir Budge. Kyle didn’t attribute the quote to Sir Budge because they are friends.

I submit it more likely Melvin Kyle did not attribute this quote to Sir Budge, because Melvin didn’t want to be called out on it! Safer and anonymous to say, “I heard it from a leading archeologist” than to actually call out a name!

How many times have we had conversations like that? How many assertions have you heard, started with, “They say….” Or “Scientists claim…” And when we look for the proof (like we are doing here) all of a sudden “they” and “scientists” and “skeptics” become difficult to find!

This is the reason we do not allow hearsay (a witness stating, “She told me…”) in a courtroom. It is unreliable. We don’t know the context, the credibility, the bias or anything at all about the person making the hearsay statement.

Take this simple situation. Bob is testifying:

Bob: Tim told me the truck was red.

But Tim isn’t there; we cannot cross-examine him. What if Tim was color-blind? Or it turns out Tim wasn’t in a position to even see the truck? Or Tim has some bias? This is the reason we indicate attorneys must be allowed to cross-examine the ACTUAL witness. Not what someone else claims the person said.

We have the same problem here. What was the context where Sir Budge talked (if he did at all) to Melvin Kyle? How many of us have heard someone quote what we said, and think, “Wait a minute. I wasn’t saying that AT ALL!” or “Wait, that was taken totally out of context.”

Melvin Kyle already demonstrated he has no problem quote-mining. What if Sir Budge said, “The Hittites as literally described in the Bible? In my opinion, no such people existed”? Many other scholars questioned the literal accounts without questioning the Hittites existence. (The same way if I was talking about Exodus and someone mentioned the Egyptians willingly giving the exiting Hebrews gold, silver and clothing to the point the Egyptians were plundered. Exodus 12:35-36. I could respond, “No such people existed!” I am NOT saying Egyptians didn’t exist—I am saying those particular Egyptians are a myth.)

Melvin Kyle could easily take a sentence out of context or modify it, or mold it to his own wishes.

Or maybe he didn’t. Maybe Sir Budge said to him privately, “All this Hittite nonsense is bunk. No Hittites ever existed.” That is the problem with hearsay—we don’t know! This is why we must rely upon our sources, and avoid inferring something not there.

Finally, it appears anachronistic for Sir Budge to write about the similarities between the Hittites and the Khetas—if not the fact they were actually the same people!—and then privately proclaim the exact opposite. A hearsay statement conveniently fitting what a quote-mining apologist wants to hear, who carefully avoids attributing it to Sir Budge.

The actual quotes do not align with what Sir Budge claims—the fact Melvin Kyle cut out a most important portion should cause heavy concern regarding his reliability. Not to mention citing Newman, who we have already seen, contended Hittites existed. If Kyle is willing to misrepresent Newman and is willing to misrepresent Sir Budge, why should we consider him reliable for claiming an anonymous statement, implicating the opposite of what Sir Budge wrote?

Games People Play

2011-01-18T12:38:00.001-05:00

Our family was always one that played games together. My parents, my siblings, my in-laws & my friends.

As children we eventually reached an age to play Monopoly. Our attention span couldn’t last, even on long Michigan Winter days. One spent the first hour traveling ‘round and ‘round collecting properties, the next hour trying to trade to a Monopoly and the third hour watching either the Mortgage Dept. or the slumlord slowly crush you.

We watched our older siblings take up Risk and eagerly waited for the age we could finally play to achieve Total World Domination! Too much power was granted for turning in cards, so we placed a limit and enjoyed hours of attacking with die. Once introduced to Axis & Allies, Risk was forgotten. Instead of just ground troops, we could conquer the world with submarines, Bombers and tanks. In college, we began to play Dungeons & Dragons which is such a time-suck, all other games were relegated to being played only rarely.

Along the way, we played other games like Stratego, Life, Battleship, (“You Sunk my Battleship!”) and Masterpiece. I gained appreciation for art in that game.

My maternal grandmother loved Dominoes and Rack-O!

We played Darts, Ping-Pong (primarily Polish), and even shuffleboard--inlaid when dad re-tiled the basement floor.

As Baptists, we were strictly forbidden playing with regular cards. However, Rook was completely acceptable, as it was not of the Devil. (Had four suits, but they were colors, not shapes, and numbers, no king. And no Joker [Satan]. Well…it DID have one (1) odd card, but that was a Bird, so baby Jesus smiled.) [Ah…the counter-culture that is Christianity!] Unfortunately, Rook really was best played with four people, and we always seemed to have too many. Luckily Uno came along, and we lost interest in Rook. Eventually we were introduced to Up-and-Down-the-River and this has been THE game of choice for my paternal family ever since. It has been played at almost every family function for over 30 years.

As we matured, we realized regular playing cards will (probably) not doom us to hell, enabling us to branch out to Hearts, Hand and Foot, Tripoley, and of course the mid-western stand-by--Euchre.

My mother-in-law taught me Cribbage.

As my children have grown, I delight in teaching them games such as these, and picking up new ones such as Five Crowns and Loot. Recently, my daughter’s boyfriend introduced us to Settlers of Catan and we have become hopelessly addicted. Part of the game involves trading with other players. (Like Pit, only without the raucous.)

The first time I played, I picked up this “art of the deal” very quickly. None of this “trade you a wheat card for a sheep card” for me! I was making elaborate side-deals, and contingent clauses and weaseling as much I could get for as little to give. My daughter told me she was playing with her boyfriend’s family when the following exchange occurred after boyfriend’s father made an artful deal.

Daughter: Wow—your dad is starting to deal like my dad.
Boyfriend: NO body trades like your father.

He he he.

We have even developed family legends within our game playing. When you play Tripoley at our house, one particular chair wins. Always. Doesn’t matter who sits in it. Playing Up-and-Down-the-River, if you get the Yellow 6, (a normally innocuous card), it will doom you. My sister always wins at Up-and-Down. Her husband is always last place.

20 or 25 years ago, my brother, my sister and their spouses played a game of Dutch Blitz. We have never heard precisely what happened in that game (just bits and pieces) all we know are two things:

1) They became so angry at my brother they wouldn’t speak to him for hours; and
2) They vowed to never play the game again.

Every time that story comes up, my brother smiles a secret little smile. He enjoyed the game, and did quite well at it, apparently. (I’ve heard part of the reason is that smile.)

For all their technological wonder, and advancing involvement with others, video games do not draw me like a good card game.

What games do (did) you play?

Conversations with a Christian

2011-01-16T11:19:00.002-05:00

Recently Cory Tucholski of Josiah Concept Ministries endeavored to write a blog series, responding to questions on my blog entry Questions Christians Hope No One will Ask. Cory Tucholski (from what I have seen so far) is one of those extremely rare individuals who can converse with courtesy, admit the skeptic was right (even when he thought I wouldn’t be) and have an amicable discussion while disagreeing.

The best part? These conversations are just starting. Not some blog entry where 112 comments have already been posted. You can join right in! So here are the links (I will update as necessary.)

Question One on Methodology, focusing on Canonicity and Inspiration
Question Two – Source to support one’s claim
Question Three – Why do Churches have locks?
Question Four – How does one find God, focusing on Prayer
Question Five – When did Exodus occur?
Question Six – if God lied, how would you know?
Question Seven – Why did God save Virgins and Gold during genocides?
Question Ten – How does one determine God’s characteristics without verification, focusing on Justice and Mercy.
Question Nine – God being Just and Merciful

(Note, he understandably skipped two questions to do research.)

Feel free to join in, or lurk along to watch the discussion.

Thought for the Day

2011-01-14T11:38:00.002-05:00

It never entered my thought process that my 200 word witness would be successful against the educated skeptic. I wrote it for the average man or woman one might encounter at an airport or a soccer game. [emphasis added]

From Dr. Clay Jones – Asst. Professor of Christian Apologetics for BIOLA University

Just let that sink in.

H/T Vinny

With Enemies like this; who needs Friends?

2011-01-13T11:38:00.000-05:00

Apparently Dave Armstrong desires to be some sort of pseudo Arch-Enemy to me by going through my old blog entries, and posting attack responses against me. Which might be intriguing if he was actually interested in a discussion, or presented a coherent argument. Alas, after removing the condescending sneers, attempted insults and entire civilizations of strawpeople made out of my claims; the little left is so insubstantial a butterfly’s fart would rip through it.

Most times, I figure it is obvious, why bother responding? Perhaps, though, it would be instructive as to how apologists work…

I wrote a a blog entry stating:

As I deconverted, I would read the non-believer’s position. Then I would read the believer’s position. Time and time again, I found the believer’s position to be based on non-truth.

I heard the statement how skeptics once claimed Hittites didn’t exist, but it turns out they did. Not true—no skeptic said this.

Not exactly “Headline of the Day” material! Christians claim skeptics once said Hittites didn’t exist. Hittites DID exist. Therefore, (the thinking seems to go) we need not trust skeptics because they were wrong once—they will be wrong again.

But…as it turns out…we can never find these supposed skeptics who claimed the Hittites didn’t exist. Where are these alleged skeptics? What are their names; where can we find the quotes? My source for this information is Peter Kirby’s article that likewise demonstrates we cannot find this supposed “skeptic” who stated, “The Hittites didn’t exist.”

Now you may think this a fairly innocuous statement; but not Dave Armstrong! This…THIS…is proof positive I am a liar. Indeed, he notes since I used the unqualified term, “no skeptic” all he has to do is produce one (1) “prominent skeptic (professor, etc.)” [his words] who denied the Hittites’ existence and he has proven my contention incorrect. He has proven me…a liar!

And so…after spending “many hours trying to track some down” [his words], Mr. Armstrong wrote a monster 4,000 word blog entry (that’s 8 pages single-spaced) where all he has to do is produce one (1) prominent skeptic who denied the Hittites’ existence.

Go read it, if you like. I’d only ask one thing after you do so—what is the name of that one (1) prominent skeptic who specifically claimed, “Hittites didn’t exist”? See, after removing all the fluff and bibliographies and muddling about, Dave Armstrong fails to do the one thing he needs to do—produce the skeptic!

Oh, he gives examples of specific people claiming “someone” said Hittites didn’t exist—but those people don’t provide names for those skeptics, either.

Let’s see if I have this straight-- I am stating, “People claim skeptics once said, ‘Hittites didn’t exist’ but do not provide the names of these alleged skeptics.” Dave Armstrong then gives examples of people claiming “Skeptics once said, ‘Hittites don’t exist,’” but do not provide the names of the alleged skeptics.

Yeah…um…probably not the best way to argue against a claim…by solely giving repeated examples of exactly what the claim is saying!

Of course, in the end, Dave Armstrong decides he will believe the Christians who assert “some [unnamed] skeptic once said, ‘Hittites didn’t exist,’” which (to Dave Armstrong) means the Hittite-not-existing skeptic did exist, which means he has produced a prominent skeptic (albeit we don’t know who it is), which makes me a liar.

Thus the reason discussion is no longer fruitful with him.

Die for a Lie – Licona Style

2011-01-06T15:27:00.001-05:00

Mike Licona’s recent work, Resurrection of Jesus covers a great deal of ground—you may notice the reviews on it tend to be multiple blog entries.

He starts off regarding philosophy of history, and notes people’s bias effect their review. While he does recognize his own, I do think he gets caught up in the argument for the supernatural resurrection of Jesus, and fails to adequately remove his bias. After reviewing the sources, and various claims, he eventually reduces the historical bedrock to three (3) minimal facts:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.
3. Within a few years of Jesus’ death, Paul converted after experiencing what he interpreted as a postresurrection appearance of Jesus to him.

(pg 463)

In partial support of the second point, he discussed the apostles’ fate. Vinny asked me to list the sources Dr. Licona uses, so here we go. I will only perform minimal interaction—you probably already know my response. *grin* But first a relevant quote:

“When one is arguing for the truth of Christianity and the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, falling back to the martyrdom argument is a sign of argument-weakness.” Dr. Jim West.

Dr. Licona initially and heavily relies upon on 1 Clement 5:2-7; I will include his translation in its entirety:

Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes. Peter, who because of unrighteous envy, not once or twice but endured many afflictions and having borne witness went to the due glorious place. Because of envy and rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize. Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world., unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders. Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place. He became a great example of steadfastness.

Licona follows with the very qualified statement, “Clement reports that Peter and Paul suffered multiple attacks and most likely refers to their martyrdoms, although the latter is not without question.” Pg 367. “Most likely” and “not without question” does not instill confidence.

He notes “unto death” does not necessarily mean death (see Mark 14:34; Matt. 26:38). He provides argument that similar wording in Polycarp points to martyrdom, but with qualifications.

Licona then turns to Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philipians, 9.2 which says:

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.

(here)

And in footnote 327 (pg 369) for additional sources, he cites Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3.2, 4 (I couldn’t find anything new there), Tertullian, and further stated Peter is reported as having been crucified upside by Origen, in a work lost, but quoted by Eusebius.

