tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71385574287419832462024-02-21T21:38:11.009-08:00Church BellLiberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-9727351690697184422023-03-01T08:49:00.005-08:002023-03-03T07:17:18.760-08:00 National 'Catholic' Reporter's Perfidy<p align="CENTER" style="break-after: avoid; margin-top: 0.17in; page-break-after: avoid;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><a href="https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/francis-reinforces-limits-latin-mass-its-past-time-embrace-vatican-ii" target="_blank">Reply to Michael Sean Winters</a></i></span></span></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifyvKDCcVPpnmRH4d6Dl9g1OFPrhWXdjH_gKvEYvgLE1alHEcQOq0hvssG5NXYbbPYq6MLq2BQzh7YxE9awFYytt1jBAorBnaOK8aS8VTn95u9IOVdfURFhyg7AKWK4xoutQ-Wg4Lh5bQcpimmHhKr9s9rsfgPeguBIg_rSX-1NOKNvfhw1IFTlomA/s893/NCR%20FINAL%20oie_t5wqJnspKkHE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="483" data-original-width="893" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifyvKDCcVPpnmRH4d6Dl9g1OFPrhWXdjH_gKvEYvgLE1alHEcQOq0hvssG5NXYbbPYq6MLq2BQzh7YxE9awFYytt1jBAorBnaOK8aS8VTn95u9IOVdfURFhyg7AKWK4xoutQ-Wg4Lh5bQcpimmHhKr9s9rsfgPeguBIg_rSX-1NOKNvfhw1IFTlomA/w400-h216/NCR%20FINAL%20oie_t5wqJnspKkHE.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>In a world drowning in Modernism, the faithful adherence to
time-honored and Church-ratified Tradition is hard, isn't it? The
liberalization of Catholicism via the <i>Nouvelle Théologie</i> and
the <i>Novus Ordo</i> has become an entrenched institution in which
the historic and dogmatic affirmations of previous Councils and Popes
haven't simply been questioned, they've been jettisoned.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
<p>Thankfully, I don't require admonishment from progressive
apologists to understand the larger ecclesiological issues at stake.
Fruitful discussion of these matters is hindered, however, by the
fact that the conflicts of opinion arise from diametric worldview
assumptions.</p>
<p>Therefore, it's a bit refreshing – albeit surprising – to read
that there are a few liberals who admit <b>“stubbornly opposing
what the church has actually decreed</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">...
[is]</span><b> a very serious matter.”</b></p>
<p>Indeed.
</p>
<p>But, before proceeding further, we have to ask themselves: <b>Is
it impermissible to “stubbornly oppose” what the Church has
decreed </b><i><b>at any time</b></i><b>, or only since 1965? </b>
</p>
<p>Take a single example. Pope Gregory XVI condemned – as “absurd
and erroneous” – the proposition that liberty of conscience must
be maintained for everyone.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p>
<p>Doubtless, in a 21<sup>st</sup>-century context almost entirely
shaped by the fallout of 1776 and 1789, it's not easy to <i>believe</i>
that this is true. But when has profession of the true Faith been
easy?
</p>
<p>The literal “...[preaching of] Christ crucified” has always
been “unto Jews a stumbling block and unto Gentiles foolishness.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p>
<p>Despite these doxastic difficulties, however, one hopes it's not
difficult to see <i>that</i> Pope Gregory's statement is the
antithesis of religious indifferentism and liberalism.
</p>
<p>It's puzzling, therefore, to read, in the <i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Declaration
on Religious Freedom</span></i>, issued by the Second Vatican Council
and promulgated by Paul VI, that people are “...not to be forced to
act in a manner contrary to ...conscience. Nor ...[are they] to be
restrained from acting in accordance with ...conscience, especially
in matters religious.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></p>
<p>Did the drafters of this Vatican II document share our principle
that “stubbornly opposing what the church has actually decreed...
[is] a very serious matter”?</p>
<p>Or did Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical have an occult “sunset
clause”?</p>
<p>It didn't seem so to Pope Pius IX who, in <i>Quanta Cura</i>,<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>
reiterated the judgment of his predecessor.</p>
<p>We may imagine a fictional 1864 article from the <i>International
Catholic Reporter</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> titled:</span>
“As Pius IX Reinforces Limits on Religious Liberty, It's Time to
Embrace the Syllabus of Errors.”</p>
<p>Must we now reject these solemn pronouncements as “outdated”?</p>
<p>On what basis would we reject Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX that
wouldn't, by extension, underwrite a rejection of Francis? Is the
operative principle “never mind what I <i>said</i>, listen to what
I <i>say now</i>”?</p>
<p>Through historical transmutation, theological <i>liberals</i>
became “conservatives” over night simply by seeking to preserve
their revolutionary “reforms.” Thus, Joseph Ratzinger –
progressive by pre-Vatican-II standards – became the “conservative”
Benedict XVI in the post-Vatican-II church. Presto!</p>
<p>This is the ecclesiastical alchemy of adopting a new theology and
a new liturgy.</p>
<p><b>If you find yourself cheer leading the universal adoption of
“innovations” and “reforms” minted in the radical 1960s, <i>you
yourself </i>just might be the “Protestant.”</b></p>
<p><b>The distinctive features of genuine Catholicism include the
antiquity of its beliefs and practices.</b><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span>
</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: normal;">Speaking socio-culturally, it's
never “past time” for the Church's immemorial Tradition. </span>Speaking
individually and personally, things are relevantly different.
</p>
<p>In view of mortality, defenders of this venerable Faith invite you
to embrace it – <i>before it's too late</i>.</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Notes:</span></p>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Of
course, I'm replying in a sarcastic idiom. Dissecting and rebutting
Winters' several factual errors or oversights would make for more
tedious reading. Still, it is worth saying <i>something</i> about
them. For example, when he writes that “...the liberalization of
access to the old rite that Pope Benedict XVI had granted in 2007
had become a movement, even an ideology, in which the legitimacy of
the Second Vatican Council was increasingly questioned”, he
ignores or dismisses the bulk of the Traditionalist movement, going
back to Fr. Gommar Depauw and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. (Of
course, in turn, they were preceded by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani –
not to mention every faithful lay Catholic and prelate over the last
two millennia.) As an illustration of his errors (not to mention the
bad faith of his mindset), I would point to Winters' flippant side
remark starting with: “if I ever need an annulment...”. Of
course, a decree of nullity is supposed to be the result of a
juridical process that determines whether or not one's <i>apparent</i>
marriage was a <i>true</i> marriage. This judgment – ideally –
has exactly <i>nothing</i> to do with the petitioner's or the
respondent's desires or wishes. The “need” that is addressed is
the need to conform to the truth and to live one's life in
accordance with right standards of conduct. It's unsurprising that
Winters apparently finds this perspective alien.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a><i>Mirari
Vos</i>, 1832, <a href="https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm">https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm</a>.
