Burning the Mona Lisa: Biblical Literalism and Biblical Nihilism

Equilibrium is a movie based in an alternate reality, where World War 3 claimed the lives of billions, leaving those to survive to question the necessity of emotion. A police force was instituted called the Tetragrammaton, of which the Grammaton Cleric is of the highest rank of the order. Their purpose is to enforce the dosing of a drug called Prozium, which closes off the stimuli in our brains that produce feelings, emotion, sensation. Those who go off the dose, the rebels--known as 'sense offenders'--who are caught are brought to a detention center and are later incinerated for their 'crimes. ' The ultimate fear is that sensations lead to jealousy, hate, fear, war, violence, prejudice, and more. For those who wish to see the movie, I highly recommend it. (It's a great movie, all around)

At the beginning of the movie, the protagonist John Preston (a senior Cleric, master of the gun kata) is at first the antagonist. He is in charge of hunting down sense offenders in the region outside the city walls and disposing of sense-materials (things that induce feelings like paintings, music, colorful objects, decorative furnishings, etc...). He raids a warehouse full of rebels, a gun fight ensues, and after the rebels are wiped out (in a fantastic action sequence) Preston locates the sense-materials. In very iconic imagery, a boarded up hiding place under a rug yields the Mona Lisa, smiling smugly at the cleric, moments before Preston has the famous painting and everything else burned into oblivion. Watching through the flames is Preston's partner, a sense-offender unbeknownst to Preston at the moment (but which is made clear early on, so no spoiler here).

There are religious and nonreligious themes that run rampant through the film. But the underlining theme is very apparent; extremes lead to bad things. On the one hand, to be completely taken over by emotions can lead to horrible atrocities. On the other, completely ignoring them can lead to atrocities as well (although, the point of the film is that in giving up our emotions we sacrifice another part of ourselves that goes beyond murder; we sacrifice our individuality, our uniqueness, our culture). In light of James McGrath's few posts on Biblical literalism (and in light of a new book project on it by him), I felt it was time to add the perspective of a metaphysical naturalist on biblical literalism, but also on the opposing perspective--the polar opposite of biblical literalism--of "biblical nihilism."

At first, allow me to define briefly what it is I mean by both Biblical Literalism and Biblical Nihilism, as both can be construed differently depending on one's personal ontological or epistemological perspectives. In my understanding, Biblical Literalism is akin to hermeneutics. In accordance with hermeneutics, the idea of inerrancy is allowed to persevere as a legitimate hypothesis and interpretation. On the other hand, Biblical Nihilism is the opinion that the Bible is worthless, unnecessary (even for study), and irrelevant.

Biblical Literalism has led to, among other things, horrible atrocities to be committed upon mankind. Consider just for a minute the reality of the following statements (taken from here):

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." -- Hon. Leon Bazile, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967)

"The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley, Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1873)

"The slave-trade is perfectly consonant to ...Christian Law, as delineated to us in the Sacred Writings of the Word of God" -- Rev. Raymund Harris, Scriptural researches on the licitness of the slave-trade, shewing its conformity with the principles of natural and revealed religion, delineated in the sacred writings of the word of God (1788)

Inerrancy and literalism have also spawned violent hate crimes justified by interpretations of the Bible, often by zealots, religious fundamentalists, or maniacs. In current news, with Gaza, Israel's continued dependence on Genesis 13:14-15, 17:8 (as well as the false perspective that they were there "first"; also that they deserve the land because they had a historical kingdom there even though such perspectives run counter to archaeological evidence) led not only to continued support by our government (ignorantly) but has allowed fighting in the Middle East between Jews and others to persist there for millennia. Interpreting Leviticus 21-25 led many slave owners in America to feel justified in mutilating African Americans, breaking up families, beating some near death (and even to death). Readings of Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, Micah 5:11-12, and Galatians 5:20-21 have led to countless innocent women being burned for being falsely accused of as witches (as if one can really preform "witchcraft" successfully anyway). 2 Samuel 13:1-21 has allowed some men to rape women without fear of God's wrath. The list goes on.

In many ways, it is this literalism which has caused many apostates to not only fear interpretations of the Bible, but to flat our demonize the book itself. While some may say that this is justified (perhaps in some way it is), I find that there is an extremism to this that is disgusting and needs to be addressed. There are, after all, some atheists who want to see the Bible taken off book shelves and destroyed. I find this to be akin to the imagery associated above with the destruction of the Mona Lisa. And with this statement I need to clarify a few things.

First and foremost, I do not think the Bible is the inspired word of God. It isn't even "one" book in the sense that it is a collection of books. These books were chosen with intent by men who willfully discarded other religious Christian and Jewish texts. The authors themselves probably did not think of themselves as writing fact, history, the word of God, or otherwise (seeing as they were creating their narratives by modeling off earlier, already available literature). So my reservation about the Bible's importance does not lie in any spiritual, religious reason. I have no interest in trying to prove the Bible so I have no apologetic agenda. As I have made it clear, I am not a Christian (I'm not even a theist). But my reasons are also not purely academic, either.

