We often see the claim, ”If the New Testament is not reliable history that we can trust, then no ancient history can be trusted.” Understand when the apologist makes the claim, it is a dichotomous hyperbole where either every single fact within the New Testament (including the miracles) must be accepted as fully historical OR not a single fact is true, and therefore all histories of any sort must likewise be false.
There is no consideration for the possible alternative that some facts are historical (Pilate, Herod, even a traveling Rabbi named Jesus) and some are mythological (walking on water, clearing the temple, Slaughter of the Innocents).
There is a simple response to this claim.
Remember this joke?
A man walks up to a beautiful woman and asks, “Would you have sex with me for One million dollars?”
“Yes!” she exclaims.
“How about for $5?” the man replies.
“No way! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
“Ma’am, we’ve already established that. All we’re doing now is negotiating price.”
I feel the same way with this claim. The Christian apologist equally agrees certain documents are not historical regarding Jesus’ sayings and life—all we really are doing is haggling over method.
The Infancy Gospel of James claims Mary, Mother of Jesus, was born out of Immaculate Conception. (No male involved.) Was this historical?
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas records an incident when Jesus, as a child, was bumped by another child. Jesus, of course, miraculously struck the child dead. The parents, understandably vexed, complained to Joseph, whereupon Jesus blinded them. Is this historical?
Josephus records a star in the shape of a sword over Jerusalem before it fell. A comet that lasted a whole year. Mysterious light, a cow giving birth to a lamb, doors opening on their own, strange voices and earthquakes. Were these historical?
Joseph Smith saw Jesus; the Gospel of Philip implies Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ paramour. Historical?
See, at some point every historian—every person—reaches a point of exclaiming, “That is not true. Didn’t happen.” Like the joke…we’ve established some stories (including stories about Jesus) are not historical. All we’re doing now is haggling over method—over how to determine which stories are historical and which are myth.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Good Evidence?
The more one studies the New Testament documents and early church history, it seems the less precise statements we can make; the less certainty we have. I like to put up blog entries in manageable sizes, while giving credence to various countering positions. Yet many times I find if I gave voice to every possible position, my footnotes would have footnotes! I would be forced to write, “but consider this…but consider that…but consider this other thing as well.”
For one minor example: my entry on Peter’s death mentioned 1 Clement being written in 95 C.E. I let it go at that…yet if I was more precise I would note the date is uncertain. We utilize 95 C.E. because the book starts off referring to certain calamities happening in Rome, and some scholars presume this refers to the Domitian (Roman Emperor from 81 – 96 CE) persecution of Christians.
However, there are problems with this dating. First, 1 Clement does not indicate what the calamities are, let alone a persecution initiated by the Emperor. Second, we have no contemporary evidence regarding any such persecution by Domitian; primarily relying up Eusebius 200 years later. Third, even Eusebius’ account does not necessarily indicate a persecution against Christianity.
Now (here is where one’s footnotes get footnotes) it should be mentioned Tertullian (writing around 200 CE, or about 100 years later) also refers to a persecution by Domitian, yet indicates it was brief, and the Emperor restored those he had banished. In order to get 1 Clement written during the appropriate time, we would need to place it within this short, undetermined period.
BUT…(see where one gets footnotes on footnotes on footnotes?) Tertullian also mentions that Peter ordained 1 Clement, meaning we would need to determine the date when this occurred to accurately date both Peter’s death and when 1 Clement could have been written.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Clement is the second or third Bishop of Rome, after Peter, let alone what date he could have been ordained by Peter, leaving us in yet another debate over when this occurred. (And, might I add, completely destroying the original idea that Peter died under Nero’s reign in 62 – 62 CE!)
Oh, did I mention 1 Clement doesn’t self-identify its own authorship? This is all presuming Clement wrote this book, and now we would need to go off on yet another rabbit trail, explaining when this book traditionally was attributed to Clement! (And dare I mention the Greek word for whether Peter was martyred or not is also in contention? Gasp—another rabbit trail.)
All that (and more) to merely support one line in one blog entry. Dr. Carrier admirably goes through a much longer and similar exercise on the minor issue regarding the last possible date Matthew’s Gospel was written. I recommend the read to demonstrate how broad the possibilities are on even the trivial details.
If you begin any study—be it authorship, or dating, or contents—within this field, you will quickly discover books and books and articles supporting about any position possible. Matthew the disciple was the author of the Gospel. We don’t know who the author was. It was another disciple. It was a Christian. A Jewish Christian. A Hellenized Christian. A Greek. A forgery. It was the first gospel written, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth. It was written in Greek. No Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Written as early as the 30’s CE. As late as the 300’s. Yes, I realize some theories are less probable than others—yet the claims are out there to be explored!
I bring this all out to demonstrate how malleable and indistinct the evidence we have for what events transpired in First Century Palestine. As non-Christians we are often asked, “Well what evidence would you need to believe Jesus was raised from the dead?” (Often in a dismissive tone as if we have placed a standard so high we would only accept it if recorded in video. High-Definition Video. With Danish subtitles.)
The answer is simple: Better evidence than what we have now.
Why must every claim be permeated with possibilities? Even Christians argue amongst themselves as to who wrote what when. As to what the ending of Mark should/could/would be. As to whether this section, paragraph or word was in the original writing. As to what is historical and what is legendary.
How about Matthew starting off, “A Gospel of Matthew, Disciple of Jesus, written in the second year of Nero’s reign”? See how simple that would be to eliminate confusion? How about Paul dating his letters? Or identifying when he was using a secretary?
Yes, I am sure there may still be problems. But at least some could be reduced! Or having the early church fathers indicate when they are quoting from a Gospel. (And the gospels indicate when they are copying from each other.)
What I often see occur, in these discussions, is the Christian apologist having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion. Want 1 Clement to be written in 95 C.E.? Indicate Eusebius and Tertullian wrote on a Domitian persecution, claim 1 Clement is referring to this event and voila—you have a 95 CE date. But if you look at the evidence first--without a pre-ordained conclusion--such dating disintegrates into a range of possibilities.
This is why the exchange breaks down. The Christian apologist thinks the evidence is clear 1 Clement was written 95 C.E. and only a dunderhead could think otherwise; the skeptic reviews all the evidence and remains unconvinced.
What would have been the problem with including authors & dates in these documents? Why is asking what would be normal and standard in any other historical document too much to ask in the supposed greatest historical documents of them all? What is so surprising we skeptics question the viability when we would do so in any other documents with the same lack of precision?
At what point does it become obvious this is a botched human creation?
For one minor example: my entry on Peter’s death mentioned 1 Clement being written in 95 C.E. I let it go at that…yet if I was more precise I would note the date is uncertain. We utilize 95 C.E. because the book starts off referring to certain calamities happening in Rome, and some scholars presume this refers to the Domitian (Roman Emperor from 81 – 96 CE) persecution of Christians.
However, there are problems with this dating. First, 1 Clement does not indicate what the calamities are, let alone a persecution initiated by the Emperor. Second, we have no contemporary evidence regarding any such persecution by Domitian; primarily relying up Eusebius 200 years later. Third, even Eusebius’ account does not necessarily indicate a persecution against Christianity.
Now (here is where one’s footnotes get footnotes) it should be mentioned Tertullian (writing around 200 CE, or about 100 years later) also refers to a persecution by Domitian, yet indicates it was brief, and the Emperor restored those he had banished. In order to get 1 Clement written during the appropriate time, we would need to place it within this short, undetermined period.
BUT…(see where one gets footnotes on footnotes on footnotes?) Tertullian also mentions that Peter ordained 1 Clement, meaning we would need to determine the date when this occurred to accurately date both Peter’s death and when 1 Clement could have been written.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Clement is the second or third Bishop of Rome, after Peter, let alone what date he could have been ordained by Peter, leaving us in yet another debate over when this occurred. (And, might I add, completely destroying the original idea that Peter died under Nero’s reign in 62 – 62 CE!)
Oh, did I mention 1 Clement doesn’t self-identify its own authorship? This is all presuming Clement wrote this book, and now we would need to go off on yet another rabbit trail, explaining when this book traditionally was attributed to Clement! (And dare I mention the Greek word for whether Peter was martyred or not is also in contention? Gasp—another rabbit trail.)
All that (and more) to merely support one line in one blog entry. Dr. Carrier admirably goes through a much longer and similar exercise on the minor issue regarding the last possible date Matthew’s Gospel was written. I recommend the read to demonstrate how broad the possibilities are on even the trivial details.
If you begin any study—be it authorship, or dating, or contents—within this field, you will quickly discover books and books and articles supporting about any position possible. Matthew the disciple was the author of the Gospel. We don’t know who the author was. It was another disciple. It was a Christian. A Jewish Christian. A Hellenized Christian. A Greek. A forgery. It was the first gospel written, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth. It was written in Greek. No Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Written as early as the 30’s CE. As late as the 300’s. Yes, I realize some theories are less probable than others—yet the claims are out there to be explored!
I bring this all out to demonstrate how malleable and indistinct the evidence we have for what events transpired in First Century Palestine. As non-Christians we are often asked, “Well what evidence would you need to believe Jesus was raised from the dead?” (Often in a dismissive tone as if we have placed a standard so high we would only accept it if recorded in video. High-Definition Video. With Danish subtitles.)
The answer is simple: Better evidence than what we have now.
Why must every claim be permeated with possibilities? Even Christians argue amongst themselves as to who wrote what when. As to what the ending of Mark should/could/would be. As to whether this section, paragraph or word was in the original writing. As to what is historical and what is legendary.
How about Matthew starting off, “A Gospel of Matthew, Disciple of Jesus, written in the second year of Nero’s reign”? See how simple that would be to eliminate confusion? How about Paul dating his letters? Or identifying when he was using a secretary?
Yes, I am sure there may still be problems. But at least some could be reduced! Or having the early church fathers indicate when they are quoting from a Gospel. (And the gospels indicate when they are copying from each other.)
What I often see occur, in these discussions, is the Christian apologist having a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion. Want 1 Clement to be written in 95 C.E.? Indicate Eusebius and Tertullian wrote on a Domitian persecution, claim 1 Clement is referring to this event and voila—you have a 95 CE date. But if you look at the evidence first--without a pre-ordained conclusion--such dating disintegrates into a range of possibilities.
This is why the exchange breaks down. The Christian apologist thinks the evidence is clear 1 Clement was written 95 C.E. and only a dunderhead could think otherwise; the skeptic reviews all the evidence and remains unconvinced.
What would have been the problem with including authors & dates in these documents? Why is asking what would be normal and standard in any other historical document too much to ask in the supposed greatest historical documents of them all? What is so surprising we skeptics question the viability when we would do so in any other documents with the same lack of precision?
At what point does it become obvious this is a botched human creation?
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
1st Corinthians 15 is not a fact
I recently listened to the debate with Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Richard Carrier on Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? This followed what I call the “Habermas” approach, regarding the Minimal facts position.
Dr. Licona’s reliance solely on 1 Cor. 15:3-8 in his opening statement was slightly surprising. Indeed, he indicated he was deliberately not relying upon any of the Gospels. The only “facts” he used was this small passage. (I put “facts” in quotes for a reason to be revealed shortly.) He then demanded Dr. Carrier provide a counter-factual to explain these “facts” that is more historically plausible than Jesus being resurrected.
A little background, in case the reader is not familiar with this use of 1 Cor. 15. Around 50 C.E., Paul was writing to the church in Corinth regarding certain problems in the church. How to effectively coordinate speaking in tongues, (1 Cor. 14:5-39), what to do with women in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), etc. An issue confronted was congregants saying there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul uses Jesus’ resurrection as an example and in doing so, cites a creed Paul had previously personally provided to the Corinthians:
Dr. Licona followed the formulaic Christian apologetic by claiming Jesus died in 30 CE, “most scholars” believe Paul was converted within 3 years and “it is likely” Paul received this information from Peter and James upon visiting Jerusalem after the conversion approximately 3 years later, or 36 CE at the latest. (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19) This formula is designed to make the creed seem very early indeed.
A minor tangent regarding the dating. First, we don’t know when Jesus died, (there is controversy regarding whether he died on a Friday before the Passover, or a Friday that was a Passover, meaning it would be a different year.) Second, we don’t know when Paul was converted. Thirdly, we don’t know who Paul obtained this creed from. Even granting Dr. Licona’s “most scholars” and “it is likely” it is a matter of speculation regarding when Paul received this. And, the earliest Paul could have received it was 40 C.E.; to conform to the chronology required by 2 Cor. 11:32, Gal. 1:17-18 and Acts 9:23-29.
So what is the “fact” we are dealing with? An example for clarification…imagine a criminal trial. The prosecution has presented evidence showing the defendant’s fingerprints on the gun, eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene, and a written confession by the defendant. Now the prosecution puts up their first witness: the Defendant’s mother. She testifies, “My son was with me watching Jeopardy at the time.”
Is the presented “fact” that defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time of the crime? No—a thousand times, No! The fact is: “Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” See the difference?
“Defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
“Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
If the jury, in our example, convicted the Defendant, we would not demand they come up with an explanation for how the Defendant could possibly be watching Jeopardy at the same time the crime was committed, and demand they come up with a plausible explanation for him crossing town at a commercial break or some other such nonsense. No, what we understand is that the jury sees a plausible explanation for why the Defendant’s mother testified to an alibi defense. She believes her son is innocent (because she is a mother) and has probably confused a day when they did watch television together. This is very plausible.
What bothered me about this debate was how Dr. Licona referred to these appearances in 1 Cor. 15 as “facts” where actuality, the fact is Paul is reporting he heard about these appearances. (Amusingly, this is worse than our situation with the Defendant’s mother. To more closely align it, we would have to state, “The Defendant’s mother heard from unknown persons that the defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” I hope you can see how this is even more tenuous a fact.)
Except the last claim--Jesus appearing to Paul (where every indication we have is that was a vision)—the other accounts are hearsay. The easiest and most plausible explanation is that these accounts were made up and passed on to Paul. No resurrection—no miracle—is necessary.
Think about it—creedal Christians are not scratching their heads trying to explain how Joseph Smith chanced upon golden plates buried for centuries. They don’t believe there were any plates in the first place! In a debate with a Mormon, a creedal Christian would not grant the “fact” of the Golden plates’ existence, simply because witnesses claimed to have seen them—they demand proof of the plates themselves.
In the same way, why should we (and why did Dr. Carrier) grant these appearances as having happened (albeit Dr. Carrier gives a possible explanation of group hallucination), simply because Dr. Licona calls them “facts”?
At the debate’s beginning, Dr. Licona gave an example of how a proposed explanation has “explanatory scope” by explaining all the facts at one’s disposal. He relayed an incident in his neighborhood where he heard sirens and emergency vehicles and made one postulation. Upon learning more facts (and learning his first guess was wrong) he made another guess. He went on about learning more facts, making more guesses and each time learning his previous speculation was incorrect.
I am bothered that this was not applied to the present situation. Shouldn’t we look to the other facts? What about the conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance. They have females not included in this creed. [Some apologists claim Paul didn’t include females due to their lack of credibility…but I thought he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed’s authors have something against females?]
The Gospels do not record any appearance to 500. The Gospels do not record an appearance to James—no other canonical book does. And who are the “apostles”? Are they different than the 500 and different than the Twelve?
What about the other accounts not mentioned that conflict with each other? The appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, whether it was in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth? In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which (if any) were accurate. Why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is, and the others are not?
It is also interesting that 1 Cor. 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day, “according to the scriptures.” Nothing about Jesus predicting his own resurrection in this—the earliest of creeds! Further, Jesus statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were apparently unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, could reach a point within 20 years where some followers did not believe in a physical resurrection?
I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances are “facts.” As if we have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No…all we have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation (they made it up) is far more plausible and probable than that Jesus DID actually rise from the dead.
Unless the creedal Christian is busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them…
Dr. Licona’s reliance solely on 1 Cor. 15:3-8 in his opening statement was slightly surprising. Indeed, he indicated he was deliberately not relying upon any of the Gospels. The only “facts” he used was this small passage. (I put “facts” in quotes for a reason to be revealed shortly.) He then demanded Dr. Carrier provide a counter-factual to explain these “facts” that is more historically plausible than Jesus being resurrected.
A little background, in case the reader is not familiar with this use of 1 Cor. 15. Around 50 C.E., Paul was writing to the church in Corinth regarding certain problems in the church. How to effectively coordinate speaking in tongues, (1 Cor. 14:5-39), what to do with women in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), etc. An issue confronted was congregants saying there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul uses Jesus’ resurrection as an example and in doing so, cites a creed Paul had previously personally provided to the Corinthians:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He was seen by Cephas,
then by the twelve.
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
After that He was seen by James,
then by all the apostles.
Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:3-8)
Dr. Licona followed the formulaic Christian apologetic by claiming Jesus died in 30 CE, “most scholars” believe Paul was converted within 3 years and “it is likely” Paul received this information from Peter and James upon visiting Jerusalem after the conversion approximately 3 years later, or 36 CE at the latest. (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19) This formula is designed to make the creed seem very early indeed.
A minor tangent regarding the dating. First, we don’t know when Jesus died, (there is controversy regarding whether he died on a Friday before the Passover, or a Friday that was a Passover, meaning it would be a different year.) Second, we don’t know when Paul was converted. Thirdly, we don’t know who Paul obtained this creed from. Even granting Dr. Licona’s “most scholars” and “it is likely” it is a matter of speculation regarding when Paul received this. And, the earliest Paul could have received it was 40 C.E.; to conform to the chronology required by 2 Cor. 11:32, Gal. 1:17-18 and Acts 9:23-29.