</span></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>1
Corinthians 1:23, <i>Douay-Rheims</i>.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a><i>Dignitatis
Human</i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>æ</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">,
1965,
</span><a href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html">https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html</a>.
</span></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<p class="sdfootnote"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>1864,
<a href="https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanta.htm">https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanta.htm</a>.
</span></p>
</div>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-8564445305971619282017-01-27T17:14:00.001-08:002017-01-27T17:14:28.401-08:00Interview With Matthew Bell<p>Matthew Bell interviewed by Joseph Miller on 'St. Louis Faith Journeys.' Topics include: Matthew's reversion back to Catholicism from Protestantism, theistic 'indifferentism,' the spiritually deleterious effect of pornography, and the Reformation doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura.'</P>
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zYNNxXmKcmA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>This program was recorded, and originally aired, in July of 2015.</P>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-65464567988673605562017-01-27T17:09:00.001-08:002017-01-27T17:10:29.301-08:00Debate: Was Jesus Married?<p>This debate, between Sugar Cyanide (taking the affirmative position) and Matthew Bell (taking the negative position), was moderated and hosted by Gabriel "Skuzzy" Zolman on St. Louis's (now-defunct) AM radio station 1380 The X.</p>
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bhUfcRGEL6M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>The debate took place December 6, 2014.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-76109014126905732462016-11-29T20:21:00.001-08:002016-11-29T22:19:18.241-08:00Another Paine-in-the-Neck Anti-Christian Meme?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/ThomasPaine_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="680" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/ThomasPaine_1.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>"Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it." – Thomas Paine, <i>The Age of Reason</i>, 1794.</p>
<p>Here are four objections to Paine’s argument.</p>
<p><b>1. Paine’s Comments Have Nothing to Do With Christianity’s <i>Truth</i></b></p>
<p>It is a useful thing to ask what damage would be done to Christianity under some sort of “worst-case” scenario. How Paine-ful is it, really?</p>
<p>Readers will hopefully notice immediately that Paine says nothing that casts any doubt upon the truth of Christianity. His position is curious. To see how curious, consider that Paine grants the following, for argument’s sake. Firstly, he grants that God would be <i>able</i> to reveal truths to humankind. Secondly, he seems prepared to grant even that such a revelation has occurred.</p>
<p>Paine merely complains that, on his narrow definition of “revelation,” persons downstream from God’s direct revelatory actions would be under no “obligation” to believe what had been revealed.</p>
<p>Stop and ponder this. We are to envision a situation in which (the Christian) God <i>actually exists</i> and in which He has actually revealed things to various human beings. </p>
<p>Despite these things, Paine thinks that those of us whose knowledge of these actual revelations is posterior to the initial, divine communications, are under no obligation to believe them. On this reading, Paine seems to display an extraordinary level of bad faith – in the colloquial sense.</p>
<p>To be more specific, Paine basically says that <i>even if</i> God exists and <i>even if</i> God has communicated to human beings, he refuses to acknowledge it. It seems to me that all one has to have in order to be repulsed by this notion is a simple curiosity about the way the world actually is. Does God actually exist? Is there actual revelation? It’s a perverse – in fact, incoherent – conception of “reason” that says, “Well, yes, okay. God exists and He has revealed things to various individuals. But I don’t believe it.”</p>
<p>Someone might object: “Paine is simply granting, hypothetically and provisionally, that God and revelation exist. He may not believe that either or both actually do.”</p>
<p>Notice, though, that Paine has given no argument against the existence of God or against the possibility of revelation. Even if there were no non-“hearsay” (in Paine’s sense) instances of alleged divine communications, it would follow neither that God does not exist nor that Christianity is false.</p>
<p><b>2. Even Without Revelation, Christianity Is Still Supported by Reason and History</b></p>
<p>Number one, it is plausible that the existence of God can be demonstrated by reason alone. Numerous arguments have been advanced along this line, for example, various cosmological,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> moral,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> ontological,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a> and teleological<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> arguments (among others). Thus, even if there were no (warranted) examples of bona fide propositional revelation, neither atheism nor even agnosticism would, <i>ipso facto</i>, be justified.</p>
<p>Number two, it is reasonable to think that the New Testament documents (or documents relevantly similar to them) could be approached and analyzed according to the canons of historical science. As Protestant philosopher William Lane Craig is fond of saying, this approach is sufficient to yield three historically supported points – that there was an empty tomb, that there were post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and that Christianity sprang into existence among religious Jews who were tenaciously exclusivistic (that is, they were not inclined towards syncretism).</p>
<p>It is not irrational to believe that there is no convincing, naturalistic explanation for these three points. One may then infer that the only satisfying account is that offered by Christianity. But if this historical approach is sound (and Paine here gives no reason to think that it is not), then even if there were no such thing as (warranted) revelation, even explicitly Christian versions of theism would remain justified.</p>
<p>To again quote Professor Craig: “According to New Testament critic D. H. Van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object …on historical grounds; those who deny [points like the empty tomb] do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>And all of this is the worst-case scenario. One would have to buy Paine’s restrictive definition of “revelation” and his criticism of it as “hearsay.” But what does he have in mind?</p>
<p><b>3. Paine’s Model Leads to (Unwarranted) Radical Skepticism</b></p>
<p>Paine seems to be advancing an extreme empiricism. It verges on the sort that counsels disbelief in anything that is not immediately evident to one’s senses. In any case, it takes a radically skeptical line on the epistemic value of testimony.</p>
<p>Think about the repercussions of this. If we can only trust direct testimony – that is, testimony communicated to us without any intermediary – then we could place no confidence in books of any sort or on any topic.</p>
<p>For instance, this would do violence to the discipline of history. How do I know that was any such person as “George Washington,” for instance? Or for that matter, why should I believe that the text on the picture owes to “Thomas Paine”? After all, my beliefs about both come to me secondhand, third-hand, fourth-hand, and so on.</p>
