Close-Minded Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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?

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

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?”