So what is the “fact” we are dealing with? An example for clarification…imagine a criminal trial. The prosecution has presented evidence showing the defendant’s fingerprints on the gun, eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene, and a written confession by the defendant. Now the prosecution puts up their first witness: the Defendant’s mother. She testifies, “My son was with me watching Jeopardy at the time.”
Is the presented “fact” that defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time of the crime? No—a thousand times, No! The fact is: “Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” See the difference?
“Defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
“Defendant’s mother testified defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.”
If the jury, in our example, convicted the Defendant, we would not demand they come up with an explanation for how the Defendant could possibly be watching Jeopardy at the same time the crime was committed, and demand they come up with a plausible explanation for him crossing town at a commercial break or some other such nonsense. No, what we understand is that the jury sees a plausible explanation for why the Defendant’s mother testified to an alibi defense. She believes her son is innocent (because she is a mother) and has probably confused a day when they did watch television together. This is very plausible.
What bothered me about this debate was how Dr. Licona referred to these appearances in 1 Cor. 15 as “facts” where actuality, the fact is Paul is reporting he heard about these appearances. (Amusingly, this is worse than our situation with the Defendant’s mother. To more closely align it, we would have to state, “The Defendant’s mother heard from unknown persons that the defendant was watching Jeopardy at the time.” I hope you can see how this is even more tenuous a fact.)
Except the last claim--Jesus appearing to Paul (where every indication we have is that was a vision)—the other accounts are hearsay. The easiest and most plausible explanation is that these accounts were made up and passed on to Paul. No resurrection—no miracle—is necessary.
Think about it—creedal Christians are not scratching their heads trying to explain how Joseph Smith chanced upon golden plates buried for centuries. They don’t believe there were any plates in the first place! In a debate with a Mormon, a creedal Christian would not grant the “fact” of the Golden plates’ existence, simply because witnesses claimed to have seen them—they demand proof of the plates themselves.
In the same way, why should we (and why did Dr. Carrier) grant these appearances as having happened (albeit Dr. Carrier gives a possible explanation of group hallucination), simply because Dr. Licona calls them “facts”?
At the debate’s beginning, Dr. Licona gave an example of how a proposed explanation has “explanatory scope” by explaining all the facts at one’s disposal. He relayed an incident in his neighborhood where he heard sirens and emergency vehicles and made one postulation. Upon learning more facts (and learning his first guess was wrong) he made another guess. He went on about learning more facts, making more guesses and each time learning his previous speculation was incorrect.
I am bothered that this was not applied to the present situation. Shouldn’t we look to the other facts? What about the conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance. They have females not included in this creed. [Some apologists claim Paul didn’t include females due to their lack of credibility…but I thought he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed’s authors have something against females?]
The Gospels do not record any appearance to 500. The Gospels do not record an appearance to James—no other canonical book does. And who are the “apostles”? Are they different than the 500 and different than the Twelve?
What about the other accounts not mentioned that conflict with each other? The appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, whether it was in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth? In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which (if any) were accurate. Why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is, and the others are not?
It is also interesting that 1 Cor. 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day, “according to the scriptures.” Nothing about Jesus predicting his own resurrection in this—the earliest of creeds! Further, Jesus statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were apparently unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, could reach a point within 20 years where some followers did not believe in a physical resurrection?
I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances are “facts.” As if we have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No…all we have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation (they made it up) is far more plausible and probable than that Jesus DID actually rise from the dead.
Unless the creedal Christian is busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them…
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Why Peter had to Die
Ask most Christians how Peter the Disciple died, and they will tell you he was crucified upside down during Nero’s reign, some time in the early 60’s C.E. Ask where they get that information from, and most will have no idea beyond “tradition.” It is curious they reject writings about Jesus generated after 125 C.E. as being “too late;” but accept a tale developed long after that when it comes to the myth of Peter’s martyrdom.
Let’s trace the legend development surrounding Peter’s death.
The last Gospel written (according to most scholars) was John. You may see dates ranging from 60 C.E. to 125 C.E., but most put it around 90-100 C.E. According to John 21:18, Jesus said to Peter: "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” The author followed up in vs 19, stating, “This He [Jesus] spoke, signifying by what death he [Peter] would glorify God....”
At the time of the writing, the author knows Peter is dead. This doesn’t help us much for three reasons: 1) because the broad range of John’s dating, it does not narrow down when Peter died, 2) because chapter 21 is likely to be incorporated from another writing (Note that John ends quite nicely at the end of Chapter 20, and Chapter 21 seems to be an appendage from another tale*) giving us even less reliability as to dating and 3) because the language is circumspect. This description could fit a variety of deaths, even natural death.
*Perhaps the Gospel of Peter.
Our second clue comes from 2 Peter 1:13 –15 where Peter talks of his imminent death. For those who hold Peter did not write this epistle (such as myself), this indicates it was written after he died. Of course, for those who hold it was written by Peter, they would claim this was written shortly before he expired. Regardless, this letter gives us no clues as to when or where it was written, nor any details regarding Peter’s death.
Our third clue comes from 1 Clement 5:4 which states, “Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labors, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.” The author is giving a list of noble examples from his generation, the first of which is Peter. “Delivering his testimony” is also translated
“having suffered martyrdom.”
Again, no details as to when, where, how or why are given. 1 Clement is traditionally dated around 95 C.E.
That’s it. Three documents, dated around 100 C.E. (+/- 10 years or so), all in agreement Peter is dead, none telling any details beyond that brute fact. To find the legend, we must journey along in time.
But first a minor digression for two important documents: The Martyrdom of Polycarp and Acts of Paul.
The Second Century saw numerous Christian writings, as well as the church grow into an established organization. Polycarp was a leader (the Bishop of Smyrna [a city on the coast in modern-day Turkey]) who was martyred around 150 C.E, as described in the Martydom of Polycarp.
According to this writing, Polycarp sees a vision where he prophecies his own death by fire. The leaders capture him and after allowing a two-hour prayer, take him into custody. They threaten Polycarp, cajoling him to recant Christianity. He does not, providing eloquent responses. They attempt to burn him alive, but the fire did not harm him, instead it gave off a pleasant fragrance, like spice. Failing this, an executioner stabbed Polycarp with a dagger, upon which a dove flew out of wound, and so much blood poured out it extinguished the fire!
The Christians preserved Polycarp’s bones.
While not a terribly remarkable book, one thing it DID do was set the standard regarding martyrdom. No longer were the brief descriptions of John or 1 Clement satisfactory. Just as Hollywood demands greater stunts, larger actors and more poignant speeches—martyrdoms now required all the trappings of Polycarp…and more.
In the latter part of the Second Century (150 – 200 C.E.), an unknown author penned the Acts of Paul. (Tertullian says it is a forgery from a priest.) The book covers events regarding a woman named Thecla and her interactions with Paul. For our purposes, we will focus on the attempted executions.
The first attempt indicates Thecla was sentenced to death by fire. However, when attempted the fire did not burn her (sound like Polycarp?), and a rain appeared, putting out the fire. Now Thecla gets in trouble again, because some fellow lusted after her, and she refuses his advances in order to protect her chastity. (This is a reoccurring theme throughout Acts of Paul how sex is bad, but men were continually lusting after women. This will come up later.)
This time they tried to kill her with beasts. When they set a lioness upon her, the lioness refused to kill her, but rather licked Thecla’s feet. The next occasion of Thecla’s attempted execution by beasts, the same event occurred. Perhaps the same lioness. This time, the leaders fired off a bear, too, but the lioness killed the bear. Then they let fly a lion; but the lioness killed the lion too. The government (not giving up) sent beast after beast, to no avail. Eventually Thecla got bored so she jumped into a tank of water and seals (with freaking laser beams!**). Instead of being killed by seals, a flash of light killed all the seals, leaving Thecla untouched. (Luckily a wall of fire appeared, preventing the crowd from seeing her naked.)
**O.K. no laser beams
One more try is made with bulls tearing her apart, but this also fails. They give up and she lives to a very old age (90.)
Now Acts of Paul takes up Paul’s story. It recounts the tale of leaders setting a lion upon Paul, but the lion refused to kill him, instead lying down at his feet. (Like Thecla’s story.) Other beasts were sent at Paul, and the lion protected him. (Sound familiar?)
Eventually Paul confronts Nero himself, and gives an eloquent speech. Nero orders Paul beheaded. Paul gives another speech, willingly stretches out his head, and is beheaded. Miraculously, milk spurts out. Paul makes two (2) post-death appearances. One to Nero, who is so bothered by it, he frees all the Christians in captivity. Another to the two Centurions, who are converted to Christianity.
In the latter Second Century, we see these glorified martyrdom stories.
Time to return back to Peter, specifically the Acts of Peter written 150 – 200 C.E. Most of what we have in the book revolves around Peter’s confrontation with Simon the Magician. We have various long-winded speeches, a talking dog, a resurrected herring, statute miraculously destroyed by kicking, statute miraculously restored by water, and a contest over who can resurrect the dead. All your typical Second Century wonder-working tales.
Eventually the tale moves to Rome, where Peter convinces four of Agrippa’s concubines to stop having sex with Agrippa***. (Told you sex would come back up.) This causes Agrippa grief. Then Peter convinces Albinus’s (Presumably Procurator of Judea) wife to stop having sex with him.
***You may be thinking this is King Herod Agrippa from Acts of the Apostles, however the timing is wrong, as King Agrippa died in 44 C.E.
Peter then convinced many other women to leave their husbands, to live in a state of chastity to worship God. Understandably—there was trouble! Albinus’ wife warns Peter to flee Rome, but as Peter is fleeing he sees a vision of Jesus.
Peter: Where you going, Jesus?
Jesus: I am going to Rome to be crucified.
Peter: Again?
Jesus: Yep, again.
Peter: Let me go in your place.
So Peter returns to his doom. Agrippa condemns him to be crucified, and Peter asks to be crucified upside down. Peter says he will tell them why, once they do it. Obligingly, the Romans crucify him upside down, and Peter goes into a long litany—basically saying because the first human was born with his head downward, and Peter was a human, it is appropriate that he be crucified in the same position.
Peter dies, and gives two (2) post-death appearances, one to Nero. When Nero learned Peter is killed by Agrippa, Nero is mad (and doesn’t speak to Agrippa for a long time) because Nero wanted to kill Peter. Instead Nero takes his anger out on the other Christians, Peter appears and tells him to stop, so Nero does. (Why does this sound so familiar?)
As a postscript, Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third Century (200 – 222 C.E.) proclaims the Acts of Paul as being a forgery, yet indicates Paul is beheaded and Peter was crucified in The Prescription of Heretics. It is unclear where Tertullian obtained the information about Paul, other than a document he claimed was a forgery. It would seem he accepted, at least, the claims of both Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter surrounding their deaths, even knowing at least Acts of Paul was completely made up!
So…
The next time someone tells you, “The Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” you can reply, “All I know is that Peter died because he was convincing wives not to have sex with their husbands which made the husbands mad, so he ran away; but then he ran into Jesus who was on His way to be crucified again in Rome, so Peter offered to take His place, insisting on being crucified upside down because that is how Cain was born.”
Let’s trace the legend development surrounding Peter’s death.
The last Gospel written (according to most scholars) was John. You may see dates ranging from 60 C.E. to 125 C.E., but most put it around 90-100 C.E. According to John 21:18, Jesus said to Peter: "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” The author followed up in vs 19, stating, “This He [Jesus] spoke, signifying by what death he [Peter] would glorify God....”
At the time of the writing, the author knows Peter is dead. This doesn’t help us much for three reasons: 1) because the broad range of John’s dating, it does not narrow down when Peter died, 2) because chapter 21 is likely to be incorporated from another writing (Note that John ends quite nicely at the end of Chapter 20, and Chapter 21 seems to be an appendage from another tale*) giving us even less reliability as to dating and 3) because the language is circumspect. This description could fit a variety of deaths, even natural death.
*Perhaps the Gospel of Peter.
Our second clue comes from 2 Peter 1:13 –15 where Peter talks of his imminent death. For those who hold Peter did not write this epistle (such as myself), this indicates it was written after he died. Of course, for those who hold it was written by Peter, they would claim this was written shortly before he expired. Regardless, this letter gives us no clues as to when or where it was written, nor any details regarding Peter’s death.
Our third clue comes from 1 Clement 5:4 which states, “Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labors, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.” The author is giving a list of noble examples from his generation, the first of which is Peter. “Delivering his testimony” is also translated
“having suffered martyrdom.”
Again, no details as to when, where, how or why are given. 1 Clement is traditionally dated around 95 C.E.
That’s it. Three documents, dated around 100 C.E. (+/- 10 years or so), all in agreement Peter is dead, none telling any details beyond that brute fact. To find the legend, we must journey along in time.
But first a minor digression for two important documents: The Martyrdom of Polycarp and Acts of Paul.
The Second Century saw numerous Christian writings, as well as the church grow into an established organization. Polycarp was a leader (the Bishop of Smyrna [a city on the coast in modern-day Turkey]) who was martyred around 150 C.E, as described in the Martydom of Polycarp.
According to this writing, Polycarp sees a vision where he prophecies his own death by fire. The leaders capture him and after allowing a two-hour prayer, take him into custody. They threaten Polycarp, cajoling him to recant Christianity. He does not, providing eloquent responses. They attempt to burn him alive, but the fire did not harm him, instead it gave off a pleasant fragrance, like spice. Failing this, an executioner stabbed Polycarp with a dagger, upon which a dove flew out of wound, and so much blood poured out it extinguished the fire!
The Christians preserved Polycarp’s bones.
While not a terribly remarkable book, one thing it DID do was set the standard regarding martyrdom. No longer were the brief descriptions of John or 1 Clement satisfactory. Just as Hollywood demands greater stunts, larger actors and more poignant speeches—martyrdoms now required all the trappings of Polycarp…and more.
In the latter part of the Second Century (150 – 200 C.E.), an unknown author penned the Acts of Paul. (Tertullian says it is a forgery from a priest.) The book covers events regarding a woman named Thecla and her interactions with Paul. For our purposes, we will focus on the attempted executions.
The first attempt indicates Thecla was sentenced to death by fire. However, when attempted the fire did not burn her (sound like Polycarp?), and a rain appeared, putting out the fire. Now Thecla gets in trouble again, because some fellow lusted after her, and she refuses his advances in order to protect her chastity. (This is a reoccurring theme throughout Acts of Paul how sex is bad, but men were continually lusting after women. This will come up later.)
This time they tried to kill her with beasts. When they set a lioness upon her, the lioness refused to kill her, but rather licked Thecla’s feet. The next occasion of Thecla’s attempted execution by beasts, the same event occurred. Perhaps the same lioness. This time, the leaders fired off a bear, too, but the lioness killed the bear. Then they let fly a lion; but the lioness killed the lion too. The government (not giving up) sent beast after beast, to no avail. Eventually Thecla got bored so she jumped into a tank of water and seals (with freaking laser beams!**). Instead of being killed by seals, a flash of light killed all the seals, leaving Thecla untouched. (Luckily a wall of fire appeared, preventing the crowd from seeing her naked.)
**O.K. no laser beams
One more try is made with bulls tearing her apart, but this also fails. They give up and she lives to a very old age (90.)
Now Acts of Paul takes up Paul’s story. It recounts the tale of leaders setting a lion upon Paul, but the lion refused to kill him, instead lying down at his feet. (Like Thecla’s story.) Other beasts were sent at Paul, and the lion protected him. (Sound familiar?)
Eventually Paul confronts Nero himself, and gives an eloquent speech. Nero orders Paul beheaded. Paul gives another speech, willingly stretches out his head, and is beheaded. Miraculously, milk spurts out. Paul makes two (2) post-death appearances. One to Nero, who is so bothered by it, he frees all the Christians in captivity. Another to the two Centurions, who are converted to Christianity.
In the latter Second Century, we see these glorified martyrdom stories.
Time to return back to Peter, specifically the Acts of Peter written 150 – 200 C.E. Most of what we have in the book revolves around Peter’s confrontation with Simon the Magician. We have various long-winded speeches, a talking dog, a resurrected herring, statute miraculously destroyed by kicking, statute miraculously restored by water, and a contest over who can resurrect the dead. All your typical Second Century wonder-working tales.
Eventually the tale moves to Rome, where Peter convinces four of Agrippa’s concubines to stop having sex with Agrippa***. (Told you sex would come back up.) This causes Agrippa grief. Then Peter convinces Albinus’s (Presumably Procurator of Judea) wife to stop having sex with him.
***You may be thinking this is King Herod Agrippa from Acts of the Apostles, however the timing is wrong, as King Agrippa died in 44 C.E.
Peter then convinced many other women to leave their husbands, to live in a state of chastity to worship God. Understandably—there was trouble! Albinus’ wife warns Peter to flee Rome, but as Peter is fleeing he sees a vision of Jesus.
Peter: Where you going, Jesus?
Jesus: I am going to Rome to be crucified.
Peter: Again?
Jesus: Yep, again.
Peter: Let me go in your place.
So Peter returns to his doom. Agrippa condemns him to be crucified, and Peter asks to be crucified upside down. Peter says he will tell them why, once they do it. Obligingly, the Romans crucify him upside down, and Peter goes into a long litany—basically saying because the first human was born with his head downward, and Peter was a human, it is appropriate that he be crucified in the same position.