<p>My beliefs about various scientific discoveries would likewise be destroyed by this skeptical hammer. I may hear an astronaut report, for example, that he or she observed the earth to be spheroidal. By Paine’s criteria, perhaps, for him or her, then, it <i>is</i> spheroidal. Such astronauts had direct perceptual experiences to that effect. But what “obligation” would I have to believe such things? For me, they are simply secondhand reports. I wasn’t “there,” after all.</p>
<p>Of course, some might say that in the case of scientific reports, what is reported is in principle verifiable. But, though this may be conceded, it does not resolve the issue of unwarranted testimony.</p>
<p>Suppose that “hearsay” comes down to “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.” And suppose that scientific reports are, in principle, susceptible to substantiation. It seems that, on Paine’s model, we would have to undertake <i>and</i> complete the substantiation before we would be justified in our beliefs.</p>
<p>Take the reports of a spheroidal earth. Of course, if I traveled into outer space, presumably, I could see what the astronauts saw, and thus “substantiate” it for myself. Or perhaps I could perform some mathematical calculations here on earth. These are possible. But do Paine’s principles require that I do one or more of these things before I would be warranted in believing the astronauts’ reports? After all, from my vantage point, they are simply reporting something that they saw. I didn’t see it. Why does what they saw place any “obligation” upon me? Who thinks that this is rational?</p>
<p>Interestingly, revelation is also verifiable, at least in principle. Surely, if God could tell such-and-such to so-and-so, then He could tell me also. And it’s not <i>impossible</i> that he would.</p>
<p>But what if one worries that I have no clear-cut method for verification in the case of revelation. Think again about George Washington and Thomas Paine. Why should I think that George Washington was the “first president” or that Thomas Paine wrote the words herein attributed to him? I wasn’t there. I didn’t personally see Washington get inaugurated and Paine didn’t tell those things to me. How could I even begin to “substantiate” any historical claims at all? History depends upon testimony.</p>
<p>Perhaps I could become an archaeologist and see what artifacts and historical traces I could find. But, notice that, on Paine-ian principles, I would have to do this myself. It would avail me nothing to read about the alleged findings of others! Is this reasonable?</p>
<p>I think not.</p>
<p>Likely, someone is thinking: But these are “scientific” matters; Paine is speaking about “religion.” What of it? What we would need, firstly, is some serviceable definitions of “religion” and “science,” followed immediately by some argument that testimony about “religion” should have more restrictive parameters than testimony about “science” when it comes to believability.</p>
<p>I would be interested to inspect such an argument. But, alas, none is to be found in Paine.</p>
<p>What we find, instead, is a sort of anti-supernatural bias. And many people today relate to that. But then, in the first place, short of an argument for atheism, it may have been more appropriate for Paine to have titled his book <i>The Age of Anti-Supernaturalism</i>. As things stand, he appears to have simply co-opted the word “Reason” as a euphemism for his prejudices. </p>
<p>Why think that the only people who are “reasonable” are those who adopt an anti-supernatural orientation? Paine gives no reason.</p>
<p><b>4. Paine’s Definition of “Revelation” is Questionable</b></p>
<p>Up to this point I have simply been assuming Paine’s definition of “revelation.” It is worth noting that the Catholic Church draws a distinction between “public” and “private” revelation. </p>
<p>The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) relates: “Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a></p>
<p>As Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin states: “Because they do not require divine and Catholic faith, private revelations do not impose an obligation of belief…”.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a></p>
<p>However, as I mentioned, <i>private</i> revelation is contrasted with <i>public</i> revelation. “The term ‘public Revelation’ refers to the revealing action of God directed to humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments.”<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a></p>
<p>In “[t]he Christian economy, …no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a></p>
<p>When it comes to <i>private</i> revelation, Catholics agree with Paine! If “something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only.” The only one bound to believe a private revelation is the one to whom the revelation is given.</p>
<p>But Paine arguably gets the core of Christian revelation wrong. The Bible is not considered “private revelation.” It’s public revelation.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a></p>
<p>How could Paine object? He began by admitting:</p>
<p>“No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t this plausibly apply both to private and to public revelation? Shall we think that the omnipotent, omnipresent God of the Bible would be <i>unable</i> to communicate to us publicly?</p>
<p>It seems not.</p>
<p>But then, though it may be agreed that, if “something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only,” it is not the case that this exhausts the revelatory options.</p>
<p>For God could also reveal something to more than one person. Or, to put it differently, it seems that could effect public revelation. In fact, this is what Christians hold that God has, in fact, done.</p>
<p>Thus, after all, Paine either owes us an argument that denies the possibility of public revelation, or he owes us an admission that the considerations that he does advance apply only to private revelation. However, as I have indicated, many Christians (especially Catholics) happily concede this.</p>
<p><b>Summary</b></p>
<p>Even if Paine’s argument succeeds, Christianity is not shown to be false. At best, Christian revelation is shown to be not “obligatory” to believe. However, in order for Paine to establish this much, he would need to sell us on a radical skepticism that would nearly totally undermine disciplines like history and science. Managing to salvage history (and other disciplines) would provide Christianity with the possibility of non-revelation-dependent supporting evidence. For it is arguable that reason and history (either alone or jointly applied) go a considerable distance toward establishing many Christian-friendly conclusions – and certainly toward establishing bare theism – entirely apart from revelation. Finally, Paine ignores, or was ignorant of, the Catholic distinction between public and private revelation. In the face of this distinction, Paine’s argument collapses entirely. </p>
<p>All in all, Paine either shows that virtually any historical proposition is entirely unjustified, or he merely gives voice to his own pet variety of anti-supernaturalism. Either way, I don’t see much for the Christian to worry about.</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> E.g., G. Leibniz’s argument for a Sufficient Reason of the cosmos (universe). 1. Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore, has a sufficient reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 4. But the universe is not necessary. 5. Therefore, the sufficient reason for the universe lies in an external cause. </p>
<p>Or the Kalam Cosmological argument. 6. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 7. The universe began to exist. 8. Therefore, the universe has a cause.</p>
