Sunday, June 28, 2009

Beating the Dead Horse: 'begotten'

Oh my, in the debate between Dr James R. White and Imam Shamsi Ali from a couple of days ago guess what argument was brought forward again?

The RSV "deleted" the word "begotten".


He starts with it around 2 minutes and 50 seconds in.

This is the legacy of Ahmed Deedat. Pathetic and grossly errant arguments being repeated over and over again. The smile of satisfaction he had after he finished his ingenious comment was just sad. If only these Muslims checked up their argumentation.

Edit: At around 8 minutes in Dr White corrects Ali's ignorance.

See where I covered the issue previously here.

The Pilgrimage of the Orthodox through History

Chapter 1:
The Pilgrimage of the Orthodox through History


I have decided to make some notes with regard to the contents of the chapter. I wholeheartedly agree that the rich heritage of the Eastern Orthodox Church is ignored by a reformation centred protestant church history in the West. As McGuckin points out:

If it does make an appearance, for the period of the first 500 years, it mysteriously tails off into invisibility as the story of the rise of the medieval West is undertaken, something that tends to push away all else to the side. Most English-language church histories, if they were properly labelled, should admit that they are largely the history of the Western Church as it developed after the great shock wave of the Reformation. Because of this, Reformation apologetics still heavily condition the way the story of the church is told. (p.5)
In an extremely long sentence he goes on to confirm my previous analysis on why it is neglected by the Roman Catholics and the Protestants:

For Roman Catholicism the Greek Orthodox (and all other Orthodox churches in communion with them) were stubborn schismatics who had always resisted the eirenic advances of Rome, and had thrown off Roman order and clarity. To Protestant critics the Orthodox were often seen as stranger versions of all that they hated in medieval Catholicism: relic veneration, icons, devotion to the saints and the Virgin Mary, sacraments, and priesthood. Each side of the Western Reformation divide saw the Orthodox through a distorting lens of its own concerns. From the viewpoint of the Orthodox, both forms of Western Christianity, Catholic and Reformed, seemed very much alike: two similar but variant forms of development of the same premises with the same styles of theologizing and closely related patterns of worship. Studies of the Orthodox Church by external commentators tended to resonate with those aspects of Orthodoxy that ‘conformed’ to their Western Catholic, or Protestant, expectations, depending on the ecclesial starting point, and allegiance, of the various authors. (p.6)
Regarding self designation:

Orthodoxy does not give up the title ‘catholic’. It regards itself as the catholic church (the marks of the church are to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) and catholicity in this sense demands that any Orthodox church cannot be Greek, Russian, Romanian, American, or English in its fundamental ‘character’, but on the contrary is fundamentally catholic and universal in its being and its spiritual ethos. (p.6)
On the understanding of the Apostolic role:

Orthodoxy regards the episcopal ranks, the senior order of priesthood in the church, as the chief example of the successors to the original apostolic order. All those, however, who share the vitality of the faith with others, especially those who lead others deeper into the experience of Jesus, are seen to be endowed with an apostolic charism in a missionary sense...Even on a lesser scale, parents and grandparents who transmit the faith with loving care to their children serve in the apostolic role as propagators of the faith, under God. (p.8)

*Post to be later edited and continued*

McGuckin, John Anthony. The Orthodox Church : An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Ltd., 2008.

The Orthodox Church by John Anthony McGuckin


I am about to start reading The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine and Spiritual Culture by John Anthony McGuckin. McGuckin is an ordained Orthodox priest, Orthodox theologian and scholars of early church and Byzantine history.

Eastern Orthodoxy tends to be the religion ignored by many in the West although it is the second largest individual Christian denomination. I guess the issue is that the Catholics in the West do not have much contact with it and the Protestants write it off as Roman Catholicism. Yes, they have their similarities- but they also have their big differences.

