Blog Tour: 9/20 - 9/26

Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Read more!

About Me

I recently discovered a blog called Fundamentally Changed which has fundamentally changed my view of the word "fundamentalist", and being called a "Fundamentalist". I am not sure the word (like "Evangelical") can be resurrected from what secular society has done to it, but at least I do not need to feel insulted anymore when someone calls me one.

Jason, one of the bloggers at Fundamentally Changed, noticed that I was beginning to link them in some of my stuff and put them on my reading list on my sideboard. He did something that really hasn't happened to me up to now (and is, in my opinion, really cool) - he sent me an email:

Read more!

Blog Tour: 8/30 - 9/5

This re-initiates my old practice of looking around the web - hopefully once a week - and drawing some attention to things I see there that interest me.

If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.

Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:

Christian Carnival picks:

• Shannon at The Minority Thinker examines why they are "Quitting Small Group". After having read it, I have to agree with these two statements:

  Over fifteen years, I have been part of almost a dozen small groups sponsored by three different churches; my husband has joined me in most of them. Never once have I developed a close friendship through one of these groups.

  and

  We are told to confess our sins to each other [I tore a group up doing this], to restore each other, to love each other, to encourage each other, and to serve together as the body of Christ. I have rarely – if ever – seen these things happen in a small group. And if that kind of fellowship isn’t taking place regularly, why do we keep trying the same methods and hoping for different results? It seems to me it’s time for a new approach.

• Henry at Participatory Bible Study Blog responds to:

  … The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …

  with "Indentifying Define Revelation"

President Obama's address to school children: I created a category for this expecting to see a bit of stuff on it - but there really wasn't much:

• Jim at Volokh Conspiracy took a look back at the news articles, etc. connected with President George H.W. Bush's 1991 Speech to Schools.

  On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was eported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." [Written text is here - and wasn't checked against the tapes]

• John Piper weighed in with "I Hope My Daughter Hears the President’s Speech":

  I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
  
  I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
  
  This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly . . .

Jason S at Fundamentally Changed looks at how extreme fundamentalism can be involved in "Transgressing By Traditions":

Today I call upon all of my fundamentalist brethren to honestly take the time to examine their doctrines and practices and see how they measure up to God’s Word, the five sola’s, and the historic fundamentals. If they don’t fit that, they must be discarded, no matter how old, precious, and dear they are to us.

Iraq the Model this week is focusing on the crisis raised by Syria's apparent complicity in the August 19th bombing which killed 95 people and wounded 600. One of the stories began

Iraq continues to insist on internationalizing the crisis with Syria, which began after Iraq demanded that Syria hands over senior Ba’ath Party members. Iraq now plans to persuade the international community to form an international criminal court, similar to the one investigating the assassination of the late Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed at a meeting with the Turkish FM that Iraq “will move forward to demand that the UN forms an international tribunal to prosecute those who committed ugly crimes that target Iraq’s stability and people and killed many innocent lives”.

Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed points to a book by

David Bentley Hart, a historian of ideas, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies , has been our guide into some of the philosophical and historical issues at work among the new atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. One of the implicit and sometimes explicit claims is that we are enlightened and that
the secular state is safer than a religious-shaped state. To which Hart makes this statement, and he expresses the growing body of literature that both denies the myth of secularization (that all things are becoming more secular) and reveals the profound mischief of the secular state:

"We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history, during which the secular state (on both the political right and the political left), freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved. If ever an age deserved to be thought an age of darkness, it is surely ours. One might almost be tempted to conclude that secular government is the one form of government that has shown itself too violent, capricious, and unprincipled to be trusted" (106)

Jeremy at Parableman points to "Obama's Widely-Unpublicized Backtrack on Stem Cells" - belatedly for sure because it occurred a while back:

2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)

This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.

2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called.

Notice that now not only is there no federal funding of ESCR - President Obama removed President Bush's mandate of federal funding for IPSC research as well. Incidentally, Jeremy did what anyone should really do when confronted by such a reported contradiction between stated positions of politicians and their actual actions:

When I first read this, I immediately wanted to find something to verify it. It was incredibly difficult to find an actual news story on it, since the mainstream media either suppressed it or never got the information on it. The one news story I could find was from a partisan organization, but it does give chapter and verse for where to find the language in the bill that does indeed do exactly what the story says it does. It's in Title V, section 509 of the Omnibus spending bill (page 128 of this PDF; it appears in full here). It repeats verbatim exactly the section that since 1996 has appeared in every such spending bill under President Clinton and President Bush.

Rick at Rightwing Nuthouse as been writing a whole series of articles about conservative reform - three in the last week. All of them are, to me, important for both folks on the right and the left to read.

Orin at Volokh Conspiracy looks at "al-Kidd v. Ashcroft: Is Pretextual Use of the Material Witness Statute Unconstitutional?":

The Ninth Circuit handed down a fascinating and important case on preventive detention on Friday, and one that I suspect added a new case to the Supreme Court's docket next year: al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The basic holding of the opinion is that the post-9/11 practice of using the material witness statute to detain suspected terrorists is not only unconstitutional, but clearly unconstitutional, and that former AG Ashcroft can be personally sued for his role in it. The majority opinion was written by Judge Milan Smith and joined by Judge Thompson; Judge Bea wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

There's a lot of coverage of the case in newspapers and around the web, but nothing that really delves into the legal questions. That's understandable, as the opinions in the case fill about 100 pages. But in this post, I wanted to delve into the legal questions and see if the court's opinion holds up to scrutiny.
. . .
Fortunately, this case is perfect for Supreme Court review: If the en banc Ninth Circuit passes on it, this case will give the Supreme Court an ideal opportunity to evaluate the very important question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to preventive detention.

Read more!

Romans 1:18-2:7:Textual Issue?

The crosspost at Street Prophets brought on an interesting discussion. Usually between the commentaries at Bible.Org and the notes to the New English Translation (NET) most of the serious textual issues with passages are brought up and discussed. Usually. I guess not so much this time:

I wouldn't call this "revelation". At least not the unspiritual hodge-podge that is strung along after 1:17 (running all the way to verse 8 of Chap 2 in my opinion). It juts into the document like a page of emotional notes inserted by a novice. It’s a series of low reflections trying to hitch a ride on a great letter simply on the brute strength of a few stray scriptural allusions and some lurid detail. It is a poor litany of unregenerate sentiment and philosophic drivel, the dross of a lesser mind than Paul’s - one who cannot approach the level of Paul’s genius.

In my opinion the 22 verses starting at 1:18 bear a tone and form that are distinctly different from that of the Epistle as a whole - not to mention the jumble of uncharitable and uncouth words that do not occur anywhere else in Paul.

I say, accept it at your risk. What I believe is that Jesus himself will hold every fundamentalist responsible for emphasizing this kind of pre-Christian stuff in place of his (or Paul’s) true mission and message.