Peter dies, and gives two (2) post-death appearances, one to Nero. When Nero learned Peter is killed by Agrippa, Nero is mad (and doesn’t speak to Agrippa for a long time) because Nero wanted to kill Peter. Instead Nero takes his anger out on the other Christians, Peter appears and tells him to stop, so Nero does. (Why does this sound so familiar?)
As a postscript, Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third Century (200 – 222 C.E.) proclaims the Acts of Paul as being a forgery, yet indicates Paul is beheaded and Peter was crucified in The Prescription of Heretics. It is unclear where Tertullian obtained the information about Paul, other than a document he claimed was a forgery. It would seem he accepted, at least, the claims of both Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter surrounding their deaths, even knowing at least Acts of Paul was completely made up!
So…
The next time someone tells you, “The Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” you can reply, “All I know is that Peter died because he was convincing wives not to have sex with their husbands which made the husbands mad, so he ran away; but then he ran into Jesus who was on His way to be crucified again in Rome, so Peter offered to take His place, insisting on being crucified upside down because that is how Cain was born.”
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Money Quote
Justice Stevens in the dissent:
PDF of the Mojave Desert Cross Supreme Court Decision.
Making a plain, unadorned Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular. It makes the war memorial sectarian.
PDF of the Mojave Desert Cross Supreme Court Decision.
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Duck Talks
We’ve all had them--the co-worker from hell. Perhaps it was the woman who seemed to have an endless supply of children; all selling something for their band trip, or scout troop, or soccer team…Each week brought in a new kiosk where you felt the subtle, yet substantial obligation to purchase yet more cookies or popcorn or candy or stationery or bedazzle kit. Otherwise their miserable little beast will be forever deprived of the awesomeness that is band camp. If only you had bought one more candle…
Or the co-worker you dare not mention certain topics when near-by.
“This problem is pale in comparison to—“
“Palin! Did you say PALIN!! Eww…I hate that woman! Do you know what she said last week? Let me tell you in miniscule detail, and everything that could possibly be wrong with it.”
The boss that brings in their 17-year-old son to “intern” for the summer. The man who wears so much cologne, you rush to the smoker’s break room for “clean air.” The guy who calls in sick most Mondays. And every Friday in the summer.
Because you and I have had such co-workers; we can anticipate most jurors have as well. What would the average juror think regarding the Coppedge lawsuit?
See, this is what I have to think about every time I take a client. Not just what they are saying, and how wonderful the case appears from my client’s perspective—but what will the opposing party claim? What will a neutral determinator—the jury—think is more feasible? This is why I prefer my methodology--not what you “think” or I “feel.” How would a neutral determine based upon all of our arguments?
From the facts I have now—I think the Coppedge case is a loser. Oh sure, it makes great press releases, and sounds wonderful to the choir. They will lap it up. But as a lawyer, representing a client, I would tell them it isn’t worth the effort.
The first amendment (“freedom of speech”) would not sustain a motion to dismiss. The employer was not a state-actor, and employers are allowed to limit employee speech. The only real question is whether Mr. Coppedge was discriminated against for religious beliefs. Assuming his supervisor did claim this promotion of ID amounted to “pushing religion”—the inquiry does not end there. Apparently under California Law religious proselytizing can be limited. The key question is whether the conduct “imposes personally and directly on fellow employees, invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives.” Chalmers v Tulon Co of Richmond 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996)
[If you think about it, this makes sense. Coppedge is in a supervisory position. If he pushes what appears to be religion on a subordinate, and his superiors take no action, JPL could be sued for religious discrimination by Coppedge’s subordinate! The employer is between a rock and a hard place—do nothing and Coppedge’s underlings could sue. Stop him and he sues.]
We see where the line is drawn—we now can anticipate the arguments from each side. Coppedge will attempt to paint himself as only talking to others after they first talked to him. That he only talked to them after hours, in the most minimal manner possible. That as soon as anyone indicated they were not interested in his ideas, he immediately withdrew and never, ever raised it again.
JLP, the employer will portray Coppedge as being insistent with co-workers, being pushy, repeating ID around everyone regardless of how they felt. That he invaded their privacy. Simply put, they will attempt to portray him as the employee from ID-Hell.
No surprise, even William Becker (Coppedge’s attorney) sees this coming.
Podcast with Coppedge’s attorney. [Warning; it starts to play as soon as you click on it.]
Lovely depiction, and exactly what a lawyer would do—express his client in the best possible light.
But lawsuits don’t end there. They don’t end with mild-mannered David on the stand, and then the jury decides. The employer will also provide proofs.
One thing that would bother me (if I was investigating taking Coppedge’s case) was that human resources did an investigation, interviewed him (where he admitted engaging in these conversations at work) and talked with other employees. According to Plaintiff’s own complaint, human resources found out other employees considered this “pushing religion” and “disruptive” and “unwelcome.” Dangerously close to imposing on co-workers and invading their privacy!
Of course Plaintiff will testify no employee every complained directly to him. What is wrong with that? Think back to YOUR co-worker from hell. Did you complain directly to them? Did you march right up and say, “Enough of the Palin-talk.” Or “Use 1/10 of the cologne, buddy!” Nope, most times you grinned and bore it with your other co-workers. Perhaps subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints were sent. We all can picture:
David Coppedge: Did you see that show on Evolution last night?
Co-worker: [thinking “not again!”] Mmm—mm must have missed it.
David Coppedge: Funny how they never show problems with the theory.
Co-Worker: Gee…look at the time! Time to rotate the coffee filters.
Coppedge walks away thinking, “They didn’t tell me to stop!” The co-worker walks away and thinks, “What a jerk.”
What are the chances the employer will produce such a witness? A co-worker who says it was unwelcome. Remember—they only need one!
Obviously I don’t know—I have absolutely no insight into the employee files at JPL. I know what I would point out. David Coppedge is on the board of Directors for Illustra Media-- the publisher of the very DVD’s he was handing out, including ”Unlocking the Mystery of Life” This is a guy who is interested in Intelligent Design. I would point out the numerous articles David Coppedge has written on ID. I would point out discussions he has had (as I mentioned in my last blog entry) with those opposed to ID.
See, here’s where the neutral party may question the situation. On the one hand we have a Plaintiff who is suing for money and sits there all mild-mannerly, claiming he would never be pushy about his belief. On the other hand, we see a guy who (and he has every right) composes article after article on ID, engages others, and sits on the board that produces the DVD’s he is handing out. As these articles came in evidence—over and over—it will be more difficult for a juror to believe he would walk away from a conversation on ID the instant someone indicated they were not interested.
We have an employer who will very, VERY likely produce at least one employee who will testify Coppedge’s statements were unwelcome, but they did not feel comfortable approaching their supervisor about it. (Too many people investigated the matter and came to that conclusion.) That indicated they took the DVD out of politeness and later threw it away.
And I have jurors who have experienced co-workers from hell.
Yep. Jurors like that.
This lawsuit will serve ID interests, as it is great press release, already stirring up those who believe it in. It will serve the attorney—he gets more advertisement. It will not serve the client—David Coppedge.
Or the co-worker you dare not mention certain topics when near-by.
“This problem is pale in comparison to—“
“Palin! Did you say PALIN!! Eww…I hate that woman! Do you know what she said last week? Let me tell you in miniscule detail, and everything that could possibly be wrong with it.”
The boss that brings in their 17-year-old son to “intern” for the summer. The man who wears so much cologne, you rush to the smoker’s break room for “clean air.” The guy who calls in sick most Mondays. And every Friday in the summer.
Because you and I have had such co-workers; we can anticipate most jurors have as well. What would the average juror think regarding the Coppedge lawsuit?
See, this is what I have to think about every time I take a client. Not just what they are saying, and how wonderful the case appears from my client’s perspective—but what will the opposing party claim? What will a neutral determinator—the jury—think is more feasible? This is why I prefer my methodology--not what you “think” or I “feel.” How would a neutral determine based upon all of our arguments?
From the facts I have now—I think the Coppedge case is a loser. Oh sure, it makes great press releases, and sounds wonderful to the choir. They will lap it up. But as a lawyer, representing a client, I would tell them it isn’t worth the effort.
The first amendment (“freedom of speech”) would not sustain a motion to dismiss. The employer was not a state-actor, and employers are allowed to limit employee speech. The only real question is whether Mr. Coppedge was discriminated against for religious beliefs. Assuming his supervisor did claim this promotion of ID amounted to “pushing religion”—the inquiry does not end there. Apparently under California Law religious proselytizing can be limited. The key question is whether the conduct “imposes personally and directly on fellow employees, invading their privacy and criticizing their personal lives.” Chalmers v Tulon Co of Richmond 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996)
[If you think about it, this makes sense. Coppedge is in a supervisory position. If he pushes what appears to be religion on a subordinate, and his superiors take no action, JPL could be sued for religious discrimination by Coppedge’s subordinate! The employer is between a rock and a hard place—do nothing and Coppedge’s underlings could sue. Stop him and he sues.]
We see where the line is drawn—we now can anticipate the arguments from each side. Coppedge will attempt to paint himself as only talking to others after they first talked to him. That he only talked to them after hours, in the most minimal manner possible. That as soon as anyone indicated they were not interested in his ideas, he immediately withdrew and never, ever raised it again.
JLP, the employer will portray Coppedge as being insistent with co-workers, being pushy, repeating ID around everyone regardless of how they felt. That he invaded their privacy. Simply put, they will attempt to portray him as the employee from ID-Hell.
No surprise, even William Becker (Coppedge’s attorney) sees this coming.
William Becker:… he’s[Coppedge] not pushy and he’s not persistent in his views. He’s a very mild-mannered guy, so any potential claim he was overly-aggressive in the way that he approached people about his interest in intelligent design is not going to be very successful in this case.
…
David never had any other co-worker refuse to take a DVD from him. And David never had a co-worker tell him, ‘Listen. You’re being too pushy, I’m not interested in the subject, please go away.’ If anyone expressed disinterest in the subject, David would walk away.
So this isn’t a case of him being overly persistent or obnoxious in his behavior, when he approached other employees; although that’s the way JPL is expected to argue their position. That it wasn’t based on a viewpoint. That it wasn’t based on discrimination and it wasn’t based on a perception of religious speech; they are going to argue that it was based on David’s mannerisms and his behavior. And if they try to do that I think they will be very unsuccessful when they learn what a mild-mannered guy he is and that he is not the type of person who engaged in that kind of conduct.
Podcast with Coppedge’s attorney. [Warning; it starts to play as soon as you click on it.]
Lovely depiction, and exactly what a lawyer would do—express his client in the best possible light.
But lawsuits don’t end there. They don’t end with mild-mannered David on the stand, and then the jury decides. The employer will also provide proofs.
One thing that would bother me (if I was investigating taking Coppedge’s case) was that human resources did an investigation, interviewed him (where he admitted engaging in these conversations at work) and talked with other employees. According to Plaintiff’s own complaint, human resources found out other employees considered this “pushing religion” and “disruptive” and “unwelcome.” Dangerously close to imposing on co-workers and invading their privacy!
Of course Plaintiff will testify no employee every complained directly to him. What is wrong with that? Think back to YOUR co-worker from hell. Did you complain directly to them? Did you march right up and say, “Enough of the Palin-talk.” Or “Use 1/10 of the cologne, buddy!” Nope, most times you grinned and bore it with your other co-workers. Perhaps subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints were sent. We all can picture:
David Coppedge: Did you see that show on Evolution last night?
Co-worker: [thinking “not again!”] Mmm—mm must have missed it.
David Coppedge: Funny how they never show problems with the theory.
Co-Worker: Gee…look at the time! Time to rotate the coffee filters.
Coppedge walks away thinking, “They didn’t tell me to stop!” The co-worker walks away and thinks, “What a jerk.”
What are the chances the employer will produce such a witness? A co-worker who says it was unwelcome. Remember—they only need one!
Obviously I don’t know—I have absolutely no insight into the employee files at JPL. I know what I would point out. David Coppedge is on the board of Directors for Illustra Media-- the publisher of the very DVD’s he was handing out, including ”Unlocking the Mystery of Life” This is a guy who is interested in Intelligent Design. I would point out the numerous articles David Coppedge has written on ID. I would point out discussions he has had (as I mentioned in my last blog entry) with those opposed to ID.
See, here’s where the neutral party may question the situation. On the one hand we have a Plaintiff who is suing for money and sits there all mild-mannerly, claiming he would never be pushy about his belief. On the other hand, we see a guy who (and he has every right) composes article after article on ID, engages others, and sits on the board that produces the DVD’s he is handing out. As these articles came in evidence—over and over—it will be more difficult for a juror to believe he would walk away from a conversation on ID the instant someone indicated they were not interested.
We have an employer who will very, VERY likely produce at least one employee who will testify Coppedge’s statements were unwelcome, but they did not feel comfortable approaching their supervisor about it. (Too many people investigated the matter and came to that conclusion.) That indicated they took the DVD out of politeness and later threw it away.
And I have jurors who have experienced co-workers from hell.
Barefoot Bum: Having been a manager and executive, I would strong suggest that Coppedge is not being demoted because he's religious, he's being demoted because he's an obnoxious asshole.
Yep. Jurors like that.
This lawsuit will serve ID interests, as it is great press release, already stirring up those who believe it in. It will serve the attorney—he gets more advertisement. It will not serve the client—David Coppedge.
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Duck Walks
I was apprised of the Coppedge Case in which another Intelligent Design (“ID”)proponent claims he was discriminated against in his employment because of his pro-ID support. )H/T to Wintery Knight)
I became fascinated with the delicate steps taken to avoid claiming ID is a religious belief. Let’s look at the background.
David Coppedge runs a blog entitled Creation-evolution headlines focusing on the intelligent design debate. He is the contact for a Creationist Organization He wrote a book entitled ”The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists” He actively engages in disputes over intelligent design, mentioning Jesus. He also is a Systems Administrator at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a federally-funded NASA laboratory, managed by California Institute of Technology.
The facts (and we are only seeing this from David Coppedge’s perspective) I have taken from the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a Systems Administrator in Information Technology—in other words he works with their computers. He was placed in a supervisory position over other System Administrators. He freely admits engaging co-workers, after hours, in discussions about ID. He offered them DVD’s, but never forced or coerced anyone to take a DVD.
On March 2, 2009, Coppedge was called into his supervisor’s office, indicating co-workers had complained about Coppedge’s “pushing his religious views on them by discussing ID and offering them DVDs to view.” (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 19) Coppedge agreed he would stop. Within the next few weeks, human resources investigated the situation, interviewed him, and issued a written warning. This resulted in a demotion. The complaint states it succinctly:
He is suing for being discriminated against for his First amendment right, “Freedom of Speech,” as well as being discriminated against for religious beliefs. Not HIS religious beliefs, mind you, but the mistaken religious beliefs of his superiors.
Notice the thin line the IDers must traverse. When talking about ID in Church, or with Christian friends, everyone understands and accepts who the Designer is—it’s God. Jesus. Intelligent Design is a scrumptious tool to prove there is a God. Sure it uses science, and scientific terms-- this is an argument that nature proves there is a God.
But when discussing ID where religion becomes an obstacle—such as teaching it in public schools—the IDer is careful to claim there is no theistic component; they aren’t making any determination as to who or what the intelligent designer is. No, sirree; no way; no how! Nothing religious to see here!
This creates the present situation where Coppedge is left in the position of claiming there is no religious reason, but the other person mistakenly discriminated against him for religious reasons, even though Coppedge holds the religious belief the other person claims he does, so they aren’t really mistaken after all!
Think about it. On Saturday night, Coppedge speaks at a local church about how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. The next day he teaches Sunday School how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. That afternoon, he goes out to eat with friends, discussing how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. On Monday morning, he points out to co-employees and subordinates the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be…an…….Intelligent designer.
What is the difference? Who is surprised one naturally assumes the same argument used for God on Saturday, Sunday and every evening is the same used on Monday morning?
Supervisor: Don’t push your religion on co-workers.
Coppedge: I’m not—I am promoting Intelligent Design.
Supervisor: Aren’t you a Christian?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is a God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is your God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
So if the Supervisor limits Coppedge’s proselytizing, it is the supervisor’s fault for presuming a Christian would be promoting a Christian religion by using a Christian argument, under a different title—“Intelligent Design.”
I wish IDers’ would come out and say it. They are talking about a God. It is the best candidate. This mincing and dancing around words leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Admit you are talking about God, take the consequences and move on.
I became fascinated with the delicate steps taken to avoid claiming ID is a religious belief. Let’s look at the background.
David Coppedge runs a blog entitled Creation-evolution headlines focusing on the intelligent design debate. He is the contact for a Creationist Organization He wrote a book entitled ”The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists” He actively engages in disputes over intelligent design, mentioning Jesus. He also is a Systems Administrator at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a federally-funded NASA laboratory, managed by California Institute of Technology.
The facts (and we are only seeing this from David Coppedge’s perspective) I have taken from the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a Systems Administrator in Information Technology—in other words he works with their computers. He was placed in a supervisory position over other System Administrators. He freely admits engaging co-workers, after hours, in discussions about ID. He offered them DVD’s, but never forced or coerced anyone to take a DVD.