The key chapters of the book are:
  1. The Pilgrimage of the Orthodox through History
  2. The Orthodox Sense of Tradition
  3. The Glory of God
  4. The Economy of Salvation
  5. The Holy Mysteries and Liturgies
  6. ‘The God-Beloved Emperor’: Orthodoxy’s Political Imagination
  7. Orthodoxy and the Contemporary World

Anyway, I hope the book is interesting

Reviewing the Jesus Puzzle: The Conspiracy of a Conspiracy of Silence

Following is a short examination of the first piece of the puzzle presented in Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins. Within the article, Doherty braeks down the evidence for Jesus into 10 pieces in an attempt to demonstrate a mythical origin of Christianity.

The first piece of the puzzle is the Conspiracy of Silence. The argument behind this piece simply put is that the early Christian writings do not contain the Gospel narrative. The absence of narrative includes the following:
  1. No reference to Jesus' life and ministry.
  2. No mention of miracles performed by Jesus
  3. No mention of physical teaching of Jesus
Furthermore, he attempts to diffuse the historical references in the epistles. For example, he alleges that 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 is a later interpolation. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament makes no mention of a viable interpolation here on textual grounds. Paul's mention of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is simply written off as "a mythical scene Paul has himself developed" without justification. Evidently, the exceptions to his rule are conveniently interpolations or myth.

When we get to the non-Christian sources, Josephus' mention in Antiquities of the Jews 18 is a "Christian interpolation" as is the mention of "James the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ" in Antiquities 20.

Response:

Regarding the mentions in the epistles, we have seen that they are simply written off as (1) later interpolations and (2) mythical inventions of the author. This process does not seem to be a function of historical investigation but simply modifying the evidence and parameters to fit the conclusion. This same sort of evidence tampering continues with the mentions in the non-Christian sources. Josephus' clear and acknlowedged mentions are placed into the realm of later Christian interpolations and tampering. In this way his thesis can once again be qualified.

It seems that the conspiracy of silence is one created by Doherty himself. With regard to the later pagan sources, they are beyond this investigation simply as they are a fallacious standard. Where historians mention Jesus, they are interpolations - when other historians who one would not expect to record the ministry of a Jew of Nazareth do not mention Jesus, this is evidence for his previous conclusions. At best, he is circular.

Now, regarding the claims of Josephus interpolations, Doherty is clearly against the consensus of scholars. The second mention of Jesus in the words of Professor Edwin Yamauchi, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage." Any survey on the historical evidence for Jesus from both liberal and conservative commentators will make this fact known. With regard to the longer reference to Jesus there is evidence of Christian embelishments. However, once again, the consensus is that there was a clear mention of Jesus as a physical person placed in history here. Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans and Jacob Neusner in The Missing Jesus state:

"In the part of this embellished text that virtually all regard as authentic Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and wonderworker who was accused by the leading men (i.e., ruling priests) before the Roman governor." (p.21)
From what scholars see as the authentic text of Josephus we can learn 10 facts about Jesus:

(1) Jesus was known as a wise and virtuous man, one recognized for his good conduct. (2) He had many disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. (3) Pilate condemned him to die, (4) with crucifixion explicitly being mentioned as the mode. (5) The disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead and (6) that he had appeared to them on the third day after his crucifixion. (7) Consequently, the disciples continued to proclaim his teachings. (8) Perhaps Jesus was the Messiah concerning whom the Old Testament prophets spoke and predicted wonders. We would add here two facts from Josephus’ earlier quotation as well. (9) Jesus was the brother of James and (10) was called the messiah by some. (Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus : Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ)
The scholarly understanding of Josephus' mentions of Jesus are very different to that entertained by Doherty.