<p>In both cases, one then reasons that the relevant cause has various properties. For one thing, the cause must be non-physical, space-less, and timeless (since, by “universe,” we mean all physical things that exist in space and time); extremely powerful (in order to bring a universe into being); extremely intelligent (ditto); and even personal (because if it were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then either the universe should be eternal – which, according to modern cosmologists, it is not – or else the external cause would need its own external cause – and we’d be off-and-running on a vicious infinite regress).</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> 9. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. 10. But objective moral values do exist. 11. Therefore, God exists.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> 12. It’s possible that a maximal being (i.e., a being with all “great-making” qualities or “perfections”) exists. 13. If it’s possible that a maximal being exists, then there is some possible world in which a maximal being exists. 14. But one of the perfections is necessary existence. 15. Therefore, if a maximal being exists in some possible world, then a maximal being exists in all possible worlds. 16. The actual world (i.e., our world) is part of the set of all possible worlds. 17. Therefore, if a maximal being exists in all possible worlds, then a maximal being exists in the actual world. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> 18. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance, design, or necessity. 19. It’s not due to chance or necessity. 20. Therefore, it’s due to design.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> William Lane Craig, debate with Michael Tooley, Univ. of Colo. [Boulder, Colo.], Nov. 1994, <<a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-tooley-debate">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-tooley-debate</a>>; citing David Hendrick Van Daalen, <i>The Real Resurrection</i>, London: Collins, 1972, p, 41.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> CCC 67; <<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_PH.HTM">http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_PH.HTM</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> Jimmy Akin, “Revelation: Public and Private,” <i>Catholic Answers Magazine</i>, n.d., <<a href="http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/revelation-public-and-private">http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/revelation-public-and-private</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.; quoting Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, <i>The Message of Fatima</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> CCC 66; <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> <i>Very roughly</i>, the idea is that the Old Testament traces God’s activity amongst and with the people of Israel. In the New Testament, God’s public activities involve Jesus’s life and Passion as well as the institution and beginnings of the Church.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-12365236235355419912016-11-22T18:16:00.000-08:002016-11-23T14:01:25.832-08:00Is God Responsible for Original Sin?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtwoAWAmfTfafTxMdpQbIsDgwxZv1dp3w81DBIstvOSl2O9cJaoRCQRl5MGJs1hOrWGHJKn-8KsexOrEIZc9diCxWFsnDPkl67vXGwD6mDGnOGOYJGgjMqbxHvroJycXxuVF1TRMY-LDvU/s1600/1394435_10151949571959886_1351711131_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtwoAWAmfTfafTxMdpQbIsDgwxZv1dp3w81DBIstvOSl2O9cJaoRCQRl5MGJs1hOrWGHJKn-8KsexOrEIZc9diCxWFsnDPkl67vXGwD6mDGnOGOYJGgjMqbxHvroJycXxuVF1TRMY-LDvU/s1600/1394435_10151949571959886_1351711131_n.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Today’s polemical picture-text is, truthfully, a mess – even by the low standards of internet “memes.”</p>
<p>In this space, I will simply be evaluating the first sentence. The sentence pretends to represent God saying: “I created man and woman with original sin.”</p>
<p>Before I begin to analyze this, I need readers to appreciate a couple of points. Firstly, there is a difference between <i>asserting</i> and <i>arguing</i>. Asserting P would be to simply claim P without giving any argument or evidence in P’s support. Secondly, and more subtly, it <i>is</i> permissible to expose latent problems. But this must be done conscientiously. We might even be able to schematize this, as follows.</p>
<p>The Latent-Problem Principle: It is permissible to criticize a set of propositions, call that set P<sup>S</sup>, by making explicit some (possibly latent) proposition, call it p<sub>n</sub>, and then arguing that that (now patent) proposition is (a.) rejectable, and (b.) either necessitates or warrants rejection of P<sup>S</sup>.</p>
<p><b>The Latent-Problem Principle</b></p>
<p>Let’s get the ball rolling by starting with an example that, while in the vicinity, is not quite an example of the Latent Problem Principle (LPP). Suppose that John believes all sorts of things, but among those things he believes.</p>
<p>1. Socrates is immortal.</p>
<p>Maybe he had never thought about it very hard. But he somehow formed that belief. Suppose further that John also believes that:</p>
<p>2. All men are mortal, and</p>
<p>3. Socrates is a man.</p>
<p>Hopefully, with a little effort, you could get John to see that 2 and 3 Together entail:</p>
<p>4. Socrates is mortal.</p>
<p>Once you have established 4, John should readily realize that, either he must reject 1, or he must reject 2 or 3 (or both). And, plausibly, finding that 2 and 3 are more plausible than their negations, he will opt to reject 1 and keep 2-4. This isn’t a case of rejecting an entire set of beliefs. But it is a case of a person’s being made to see how a subset of a his beliefs logically demands the rejection of another of his beliefs.</p>
<p>So far so good?</p>
<p><b>Example: Hinduism, Brahman and Maya</b></p>
<p>Now let’s think about a weightier (and possibly more contentious) example, and one that I think <i>is</i> an application instance of the LPP.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>Some Hindus believe these things.</p>
<p>5. All things are (despite appearances aspects of) Brahman.</p>
<p>6. Brahman is distinction-less, perfect and pure knowledge.</p>
<p>Some of the same Hindus also seemingly believe:</p>
<p>7. Maya (i.e., illusion) exists.</p>
<p>In fact, Maya is supposedly the explanation for why many people do not recognize 5 as true. However, there is a problem. 5 and 7 together entail:</p>
<p>8. Maya is (an aspect of) Brahman.</p>
<p>But, since Maya is illusion, 8 entails that:</p>
<p>9. Illusion is (an aspect of) Brahman.</p>
<p>Plainly, though, if 9 is true, then it looks like 6 is false. Contrariwise, if 6 is true, then 9 looks false.</p>
<p>Now one could dig in one’s heels and announce that these appearances of contradiction are just further illustrations of Maya! However, if 7 is true, we have another problem. To put it differently:</p>
<p>10. If Maya exists, then it either exists “in” (i.e., as an aspect of) Brahman or Maya exists apart from Brahman.</p>
<p>But we already laid it down that all existing things are (aspects of) Brahman. That’s what premise 5 held. So, since nothing exists apart from Brahman:</p>
<p>11. Maya does not exist apart from Brahman.</p>
<p>But then, we are forced to say:</p>
<p>12. If Maya exists, then it exists “in” (or as an aspect of) Brahman.</p>
<p>Premise 6 claimed that Brahman was distinction-less and also pure knowledge. Illusion, though, is the opposite of “pure knowledge.” So:</p>
<p>13. If illusion exists “in” Brahman, then Brahman is not pure knowledge.</p>
<p>Maybe we can save our model-version of Hinduism by claiming:</p>
<p>14. There is a distinction between Brahman (knowledge) and Maya (illusion).</p>