On March 2, 2009, Coppedge was called into his supervisor’s office, indicating co-workers had complained about Coppedge’s “pushing his religious views on them by discussing ID and offering them DVDs to view.” (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 19) Coppedge agreed he would stop. Within the next few weeks, human resources investigated the situation, interviewed him, and issued a written warning. This resulted in a demotion. The complaint states it succinctly:
Plaintiff was told his discussions with co-workers concerning ID and his distribution of the documentary films on DVD entitled ‘Unlocking the Mystery of Life’ and ‘The Privileged Planet’ amount to ‘pushing religion’ and ‘were unwelcome’ and ‘disruptive.’ Although no one had previously said these things to him, his supervisors informed him ‘a lot of people have been overly nice to you just to move on when you presented the ideas. (Plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph 7)
He is suing for being discriminated against for his First amendment right, “Freedom of Speech,” as well as being discriminated against for religious beliefs. Not HIS religious beliefs, mind you, but the mistaken religious beliefs of his superiors.
Notice the thin line the IDers must traverse. When talking about ID in Church, or with Christian friends, everyone understands and accepts who the Designer is—it’s God. Jesus. Intelligent Design is a scrumptious tool to prove there is a God. Sure it uses science, and scientific terms-- this is an argument that nature proves there is a God.
But when discussing ID where religion becomes an obstacle—such as teaching it in public schools—the IDer is careful to claim there is no theistic component; they aren’t making any determination as to who or what the intelligent designer is. No, sirree; no way; no how! Nothing religious to see here!
This creates the present situation where Coppedge is left in the position of claiming there is no religious reason, but the other person mistakenly discriminated against him for religious reasons, even though Coppedge holds the religious belief the other person claims he does, so they aren’t really mistaken after all!
Think about it. On Saturday night, Coppedge speaks at a local church about how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. The next day he teaches Sunday School how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. That afternoon, he goes out to eat with friends, discussing how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be a God. On Monday morning, he points out to co-employees and subordinates the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore there must be…an…….Intelligent designer.
What is the difference? Who is surprised one naturally assumes the same argument used for God on Saturday, Sunday and every evening is the same used on Monday morning?
Supervisor: Don’t push your religion on co-workers.
Coppedge: I’m not—I am promoting Intelligent Design.
Supervisor: Aren’t you a Christian?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is a God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
Supervisor: Do you believe the Intelligent Designer is your God?
Coppedge: Yes, but that has nothing to do with it.
So if the Supervisor limits Coppedge’s proselytizing, it is the supervisor’s fault for presuming a Christian would be promoting a Christian religion by using a Christian argument, under a different title—“Intelligent Design.”
I wish IDers’ would come out and say it. They are talking about a God. It is the best candidate. This mincing and dancing around words leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Admit you are talking about God, take the consequences and move on.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What are you Praying for?
On Lorena’s Blog a person gave an aggress-passive comment ending with, “I have no idea if you’re a Christian or not. Only Christ knows your heart. But I will pray for you and your family.”
I am aware my family and (at one time—who knows if they continue) friends prayed for me as well. What, specifically, are they praying will happen? I understand how, in asking God to heal someone, even though you may not understand the specifics, the person is asking God to reach in the body, remove the cancerous cells, and miraculously replace the damaged tissue. Or if asking for employment—that God would “nudge” the resume to the right person at the right moment.
I equally understand how prayer is self-soothing. It helps one cope with a dying relative, or divorce without necessarily granting the desired wish. I’ve heard plenty apologetic defenses to the failure of prayer being God wanting prayer to affect the praying person—not the prayee.
But what could one possibly pray for a deconvert with any specificity?
Are they praying the deconvert gains knowledge? That God would “nudge” a certain book or article their way? If so, the person hopelessly does not understand deconversion. It isn’t “one thing.” It isn’t some silver bullet, that if only someone could give an explanation how the two accounts of Judas’ death could line up, we would become card-carrying Christians again.
Further, the deconvert often has far more knowledge than the Christian praying for them! Clearly more knowledge, even in the Christian’s paradigm, is not necessary for salvation—it wasn’t necessary for that person to be saved! How many times have we heard, “Have you read Strobel? Or Craig? Or Boyd? Or _____” and we say, “Yep.” If you are praying the deconvert needs more knowledge, you are wasting your time.
I’ve had people tell me they think Satan is deceiving me. Are they praying God will make Satan stop? How many times does one need to say that? At 100 prayers, does God finally say, “O.K., I guess they are serious that they want Satan to stop.” [A side-note to those interested in time-theory surrounding God. If God is outside time, it is often claimed all times are the “same” to Him. In other words, he sees our chronological time at the same moment. Our yesterday is the same to Him as our today and the same as our tomorrow. He sees 1000 B.C.E. at the same exact instant he sees 2010 C.E. If this was true, wouldn’t it also be true any prayer would be heard both at the same time as the instance the event requested is occurring AND all prayers would be heard simultaneously to God? Therefore, praying to God for the same thing twice is unnecessary.]
And if prayer is designed to make the praying person fell better, how does that work when it comes to knowledge? Are they supposed to feel better they know less than I do? Are they supposed to feel better that Satan is deceiving me and not them?
Are they praying God will reveal himself to me? How? What--Specifically--are they asking God to do? Curiously, we are criticized for asking God to reveal himself, as that would be selfish. But it is fine for the Christian to do so?
Are they praying we would be influenced by our friends? After abandoning us? (The irony is too rich in that one. Best leave it with a chuckle.)
I suspect the prayer consists of something like, “Please help DagoodS become a Christian.” An innocuous, non-specific generalism about as useful as, “Please help the starving children of the world, by making them feel full.” The children will still starve…
I am aware my family and (at one time—who knows if they continue) friends prayed for me as well. What, specifically, are they praying will happen? I understand how, in asking God to heal someone, even though you may not understand the specifics, the person is asking God to reach in the body, remove the cancerous cells, and miraculously replace the damaged tissue. Or if asking for employment—that God would “nudge” the resume to the right person at the right moment.
I equally understand how prayer is self-soothing. It helps one cope with a dying relative, or divorce without necessarily granting the desired wish. I’ve heard plenty apologetic defenses to the failure of prayer being God wanting prayer to affect the praying person—not the prayee.
But what could one possibly pray for a deconvert with any specificity?
Are they praying the deconvert gains knowledge? That God would “nudge” a certain book or article their way? If so, the person hopelessly does not understand deconversion. It isn’t “one thing.” It isn’t some silver bullet, that if only someone could give an explanation how the two accounts of Judas’ death could line up, we would become card-carrying Christians again.
Further, the deconvert often has far more knowledge than the Christian praying for them! Clearly more knowledge, even in the Christian’s paradigm, is not necessary for salvation—it wasn’t necessary for that person to be saved! How many times have we heard, “Have you read Strobel? Or Craig? Or Boyd? Or _____” and we say, “Yep.” If you are praying the deconvert needs more knowledge, you are wasting your time.
I’ve had people tell me they think Satan is deceiving me. Are they praying God will make Satan stop? How many times does one need to say that? At 100 prayers, does God finally say, “O.K., I guess they are serious that they want Satan to stop.” [A side-note to those interested in time-theory surrounding God. If God is outside time, it is often claimed all times are the “same” to Him. In other words, he sees our chronological time at the same moment. Our yesterday is the same to Him as our today and the same as our tomorrow. He sees 1000 B.C.E. at the same exact instant he sees 2010 C.E. If this was true, wouldn’t it also be true any prayer would be heard both at the same time as the instance the event requested is occurring AND all prayers would be heard simultaneously to God? Therefore, praying to God for the same thing twice is unnecessary.]
And if prayer is designed to make the praying person fell better, how does that work when it comes to knowledge? Are they supposed to feel better they know less than I do? Are they supposed to feel better that Satan is deceiving me and not them?
Are they praying God will reveal himself to me? How? What--Specifically--are they asking God to do? Curiously, we are criticized for asking God to reveal himself, as that would be selfish. But it is fine for the Christian to do so?
Are they praying we would be influenced by our friends? After abandoning us? (The irony is too rich in that one. Best leave it with a chuckle.)
I suspect the prayer consists of something like, “Please help DagoodS become a Christian.” An innocuous, non-specific generalism about as useful as, “Please help the starving children of the world, by making them feel full.” The children will still starve…
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Anti-Supernatural Bias
Recently I monitored one conversation and was engaged in another where the term “anti-supernatural bias” came up. It generally works as follows:
Christian: Here is a whole bunch of evidence for a miracle.
Non-theist: I am not convinced because of this, that, these and those.
Christian: You don’t believe because you have anti-supernatural bias.
(You can see its use here, here, and here at other popular Christian apologetic sites.)
This comes across as a whiney excuse for either lack of evidence, lack of persuasion or both.
Look, here is a simple fact in life. I don’t care what you believe—there is a person who holds a dissimilar position. Whether the field is politics, or economics or medicine or theism or food or countless other areas; there is a person who has “anti-your-position bias.” They believe differently than you. While sometimes it may be an area they haven’t investigated; other times the person has investigated as well as (and maybe more completely) than you and came to a contrasting conclusion.
I couldn’t imagine complaining to an opposing counsel, “Aw…you have a bias toward interpreting the facts favorably for your client and against my position.” Really? That would come as a surprise to…anyone? My job—my obligation—is to present the facts, evidence and argument so strongly to opposing counsel they recognize the danger of going forward and therefore become motivated to settle.
Or imagine a political debate where each side grouses how the other side has “anti-me” bias! We want to hear facts; we want argument. We don’t want to hear how the Republican candidate has “anti-Democrat” bias…I think we already know that! Let’s move on; let’s see the strength of the arguments!
Secondly, I am an atheist and a naturalist. Telling me I have a bias for natural explanations is about as informative as telling a bachelor they aren’t married. Kinda goes with the term “bachelor.” The reason I AM an atheist is for the lack of evidence of a God. The reason I AM a naturalist is because of the lack of evidence for the supernatural. If I thought the evidence sustained for supernatural intervention—I wouldn’t be an atheist! Telling me I have such a bias is patently ridiculous in light of my atheism.
Guess what? I have anti-alien bias. And anti-astrology bias. And anti-crystals-heal bias, anti-yeti bias, and anti-9/11-conspiracy bias. Why? Because I am not persuaded aliens, astrology, healing crystals, yetis and 9/11 conspiracy theories exist. If you want to remove my bias—give me convincing proof on these things.
If you want me to get over my “anti-supernatural bias”—present sustaining proof. Yes, it may be the proof does not persuade me, but persuades others. Perhaps I am blinded by my secret desire to snort cocaine off a prostitute’s butt. Live with it. Because when you retreat to “you atheists have anti-supernatural bias” it comes across as if even you don’t think the evidence is persuasive enough unless you already believe in the supernatural.
Further, having “supernatural bias” isn’t even enough. Protestants are not convinced of Catholic miracles (Fatima), even though Protestants certainly believe in the supernatural. Christians are not convinced of Hindu miracles, even though Christians believe in the supernatural. Jews aren’t persuaded by Christian claims; Christians by Muslim claims; even Christians question other Christian claims. See, it isn’t just bias against supernatural; the apologist is bemoaning the other person’s anti-apologist’s supernatural bias. They can’t even convince others who already believe a God interacts—why would they be surprised they can’t convince me with the same evidence I’ve heard before?
It sounds as if the person is saying, “No fair, no fair, no fair, no fair! If you don’t already believe supernatural interaction occurs exactly how I say it must occur—I can’t convince you with the paltry evidence and measly arguments at my disposal.” Doesn’t say much for the evidence, eh?
Lose the whine. Give it your best shot with the evidence and arguments you have, and if they aren’t persuasive...live with it. Whimpering about the other person’s bias makes you sound like your God didn't give you enough to work with.
Christian: Here is a whole bunch of evidence for a miracle.
Non-theist: I am not convinced because of this, that, these and those.
Christian: You don’t believe because you have anti-supernatural bias.
(You can see its use here, here, and here at other popular Christian apologetic sites.)
This comes across as a whiney excuse for either lack of evidence, lack of persuasion or both.
Look, here is a simple fact in life. I don’t care what you believe—there is a person who holds a dissimilar position. Whether the field is politics, or economics or medicine or theism or food or countless other areas; there is a person who has “anti-your-position bias.” They believe differently than you. While sometimes it may be an area they haven’t investigated; other times the person has investigated as well as (and maybe more completely) than you and came to a contrasting conclusion.
I couldn’t imagine complaining to an opposing counsel, “Aw…you have a bias toward interpreting the facts favorably for your client and against my position.” Really? That would come as a surprise to…anyone? My job—my obligation—is to present the facts, evidence and argument so strongly to opposing counsel they recognize the danger of going forward and therefore become motivated to settle.
Or imagine a political debate where each side grouses how the other side has “anti-me” bias! We want to hear facts; we want argument. We don’t want to hear how the Republican candidate has “anti-Democrat” bias…I think we already know that! Let’s move on; let’s see the strength of the arguments!
Secondly, I am an atheist and a naturalist. Telling me I have a bias for natural explanations is about as informative as telling a bachelor they aren’t married. Kinda goes with the term “bachelor.” The reason I AM an atheist is for the lack of evidence of a God. The reason I AM a naturalist is because of the lack of evidence for the supernatural. If I thought the evidence sustained for supernatural intervention—I wouldn’t be an atheist! Telling me I have such a bias is patently ridiculous in light of my atheism.
Guess what? I have anti-alien bias. And anti-astrology bias. And anti-crystals-heal bias, anti-yeti bias, and anti-9/11-conspiracy bias. Why? Because I am not persuaded aliens, astrology, healing crystals, yetis and 9/11 conspiracy theories exist. If you want to remove my bias—give me convincing proof on these things.
If you want me to get over my “anti-supernatural bias”—present sustaining proof. Yes, it may be the proof does not persuade me, but persuades others. Perhaps I am blinded by my secret desire to snort cocaine off a prostitute’s butt. Live with it. Because when you retreat to “you atheists have anti-supernatural bias” it comes across as if even you don’t think the evidence is persuasive enough unless you already believe in the supernatural.
Further, having “supernatural bias” isn’t even enough. Protestants are not convinced of Catholic miracles (Fatima), even though Protestants certainly believe in the supernatural. Christians are not convinced of Hindu miracles, even though Christians believe in the supernatural. Jews aren’t persuaded by Christian claims; Christians by Muslim claims; even Christians question other Christian claims. See, it isn’t just bias against supernatural; the apologist is bemoaning the other person’s anti-apologist’s supernatural bias. They can’t even convince others who already believe a God interacts—why would they be surprised they can’t convince me with the same evidence I’ve heard before?
It sounds as if the person is saying, “No fair, no fair, no fair, no fair! If you don’t already believe supernatural interaction occurs exactly how I say it must occur—I can’t convince you with the paltry evidence and measly arguments at my disposal.” Doesn’t say much for the evidence, eh?
Lose the whine. Give it your best shot with the evidence and arguments you have, and if they aren’t persuasive...live with it. Whimpering about the other person’s bias makes you sound like your God didn't give you enough to work with.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
We Kept Score
Each summer we attended Vacation Bible School. We kept score. You received a point for attendance, a point for bringing your Bible, a point for bringing someone, a point for learning your verse…and so on. The final night, there was a big pile of prizes and the person with the highest points got to pick the first prize (invariably a white pseudo-leather Bible), the next highest took their turn and so on. The poor loser with one or two points was left getting a snake balloon animal.
In AWANA we got trophies and badges and pins for performing activities. We went to AWANA Olympics (like Special Olympics for Christians) where points were kept.
We went to Bible camp where each cabin competed against the other.
(The first time I ever went to Bible camp was when I was 12 or 13. Camp Barakel. No friends went with me. The only person I knew was my brother, who ended up being in a completely different camp, so I only saw him once during the whole week. Not having any friends, I was shunted to THAT cabin. The one for all the lonely, nerdy losers-- the prequel to Revenge of the Nerds.
We were the Black Donkeys. This meant a leather string tied around our neck with a plastic…black…donkey. Our camp counselor (still in college, but “adult” to us) pointed out on the first day that his cabin had won the camp championship every week so far, and he intended to keep up the tradition. God help him…
We played baseball. We sucked. We had swimming competitions. Many of us drowned. We played Basketball. The counselor wept. There wasn’t a competition we weren’t beaten, pummeled and skunked. By mid-week we couldn’t have won the championship if the rest of the camp caught chorea and the plague.
We broke our counselor. One night the camp director appeared and indicated he would be staying with us while the counselor got a few days rest. We didn’t know what happened, but in our 12-year old minds we suspected he had snapped. Carted off to the looney bin. As it turns out, he was able to return for the championship ceremony.
Turns out the big winners got….[drum roll please]….a watermelon. wow. Even we nerds realized that was pretty lame.
The very last day, our counselor took our donkeys back. Because these were leather strings, knotted, and immersed in water a few times—the only realistic way to get them off was to cut the leather. I still vividly remember the counselor’s face as he approached my neck with what looked like a 12 inch Bowie knife and all I could think was, “He’s gonna cut my throat for costing him his watermelon!”)
Getting older, we still kept score. We counted attendance. We counted offerings. We even counted cars in the parking lot! We kept track of building funds with thermometer posters.
But most importantly, we kept Moral Score.
Yeah…yeah…we talked and preached and teached about Christianity being different because it is the only religion in the world that did not require salvation by works—yet boy did we watch each other’s works. If you smoke or drank or didn’t attend church regularly enough…your score was knocked down. You weren’t earning points; they were probably even being deducted! But if you didn’t masturbate (even though you were tempted), or didn’t have sex (even though you were really tempted), or went to church or helped pick up after Sunday School—then you earned Moral Scores.