Now, with regard to Doherty's points on the silence of the various epistles. As was demonstrated above, those that conflict with his overall thesis are designated as either myth or interpolations. However, there are many more points that Doherty seems ignorant of. Regarding placing Jesus in history, from the Pauline epistles alone we can learn enough to blast Doherty's marginal thesis. These historical points are collated by prominent New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce in his book 'Paul and Jesus':
"Paul is out earliest literary authority for the historical Jesus. True, he does not tell us much about the historical Jesus, in comparison with what we can learn from the Evangelists, but he does tell us a little more than that Jesus was born and died. Jesus was an Israelite, he says, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23ff); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.), although Jewish authorities were somehow involved His death (I Thess. 2:15); who was buried, rose the third day and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive twenty-five years later (I Cor. 15:4ff). In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion..

Paul knows of the Lord’s apostles, of whom Peter and John are mentioned by name as “pillars” of the Jerusalem community (Gal. 2:9), and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned (Gal. 1:19; 2:9). He knows that the Lord’s brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married (I Cor. 9:5), and incidental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30). He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion, e.g., His teaching on marriage and divorce (I Cor. 7:10f) and on the right of gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied (I Cor. 9:14); and the words He used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:24ff).

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (12:1-15:7), where Paul summarizes the practical implications of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul’s chief argument in his ethical instruction is t example of Christ Himself. And the character of Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (II Cor. 10:1), we remember our Lord’s own words, “I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the Gospels is the one of whom Paul says, “Christ did not please himself” (Rom. 15:3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the example ofo Christ, it is our Christian duty “to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1)….” (pp. 19-20)
Evidently, this is much more information than a conspiracy of silence. Similarly, Paul makes it clear that he is familiar with the teachings of Jesus such as on the issues of divorce.

However, the death blow to the epistle conspiracy occurs when one considers the circumstances of the epistles. These circumstances are two-fold:
  1. The epistles were written to communities that probably already knew gospel narrative. It would not be necessary to recount a biography of Jesus in every letter composed to another community acquainted with the narrative. Take for example, epistles from the Johannine community. They make few references to a historical Jesus yet they produced the Gospel of John which claimed to be based on the eyewitness testimony of the beloved disciple. Evidently, this community which was thoroughly acquainted with the gospel narratives made few references in the epistles. The logic behind such expectations is emphasised when we consider the genre of the epistles.
  2. The genre of the epistles were letters. Letters were not biographical narratives.
As prominent liberal New Testament scholar Marcus Borg states:
"But Paul’s letters tell us very little about the life and message of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus’s historical life was unimportant to Paul, as some scholars have suggested. Rather, Jesus mattered greatly to Paul. Paul spoke of Jesus as Lord and as God’s Son, as did early Christians generally. He wrote about life “in Christ,” “Christ crucified,” and “imitating Christ.” But narrating the story of Jesus was not the purpose of his letters. Rather, as the literary genre of “letters” indicates, Paul was writing to Christian communities about issues that had arisen in their life together." (Marcus Borg, Jesus p.32)
As has been clearly demonstrated, the grounding for Doherty's thesis is questionable at best.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Jesus According to Scripture by Darrell L. Bock


For some reason I feel like I really want that book. However, I feel too poor to afford it.
But there are two main reasons why I want it:

  1. As a former economics student, the fact that there are 704 pages means that I receive a greater utility per dollar spent.
  2. It sounds like something I really want to read.
  3. The cover design is nice.
Some opinions on the book:
In this book Darrell Bock has accomplished for Evangelical theology what the late Raymond Brown achieved for its Catholic counterpart: a judicious synthesis of the scholarship of his colleagues with the concerns of a canonical reading of Scripture. The result is a readable textbook that respects the exegetical diversity of the Gospels while emphasizing the unity of their underlying witness.

-Bruce Chilton, Bard College

Darrell Bock is a well-known expert in the Gospels, and in Jesus according to Scripture he provides a detailed analysis of the portrait of Jesus from each Gospel as well as a theological synthesis of Jesus' message and import as the Gospels portray him. Here we have a much more fulsome and helpful portrait of Jesus than is offered in many recent treatments of the historical Jesus. Highly recommended.

-Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary

This book is a wonderful illustration of the value of canonical criticism. The author's great knowledge of historical criticism is here employed in a study that takes the final form of the biblical texts as a literary unity. Bock's work has a wonderful balance between a respect for the uniqueness of each Gospel and an appreciation of the overall unity in the portrait of Jesus provided for the church.

-Stephen Evans, Baylor University

This book drives students to the texts of the four canonical Gospels; defends their historical reliability; interpretively distinguishes the Synoptics from John in the main, but somewhat from each other as well; and harmonizes all of them as much as possible. Teachers of courses on the life of Jesus who want a textbook that blends these approaches are likely to find here just what they're looking for.

-Robert Gundry, Westmont College

Neither a contribution to historical-Jesus research nor a conventional textbook on the Gospels, this is a common-sense yet academically informed commentary first on a synopsis of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and then on John. Laypersons, theological students, and pastors needing a review course will greatly benefit from it. In many ways, Jesus according to Scripture is a successor to Dwight Pentecost's Words and Works of Jesus, and a worthy one indeed!

-Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Rooted in outstanding scholarship and written with exceptional clarity, Bock's presentation of Jesus' life and teaching will be of great help to pastors, Christian leaders, and students of Scripture. Our students have already benefited from a pre-published version of this volume and speak with enthusiasm about it.

-Clinton E. Arnold, Talbot School of Theology

Sunday, June 21, 2009

My blog has been removed from Google

I knew I shouldn't have made jokes about liberals.

Muslim Polemics - Seriously?

Wow. The state of Muslim polemics against Christianity are amazingly pathetic. Take this video for example:



The polemicist has absolutely no idea about the concepts of divine sonship; the divine council of El; the Christian conception of God or the basics of Christology.

If we turn to the Qur'an it clearly does not understand the concept of the incarnation, divine sonship or the Trinity. The impression of the authors of the Qur'an are as follows:

  1. The Trinity is God the Father, Mary the divine Mother and Jesus the divine Son. Clearly, this is an errant position. The Christian Trinity is one being of God (as monotheists) with three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
  2. God the Father and Mary the Mother begot a divine Son, Jesus. Clearly, this is not what Christians believe. Mary is not divine nor does anyone claim that Jesus was the 'product' of a sexul act. The persons of the Trinity are eternal in Christian belief.
Throughout this video the blatant misunderstanding of the Christian doctrines as found in the Qur'an are repeated.

He then goes onto the 'begotten' has been removed from the Bible in John 3:16 argument. This argument is a copy/paste job of Deedat's as found in his Is the Bible the Word of God? The underlying Greek text is the same - the word monogenos. That is, mono (one of), genos (a kind). As rendered correctly by most modern translations - Jesus is the Only Unique (monogenos) Son. Clearly, within this verse there is no implication of a physical parental relationship of which Jesus is the divine offspring of - however, that is the argument they take.

A first year Greek student or even opening a concordance would explain this difficult to the man. In fact, simply reading the New Testament would demonstrate how baseless his claims are. However, if he were to take these proactive steps he would realise that the Qur'an was actually grossly incorrect in its representation of Christianity.

His next point on 1 Corinthians 15 - I cannot take it seriously. He is saying that people must be able - with their limited mental facultues - to understand the complete nature of GOD ALMIGHTY. The creator of the universe - the one who always was and always will be?

Furthermore, when he gets to 'destroying' the Trinity all he does are two things:
  1. Make it clear that he does not understand the Trinity at the most basic level;
  2. Attack a bad analogy provided by his opponent (whose response we never see...)

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Why lefties piss me off

Quote of the day:

The biggest crime in the past century was the Iraqi war.

I know it is fashionable to hate America - but seriously?

Personally, I was thinking the World Wars were pretty bad. The millions murdered by the Nazis in WW2. Then there were the genocides committed by the Turks against the Pontics, Armenians and Assyrians. But, oh, wait! The Iraqi war.