I can’t help but note the failure to point out Acts of Peter here!

Licona goes on to use Dionysius, as quoted by Eusebius. The final statement of footnote 327 is worth quoting:

Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus and a leader in the church of the late second and early third centuries. The fates of the apostles are reported in a work attributed to him. However the actual dating and authorship of the text is doubtful. The fates given for Peter and Paul are consistent with what others wrote. The accounts regarding the remaining apostles are interesting and may contain historical kernels, but they are anecdotal and cannot be accorded too much weight.

As to James, the brother of Jesus, Licona utilizes Eusebius’ quotes of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria. (here) (pg 455)

He then points out Josephus. Licona states we cannot presume Clement and Hegesippus embellished the accounts because Josephus may have down-played it. Licona does not explain why Josephus would have down-played it, and failed to address the numerous reason Christian authors would have to embellish it!

Licona hurt his credibility, however, when he states, “James’ martyrdom is multiply attested by at least two independent sources: Josephus and one or more Christian sources. We do not know anything about the origin of the tradition(s) from which Hegesippus and Clement drew.” (emphasis added) (pg 458)

Yes we do. It’s called “Second Apocalypse of James.”

Dr. Licona noted initially (and correctly) in his book how worldviews bias our review of history. Yet it was instances like this (and numerous others) where his own bias was far too evident and unaddressed that ultimately left me disappointed in the book.

Why are Hegesippus and Clement “independent” of Josephus? What is he relying upon to claim that? Why are their accounts not considered embellished (especially in light of the mid-step embellishment of 2nd Apocalypse), and Josephus considered trimmed down for “economy or unstated reasons.” (his words)

Perhaps the most interesting conclusion we have is that the best we have, according to him, is Peter and Paul and even then only on the very thin evidence of 1 Clement. Evidence even Licona qualifies as being questioned.

As I pointed out to Clay Jones, The author does not give any details surrounding Peter or Paul’s death. We don’t know when, we don’t know where, we don’t know by whom (Roman? Jewish? Other?), and of course the most important—we don’t know why.

The author is deliberately giving examples of steadfastness, and listing the travesties occurring to these individuals. He states that Peter suffered “many labors”—but skips the bit about Peter being crucified? He gives specifics about Paul—seven (not six. Not eight) times in bonds, exiled and stoned—but skips the bit about Paul being beheaded for his belief!?

The author talks about Abel being slain for “jealous and envy.” The author says Joseph was persecuted “unto death” (although not dying). If the author is willing to say some were killed because of “jealous and envy” but others were only persecuted “unto death” (but not killed) for jealously and envy, and our subjects Peter and Paul fall in the “unto death” category, it would seem in line with the author’s intentions they were NOT martyred.

Wrestling with Christianity

2011-01-03T15:48:00.001-05:00

It is hard to be wrong.

A mixed up conglomerate of pride, fear, discomfort and uncertainty. The idea that what you’ve thought for so long was true…was not. Some ideas being wrong can be pretty painless—perhaps you only had the idea for a short period; perhaps you were not that committed to it in the first place.

Other ideas can be so gut-wrenching it takes years to disentangle oneself. For some deconverts, we invested our entirety for decades—enveloping every relationship, every moment, every effort, every essence we could pour into a idea regarding the divinity of Jesus and/or the inspiration of certain writing. The creeds and dogmas carefully studied and either discarded or embraced.

The people we choose to associate with, (and not), to date, marry and even divorce. The way we raised our children; the way we talked. Who we talked to; what we talked about.

And then one day we learn it is wrong. It wasn’t what we thought it was. Changing not just what we believe, but like an ever-growing avalanche, the snowball begins to play havoc with our studies, wreck our socialization, destroy our connections, and even decimate our marriages.

It effects everything—Every. Single. Thing.

That is hard.

You don’t want it to; you want the relationships to continue. You want some of it to remain true. You want…something…to show for all the energy invested. Who wants to say, “I spent the last 38 years learning the wrong thing”?

I link to Like a Child--a person struggling with having been wrong. Just like me. She made this comment on another blog:

I received an email from someone a few days ago that broke my heart, b/c she is facing the same battle i dealt with months ago...panic sttacks, loneliness, trying to figure out what church to switch to in the fundamentalist bible belt south. She should not feel so alone. There should be somewhere she can go locally, to find a welcoming christian community

I find the progression fascinating. Only a few months ago, Like a Child was the one with panic attacks. And I was empathetically feeling terrible I cannot do anything about it. And a few years ago, I was the one with panic attacks and another deconvert wished they could do something about it. And so on. We progress.

Yet as we do, we find it so hard to release Christianity.

Both Like a Child and DoOrDoNot call themselves ”Agnostic Christians” --yet each wonders how long they will retain the “Christian” part of that label before lapsing to only “Agnostic.” (Again, a route equally traveled by myself.)

We can’t believe we were that wrong. Or at least I couldn’t—there must have been something there! How could we have believed it so deeply—so thoroughly—and it be wrong?

It’s like some puzzle where a person has to remove a ring from an object made of steel and wood. We wrestled with it and strove with it and did everything we possibly could to remove that ring and become firmly convinced (along with everyone we knew) the ring couldn’t possibly be removed. And then one day, someone comes along and removes the ring. At first we think it a trick—they cut the ring, or they bent the object or they did something against the rules, and it really still can’t be removed. Yet more and more we see people removing the ring. And we start to try some things we never tried before, and all of a sudden the ring is in a different position than it ever has been before.

And all of a sudden we see how it is possible….just maybe…that the ring could feasible be removed. We reach a point (or at least I did) where we wonder whether we would remove the ring, even if we saw how. Because it would tear our world apart.

I would be wrong.

Yet the not-knowing was worse; what if the ring could be removed? Could I live with that knowledge without trying to apply it?

All our friends are rejecting our new found position. They want nothing to do with discussing it--they want nothing to do with us. They are comfortable with what they believe. They are very UNcomfortable continuing to relate to us.

In retrospect, I did everything I could to hold on to Christianity. Even if I lost the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, perhaps I could hold on to inspiration. Losing inspiration, I could still hold on to Jesus. Losing Jesus, I could hold on to God. Losing God, I could hold on to Christian friends. Losing Christian friends, I could hold on to Christian Family.

I tried holding on to beliefs, when I should have realized I was wrong. I tried going to church, when I should have walked away. I constantly wrestled because I didn’t want to be THAT wrong!

I had a great holiday season. I spent time with family who didn’t care whether I was an atheist, or Buddhist or…whatever. It didn’t matter. And we still laughed and ate, and stayed out too late.

I spent time with friends who don’t know (and don’t care) about my atheistic belief. They may be Christians; they may not. We enjoy each other for who we are—not for believing the right things or holding to the right dogmas.

And I can look back at 38 years of being wrong and be thankful it made me who I am today. I don’t have to wrestle with Christianity. I was a Christian; I am not now. *shrug* There is nothing to wrestle with.

Like a variety of choices, knowing what I know now, I would obviously do it different. Isn’t that true of all humanity? It now firmly resides as one of those choices.

There are always twinges, of course. I continue to study Christian claims which requires just enough empathy to occasionally give me a moment of hesitation. One doesn’t remove almost four decades of living overnight!

Yet I find more comfort than fear in those tugs. It means I don’t have a lock on ALL TRUTH. It means I can walk away not knowing and not wrestle either.

Life's Paths

2010-12-15T12:10:00.000-05:00

I’ve had a number of blog entries on the mind; none are particularly important, compelling or even informative. Some of the same hum-drum.

I thought about writing on the annual “War on Christmas”--this article does such a tremendously comprehensive job, that no additions are necessary. Perhaps a moment of amusement reflecting on the salvo shot by Wintery Knight where he complains…

*WARNING: The following is fairly graphic and if you are easily upset by such images, you may want to skip the following paragraph.

... stores are not stocking enough Christian Christmas Card selections. Mind you, not that Christian Christmas Consumerism Cards are eliminated; only that there are not enough of them.

I am both amused and (I think) a bit offended. Amused, of course, because Christians face such little “persecution” anymore in the United States and United Kingdom, they are forced to make up injustices. They have it so easy, the best they can come up with is they don’t have more choices when buying Christmas Cards at certain stores. (Obviously they could make their own to say whatever they want, OR they could order on-line from a variety of vendors…but we shouldn’t mention that. They have a God-given, Baby-Jesus-came-to-Earth RIGHT to more Christian Christmas Cards at the local Gas Station!)

Offended because they think this is the best an Evil Atheist Conspiracy could do. If you watch cartoons (I have children) the villain often comes up with some ridiculous plan parodying how to take over the world. Like making a ray gun causing people to be addicted to bologna, and the villain will purchase all the bologna in the world, thus taking over the world.

I get the same feeling. We plan to eliminate Christ out of Christmas by reducing the number of Christian Christmas Cards? (How many people even send Christmas Cards anymore? We do, but only to the last bastion that send some back.) That is our secret weapon? Next we plan to force Telegram companies to not work on Christmas Eve, so Christians can’t send Christmas Telegrams. Mwuahahahaha. [What? They don’t do that anymore?]

I finished Dr. Licona’s book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach and thought of doing a review. Does a good job on providing the historical background—but nothing really groundbreaking, in my opinion. There aren’t any “new” documents to review; everything we have has been reviewed before.

It was the application that felt a bit week. Inevitably, Dr. Licona determined the “best” explanation was that Jesus rose from the dead. He concluded if you are either:

1) a non-theist; or
2) a theist who doesn’t believe in a God who resurrects himself

then you are too biased to be persuaded by the evidence. This only leaves people who believe in a God who resurrects himself…wait…does this mean only people who believe Jesus rose from the Dead can be convinced by the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? But if they are already convinced, why do they need evidence to prove it?

I’m sure my review would be considered “tainted” because I fall in the wrong group.

Jon, over at Prove Me Wrong asked me to lead a Bible study of non-believers regarding the topic of Resurrection of Jesus. And who should show up? Dave Armstrong. Sadly, he was less than impressed with my performance, writing his own opinion as to the inadequacies of the discussion. Eventually leading to this monster discussion involved numerous people and a wild number of topics, keeping me busy there.

Leading to two other threads, including (to me what is quite bizarre) a thread on whether I had a proper hermeneutic as a Christian on what the Bible teaches about abortion.

And these trivialities have occupied my internet time.

The Questions Christians Hope No One will Ask

2010-11-19T09:39:00.002-05:00

I recently became aware of a new book: The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask. It intrigued me, primarily because of the price: Free. (Until November 20.) I could not resist the temptation. (Heck, I’m a heathen, I didn’t even try!)

The author referred to a survey where 10,000 Christians were asked, “What Questions do you find difficult to answer?” and compiled a list of the top ten; the author kindly provides Christian responses. After having read the first three chapters, I already regret the price I paid for the book. Ah well…what’s done is done.

It did get me to thinking—what questions do I see that Christians hope no one will ask? I pose questions in many conversations, and often see the questions avoided until I have asked and re-asked and re-re-re-re-asked, each time pointing out how I have asked it previously and despite the other person answering everything else I asked, they keep avoiding this one question. Or refuse to take it head-on. Or give some qualifying rationalization that even a 9-year-old could see through.

Given my experiences, here is a list of Questions I see Christians hoping I won’t ask:

1. What is your method to _______?

There are a variety of examples, such as:

“Given a string of words, what method do we use to determine those words are theopneustos?” (God-breathed.)

“How do we determine whether the solution is either: 1) something science hasn’t discovered yet, but will or 2) something science hasn’t discovered yet and never will or 3) something science cannot discover because it is supernatural?”

“How do we determine whether this plane is exactly like the supernatural, similar to the supernatural, or not at all like the supernatural when we cannot observe the supernatural?”

“How do we tell what is myth and what is historical in the story?”

2. What is your source?

3. If you believe your God has phenomenal cosmic power, and is able to sustain the universe, why do you have savings accounts, pension plans, insurance, college funds, stock portfolios and locks? Just in case?

4. Why is it whenever I try your suggestion to “find God” (i.e., go to nature, read the Bible, pray), God never shows up? Worse, why am I arrogant to expect him to, when I followed your instructions where you told me to expect him to?

5. What century did the Exodus occur?

6. If God lied, how would you know?

7. If you use Paley’s watch (indicating we compare designed items to non-designed items) to argue for an intelligent designer in the universe—what non-designed item in the universe are you using to compare?

8. When arguing for the statistical improbability of a natural claim (i.e. natural abiogenesis, or evolution), what statistical probability are you using for a God performing the act, so we can compare which is more likely?

9. If your God determined the only way to resolve the cultural clash in the Tanakh was to engage in genocide, how is it he conveniently found virgin females could be rehabilitated, but not one-day-old males?