One never spoke of Moral Scores. This wasn’t said out loud. We simply gravitated to those with similar scores. If drinking alcohol didn’t deduct points—you hung out with people who drank alcohol. They couldn’t take points from you; you couldn’t from them.
We rarely spoke regarding heaven’s particulars (it would be gauche) but the general idea was that we were ALL getting in—some of us would have bigger mansions. Larger crowns. Better parking. Because our Moral Score was higher. We knew there would be judgment seat. That there would be cries of “Why didn’t we do better?” If you had a higher Moral Score, there would be less crying. Lower score—worse housing.
We knew Mother Theresa and Billy Graham were going to have HUGE houses—indoor pools and ambrosia fountains in the bedrooms. We didn’t plan to ascertain those Moral Scores. That guy who was saved at the last minute…well…he might not have a huge Moral Score, but he didn’t get any deductions either. Nice suburban house with a carport.
The fellow who cursed and swore and had extra-marital affairs? If he made it in…(what is heaven coming to if those riff-raff make it?)…the best he would get is a single-wide in Heaven’s trailer park. Really…it’s what he’s used to anyway, right?
The wonderful thing about being saved by Grace is that you don’t have to do anything to be saved. The terrible thing is that without keeping score—how do we know who is the better Christian?
In AWANA we got trophies and badges and pins for performing activities. We went to AWANA Olympics (like Special Olympics for Christians) where points were kept.
We went to Bible camp where each cabin competed against the other.
(The first time I ever went to Bible camp was when I was 12 or 13. Camp Barakel. No friends went with me. The only person I knew was my brother, who ended up being in a completely different camp, so I only saw him once during the whole week. Not having any friends, I was shunted to THAT cabin. The one for all the lonely, nerdy losers-- the prequel to Revenge of the Nerds.
We were the Black Donkeys. This meant a leather string tied around our neck with a plastic…black…donkey. Our camp counselor (still in college, but “adult” to us) pointed out on the first day that his cabin had won the camp championship every week so far, and he intended to keep up the tradition. God help him…
We played baseball. We sucked. We had swimming competitions. Many of us drowned. We played Basketball. The counselor wept. There wasn’t a competition we weren’t beaten, pummeled and skunked. By mid-week we couldn’t have won the championship if the rest of the camp caught chorea and the plague.
We broke our counselor. One night the camp director appeared and indicated he would be staying with us while the counselor got a few days rest. We didn’t know what happened, but in our 12-year old minds we suspected he had snapped. Carted off to the looney bin. As it turns out, he was able to return for the championship ceremony.
Turns out the big winners got….[drum roll please]….a watermelon. wow. Even we nerds realized that was pretty lame.
The very last day, our counselor took our donkeys back. Because these were leather strings, knotted, and immersed in water a few times—the only realistic way to get them off was to cut the leather. I still vividly remember the counselor’s face as he approached my neck with what looked like a 12 inch Bowie knife and all I could think was, “He’s gonna cut my throat for costing him his watermelon!”)
Getting older, we still kept score. We counted attendance. We counted offerings. We even counted cars in the parking lot! We kept track of building funds with thermometer posters.
But most importantly, we kept Moral Score.
Yeah…yeah…we talked and preached and teached about Christianity being different because it is the only religion in the world that did not require salvation by works—yet boy did we watch each other’s works. If you smoke or drank or didn’t attend church regularly enough…your score was knocked down. You weren’t earning points; they were probably even being deducted! But if you didn’t masturbate (even though you were tempted), or didn’t have sex (even though you were really tempted), or went to church or helped pick up after Sunday School—then you earned Moral Scores.
One never spoke of Moral Scores. This wasn’t said out loud. We simply gravitated to those with similar scores. If drinking alcohol didn’t deduct points—you hung out with people who drank alcohol. They couldn’t take points from you; you couldn’t from them.
We rarely spoke regarding heaven’s particulars (it would be gauche) but the general idea was that we were ALL getting in—some of us would have bigger mansions. Larger crowns. Better parking. Because our Moral Score was higher. We knew there would be judgment seat. That there would be cries of “Why didn’t we do better?” If you had a higher Moral Score, there would be less crying. Lower score—worse housing.
We knew Mother Theresa and Billy Graham were going to have HUGE houses—indoor pools and ambrosia fountains in the bedrooms. We didn’t plan to ascertain those Moral Scores. That guy who was saved at the last minute…well…he might not have a huge Moral Score, but he didn’t get any deductions either. Nice suburban house with a carport.
The fellow who cursed and swore and had extra-marital affairs? If he made it in…(what is heaven coming to if those riff-raff make it?)…the best he would get is a single-wide in Heaven’s trailer park. Really…it’s what he’s used to anyway, right?
The wonderful thing about being saved by Grace is that you don’t have to do anything to be saved. The terrible thing is that without keeping score—how do we know who is the better Christian?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Talking with Christians
Recently it was asked: ”Why?” Why do we discuss with Christians?
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
At the moment, I do it because I enjoy it. I like the discussion; they won’t come here—so my only other choice is to go to them. The reasons have changed over the years since my initial deconversion.
I recall freshly abandoning Christianity and desiring to talk with other Christians regarding what I had discovered. Tried it in real life—epic fail. My main internet spot (iidb) was inundated with other deconverts and non-theists waiting to pounce upon any poor Christian that wandered into the lion’s den. I was one voice among too many—this was not satisfying.
Off I trotted to another forum, and thus began a pattern of discourse continuing to today. I approached it with naiveté. I thought if they only knew what I had discovered—they, too would reconsider their position. No, I didn’t expect them to immediately deconvert upon my appearance or first post. Nor my second or third. I did think they would be as interested as I was to actively engage the conversation and perhaps…just perhaps…realize there were viable and robust reasons Christianity may not be what they thought it was.
It was like discovering a new Mexican restaurant tucked behind the Post Office very few people know about, and despite its 1950’s styling, the cook is so extraordinary, one taste of his food and you could never deign to enter any other Mexican restaurant again.
Of course, I quickly discovered many theists were not as interested in the subject as I was. That it was too hard to discuss with a skeptic. That they had already made up their minds, and were sufficiently satisfied with any justification that might tend to support their conclusion. I discovered other theists that certainly did want to discuss the subject—but only in attack mode. No matter what I said, it must be wrong because of who said it—not the content.
I have continued conversations because of concern with lurkers. I certainly recall during my deconversion process (and have heard similar tales from other deconverts) lurking and lurking and lurking. Reading entire threads, and every link and every link from the link, absorbing the various positions. Ordering recommended books from Amazon or the library, and pouring over them.
Remembering those days, I can’t help wonder who might have wandered into some blog, forum or facebook note I happen to comment on, and they desire to know more about my position. It would be a shame to abandon the blog entry, when the lurker is yearning for more.
One thing I learned—if you go into these conversations with the expectation…no…the NEED…to have the person agree with you—you are doomed for disappointment. Best acclimate to such disappointment or you will have ulcers within weeks.
The other thing I learned is there isn’t one “correct” style. Think you may have been too harsh in your response? Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried nice and it doesn’t make a difference. Think your story is “too emotional?” Doesn’t matter—I’ve tried intellect, cites, books, authors, websites, etc. They still look at me quizzically and proclaim, “You deconverted because of sin.” Or the wrong intellectual reasons.
For me…now…the reasons are pretty simple. If I see a topic interesting to me—I will comment. If the person is not convinced…*shrug*…not my department. If they want to accuse me of some ulterior motive, I may ask once for a method to determine motive—but sheer proclamation doesn’t move me much.
Oh, noes!—some Christian thinks I’m wrong!
I would love to see American become less engrossed with religion. I would love to openly state “I am an atheist” only to elicit the response, “Yeah…so what?” However, after watching the tea-bag party, and the interviews with protestors over the Health Care reform; I see little intellectual pursuit in other areas to determine what is true, let alone in religious fields.
So I discuss because I want to.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Off doing stuff
I’m around. I’ve been discussing over at Tough Questions Answered if you really must know. No need to read through it…the same old routine.
At the moment, I find the discussion enjoyable. Sure, nobody changes their mind. The apologist (and the apologist’s friends) all think they are performing smashingly. The skeptics—likewise. The conversation—the same dance done before and likely to be repeated again.
What can I say—the topic still fascinates me.
At the moment, I find the discussion enjoyable. Sure, nobody changes their mind. The apologist (and the apologist’s friends) all think they are performing smashingly. The skeptics—likewise. The conversation—the same dance done before and likely to be repeated again.
What can I say—the topic still fascinates me.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
What to do with old friends?
Recently there have been a few blog entries by friends about deconverts interacting with Christian friends. The question was poignantly asked, Is it possible [for a deconvert] to have Christian friends and family? Obviously anything is possible, and I am sure there are numerous anecdotal accounts regarding individuals who do nicely, thank you very much.
I haven’t seemed to manage it.
To me, its feels like that summer after your first year of college. You get together with your high school buddies and by evening’s end, realize you have no interest getting together with your high school buddies!
In high school you shared experiences with your classmates—same teachers, same halls. Same inside jokes about Ms. Crabapple. The team losing the semi-finals together. The year ends with graduation, parties, and assurances of being BFF’s (contractually enforced through yearbook signatures.)
Then you go away to college. A whole new set of friends, experiences, and growing up. Coming back, the jokes about Ms. Crabapple seem stale. The lost semi-final forgotten amongst new memories of parties and inter-mural Frisbee golf. How many times can one recount the same thing? Either the relationship continues to grow with new experiences (and new jokes and laughter) or it dies. So you maintain a relationship with a few, and the rest fall off, only to be remembered when bumping into each other at Wal-Mart (“Boy did he lose his hair!”) or Facebook.
I wanted to maintain my relationship with Christian friends and my family. I naively thought it could work. But I started to realize I was having new experiences, new laughs, new inside jokes they couldn’t share.
Me: And then she said…get this…’Evolution is just a theory.’ Bwahahaha. Can you believe it?
Them: [Blank stare.]
(“This one time…at college…we created stair sledding. It was the funniest thing EVER!”
[Blank stare.])
I began to have questions that they not only didn’t share—they didn’t want to share:
Me: Why didn’t Paul seem to know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels?
Them: Look, all I want to know is how to apply Paul’s doctrine to my life.
I don’t want to give the impression my journey is somehow better or more full than theirs. It is just…different. As if we were on a train, and I took a side-track. I’m seeing different scenery, going to different places. They are perfectly happy on their track (seeing things I am not), with their friends, and their scenery and stops. They would love to have me re-join the train, but have no interest in joining my side-track. Their life is complete without it.
With these two divergent courses, relationships will suffer, wither and end. They don’t want me to be friend—they want me to be convert. And, to be honest, how much do I want their friendship if I find myself stifling my curiosity, and censuring my statements around them? What kind of friendship is that?—I could do that with any acquaintance.
Facebook has brought this into sharp focus. Having joined many of my former friends, I get to see status updates and posts:
“We went to the Doctor and received a prescription for Tommy’s sickness. Isn’t God great?”
(Me [to myself]: Griznitmicklemuph…)
“Hey! Here’s a great video about how Einstein bested an atheist professor on the question of God. Einstein was only 2 1/2.”
(Me [to myself]: GrizNITMICKLemuph…)
“Why do those atheists have to put ads on buses?”
(Me [to myself]: GRIZNITMICKLEMOSTICKMON…)
And if I dare respond…carefully couching it in the most innocuous, harmless, questioning tone possible…I hear that AOL voice, “You’ve been defriended!”
So what—I was defriended by plenty long before Facebook developed it. Ha!
I find my laughter, my talks, my relaxation amongst those I can share new experiences together. Time to look back on those former friends with fond memories of good times with a smile, and look forward to new friends and more good times and a grin.
I haven’t seemed to manage it.
To me, its feels like that summer after your first year of college. You get together with your high school buddies and by evening’s end, realize you have no interest getting together with your high school buddies!
In high school you shared experiences with your classmates—same teachers, same halls. Same inside jokes about Ms. Crabapple. The team losing the semi-finals together. The year ends with graduation, parties, and assurances of being BFF’s (contractually enforced through yearbook signatures.)
Then you go away to college. A whole new set of friends, experiences, and growing up. Coming back, the jokes about Ms. Crabapple seem stale. The lost semi-final forgotten amongst new memories of parties and inter-mural Frisbee golf. How many times can one recount the same thing? Either the relationship continues to grow with new experiences (and new jokes and laughter) or it dies. So you maintain a relationship with a few, and the rest fall off, only to be remembered when bumping into each other at Wal-Mart (“Boy did he lose his hair!”) or Facebook.
I wanted to maintain my relationship with Christian friends and my family. I naively thought it could work. But I started to realize I was having new experiences, new laughs, new inside jokes they couldn’t share.
Me: And then she said…get this…’Evolution is just a theory.’ Bwahahaha. Can you believe it?
Them: [Blank stare.]
(“This one time…at college…we created stair sledding. It was the funniest thing EVER!”
[Blank stare.])
I began to have questions that they not only didn’t share—they didn’t want to share:
Me: Why didn’t Paul seem to know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels?
Them: Look, all I want to know is how to apply Paul’s doctrine to my life.
I don’t want to give the impression my journey is somehow better or more full than theirs. It is just…different. As if we were on a train, and I took a side-track. I’m seeing different scenery, going to different places. They are perfectly happy on their track (seeing things I am not), with their friends, and their scenery and stops. They would love to have me re-join the train, but have no interest in joining my side-track. Their life is complete without it.
With these two divergent courses, relationships will suffer, wither and end. They don’t want me to be friend—they want me to be convert. And, to be honest, how much do I want their friendship if I find myself stifling my curiosity, and censuring my statements around them? What kind of friendship is that?—I could do that with any acquaintance.
Facebook has brought this into sharp focus. Having joined many of my former friends, I get to see status updates and posts:
“We went to the Doctor and received a prescription for Tommy’s sickness. Isn’t God great?”
(Me [to myself]: Griznitmicklemuph…)
“Hey! Here’s a great video about how Einstein bested an atheist professor on the question of God. Einstein was only 2 1/2.”
(Me [to myself]: GrizNITMICKLemuph…)
“Why do those atheists have to put ads on buses?”
(Me [to myself]: GRIZNITMICKLEMOSTICKMON…)
And if I dare respond…carefully couching it in the most innocuous, harmless, questioning tone possible…I hear that AOL voice, “You’ve been defriended!”
So what—I was defriended by plenty long before Facebook developed it. Ha!
I find my laughter, my talks, my relaxation amongst those I can share new experiences together. Time to look back on those former friends with fond memories of good times with a smile, and look forward to new friends and more good times and a grin.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Mary and James
Our discussion regarding Women at the Tomb mentioned two Mary’s, both with sons named James. I thought I would put a place marker here for the Mary’s and James’ in the New Testament.
1. Mary – mother of Jesus. Wife of Joseph. Sister of Mary (2). Mother of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and at least two daughters (Mark 6:3) Born 20-6 BCE (depending on Matthew’s date of 4 BCE for Jesus’ birth, as compared to Luke’s date of 6 CE, and her age), last mention at Upper Room prior to Pentecost. (Acts 1:14) Age at least 43 at time of crucifixion, would have been 83+ for the Temple fall and around time of first Gospel.
I’m sorry. The next bit gets confusing because of the possible names. There are two Mary’s named which could either be the same Mary….or be two different Mary’s. I tried to list both possibilities.
2. Mary* – sister of Mary (1). Wife of Cleophas (John 19:25) Possibly Mother of James the Lesser (9)
3. Mary* – Mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses (Mark 15:40.) Wife of Alphaeus. (Mark 3:18) Possibly mother of Levi (Mark 2:14). Assuming Levi is Matthew (Matt. 10:3), then possibly mother of Matthew. Saw Crucifixion (Mark 15:40). Visited tomb on Resurrection Sunday. (Mark 16:1; Matt. 28:1) Saw Resurrected Jesus (Matt. 28:9-10) contra, See Gospel of John does not list this Mary at the tomb or seeing Resurrected Jesus.
*I apologize for the confusion here, but due to the plausible overlap of names, there are certain possibilities to discuss. It is argued Cleophas is the Aramaic form of the Greek Alphaeus, and hence these are the same person.
That would make Mary (wife of Cleophas/Alphaeus) both the mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses, as well as the sister of Mary (1), Mother of Jesus. Do you follow that? Mary (1) (Jesus’ mom) had sons named James(10) and Joses, additionally she had a sister named Mary (2) who also had sons named James(9) and Joses.
It gets worse. Mark’s Gospel records the story of Jesus interacting with a tax collector by the name of Levi, son of Alphaeus. (Mark 2:14) Subsequently, Mark lists Jesus’ disciples, naming one “James, the son of Alphaeus.” (Mark 3:18) This disciple is traditionally called “James the Lesser” (9) to differentiate him from James, (11) the son of Zebedee.
What Mark does not tell us is whether James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus (9) is the same or a brother or even related to Levi, son of Alphaeus. Now is when it gets tricky. Let’s follow this story through the Synoptic Gospels.
Matthew decides to insert his own name, “Matthew” instead of Levi when he recounts the tax collector’s tale. (Matt. 9:9)** He drops “son of Alphaeus” when referring to Levi/Matthew.