Biggest injustice ever.

Introduction: What is the Gospel?

What is the Gospel?

This is a question that most people do not understand within its original context. To most people today a gospel is one of the four books of the New Testament prefixed Gospel. However, is this accurate?

Is the Gospel something greater than the written texts? What was the gospel among the Christians before the written Gospels were put to paper? What was the Gospel Paul was orally preaching?

Through the short series through the historical understanding of the Gospel we will examine the contemporary and historical misunderstandings of the Gospel.

Stay tuned.

The Halakhic Letter (4QMMT)

Manuscripts:

Currently, six fragmentary copies of the document have been found in Cave 4. The respective manuscripts are 4Q394, 4Q395, 4Q396, 4Q397, 4Q398 and 4Q399.

Designation:
  • Some of the Works of the Torah
  • Miqsat Ma'aseh ha-Torah
  • 4QMMT
  • The Halakhic Letter

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Josephus relied on Luke-Acts

Some scholars such as Westar Institute's favourite Richard I. Pervo suggest that Acts relies on Josephus. Acts really isn't my thing historically, however, why not reverse the roles and insist Luke-Acts is a source for Josephus?

Starting on the 22nd (and hopefully no earlier as I have a lot of work to do by then) I will start looking into it.

Dear non-existent readers, if this has been done before (scholarly or just for fun) or there are major and obvious objections please do point it out.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Iranian Election

Personally, I cannot stand the vile hatred and world-threatening agenda of Ahmadinejad. His quest for nuclear arms and complete hatred and disregard for human life with regard to his aims for Israel are disgusting. Iran needs a change - who knows if Mousavi would be any better.

Anyway, what I do admire about Ahmadinejad's clan is that his militia supporters have a unique ability to throw stones at protesting university students.

Supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of the Basij militia hurl stones towards supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi who are inside Tehran University on Sunday, June 14, 2009.

Oh, and they also have this awesome ability where they join into groups and attack people weaker than themselves with batons. An amazing ability of brute masculinity:

A supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mousavi is beaten by government security men as fellow supporters come to his aid during riots in Tehran, Iran

Defying an official ban, hundreds of thousands of Iranian supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi demonstrate in Tehran on Monday, June 15, 2009.


Saturday, June 13, 2009

Quote of the Day - was Jesus Crucified?

Today's quote of the day has something to do with the most absurd historical claim made with in the Qur'an. The Qur'an, the Muslim holy scripture, makes an interesting claim - that is, Jesus was not crucified.

The problem with this view would have to be the ancient sources. Clearly, the death of Jesus was a primitive Christian belief (1 Cor 15) which is multiply attested to throughout the New Testament documents including the Gospels. Even the 2nd century apocryphal texts are certain of this historical fact such as the Gospel of Peter (early 2nd) and the Epistle of the Apostles (mid 2nd century).

So to today's quote:

"The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward."
Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. p.17
For an audio interaction between myself and a Muslim making the claim that the early Christians did not believe Jesus to be crucified:

Friday, June 12, 2009

Was Jesus an Essene?

I have been spending some time on a Christian apologetic discussion forum and I must say that I have come across many odd views. This one is probably at the bottom of the list for odd but it is worth looking at anway. A claim I have seen many times is that Jesus was an Essene who most certainly spent time at Qumran. I have never seen a convincing argument in favour of Jesus being a member of the Qumran sectarian community.