<p>But if this is true, of course, then Brahman is not distinction-less, again contra premise 6.</p>
<p>We have a problem! Not having a plausible “way out,” we might therefore hold that one or several of these apparent, latent contradictions justifies our rejection of (this version of) Hinduism.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<p><b>Arguing Versus Asserting</b></p>
<p>And I think that it does. But, notice that to justify the rejection of (this version of) Hinduism, I had to do some argumentative “leg work.” I did not simply <i>assert</i> that “Hindusim implies a contradiction.” I <i>concluded</i> that it does. There is an important difference between asserting and concluding.</p>
<p>Similarly, I did not simply <i>begin</i> by <i>declaring</i> the contradictories - such as that “Brahman contains a distinction” or “Brahman is not pure knowledge” - of common Hindu notions. I <i>ended</i> by <i>demonstrating</i> that these follow from several (above-stated) common Hindu notions. Again, there is another important difference between declaring and demonstrating.</p>
<p>Starting merely with the assertions and declarations, we would simply have been preaching to the choir of those who already reject (this version of) Hinduism anyway. To put it another way, if I started by saying “Brahman is not pure knowledge,” without any explanation or argumentation, it would be reasonable for a Hindu (or sympathizer) to simply shrug, exclaim “that’s not what I believe!” and merely turn away.</p>
<p>And I think this would be a rational reaction. After all, there are two important possibilities. Number one, it is possible that my statement gets Hinduism wrong – I just made a mistake. If so, then my statement contains nothing at all for the Hindu to worry about. Number two, my statement might have gotten Hinduism right; that is, even though a given Hindu might believe something to the contrary of my statement, it turned out that the Hindu was wrong about her own belief. She was in the position of poor John who just had the wrong belief about Socrates!</p>
<p>The crucial thing, however, is that John was set right by an argument, not by a counter-assertion. The argument is indispensable. Even if I turned out to be correct, the Hindu has no rational obligation to reply to every anti-Hindu counter-assertion that he or she encounters. An argument is, fittingly enough, arguably different. A (well-formed) counter-argument for not-p places a rational obligation on its hearer, because such an argument does not just make an apparently groundless claim that you are wrong if you believe p. It actually purports to show <i>why</i> you are wrong.</p>
<p><b>Looking Critically at the Picture-Text</b></p>
<p>Let’s go back and think about the relevant picture-text.</p>
<p>Atheists, non-theists, and anti-Christians of various sorts may well greet the first sentence – “[God] created man and woman with original sin” – with cheers or Facebook “Likes” or whatever. But the Christian would be rational simply to shrug, exclaim “that’s not what I believe,” and scroll elsewhere on her “news feed.”</p>
<p>That this rejection is rational rests on reasons analogous to those given in the hypothetical case of the recalcitrant Hindu. Either the assertion just got the Christian doctrine <i>wrong</i>, and thus can be safely ignored. Or else it happens to give a correct assertion, but without providing the reader with any <i>reason</i> to think that the counter-claim <i>is</i> correct and, therefore, without establishing any basis upon which to begin a logical analysis.</p>
<p>Of course, I am not just any Christian reader. I am actively looking for assertions to rebut and arguments to evaluate. In my case, I am assuming a burden that – rationally – I need not assume.</p>
<p>So my question becomes: Can I construct (or find elsewhere) an argument that actually tries to establish as a conclusion, what the first picture-text simply asserts without argument in its first sentence?</p>
<p>To be exact, can we show that “[God] created man and woman with original sin”?</p>
<p>For readers who may not know, this has to be established via some sort of argument because, firstly, the Bible says something different and, secondly, Christianity has historically taught that sin came into the lives of humankind through the Fall; that is, sin was not inherent to Adam or Eve when God created them.</p>
<p><b>What Does the Bible Say?</b></p>
<p>Just for reference purposes, we will look at (some of) what the Bible says. I should state, up front, that in what follows I will be assuming what is called an “Anselmian view of God.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a> On this view, God is a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.”<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> Our first passage is taken from the Book of Genesis, chapter 1.</p>
<p>“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them… God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>This passage indicates a couple of things.</p>
<p>Number one: Humans were created in the “image of God.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> However, God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. If, as is both plausible and historical (in the Christian tradition), <i>being loving</i> (or <i>being good</i>) is conceived of as a perfection, then God must be loving (or good). How loving (or good) must God be? Think of a being and call it “Being1.” Now make Being1 loving (or good) to some degree or other. Ask: Is it possible for another being, say Being2, to be more loving (or better, morally) than Being1? If it <i>is</i> possible, then Being1 is not God. If it’s <i>not</i> possible, then theologians would say that Being1 is as loving (or as good) as it is possible to be. To put it differently, Being1 would be <i>all-loving</i> (or <i>all-good</i>).<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a></p>
<p>Thus we are in a position to see that the Christian view is that God is all-loving (or all-good). To say that God is all-loving (all-good) is to say God that God has no moral imperfection. But sin is a moral imperfection. Therefore, to say that God is all-loving (all-good) is to say that God is not sinful.</p>
<p>But if the image of God inheres in humans, that is, if humans were, in some sense, fashioned in the “image of God,” then it appears that this “image” is not inherently sinful.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the Genesis passage just surveyed has God declare, after creating (what appears to be) the universe, plants, and animals – including, finally, humankind – that “all” – that is, all of the universe, plants, and animals just canvassed – “that he had made …was very good.” But sin is not “very good.” Therefore, sin was not part of “all that [God] had made,” restricting ourselves to everything recorded in Genesis. To be more exact, of everything that Genesis records God having made, of <i>all of that</i> God says: “it was very good.” Therefore, sin was not part of the <i>all of that</i> which Genesis records God having made.</p>
<p><b>What I AM and Am NOT Doing</b></p>
<p>Please understand, dear reader, what I am – and am not – trying to do, here. I am <i>not</i> (presently, at any rate) trying to convince the atheist, non-theist, or anti-Christian that the Genesaic portrayal of events is correct or veridical. I <i>am</i> simply trying to establish that, from the Genesaic account (which, of course, Christians take <i>seriously</i> – if not <i>literally</i>), it is reasonable to conclude that God did <i>not</i> create humans in a state of sinfulness.</p>
<p>This is plausible from the conjunction of Genesis 1 and the historic view about what we mean by the word “God”: that is, a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.</p>
<p>But if God did not create humans in a state of sin, whence came sin?</p>