10. What law, moral code or justice system was God following when He absolved David of his sin? More importantly, what moral code or justice system was God following when He killed a baby as punishment for a sin He absolved? 2 Sam. 12:13-18

11. If God has mercy, doesn’t this render his justice arbitrary?

Like I said, I’m only three chapters in…maybe one of my questions will get asked yet…

What questions do you see Christians avoiding?

Independent Witness in Gospel of John – Part 3

2010-11-17T11:58:00.001-05:00

The Gospel of John doesn’t help Resurrection Apologetics.

Our series:
1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?

If you listen to apologetic debates regarding the Resurrection you notice the current trend focusing on the 1 Cor. 15:3-8 creed, and Dr. Habermas’ famous minimal facts. In fact, some apologists even claim they won’t use the Gospels (but then use facts derived from the Gospels without citing the source.)

The problem being the various accounts are contradictory, as discussed in my last entry. I particularly enjoy Dr. Craig’s clever debate tactic: When the skeptic points out these contradictions, Dr. Craig replies (paraphrased): “My opponent points out numerous claimed contradictions. While I think those contradictions can be resolved, that doesn’t matter because this debate isn’t about inerrancy—this is about historical events.”

In a sneaky, off-hand way, Dr. Craig avoids the contradictions because he intones that isn’t what the debate is about! I wish an opponent would reply, “I am glad Dr. Craig agrees with me that this debate is not about inerrancy, since he would be forced to concede, as the documents clearly present contradictory accounts. However, these inconsistent accounts do impact credibility, and as such we cannot afford to avoid the implications presented by the differing statements made.”

We will first complete our discussion regarding the contradictions in John to demonstrate the apologist comes to a point they must choose how John could possibly be historical, and then we will apply Dr. Habermas’ minimal facts to John and see how it pans out.

Contradictions

John 21. Starts off with Peter and some disciples going fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Simple question—where does one fit it in the chronology?

It could fit in Mark, of course, as we have no subsequent appearances. This is the reason Evan Powell has even argued John 21 is the lost ending of Mark, because it fits so well. No contradiction here.

Matthew has the women tell the Disciples to go to Galilee, and they see Jesus on the Mountain. Now, the only two places one could fit the fishing appearance is either before they saw Jesus on the Mountain or after. (Obvious, eh?)

It makes little sense (albeit possible) for the fishing appearance to be after, because Matthew’s encounter on the mountain ends with the Great Commission. One would have to argue Jesus said, “Go out and start the Church” so the Disciples went…fishing. Apparently a post-resurrection Jesus doesn’t have quite the force a pre-resurrection Jesus did. (Remember, pre-resurrection Jesus asked Peter to become a fisher of men, and Peter immediately followed Jesus (Mark 1:16-18)) Post-resurrection Jesus says “Go out into the world and make disciples” and Peter says, “Meh…first let’s go fishing.”

Also, John 21:14 claims the fishing appearance was the 3rd time Jesus appeared to the Disciples, so Matthew would have apparently skipped one appearance.

And, in the same light, if the fishing appearance was before the Mountain experience, then Matthew has skipped three previous appearances (Appearance One, Appearance Two, Fishing Appearance) before the mountain appearance. Possible; but not credible.

Luke starts to give us fits. Timing is crucial here, so we need to follow it.

On Resurrection Sunday, the women go to the tomb, see it empty, and report back to the Disciples. Peter goes to the tomb. The same day (Sunday) two fellows walk to Emmaus encountering Jesus. Emmaus is 7 miles from Jerusalem. That evening (Sunday), Jesus eats with the fellows. They run back (7 miles) to Jerusalem, and when they arrive (Sunday) Jesus appears to the disciples.

You cannot fit John 21 on Sunday. Not with Luke. The fishing appearance was in the morning (21:4) and was the third appearance (21:14). Ridiculous to have the women running all the way to Galilee, to have Peter and the others say, “Oh sure, we saw Jesus. Heck, this is the 3rd time; had breakfast with ‘im” and Peter lounges around with Jesus for a bit, then runs back to Jerusalem to see the tomb, and the rest go sit around the upper room in Jerusalem, only to be terrified and frightened to see Jesus (for the fourth time) when Jesus says, “Hey, don’t worry this time its me” and yet they still didn’t believe. (Luke 24:37-41)

So John 21, if we can manage it at all, must fit after the Lukan appearances. (Indeed, John 20’s alignment with Lukan appearances in the upper room are pre-supposed in John 21’s claim this was the third appearance.)

Yet this becomes just as odd as Matthew’s claim. Luke has Jesus explicitly stating, “Stay in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:29; Acts 1:4), so the disciples ignore him and go to Galilee? Matthew says, “Go out and start the church” so they go fishing? Why does post-Resurrection Jesus carry such little weight?

Worse, notice the cycle of doubt. In Luke, when Jesus appears in the upper room, they don’t believe. In Matthew’s mountain appearance some still doubted. However (this gets tricky!) Matthew’s mountain appearance can’t be second, because John records two appearances before the third fishing appearances.

Look--this is fun!

Appearance 1: Lukan upper room (and John first upper room) on Sunday.
Appearance 2: _________________________
Appearance 3: John 21 Fishing Scene.

If we put “Matthew Mountain top” in Appearance 2, we get a problem because John 21 records Thomas as seeing Jesus in Appearance 3, yet still doubting by the second Johannine upper room appearance which hasn’t happened yet! John mandates the second appearance to be the Doubting Thomas scene to make work. So we have:

Appearance 1: Lukan upper room (and John first upper room).
Appearance 2: John 2nd Upper room scene (Doubting Thomas convinced)
Appearance 3: John 21 Fishing Scene.
Appearance 4: Mountain top (at best).

But this, too, is problematic. Why did Matthew skip three (3) previous appearances? Why mention an appearance that is more than eight (8) days later than the resurrection? Why is it when Jesus said, “Stay in Jerusalem” they rush off to Galilee? But far more importantly, how is it after four (4) appearances, some still doubted!?

Myth development, lack of historicity and agenda-driven writing explain these problems easily. Claiming every account is factually and historical accurate causes one whiplash and strained explanations.

Minimal Facts

The Minimal facts cited are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Let’s go through some regarding John’s account.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

John is the only account to add the famous spear into the side of Jesus. Mark doesn’t have it. Matthew (who loves prophecy) missed it. Luke knows about scars in the hands and feet; but missed it. Only John. As previously mentioned, John’s community was dealing with docetism—the belief Jesus didn’t have a physical body. This claim regarding a spear and having Thomas touch the wounds is a direct doctrinal attack against the perceived heresy. It is to confirm Jesus was really, really dead. This isn’t historical—it is theological.

2. He was buried.

The argument relies upon Joseph of Arimethea, and that Christian’s wouldn’t dare make up a story regarding a council member. But...er…what about Nicodemus? Mark, Matthew and Luke forget to mention him. If Mark, Matthew and Luke were compelled to mention Joseph (because the apologist claims it is true) why didn’t they fell the same compulsion with Nicodemus? If Nicodemus is not true, then John made him up. Why couldn’t the others have made up Joseph of Arimethea for the same reasons?

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

His death caused the disciples to go fishing!

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

The point of this argument is not simply an empty tomb—any tomb can be empty. The argument is that the tomb was found empty very early (Sunday morning) and therefore natural explanations for this are extremely difficult. For example, Dr. Craig argues “the enemies of Christianity felt obliged to explain away the empty tomb by the theft hypothesis.”

However, John clearly indicates Mary Magdalene felt a natural explanation was probable, and shows no discomfort with a natural explanation for an empty tomb. She states, upon seeing what she thinks is a gardener, “Sir, if you have carried him [Jesus] away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” (John 20:15) She anticipates an ability to take a body out of a tomb, and is more than willing to participate in the endeavor!

Apologists (like Dr. Craig) enjoy pointing out the soldiers’ conspiracy in Matthew’s story, as evidence the Jews felt it necessary to make something up to explain away this empty tomb. I have yet to see one address John’s gospel where no one felt it necessary to make something up, because Mary Magdalene thought it perfectly natural a gardener would move a body, and give the body to her to take somewhere else!

By the way, tombs were family affairs in the First Century, and if Jesus’ family did have a tomb, it would have been in his home town in Galilee. It would be perfectly natural to use this nearby cave for a temporary tomb (because of the oncoming Sabbath,) and later move the body to the family tomb. An empty tomb has a perfectly natural explanation; an explanation the Johannine community was comfortable with.

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

I will deal with all three statements here, because they have the same two-word response.

“Doubting Thomas.”

Here was a guy who had traveled with Jesus for one (or three) years. According to the apologist who holds to the historicity of the Gospels, Thomas had seen Jesus walk on water, feed 1,000’s with some scraps of food. Watched blind people gain sight, lame walk, deaf hear. Even performed miracles himself!

Has seen Jesus raise people from the dead and heard more teachings from Jesus than any other person alive (with the possible exceptions of Peter, James and John.) This fellow is an insider.

He is informed by his friends, “We have seen Jesus post-Resurrection!” (Argument 5 above is a bit deceiving; it should more accurately state, “Disciples reported having experiences they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.”)

He has almost immediate knowledge regarding the claims Jesus was raised. (I say “almost” because John records 8 days between the first two appearances, so this would be the greatest extent of time. Luke records Thomas heard on Sunday, but this contradicts John. Take your pick: 1-8 days.)

He was in Jerusalem, he had the opportunity to inspect the empty tomb right away. He had access--friendly access—to all the disciples, Jesus’ family. Everything.

Can you possibly imagine a witness closer to the scene with a more suitable circumstance to investigate the claims being made about a resurrected Jesus?

And he wasn’t convinced.

He wasn’t convinced by the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the message, the transformation of his friends, the claims of his friends, or his proximity to the scene of the event.

Can I be any clearer? Doubting Thomas--who was far better equipped than any of us to investigate and confirm--was not convinced by the minimal facts! If even he wasn’t convinced, why should the same argument work on us--2000 years and cultural differences later?

I know the minimal facts apologists love to focus on the conversion of “enemies”—James and Paul. What I am more curious about, and what I haven’t seem them address, is what about the failure to convert friends with these same facts?

In conclusion, John certainly presents an independent version of Jesus’ resurrection. Too independent. If John is accurate, we seriously question the historicity of the Synoptics, and the effectiveness of the minimal fact theory.

Assume Jesus Existed; Now What?

2010-11-11T12:19:00.001-05:00

Larry, a/k/a The Barefoot Bum asked a fascinating question in a comment:

Let us hypothesize (for the sake of argument) that some specific account of Jesus, resurrection, miracles and all, were actually historically true. Assuming (for whatever reason) that only so few people were willing and able to write about the event that only four survive to this day.

What sorts of things would we expect to see?

This is compounded by my mulling over Vinny’s recent blog entry: Can Evidence Ever Prove a Miracle?

Let’s see if this illuminates areas for study. What WOULD we expect?

My first thought was to frame the account of Jesus: What are the basic facts we utilize in our hypothetical as accurate? I put together these:

1. He was a traveling philosopher/rabbi/teacher during Pontius Pilate’s prefect (26-36 CE) in Palestine (Galilee, Samaria & Judea.)
2. He gathered followers, both core and peripheral.
3. He performed miracles such as healing, feeding large crowds and raising people from the dead.
4. He talked to crowds regarding his particular philosophy.
5. He became accused of a crime.
6. He was crucified.
7. He was buried.
8. He miraculously resurrected from the dead.
9. He appeared post-resurrection to numerous individuals over a period of time.
10. He then ascended into heaven.

And already…I have a problem with number 3.

In putting together this conjecture we would agree Jesus did miracles—but how many? To what extent? Put yourself in First Century Palestine. First of all, other than the upper class, you are sustenance living—generating enough grain or food to provide for your family, your livestock and to plant for the coming year. You are being taxed to within an inch of starvation.

One bad season, one famine and you are wiped out. Only the hardiest will live.

Second, death is a firm reality. Infant mortality is large. There are no hospitals, sewage flowed freely in most cities. A flu or broken arm most likely meant death.

Now imagine you introduce an individual who can cure all disease in this society. All wounds. Who can literally bring people back to life. Further, this individual can turn a few loaves and fishes into a meal for 1,000’s.

Jesus would be inundated from dusk to dawn by crowds clamoring to be healed and fed. His reputation would be impossible to suppress. We see people today flocking to fake healers; what would happen if crippled legs really did straighten and grew strength? Amputees regrew body parts? Dead people came back to life?

Larry has (cruelly) limited us to four sources, yet wouldn’t such a person be in every source? Even the emperor would be interested in such a person. Imagine not having to carry food for the army, and being able to heal your wounded soldiers. Tiberius would be invincible!

