Death of James the Disciple

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 [Note, this king’s name was “Agrippa” and the other historical documents refer to him as such.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?