I asked for some sources and got a very good one:

I find that several ancient Greek manuscripts comprising the most complete collections of NT witings are missing key portions of the first 3 chapters of Romans.

Chief among which, from those called the "Western" group of texts [here is one discussion]:

"D" codex Claromontanus, missing Rom 1:1-7 and 1:27-30
"F" codex Augiensis (in both Greek and Latin), missing Rom 1:1 to 3:19
"G" codex Boernerianus, missing Rom 1:1-5 and 2:16-25

And from those called the "Alexandrian" group:
"C" codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, missing Rom 2:5 to 3:21
"P" codex Porphyrianus, missing Rom 2:15 to 3:5

I do not seek to imply that the gaps in these texts suggest the presence of bogus writing in the "fuller" versions (Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, for example). But I believe it is rational to conjecture that some of those gaps might have been created as a means of ending the question of strange or variant texts among the earliest pieces of paper on which the Epistle circulated. Where a strange hand or spirit was noticed, eliminate the passage (especially if the same thought appears elsewhere in the Epistle).

The distinct variety of styles present in the Pauline Epistles (between Romans and Ephesians for example) has been a long-debated question. Here I am talking about an abrupt change of style within the first chapter of one Epistle.

But all of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in the text of Romans (profs. H. Weisse and D. Volter in the 19th Century, to name 2) are (rightly, I think) accused of the sins of subjective judgment and arbitrary decision. So I offer my theory only as a personal guideline.

This seems to be an admission that there is no solid uncontested scholarship on this; and that this is subjective for him as well. My question still is:

Anyone know of something I can look at that discusses the textual issue here?

Back to the comment:

I’m saying Romans 1:18 to about 2:3 (I was rash to push it to the 9th verse) sounds to me like rehash and bad faith, it doesn’t sound like revelation, and it doesn’t sound like Paul at his highest inspiration. What I find in it that is at all worthy is said better elsewhere in the Epistle or in other scripture.

However, your statement is not correct

[Me:] this has been attributed to Paul very nearly universally since the earliest of compilations of Paul's letters - and therefore seen by people who knew Paul.

The first "compilations of Paul's letters" were early, but, with respect to the portion of canonical text in question here, I don't think you can go back earlier than 150 AD with those "attributions" to Paul you mention. I didn't find any in the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr, for example.

I really meant authorship in my comment; but I will pick up this challenge anyway. I think it is hard to find anything to support anything prior to 150AD really, so this is quite a challenge. Elsewhere, the critic accepted the following 4 folks as Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus. I will accept that as a given - and add Clement of Alexandria. Certainly, he was not an Apostolic Father - he was a student of Tatian - however he was one of the founders of Christian literature along with Irenaeus; and Origen was his student. Alexandria became the "brains" of Christianity while Antioch was still its heart. He was in the last 30 years of the second century - but long before the codexs the critic has mentioned. So, I have broadened "before 150" to "second century and before".

Now, short of someone saying the links I am about to give are not by the above four Fathers, then I found allusions to Romans 1:18-32 in two of the four, and outright quotes in one of them. The links:

1. Justin Martyr: none I found
2. Clement of Rome: Verse 32 (paraphrase);
3. Tatian: verse 20 (paraphrase)
4. Clement of Alexandria: Verses 21, 23 and 25, 22
5. Irenaeus: Verses 18, 21, 25, 28;

I restricted myself to two works at the site:

• ANF01: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Schaff, Philip; and
• Fathers of the Second Century by Schaff, Philip.

I believe this meets the requirement to find use of Romans 1:18-32 clearly cited by an Apostolic Father: Irenaeus

However, it doesn't really deal with the textual issue, just the documentary evidence. So, what do you all think about that?

Appendix to the Appendix: The critic addressed the texual issue here

Read more!

A Comment I Made Elsewhere

This was a post-size comment I made over at Street Prophets in a diary called "End Times: A set of prophecies or a set of hallucinations?". The real answer to that question in my mind is: "who knows?". Typically, it appears to me that prophecy isn't:

1. proved until it comes to pass
2. clear until it comes to pass

So, read the diary - and then this comment (go to the link if you want to see the responses):

* * * * * * * * * *

There are so many things here that are just wrong. Then, there are the things here that are certainly not agreed to by all New Testament scholars. I find it hard to take your source as an expert.

Let's start with just plain wrong:

Eventually, the city fell, and the people were slaughtered. Those remaining were expelled from the land. This is the time of the Diaspora--the scattering of the Jews, who were dispersed around the Mediterranean--Asia Minor, Greece, Northern Africa and Europe.

Actually,

Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars.

The next

The author, who we know only as John, had lived through the horrors that accompanied fall of the city.

is only really, really wrong if it means the author was actually in the city during the siege. John was actually in Ephesis in Asia Minor, where he had gone after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome in the early 60's. He took over Paul's duties with the church there. Christians, in general, had been forced out of Jerusalem and Judea prior to the Great Jewish War.

[The Christians still in Judea, etc. sat out the war in Pella. Indeed, their unwillingness to involve themselves in this war cemented the final split of the Christians and the Jews.]

Then,

When you are dealing with an end times fundamentalist Christian, you are dealing with a person who believes that the Bible was written by God- God writes it and there is a secret code and if you are in the know you will know the code and the elect will know the code. The Bible itself becomes a magical book, a secret script.

Huh? Who believes this? What folks believe is that prophecy in scripture is never exact, is almost always drapped in allegory and symbolic language, and therefore the events (such as Christ's life) that are prophesied usually help clarify the prophesy when they occur. However, there is no "secret code" or "secret knowledge" - it is all written for all to see. Then, on to opinions not shared by all:

The people who actually knew Jesus, the twelve, none of them left writings for us. All of these writings are written well after the death of Jesus.

What is "well after"? What counts as "actually knowing Jesus"? Only three of the 12 are credited even by conservative scholars with New Testament works - John, Matthew, and Peter. However, James, probably Jesus' brother, probably knew him ;-) but wasn't one of the twelve. The Apostles accepted that Paul "knew" Jesus, at least after His resurrection - there is no other reason they would have accepted Paul into the church after his history. Luke and Mark have never been thought of as companions of Jesus - just companions of companions: Paul and Peter respectively. I think it is pretty clear that all of the New Testament works (except Revelations) were completed by 64AD (see Redating the New Testament or these Introductions for the arguments) - or within 30ish years of Jesus' death - and all within the possible lifetimes of the folks who knew him. They were almost all written to pass on knowledge to the church after it became clear that Jesus was not coming back immediately. I believe the earliest of the New Testament works was James (see article linked above) within 15 years of the death of Christ.