I am unable to visualize a balance, in our made-up account, of how to have Jesus perform some miracles, but not enough to attract attention. Be that as it may, assume he did.

Given our 10 facts, what would we expect next in historical accounts?

However, first an admonition—is historical method the adequate means to determine what should or would possibly happen given certain factors? The study of history looks to events that have happened. It makes no judgment whether these events “should” or “should not” (I’m not talking about studying motivations, or bad judgments.)

Virtually ever historian agrees it was bad tactics on Hitler’s part to start a two-front war with Russia in 1941. We may use the vernacular, “He shouldn’t have done it,” but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We do not discount a historical event simply because it seems improbable.

On September 10, 2001, if asked, most people would say the possibility the Twin Towers would be completely destroyed the following day was extremely unlikely. Yet 24 hours later, we all faced such a reality. Even looking at the course of human events, expecting humans to act as they have in the past, we see historical variances—unexpected happenings—where history would tell us not to expect it to happen in the future. Yet it does.

So we can project, based upon past expectations, yet understand something can veer and cause a completely different, unintended result, putting history on a completely new course.

A good example is the genre of fictional alternative history, like Turtledove’s Guns of the South where the South obtain machine guns during the US Civil War. Given that fact, we could reasonably project, they would utilize the weapons and (assuming adequate supplies) repel the North.

But would the South then attack the North, or would it be content to leave a border, forming a new country? Would it feasibly attack Mexico? What if it engaged in trade, utilizing the guns for material, and thus introducing the guns to other nations, such as England? Assuming they received the guns in the Winter of 1865, we can project what would happen in the next few months. What would the world look like in 1870? 1890? In 1900--only 35 years after the introduction of the machine gun--is it possible to even conjecture what would happen?

In the same way, we are dealing with writings made at least 35 years after the events. It would be difficult to develop a method of what these writings would probably look like, given the variables involved.

The only model I can utilize would be to view the historical development of other religions.

1. People would expect a continuation of consistency. The reason they were drawn to Jesus in the first place was what he did and/or what he said. They would expect the same message to continue, and more importantly, expect the continuation of miracles.

Of course, this raised the question—in our account are we going to say the apostles can do miracles? I see three choices: 1) they could not, or 2) they could but to a lesser extent, or 3) they could the same as Jesus. If it was either (1) or (2), then we would expect some reason must be given as to why they could not perform the same amount.

In these four accounts, I would anticipate claims of what Jesus said and did, followed by claims of his disciples following that philosophy.

2. We would expect a veneration of Jesus’ activity, especially if fewer miracles were performed by the apostles. (People may not care if they are still getting fed and healed.) Where he was born, what house he grew up in. More importantly, where this or that miracle occurred. Certainly where the greatest miracle of all occurred—the tomb.

Included would be veneration of his statements. This creates instability in our method, in that people tend to make stuff up, especially about leaders. How many beds did George Washington sleep in? Did he chop down a cherry tree? Without an early system of verification, people could claim Jesus said anything, as long as it was within the general frame of the expected philosophy, and no one could (or would) question it.

We would expect descriptions of his miracles. Especially the Resurrection. Words and doctrines of Jesus, specifically words and events that conformed to the intended recipient’s beliefs.

3. There would be a succession of leadership. And typically an issue. What would qualify a person to be Jesus’ successor in leading this religion? Typically, that, too, is an issue. Would it be bloodline? Appointment by Jesus? Who saw him post-resurrection?

We would expect a disagreement over method of determining leadership. If Peter claimed to be the first to see Jesus post-resurrection, he would claim the method used is: “whoever sees Jesus post-resurrection.” If Paul claimed to receive direct revelation from God the Father, he would claim the method it is who God says is the leader.

Do you see the problem we now enter? Peter claims one way (which coincidently makes him leader); James claims another method (by sheer chance making James the leader); and Paul claims yet another way that….well…you get the idea.

At this point we would expect to see competing claims to leadership; disagreements over methods as to who is rightfully appointed.

4. Finally, we would anticipate the later the writings, the more they would mold to the changing requirements of the religion. If some new issue was introduced, we would anticipate the writings to include statements of Jesus added to address those issues.

Included in the mythology development would be injection of statements relevant to the present troubles.

Understanding this as a mind-experiment, I did draw conclusions—some unexpected:

a) I am a bit surprised how similar the writing we have would be, regardless whether Jesus actually did miracles or not. This may be my inherent utilization of what humans typically do, in reviewing other religions such as Judaism, Mormonism or Islam; the thought that whether Jesus really did these things or not, people are people and at some point will act on their humanity.

b) The silence of Paul becomes deafening. It makes little sense the first writings following Jesus’ existence do not refer to his miracles, do not refer to his sermons, do not refer to his doctrine, do not refer to any happenings in his life. Nothing about his baptism, interaction with Jewish leaders, or interaction with disciples.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. How can we have a leader of a religion be so prominent as proclaimed in our account, yet so under-utilized in the first accounts referring to him? The recipients of Paul’s letters, written 15-25 years after Jesus lived, would want to know what Jesus said about their problem. What Jesus did. Not Paul’s particular problem with marriage.

c) Why is the Resurrection an afterthought? If this is the lynchpin of Christianity, as Paul proclaims, it seems odd the four accounts have better record-keeping on feeding people than on its occurrence. While Luke and John give greater length and detail—they are later accounts. Paul simply lists appearances with no time, place or historical background. The earliest account, Mark, doesn’t think it important enough to even list one appearance. Matthew barely mentions two.

I would think, given the account above, and the records we have, we would need to reassess the import of the Resurrection on these writers. They didn’t seem to find it terribly factually interesting.

d) I am not certain how one gets around some veneration. Would Mary be pressed to give anecdotes about Jesus’ childhood? Would his childhood home become revered, or places he walked become pilgrimage destinations? Certainly the empty tomb, simply by its connection to the Resurrection, would become a place to visit.

Yet we see nothing of that.

Any thoughts? What do you think we would see, given the 10 facts I listed above? Am I too rigidly following the pattern of other religions? Why would this one be different?

What would you expect to see written about Jesus, if this actually happened, in the first 35 years following his death?

Independent Witness in Gospel of John – Part 2

2010-11-08T13:43:00.002-05:00

How does the Gospel of John differ from the other three canonical Gospels?

The simple fact: these accounts contradict each other. They contain different details (including different statements, additional items, and fewer items), as well as a general demonstration of increased mythology. Now…Christian apologists and inerrantists have proposed resolutions for these contradictions; whether those resolutions are satisfactory depend on one’s standard of proof for determining contradictions. If one uses the least possible standard—“any logical possibility, no matter how inane”—then these resolutions may be satisfactory. If one uses even the slightly higher standard we normally use—“which is more likely: a contradiction or not”—then many of these remain contradictions.

However, a word of caution. A contradiction does NOT render the entire account non-historical; dissimilarities in accounts happen all the time. Did we arrive at the party at 7:00 p.m. or 7:15 p.m.? Two people giving different times would never cause us to dismiss any arrival at all—we understand such disagreements happen all the time.

These contradictions are instructive on four points:

1) Question accounts as to credibility. Sometimes people read the word “credibility” and assume it to be an affront on one’s character. How many times have we heard the dichotomy, “The disciples were either complete fabricators or completely 100% accurate”?

“Credibility” is not only deliberate falsehood, but includes one’s ability to observe, remember and recall the events. A witness 10 feet from an occurrence is more credible than a witness 1000 feet away, due to ability to observe. Both can be earnestly honest; yet the closer witness is considered more credible. Writing down accounts even 1 year after an event can be inaccurate, because of memory lapses, or external influences. Now imagine if the account was 5 years later. Or 10. Or 30.

2) Question accounts as to reliability. Stronger than the first point—if the contradiction is on a key element where the witness benefits from the contradiction, we inherently consider that less reliable.

Imagine if a person was accused of a crime that occurred at 7:05 p.m.; an unbiased witness indicates the accused arrived at the party at 7:00 p.m. The perpetrator’s claim, “I arrived at 7:15 p.m.” is considered unreliable (absent any confirming evidence), because they are very likely saying it to exonerate themselves.

The more important the issue, the greater we scrutinize the motive behind the contradiction.

3) Demonstrate distrust in source. Here we have an interesting situation where Matthew and Luke utilize Mark as a written source. To the extent they disagree with their source and write something contrary, the more one wonders whether historicity or doctrine has become the motive.

Why are they disagreeing with their source? Did they hear something different? Are they supplementing or supplanting the previous sources?

4) Finally, I believe these contradictions demonstrate how John used other sources—specifically Matthew and Luke—in compiling his gospel account of the passion and resurrection. For that, we need to dig a little deeper…

Let’s look at some examples.

The Placard

Mark 15:26 records the statement above Jesus was, “The King of the Judeans.”
Matthew 27:37 adds, “This is Jesus, the King of the Judeans.”
Luke 23:38 reduces it back to “This is the King of the Judeans.” (In Greek, Latin and Hebrew!)
John 19:19 expands it to “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans.”

Of course, the inerrantist could claim the sign said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans” and each author only chose to include some; no author included it all:

Mark: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
Matthew: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
Luke: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.
John: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Judeans.

But is likely? Or is it far more likely Matthew added a portion on, Luke took out what he deemed unnecessary—“Jesus”—but added even more by listing other languages, and John, aware of both Matthew and Luke, combined both to give the most complete coverage? Remember, if one is going to say John is “independent,” this entails having to explain why Mark, Matthew and Luke all chose to ignore part of the sign.

Which brings us to a brief digression—what do we mean by “independent?” It is not enough for it to merely mean “another.” By this word—“independent”—we mean the author developed the material from a source different than the other authors. It is not independent if John used Matthew. Or John used the same source as Matthew. Or John heard about Matthew and included it. It must be John, without any interjection from Matthew or Matthew’s sources, (or Mark or Luke). It is John recounting on his own.

This needs highlighting because often the apologist will get so caught up arguing for John’s independence through differences, that they fail to realize this undercuts the historicity of the other accounts. If John, independently remembered the sign with the full saying, then Mark, Matthew or Luke either didn’t know about it (meaning they lose credibility) or knew about it and deliberately reduced what they knew (meaning they lose reliability.) Either way, these contradictions may support independence (somewhat) but begin to tear at historicity.

Joseph of Arimathea

Mark 15:43 states Joseph of Arimathea was a council member, waiting for the kingdom of God.
Matthew 27:57 demotes Joseph out of the council, making him a “rich man;” but elevates him to a disciple of Jesus.
Luke 23:50-51 places Joseph back on the council, but continues with Mark’s “waiting for the kingdom of god.”
John 19:38 doesn’t speak to Joseph’s income, nor being a council member, but John does go back to Matthew’s position Joseph was a disciple.

What we start to see is a pattern where Matthew tends to disagree with Mark. Luke attempts to combine combination of Mark and Matthew. John appears to pick and choose from Matthew and Luke (or both).

John’s use of Joseph is a strong indication this story was (at least in part) dependent on another source. Primarily because Joseph is a fictional character created by Mark. If John truly was independent from the Gospels, he may have utilized Nicodemus, but he never would have known to use Joseph. He never would have heard of him! The ONLY way for John to even know about Joseph is through the Synoptics.

The Tomb

Mark 15:46 says Joseph laid Jesus in a tomb.
Matt. 27:60 says it was Joseph’s new tomb.
Luke 23:53 agrees it was new (no one had ever been in it) but retracts from saying it was Joseph’s.
John 19:41 follows Luke, saying it was a new tomb, no mention of it being Joseph’s.

Again, we have the authors either not completely stating the facts, OR disagreeing with each other. Again, the inerrantist could claim it was “Joseph’s new tomb” but only Matthew provides the full description. Mark (our earliest source) left out the fact it was new and Joseph’s, Luke and John both leave out the fact it was Joseph’s.

Time and time and time again, we see discrepancies in these accounts. One, two or a few may cause us to scratch our heads. But when it becomes almost every single detail, we question the accuracy for the reasons state above: lack of credibility and reliability.

Resurrection Appearances

The meat of the problem. When reviewing from a chronological standpoint, we see the myth development, and how John conveniently falls into place following Luke, thus establishing both its late writing and its use of (at least) Luke as a source.

Mark, as well known, has no resurrection appearances. Although he implies them. The women see an angel in the tomb (I know it says, “young man;” it is probable Mark was implying this to be a heavenly apparition) who says, “Go tell the disciples that He (Jesus) is going before you into Galilee and there you will see Him as He said to you.” (Mark 16:7) This intones two facts:

1) Jesus is going to Galilee; and
2) The woman will see him.

And Mark ends it there.