The Arguments in Favour of the Jesus-Qumran Theory:
  1. We do not know much about Jesus before his public ministry. Therefore, we fill in the blanks that he spent time in the Judaen dessert - decided to stay at the community for a while and came back to reveal himself as the promised Messiah.
  2. Jesus was either a Pharisee, Sadducee or Essene and we know from the New Tesstament he was in conflict with the two. Therefore he shared the belief of the Qumran Essenes he grew up with and was an Essene.
The Arguments in Perspective

(1) The first point is nothing but empty speculation, so there is no real need to dwell on it. A few objections would be that we know Jesus had family in Galilee and those knew him as having a profession (Mark 6:3). If Jesus had returned from Qumran he would not have had a public profession that those who were not personal acquaintances would know him by. Also, Jesus' ministry reflect that of a Galilean movement relying on oral teachings - and not the "bookishness" of the Qumran sectarians. Contrast the approach of the sectarians to Messianic fulfillment in the pesharim to that of the Jesus movement's real-time fulfillment (the donkey on Palm Sunday) and their reliance on oral teachings as opposed to constantly studying the physical scriptures.

(2) This point relies on a false trilemma. Jesus must have been an Essene because he was not a Pharisee or a Sadducee. In point form:
  • A religious Gaililean need not be any of the major sects that surrounded Jurusalem.
  • There were more than three sects in the late Second Temple Period. Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees (Ant.13.171). However, from Josephus alone we can know of more groups including the Zealots and Sicarii. In commenting on Josephus' simplification, Prof. James H. Charlesworth states, "this schematization is anachronistic and systematically excludes such major groups as the Samaritans, Zealots, Sicarii, Baptist groups, Enoch groups, the Jewish magical groups, the  Boethusians, scribal groups, Galilean miracle-workers, Roman quislings, and many others who claimed to be faithful Torah-abiding Jews." (Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Discovery and Challenge to Biblical Studies. p.7)
Next is what do Jesus' conflicts with the Sadducees and Pharisees actually tell us?
  • Jesus was mixing with circles of Pharisees and sometimes Sadducees. He was not mixing with the sectarians who were far away at Qumran.
  • Jesus mixing in Pharisee circles may imply that he was of a Pharisee background and he was coaching them with where their beliefs had strayed.
Now to see what the Qumran sectarians actually believed with contrast to Jesus' beliefs and actions.

"Wherever there's an overlap in subject matter, there is significant disagreement,"
- Marcus Borg

On Mixing with Non-Sectarians


  • Jesus:
    Jesus associated with all of Jewish society from tax collectors (Luke 5), to the poor and sick (e.g. Matt 9), Samaritan women (John 4:9) and even the Pharisees (Luke 7:36; John 3:1). Jesus taught all these people, the multitudes (e.g. John 6) and in the temple (John 7:14). Jesus taught to not just love ones neighbour, but to love ones enemy and pray for those who persecute you (Matt 5:43-44).
  • Qumran:
    According to much of the first hand evidence, the Essenes were far more exclusive. They taught to separate from the unjust men (1QS VIII.13) and hate their enemies, as well as anyone out of their clique (1QS I.10). They were exhorted to "conceal the teaching of the Law" and only share it with their own community.
But Jesus criticised the Pharisees!

It is true, Jesus criticised the Pharisees. Jesus criticised the Pharisees for their exclusivity attitude - an attitude that was far more developed in the Essenes. Jesus violated both their regulations. Similarly, Jesus challenged the overt legalism of the Pharisees on the Sabbath and defended his disciples picking grain from the field (Matthew 12:1). This overtness was far strictier in the case of the Essenes. The Damascus Document states that the Qumran Essenes "shall eat nothing lying in the fields" or even "walk in the field" on the Sabbath (CD X.20). As is evident - Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees are also criticisms of the Essenes.



On the strictness of the Essenes in going beyond the Mosaic Law, Prof Richard A. Horsley:
Their [the Essene's] program included but went far beyond concern to maintain the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations, such as Sabbath observance, far more strictly than that of the Pharisees (e.g., CD 10–11).27 They thus generated elaborate and strict purity codes to protect themselves from impurity and to punish any intentional or accidental offenders in their midst (scrolls concerned heavily with purity are numerous: 1QS; 1QH; CD; 4Q394–399 [= 4QMMT]; 4Q159; 4Q181; 4Q512; 4Q513–514; 5Q13).28 Even the penal code at Qumran was closely coordinated with purity concerns.29 And the stress on repeated ritual purification by water certainly attests the heavy emphasis on purity and anxiety about defilement.