<p>Let’s again turn to the Bible. In Genesis chapters 2 (verses 7-8, 16-18, and 22) and 3 (vv. 1-6, 11b-14) we read:</p>
<p>“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. …And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’ The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ …Then the Lord God made a woman from [a] rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.</p>
<p>“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, <i>You must not eat from any tree in the garden</i>?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, <i>You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die</i>.’ ‘You will not certainly die,’ the serpent said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. …</p>
<p>“[God asked:] ‘Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?’ The man said, The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’ Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’ So the Lord God [cursed] the serpent… [and the woman and the man].”</p>
<p>Again, it is no part of my present task to demonstrate that the account is veridical. Nor is it any part of my project, here, to adjudicate between those who debate whether the account is literal, metaphorical, or something else.</p>
<p>Rather, I am simply arguing that, if we take the account seriously – as Christians do – it appears that sinfulness entered the human “sphere” through the choices of the first man and woman, giving in to the temptations of the serpent. These are simply summaries of what the account says. If one is to press the idea that “God created sin,” then one has to argue for that idea. It does not come from a <i>prima-facie</i> reading of the Genesis account.</p>
<p><b>The First Picture-Text Has No Argument</b></p>
<p>However, maybe it is possible to construct such an argument. After all, that Brahman is distinction-riddled and imperfect in knowledge does not come from a <i>prima-facie</i> reading of Sankara. These came from <i>arguments</i> that, on Hindu assumptions together with the laws of logic, we seem impelled to admit these things about Brahman.</p>
<p>Maybe the atheist, non-theist, or anti-Christian can come up with an argument that shows, contrary to the Genesaic account and historic Christian theology, God is, in fact, the creator of sin.</p>
<p><i>But, plainly, no such argument is found in today’s polemical picture-text</i>.</p>
<p>I would be rational to simply leave things here to rest. But as I said I am looking for interesting lines of inquiry to probe. And this is an interesting line of inquiry. So let me go on.</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s.quickmeme.com/img/b6/b615209c91ae818430a5c5a38875631c9a9f0dc6ef2b304ad290050f10f79054.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="http://s.quickmeme.com/img/b6/b615209c91ae818430a5c5a38875631c9a9f0dc6ef2b304ad290050f10f79054.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p><b>Looking for an Argument Elsewhere</b></p>
<p>For there is another picture-text that does submit a candidate for the argument that is missing in the first picture-text. </p>
<p>Now it is needful that I modify the argument slightly since, in the posted form, the argument is invalid. To be more precise, the argument moves from talking about “origination” to talking about “creation.” Nothing follows from this unless one assumes that “origination” and “creation” are synonymous in the present context. However, two possible changes are easily enough proposed. We could change all occurrences of “originate” to “create” or we could change all occurrences of “create” to “originate.” Let’s go with the latter change.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a></p>
<p>15. If sin originated from Satan, and Satan originated from God, then sin originated from God.</p>
<p>16. Sin originated from Satan and Satan originated from God.</p>
<p>17. Therefore, sin originated from God.</p>
<p>This argument is deductively valid. That is to say, <i>if</i> the premises are true (and they may not be), <i>then</i> the conclusion must be true also.</p>
<p>To avoid the conclusion, then, I must identify at least one problem with the argument’s premises. In fact, I suggest that the premises have <i>two</i> relevant problems – either of which, if successful, is sufficient by itself to avoid the conclusion.</p>
<p><b>Two Objections to the Argument</b></p>
<p>PROBLEM 1: On Equivocation</p>
<p>It’s not clear that sin <i>did</i> “originate from Satan.” To get at this problem, let me ask a question that I had postponed: why does “Satan <i>created</i> sin” sound peculiar, if “originate” and “create” are, in this context, supposed to be synonymous? </p>
<p>I will suggest an answer. I suggest that we reserve the word “creates” for things that have real being – things that have “positive existence,” if you like. St. Augustine famously argued that evil was, strictly speaking, not a <i>thing</i>. He argued that evil had no positive existence. It was, rather, a <i>privation</i>, that is, an absence or lack, of good.</p>
<p>Does this mean that “there is no such thing as evil”? It depends on how seriously we are using the word “thing”! On this view, evil is not a <i>concrete</i> “thing” like rocks or trees are things. It’s not even an <i>abstract</i> “thing” as is justice or beauty. Rather, evil is a lack of <i>good</i>. To say that something is “evil,” then, means that that thing (whether concrete or abstract) is not as good as it <i>could</i> or <i>should</i> be.</p>
<p>We could say that many propositions of the form “x is not as good as it should be” are true. Thus, although evil is not a “thing,” still, it is true that some bona fide things – e.g., actions – are not as good as they should be. Indeed, some such actions – e.g., murder and rape – are not good at all.</p>
<p>So “murder” is something like the name for a really existing action, like stabbing someone to death, that is such that <i>being good</i> is not one of its properties.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> So whereas “evil” has no <i>positive existence</i>, what does exist, unfortunately, is an array of actions that do not have <i>goodness</i> among its properties. </p>
<p>Perhaps an analogy or two would be helpful.</p>
<p><b>Do Holes Exist?</b></p>
<p>Think of a wall. Maybe it’s made of stone. Stone appears to have positive existence. Physicists tell us that it’s made of atoms and molecules and so forth. Now think of a hole in the wall. Question: Do holes have <i>positive</i> existence? If we listed off everything that existed, would we have to list “holes” along with “rocks” and “trees” and so on? What would holes be “made of”? </p>
<p>Plausibly, the answer is <i>no</i>. Holes are not “made of” <i>anything</i>. We can think of the hole in the wall as simply a place where there is no stone. Hence, saying “there is a hole in the stone wall, here” is just another way of saying “here is a place where the (otherwise) stone wall does not have a stone.”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a></p>
<p>Of course, if any otherwise stone wall lacks a stone in a particular place, we might well say “the wall has a hole, here.” The sentence is true just in case “there is not stone, here” is true and we would expect or require “there is a stone, here” to be true.</p>
<p>Or again, think of a room full of light. Light is <i>something</i>. Physicists tell us that light is made of photons. Now imagine turning off the light so that the room is dark. Is there such a <i>thing</i> as <i>darkness</i>? Does the act of turning off the light somehow prompt stuff called “darkness” to spill in, filling up the space? If so, what is darkness “made of”?</p>
<p>Again, it is plausible to think that darkness isn’t “made of” <i>anything</i> (i.e., any <i>thing</i>). Saying “the room is dark” is simply another way of saying “the room doesn’t have any light.”</p>