Matthew, after reading Mark, does have Resurrection appearances. Matthew (following Mark) has women seeing the angel, who says (like Mark) “Go and tell the disciples that He is risen from the dead, is going before you into Galilee and there you will see him.” (Matt. 28:7)

On their way, Matthew recounts the women see Jesus (just like Mark implied) and the women then tell the disciples. The disciples go to Galilee, and Matthew recounts the appearance as follows:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. (Matt 28:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus gives the Great commission, and the Gospel ends.

I don’t think people realize how limited our earliest accounts are regarding resurrection appearances. Ask most Christians about these events, and they talk about the Road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing in the room, Doubting Thomas, Jesus at the Lake…yet all these events happen in later accounts.

Again (because this is important):

Mark has no appearances.
Matthew has two (2) appearances: One to the women to relay a message to the Disciples and one to the 11 disciples (minus Judas, of course) in Galilee. The astute reader will note that some of the 11 doubted!

[This may be a good time to discuss 1 Cor. 15:3-8, where Paul states Jesus appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to 500 at once, then to James, then to all the apostles and finally to Paul. There is no time, place or detail. When did these occur? Where? What was said or done? Was it a vision or a physical appearance? Worse, this order contradicts every Gospel account. For our search on the independence of John, the passage provides no illumination.]

Our next chronological account is Luke.

Luke has a problem. Luke intends to convey that the Church initially began in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:12-14). But Mark implies Jesus wanted the disciples to go home to Galilee, and Matthew outright states Jesus saw them in Galilee. How does Luke get them back to Jerusalem?

Simple--he never has them go to Galilee in the first place. Notice how Luke modifies the story, beginning with what the Angel at the tomb says:

“Remember what Jesus said in Galilee about being raised again?” (Luke 24:6-7) You can almost hear Luke say, “No, no, no. Mark and Matthew got it all wrong. The Angel didn’t say, ‘Go to Galilee.’ Oh, my, no! The Angel said, ‘Remember what was said in Galilee.”

Here’s the odd bit. What is the import of Jesus making such a statement in Galilee? In fact, Luke records Jesus stating it in Galilee (Luke 9:22) but also records Jesus stating this in either Samaria or Judea! (Luke 18:33) (It is unclear whether Jesus had reached Judea yet, but he was coming from Samaria.)

The ONLY reason Luke feels the need to include the word “Galilee” (since the place the statement was made is irrelevant) is to explain away the problem people associated the angel stating something about Galilee at the tomb.

Now the Luke has removed the pesky problem regarding “Go to Galilee” found in both Mark and Matthew, we continue with Luke’s story. Luke has the women go tell the Disciples (but includes nothing about Jesus appearing to the women because that would entail having to address the Galilean problem again. Remember, in Matthew the women were told by Jesus, “Get the boys up to Galilee.”).

Luke includes a scene where Jesus appears to two people on the Road to Emmaus. Once these two miraculously realize it is Jesus, they tromp off to the eleven Disciples who say, “We know—Jesus appeared to Peter!” (Luke 24:33-34) Oddly, Luke hasn’t recorded any appearance to Peter. Nor has Mark or Matthew.

At this moment Jesus teleports into the room. They think he is a spirit—so Jesus says, “Look at my hands and feet.” (Luke 24:39-40) [Is this Luke attempting to counter Matthew’s claim that “some doubted”?] He has a bit to eat, tells them to stay in Jerusalem, takes them out to Bethany, and floats into the sky. (In Luke’s next book, he provides the additional information that 40 days pass from the resurrection to the ascension, but no such time frame is provided for or even implied here. One wonders why Luke felt the need to add more time.)

At this point we can see why inerrantists spin circles attempting to align the accounts. Given a chronological mythical development, the Synoptic Gospels fall neatly into place. Attempting to claim historicity amongst them has the Jesus and angels telling the disciples to go this way and that, and the disciples traipsing up to Galilee and back to Jerusalem in one day, tying to figure out where Jesus is going to appear next.

Now on to John. Initially, we see a different start to the day. Instead of numerous women, we only have one—Mary Magdalene. She doesn’t see any angels, or hear any proclamations; she discovers an empty tomb. Tells the disciples resulting in Peter and the other disciple coming to the tomb. A story aligned with Matthew, with the embellishment of enhancing the “other disciple” as being equal with Peter.

The men leave and Mary Magdalene is crying. She sees two angels, and then Jesus. The Gospel of John is the only account of Mary’s individual meet-up with Jesus.

Independent? Well…not exactly. See, in every other Gospel, Mary Magdalene makes her appearance at Jesus’ death. (Luke does include her in a list of women who traveled with Jesus, but that’s it. (Luke 8:2)) Mark and Matthew give us no information about her—we wouldn’t even know she existed until the crucifixion. Luke’s information—Jesus kicked 7 demons out of her—is give as an aside, and nothing more is provided.

But come resurrection Sunday, Mary Magdalene is definitely included in all accounts regarding the tomb. Including John. How is it that John tells us nothing about this deep relationship with Jesus, yet (just like the other gospels) she makes her appearance here? This is the Gospel where Jesus cries over Lazarus’ death, Jesus washes disciple’s feet, Jesus engages in philosophical content with Nicodemus, numerous interpersonal relationships…but nothing about Mary Magdalene? The woman who was the first to see the empty tomb, and the only one who hung around the tomb crying?

John is aware of the Mary Magdalene inclusion in this part of the story from another source.

After this the Gospel of John follows Luke. Jesus appearing suddenly in locked room. Instead of showing “hands and feet” like Luke, John has Jesus saying “touch hands and side.” John is the only Gospel that includes the account regarding a Roman spear in the side of Jesus, so it makes sense John, unlike Luke, has Jesus say, “touch my side.”

Doubting Thomas is not present, at the first meeting (again, trying to clear up Matthew’s statement, “some doubted”?), but at the second meeting is convinced.

And the Gospel ends there.

John 21 is a separate account about the Disciples going back to Galilee, to their lives as fisherman, not recognizing Jesus, and the Jesus cooks them breakfast. John 21 is definitely independent—it doesn’t align with anyone. However, (more discussion in the next blog entry), John 21 causes difficulties with historicity.

It is a simple question—where does it chronologically fit in the other accounts? Anywhere you put it, it will contradict something else and either knock out another account’s historicity, or else lose its own.

A quick summary:

Mark: No appearances, “Look for me in Galilee.”
Matthew: Two brief appearances, follows Mark’s Galilean theme.
Luke: Dismantles Galilean statement to move appearances in upper room at Jerusalem. Jesus shows scars.
John: Appearances in upper room. Jesus shows scars.

There is a constant tension among these works. The closer in similarity the story, the less likely the stories are independent. The less similarity, the less likely the stories are historical.

1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?

Independent Witness in Gospel of John – Part 1

2010-11-04T15:15:00.003-04:00

In debates regarding the Resurrection, Christian apologists will mention (in part) a historical method including “multiple independent sources” as having a higher likelihood of historicity. The “independent sources” often cited regarding the post-Resurrection appearances are Paul (1 Cor. 15:3-8), and the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We understand Markan priority—that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark in writing their Gospels. This raises the question of their “independence.” (Although Mark lists no post-Resurrection appearances, so to some extent, Matthew and Luke would still need to be addressed regarding any homogeny.) I was recently asked regarding the Gospel of John.

We recognize the differences and conflicts between the Synoptic Gospels and John—indeed we draw upon those dissimilarities to point out contradictions: Jesus clearing the temple at the end of his ministry in the Synoptics, (Mark 11:15-19; Matt. 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46) but at the beginning in John. (John 2:13-17). Or the discrepancies in the names and calling of the twelve disciples. Or the three year ministry of John compared to the one-year ministry in the Synoptics.

Yet as we point out how John is unlike Mark, Matthew and Luke--are we providing greater weight to its independence? Are we furnishing sustenance to the apologists’ claim that John is an “independent source”?

The short answer is (as with all biblical issues!): “Yes. And No.” John borrows from a variety of sources, as well as interjecting stories for doctrinal purposes, rather than historicity. Making it not just “one independent source” but a “multiple independent source” within itself. However, since “multiple independent sources” is only one part of this historical method, when we look to whether it is an eyewitness account, and how “independent” it is, John does not help the Resurrection apologists on many fronts.

This will take three blog entries to unpack:

1) What is the Gospel of John?
2) How does John differ from the Synoptics?
3) Does John support the apologetic claims?

Date John Written

Traditionally dated 90 – 110 CE; making it later and most likely after the other three canonical Gospels. Some reasons cited include the higher Christology (the indication Jesus proclaimed himself equal to God), no Sadducees (who were eliminated in 70 CE), and the lack of immediacy in eschatology.

A strong argument (in my opinion) are the verses indicating Christians would be kicked out of the synagogues. John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2. Although specifics are not easily determined, it would appear sometime around 90 CE in some locales, Jewish Christians were forbidden from entering or participating in synagogues. If so, these verses demonstrate knowledge regarding the eviction, and thus were written after.

The papyrus scrap P52 that contains a portion of John on a codex has been dated 125 – 150 CE; thus the range for the Gospel being 90 – 110 CE.

In contrast, Papias (writing from 110 – 140 CE), a disciple of John, indicates knowledge of three Gospels—Mark, Matthew and Gospel of the Hebrews, but does not mention a Gospel written by John.*

*Papias wrote five (5) books, and we only have a few paragraphs from his writing. It is possible he discussed a Gospel of John in writing we do not have, but no author up to the time of Eusebius associates Papias with a Gospel of John.

As always in biblical discussions, there are scholars who disagree. Evan Powell in The Unfinished Gospel argues John was first among the gospels, and at an earlier date.

However…

Literary Integrity

The dating works only if the Gospel is a cohesive whole; if an amalgamation of other works, (which I think it is), then at best we can only date portions, and stab at when it was edited together. There are three reasons to see a combination of different works:

1) The Signs Gospel. Scholars have long noted miracles in the first 11 chapters that have no parallel in the Synoptics:

a) Water into Wine,
b) Healing Capernaum nobleman’s son,
c) Heal paralytic at Bethesda Pool
d) Heal blind man with mud and washing in pool
e) Lazarus raised from the dead
f) Voice from heaven not at Baptism or Transfiguration.

This has caused scholars to reasonably speculate John utilized some source listing these signs. (As I have previously discussed, Mark indicates Jesus saying he won’t give any sign, [Mark 8:12], Matthew & Luke indicate only one (1) sign [Matt. 16:4; Luke 11:29] whereas John’s incorporation of the Signs Gospel gives numerous signs.)

And John 5:2, part of the Signs Gospel, uses the verb, “There is by the Sheep Gate a pool…” with a present tense. Thus it was written prior to the sacking of Jerusalem, in the 60’s CE, but later incorporated in this book referring to events in the 90’s CE.

2) Anomalies in the writing.

There are scholarly discussions whether the order has been transposed in numerous chapters. Some argue it has; others give explanations for why it has not. I will give one example. In John 6:1, it states “Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee” and then in John 6:3, going up a mountain. The problem is this: John 5 ends with Jesus in Jerusalem (far to the south and on the same side of Galilee as the mountains! Why would Jesus cross over to get to the same side? This would indicate the introductory statement was left in a later-added passage. (On occasion, the Gospel writers demonstrate fatigue in copying, giving details in the original work that do not make sense in their copy.)

Another fascinating item is found in the last phrase of John 14:31, when Jesus states, “Get up, let us go from here.” This passage in context is in the middle of a long discourse. (You will see pages of red if your Bible is a red-letter edition.) In Chapter 14, Jesus has been talking about love, keeping commandments and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and in Chapter 15, he continues to talk about being the vine, love and keeping commandments.

Why, in the middle of it, would he make the statement about leaving? Read chapters 14 & 15—there is no reason for this statement. The editor is combining two (2) sources, one of which ended at 14:31.

This also demonstrates the editor is utilizing written sources. Think about it; imagine a person writing down this speech 5 or 10 or 20 years later. The powerful images of keeping God’s commandments, of loving each other, of the vine and the Holy Spirit could be remembered. But would the writer remember and include this non-sequitur phrase, “Get up, let us go from here”? Or would it more likely be forgotten amongst the common themes?

The only reason to include it was it’s being in a document being copied.

3) The third question of literary integrity, going to the heart of our resurrection discussion, is John 21. It is a chapter, added after the original conclusion of chapter 20.

In Chapter 19, we complete the death of Jesus, moving to Chapter 20 for the appearances. First Mary Magdalene sees the empty tomb, informs Peter and the “other disciple,” who all go running to the tomb. The men leave; Mary stays weeping and is rewarded with an angelic appearance, and Jesus himself.

That night Jesus appears to the disciples (minus Thomas) in a shut room, shows them his hands and side, and breathes the Holy Spirit into them. (No Pentecost here!) Eight days later, Jesus again appears in the shut room, this time tells Thomas to touch his wounds, and then the chapter finishes as follows:

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 NKJV)

This has all the hallmarks of wrapping up a book.