There are some who say the Bible is not just literature, but poor literature. "It may be fiction," some skeptics will say, "but it is poorly written fiction." But I do not think that, even if this were true (I don't believe it is), this should warrant its destruction or censorship. I personally think that Charles Dickens' literary works are terrible but I would never accept the proposition that because I think it sucks, his entire collected works should be destroyed. One might suggest that Charles Dickens' works never caused anybody to interpret them in a manner that would cause others pain and suffering, but literature (and history) are not short on such examples. Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey caused Greeks (and later Romans) in some extent to view nonGreeks in a particular way allowed for them to treat nonGreeks as uncivilized or illiterate barbarians. Romans, who claimed to be the heirs of Trojans who escaped the Greeks destruction of their homeland, conquered Greece as if they were avenging their ancestors (and liberating Troy from the Greeks in the process). These are just a few of the instances where classical literature, particularly that literature concerned with religious matters of any kind,has caused harm to other individuals. But I don't hear cries from anybody to burn the epic poems of Homer. Nobody is suggested that Virgil's Aeneid be censored and removed from bookshelves.

From an academic perspective, all ancient literature (whether one finds it boring or are simply disinterested) helps scholars develop an understanding, the overall picture, of history. That is not to suggest the Bible represents actual history (it doesn't), nor does it suggest that the intentions of the authors were to write histories (they probably weren't) but what it does suggest is that the Bible represents a part of history. As unfortunate as it is, people will abuse anything (including the Bible) in order to achieve control over others, do harm to others; but the Bible has (albeit indirectly, as many Christians have never read even a page of the Bible) also inspired some to be generous and kind (yet, still, they sometimes do so with ulterior motives like pleasing God to make it into heaven or fear of hell). It must always be remembered that the Bible has no mystical power over man. It cannot conjure up demons or send them away. It cannot inspire peace or incite war. The Bible is only a collection of books, which are collections of pages that contain words made up letters. The Bible is no different than any other piece of literature, ancient or otherwise. That also means the Bible has no sense of morality (it's an inanimate object, after all) and cannot force the reader to do anything. People choose to do what they want and the Bible is a rather convenient excuse to do those things. Just as Aryan Nation advocates and white supremacists use Mein Kampf as an excuse to behave the way they do. While it was written by a genocidal maniac, the book has no power over anybody.

What is true, and something that should be taken quite seriously, is the influence of the written word. A story, regardless of its intentions or origins, can be persuasive. Persuasive stories can be compelling enough for a person to take them too seriously. This is, it seems, what happens more often than naught. Words do not have power, but it is how we interpret those words that give power to meaning. And meaning is based on our own life experiences. This is why Christian fanaticism and fundamentalism is tied into ideas of biblical inerrancy. It is also why hatred stems from literalists and inerrantists. Life experiences have taught them to fear, hate, demonize, and it has taught them that these attributes reflect love (at the very least, they reflect love in the eyes of God because they are doing what God wills from their readings of the Bible).

What this means is that, as a society, destroying literature or censoring it is not the answer. Instead, parents and communities should constantly be reminded of their responsibility to teach their children the right way to think, not what to think. Instead of indoctrinating your children to be robotic imitations of yourselves, teach them to think for themselves. The ability to think for themselves will free them from being narrow-minded thinkers, allowing them to question their actions, interpretations, and agendas. Those who are most fundamentally-minded are often those who were raised to think in strict, narrow patterns. This is a serious problem and one that instigates literalism in all religions (and even politics) to the point of fanaticism (which spawns wars, violence, genocides, prejudices, etc...).

Another solution that must be taken into consideration is how influential scholarship must be on politics and government. To clarify, this means that scholars need to take more of a stance against fundamentalism in government and politics. Take the current situation in Gaza as an example. The modern day Israelites have no God-given right to that land; there is no archaeological "right" to that land. The Jews of antiquity did not have some grand empire that gave them rights to Gaza, Jordan, etc... It most certainly does not give them rights to commit acts of war against others. Scholars need to be able to stand up and correct public officials, need to stand up and say "wait a minute, if you want to claim that they have a God given right to the land, you need to back up your claims first before we allow you to stand behind what they are doing." Scholars have a moral obligation to demand that our politicians, apologists, and religious leaders back up their claims over this region with evidence that actually contains some high standard of verisimilitude. If Bush wants to make the claim that God gave the Israelites that land thousands of years ago, he'll just have to provide the archaeological and epistemological evidence to back it up. And if he cannot, it is up to us to call him, and others, on their ignorance.