Narrowing to Revelations, there are two general views (with a bunch of other minor ones) - preterist (with postmillienialism and amillienialism) and premillienial - related to whether Revelations is looking at events already occurred (as the person interviewed believes); or is a prophetic work. It is interesting that the preterist view is key to replacement theology - that the Christian church has replaced the Jewish people in the promises of God. A small sliver of that group are the Reconstructionists - those real Dominionists - who believe that Revelations shows that only through destruction of what exists and replacement by the Church will God's Kingdom be advanced. These are the folks (along with the preterists in general) that believe God's Kingdom on earth is possible through the actions of Christians (or is spiritually here now).

The premillienialist on the other hand do not think that the events in 70AD resulted in the "end of the Age"; and that therefore the destruction of Jerusalem was not the event looked at in scripture. They believe that human Christians are not capable of creating a Kingdom of God on earth prior to the actual return of Christ to lead that Kingdom - and do not support the Dominionist idea that the governments on Earth must become Christian before Christ can return.

* * * * * * * * * *

I am thinking that last section on "end times" theological differences is pretty weak - it just isn't an area I concentrate on. Y'all can help me straighten out/deepen my understanding.

It isn't an area of interest because I am pretty sure it shouldn't be for a follower of Christ. He said to be ready, but He also made it pretty clear we would not see the scenario coming when it came. So, I think folks who are focused on when the end times are going to get here would be better off focusing on now. Tell me if you think I am wrong about that.

Read more!

Canonization of ScriptureI. "Literalist"? Er, No - and Introduction

I got into a "tiff" with a guy I like a lot over at Street Prophets over the use of the word "literalist" or "literalism" when it comes to folks like me who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and that it has authority both as a spiritual guide and in all it asserts (even historically). I am in no way confused that Solomon was talking about real baby deer attached to the chest of his wife. I am also not confused that the bulk of the Gospel accounts is reportage:

Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable nv vuz (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.

So, I get what is "literal" and what is "figurative" - and I understand scripture has both types of writings. However, the "literalist" label - as generally used - isn't about the understanding of literary types. The general conversation (not the one with Russell) goes like this:

Other person: "I am a Christian, but I do not believe [for example] that hell exists [or the resurrection or the Virgin birth or miracles in general] or "I am a Christian, and I think the foundation of Christ's teachings are the Beatitudes [but not the whole Sermon on the Mount] " or "I like the teachings of Jesus - but Paul screwed the whole thing up"

The "literalist": "Great, but didn't Christ mention hell more than anyone else in the Bible" or "Great, but Christ said it was the Great Commandment" or "What about the more difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount about judgement and hell, divorce, etc" or "Paul was accepted by the Body of Christ as both an apostle and a great teacher about Christ"

The Other person: "The Bible was written by men, living in a particular culture, and I just do not accept that God would [send someone to hell, do miracles, etc.]. You "literalists" just do not see the overall beauty and poetry of scripture because you are too concerned with facts - and we know the New Testiment is not historically accurate." or [the point of this post] "There are many other parts to Christian tradition than the Bible as canonized by Constantine in the 4th century"

For those that are personally attracted to the spiritual aspects of the Bible (and not whether it is "real" or not) -- I am in no way diminishing their love of scripture, or the road that led them to Christ. NOT IN THE LEAST. I am talking about folks who toss out - in doing that or otherwise - all the criticisms of the historicity, authorship, etc. of scripture coming from the anti-supernaturalist scholars of the 18th century and beyond (as if that stuff is "just proven"); and imply that anyone who believes that scripture was written by who the 1st and 2nd century church thought it was written by (and believe in the reported miracles by a real Christ and/or God) are hopeless rubes unable to grasp simple modern scholarship and science - hence the inaccurate (and pejorative) "literalist" label. Those criticisms, unproven (and indeed many proven false) undermine - intentionally or not - the authority of scripture; and can place folks who listen in a position to misunderstand the direct teachings of Christ.

I care about that for two reasons:

1. For those seeking to follow Christ: they end up trying to follow not THE Christ but their Christ - the Christ their affections and beliefs are most comfortable following and not the Savior - rich, deep and real - of scripture. It is not the "literalists" who limit God and Christ by demanding that others take the full breadth of revelation into account - "inconsistancies" and all - but those who wish to narrow the scope of God's power and Christ's message.
   
   Modern "scholarship" - taken to it's worst extreme - is the Jesus Seminar voting on what Jesus really said and what he didn't. We do not really get to pick and chose like that in my view; nor do we get to limit Christ to what our modern sensibilities find "reasonable".
   
   There is plenty of scriptural reason to believe that just any belief about Christ is not adequate - that right belief about Christ is important.



2. For those teaching such a Christ and such a view of scripture: they are placing themselves in the direct line of Christ's warning

   Matthew 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come. 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.

That should do it for now on that ugly word "literalist"

* * * * *

I have talked a fair amount about the historicity of scripture as well as Biblical authorship, particularly of the pivotal work in this whole argument - the Gospel of John. I have not really outlined what I see as the process of canonization of the New Testament. I see two general views:

• that the canon of scripture was enforced on the Body of Christ from above by the hierarchy in order to drive competing (and possibly legitimate) theological views out of the church; and



• that the canon of scripture developed organically within the Body of Christ - including through those great early theological battles - and that the leadership of the church finally rubber-stamped that view and sealed the canon.

I believe there are some elements of both - but by far and away the second view is how the Canon developed. The beginning of that development - which would take over 300 years to complete - can be seen within the very books that later became part of that Canon. My ilk see canonized books - from reading the historical record - having had five questions to survive in order to become part of the canon:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? In the case of the New Testament, this meant Apostolic authorship
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? The primary Biblical purpose of miracles was to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God.
3. Did the book tell the truth about God?
4. Did the book come with the power of God? This refers to the ability to transform the lives touched by it. The presence of God's transforming power was an indication that God was behind it.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? Despite later discussions about canonization, when a book was recieved, collected, read and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was considered canonical.

In part II, I will examine how this played out in the New Testament canonization process.

Read more!

Touring the Net

Here is my (sorta) weekly tour of the internet - and some things that struck me as interesting:

Christian Carnival CCXVII (217) is up (or soon will be) on the other side of the Cascade range from me in eastern Oregon at Diary of 1. The three that caught my attention this week:

1. "Can an Atheist be a good Person". Starving Econ Student researched what atheists mean by "good" in that question, found a couple of examples

   I googled around and saw two atheist answers:

   1. A person who does more good deeds than bad deeds
   2. A person who has empathy and compassion towards others.

   and then he addressed those well.



2. Translation does some funny things. "Do You Love Jesus?" - well there are some different words for "love" in scripture; and Chad examines the use of two of them in the same passage of scripture:

   John 21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. -- NET

   Read the notes to the NET Bible text - those translators disagree - but I am not sure what I think. How about you?