Chapter 21 starts off with some disciples returning to their occupations as fisherman! In direct contrast to Matthew’s Great Commission, or Acts’ having them hang around Jerusalem, this divergent story discusses the disciples return to Galilee. It acts as if Chapter 20 never happened; Peter doesn’t even recognize Jesus.

There are additional thematic differences—the “sons of Zebedee” are not mentioned before, indeed the author has not been identified until 21:24. At least part acknowledges being a different writer than other parts. Peter is treated generally negatively throughout the rest of John; here is treated extremely positively. And there is a hint the writer knows that claiming John as the author would be a problem, as John is dead. See John 21:23.

For these reasons, the general consensus among scholars is that Chapter 21 is an add-on.

In the next blog entry, I will address John’s independence (and some dependence) regarding the Synoptics, but I believe I have demonstrated John has internal multiple sources. How independent they are may depend on one’s theological point-of-view.

One final note before we leave John…

Doctrine

As much as we debate who wrote the Gospels, it is more enlightening to contemplate who the gospels were written to. Who was the intended audience, and what was the author intending to demonstrate to them? Why did the author think this particular point was necessary to be emphasized?

In looking at the Johannine corpus, it would appear one issue being addressed was docetism--the belief Jesus did not have flesh. He appeared like a person--a really, really good hologram, worthy of Star Trek--but his feet did not leave prints in the sand. Not having flesh means he couldn’t technically die, nor obviously be resurrected. See 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7 for direct statements intended to refute this belief.

I will leave it at that, and pick up the discussion in a later entry. (Unless you are thinking ahead. About the only Gospel referring to scars and touching scars was John. Because you can’t scar spirit; only flesh scars…)

Epic Hubris

2010-10-27T12:21:00.001-04:00

By now, I assume most are familiar with the Moveon.org volunteer who was stepped on by Paul Rand supports. H/T Cynical-C. The man who stomped on her head, Tim Profitt has now come forward regarding an apology.

He wants one from the woman whose head he stomped on.

It is her fault he stepped forward and while she was being held to the ground by two (2) other individuals, he takes the voluntary action to smash his foot on her head.

And people are already buying into this thinking…

How will this end? - A discussion with an Asst. Professor

2010-10-22T13:26:00.000-04:00

Dr. Clay Jones is an Assistant Professor at Biola University. (A school that boasts faculty members Dr. William Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Gary Habermas.) Dr. Jones holds a Doctorate in Ministry from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He teaches post-graduate level courses on Apologetics Research and Defense of the Resurrection. And he has a personal blog.

I happened to notice he wrote an entry, giving a defense of the Resurrection in 200 words or less. This is a fellow who teaches on apologetics and the Resurrection (arguably the lynchpin of Christianity) at a post-graduate level. This is no internet hack! (like me.)

And he is going to summarize his defense in just 200 words. One would think it to be a powerful punch; a veritable knock-out delivery of condensed apologetic argument. And he goes with……..”Not willing to die for a lie.”

Really? Well…O.K. As both of my regular readers will know, I have done a bit of study and dialoguing on this particular claim. So I join in and somehow we end up on the subject of Peter’s death. I point out how Peter was condemned to die because he pissed off the local constabulary by convincing their wives and concubines to abstain from sex.

At this point, Dr. Jones asks what my best evidence is for this claim.

I’ll admit some concern over this question. Look, I don’t expect the average layperson to know Second Century Christian writings…but Dr. Jones holds a doctorate. Dr. Jones teaches on two (2) primary topics: Apologetic Research and Defense of the Resurrection. I believe I am somewhat justified in expecting him to know some of the various sects of Christianity during this time—particularly those holding to ascetic lifestyles, decrying sex.

This is prevalent through a number of works.

More importantly, if his defense of the Resurrection--THE defense to use when one is limited to 200 words--involves the death of alleged eyewitnesses…I would be justified in believing he knew the source of those claims. Not to mention, this is a pretty big name; I’m not asking for the source of Thaddeus’ death.

This is Peter. Arguably the biggest name of them all.

And Dr. Jones doesn’t know Acts of Peter?

Perhaps you can understand my consternation.

But I press on, quoting the relevant passage from Acts of Peter.

At this point Dr. Jones asks, why should we rely upon the Gnostic Acts of Peter as compared to “other works.” Having looked, I am uncertain as to what “other works” he could mean; more importantly, what earlier works he could mean.

I want to point out triumphantly, in Perry Mason style, “Precisely, Sir! Why would we trust this claim about Peter being martyred upside down? The defense rests.” Harumph.

This is why the entire field of Christian apologetics is suspect to me. The very teachers themselves, teaching at post-graduate level, appear unfamiliar with the counter-arguments to their own position. Why would a lay person ever know any better?

Must Read

2010-10-21T11:01:00.001-04:00

A father speaks about his son coming out as gay.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay

2010-10-07T13:07:00.003-04:00

In my last blog entry, we discovered Simon Greenleaf was not converted from atheism to Christianity despite the numerous claims by Christian apologist after apologist. In fact, if you search “Simon Greenleaf atheist” in Google, you will find reams of pages, all with Christians gleefully stating this. All wrong.

Another claimed conversion is that of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay. While I was at, I decided to confirm this claim, and guess what I found out? Another untruth! I would argue in some situations, a downright lie. Again, google-whack “William Ramsay atheist” and you will again see Christian apologetic sites braying how he was converted from atheism to Christianity by his scholarly attempt to debunk it. A typical example from Lee Strobel:

That’s why I was especially fascinated by the story of Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University in England, one of history’s greatest archaeologists. He was an atheist. He spent 25 years doing archaeological digs to try to disprove the book of Acts which was written by the historian Luke…Instead of discrediting Luke’s account, Ramsay’s work kept supporting it. Finally he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate historians who had ever written. Influenced by the archaeological evidence, Ramsay became a Christian.

The Case for Christ

Or Josh McDowell:

”He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the home of the Bible, where he would ‘dig up the evidence’ that the Book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul’s travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years literally ‘digging for the evidence.’ Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen.

“The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.”

Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (I don’t have a copy of ETDAV, but this quote is also listed at Conservapedia. If someone can demonstrate this is inaccurate in any way, I will modify it.)

[Edited to add: Although Josh McDowell apparently has removed this quote from later editions of ETDAV. See Comments Below.]

Untrue. Wrong. False.

A brief background on Sir William Ramsay: (Not to be confused with Sir William Ramsay the Nobel Prize winning Chemist as this website does with the wrong picture!)

He was a British archaeologist, born on the 15th of March 1851, with his primary works around the turn of the century (1900.) . Educated at the universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Göttingen, and a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford (1882; honorary fellow 1898), and Lincoln College (1885; honorary 1899). In 1885 he was elected professor of classical art at Oxford, and in the next year professor of humanity at Aberdeen. From 1880 onwards he travelled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. His numerous publications include: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols., 1895, 1897); and St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895; Germ. trans., 1898).

This was taken from his entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. [Warning: HUGE pdf] (But See also this entry that quotes the Encyclopedia ) Nothing about his religious beliefs. Nothing about them changing. Nothing about causing a huge scandal, or others being converted due to his writings.

I couldn’t find a single writing of his where he indicated he was an atheist at any time. Nothing about his conversion to Christianity…for any reason, let alone a specific study. More importantly, in all the writings I could find, he listed reasons for his archaeological studies, but never, ever mentions attempting to prove Christianity incorrect.

For example, in his Preface to the First Edition of St. Paul, Sir Ramsay indicates the reason he studied this issue was at the instigation of fellow scholars. Nothing about his wanting to prove Christianity, or Luke or anything whatsoever incorrect!

So where did this idea come from? The closest I could come to the root of this allegation was within I Don’t have enough Faith to be an atheist where Geisler and Turek state:

Classical Scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsay began his investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped change his mind. He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”

The problem with this quote is that it is a lie. Notice the inserted “[Acts]” followed by the ellipses. Do you wonder why “Acts” was added? Do you wonder why words were omitted? Upon reading the WHOLE quote, you will see why. And the reason I call this a lie. Unfortunately, I have to give you a little background.

At this time (late 19th Century), in biblical studies, there was a growing debate as to who Paul was writing to, when writing the Epistle of Galatians. (Gal. 1:2). See, Galatia was not a city, unlike the Epistle of Romans written to Rome, or Corinthians written to Corinth; Galatia was a region. Paul was writing to a number of Churches. The debate and division was between the “North Galatia” theory as compared to the “South Galatia” theory. (See this site for a description of the issue.) Was Paul writing to north Galatia, south Galatia or both?

Bishop Lightfoot had written a treatise on Galatians, wherein he argued for the North Galatia theory. William Ramsay disagreed—he held to a South Galatia theory. In his book, The Church in the Roman Empire Before 170 AD (published 1890) Ramsay says, “I regret to be compelled, in these earlier chapters, to disagree so much with Lightfoot’s views as stated in his edition of Galatians; perhaps therefore I may be allowed to say that the study of that work, sixteen years ago, marks an epoch in my thoughts and the beginning of my admiration for St. Paul and for him.” (page 6)

Ramsay goes on to explain he will be arguing for the South Galatia theory against Lightfoot. For another example of Ramsay’s position, you can read the Expositor article of 1894 where Ramsay again argues the “south Galatia” view is more harmonious with Acts than the “north Galatia” view.

Simple, right? Yet one more (amongst millions) of scholarly disagreements over some biblical topic—Ramsay purported South Galatia, others held to North Galatia.

Having this understanding, let’s look at the Geisler & Turek quote again:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”

But contrast this with the entire quote:

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had, at one time, quite convinced me. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was a second-century composition and never relying upon its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious objection to accepting it as a first-century work. According to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul’s work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important part of the work that was devoted to the northern part of the peninsula of Galatia. [emphasis added]

St. Paul, The Traveler and the Roman Citizen, pg 19

Do you see? The “it” that William Ramsay referred to in the second sentence was most certainly NOT Acts, as claimed by Geisler & Turek, if we read the preceding sentence (conveniently left out by Geisler & Turek) we see that “it” is conclusion he will be attempting to justify to the reader. To remove that first sentence (and the first clause in the second) and then insert the word “Acts” when the author is clearly not talking about Acts is a lie.

We might as well claim Nixon said, “I am…[a thief and] a crook.”

Secondly, we would question what the Tubingen theory was, if Ramsay was abandoning it. The Tubingen Theory was that Acts was a second century document, intended to reconcile the differing positions of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul. Again, this is a biblical scholarly debate which Ramsay abandoned a former biblical position—not an abandonment of atheism.

But most importantly, we see the crucial reason Ramsay could not subscribe to the North Galatia theory, was the conflicts it created with Acts. In other words, he held Acts in such high regard, it caused him to disagree with his friend, Lightfoot--because Ramsay felt he must stay true to Acts.

Ramsay, in this paragraph, is indicating why he fell on one particular side in a biblical squabble. NOT that he was against Acts’ historicity (far from it) and in fact, primarily became convinced to the South Galatia theory because of his adherence to Acts’ historicity.

Yet another “atheist turned Christian” story debunked.

Perhaps the most regrettably notion within is the blatant mistruth offered by Geisler & Turek (and [at the least] the complete lack of study by Strobel and McDowell) You would think that would bother some Christians…

Edited to Add:

I have found a kernel of truth to this claim of a “changed skeptic.” According to Ramsay in his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) he initially subscribed to the theory that Acts was compiled in the later 2nd Century, and addressed the doctrinal issues of that time. For that reason, Ramsay did not utilize Acts as reference material for what happened in the First Century.

However, he came to realize Acts did accurately reflect the geography. This article (pdf) explains:

In his search for information bearing on the geography and history of Asia Minor he at first paid slight attention to the early Christian authorities. He had gained the impression in his studies that these were quite unworthy of consideration for a historian; anything having to do with religion belonged to the realm of the theologians, not that of the historians. When he spent time copying Christian inscriptions in his earliest years of travel, he felt the time to be wasted―even though a sense of duty compelled hint to make copies of them. Finally, in a desperate search for any information of a geographical and antiquarian nature, he began to study the journeys of Paul in this region of the world as described in the Book of Acts. He hardly expected to find any information of value regarding the condition of Asia Minor in the time of Paul; rather, he thought he would find material bearing upon the second half of the second century of the Christian era, i.e. the age (he thought) in which the author of Acts lived.

Ramsay was not trying to disprove Acts. Why would he? He didn’t think it applicable to this period. He simply felt it would not be relevant. Upon discovering one accuracy, he began to rely upon Acts as being historically accurate to the First Century.

This is still very far from Ramsay, the hardened atheist skeptic going out to battle on behalf of his cheering heathen colleagues, all expecting to prove the entire New Testament to be completely false, only to discover the very sandals of Jesus, and subsequently becoming a Christian.

I added this in fairness of complete disclosure.