<p>Similarly with our account of holes, various propositions such as “this room is dark” will have analyses that are true: for instance, “this room has no light” (if and when it doesn’t).</p>
<p>Perhaps now we should define “sin.” I have done this elsewhere, so I will simply summarize.</p>
<p>“Sin” is “purposely (willfully) doing something that you know is evil (or bad), or purposely not doing something that is an obligatory good.”</p>
<p>What does this mean, if “evil” is a privation? It means that <i>to sin</i> is <i>to act in such a way that one’s action lacks some good that it ought to have</i>. Does this mean that there is no such “thing” as sin?</p>
<p>As before, there is no such “thing” as evil. If we say “murder is evil,” we mean “murder is not good.” And there certainly, and unfortunately, <i>are</i> acts of which it is true to say “these acts are not good.” Murder is one; rape is another. Etc. </p>
<p>Moreover, there are <i>actions</i> (that is, in the Kantian idiom, <i>acts that have been performed by some actors</i>) of which it is true to say of them “these actions are not loving.” If we say, “Cain’s murder of Abel was sinful,” we mean “Cain’s murder of Abel was not loving.”</p>
<p><b>Back to the Second Picture-Text</b></p>
<p>It may be that the reason “Satan creates sin” sounds false (to my ears, anyway), is because “creates” is reserved for things that have positive existence. </p>
<p>On the Augustinian interpretation, “Satan originated sin” cashes out to (something like) “Satan was the first free agent who made a choice that lacked goodness.” </p>
<p>Nothing with positive existence was brought into being.</p>
<p>Hence, the sentence “Satan creates sin” – if we tolerate the nonstandard use of the verb – does not use the word “creates” in the same sense as it is used in the sentence “God created Satan.”</p>
<p>On the Christian view, it is commonly held that the being called “Satan” (or, the <i>adversary</i>) was created as an angel – sometimes identified with Lucifer. In any case, what God created was an angel, and angels (on the Christian view) have positive existence.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a> </p>
<p>This suggests that there are two sorts of creation/origination (CO). As a first pass, I will call the first Literal-CO, that is, creation/origination of some <i>thing</i>, with positive existence. I will call the second Non-Literal-CO, that is, any other tolerable use of “creation” or “origination” where there is no actual, positively existing <i>thing</i> that results. </p>
<p><b>Equivocation</b></p>
<p>With this groundwork laid, I suggest that the first problem with the argument is that, regardless of which word (“creates” or “originates”) we select, we run into the fallacy of equivocation. “Equivocation” occurs when a word is used in two or more places in the same linguistic context, but has a different meaning in one or more of those places.</p>
<p>For instance, suppose that I say: Herbert Palmer created Vera Jayne Palmer, and Vera Jayne Palmer created a problem for my marriage. If I conclude that, therefore, Herbert Palmer created a problem for my marriage, I seem clearly to have used “created” in differing senses. Herbert Palmer “created” his daughter in the sense of <i>fathering her</i>. If Vera Jayne Palmer created a problem for my marriage, it was in the sense that I had difficulties keeping my eyes off Jayne Mansfield. Those of not the same senses of “created.”</p>
<p>In the case of the picture-text, the argument advanced depends upon “creation”/“origination” being used univocally, that is, in the same sense throughout. This is to say that, “If sin originated from (or was created by) Satan, and Satan originated from (or was created by) God, then sin originated from (or was created by) God,” requires that we’re not talking about different senses of “creation” / “origination.” But we are talking about different sorts of “creation” / “origination.”</p>
<p>“Sin originated from Satan” only in a non-literal sense. <i>Satan “originated” or “created” sin</i> only the sense that <i>the missile “created” a hole in the wall</i>. We speak like this all the time. But we do not appear to be committed to the positive existence of “holes.” Rather, what we mean is that <i>the missile destroyed part of the wall</i>. The missile did not bring something, a “hole,” <i>into existence</i> that wasn’t there before. On the contrary, the missile took something (say a subset of stones) <i>out of existence</i> that had previously existed.</p>
<p>I suggest that this is what Satan did as well. Satan did not bring something, “sin,” into existence. He did not, so to speak, <i>add</i> “evil” to an action or choice. Rather, what he did was to <i>subtract</i> some good. </p>
<p>But if this is correct, then the argument equivocates on the words “creates” and “originates” – whichever word one chooses to insert. This can be labeled, as follows.</p>
<p>15’. If sin Literally-Originated from (or was Literally-Created by) Satan, and Satan Literally-Originated from (or was Literally-Created by) God, then sin Literally-Originated from (or was Literally-Created by) God.</p>
<p>16’. Satan Literally-Originated from (or was Literally-Created by) God, but sin only Non-Literally-Originated from (or was Non-Literally-Created by) Satan.</p>
<p>Thus, the argument fails. In fact, I think that there is another equivocation problem in the vicinity. I will get into that further on.</p>
<p>PROBLEM 2: On Transitvity</p>
<p>But suppose that the reader is not persuaded by the considerations advanced under the heading “PROBLEM 1.” Maybe the reader thinks that the Augustinian approach is suspect, or that I have mis-applied it in the present case. Perhaps the reader thinks that he or she has discovered a potential, univocal reading that saves the argument. </p>
<p>Let us assume that something like this <i>is</i> the case. Assume that everything that I wrote in the previous section was wrong. Pretend that there <i>is</i> a univocal reading available. Still, I have another objection.</p>
<p>Even with a univocal-reading, the argument crucially depends upon “creation” / “origination” possessing the logical property known as <i>transitivity</i>. Here is a dictionary definition for the adjective “transitive”: “Of or relating to a binary relation such that, whenever one element is related to a second element and the second element is related to a third element, then the first element is also related to the third element. Examples of transitive relations are ‘less than’ for real numbers (a < b and b < c implies a < c) and divisibility for integers (a divides b and b divides c mean that a divides c).”<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a></p>
<p>An easy illustration of transitivity is the “equal to” or <i>identity</i> relation. If x = y, and y = z, then it follows as a mathematical consequence that x = z.</p>
<p>Or think about <i>being taller than</i>. If John is taller than Joe, and Joe is taller than Steve, then it follows – as a logical consequence - that John is taller than Steve.</p>
<p><b>Intransitivity, Non-Transitivity & Other Matters</b></p>
<p>However, not all relations are transitive. Some relations are <i>intransitive</i>. An intransitive relation is one for which, if P is related to Q, and Q is, by the same relation, related to R, then it follows as a logical consequence that P is not (by the same relation) related to R. </p>
<p>For example, consider <i>being the mother of</i>. If Jane is the mother of Sarah, and Sarah is the mother of Rebecca, it follows as a logical consequence that Jane is not the mother of Rebecca.</p>
<p>How about <i>being the immediate successor of</i>? If George VI is the immediate successor of Edward VIII, and Elizabeth II is the immediate successor of George VI, then Elizabeth II was not the immediate successor of Edward VIII.</p>