**Yes, I am aware Matthew is not the author, but I am trying to keep this as simple as I can.
Luke goes back to “Levi” when discussing this tax collector (Luke 5:27) and also drops “son of Alphaeus.” If you are totaled confused, it is as follows:
Mark – Levi, son of Alphaeus
Matthew – Matthew
Luke – Levi
Therefore, if one is proposing a resolution that Alphaeus and Cleophas were one and the same, AND Matthew is the same as Levi, AND the Levi/Matthew son of Alphaeus is a brother to James the Lesser (9), this would make:
Mary (1) – mother of Jesus, James (10) and Joses
sister to:
Mary (2 & 3) – mother of James (9), Joses and Matthew.
Jesus would have a mother named Mary (1), an aunt named Mary (2 & 3), a brother named James (10), a cousin named James (9) [also a disciple] and a cousin named Levi/Matthew [also a disciple.] Plus a brother named Joses and a cousin named Joses.
I should note that Bauckham does not believe Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same.
4. Mary Magdalene – At the crucifixion (Mark 15:40; John 19:25) Saw Jesus buried. (Mt. 27:56; Mark 15:47). Visited tomb Resurrection Morning. (Mark 16:1; Mt. 18:1) Saw post-resurrection Jesus. (John 20:11-18) contra, See Mt. 28:9-10 where it implies she saw resurrection Jesus, but this fails to align with John’s Gospel. Only Luke records Jesus removed seven demons from her. (Luke 8:2)
5. Mary of Bethany – sister to Martha, sister to Lazarus. (John 11:1) The woman who anointed Jesus. (John 11:2, see Mark 14:1-9) See also Luke 10:38 – 42 that records the story of a Mary living with her sister Martha. However, there is no mention of Lazarus, and Luke names the place “a certain village;” not Bethany, despite being aware of where Bethany was. Luke 19:29; 24:50. This is possibly two different Mary’s.
6. Mary - mother of John Mark. (Acts. 12:12)
7. Mary - in Rome, worked with Paul. (Rom. 16:6)
8. Intentionally left blank.
9. James the Lesser – son of Alphaeus, son of Mary (3), possibly cousin to James (10). Called “the Lesser” to differentiate from other disciple named James (11). (Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15) Never listed in John. Nothing beyond being in the list of disciples..
10. James the Just – Brother to Jesus. Mother is Mary (1), Aunt is Mary (2) and possibly Aunt is Mary (3). If Aunt is Mary (3) AND Cleophas is same as Alphaeus, would be cousin to James the Lesser (9) (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55) I discuss the growing myth within the Tales of James’ martyrdom here. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14)
Curiously, only Matthew and Mark name him as a brother to Jesus, (See Gal. 1:19). Luke & John indicate interaction between Jesus and “his brothers” but never names any of them. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14) Also note Acts indicates a “James” as a leader in the church, but does not indicate he is related to Jesus. Traditionally claimed to be the author of the Epistle of James, but does not indicate such in the book. James 1:1. Brother to Jude (Jude 1)?
Listed in the Gospel of Thomas to be the leader of the Church. (Thomas 12)
11. James the son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17) One of the three insider disciples (with Peter and his brother John) Killed by Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) between 41 – 44 C.E. (Note: the Bible calls this king “Herod” whereas his name was “Agrippa.”)
12. James, father of Judas (not Iscariot). Note this particular disciple named “Judas” is not listed in Mark or Matthew but is listed in both Luke and John. (Luke 6:16; John 14:22 ) I discuss the varying the disciples’ name here.
I’m not making any particular argument, this is more reference material. I may add information later, as I come across it.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect is how difficult it is to narrow down the names. As if the people knew there was a Mary somewhere, and a James, but not quite certain as to who they were in relation to the actual people. Some interesting points:
1. There is no James listed in the Gospel of John. Although the “brothers of Jesus” are referred to, as well as the “sons of Zebedee,” even the other Judas, son of James—the name “James” does not appear.
2. Mary Magdalene is the only Mary listed in all four Gospels. She is not mentioned again.
3. John lists Jesus’ mother’s sister as “Mary”—not Jesus’ mother. Why is it the Johannine community did not know Jesus’ brother’s name, nor Jesus’ mother’s name?
4. Only Luke and John list “Mary and Martha”—although it is possible these were two different Mary’s (and two different Martha’s). (Luke does not record them from Bethany, does not indicate this was the person who anointed Jesus, and does not list Lazarus, her brother.)
5. Although Acts lists a James becoming prominent in the church, it does not list him as Jesus’ brother. (Luke would have had a copy of Mark. Either he must have known the name, OR the name of James being Jesus’ brother was added in a later copy of Mark, after Luke’s copy.)
You may know the argument Gal. 1:19, where Paul says “James, brother of the Lord” was merely a designation of comradeship—not an actual fraternal relationship—just like Christians still call each other “brother” and “sister.” I’m not convinced…yet…but Luke and John not listing “James” when referring to Jesus’ brother is troubling.
1. Mary – mother of Jesus. Wife of Joseph. Sister of Mary (2). Mother of James, Joses, Judas, Simon and at least two daughters (Mark 6:3) Born 20-6 BCE (depending on Matthew’s date of 4 BCE for Jesus’ birth, as compared to Luke’s date of 6 CE, and her age), last mention at Upper Room prior to Pentecost. (Acts 1:14) Age at least 43 at time of crucifixion, would have been 83+ for the Temple fall and around time of first Gospel.
I’m sorry. The next bit gets confusing because of the possible names. There are two Mary’s named which could either be the same Mary….or be two different Mary’s. I tried to list both possibilities.
2. Mary* – sister of Mary (1). Wife of Cleophas (John 19:25) Possibly Mother of James the Lesser (9)
3. Mary* – Mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses (Mark 15:40.) Wife of Alphaeus. (Mark 3:18) Possibly mother of Levi (Mark 2:14). Assuming Levi is Matthew (Matt. 10:3), then possibly mother of Matthew. Saw Crucifixion (Mark 15:40). Visited tomb on Resurrection Sunday. (Mark 16:1; Matt. 28:1) Saw Resurrected Jesus (Matt. 28:9-10) contra, See Gospel of John does not list this Mary at the tomb or seeing Resurrected Jesus.
*I apologize for the confusion here, but due to the plausible overlap of names, there are certain possibilities to discuss. It is argued Cleophas is the Aramaic form of the Greek Alphaeus, and hence these are the same person.
That would make Mary (wife of Cleophas/Alphaeus) both the mother of James the Lesser (9) and Joses, as well as the sister of Mary (1), Mother of Jesus. Do you follow that? Mary (1) (Jesus’ mom) had sons named James(10) and Joses, additionally she had a sister named Mary (2) who also had sons named James(9) and Joses.
It gets worse. Mark’s Gospel records the story of Jesus interacting with a tax collector by the name of Levi, son of Alphaeus. (Mark 2:14) Subsequently, Mark lists Jesus’ disciples, naming one “James, the son of Alphaeus.” (Mark 3:18) This disciple is traditionally called “James the Lesser” (9) to differentiate him from James, (11) the son of Zebedee.
What Mark does not tell us is whether James the Lesser, son of Alphaeus (9) is the same or a brother or even related to Levi, son of Alphaeus. Now is when it gets tricky. Let’s follow this story through the Synoptic Gospels.
Matthew decides to insert his own name, “Matthew” instead of Levi when he recounts the tax collector’s tale. (Matt. 9:9)** He drops “son of Alphaeus” when referring to Levi/Matthew.
**Yes, I am aware Matthew is not the author, but I am trying to keep this as simple as I can.
Luke goes back to “Levi” when discussing this tax collector (Luke 5:27) and also drops “son of Alphaeus.” If you are totaled confused, it is as follows:
Mark – Levi, son of Alphaeus
Matthew – Matthew
Luke – Levi
Therefore, if one is proposing a resolution that Alphaeus and Cleophas were one and the same, AND Matthew is the same as Levi, AND the Levi/Matthew son of Alphaeus is a brother to James the Lesser (9), this would make:
Mary (1) – mother of Jesus, James (10) and Joses
sister to:
Mary (2 & 3) – mother of James (9), Joses and Matthew.
Jesus would have a mother named Mary (1), an aunt named Mary (2 & 3), a brother named James (10), a cousin named James (9) [also a disciple] and a cousin named Levi/Matthew [also a disciple.] Plus a brother named Joses and a cousin named Joses.
I should note that Bauckham does not believe Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same.
4. Mary Magdalene – At the crucifixion (Mark 15:40; John 19:25) Saw Jesus buried. (Mt. 27:56; Mark 15:47). Visited tomb Resurrection Morning. (Mark 16:1; Mt. 18:1) Saw post-resurrection Jesus. (John 20:11-18) contra, See Mt. 28:9-10 where it implies she saw resurrection Jesus, but this fails to align with John’s Gospel. Only Luke records Jesus removed seven demons from her. (Luke 8:2)
5. Mary of Bethany – sister to Martha, sister to Lazarus. (John 11:1) The woman who anointed Jesus. (John 11:2, see Mark 14:1-9) See also Luke 10:38 – 42 that records the story of a Mary living with her sister Martha. However, there is no mention of Lazarus, and Luke names the place “a certain village;” not Bethany, despite being aware of where Bethany was. Luke 19:29; 24:50. This is possibly two different Mary’s.
6. Mary - mother of John Mark. (Acts. 12:12)
7. Mary - in Rome, worked with Paul. (Rom. 16:6)
8. Intentionally left blank.
9. James the Lesser – son of Alphaeus, son of Mary (3), possibly cousin to James (10). Called “the Lesser” to differentiate from other disciple named James (11). (Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15) Never listed in John. Nothing beyond being in the list of disciples..
10. James the Just – Brother to Jesus. Mother is Mary (1), Aunt is Mary (2) and possibly Aunt is Mary (3). If Aunt is Mary (3) AND Cleophas is same as Alphaeus, would be cousin to James the Lesser (9) (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55) I discuss the growing myth within the Tales of James’ martyrdom here. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14)
Curiously, only Matthew and Mark name him as a brother to Jesus, (See Gal. 1:19). Luke & John indicate interaction between Jesus and “his brothers” but never names any of them. (Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14) Also note Acts indicates a “James” as a leader in the church, but does not indicate he is related to Jesus. Traditionally claimed to be the author of the Epistle of James, but does not indicate such in the book. James 1:1. Brother to Jude (Jude 1)?
Listed in the Gospel of Thomas to be the leader of the Church. (Thomas 12)
11. James the son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17) One of the three insider disciples (with Peter and his brother John) Killed by Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) between 41 – 44 C.E. (Note: the Bible calls this king “Herod” whereas his name was “Agrippa.”)
12. James, father of Judas (not Iscariot). Note this particular disciple named “Judas” is not listed in Mark or Matthew but is listed in both Luke and John. (Luke 6:16; John 14:22 ) I discuss the varying the disciples’ name here.
I’m not making any particular argument, this is more reference material. I may add information later, as I come across it.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect is how difficult it is to narrow down the names. As if the people knew there was a Mary somewhere, and a James, but not quite certain as to who they were in relation to the actual people. Some interesting points:
1. There is no James listed in the Gospel of John. Although the “brothers of Jesus” are referred to, as well as the “sons of Zebedee,” even the other Judas, son of James—the name “James” does not appear.
2. Mary Magdalene is the only Mary listed in all four Gospels. She is not mentioned again.
3. John lists Jesus’ mother’s sister as “Mary”—not Jesus’ mother. Why is it the Johannine community did not know Jesus’ brother’s name, nor Jesus’ mother’s name?
4. Only Luke and John list “Mary and Martha”—although it is possible these were two different Mary’s (and two different Martha’s). (Luke does not record them from Bethany, does not indicate this was the person who anointed Jesus, and does not list Lazarus, her brother.)
5. Although Acts lists a James becoming prominent in the church, it does not list him as Jesus’ brother. (Luke would have had a copy of Mark. Either he must have known the name, OR the name of James being Jesus’ brother was added in a later copy of Mark, after Luke’s copy.)
You may know the argument Gal. 1:19, where Paul says “James, brother of the Lord” was merely a designation of comradeship—not an actual fraternal relationship—just like Christians still call each other “brother” and “sister.” I’m not convinced…yet…but Luke and John not listing “James” when referring to Jesus’ brother is troubling.
Monday, March 08, 2010
…you might be an anti-theist
Apparently there is a poster entitled: Top Ten Signs you are an Unquestioning Christian. I perceive it to be intended as semi-humorous/semi-serious. Along the lines of Jeff Foxworthy’s famous, “You might be a redneck.” A hint of truth amongst the parody.
The Pyromaniacs Blog is responding to each of these. Curiously, they recognize the use of parody (it was from their blogs I saw the Foxworthy angle), yet they decided to address them as literal arguments.
This was all brought to my attention by Stan’s counter of Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Anti-theist:
I thought of responding to each one, but then I would be as guilty as the Pyromaniacs for taking these literally, when they are given tongue-in-cheek. Yet presumably there is some truth being claimed. And perhaps they are NOT given as a parody, and meant to be firm statements. Can’t tell.
Thoughts?
The Pyromaniacs Blog is responding to each of these. Curiously, they recognize the use of parody (it was from their blogs I saw the Foxworthy angle), yet they decided to address them as literal arguments.
This was all brought to my attention by Stan’s counter of Ten Signs You are an Unquestioning Anti-theist:
10. You cannot recognize the simple, logical, undeniable fact that if there is one, true God, all other gods would be false.
9. You find ultimate value in creatures you are quite sure evolved by chance from a pool of chemicals.
8. You reject any evidence and logic that is contrary to your view because you are a person that only accepts evidence and logic.
7. You make Christian beliefs a matter of ridicule without subjecting other religions or even your own beliefs to the same standards.
6. You are confident that you know more about Christianity than the average "Christian".
5. You are quite sure that science, history, geology, biology, and physics have disproven the existence of God.
4. You have comfort to offer in times of death and suffering even though there is no overarching basis for such comfort.
3. You believe that faith in science is reasonable, but faith in God is believing something when there is no reason to believe it.
2. You are comfortable claiming that life is meaningful when you're convinced that humans are biochemical bags who cease to exist at death.
1. You hold that there is no "Supreme Moral Agent", but affirm that there are moral atrocities that occur and moral values that all of us should have.
I thought of responding to each one, but then I would be as guilty as the Pyromaniacs for taking these literally, when they are given tongue-in-cheek. Yet presumably there is some truth being claimed. And perhaps they are NOT given as a parody, and meant to be firm statements. Can’t tell.
Thoughts?
Friday, March 05, 2010
You’re an atheist because you are ugly
Well. This is a new one on me. I’ve been accused of deconverting because I want to sin, because the devil is tricking me, because I wasn’t a Christian in the first place, etc. This is the first time (that I know) I’ve been accused of becoming an atheist because of my looks!
Detroit has joined the campaign where secular groups hire advertisements on the sides of buses. The Oakland Press wrote an article on it. Three great quotes have come from this article. (The first one was in a comment that has subsequently been removed, but luckily was quoted by another person later.):
Who dares argue against impenetrable logic like that?
Detroit has joined the campaign where secular groups hire advertisements on the sides of buses. The Oakland Press wrote an article on it. Three great quotes have come from this article. (The first one was in a comment that has subsequently been removed, but luckily was quoted by another person later.):
Atheists are hilarious. They are just angry virgin nerds who are upset because their mom made them go to church when they were kids. Most atheists grow out of this silly little crusade against mommy and daddy if they are fortunate to touch a girl. But given the fact that there is no such thing as a physically attractive atheist, it is rare to find someone who will put up with one considering their awful personalities
Sorry Kinae, but it's all about sex. As soon as atheists get their v-cards punched they tend to drop the teen angst and stop spouting off about "xtians" and "logic" on the internet. Like I said though, that's pretty rare since as Darwin said, organisms tend to look for mates with desirable traits. Being fat, greasy, smelly acne riddled nerds does not qualify atheists as desirable.
40 million atheists in the USA? That sounds entirely plausible given the high levels of obesity amongst young people and teens in the USA.
Who dares argue against impenetrable logic like that?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Even my kids get it
Need to give a little background. I grew up attending Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, Christian Elementary, etc. Meaning I’ve been well-versed in the Bible [pun intended.] We were often taught lists. The books of the New Testament. The Books of the Old Testament. The 12 Disciples.
And of course…the Ten Commandments. I don’t remember learning the Ten Commandments—in my memory I have always known them. If you ask me what they are, I will rattle them off. I just…know what they are. Hardly think about the reasoning behind their origin.
My two youngest, on the other hand, were not raised in that environment. They know the Ten Commandments exist, and that there are ten…but not what they are. Yesterday they were watching The Prince of Egypt --story of Moses. It starts off, of course, with the Hebrews in slavery and shows scenes of them being beaten, harassed, whipped, and mistreated. As my children love to talk through a movie, their condition was mentioned with comments like, “That was bad, right Dad?” and “Moses is sad because of how his people are being treated.”
Later they had this interesting conversation:
Daughter: When does God give Moses those…things?
Son: What things?
Daughter: Those ten things.
Son: You mean the Ten Commandments?
Daughter: Yes…what are they?
Son: Oh, they’re laws about what we shouldn’t do…like stealing…and killing…
Daughter: And slavery?
Son: Oh yes…and slavery.
How simple. How obvious. They had just watched how bad slavery was for the Hebrews, so if God was going to give a set of rules, surely he would include one against slavery.