Simon Greenleaf

2010-10-05T15:19:00.001-04:00

In attempts to confirm apologetic claims, I can get caught up in lengthy rabbit trails. Since this is one sure to resurface in the future, I figured I may as well blog the journey.

Simon Greenleaf was a luminary in legal jurisprudence during the early 19th Century. He became a lawyer in 1806, and advanced to become the reporter for the Maine Supreme Court. In 1833 he became a professor at Harvard Law School, retaining the position through the late 40’s. He is famous for writing two (2) works:

1) His Treatise on Evidence, written in 1844-46; and
2) Testimony of the Evangelists in 1847

The second work makes Christian apologists salivate. No less than Drs. Geisler & Turek’s book I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist makes the claim:

Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Law professor who wrote the standard study on what constitutes legal evidence, credited his own conversion to Christianity as having come from his careful examination of the Gospel witnesses.

This is repeated and regurgitated on numerous internet sites:

Dr. Greenleaf is considered by many to have been one of the greatest legal minds we have had in the U.S. He was formerly an outspoken skeptic of Christianity and who set out to disprove the deity of Christ. In the end he concluded that the Resurrection was true “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Greenleaf became a Christian after studying the evidence for himself.

see here

Of course the story grows to his being instigated by a student’s challenge. See Snopes for the common theme of student challenging professor.

Do a google search on Greenleaf being an atheist and you will hit literally 1000’s of sites (including the infamous Wikipedia.) And, this morning in my perusal of blogs, I saw this platitude repeated once more when Wintery Knight indicated, “[S]imon Greenleaf…assessed the evidence as [an] atheist and became [a] Christian.”

Having seen this so many times, I decided to verify.

Was Simon Greenleaf an atheist? Did he attempt to disprove the resurrection and become convinced by the evidence?

Ahh…in short…no. Some apologist seems to have leaped to this conclusion, and the next copied him/her, and the next copied him/her and so on, until each is copying the other, never attempting to verify it in any way. If 40,000 Google hits say its true—it must be, right?

First we should note Mr. Greenleaf’s own words about the subject. There are none. Nowhere that he claims to be an atheist (quite the opposite as we shall see in a minute), nowhere where he claims this started off as an attempt to disprove the Resurrection. Nothing. The testimonials and foreword in the 1874 version, edited by Tischendorf make no mention of Greenleaf’s desire to disprove the Resurrection, nor his theistic belief being changed by the study.

Nothing contemporary indicates he ever was an atheist, or even a theist who disbelieved the resurrection. All the evidence we have demonstrates Simon Greenleaf was a lifelong Episcopalian! He is reached the position of being on the Standing Committee for the Episcopalian diocese of Maine as of 1927. He was at the Maine Episcopalian Convention of 1831 And at the Maine Episcopalian Convention of 1832

Remember, this was all before he became a professor, let alone write his treatise on evidence.

But the nail in the coffin is this Christian who has reviewed Mr. Greenleaf’s writings and agrees this is nothing but a myth.

Simon Greenleaf was an early 19th Century lawyer who wrote a good book on Evidence. We don’t use it anymore. He used information which is now outdated to substantiate his own belief. He wasn’t an atheist; he wasn’t convinced by the evidence. He already believed and looked for support.

Time to let Simon Greenleaf rest in peace.

Do Apologists Just Not Care?

2010-09-24T09:51:00.001-04:00

My uncle worked in a profession resulting in his testimony being taken on occasion. He didn’t enjoy it, and tended to make it as difficult for the attorneys as possible. Once he was instructed by an attorney to answer a question and ONLY the question being asked, to which he replied, “I cannot.” When asked why, he said, “Because I swore to tell the whole truth, and by just answering that question, it isn’t the whole truth.”

When do we expect full disclosure? When do we expect a person to provide not only the positives, but the weaknesses of their position? When do we rely upon someone entirely and when do we realize we must do some study ourselves?

Imagine the following three situations:

1) A lawyer arguing their position in a court.

We expect this (due to the American adversarial position) to be one-sided. To be biased toward the attorney’s position. No one is shocked, when the opposing counsel has its chance, to discover not ALL the facts were presented by the Plaintiff. Attorneys expect the other side to do their research and present a conflicting argument.

2) A doctor prescribing a treatment.

Here we tend to expect full disclosure. If the doctor is receiving monetary contributions from the company providing the treatment, this would cause us concern. Especially if we discovered 9 out of 10 doctors (who do not receive such compensation) would recommend an alternative treatment.

Would we accept the doctor’s excuse of, “Well, you should have researched this on your own”?

3) A friend who suspects your significant other is having an affair.

Again, we would expect the friend to tell us their suspicions. The friendship would be in jeopardy if they later said, “I only told you what supported the position they were not having an affair. It was up to you to research the rest on your own.”

I have been contemplating the question—to what extent do we expect full disclosure from a theistic apologist? Do we expect it to be one-sided? Or should we expect them to recognize the weaknesses in the claim?

This blog entry about Jericho over at Parchment & Pen is one in a series on archeological discoveries that “support” the biblical accounts. I put “support” in quotations, because this particular discovery causes consternation regarding the Exodus account—namely when it must have occurred.

Originally, the Jericho destruction was dated to 1400 BCE (fitting nicely with the Tanakh), but subsequent work demonstrated the date was actually 1550 BCE (which does not fit so well.) The blog entry author gives some treatment to this controversy, and then relies upon the 1400 BCE date (of course) without much comment.

Causing me to wonder—did the author have a duty to fully disclose both positions? Or do we expect our apologists to act as litigants and only provide their best arguments; leaving it to the opposing position to present any conflicting evidence?

I would submit there are two (2) factors impacting our expectation of full disclosure—importance of the information and intimacy of the relationship.

Think back to our doctor example. If this was medication for a cold—would we be that upset for not receiving full disclosure? Generally not, a cold will resolve with a variety of methods, and one is probably not much different than another. However, if this was chemotherapy, we would be extremely concerned over the doctor’s one-sided presentation. Cancer treatment is more important than cold treatment.

Likewise, if our friend was not completely honest with us when she brought a ringer to play soccer against us with a “Oh, she’s not very good” and they turn out to be fantastic—we again are not as bent out of shape. Soccer is less important than a spouse’s affair.

And, of course, we do not expect the same complete truthfulness from a person who is an enemy, as compared to an acquaintance, as compared to a friend. One is far more hurt if a close friend fails to be fully honest as compared to a co-worker.

Assuming I am correct (and feel free to disagree, providing your own factors)—that it hinges on intimacy and import—why is it apologists so rarely give full disclosure? In the blog entry above, why was the 1400 BCE date assumed, with little attention given to the dating problem?

First, because the facts are not that important to the apologist; conformity in belief is. All the evidence in the world against a global flood is not important to most Christians who hold to it—belief that it occurred is.

How many times have we seen the following conversation:

Apologist: Do you believe the global flood occurred?
Christian: Yes.
Apologist: Great, here are some facts that support it. [ignoring the mountain of evidence that does not.]
Christian: Great. Confirmed my belief.

Apologia is a defense—it has come down to finding something—anything—that can possibly support one’s position, and as long as that bare fact exists (regardless of any other), then one can hold their position. The moon is moving away from the earth? Bam—the world must be young. Ignore any other dating methods, or any problem with Young Earth Creationism—cling to any fact in support of one’s position and believe.

Getting the right belief (regardless of how one gets there) is what is important. Not the support of the position.

Apologists do not give full disclosure, because the important consideration—what one believes—is already firmly in place. Any facts supporting it are merely props—icing on the cake, as it were.

Second, it would appear there is either not a close relationship expected between apologist and reader OR the import of similar belief is so overriding that such intimacy is not a factor. Again, there are situations where we don’t expect full disclosure even from our closest friends.

This one surprised me a bit. Christians, as a general rule, expect themselves to be better. Closer. More friendly. A cohesiveness stronger than heathens. Yes, they still sin amongst themselves, but you are supposed to be able to trust a Christian with your purse—even if you just met them 10 minutes ago.

There is a greater level of intimacy, supposedly, because you both have fish stickers on your car. For me, personally, one of the greatest shocks in deconversion was NOT all the evidence against my Christianity—it was the fact this evidence was either entirely ignored or spectacularly mishandled by those I trusted the most. If all this stuff was out there—why hadn’t I heard it before I was in my late 30’s? More importantly—why hadn’t I heard it presented with full disclosure as to the other person’s position, not strawpeople?

Part of the reason I continue to talk to people going through a faith crisis, or even a deconversion is not to convince to “my side.” I am walking proof that deconversions are personal experiences—you don’t “argue” people into them, nor out of them. The reason I do, is to let them know there are other arguments—there are things they haven’t heard that are good, strong and robust arguments against the classical Christianity they’ve been taught.

If they reject the arguments—fine. At least they have had an opportunity for full and complete disclosure and a chance to make up their own minds on all the available arguments.

Why do apologists not feel the same obligation? Why are they so afraid of acknowledging the real and heady barriers to their own position?

Do they not care?

Fear Not

2010-09-03T12:10:00.001-04:00

I enjoy glancing through the comment boxes on news stories. We can see some…interesting (to be polite)…responses. In reading through comments regarding Dr. Hawking and God I noticed a number of Christians using Pascal’s Wager as their proof for God.

The problem with effectively arguing against Pascal’s Wager using reason, is that the Wager itself is not based on reason. It is based on fear. In fact, if you look at the premise, as proposed by Pascal, it explicitly states we cannot use reason to determine whether there is or is not a God, and it comes down to a coin toss. A wager. A bet as to which is the better choice to make in light of the unknown.

Have you ever tried to use reason, logic and observation with fear? How well does that work? Anyone with a child has faced (at least once) the “monster under the bed” or the “monster in the closet.” There is a reason Pixar utilized this fear as a theme in a movie—we are all familiar with it.

And, as a parent, we inevitably first try logic and reason. “See, honey? There is no monster under the bed. The toys you left there [that we told you to pick up!] are in the same position. The dust bunnies haven’t been disturbed. No tracks, no smells, no noises—nothing to demonstrate a monster.”

Of course, a short time later, we hear the screaming again. The Monster has returned. Our logic and reason completely failed. Eventually the exhausted parents give in to the belief, and create an alternative belief to counter the fear. A special stuffed animal that keeps away the monsters. Or a ritual to protect the monsters from coming in.

Yeah, yeah—not the most intellectual responses. We crave sleep; we cave in.

We cannot remove fear by arguing a person out of it; conversely we cannot create fear by arguing a person in to it. While the parent cannot convince the child no such monster exists; likewise the child cannot convince the parent they really should be afraid.

This continues into adulthood. Some people parachute for the thrill; others are terrified. And even though one can be convinced to parachute—the fear will still be there. Those that parachute cannot be convinced to begin fearing it.

Some fear public speaking; others fear never getting married. The list is inexhaustible. And all of those fears, one cannot simply reason them away, or reason oneself into. Your heart still pounds faster when confronted by them, or your heart does not.

Of course, one of the greatest fears is the unknown. Anyone diagnosed with a medical condition of “We don’t know what this is” understands.

And what happens after we die is the greatest unknown of them all.

In books and plays and movies, there are two predominate themes for claims of life after death:

1) There are degrees of pain/pleasure in the after life;
2) What you do in this life will determine what happens in this afterlife.

We don’t want pain; we want pleasure. We want to do the thing that creates the least pain and the most pleasure in life; one would certainly want to do it for the greater pain/pleasure promised in the after life! The problem (and the Achilles Heel of Pascal’s Wager) is that we don’t know what that is.

Is there no afterlife, in which case pain/pleasure is limited to what we do? Is the afterlife dependant on works, so we perform certain acts and refrain from other acts to increase pleasure later? Is it dependent on the correct belief, or ritual or statement?

Some individuals have grasped on to a certain belief to alleviate this unknown. It reduces (but never quite eliminates) the fear. It is their magic bunny, keeping away the monster under the bed.

We cannot argue against Pascal’s Wager—they are convinced of the fear. Nor (and Christians should realize this) can they use this to convince use—we have no such fear.

How Old were Jesus’ Disciples?

2010-08-23T15:10:00.002-04:00

Life expectancy in the Roman Empire was 35 years of age. According to an author of the time, a person at age 10, expected to live another 35 years.*

Mentally, we tended to think the disciples were roughly the same age as Jesus. 30 years +/- 5 years. (Most Sunday School pictures depict them in that age range.) According to this Chart on Roman Life Expectancy, they would most likely be dead by 53 CE. [If they were younger, say 25 years old, their life expectancy was even less—to 51 CE!]

An alternative Chart indicates if they were 25, their life expectancy would be 57 CE, or at 30, would be 59 CE.

Simply put, by the time Paul started writing his letters, we would expect many of them to be dead. By the time of the Jewish wars, we would expect all of them to be dead.