I also think that scholars should let go some of their resignations and soap boxes. Elitism is fine... in moderation. The public is important too. Far too often, there are those scholars who never publish a book through a public press. This is a problem. Aside from the fact that most Americans don't read the Bible (or anything), for those who do decide to read they will only find apologetic material available. Actual scholarly interpretations of religious literature are hard to find, leaving those fanatics to believe that the book they have by Josh McDowell or Luke Timothy Johnson represents actual scholarship (or worse! They may assume NT Wright represents the views of actual critical scholarship)! Having scholarly materials and interpretations, data, and reading resources available to the layman are crucial in stemming Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Biblical nihilism is also made more prevalent when skeptics can only find apologetic interpretations of the Bible--is it any wonder why so many atheists find the Bible irrelevant when they aren't given adequate reasons to think otherwise? If no sound, rational arguments exist outside of scholarship, where books range into the hundreds of dollars, how is the common woman or man able to afford to educate themselves outide of going to college for it (and not everyone has the temperament for such a career)?

In conclusion, literalism and nihilism are both problematic and represent extreme (although not necessarily fundamental) perspectives. Both of these perpsectives can lead to sour consequences. On the one hand, the subjugation of others is justified and in the other the subjugation of history is justified. The good news is that there are ways (and the means) to correct these perspectives, and in doing so create a brighter, more enlightened world. But it is up to those who are reading this to make that difference. Do we go the way of the Tetragrammaton, or the way of the 3rd World War, or do we take the position of the resistance?

Of Divorce and Faithfulness to Wife and God: Mark’s Reading of Malachi and 1 Corinthians

By Thomas Verenna

James has continued his “What Jesus Said and Did” series of blog posts with his second installment, which above other things concerns Jesus’ teachings on Divorce in Mark 10. First, I would like to point out that I enjoy the fact that James likes to try to analyze his own conclusions by offering alternative possibilities in his series. In this instance he brings to light the prohibitions of divorce in the Dead Sea Scrolls from the beginning. It is good to see somebody second guessing themselves, but I do not think that James follows his own thoughts to conclusion when it comes to this subject. Why do I say that? Because his argument for reliability is less than thoroughly explained and when read seems to rely on a foundation that is, to put it bluntly, weak. His argument rests in the assumption of embarrassment, once again.

One ought to consider, however, the indication that Jesus' disciples were less than thrilled about this teaching attributed to him, which might provide an argument against it having been invented.

The assumption here is that because the narrator, Mark, suggests that his disciples were unhappy with the conclusions of Jesus’ teachings, this would imply a historical core (See my Finding Oneself on the Mount of Olives for details on James’ use of embarrassment). At its heart the historical core is not necessarily concerning the article of divorce, but rather would shift to how the disciples viewed Jesus’ teachings. Let’s face it: Jesus’ disciples often were annoyed at or oblivious to Jesus’ lessons. If James is going to use this literary trope inappropriately, it should be the first thing to dissect. Does Mark’s comment about the disciples discontent about this teaching “provide an argument against it having been invented?” Yes, it does, but not in the way that James thinks. Once more, James is arguing against an ad hoc. My position is not that these stories were invented whole cloth, as I have stated elsewhere (see here and here) but are rewritten from previous traditions, through model use and trope use, which are common not only in the Hebrew Bible but in all ancient literature of every genre.

The oblivious disciple(s) in Mark have a history that goes back for thousands of years, and predates Christianity by hundreds. I’ll use Dennis MacDonald’s words and call this, for the sake of understanding, the Trope of the Foolish Companions. Dennis argues (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 20-23), and I think convincingly, that the reason why Jesus’ followers seem inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, incompetent, and ignorant of the scriptures is two-fold: (1) It makes Jesus appear more wise and learned and (2) Mark writes them this way as a means to express the state of the Israel (i.e. the twelve disciples represent the state of the twelve tribes—that they are inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, etc…). Both are literary (not historical) reasons for Mark’s plot. The disciples are tools. They hold the most secure place in Jesus’ company, learning the mysteries of the Kingdom, but happen to be the least coherent lot in all Judaea, much in the same manner that Israel holds a special place in God’s company, as the chosen people, yet often stray from the straight and narrow path. Mark highlights this fact by showing that the “dogs” of the world (gentiles) can be more Godlike and respectable than those in the highest Jewish positions. This is why the scene with the Syrophoenician woman is so important to Mark’s story line and theology. Although she is labeled a “dog” she is more likely to receive God’s blessings because of her faith which is more than those in Jesus’ company.

This trope is seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is seen with Moses, who is constantly tested by those closest to him to provide a sign for the future ‘people of the book.’ It is there with Elijah who is reluctant to perform miracles of God. These themes are not new, just reused in new ways. In Mark’s Gospel, the ignorance of his companions is not evidence of a historical lot of incompetents but rather it is evidence for the literary plot that Mark is toying with to create his narrative. It is evidence of Mark’s use of Jewish scripture as a model for his good news.

This brings us back around to Mark’s figure of Jesus, also based on scripture. This is none-more clear than right here, in Mark 10; the same chapter that James wants to suggest has historical cores to it is precisely the chapter that utilizes scripture as a model, including the teachings on divorce and faithlessness. And no more obvious is the scholar’s ineptitude to understand context than it is here as well. As James forgets to read beyond his fragmenting of the narrative once again, he misses the intent behind the words of Mark.