3. David at Boomer in the Pew talks about "Growing Up as a Disciple of Jesus Christ":

   Here was our opening question:
   
   Are you a sinner working on your salvation or are you a child of God (a disciple of Jesus) working on your sin? Talk amongst yourselves!

   and goes on to talk about the concepts of justification, sanctification, and glorification based on passages from Romans and 1 Corinthians

At Stand to Reason:

• As an apologist, I get to deal with the "shellfish" and "mixed fabric" questions with regularity. Here is a great answer to "Why Is It Okay to Wear Mixed Fibers?":

  To believe the Old Testament Law literally is to believe that this was the covenant God made with the ancient nation of Israel--a set of instructions for running their nation. To believe the New Testament literally along with the Old is to believe that when we were joined to Christ, we died with Him and were raised with Him, causing us to be released from the Law.

• Melinda points to a new book Why We're Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) :

  They explain why objective, propositional Truth (not just lower-case t truth) can be taught and preached and still communicate with Gen-Xers. Both speak from their practical ministry experience.

Last week I pointed to Scot McKnight's multi-part review of The Case for Civility by Os Guinness. This week had:

• "Civility 4" which

  could be called a “civil screed” against the Religious Right. It is not too harsh; it never falls for the uncivil, but the chp univocally calls the RR to the bar for a civil warning.

• and "Civility 5":

  If Os Guinness, in his attempt to call the nation to public civility, can call the Religious Right to task for its rhetoric, he can do the same to the Left . . . “We are closer,” Guinness states, “to the wild atheism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, back to barnyard debating, with ungrounded assertions, irresponsible accusations, ad hominem arguments, and reasoning that repeatedly slumps into ranting”

Sarah at Intellectuelle in their "Apologetics 101" series talks about "Faith vs. Values?:

It's unfortunate that he has come to think of the Bible this way--as merely a handbook for morality. Do unto others should not be approached independently of no one comes to the Father except through me. But is he all that different from many Christians who regard the moral propositions of Scripture above the saving power of the gospel. Perhaps we could helpfully understand the gospel call as one of many moral appeals, yet is the one that lacks political correctness.

It is also the one theologically conservative Christians can ignore as they preach morality to non-Christians instead of bringing people to salvation in Christ.

Joe Carter's "Thirty-three Things (v.55)" series always has interesting stuff. Some highlights this week:

• "Designed for Sex", by J. Budziszewski:

  I said that we’re not designed for hooking up, that we’re designed for our bodies and hearts to work together. We human beings really do have a design, and I mean that literally—not just a biological design, but an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual design. The human design is the meaning of the ancient expression “human nature.” . . .

• An attack ad on Thomas Jefferson by the "Re-elect John Adams Committee":
  

• D.A. Carson, as quoted by Mark Driscoll in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World:

  Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.
  
  To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

Jan at The View From Her is one of my favorite bloggers. She is an Evangelical woman who simply writes about some neat things. This week, besides saying nice things about McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy - she adds something to the complementarian vs. egalitarian discussion of men and women's roles in the Body of Christ. She reviews Saving Women From the Church: How Jesus Mends a Divide where she picks the story of the Samaritan woman at the well out to discuss.

WorldMagBlog had some interesting stuff:

• First, they have carved out a respectful community of differing opinions - and so their voting on the community's favorite movies is interesting. They have both top 5 category rankings and a top 25 overall. The top five overall:

  1. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
  2. The Princess Bride
  3. The Sound of Music
  4. Indiana Jones films
  5. The Incredibles

• "Pronounced dead, man takes ‘miraculous’ turn":

  Just before Thanksgiving, the 21-year-old was pronounced brain-dead following an ATV accident. As family members gathered to say good-bye before his organs were harvested, Dunlap’s grandmother, Naomi, began praying for “a miracle”–and that’s just what she got.

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman:

• pointed to a piece written by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:

  for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.
  
  But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous.

• and deepened the discussion about "Racism Charges and the Clinton Campaign" as well:

  I had to take interest in the first two comments [to Kevin's piece] mentioning Geraldine Ferraro, who didn't come up in the post. What interested me most about their appearance is the assumption that that's a genuine case of racism that they must be taking to undermine his whole argument. First of all, if it's genuine racism that doesn't undermine his argument. His point is that many of the accusations of racism are going way too far. One case that is racism doesn't undermine that claim.
  
  Second, I don't think it's fair to describe that as racist.

Enjoy

Read more!

Applying the Principles, Part II

[Part seven in the Scripture and History series]

Picking up where I left off in "Applying the Principles, Part I", I am outlinging Greg Herrick's application of the principles of historical criticism to the resurrection narratives. Again, you must read the entire linked linked article for the full argument.

III. The tomb was found empty three days later:

1. Earliest tradition: Paul believed in the empty tomb:
   • "He was raised" - ἐγείρω - in 1 Corinthians 15:4.
   • It was an early tradition Paul received before he wrote about it in 37 - 40AD.
   • Paul would not preach so boldly if he did not believe in the empty tomb


2. Multiple attestations: The empty tomb tradition is found in:
   • all four Gospels
   • three of the Gospel strata (i.e. Mark, "M" and John).


3. Dissimilarity:
   • is not overlaid with theology for apologetic purposes.
   • all the Gospel writers use the expression "first day of the week." While the early preaching referred to the "third day"
   
   This makes it dissimilar to the preaching of the early church and therefore unlikely that the early church invented it.



4. Embarrassment: women were witnesses to the empty tomb while the disciples were hiding in fear.



5. Semitisms: Matthew mentioning the "angel of the Lord" and Luke's "bowed their faces to the ground".



6. Divergent traditions: the different number of angels and the different number of women in the different traditions has been pointed to as a reason to doubt their authenticity.
   • that they differ points to the story not being crafted by the early church. If that was the case they should be uniform
   • as to the reliability of the witnesses themselves, it was not unusual for different writers to focus on the participants they wished and ignore others that were there
   
   There is no need to postulate other competing traditions.



7. from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, in the development of their attack on the apostles, they did not deny that the tomb was empty. Besides, the religious leaders could have put an end to the whole mess, if they could have produced a body. No such evidence was ever presented according to our sources.

Herrick - "From the preceding evidence it is clear that the tradition of the empty tomb passes the historiographical tests of: 1) multiple attestation; 2)dissimilarity; 3) tendencies of the developing tradition; 4) Semitisms and 5)embarrassment. Therefore, a belief in the empty tomb is reasonable historically speaking. It bears all the marks of being early, and not a later creation of the church. It is to be regarded as authentic."

IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

According to [Lane] Craig there are essentially four lines of evidence one can adduce in support of the historical reliability of the resurrection appearances: 1) The Apostle Paul's testimony; 2) the genuine character of particular resurrection appearances, 3) the evidence for the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and 4) the fact that the appearances were of Jesus' resurrected body. Since we have already discussed #3 and #4 . . . we will concentrate on the #1 and #2.

1. Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

   It is generally believed that the earlier a tradition is, the more likely it is to be authentic. This, of course, is a major idea behind the criteria of authenticity and form criticism . . . We maintain that the "witnesses" of 15: 5-8 are a part of that early tradition. There was not enough time to develop a legend in this regard, for the tradition here can probably be dated before A.D. 40 and some argue before A.D. 37 . . . The Corinthians could have checked it out, and yet there is no reference in our sources to the Corinthians . . . denying the resurrection.

2. The Historical Veracity of Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena
   • Cause/effect or Correlation:
     • James: The fact James was doubtful of Jesus' identity during his life and that he later became a pillar and apostle in the church requires a sufficient cause. The only reasonable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and appear to him, just as tradition says.
     • Paul:

       . . . it is even harder to account for Saul . . . Did Paul suddenly feel remorse for his actions? Probably not. This might lead him to desist from his attacks on the church, but it cannot account for his faith in Jesus as Messiah. Did he just realize from his background that Jesus fits the Messianic bill, so to speak? This is unlikely, since the bodily resurrection of an isolated individual is not found in the Judaism of Paul's day. There was only the general resurrection of all people at the end (criterion of Palestinian environment [context and expectation]). And, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was probably foreign to Paul . . . He even goes so far as to teach Jewish/Gentile equality in God's plan. . . . Paul suffered greatly as a result of his faith in Christ . . . This is only reasonably accounted for on the basis of his seeing the resurrected Jesus

     • The emergence and growth of the church in Jerusalem and around the known world at that time is difficult to explain on the basis of naturalistic causes. Fear of the religious and political authorities would have squelched the movement
     • Early church treatment of sin:

       They did not tolerate it . . . This is not exactly the way a movement goes about the process of attracting followers. There was belief in Jesus' resurrection and only such a belief would cause sane people to become a part of the church . . . we ought to consider Paul's ethics which he enjoined on the churches in the name of the risen Lord. It is an incredibly demanding ethic and not very easy to live out. It is difficult to believe that people would submit to this without a sufficient reason. The resurrection of Christ provides the a priori reason to move toward a lifestyle like Paul outlines in his letters and also offers the hope required to fulfill that ethic.

   • Embarrassment: In first century Judaism, since the claim of women witnesses would not carry much weight, it is likely that this tradition is true. It does nothing to help their cause in promoting Jesus as risen from the dead. The fact that Paul leaves the women out in his list of witnesses confirms this interpretation.

As I said in a comment at Street Prophets, it is not my intent in this series to convince anyone of anything - other than that believing in the physically risen Christ from the Gospel narratives is not historiographically irrational or insupportable.

That is unless one denies the possibility of the supernatural. That, however, has nothing to do with the evidence - that is about what you are willing to believe.

Read more!

Applying the Principles, Part I

[Part six in the Scripture and History series]

I have been outlining Greg Herrick's "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" the last few posts in the series. First, I should say that here Herrick is only dealing with one possible naturalistic explanation of the Resurrection accounts:

From this brief discussion we contend that Jesus' resurrection, spoken of in the Gospels (and indeed the entire New Testament) is a bodily resurrection - the corporeal theory.

The brief discussion in the paper also mentioned five (5) other explanations:

1. the political theory,
2. the swoon theory,
3. the mythical theory,
4. the subjective vision theory,
5. the objective vision theory

He dismisses the first two without discussion, but he examines why the thinks the next three fail to the corporeal theory.

You will have to read the linked article for those reasons. He moves on to examine the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the corporeal Resurrection of Jesus. The last two posts looked at Herrick's view of some common "criteria of authenticity" to measure that by; and

"We turn now to an application of those criteria to the resurrection narratives, including the material on the death of Jesus, his burial, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the disciples' belief in the resurrection."

His introduction to the section:

No one saw the resurrection of Jesus. All that was seen was the resurrected Jesus. If, then, a resurrection took place, it must be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty, historiographically speaking, that Jesus actually died and then was seen at some later time alive and in bodily form. A brief sketch of the Gospel testimony runs something like this: 1) Jesus died; 2) was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb; 3) the tomb was found empty three days later and 4) Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection . . . This section seeks to analyze these various ideas according to the details of the Gospels and the criteria of authenticity.

I am only going to outline that application - again you have to read the linked article if you want to capture his entire argument, and that of those he argues against.

I. Jesus died

the criterion of multiple attestation, coherence, and multiple forms demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion. That crucifixion was indeed practiced by the Romans . . . is confirmed by Josephus, [satisfying] the criterion of Palestinian environment.

II. He was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb

• Multiple Attestation:
  • The earliest tradition: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - the word θάπτω (thaptō) occurs 10 other times in the Gospels and Acts . . . It always refers to the physical burial of a dead person.
  • The Gospels all confirm this testimony


• Developing tradition or dissimilarity:
  • The earliness of the 1 Corinthians tradition argues against the development of legend. Some of those eyewitnesses were indeed women [also criterion of embarrassment] who played a role in the early church in which the traditions developed
  • The tradition of his burial is not surrounded by adornment and embellishing . . . The later church cannot be read back into the description of Jesus' burial.


• Divergent tradition: all the Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea and Luke tells us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the fact that all the writers implicate the religious leaders in Jesus' death . . . Such a unanimously spoken of tradition would probably not survive due the presence of eyewitnesses, unless, of course, it were true.



• Palestinian environment:
  • the tomb meets with archaeological discoveries
  • the new tomb coheres with the Jews not wanting to pollute other family members interred there
  • Jesus' body would not have been allowed to remain on the cross until the next day, lest the corpse defile the land
  • since he died around the sixth hour, Joseph probably had time to accomplish the burial before nightfall and the beginning of the Sabbath

Next post, the real issues:

• III. The tomb was found empty three days later
• IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

Read more!

Principles of Historical Criticism, Part II

[Part five in the Scripture and History series]

This time, we begin to look at what Greg Herrick calls "A Better Approach". Herrick examines several "Criteria of Authenticity" that have been used by critics such as the Jesus Seminar to examine the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Before examining the criteria he makes some general points:

1. The criteria are not about "proof" - "intent of the criteria is to judge the probability of the authenticity of a certain saying or deed"



2. "the criteria are to be used together and from a perspective that maintains that the accounts are trustworthy until the contrary has been reasonably demonstrated.". This tends to be supported by:
   • the presence of eyewitnesses;
   • the existence of a church center in Jerusalem to oversee the guarding and disseminating of the traditions;
   • the generally high view the church had for its traditions
   • the faithfulness of the church in transmitting some of Jesus' more difficult sayings
   • the problems of the early church as seen in the epistles are not specifically found in the Gospels

The criteria are [the block quotes are Herrick's comments/adjustments/etc of the criteria]:

• The Criterion of Dissimilarity: affirms that a saying or deed may be regarded as authentic if it cannot be shown to go back to similar phenomena in ancient Judaism or the church

  This criterion has some strength in that it can validate a tradition, but it cannot invalidate a saying necessarily. That is, if a saying cannot be located in Judaism or the early church then it is reasonable to conclude that it goes back to the creative mind of Jesus. However, Jesus was a man who lived in the Jewish culture and therefore, it is unfair to rule as inauthentic a saying simply because it can be found in Judaism . . . This criterion is helpful for determining what is unique to Jesus not what is characteristic of him.