We don’t often think about life expectancy—we have a terrible tendency to “project” our own life expectancy of 70 years on people of the time.

Yet simply put, even if the Gospels were written in 65 CE—most of the eyewitnesses would be dead by then. A fact of living in that time.

*Edited, thanks to Vinny.

Why Courtrooms are unkind to claims

2010-08-13T12:23:00.001-04:00

In discussing the Walker decision on Proposition 8, I found this quote by Jason Rosenhouse.

It also occurred to me that there are a lot of similarities between this decision and the decision in the Dover evolution case. Hard-core right-wingers live in a fantasy world of their own creation. It is a world in which creationism and ID are legitimate science and evolution is not. It is also a world in which gay couples pose some sort of threat to heterosexual marriage, or are too morally suspect to raise children. When thundered from a stage or a pulpit to a generally supportive audience, such notions play very well. But put them in a forum with rules of evidence and a sober, nonemotional tone, and they crumble. Judge Walker in this case was absolutely scathing towards the defense, just as Judge Jones was in the Dover case. When forced to defend their ideas rationally, the right-wingers always come off looking like fools.

New Atheism

2010-07-09T12:22:00.001-04:00

A term bantered about. Over at the Parchment and Pen Blog a writer (utilizing Dr. Mohler) gave seven (7) points that differentiate the “New Atheist” from the “run-of-mill atheist” (her words):

1. Celebration of Atheism – no sense of mourning as seen in the “Victorian Loss of Faith”.

2. Changed and clear direction of attention – No longer the philosophical rejection of God but a rejection of the God of Christianity specifically. (*I question this one however, as it would seem there are objections to Islam and Judaism as well as polytheistic systems. But I do concede they are the most vocal against Christian Theism.)

3. Explicitly based in scientific argumentation - *Lack of philosophical discussion surrounding the existence of God. Also I would suggest that while a naturalistic framework (i.e a point of view that excludes the supernatural) is assumed they are not stating their’s as a philosophical position.

4. Attack upon moderate and liberal Protestantism - These theological movements are seen as “enablers” of theistic belief . *Which although not stated in the lecture, I have to think it is due to these movements denying foundational truths of Christianity in respects to not only orthodoxy (right belief) but orthopraxy (right practice). This in turn makes Christianity a less bitter pill to swallow to those searching for truth.

5. Belief in God is not to be tolerated – It is no longer a matter of objecting to the persecution of the skeptic or free-thinker or atheist (vying for a voice in the culture only to be persecuted by the Theist) but it is thought that those who do believe in God should not be tolerated in our society – essentially a move away from religious freedom.

6. Theism is seen as harmful to children – teaching a child theistic beliefs is tantamount to child abuse and on the same level as (if not worse than) physical abuse.

and finally…

7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. *Theism simply should not be tolerated in any civilized culture. The Crusades, the Inquisition and even modern day terrorism indicate Theism is bad for humanity. It has done more harm than good as we see from history and we’d be better off ridding it from our society altogether. No longer is a “tenant” of Atheism that of merely objecting to theistic systems but rather there is a pressing need to pro-actively eradicate these systems from our culture in toto.

Now, before I deal with each of these seven points, my first broad thought can be brilliantly summed up in two words. “So what?”

Let’s assume—for the moment—there is this “New Atheism” that is somehow different from previous atheisms. Does “New” necessarily mean “incorrect”? The impression given is that atheism (like Christianity) must adhere to some sort of orthodoxy, and therefore the “older” atheism is somehow more correct. Better.

Why? Imagine I told you I obtained a new cell phone. Wouldn’t we want the “newest” available? Would you be impressed if I extolled orthodoxy and bought a bag phone? (And if you even know what a bag phone is—you just dated yourself!)

Or imagine we are presented with new information. Or a new situation. Should I have continued to live like a bachelor after begin married? Was there something inherently bad about the seven (or more) points differentiating “Old run-of-the-mill single me” to “New Married Me”? Of course not!

We live in a changing world. With new ideas, new concepts, new societal impacts, new words…all of which should collide with our previous thinking and perhaps cause us to modify it.

I want “New Atheism” because we know more than last year’s atheists. And next year I want even “Newer Atheism.” If some day we come across some proof or evidence…who knows?...maybe the Newest and Last Atheism would be theism!

Now looking at the points.

1. Celebration of Atheism. Yeah us! How terrible that we dare not be the miserable, hedonistic wretches the theists think we should be. How dare we be…happy. How DARE we be…moral! How dare we…actually admit to being an atheist without a sigh, a tear, a cry for help…

2. A changing and clear direction toward atheism as to Christianity. While I could argue most of that has to do with perspective and locale (and the author notes it is not limited to Christianity)…again…I am left with “so what?” This comes across as Christians whining about “Why are you picking on us?” Because we are atheistic to your God! Does it really matter if we pick one God as compared to another?

3. Explicitly based on scientific argumentation. Again, I could argue this point. Again, I find myself saying, “So what?” What sacred script, what orthodoxy requires atheists to argue from philosophy? Or science? Or _____? Or all aspects? Or none at all? Please, oh please, will someone tell me what I—the atheist—MUST use to make my point in order to qualify as a “run-of-the-mill” atheist?

4. Attack on moderate and liberal Protestantism. Bwahahahahaha…seriously? You were being serious there? Read that again without falling down on the floor. I dare you! This comes from a conservative (Dr. Mohler) who regularly (Oh, I listened to your show, sir) attacked and battled and stabbed and assailed in every way shape and form anything remotely “moderate” or “liberal” within Christianity. And he’s unhappy atheists…er…excuse me…”New Atheists”…are doing it?

What, are we stealing your thunder?

5. Theism is not to be tolerated. Well, this one depends on your definition of “tolerance.” I suspect Christians want more than the New Atheists are giving. Look, we think theism is wrong. As wrong as a geocentric solar system. As wrong as a 6000-year-old, flat earth, global-flood, demon-possessing, Mary-in-a-Grilled-Cheese, geocentric solar system.

Which, like people wearing tin-foil hats to protect themselves from government rays, we would normally laugh off and let live their lives in peace. But Christians don’t stop there. They take these beliefs and discriminate against homosexuals, and attempt to push prayers on those who don’t believe as they do, and demand money (oh the money) and privileges to maintain these beliefs.

At that point I say, “No.” And they cry, “Intolerance.”

6. Theism is seen as harmful to children. Er…yes. Again, we think theism is wrong. Teaching children incorrect things, I believe is harmful. Shouldn’t we teach children correct truths? Of course, I am not mentioning the fear of hell, the shame of sex, the stigma of sexual orientation, the scientific falsehoods….

7. Theism should be eliminated because of all the harm it has brought to humanity. Has this sunk in yet? We think theism is wrong. As in “not true.” Basing actions on incorrect truths has an inherent tendency to do harm. Yes, we can live a happy life on a lie. Even do “less harm” by believing that lie. Most atheists I read hope humanity can actually improve itself without the need of believing something incorrect. Call us foolish optimists.

In the end, I think the biggest problem they have with New Atheism is how vocal it has become. The old atheists (like the token house servant) kept their mouth shut and knew their place. These New Atheists have the audacity to write best-sellers and speak their mind and proudly proclaim “I am an atheist!”

And for that, even though I may not qualify as a “New Atheist,” I am thankful and supportive. They make it easier, even (dare I say?) legitimate, for some of us to also say, “I, too, am an atheist.” Maybe a run-of-the-mill; maybe not. But an atheist all the same.

You MUST be just like Me

2010-07-02T09:05:00.001-04:00

You can tell quite a bit about a person with how they relate to others. And how they treat perceived enemies.

When encountering others, in order to obtain a baseline, we initially presume they share similar tastes and interest as we do. We do this to move from the unknown to the known. If I was asking you to meet at a restaurant, I would initially propose restaurants I like. “Do you want to eat at Buffalo Wild Wings?” I would not propose Wendy’s (for example) because I don’t particularly care for their food.

Simply by listening to what restaurants I propose—you would learn what restaurants I like. Obviously, our interaction would provide me information about the other person (“No, I don’t like spicy food”) narrowing our choices and giving me more data.

Or if I was attempting to motivate you, I might first offer money (demonstrating I find money to be a powerful motivating factor) or sex (demonstrating I find sex to be a powerful motivating factor), etc. I often find, in divorce matters, those who accuse others, without any evidence, of infidelity are either contemplating it or engaging in it already. What they accuse others is demonstrative of what they are thinking themselves. “If I want to have an affair,” they are thinking, “presumably the only reason my spouse wants out of the marriage is that they want to have an affair.”

You may be aware the US Supreme Court ruled a Law School can withhold official status to a Christian student organization because the organization discriminated against others based upon religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. The Christian organization required its members to sign a statement of faith and refrain from sexual activity, specifically homosexual activity. The Law School allowed the group to meet (and even provided facilities) but would not grant it official status due to its exclusivity policy. The Student Organization sued. And lost.

Mike Adams wrote an article in Townhall (H/T toCamels with Hammers) with an intriguing response:

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group's fundamental beliefs.

So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

I agree with the general reaction that most Secular groups would welcome Christians joining and would dramatically enjoy the interaction. But that wasn’t what struck me about this article.

It was the presumption that this would be hated by secular groups. That secular groups would fall in disarray, or be traumatized or forced to close up shop due to the “infiltration” of Christians. This says a great deal more about Mr. Adams and Christian organizations than it does about secular.

Apparently he believes if non-theists were allowed to join Christian gatherings, it would be so horrifying the Christian group would eventually fail. That non-theists absolutely, positively must be prevented from entering Christian sacred groups, because even a whiff of such theistic abstinence would cause the entire assemblage to crumble like a house of cards.

Therefore—because he is so terrified of allowing an atheist dare attend or [gasp!] join his Christian group—the secular group must equally be terrified.

One of the scariest—and pitiful—quotes from Mr. Adams: “I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.” How does one communicate with such a person? It amazed me at the time of my deconversion; it continues to amaze me. How many Christians are simply not interested in hearing alternative positions. They don’t want to know about possible contradictions in the New Testament texts. They don’t want to know scientific studies demonstrating evolution. They don’t want to hear any information, data, evidence, argument, point or iota about anything that in any way contradicts their preciously held belief.

They vehemently do not seek robust debate. They desire one thing only—the elimination of the non-theist. Either through conversion to their belief, OR destruction by judgment. There is no ground to allow the non-theist. (Humorously, they presume the non-theist feels the same way about them, and therefore presume there really is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy bringing all of its resources to bear to prevent them from receiving a tax deduction for their weekly $5 tithe.)

Now it is possible (I don’t know Mike Adams) this was written as satire. The point remains the same, he is still claiming this is his perception of secular groups, based upon his own underpinnings of fear.

Here is the point: There is no gain in discussing with the Mike Adams of the world. And there are a lot of them. We can be aware there are lurkers, wondering what our response would be, and reply appropriately, but for the vast majority they have no desire to have their beliefs pushed or prodded in any way.

And the easiest way to do that is bar the pushers and prodders at the door.

Happy Anniversary!

2010-07-01T12:00:00.001-04:00

I am sure all are celebrating by bringing out your favorite cassettes and foam headphones. Grabbing a set of new batteries and jogging around the block.

Right?

For as we all know, it has been exactly 31 years since Sony introduced the iconic Walkman. Hail, hail to the mobile player that binds them all.

31 years. It amazes how much has changed in such a short period. In this one corner of consumerism, we watched an evolution from cassettes to CD’s to Mp3 players. (With a side-branch of personal DVD players.) The ubiquitous term “Walkman” (as in “Did you bring a Walkman?” meaning any personal cassette player or CD player) has transformed to “iPod.” Cassettes briefly battled CDs, that only reigned a short time before entering their own battle with digital downloads.

31 years. Teaching us change is inevitable, the only question being how we role with that change. We can expect it. No one (that I know) is proclaiming the benefits of ancient technology as being better; no one is claiming we need to “get back” to Sony’s intentions with its original Walkman. Bring back re-usable batteries and gangly headphones.

We progress, and adapt with the progression. Celebrate it—it is the defining reason our evolved species has made it this far.

As you probably know, vandals painted the words ”Under God with an arrow” on a Billboard in North Carolina that said, “One Nation, Indivisible.” A number of comments under the Yahoo news cite whined about non-theists who wanted to “change” the Pledge.

Didn’t they know the Pledge has been modified a number of times since the original writing in 1891? Short history on the Pledge to the American Flag.

Change happens. It was changed in the 1950’s to add “under God”—we desire to change it back. What is so surprising about that?

I find it fascinating many of the same people who extol what they claim America’s Founders did in establishing American, and how it should never, EVER be changed…are the some ones who fully embrace and adulate the change in the Pledge from the original author. Which is it—do they like change or not?