By contrast, Jesus-in-movement was virtually unconcerned about purity and boundary maintenance, for the lines of opposition between the wealthy and powerful rulers and the productive peasantry were long since drawn in the fundamental political-economic-religious structure of the Judean temple-state and the Roman Empire. (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus p.52)

Conclusions


As is evident, there is no real reason to suspect that Jesus was educated at the Qumran community and was an Essene. No causation has been established - and the theory with regard to what occurred in the unknown years goes against the scant evidence we do have. With regard to actions and beliefs we find Jesus reflected a Galilean ministry that openly rejected the strict rules and interpretations of the Essenes.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Revisiting the Christ Myth

I don't think I will ever come to understand this breed of wannabe pseudo-intellectuals. There is a reason why no reputable scholar takes their claims seriously - and it has something to do with the fact that their claims fall on their face without a second thought.

As Robert E. Van Voorst summed up in his Jesus Outside the New Testament:An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence:
"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."
I guess one could claim it is still a question...however, just not scholarly.

Who's Who?
Let's just see the big names they have to convince us of the legitimacy of their position. I found a great list on jesusneverexisted.com.

  • Albert Schweitzer.1901, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. 1906, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
We're meant to believe that Albert Schweitzer - who wrote a number of works on the fact that Jesus existed has anything to do with fueling the non-historical Jesus hypothesis? Schweitzer's work actually marked an end to the hobbyist claims that Jesus did not exist...

  • George Albert Wells, 1975, Did Jesus Exist? 1988, The Historical Evidence for Jesus. 1996, The Jesus Legend. 1998, Jesus Myth. 2004
A German language professor who eventually gave up the position of the Christ Myth. He used flawed and grossly inaccurate premises that were picked up by this man:

  • Earl Doherty, 1999, The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?
Doherty (another non-NT Scholar) picked up the failed arguments Wells eventually abandoned. Nothing really new - I believe he got an ego boost when the JHC published his article.

  • Michel Onfray, 2005, Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism)
A non-historian and non-NT scholar who claims that one of the chief reasons why Jesus is a myth is because he was crucified. People were apparantly not crucified but stoned in the period. I dare this man to actually read Josephus. Does he have any idea how many people were crucified in the late Second Temple Period?!?!? Here is justone example of Alexander Jannaeus:

"As he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes." (Antiquities 13:14:2)
  • Gerd Lüdemann, 1998, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. 2002, Paul: The Founder of Christianity. 2004, The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry.
I just read some of The Resurrection of Christ today! And on page 17 (if my memory serves me correctly) it said something along the lines of the crucifixion being one of the most certain events of history. Look, I might not run my own website on a dead hypothesis but the fact that he constantly makes reference to a historical Jesus with historical certainty - doesn't that kinda imply a historical Jesus?

So, what we actually find here is that the scholars fit into two categories:
  • Unqualified (and frankly historically ignorant in many cases)
  • Actually support a historical Jesus.

A Test Case
I guess it is only fair that we test out one of the key criteria in. That is, "Paul never made reference to a historical Jesus figure. If Jesus was historical - why didn't Paul mention the events of Jesus' life?"

This is a rather simple question to answer. Succinctly put:
  1. Paul does mention a historical Jesus . He mentions a Jesus that died and rose again - a Jesus who was seen by over 500 witnesses. (1 Corinthians 15:3-7). Witnesses who died for their belief in the risen Jesus. Witnesses who Paul met - including James "the Lord's brother". (Galatians 1:19).
  2. Why should Paul mention all the events of Jesus' life? He was writing purpose-written Epistles (letters) not biographies to communities and churches who already knew who Jesus was.
But don't take my word for this. I rounded up some scholarly support.