The God of the Golden Rule would take the Israelites out of slavery and say, “You didn’t like being slaves, so do unto others what you would have them do to you. Don’t have slaves.”
Right?
Even children get it.
And of course…the Ten Commandments. I don’t remember learning the Ten Commandments—in my memory I have always known them. If you ask me what they are, I will rattle them off. I just…know what they are. Hardly think about the reasoning behind their origin.
My two youngest, on the other hand, were not raised in that environment. They know the Ten Commandments exist, and that there are ten…but not what they are. Yesterday they were watching The Prince of Egypt --story of Moses. It starts off, of course, with the Hebrews in slavery and shows scenes of them being beaten, harassed, whipped, and mistreated. As my children love to talk through a movie, their condition was mentioned with comments like, “That was bad, right Dad?” and “Moses is sad because of how his people are being treated.”
Later they had this interesting conversation:
Daughter: When does God give Moses those…things?
Son: What things?
Daughter: Those ten things.
Son: You mean the Ten Commandments?
Daughter: Yes…what are they?
Son: Oh, they’re laws about what we shouldn’t do…like stealing…and killing…
Daughter: And slavery?
Son: Oh yes…and slavery.
How simple. How obvious. They had just watched how bad slavery was for the Hebrews, so if God was going to give a set of rules, surely he would include one against slavery.
The God of the Golden Rule would take the Israelites out of slavery and say, “You didn’t like being slaves, so do unto others what you would have them do to you. Don’t have slaves.”
Right?
Even children get it.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
How to Make a Militant Atheist
Julian Baggini (author of A Very Short Introduction to Atheism) defines Militant Atheism to be:
Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite; apparently that is one requirement to avoid the label of “militant atheist.”
Secondly, we must be silent as to people flying planes into buildings, or beating your child with a stick or starving a one-year-old to death for not saying “Amen.” We should keep quiet regarding the misogyny, homophobia and intolerance for differing ideas that has historically pervaded religions.
If this is “Militant Atheism”—it would seem the solution is simple: Demonstrate God-based religion is true or show that it is usually beneficial, and there would be no need for militant atheists. *snickers* Good luck with that!
But I don’t want to focus solely on what militant atheism is, nor what it should be, nor whether it shouldn’t be. I wanted to explain why I am…well…I dare say a militant atheist.
There is an oft-told practical joke where an office group picks one particular victim, and for the entire morning, no matter what he says, the people react as if he is being outrageously angry.
Victim: Good Morning!
Prankster1: Easy…calm down, Victim.
Victim shrugs: How’s the coffee?
Prankster2: Hey, don’t yell, simmer down.
Victim: But I’m not yelling.
Prankster2: [backs away] I didn’t mean to get you so upset.
Of course inevitably this becomes self-fulfilling when the Victim really does become angry because no one believes he is not angry, yet he keeps being told he is angry.
Haven’t we entered the same routine?
Christian: Why did you become an atheist?
Me: Because the evidence fails to persuade God exists.
Christian: Nope—because you want to sin.
Me: No—really! I looked at this argument and those proofs and I am not convinced.
Christian: Nope. Sinner.
Me: O.K., then—what sin is it you are claiming I am doing?
Christian: Oh, I don’t know THAT. It must be some secret sin.
Like the victim in our office prank, I am baffled by the opposite reaction to what I am saying. Over and over we hear the same tired canards:
“Evolution is just a theory.”
“Darwin recanted on his death bed.”
“Somebody somewhere once said Hittites didn’t exist, and it turns out they did, so we can’t trust archeology when it fails to support what I want to hear.”
“The fool says there is no God.”
And for every Christian we patiently explain the problem, the next day a new Christian joins in and says, “It must be true ‘cause the Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie.” And we go through it all over again. Only to hear Steven Baldwin say, “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”
At some point we must look at the whole system and speak out. Look, if a local school was failing the vast majority of students, we would immediately think, “There is a problem here. Something must be wrong; this situation needs to be addressed.” Yet it is as if those questioning militant atheism proclaim, “Hey! Here is a student who obtained all A’s and here is a student who received a B or two. You cannot incriminate the entire system when we have these few standouts.”
Yes…Yes, I can. The vast majority of Christians I associate with do not study opposing views. They hardly study their own beyond what they learn in Sunday School. They don’t read books on evolution. They don’t read books on Textual Criticism. They don’t read cosmology, archeology, botany, geology… they read Bibles, Bible study guides and books giving advice based on the Bible.
And they sure haven’t read Baggini’s Short Introduction to Atheism.
Is the appropriate approach to be silent in the hopes of an anomalous Christian who has studied evolution? Or should I point out the errors? See, I may appear militant against the vast majority of Christians I interact with, because I respond to the errors given by this majority!
Further, I also see a great deal of harm within religions. When I point out the Pat Robertson’s—I am told, “He doesn’t speak for my belief.” I cringe at tales of cover-ups regarding Priest and Pastor indiscretions. “They aren’t true Christians.” I am horrified by the practice of Sharia Law in many countries. By the infighting between Christians and Hindus and Muslims in India.
Yet I don’t have to listen to the evening news to see the offenses of religions. I watched the back-biting and in-fighting growing up. I saw the use of belief as a weapon to diminish others. Watched terrible behavior excused as “wrestling with sinful nature” if the person is part of the accepted crowd, yet other people demonized for less because they were not.
I’ve watched families, friends and relationships torn apart over religious differences. Where each justifies and rationalizes ostracizing the other. Where the poor are only helped upon receiving the appropriate recriminations. Where the sinner must cry and beg and demonstrate how truly terrible they are to make the Christian feel self-righteous before handing out pittance charity.
If churches are so beneficial—why is it the LAST place people want to go for assistance?
Shouldn’t we be speaking out against such things? We should be addressing the wrongs committed in the name of religion. We must point out the errors in knowledge, the lack of study in those professing to hold truth in the form of a God.
And we are told by many theists, “Oh…that isn’t MY church. That isn’t MY religion. Those aren’t true Christians.” Yet this is exactly the problem. Because they have no means to explain who IS a true Christian, or method to verify which is the correct God, all they can do is cluck their tongue and say, “Tsk, tsk.” They think it’s wrong…sure…but their God is silent as what to do. They don’t want to say they hate it—that language seems so strong in the face of God’s stillness in action.
Blame the atheist for daring to say, “I dislike that. I dislike that a lot! In fact—I hate it.”
I am wrong for being “on the verge of hatred” for these actions? Really? Well…if that makes me a militant atheist, I proudly wear the label.
Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful.
Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite; apparently that is one requirement to avoid the label of “militant atheist.”
Secondly, we must be silent as to people flying planes into buildings, or beating your child with a stick or starving a one-year-old to death for not saying “Amen.” We should keep quiet regarding the misogyny, homophobia and intolerance for differing ideas that has historically pervaded religions.
If this is “Militant Atheism”—it would seem the solution is simple: Demonstrate God-based religion is true or show that it is usually beneficial, and there would be no need for militant atheists. *snickers* Good luck with that!
But I don’t want to focus solely on what militant atheism is, nor what it should be, nor whether it shouldn’t be. I wanted to explain why I am…well…I dare say a militant atheist.
There is an oft-told practical joke where an office group picks one particular victim, and for the entire morning, no matter what he says, the people react as if he is being outrageously angry.
Victim: Good Morning!
Prankster1: Easy…calm down, Victim.
Victim shrugs: How’s the coffee?
Prankster2: Hey, don’t yell, simmer down.
Victim: But I’m not yelling.
Prankster2: [backs away] I didn’t mean to get you so upset.
Of course inevitably this becomes self-fulfilling when the Victim really does become angry because no one believes he is not angry, yet he keeps being told he is angry.
Haven’t we entered the same routine?
Christian: Why did you become an atheist?
Me: Because the evidence fails to persuade God exists.
Christian: Nope—because you want to sin.
Me: No—really! I looked at this argument and those proofs and I am not convinced.
Christian: Nope. Sinner.
Me: O.K., then—what sin is it you are claiming I am doing?
Christian: Oh, I don’t know THAT. It must be some secret sin.
Like the victim in our office prank, I am baffled by the opposite reaction to what I am saying. Over and over we hear the same tired canards:
“Evolution is just a theory.”
“Darwin recanted on his death bed.”
“Somebody somewhere once said Hittites didn’t exist, and it turns out they did, so we can’t trust archeology when it fails to support what I want to hear.”
“The fool says there is no God.”
And for every Christian we patiently explain the problem, the next day a new Christian joins in and says, “It must be true ‘cause the Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie.” And we go through it all over again. Only to hear Steven Baldwin say, “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”
At some point we must look at the whole system and speak out. Look, if a local school was failing the vast majority of students, we would immediately think, “There is a problem here. Something must be wrong; this situation needs to be addressed.” Yet it is as if those questioning militant atheism proclaim, “Hey! Here is a student who obtained all A’s and here is a student who received a B or two. You cannot incriminate the entire system when we have these few standouts.”
Yes…Yes, I can. The vast majority of Christians I associate with do not study opposing views. They hardly study their own beyond what they learn in Sunday School. They don’t read books on evolution. They don’t read books on Textual Criticism. They don’t read cosmology, archeology, botany, geology… they read Bibles, Bible study guides and books giving advice based on the Bible.
And they sure haven’t read Baggini’s Short Introduction to Atheism.
Is the appropriate approach to be silent in the hopes of an anomalous Christian who has studied evolution? Or should I point out the errors? See, I may appear militant against the vast majority of Christians I interact with, because I respond to the errors given by this majority!
Further, I also see a great deal of harm within religions. When I point out the Pat Robertson’s—I am told, “He doesn’t speak for my belief.” I cringe at tales of cover-ups regarding Priest and Pastor indiscretions. “They aren’t true Christians.” I am horrified by the practice of Sharia Law in many countries. By the infighting between Christians and Hindus and Muslims in India.
Yet I don’t have to listen to the evening news to see the offenses of religions. I watched the back-biting and in-fighting growing up. I saw the use of belief as a weapon to diminish others. Watched terrible behavior excused as “wrestling with sinful nature” if the person is part of the accepted crowd, yet other people demonized for less because they were not.
I’ve watched families, friends and relationships torn apart over religious differences. Where each justifies and rationalizes ostracizing the other. Where the poor are only helped upon receiving the appropriate recriminations. Where the sinner must cry and beg and demonstrate how truly terrible they are to make the Christian feel self-righteous before handing out pittance charity.
If churches are so beneficial—why is it the LAST place people want to go for assistance?
Shouldn’t we be speaking out against such things? We should be addressing the wrongs committed in the name of religion. We must point out the errors in knowledge, the lack of study in those professing to hold truth in the form of a God.
And we are told by many theists, “Oh…that isn’t MY church. That isn’t MY religion. Those aren’t true Christians.” Yet this is exactly the problem. Because they have no means to explain who IS a true Christian, or method to verify which is the correct God, all they can do is cluck their tongue and say, “Tsk, tsk.” They think it’s wrong…sure…but their God is silent as what to do. They don’t want to say they hate it—that language seems so strong in the face of God’s stillness in action.
Blame the atheist for daring to say, “I dislike that. I dislike that a lot! In fact—I hate it.”
I am wrong for being “on the verge of hatred” for these actions? Really? Well…if that makes me a militant atheist, I proudly wear the label.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Women at Empty Tomb
We often hear the criteria of “embarrassment” being utilized when attempting to determine a claim’s historicity. The idea being, if the statement was not general knowledge and embarrassing to the person writing, it is more likely to be historical.
For example, if I wrote an autobiography and admitted cheating during law school, this would have a greater probability of being historical as it is embarrassing and not general knowledge. Obviously what is embarrassing to one person may not be to another. My admitting to an affair would fulfill this criterion, whereas an NBA player’s claim may not. My admitting to voting for Obama may not; if Rush Limbaugh admitted to doing so—it is very likely to be true.
It must be a claim against my self-interest. My profession of you having an affair would not be embarrassing at all. Especially if I did not care for you.
Additionally, a person may be forced to admit something not true, simply because it is already generally assumed or stated, and to disclaim it takes more effort than embracing it. Therefore, we need three criteria for embarrassment:
1) Stated by the person whose self-interest would be harmed;
2) Derogatory or disfavorable to that person or their interests;
3) Not previously made generally known.
We often see Christian scholars utilize this method when defending historicity within the Gospel accounts. I want to focus on one such claim—the women at the empty tomb.
The earliest account we have is Mark 16:1-8:
I will let William Lane Craig explain why this fits the embarrassment criterion:
In a debate, one might succinctly respond, “Mark enthusiastically embraced role reversals. He had the foreigners Pilate and the Centurion unwittingly recognize who Jesus really was; whereas his own people—the Jews—did not. Mark wrote of Jewish Religious leaders accusing Jesus of being the Messiah—and He was!—whereas his disciples were the ones betraying him to the executioner! Mark would like nothing better than have the lowest in the Jewish society play the greatest honor of discovering the empty tomb.”
There is much more to unpack, but when pressed for time, this concisely states the response.
The first question is whether this would be against the author’s self-interest. This is written by the Gospel of Mark’s author. (I will call him Mark for convenience.) The only possible candidate for an older record is 1 Corinthians 15, and that makes no mention of a tomb, let alone its whereabouts or discovery. This is our first record of occurrence.
You may hear claims there was a pre-Markan source, or this was consistent with oral tradition—but without those sources, we must work with what we have. [We often hear claims the persons writing these accounts would dare not make untruths, because they would be “checked out” by readers, looking to confirm what was said. Nonsense. In 2010, we have amazing resources to check out claims, yet we still receive mass e-mails about dead people removing religious broadcasting and people are too lazy to check out the truth for themselves. Indeed, the only thing access and technology has done is speed myth and legends spreading! Additionally in Galatians 1:6 (50 CE) Paul is concerned about how quickly the people were turning away to “another gospel.” Apparently they were NOT verifying Paul’s statements or fact-checking what was said.]
According to Papias (circa 130 CE), Mark was Peter’s companion, and wrote down what he remembered Peter had said. Unfortunately, Papias does not tell provide a source for this claim, and appears to be defending Mark against attacks as to its authenticity. Scholars have retreated to claiming a Peterine influence at best, rather than Peter being the sole source of the Gospel.
Which raises the interesting issue—was Mark writing FOR Peter, or AGAINST Peter? Many Christians envision an early church that was united in thought, deed and doctrine throughout the First Century. Perhaps a minor difference between immature and mature Christians or how to integrate Jewish practice with gentiles joining this new faction.
However, Paul states in 1 Corinthians1:11-12, less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’” Paul is concerned about growing factions, following individuals—this is not the description of a united church body!
In fact, the New Testament is replete with edicts against those causing divisions. See Rom. 16:17, 1 Cor. 11:18, Jude 19. We must address whether Mark was within a division against Peter.
Mark indicates Jesus changing Simon’s name to Simon Peter or Simon Petras--meaning “rock.” Mark 3: 16. Mark’s first recorded parable recounts is the famous parable of the sower—who throws seed in four spots—the wayside, the stony ground, among thorns, and on good ground. Mark 4:1-9. Jesus later explains (with a note of exasperation towards the disciples) these are descriptions of people who receive the word. 4:13-20.
Follow the description of the seed on stony ground: “Immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up, it scorched and because it had no root, it withered away.” (4:5-6). Jesus explains these people, “These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word's sake, immediately they stumble.” (4:16-17)
This is an apt description of Peter! At the Last Supper, Peter says, “Even if all stumble, I will not.” (14:29) Of course we know Peter ends up denying Jesus once the heat is on, and the Gospel of Mark leaves Peter with a third denial and weeping. (14:72)
Mark writes that Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) yet almost immediately, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him the equivalent of Satan. (8:32). At the transfiguration, Peter is described as afraid and makes a suggestion Jesus politely ignores. (9:5-6) Jesus asks Peter, James and John to be with Him when he prays in the Garden before His crucifixion, and the three fall asleep. Who does Mark indicate Jesus rebukes for it? Peter (14:37)
Given the choice between whether this is a polemic for or against Peter, a straight-forward reading would be it does not paint a favorable picture of Peter. Even Christians recognize how badly the disciples are portrayed and fashion defenses to explain it.
If we are looking for the simplest explanation, here is the situation:
1) There were factions within the church prior to Mark being written.
2) Mark displays characteristics indicating other influences besides Peter.
3) The disciples—especially Peter—are portrayed extremely poorly
The expedient conclusion is that this is written AGAINST Peter—not in support of Peter. Therefore having someone other than the disciples discover the empty tomb supports the theme of writing against the disciples. It fails the first requirement in that Mark is not supporting the Disciples’ self-interest.
But we can’t stop there. Even assuming the Gospel is written against one Christian faction (the Peterine group), the question can still be raised, “If Mark was making up the tomb discovery, then he would have men make the discovery to bolster the story, rather than use women who were of lower social caste and not used as legal witnesses.” Rather than use the disciples, Mark would have utilized other men.
There is a bit of bait-and-switch happening here. Notice the first clause—the initial premise, “IF Mark was making up the tomb discovery…” The problem I often see, when this is raised, is that the Christian first addresses it as if Mark was making up the story, but then uses Mark as historical fact. No, no, no—if we are going under the presumption Mark is making it up, we must address it as if Mark was making it up!