As a reminder, it is Paul who first brings to light the words of Malachi:

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel” (Mal. 2:13-16)

As Paul writes:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

James is right to inquire about this passage, but his interpretation (that Lord means Jesus) is not accurate. The Lord, through Malachi, hates divorce. And Paul rightly shows that it is the Lord who makes this degree.Is Paul “indicating his awareness that he was here passing on teaching attributed to Jesus that he had had passed on to him” as James suggests? No. Once more James’ realistic explanation is not thought through to its conclusions. The fact is Paul is reciting directly from Malachi (which is why Paul goes on about marrying unbelievers, as Malachi makes note). Paul’s remarks concerning the betrothed are not mentioned in Malachi, forcing Paul to recite his own theories on this, which he does quite extensively. This is not a manner of guilt at his ploy, nor is he filling in a blank splotch in his teachings, but rather he is elaborating on Malachi’s words, from the Lord, and explaining what is left unexplained. Paul does so smashingly.

The teachings of Jesus in Mark 10 are found in the Hebrew Bible and stem from teachings of Paul, who is also getting them from the Hebrew Bible. The Lord hates divorce and thus Jesus, his son, does too. His disciples, as Mark makes them, must question this, as they represent an Israel who has fallen from the path and must right themselves. They must be incompetent because Jesus has the law of the Lord behind him and must be seen as superior. This is how Mark writes, and as with the other instances where I have shown Mark is doing this, Mark cues the reader to this practice.

Mark’s idea of having the Pharisees—the temple cult—challenge Jesus is a cue to Malachi 2, which says:

“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi," says the LORD Almighty. "So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law. (Mal. 2:7-8; cf. Mal. 2:1)

The fact that the Pharisee’s bring up the law in Deut. 24:1-4 is to illustrate to the reader how the Pharisees, the priests, have abused the law and have “caused many to stumble.” Jesus sets them right by humiliating the Pharisees time and time again before crowds of people. The Pharisees have shown partiality in matters of the law; they revere one teaching over another and Jesus must show them their error and why they are not to be trusted. Mark does a fantastic job with this scene and makes it more than implicit that he is doing this.

Once more, James shows that he may fall into the category of the apprehensive disciple, where his understanding of the teachings mark is imparting is limited by his hardened heart, if you will. Limiting the Gospels to individual segments of so-called “historical cores” does nothing but limit one’s ability to see the forest between the trees. I will have to spend some time writing a blog article on how ancient authors utilized models to build plot, as it is clear that James refuses to comprehend my own lessons on this time and time again. This may be something for next week. In any event, the matters of divorce in Mark, spoken by Jesus, originated in Mark’s models: Paul and the Jewish scriptures. They did not originate from a historical Jesus.

Professor doubts the historicity of the figure of Mohammad

This is truly an incredible story. My favorite part was this;

He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?" He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged.

This reminds me of my own transformation from being an advocate for the historical Jesus to finally questioning the figure of Jesus' historicity all together. Just as Prof. Kalisch held onto the assumptions of Islamic scholarship on historicity, I had held onto New Testament historical Jesus scholarship and the assumptions made during the middle of the Third Historical Jesus Quest. It was only after long personal deliberation that I was able to break free from these assumptions and questioned everything. What was I taking for granted? How could I verify it using historical methods? Upon examination, a lot of examination, I came to the conclusion that after looking over the evidence, hundreds of little problems emerged from under the rug that just built up into one large case against historicity. I imagine that Prof. Kalisch was going through the same process last year.

It is incredible that where a bias is involved, critical thinking stops. Only in religious scholarship (not the study of Classics, for example) are people ridiculed for doubting the historicity of a Patriarch or an origin tradition. It's only through blood, sweat and tears by "minimalists" like Thompson, West, Davies, Van Seters, Lemche and others that has led to the abandonment of the Genesis-Judges patriarchs by the majority of scholars in the field; but man they are hard to budge when it comes to Solomon and David onward (so much so that they label revisionists as antiSemites). Historical Jesus scholars are so certain of Jesus' historical reality that they call anybody who legitimately raises the question of historicity a "pseudoscholar." It's sad. It feels like we have reverted back to the Dark Ages, where critical thought was scorned.

There is absolutely no reason why scholars should be stingent in their opinions. We're supposed to be practicing a science and there is no place for granite minds in science. especially not a field as fluid as the science of history.

Finding Oneself at the Mount of Olives: The Literary Trope of Conversion

By Thomas Verenna

A holy man, the King of the Jews, climbs up the Mount of Olives to escape from a plot to end his life instigated by somebody he loved. He has been betrayed by one of his closest advisers. He must find himself on the holy Mount in order to once again become righteous in the eyes of God. Taking a few of his most loyal companions with him, he must convert from the ways of the flesh and realize what he has to do to once again gain favor in the sight of the Lord, this includes suffering humiliation and doubt. If you think I’m talking about Jesus, you are wrong. I am in fact referring to David.