• The Criterion of Multiple Attestation: any motif may be regarded as authentic if the words upon which it rests are found in all, or most, of the sources which stand behind the synoptic Gospels

  This particular criterion presupposes a solution to the synoptic problem and to the degree that that is tentative, so is this dictum . . . Also, there is nothing that necessitates a tradition being inauthentic simply because it is found in only one source. Other principles such as internal improbability and contradiction with other traditions must take greater precedent in determining this.

• The The Criterion of Semitisms: any presence of Aramaic linguistic phenomena argues for the primitiveness of the tradition and the more primitive a tradition is the more likely that it actually came from Jesus himself.

  The principle assumes, at least at some level, that the early Christians did not write or speak Aramaic and did not add such activity to the gospel traditions. But isn't this the whole reason for the "criteria"—to determine which sayings and deeds are really of Jesus? . . . The principle has therefore limited usefulness, but when combined with other criteria may help to determine the actual words of Jesus. This criterion must also take into account: 1) the influence of the LXX upon the writers of the New Testament; 2) that there remains some question as to whether the Greek of the Gospels can be accurately translated back into Aramaic; and 3) the probability that Jesus himself spoke Greek on occasion

• The Criterion of Divergent Traditions: suggests that when a particular tradition differs somewhat from what appears to be the author's general perspective it may be regarded as authentic

  This criterion does help to establish difficult sayings such as Mark 13:32, the theology of which does not seem to agree with Mark 1:1, wherein Mark seems to portray a fairly high Christology. But, the principle may require of us knowledge of the early church which we do not really possess and can tend to individualize the NT writers too much. As regards this last point, we must exercise caution before we set about to say that two traditions are in contradiction. Our knowledge of the situation in the early church may really not be adequate to the task.

• The Criterion of Primitive Eschatology: If a particular saying evinces a primitive/imminent eschatological outlook, it may be regarded as authentic

  . . . there seems to be no a priori reason to reject the fact that Jesus shifted his eschatological focus during his ministry, especially in the light of the growing rejection of his person by the Jews. Perhaps this is the case in Matthew.

• The Criterion of Palestinian Environment: affirms that if a saying or deed appears to have a Hellenistic origin, it cannot be from Jesus, but is a later creation of the church. On the other hand, any saying or deed, be it religious, political, social or otherwise, must reflect Palestinian provenance to be considered authentic.

  Some have argued against the authenticity of Mark 10:11-12 on this basis, since a wife divorcing her husband is unheard of in Judaism. Yet, as Stein points out, there is a realistic Sitz im Leben in Jesus' ministry for just such a saying, namely, the case of Herod and Herodias. This criterion might play a greater role in the case of customs, religious practices, social phenomena, etc. in the Gospels that are explicitly or implicitly communicating something about Jewish life. We can then compare that with other data we have about such things.

• The Criterion of Coherence: There is a lot of material from the earliest strata of Gospel tradition which cannot be verified as authentic using the criterion of dissimilarity, but as it coheres (i.e. substantially agrees with) with material deemed authentic by the criterion of dissimilarity, it may be regarded as authentic.

  Insofar as this criterion rests upon the conclusions of the principle of dissimilarity it inherently acquires the strengths and weaknesses of it. It also has the methodological problem of determining what coheres with what, and why.

• The Criterion of Cause-Effect or Correlation: affirms a sound principle of historiography, namely, that causes postulated to account for the established effects one sees in one's sources must in fact be adequate to account for those effects.



• The Criterion of the Tendency of the Developing Tradition: seeks to discern what the evangelist as theologian/redactor has added or deleted from the tradition as he received it. This, of course, is in an attempt to "get back" to the original words or deeds of Jesus by understanding the "laws" of transmission of the tradition

  When I use this criterion in the paper and suggest that a particular tradition meets this, I mean that the tradition in question has not been altered by the later church in the light of its theological interests and that the "laws" operative in this case are ones of memorization due to the essential nature of the material.

• The Criterion of Embarrassment: brings to light sayings or actions that are in the traditions, but at the same time constitute a possible embarrassment to the church. The baptism of Jesus and Peter's denial of Christ would fall into such a category.

In the next post, I will outline Herrick's use of the above criteria to examine the historical veracity of the Resurrection accounts.

Read more!

Principles of Historical Criticism, Part I

[Part four in the Scripture and History series.]

At the end of "Miracles and History" I quoted this:

The result is that miracles are not logically absurd, nor historically impossible and therefore the wedge between history and theology (i.e. the supernatural) is unfounded. This does not mean that every report of a miracle is as probable as the next. One must critically examine the historical evidence. As concerns the Gospels this is a welcome study. Many principles have been enumerated for doing historiography and critically examining the miracles recorded in the Gospels. In the next section we will briefly state some accepted, sound guidelines for doing historiography . . .

from "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" by Greg Herrick (see An Introduction to Christian Belief: A Layman's Guide for his systematic theology). This is the primary article I am going to follow for this, and the next, parts of the series. Right now we start out with . . .

Ernst Troeltsch

Herrick examines Troeltsch's principles from "On Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology" [definitions from "Bibical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?"]:

1. methodological doubt and criticism: “...in the realm of history there are only judgments of probability, varying from the highest to the lowest degree, and that consequently an estimate must be made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition” (Troeltsch). Brantley, in the linked article:

   Obviously, this approach precludes the possibility of complete, historical accuracy of the biblical text.

2. analogy: the key to historical criticism. This idea suggests that all legitimate, historical phenomena must have a present-day analogy. Underlying this principle is the uniformitarian assumption that all events in history are similar. Consistent with this assumption, a historian dismisses as unhistorical any recorded event that transcends the experience of contemporary humanity. [Troeltsch] rejects a priori the factuality of unique, miraculous events such as Jesus’ resurrection, since no analogous event occurs today.