In other words, the Christian claims, “Why would Mark make up women?” after claiming Pilate did this, and Joseph of Arimathea did that, and the Jewish leaders did this…and so on. The better question is where did history stop and myth come in? If we are looking at Mark making up the women—where else can we look to see if Mark made up part of the story?
Let’s look at an example. Mark records a person, Joseph of Arimathea—a Sanhedrin member—requesting the body of Jesus. Joseph then performs burial rites and places Jesus in a tomb. (Mark 15:43-46)
[A minor excursion here is helpful to demonstrate how myth development is demonstrated in the gospels. In Mark, Joseph is a council member, “waiting for the Kingdom of God” and puts Jesus in a tomb. Matthew removes Joseph’s status as a Sanhedrin member, refers to him as a rich man, but now Joseph has become a disciple of Jesus, and Jesus is laid in Joseph’s personal tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60) Luke reinstates Joseph as a council member, adds he was a “good and just man” as well as indicated Joseph dissented from the conviction of Jesus. Luke states the tomb had never been used. (Luke 23:50-53) John also agrees the tomb has never been used, agrees with Matthew (against Mark and Luke) that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, and adds Nicodemus as a co-conspirator with Joseph. (John 19:38-41) By the Gospel of Peter Joseph was both a disciple of Jesus and a friend of Pilate. Peter indicates it was Joseph’s tomb, and it was in a Garden named after Joseph! Celtic myth eventually claimed Joseph held the Holy Grail when it collected Jesus’ blood.]
Curiously, Joseph of Arimathea appears for this one part at the end of Act III, and then disappears from the scene. We haven’t heard of him before; we hear nothing of him after. Even when the early church interacts with the council, we hear nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. (Acts 5:34)
Mark also indicates that after Sabbath, women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus with spices. Mary, the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome. (Mark 16:1) Although this was normally done at the burial (John’s Gospel does included it), it is possible to be done again. Note, like Joseph, the women have appeared for the first time by name at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40, 47)
What is more important are the names. In first century Palestine, burials and tombs were family matters. A person would be buried in a family tomb; the family was expected to perform the burial rites. Mark is writing a story of abandonment. Christ has already predicted all will abandon him. (Mark 14:27) Who would be expected to normally bury Jesus? His father, Joseph, and his mother, Mary.
Mark is deliberately emphasizing Jesus’ own family abandoning him in the end. In case we are too thick to get it, he introduces “Joseph of Arimathea” to play the part of Jesus’ father Joseph, and two Mary’s to play the part of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Not convinced? What are the chances Joseph, Jesus’ dad, is unavailable and the name of the person who is available also happens to be named Joseph?
Or that Mary, Jesus’ mother, is not available, and another Mary prepares to perform the rite. A happy coincidence? How far will that coincidence stretch? Mary, the mother of Jesus, has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 6:3) This Mary also has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 15:40) Could Mark make it any more obvious? Like Joseph of Arimathea, Mary(s) appear, act their part and disappear.
Not coincidentally, failing to obey Jesus’ last command to inform the Disciples (Mark 16:7-8), making the abandonment of Jesus complete by all persons.
This is a strong example Mark’s author was deliberately modifying facts…making things up…to make a point. Mark loves to use the unexpected—role reversal. We see this theme replete through Mark.
What better example of this, then the statement, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”? (Mark 10:31) Again, in case we miss the point, Mark tells the tale regarding the sons of Zebedee desiring a place of honor, and Jesus saying they must be servants first. (Mark 10:37-44) Or the disciples turning away children (considered extremely low status in first century Palestine), and Jesus saying, “No—the children get to see me.” (Mark 10:13-16)
The centurion—a foreigner, not a God-fearing man—is the person who declares Jesus the son of God. (Mark 15:39.) (For even a deeper look at the irony here, it is likely the Centurion was saying this mockingly: “This was the son of God…and I’m the queen of Spain!” Yet he was actually correct. Another level of role reversal—saying the right thing, thinking he was wrong. If you believer I am taking this too far, remember the soldiers clothing Jesus with a purple robe and giving him a crown of thorns. (Mark 15:17) Even Christians agree an ironic statement was being made there.)
The accusation against him from the Romans was that he was “King of the Judeans.” (Mark 15:26) A sign meant to be mocking, but again turns out to be true. Jesus tells his followers to “take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34; 10:31) yet it is a non-follower—Simon of Cyrene—who is compelled to carry the cross. (Mark 15:21) The named “Simon” playing the role of “Simon Peter” is another coincidence…or is it?
Finally, we should consider how Mark treats females. The person receiving the highest praise within Mark (in fact the only person to receive solely praise) is a woman—the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany. Mark 14:3-9. (Again, note the ironic role reversal that Jesus indicates she will always be remembered, yet her name is not given.)
Mark treats favorably the woman who touches Jesus to heal her blood problem (Mark 5:25-34) and the Greek woman requesting healing for her daughter (Mark 7:25-30)
So this is what we have:
1) An author who enjoys irony and role reversal,
2) An author who treats women favorably,
3) An author manipulating names to make a point, (Joseph/Joseph. Mary/Mary)
4) An author intending to make a specific point. (Complete abandonment.)
Why wouldn’t Mark use females to discover the empty tomb? It makes sense in light of the themes running through this gospel.
The Christian scholars claiming differently are using a modern thought process (“If I were making up the claim, I would do it this way…”) without looking at it in the Gospel writer’s framework.
As Matthew and Luke utilized Mark for their stories regarding women encountering the empty tomb, these are not independent statements and need not be addressed once Mark’s position is clarified. John appears to incorporate Mary Magdalene being at the tomb, perhaps through oral transmission of the story initiated in Mark, but differs greatly on the details.
When Mark is reviewed as 21st Century courtroom testimony, we might wonder why, if he was making it up, he would use woman at the empty tomb. When Mark is reviewed within its own writing, in its own time, we wonder why he would use anyone else.
For example, if I wrote an autobiography and admitted cheating during law school, this would have a greater probability of being historical as it is embarrassing and not general knowledge. Obviously what is embarrassing to one person may not be to another. My admitting to an affair would fulfill this criterion, whereas an NBA player’s claim may not. My admitting to voting for Obama may not; if Rush Limbaugh admitted to doing so—it is very likely to be true.
It must be a claim against my self-interest. My profession of you having an affair would not be embarrassing at all. Especially if I did not care for you.
Additionally, a person may be forced to admit something not true, simply because it is already generally assumed or stated, and to disclaim it takes more effort than embracing it. Therefore, we need three criteria for embarrassment:
1) Stated by the person whose self-interest would be harmed;
2) Derogatory or disfavorable to that person or their interests;
3) Not previously made generally known.
We often see Christian scholars utilize this method when defending historicity within the Gospel accounts. I want to focus on one such claim—the women at the empty tomb.
The earliest account we have is Mark 16:1-8:
Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."
So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
I will let William Lane Craig explain why this fits the embarrassment criterion:
Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, the most plausible explanation, in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend, why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus' body, unless this were in fact the truth.
In a debate, one might succinctly respond, “Mark enthusiastically embraced role reversals. He had the foreigners Pilate and the Centurion unwittingly recognize who Jesus really was; whereas his own people—the Jews—did not. Mark wrote of Jewish Religious leaders accusing Jesus of being the Messiah—and He was!—whereas his disciples were the ones betraying him to the executioner! Mark would like nothing better than have the lowest in the Jewish society play the greatest honor of discovering the empty tomb.”
There is much more to unpack, but when pressed for time, this concisely states the response.
The first question is whether this would be against the author’s self-interest. This is written by the Gospel of Mark’s author. (I will call him Mark for convenience.) The only possible candidate for an older record is 1 Corinthians 15, and that makes no mention of a tomb, let alone its whereabouts or discovery. This is our first record of occurrence.
You may hear claims there was a pre-Markan source, or this was consistent with oral tradition—but without those sources, we must work with what we have. [We often hear claims the persons writing these accounts would dare not make untruths, because they would be “checked out” by readers, looking to confirm what was said. Nonsense. In 2010, we have amazing resources to check out claims, yet we still receive mass e-mails about dead people removing religious broadcasting and people are too lazy to check out the truth for themselves. Indeed, the only thing access and technology has done is speed myth and legends spreading! Additionally in Galatians 1:6 (50 CE) Paul is concerned about how quickly the people were turning away to “another gospel.” Apparently they were NOT verifying Paul’s statements or fact-checking what was said.]
According to Papias (circa 130 CE), Mark was Peter’s companion, and wrote down what he remembered Peter had said. Unfortunately, Papias does not tell provide a source for this claim, and appears to be defending Mark against attacks as to its authenticity. Scholars have retreated to claiming a Peterine influence at best, rather than Peter being the sole source of the Gospel.
Which raises the interesting issue—was Mark writing FOR Peter, or AGAINST Peter? Many Christians envision an early church that was united in thought, deed and doctrine throughout the First Century. Perhaps a minor difference between immature and mature Christians or how to integrate Jewish practice with gentiles joining this new faction.
However, Paul states in 1 Corinthians1:11-12, less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’” Paul is concerned about growing factions, following individuals—this is not the description of a united church body!
In fact, the New Testament is replete with edicts against those causing divisions. See Rom. 16:17, 1 Cor. 11:18, Jude 19. We must address whether Mark was within a division against Peter.
Mark indicates Jesus changing Simon’s name to Simon Peter or Simon Petras--meaning “rock.” Mark 3: 16. Mark’s first recorded parable recounts is the famous parable of the sower—who throws seed in four spots—the wayside, the stony ground, among thorns, and on good ground. Mark 4:1-9. Jesus later explains (with a note of exasperation towards the disciples) these are descriptions of people who receive the word. 4:13-20.
Follow the description of the seed on stony ground: “Immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up, it scorched and because it had no root, it withered away.” (4:5-6). Jesus explains these people, “These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word's sake, immediately they stumble.” (4:16-17)
This is an apt description of Peter! At the Last Supper, Peter says, “Even if all stumble, I will not.” (14:29) Of course we know Peter ends up denying Jesus once the heat is on, and the Gospel of Mark leaves Peter with a third denial and weeping. (14:72)
Mark writes that Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) yet almost immediately, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him the equivalent of Satan. (8:32). At the transfiguration, Peter is described as afraid and makes a suggestion Jesus politely ignores. (9:5-6) Jesus asks Peter, James and John to be with Him when he prays in the Garden before His crucifixion, and the three fall asleep. Who does Mark indicate Jesus rebukes for it? Peter (14:37)
Given the choice between whether this is a polemic for or against Peter, a straight-forward reading would be it does not paint a favorable picture of Peter. Even Christians recognize how badly the disciples are portrayed and fashion defenses to explain it.
If we are looking for the simplest explanation, here is the situation:
1) There were factions within the church prior to Mark being written.
2) Mark displays characteristics indicating other influences besides Peter.
3) The disciples—especially Peter—are portrayed extremely poorly
The expedient conclusion is that this is written AGAINST Peter—not in support of Peter. Therefore having someone other than the disciples discover the empty tomb supports the theme of writing against the disciples. It fails the first requirement in that Mark is not supporting the Disciples’ self-interest.
But we can’t stop there. Even assuming the Gospel is written against one Christian faction (the Peterine group), the question can still be raised, “If Mark was making up the tomb discovery, then he would have men make the discovery to bolster the story, rather than use women who were of lower social caste and not used as legal witnesses.” Rather than use the disciples, Mark would have utilized other men.
There is a bit of bait-and-switch happening here. Notice the first clause—the initial premise, “IF Mark was making up the tomb discovery…” The problem I often see, when this is raised, is that the Christian first addresses it as if Mark was making up the story, but then uses Mark as historical fact. No, no, no—if we are going under the presumption Mark is making it up, we must address it as if Mark was making it up!
In other words, the Christian claims, “Why would Mark make up women?” after claiming Pilate did this, and Joseph of Arimathea did that, and the Jewish leaders did this…and so on. The better question is where did history stop and myth come in? If we are looking at Mark making up the women—where else can we look to see if Mark made up part of the story?
Let’s look at an example. Mark records a person, Joseph of Arimathea—a Sanhedrin member—requesting the body of Jesus. Joseph then performs burial rites and places Jesus in a tomb. (Mark 15:43-46)
[A minor excursion here is helpful to demonstrate how myth development is demonstrated in the gospels. In Mark, Joseph is a council member, “waiting for the Kingdom of God” and puts Jesus in a tomb. Matthew removes Joseph’s status as a Sanhedrin member, refers to him as a rich man, but now Joseph has become a disciple of Jesus, and Jesus is laid in Joseph’s personal tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60) Luke reinstates Joseph as a council member, adds he was a “good and just man” as well as indicated Joseph dissented from the conviction of Jesus. Luke states the tomb had never been used. (Luke 23:50-53) John also agrees the tomb has never been used, agrees with Matthew (against Mark and Luke) that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, and adds Nicodemus as a co-conspirator with Joseph. (John 19:38-41) By the Gospel of Peter Joseph was both a disciple of Jesus and a friend of Pilate. Peter indicates it was Joseph’s tomb, and it was in a Garden named after Joseph! Celtic myth eventually claimed Joseph held the Holy Grail when it collected Jesus’ blood.]
Curiously, Joseph of Arimathea appears for this one part at the end of Act III, and then disappears from the scene. We haven’t heard of him before; we hear nothing of him after. Even when the early church interacts with the council, we hear nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. (Acts 5:34)
Mark also indicates that after Sabbath, women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus with spices. Mary, the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome. (Mark 16:1) Although this was normally done at the burial (John’s Gospel does included it), it is possible to be done again. Note, like Joseph, the women have appeared for the first time by name at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40, 47)
What is more important are the names. In first century Palestine, burials and tombs were family matters. A person would be buried in a family tomb; the family was expected to perform the burial rites. Mark is writing a story of abandonment. Christ has already predicted all will abandon him. (Mark 14:27) Who would be expected to normally bury Jesus? His father, Joseph, and his mother, Mary.
Mark is deliberately emphasizing Jesus’ own family abandoning him in the end. In case we are too thick to get it, he introduces “Joseph of Arimathea” to play the part of Jesus’ father Joseph, and two Mary’s to play the part of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Not convinced? What are the chances Joseph, Jesus’ dad, is unavailable and the name of the person who is available also happens to be named Joseph?
Or that Mary, Jesus’ mother, is not available, and another Mary prepares to perform the rite. A happy coincidence? How far will that coincidence stretch? Mary, the mother of Jesus, has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 6:3) This Mary also has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 15:40) Could Mark make it any more obvious? Like Joseph of Arimathea, Mary(s) appear, act their part and disappear.
Not coincidentally, failing to obey Jesus’ last command to inform the Disciples (Mark 16:7-8), making the abandonment of Jesus complete by all persons.
This is a strong example Mark’s author was deliberately modifying facts…making things up…to make a point. Mark loves to use the unexpected—role reversal. We see this theme replete through Mark.
What better example of this, then the statement, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”? (Mark 10:31) Again, in case we miss the point, Mark tells the tale regarding the sons of Zebedee desiring a place of honor, and Jesus saying they must be servants first. (Mark 10:37-44) Or the disciples turning away children (considered extremely low status in first century Palestine), and Jesus saying, “No—the children get to see me.” (Mark 10:13-16)
The centurion—a foreigner, not a God-fearing man—is the person who declares Jesus the son of God. (Mark 15:39.) (For even a deeper look at the irony here, it is likely the Centurion was saying this mockingly: “This was the son of God…and I’m the queen of Spain!” Yet he was actually correct. Another level of role reversal—saying the right thing, thinking he was wrong. If you believer I am taking this too far, remember the soldiers clothing Jesus with a purple robe and giving him a crown of thorns. (Mark 15:17) Even Christians agree an ironic statement was being made there.)
The accusation against him from the Romans was that he was “King of the Judeans.” (Mark 15:26) A sign meant to be mocking, but again turns out to be true. Jesus tells his followers to “take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34; 10:31) yet it is a non-follower—Simon of Cyrene—who is compelled to carry the cross. (Mark 15:21) The named “Simon” playing the role of “Simon Peter” is another coincidence…or is it?
Finally, we should consider how Mark treats females. The person receiving the highest praise within Mark (in fact the only person to receive solely praise) is a woman—the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany. Mark 14:3-9. (Again, note the ironic role reversal that Jesus indicates she will always be remembered, yet her name is not given.)
Mark treats favorably the woman who touches Jesus to heal her blood problem (Mark 5:25-34) and the Greek woman requesting healing for her daughter (Mark 7:25-30)
So this is what we have:
1) An author who enjoys irony and role reversal,
2) An author who treats women favorably,
3) An author manipulating names to make a point, (Joseph/Joseph. Mary/Mary)
4) An author intending to make a specific point. (Complete abandonment.)
Why wouldn’t Mark use females to discover the empty tomb? It makes sense in light of the themes running through this gospel.
The Christian scholars claiming differently are using a modern thought process (“If I were making up the claim, I would do it this way…”) without looking at it in the Gospel writer’s framework.
As Matthew and Luke utilized Mark for their stories regarding women encountering the empty tomb, these are not independent statements and need not be addressed once Mark’s position is clarified. John appears to incorporate Mary Magdalene being at the tomb, perhaps through oral transmission of the story initiated in Mark, but differs greatly on the details.
When Mark is reviewed as 21st Century courtroom testimony, we might wonder why, if he was making it up, he would use woman at the empty tomb. When Mark is reviewed within its own writing, in its own time, we wonder why he would use anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