In 2 Samuel, David has been usurped by his son Absalom who reigns supreme over Jerusalem and has anchored a plot to kill his father. Fleeing from those who would kill him, David treks to the Mount of Olives to pray to God. He takes some of his most loyal companions with him, realizing that his chief advisor, Ahithophel, has betrayed him and sides with his son, now his enemy. David sends three of his servants to Absalom in Jerusalem to offer fictional advice to stall his plot and to destroy his reign. Along the way to the summit he is challenged by obstacles that test his faith. Shimei pelts David with stones. One of David’s men, Abishai, offers to cut off Shimei’s head, but David stays his hand acknowledging that it is God’s will that Shimei must ridicule him. When Hushai, one of the three David sends back to Jerusalem, arrives, he offers counsel to Absalom. Upon David’s friend besting Ahithophel’s advice, Ahithophel realizes that Absalom’s rule is not according to the will of God. Ahithophel then takes his own life by hanging from a tree. Absalom, Israel’s false king, also dies a death from hanging by a tree and is pierced by spears of soldiers while still partly alive. David, hearing the news is saddened and mourns the loss of his son, even as an enemy. But his kingdom is now his again, through the work of his God and through his conversion and journey up the Mount of Olives.

What does this have to do with my dialog with James? Well, recently James has posted up on his blog one of the events in the Gospel of Mark he deems to be historical (or, as he puts it, contains a “historical core”). The event in question is Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives. James makes a common error that I have called to light on numerous occasions (see my article here for example), that being the fragmentation of the text as a whole. What James does is single out a few verses from the whole chapter (e.g. Mark 14:35-36). By doing this, James makes it nearly impossible for one to know the context, and is in fact removing the context to force a case for historicity. He cites only the words of Jesus in Gethsemane, without realizing their Psalmic nature, and deems them historical on the following grounds:

I wonder how many modern readers actually register the significance of this from the perspective of later Christianity. By Paul's time, the church had already made a virtue out of a necessity, making sense of the otherwise unintelligible fact of the crucifixion by claiming that it was an essential act for the salvation of humankind. In the story in Mark, Jesus is depicted as praying for that not to happen.

While the first part may be true (i.e. that by Paul’s time, the church—really we can only say Paul since he is the only witness we have from the period—had made the crucifixion and resurrection a necessity), it is only true because the belief in a righteous savior who would have to be killed by a conquering nation for the salvation of mankind had been a belief established hundreds of years before the time of Paul, by the authors of the book of Isaiah.

The second part of the statement—that Jesus is praying for the crucifixion not to happen—is really a misinterpretation of the whole chapter. James is of the mindset that Mark is recounting a historical core to this story, primarily because this event is embarrassing. It’s an embarrassment, per James, because it would negate the whole importance of the crucifixion and the salvation of mankind (according to the “Christians” of Mark’s time) yet it is included in the story. The conclusion James has apparently come to as a result of this analysis is that the only reason this could have been included in the Gospels is if this were a bonafide memory of a historical Jesus (and therefore making it important to include). This would be a fine explanation if it weren’t completely based upon a misinterpretation of the chapter and a very damning assumption.

What is really happening in this scene? The whole of the chapter tells a tale familiar to any Jew who would have read it. Judas (the Gospel’s Ahithophel and Absalom) betrays Jesus for thirty silver pieces to the Sanhedrin who seek to kill Jesus silently. Jesus breaks bread with the disciples (which comes right out of 1 Corinthians 15) and notes that somebody has betrayed him. He now heads to the Mount of Olives, bringing with him three of his closest companions and has them keep watch. Jesus then goes off to pray alone, speaking from the words of David’s psalm (this allusion is made clear to us at Mark 14:26, “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives”). Jesus must be tempted as David was tempted. He makes this clear when he talks to the three who have fallen asleep (another Paulism; but originally from Isaiah 52). “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mark 14:37-38) Jesus prays three times (a common Markan theme; using triadic symbolism) reciting the same words in the same way and by having Jesus speak these words, the author of Mark alludes his full-knowing reader to the story of David and Absalom discussed above.

It is the will of God that Jesus is betrayed just as it was the will of God that David was betrayed, and both must convert back to the way of the Lord in order to fulfill their destinies. This conversion happens on the Mount of Olives for both David and Jesus. Jesus comes away a third time and has found his path again. “The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Awaken, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." (Mark 14:41-42) That Jesus must die and be restored to the glory of the father is something that has to happen. Just as Jesus’ trek up Gethsemane must happen, because Jesus must “let the Scriptures be fulfilled.” (Mark 14: 49) The words of Jesus are not of a historical memory but of an interpretation of Psalm 116:

What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord,…Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. O Lord, I am your servant; (Psalm 116:10-15)

I cannot find a reason why James’ point would hold ground here. The question of the use of the Aramaic “Abba” in this context is because Jesus must call God by his name, and his name is Father. It may benefit James to realize that Mark is taking this Aramaic phrase directly from Paul, who in turn is also interpreting scripture. “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15) and “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.” (Galatians 4:6-7) In Romans it is not Jesus who is reciting these words, but those who have converted through the spirit. Paul never suggests or implies these words come from Jesus anywhere. They come from God, through the spirit. In Galatians, Paul is happy to explain what he means by adoption through the spirit while in the process making my case for a nonhistorical Jesus (savior) much clearer. (See my article here for more details about Galatians 4 and Paul’s meaning)

Paul uses ‘Abba’ because he is referencing the Jewish God. He is talking to Jews (albeit in Greek), and in recalling the passage in Malachi, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal. 2:10), Paul is making our adoption under God explicit. There is no need to assume anything special beyond this, no need to play into the use of Aramaic over Greek. The very importance that James applies to these passages does not come from a historical core to the nonhistorical Gospel account, but from Paul and Mark, who are getting it from the Jewish scripture.