3. correlation: “...knit together in a permanent relationship of correlation...in which everything is interconnected and each single event is related to all others” (Troeltsch). In other words, all historical events form a unified web of immanent causes and effects. Every event must be interpreted “...within the context of the whole of history in terms of its causes and effects, its antecedents and its consequences”. Brantley again:

   This principle views history as a closed continuum of natural causes and effects, which eliminates the possibility of a transcendent God’s entering into
   human history. Yet, that is what the Bible is all about

Herrick had far less difficulty with principles one and three - methodological doubt and correlation - than Brantley did:

Most [historians] would agree . . . that historical knowledge is only probable . . . and that the principle of correlation makes sense out of past events, causes, effects, internal probabilities, etc

His problem with analogy is only if it is taken as an absolute:

The principle of analogy . . . states that all events in present experience are similar to those in the past, otherwise the study of history would be impossible, since it proceeds by way of comparison of the present with the evidence from the past. To this principle all would agree except when uniformity is exalted as an absolute. To this few would subscribe. This leads to an a priori ruling out of certain kinds of evidence.

The point of view that applies Troeltsch's principles to the historical evidence allowing only for natural causation is known as historicism . . . As Krentz says, "The historicist view, modeled on the laws of natural science, expresses itself in the exclusion of God as a causative factor and in the denial of the possibility of a miracle." Now, we have already argued above that such an a priori stance against the supernatural is dogmatic in nature, indefensible and indeed an illusion.

Herrick deals with two criticisms of a methodology which does not a priori remove the possibility of the supernatural:

1. "it will destroy historical inquiry since it undermines the principle of analogy." Herrick quotes C.S. Lewis from On Miracles:

   But if we admit God, must we admit a miracle? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain. Theology says to you in effect, 'Admit God and with him the risk of a few miracles, and I in turn will ratify your faith in uniformity as regards the overwhelming majority of events.' The philosophy which forbids you to make uniformity absolute is also the philosophy which offers you solid grounds for believing it to be general, to be almost absolute. The Being who threatens nature's claim to omnipotence confirms her in her lawful occasions. Give us this ha' porth of tar and we will save the ship. The alternative is really much worse. Try to make nature absolute and you find that her uniformity is not even probable . . . You get the deadlock as in Hume. Theology offers you a working arrangement, which leaves the scientist free to continue his experiments and the Christian to continue his prayers (italics [Herrick's] except in the case of the term "almost")

2. "miracles are so contradictory to human experience so as to be absurd. This is false and remains the premise among many who deny miracles. If miracles were contradictory or absurd, we would not be able to identify them or talk about them at all. A better idea is that they are contrary to normal human experience, but not contradictory or absurd, logically speaking" - Herrick

Next time, we will look at what Herrick calls "A Better Approach":

The principles that Troeltsch outlined, when practiced from a worldview that allows for the supernatural, are extremely helpful in evaluating the evidence in order to reconstruct the past.

Read more!

Miracles and History

[Part three in the Scripture and History series]

This is the crux of the issue. It cannot be denied that the Bible includes history. When people talk about "historicity" in Scripture - they are really talking about one thing and one thing only - whether the miracles that are reported in the Jewish and Christian scriptures are historic or not. Ultimately, it comes to a point in the greatest, and most important, miracle of them all - the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, that is exactly where this series is going as well. This in not really a question of history or science - it is a question of philosophy and theology - no matter how much rationalists argue that it is. However, philosophical antisupernaturalism and rationalism has impacted the historiographic view of the Bible.

As I indicated in the introduction to the paper, this steel thread joining many scholars together, all the while producing different pictures of the historical Jesus, appears to be one aspect of their worldview. They are antisupernaturalists for the most part, grounded in the rationalistic naturalism arising out of the Enlightenment . . . "The 'historical Jesus' is a hypothesis reconstructed from the Gospels by the use of the historical-critical method on the basis of naturalistic presuppositions. Such a Jesus must be altogether and only human—a Jesus without transcendence."

This particular worldview is not only devastating to Scriptural testimony, it is also fallacious historiographically speaking and indefensible philosophically.

That comes from, and I am following, "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives", by Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D..

The study will proceed first by arguing for a worldview that at least permits the supernatural. A brief history of the discussion regarding antisupernaturalism in biblical studies will be offered, followed by a critique of this position which has for so long dominated biblical studies. The defense of the supernaturalistic worldview will rest primarily on historical and philosophical considerations. To wrap up the first section, a statement will be offered as to the best worldview a historian can possess in doing historiography.

Second, based upon the worldview argued for in the first part of the paper, the study will apply the criteria of authenticity to the resurrection narratives to see if they indeed are historically credible. We will see that the resurrection accounts fair very well and should be considered historically trustworthy and an integral part of any reconstruction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

He starts with the wedge driven between history and theology by the Enlightenment and its scholarly commitment to antisupernaturalism - and particularly focuses on Benedict de Spinoza, David Hume, and Troeltsch. He examines the first two on the basis of how this view reflects on the possibility of miracles; and the last in terms of how the rationalist worldview has affected doing historiography.

Spinoza

"Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of God; that is, as we have just pointed out, whatever comes to pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth; nature, therefore . . . keeps a fixed and immutable order" - Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,

Geisler in Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought

[Note: J.M. Bochenski calls this the most cogent defense of miracles that he's ever seen.]

points out that Spinoza's argument against even the possibility of miracles rests on:

1. Euclidian or deductive rationalism;
2. a Newtonian view of natural law and
3. a certain understanding of the nature of God — pantheistic

Herrick: Insofar as Spinoza's arguments rest on deductive reasoning he is begging the question. He has assumed in the premises what he hopes to defend as the conclusion. He never proved through evidential means that natural laws are immutable nor that miracles are necessarily violations of natural laws — two of his key premises. The argument is formally true, but not valid. The Newtonian worldview is seriously questioned today as well. The universe appears to be expanding and getting older which destroys his argument. In other words the laws of nature are not inviolable, but rather caused and therefore contingent — not eternal and absolute, but mutable. And if it is true that the universe and natural laws came into existence at a point in time, then we ipso facto have a miracle — i.e. the creation ex nihilo of the universe.

Hume

. . . the kernel of his argument is as follows:

1. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;
2. Firm and unalterable (i.e. uniform) experience has established these laws;
3. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence and
4. Therefore the proof against miracles is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

Herrick: Hume's argument can be interpreted so as to preclude miracles a priori. We will follow the interpretation of the argument which understands him to say that the wise man will never believe in a miracle because he will never have enough evidence to substantiate such a belief.

Hume's argument is not against the possibility of miracles but against identifying or accepting them. C.S. Lewis in Miracles

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know experience against them to be false. And we all know the experience against them to be uniform if we know that all reports of them are false. And we can know all reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

Back to Herrick:

Since Hume's second premise is incorrect, his whole argument is weakened and as far as its ultimate intention, destroyed. But, what can be said of Hume's argument from the laws of nature and personal experience is that miracles are rare and therefore witnesses must be questioned to establish the probability of the event having happened.