An exert from F.F. Bruce's 'Paul and Jesus' which outlines some of the historical details we know from the Pauline epistles:
"Paul is out earliest literary authority for the historical Jesus. True, he does not tell us much about the historical Jesus, in comparison with what we can learn from the Evangelists, but he does tell us a little more than that Jesus was born and died. Jesus was an Israelite, he says, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23ff); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.), although Jewish authorities were somehow involved His death (I Thess. 2:15); who was buried, rose the third day and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive twenty-five years later (I Cor. 15:4ff). In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion..

Paul knows of the Lord’s apostles, of whom Peter and John are mentioned by name as “pillars” of the Jerusalem community (Gal. 2:9), and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned (Gal. 1:19; 2:9). He knows that the Lord’s brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married (I Cor. 9:5), and incidental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30). He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion, e.g., His teaching on marriage and divorce (I Cor. 7:10f) and on the right of gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied (I Cor. 9:14); and the words He used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:24ff).

Even when he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (12:1-15:7), where Paul summarizes the practical implications of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul’s chief argument in his ethical instruction is t example of Christ Himself. And the character of Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (II Cor. 10:1), we remember our Lord’s own words, “I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the Gospels is the one of whom Paul says, “Christ did not please himself” (Rom. 15:3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mark 8:34), so the apostle insists that, after the example ofo Christ, it is our Christian duty “to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1)….” (pp. 19-20)


Now to the issue of why there isn't much biographical information in letters:

"But Paul’s letters tell us very little about the life and message of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus’s historical life was unimportant to Paul, as some scholars have suggested. Rather, Jesus mattered greatly to Paul. Paul spoke of Jesus as Lord and as God’s Son, as did early Christians generally. He wrote about life “in Christ,” “Christ crucified,” and “imitating Christ.” But narrating the story of Jesus was not the purpose of his letters. Rather, as the literary genre of “letters” indicates, Paul was writing to Christian communities about issues that had arisen in their life together."
Marcus Borg, Jesus p.32

And James Dunn addresses Well's and the issue directly:

"Professor G. A. Wells, Professor of German in the University of London, has concluded from Paul's virtual silence regarding Jesus' own ministry and teaching that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed. Jesus: the Evidence rightly noted that his view is shared by almost no other scholar, but still gave the view some prominence. Suffice it to underline the fact that the relative silence of Paul regarding 'the historical Jesus' is well known to all scholars working in this area. None that I know of shares Professor Wells' opinion. Other explanations are much more plausible. For example, that Paul was so absorbed by his faith in the risen and exalted Christ that he had little need or occasion to refer back to Jesus' earthly ministry apart from the central episode of his death and resurrection. Or, that the traditions about Jesus were sufficiently familiar to his congregations and non-controversial, so that he need do no more than allude to them, as he quite often does.

The alternative thesis that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a nonexistent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Christianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!"
James G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus. p.29


Conclusions
I think all the conclusions are self evident. Take care.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

As someone who is convinced of the Jewishness of the Jesus movement - as well as the New Testament - I have come to understand the role late Second Temple thought plays in understanding the texts. Historical context is the key to understanding what actually happened in history - and as is important with the Pauline corpus - what was actually meant. That is why I get really saddened to see comments like this:

I sympathize with Bishop Tom as he struggles to contradict Historic Evangelical theology as refined by the Protestant Church since Reformation. He simply is too caught up in his contextualization bias that slants his take on reading Paul. If only he could read Paul (and Jesus and John and Peter and Hebrews and Gospels and Luke's Acts and Old Testament) on a STAND ALONE basis without the baggage of 2nd Temple Judaism lenses colouring everything Bishop Tom reads.
(A review on Amazon of N.T. Wright's book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision)
Understanding the context from which the text was produced is unecessary baggage?
But parroting 16th century reformers often incorrect understanding of the context of Paul is not?

Seriously?