Jesus is to be tested as David was, which is why Mark has Jesus go up to the Mount of Olives, in mortal fear, and once more find his path (the straight path, i.e. god’s path, yashar, the root for the eponymous name Israel). The whole of the scene is modeled from 2 Samuel, while much of the theology of the scene comes from Paul. The disciples “sleep” and are “awakened” by Jesus, but when Jesus departs, failing to recognize the importance of the tests, fall back asleep, succumbing to the flesh. Jesus commands the disciples to “wake up” because it is time for him to be delivered as the Son of Man, the salvation from God, which almost comes right from Paul’s words verbatim, “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.” (Romans 13:11) This “awake/spirit” and “asleep/flesh” analogy comes from Paul. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:34) This language did not come about ex nihilo, but from the scriptures that Paul is interpreting. Indeed, the very chapters in Isaiah that Paul builds his savior (Jesus) from uses this very language.

Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!...How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (Gospel), who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” (Isaiah 52:1, 7)

The foundation of James’ example depends primarily on his assumption that Jesus’ death happened and was an embarrassment. This position is held as if they were a priori, but this is not the case. James must remember he is trying to prove this position, thus he needs to stop assuming the case in point when coming to conclusions such as this, which ultimately can be shown to reflect plot design by the author using scripture and don’t necessarily stem from a historical memory or tradition. James would have to prove they do in fact stem from these traditions by presenting a solid case for it; this means he cannot simply dust himself off from my interpretations, but rather he must show how they are less probable interpretations by using actual historical methodology. And although James may claim that those of us who suspect that these stories are formed from imaginations rather than history have failed “to understand what was going on in the development of early Christianity,” what has been shown here is James’ failure to understand how ancient Jewish authors (who never called themselves Christians, but rather, Christians called them Christians) used scripture as a model to create new stories and fictions. One must then ask themselves, “who is really failing to understand early Christianity here?”

Concerning James’ use of the Criterion of Embarrassment, for James to continuously ignore the explicit use of scripture and the fact that these early “Christians” did not seem to mind converting into “Christianity” he is now showing us his own failure to understand “what has happened.” While making the baseless (and contradictory) assumption that the Jews would have found this repulsive and embarrassing may seem compelling and accurate, this glosses over the reality of the past. It’s a neglectful assumption, because it fails to understand the reality of the early “Christian” movement—people did in fact see a crucified savior as the messiah (Some Jewish sects were in fact waiting for the death of a righteous individual to fill the role of Isaiah’s Son of Man), regardless of what the status quo of the elite society would have felt. As Dr. Richard Carrier aptly points out, it was embarrassing for somebody to castrate themselves willingly, but despite how much of an abomination it was to the Roman elite, there was a rather large following of Roman citizens who willingly did castrate themselves for the cult of Attis (the Eunuch). So whether or not James is embarrassed by the supposed physical death of his messiah is truly irrelevant. What matters is what the early Christians (converts) said about it and how they felt about it. The very fact that they converted into it points away from James’ position that the embarrassment of Jesus’ actions makes them true. It’s not grounded in any sound reason. (See my previous response to James on this very subject here)

This brings us around full circle. Is the prayer at Gethsemane a historical incident? No. It is exactly what the rest of the Gospel is; it is interpreted scripture and the reinvention of Jewish tradition.

Refuting HelpMenderstandTheBible.org (Part 1 of 5)

Refuting HelpMenderstandTheBible.org (Part 1 of 5)

By Thomas Verenna

General Article Introduction

I often ignore apologists all together. I just do not have the time to put up with the incredible ignorance, the delusion of authority, and the hyperbole in general that is inherent in every apologetic response to criticism. It's just so boring. But when I came across this website, I felt a response was appropriate. Especially considering the website's name is helpmeunderstandthebible.org. It was just too appropriate. I didn't read the title as if the website was going to help me; rather, I saw the title as a call for help. After all, who needs more help at understanding the Bible then apologists?

The introduction to the article on historical reliability states that "Skeptics have criticized the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, as being legendary in nature rather than historical." The article then sets out, per the author Patrick Zukeran, to prove the opposite is true. This refutation (perhaps the better word for it is 'lesson') will touch on every issue put forth by this website in the order that Zukeran uses.

Part 1: Are the Gospels historically reliable?