A final critique of Hume's method concerns the vantage point in his argument . . . to argue from within the laws . . . presupposes certain truths about the laws, namely, eternality and immutability. This he could never prove as one subject to the laws. These presuppositions . . . cannot be defended today on scientific grounds, much less personal experience.

Again, as with Spinoza, there is a pantheistic assumption by Hume that God exists within the universe and laws He created, and is bound by them. Herrick's conclusion to this section

The result is that miracles are not logically absurd, nor historically impossible and therefore the wedge between history and theology (i.e. the supernatural) is unfounded. This does not mean that every report of a miracle is as probable as the next. One must critically examine the historical evidence. As concerns the Gospels this is a welcome study. Many principles have been enumerated for doing historiography and critically examining the miracles recorded in the Gospels. In the next section we will briefly state some accepted, sound guidelines for doing historiography before we directly examine the "criteria of authenticity"

Next time, I will follow Herrick through an examination of Troeltsch's views of historiography and on into an historical-critical view of the resurrection accounts free from a antisupernaturalist bias.

Read more!

Scripture and History: Part II

[Part two in the Scripture and History series]

I ended part one by saying this

A history textbook implies that the text was written with the primary purpose of documenting historical fact.

is not what historians do, nor is it what historical texts (or textbooks) present. Certainly, we have to agree on a definition of what a historical work does in order to decide whether the Bible has historical purpose and/or content. In the discussion that started this post I said

every bit of "real history" they read is written through some other theological or ideological lens.

Historical works have a viewpoint, and historians are pretty honest about that. As they examine, organize, and interpret the source documents and facts in order to arrive at the analysis that becomes a work of history - they are aware of their lens. Certainly, they try to have the facts lead them to a conclusion, rather than the other way around - but that is the difference between good history and bad history - and not between it being history and not history. One would only probably have to look at the history of World War II as taught in the Japanese schools and that taught in US schools to see the difference in viewpoint and analysis based on the same facts.

"History is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day. More precisely, history is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity . . . All events that are remembered and preserved in some form is seen as the historical record . . . In German, French, and indeed, most languages of the world other than English, this distinction was never made, and the same word is used to mean both 'history' and 'story' " - Wiki section on History

Nor, are we talking about historical works containing just facts. This is the section on "Social History" from an older edition of Compton's at my house:

Nothing is more fascinating than the true story of how people lived in the past - their houses, food and clothing; how they cultivated their fields, manufactured goods, and traded with their neighbors; their beliefs God and the world of nature; their laws and manner of government; the songs their poets sang, and the beautiful things their artists made. All this is included in the social history taught today.

Obviously at least the Hebrew scriptures are that kind of work. The question is: was it intended to be that kind of work? I would contend that a (not the) major purpose of those who collected and canonized at least the Hebrew Scriptures was to compile and preserve for following generations of Jews just this kind of social history about their culture and religion. So yes, the Hebrew Scriptures are a social history textbook of the Hebrew people prior to about 400 B.C.

Next, as one commenter said and I believe, every historian (pretty much by definition) organizes and interprets their work for their own purposes. It is a Western, and more narrowly modern, idea that those purposes and interpretations must be rationalistic and materialistic - one of those little prejudices that destroys objectivity. So, in looking at the purposes of the history written in the ancient near east, we cannot decide what history is, or is not, based on anachronistically applying our definitions of what constitutes history to the Biblical historians. They wrote history for their people in their time - and it is their purposes that decide what was historiographic and what wasn't.

In the next part, I will look at "Miracles and History" .

Read more!

Scripture and History Series

1. "Scripture and History, Part I" (Street Prophets)
2. "Scripture and History, Part II" (Street Prophets)
3. "Miracles and History" (Street Prophets)
4. "Principles of Historical Criticism, Part I" (Street Prophets)
5. "Principles of Historical Criticism, Part II" (Street Prophets)
6. "Applying the Principles, Part I" (Street Prophets)
7. "Applying the Principles, Part II" (Street Prophets)

Read more!

Scripture and History: Part I

[Part one in the Scripture and History series]

I was challenged to show the evidence that convinced me of this:

Parts of the Bible were indeed written for [the] primary purpose [of documenting historical fact]. Parts of the Gospels were written for that primary purpose - particularly the synoptics.

First, I think it is obvious really: as C.S. Lewis pointed out . . .

In what is already a very old commentary I read that the fourth Gospel is regarded by one school as a 'spiritual romance', 'a poem not a history', to be judged by the same canons as Nathan's parable, the book of Jonah, Paradise Lost 'or, more exactly, Pilgrim's Progress'. After a man has said that, why need one attend to anything else he says about any book in the world? Note that he regards Pilgrim's Progress, a story which professes to be a dream and flaunts its allegorical nature by every single proper name it uses, as the closest parallel. Note that the whole epic panoply of Milton goes for nothing. But even if we leave our the grosser absurdities and keep to Jonah, the insensitiveness is crass - Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical attachments as Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humour. Then turn to John. Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling with his finger in the dust; the unforgettable δε νυξ (13:30). I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind.

It is clear that large parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament but also the New, read "as reportage". The challenge comes in the word "purpose" - particularly when I cranked it up and used the word primary. In reviewing the Bible, there are very few books when the author ever spoke to their purpose in writing the book. Here are a few direct examples:

Deuteronomy 31: 24 When Moses finished writing on a scroll the words of this law in their entirety, 25 he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the Lord’s covenant, 26 “Take this scroll of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. It will remain there as a witness against you,

Now while there was both a theological and prophetic purpose here - the primary purpose was historiograghic: to preserve the event for the future for use by posterity. The book of Deuteronomy follows a historiograghic pattern as well: first, review the last 40 years of history, summarize the laws that laid the foundation of the nation, and look ahead from that to the future. Next on my list:

Luke 1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. [this is a reference to the historiograghic purpose of the Jewish scriptures] 3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

This is an historiograghic purpose - and you would expect this to continue in the 2nd half of Luke's work:

Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God.

and then goes on to "compile an account" the Acts of the Apostles after the Pentecost. Then we have John:

John 20:30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Again, while there is a theological purpose, John makes it clear that he has an historiograghic purpose: recording fact so that we may believe. John makes this tie between belief and fact again:

1 John 1:1 This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life – 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us). 3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ). 4 Thus we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

His purpose is to make his joy complete by passing on what he seen, touched, and heard so that folks could come to know Christ. Again, he was looking for a theological result from his transmission of fact coming from his eyewitness account.

Hopefully, I have accomplished my mission. However, it was a rabbit trail - one that I forced myself down in even bowing a little bit to this definition

A history textbook implies that the text was written with the primary purpose of documenting historical fact.

This is not what historians do, nor is it what historical texts (or even history textbooks) present.

That will be a good place to begin Part II

Read more!