Zukeran starts this section off with a challenge (apparently to himself), where he writes that the first step to prove the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts historically is to "account for the differences among the four Gospels." He lists all four, ascribing to each one their own special mission. Mark, the gentile speaker, Luke the historical biographer, Matthew the Jewish interpreter, and John the brooding boyhood pal of Jesus. No wonder they're different! How silly of us historians and New Testament scholars for not seeing this earlier. They were all writing from completely different perspectives for different audiences! And if you critical scholars out there were too daft to figure it out, Zukeran was goodly enough to provide us all with an example.

"Imagine if four people wrote a biography on your life: your son, your father, a co-worker, and a good friend. They would each focus on different aspects of your life and write from a unique perspective. One would be writing about you as a parent, another as a child growing up, one as a professional, and one as a peer. Each may include different stories or see the same event from a different angle, but their differences would not mean they are in error. When we put all four accounts together, we would get a richer picture of your life and character. That is what is taking place in the Gospels."

Ah ha! Now I understand! Luke is Jesus' father, Matthew is Jesus' son, Mark worked with Jesus in his carpentry business and John was just Jesus' childhood pal who grew up with him in Nazareth. Of course! It's so simple I should kick myself for not seeing it sooner. After all, Zukeran is correct when he says that "If they were identical, we would suspect the writers of collaboration with one another." That just makes sense. After all, asking four biographers, even ancient biographers, to get at least one fact about Jesus' life correct is just too suspicious. They would have clearly been collaborators. And just because Zukeran assumes they all knew each other and they saw the same things doesn't imply at all that they had to speak to each other about them. And certainly after Jesus' death and resurrection, they clearly stopped communicating with each other all together. In fact, according to Zukeran's logic, the four evangelists would have to have parted ways (around the same time), settled in four different locations around the known world, to write four completely separate accounts of Jesus' life for one common goal (although it would have to mean that each author didn't know or expect that the other three were doing the same) – which according to Zukeran, that goal was to give us a fuller and richer perspective about Jesus. But this isn't a suspicious incident at all! And this is far more reasonable then four authors, from four different regions, at four separate times, using earlier Gospels to create new ones. Only those pesky Gnostic heretics did that!

Unless, of course, Zukeran admits that they did discuss issues as they saw them, or that these evangelists (assuming as Zukeran does that they were witnesses to Jesus' life) continued to communicate with each other after Jesus died and resurrected. But this would put holes in his theory and his analogy. After all, a father and brother documenting your life would probably still talk to each other. It wouldn't be as if they never sat down together and said, "Yeah, so I'm thinking about writing a book about Patrick." Of course they would, especially if you resurrected in front of them. And chances are you would want to collaborate with those who also saw it just so that nobody else thought you were a complete nutter.

Of course there are severe problems with this whole argument anyway. We're not talking about four Gospels that "focus on different aspects" of Jesus' life. We're talking about four gospels written in different styles focusing on the same aspects. Zukeran has clearly confused the style of writing with the contents of the individual Gospel accounts. (It won't be the first time Zukeran gets confused, but more on that later.) Additionally, the four evangelists were not writing from four different perspectives, rather each evangelist (according to Zukeran they are all first hand eyewitnesses) was claiming to be a disciple of Jesus. Perhaps the only disciple that may have the different perspective is Peter, simply because according to the Gospels, he saw things separately from the others at times. But Peter never wrote a Gospel (and none of the canonical Gospels bears his name), ergo all four Gospel authors hold the same position. So in essence it would be like four of your brothers writing four biographies about your life. It would not be, as Zukeran pretends, a friend, or a father, or a brother, or a co-worker (all who would have had different experiences with you separate from the other three). All of the evangelists claim to have the same relationship with Jesus and all were present for the same things.

And are these four Gospels just "different perspectives?" No, and Zukeran is rather arrogant to assume his readers are that stupid not to recognize the slight-of-hand he just pulled. Zukeran would have us believe that these differences are minor, as if John just left out something that Mark thought to put in, or that Luke was thorough enough to name everyone present at a certain event while Mark generalized with a plural noun. Zukeran wishes that the errors and inconsistencies between the four Gospels were so minor and trivial. Of course, anybody reading the Gospels can recognize the difference between a contradiction and an oversight. The fig tree is an example that comes to mind almost immediately.

In Matthew, Jesus has just finished cleansing the temple after a very triumphal entry into Jerusalem and he was already running away to Bethany to escape the guards who were looking to kill him. He sleeps the night there and awakens the next day to head back into the city (apparently the guards had changed shift and didn't pass along the message) and decides he is hungry along the way back. Luckily for him, fig trees were abundant. Unlucky for the fig tree, it was out of season. Jesus is so infuriated that he had called but the tree had not answered, he curses the tree and it withers "at once." (Matt. 21:19) The disciples all marvel and even ask each other "How did the fig tree wither at once?" (Matt. 21:20) With a little teaching that follows, this ends Matthew's fig tree story.

In Mark, Jesus only makes it into the city before realizing he must leave again. (The triumphal entry must have taken hours out of the day.) So, off to Bethany he goes to spend the night because it was "already late" (Mark 11:11), as apparently the money changers were no longer at the temple with tables for Jesus to throw over. And as before, on their way to Jerusalem, Jesus became hungry; he had to build up his strength for all the table-throwing and scolding later on, it seems. He approaches the fig tree, out of season, and curses the fig tree. All of his disciples heard this curse. (Mark 11:14) After a long day of cleansing the temple, throwing over tables, they again departed from the city to escape the plotting priests and scribes. The next morning the disciples saw the fig tree withered away. (Mark 11:20)

Luke, that crazy historical biographer, seems to have completely forgotten this event as it is described in the other two accounts. To Luke, there was never an incident with a fig tree at all; rather it was a parable all along. (Luke 13:6-9) In fact, the parable is told far from Jerusalem in Galilee, a full six chapters before the Triumphal Entry in Luke. More interesting is that Luke doesn't seem to recall ever stopping by Bethany during his stay in Jerusalem with Jesus. It isn't until the Ascension that Luke, the biographer, seems to recall Bethany from his travels.

John is not only clueless of the withering of the fig tree, but he doesn't even recall the parable! Instead, John remembers Jesus calling Nathanael from under a fig tree (John 1:43-48), but beyond that, he is completely ignorant of any cursing, withering, fig tree incident! But I thought I read in Matthew that all the disciples marveled? Mark suggests that all the disciples saw the fig tree withered the next day. Something isn't adding up here!

This seems to be more than an oversight and this is just one of the many contradictions that could be brought to light. Yet, according to the evangelists, they were all disciples, who saw the same things, and recount that every one of them saw the same things within their own text! (It doesn't say, for instance, that "Only a few marveled" or "Most of the disciples saw the tree withered"—the evangelists went out of their way to use absolute words like "all" or "every" so it was clear to the reader that there was not one person who missed the event) Yet clearly there are four different stories, very separate, and all unique. This is a clear example of authorial intent at play, not memory recall.

So is Zukeran correct when he writes that "the four Gospels give us a complementary, not a contradictory, account?" Not in the least. What we have are in fact four contradictory accounts which complement the single theological issue: That issue being that God will call for you whenever it suits him, out of season or not, so be prepared to "bear fruit" and answer his call. The fact that this theological issue is presented in four different ways is only evidence that each Gospel author changed the narrative in a manner that better suited them—not, as Zukeran claims, because they represent a core historical event. But even on the off-chance that it were a historical event, Zukeran would have to decide just which event was the most historical tradition, something that is not only impossible to determine but irrelevant. It is irrelevant because he would then have to cope with the fact that three out of the four Gospels got the story wrong on purpose, out of incompetence, or because they just didn't know about it. Then Zukeran would be faced with an even more frustrating question. If this event is so skewed and altered, how can he be so sure that the rest of it isn't as well? He may comfort himself in the fiction that this is the only contradiction between the four evangelists, but where does that leave his whole theory that the Gospels do not give contradictory accounts?

Are the Gospels historically reliable? Absolutely not. Can it be shown that they contradict each other? Absolutely. So much for proving the reliability of the Gospels! What's next? Oh right! It's the dating of the New Testament writings. This one should be entertaining! More to come later.

Richard Carrier's Vexations

A friend and colleague of mine, Richard Carrier, is like me writing a book concerning the ahistoricity of the figure of Jesus, although we are both taking different directions to reach a similar conclusion. One of his more recent blogs contain some of his frustrations with New Testament studies and scholars that I have shared on more than a few occasions!

In this brilliant article, he gives just one example of his frustrations in researching the data for this book. He writes:

[N]ot only is there no consensus, but there are dozens of positions, and arguments for each [Dating the contents of the New Testament and identifying their authorship and editorial history-Ed] are elaborate and vast. It was only after over a month of wasting countless hours attempting to pursue these matters to some sort of condensable conclusion that I realized this was a fool's errand. I have changed strategy and will attempt some sort of broader, simpler approach to the issues occupying my chapter on this, though exactly what that will be I am still working out. It will involve, however, a return to what historians actually do in other fields, which New Testament scholars seem to have gotten away from in their zeal to make sense of data that's basically screwed in every conceivable way. For when it comes to establishing the basic parameters of core documents, I have never met the kind of chaos I've encountered in this field in any other subfield of ancient history I've studied. Elsewhere, more often than not, either the matter is settled, or no one pretends it is.

He offers his readers one example, in this particular instance the example comes from the fact that there is no set consensus about the terminus ante quem and the terminus ad quem for the composition of Matthew. The first reference to Matthew is generally assumed to be from that of Ignatius, but so many New Testament scholars have taken for granted or glossed over the severe problems with using Ignatius to date Matthew. Richard not only provides a lengthy expose into the problems of dating Matthew in a humorous manner, he uncovers more dirt neatly tucked under the rug my New Testament scholarship along the way. This foray into the grinder of New Testament studies is worth the read.

You can check it out here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/09/ignatian-vexation.html