<p>It turns that there are also relations that are neither transitive nor intransitive. These relations are termed non-transitive. This sort of relation is helpfully illustrated by Darren Brierton. He writes:</p>
<p>“…[<i>L</i>]<i>ikes</i> is a non-transitive relation: If John likes Bill, and Bill likes Fred, there is no logical consequence [one way or the other] concerning John liking Fred.”<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a></p>
<p>The moral, then, is that we may not assume that <i>just any</i> relation will be transitive.</p>
<p><b>Is “Creation” Transitive?</b></p>
<p>The crucial question obviously is: Is “creation” / “origination” transitive? Note, first, that it has to be transitive for the argument to succeed. If “creation” / “origination” is either in- or non-transitive, then the argument fails. Let us see.</p>
<p>Our task is to try to come up with uncontroversial examples, using “creation” / “origination,” that show whether the relation is usually transitive or intransitive or neither. As (presumably) competent and native English-speakers, we need to check for transitivity using our linguistic intuitions.</p>
<p>If Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated Thomas Edison, and Thomas Edison originated the light bulb, does it follow that Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated the light bulb? </p>
<p>Or if Lionel Dahmer created Jeffrey Dahmer, and Jeffrey Dahmer created chaos, does it follow that Lionel Dahmer created chaos?<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a></p>
<p>It seems that, if these conclusions <i>do</i> follow, then the same reasoning could be rolled backwards almost indefinitely. We would then be in the position of ascribing the light bulb to Edison’s progenitors, his supposed evolutionary forebears, or God himself. Likewise, we would have to ascribe Jeffrey Dahmer’s “chaos” to his entire family, some random pre-<i>Homo Sapien</i> Hynerpeton (on one view of evolutionary history, anyway), or to the Big Bang itself.</p>
<p><b>What Do We Make of This?</b></p>
<p>Let’s consider a couple of other examples. What if I say: Alexandre Dumas (père) created Edmond Dantès, and Edmond Dantès created a plan to get revenge on Danglars, Mondego, and Villefort? Shall I say that Dumas created a plan to get revenge on Danglars, Mondego, and Villefort?</p>
<p>I think that this <i>is</i> plausible. After all, Edmond Dantès is fiction created by Dumas. Dumas is the agent; in reality, Dantès does nothing.</p>
<p>Or how about this? I create a robot and the robot creates a sandwich. Do I create the sandwich?</p>
<p>I want to be careful, here. Earlier I alerted the reader to a second possible equivocation in the vicinity of the first (as I alleged previously). Although I am setting the Literal/Non-Literal business aside, in this section, I am now in a position to examine the second (possible) equivocation.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most direct route for getting at this is by way of the philosophical position known as <i>agency theory</i>.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a> <i>Very</i> roughly, an <i>Agent</i> is an entity – something like an Aristotelian substance – that can initiate causal chains that are not determined by prior efficient causes. </p>
<p><b>Compatibilism & Libertarianism</b></p>
<p>“For the compatibilist, the person, insofar as he or she is an agent, is simply a series of events through which a causal chain passes on its way to producing an effect, say, one’s hand going up. As long as this effect is caused by the right things in the right way (e.g., the character states of the agent), the act counts as free. …[For the Libertarian, p]ersons are agents and, as such, in free acts they either cause their acts for the sake of reasons (called agent causation) or their acts are simply uncaused events they spontaneously do by exercising their powers for the sake of reasons (called a noncausal theory of agency).”<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a></p>
<p>What is the point of all this? There are (at least) two additional senses for “creation” / “origination,” each springing from different, overarching (or underlying!) conceptions of the relationship between free will and determinism. </p>
<p>Call the Libertarian version of “creation” / “origination” <i>A-rigination</i>, and call the Compatibilistic version <i>C-rigination</i>. To keep the model simple, let’s say that “A-rigination” is the initiation of a brand new causal chain that, while it may (and should) be directed by final causes (or reasons), is not determined by efficient causes. On the other hand, let’s say that “C-rigination” is merely the arbitrary identification of part of an efficient causal chain, all of which is entirely determined by whatever initiated the chain.</p>
<p>Do these distinctions explain my differing intuitions about the cases of transitivity and intransitivity canvassed above? Here’s a review.</p>
<p>If Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated Thomas Edison, and Thomas Edison originated the light bulb, does it follow that Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated the light bulb? It depends. Was Thomas Edison Libertarian free in creating the light bulb? If he was, then we have the following. If Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated [no matter how] Thomas Edison, and Thomas Edison <i>A-riginated</i> the light bulb, does it follow that Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. originated the light bulb? No. Regardless of whether Samuel A-riginated or C-riginated Thomas, the fact (if it be such) that Thomas A-riginated the light bulb means that Thomas initiated a brand new causal chain in virtue of that action.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a></p>
<p>Suppose, instead, that the Libertarian view of free will is false and that Compatibilism is true. In that case, we would get this. Since Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. <i>C-riginated</i> Thomas Edison, and Thomas Edison <i>C-riginated</i> the light bulb, it follows that Samuel Ogden Edison, Jr. <i>C-riginated the light bulb</i>. Of course, since C-rigination is merely the arbitrary identification of part of a causal chain, if Compatibilism is true it would be equally true to say that Edison’s great-great-great-great-great grandmother C-riginated the light bulb, or that the Biblical Adam C-riginated it, or that some unspecifiable single-celled organism from the pre-Cambrian period did so.</p>
<p>Since my intuitions track more closely along with the first reading, I take it that I have linguistic evidence that Compatibilism is false. But, regardless, the point is that whether we say that “originated” is transitive or not depends on what sort of account we give for free will.</p>
<p>This seems to generalize. Consider, again, the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. If Libertarianism is true, and if Jeffrey Dahmer acted freely, then the fact that Lionel Dahmer created Jeffrey Dahmer, and Jeffrey Dahmer created chaos, does not entail that Lionel Dahmer created chaos, because Jeffrey Dahmer initiated causal chains on his own and he is, on his own, responsible for them. On the other hand, if Compatibilism is true, then we might as well say that the Big Bang created the relevant “chaos.” Jeffrey Dahmer was merely a cog in the cosmic wheel. </p>
<p><b>The Fictional Wrinkle</b></p>
<p>Or how about these? Alexandre Dumas (père) created Edmond Dantès, and Edmond Dantès created a plan to get revenge on Danglars, Mondego, and Villefort. Did Dumas create a plan to get revenge on Danglars, Mondego, and Villefort? As I said previously, clearly, Edmond Dantès is a fictional character created by Dumas. Even if Libertarianism is true, Dumas is the only actual agent. Therefore, it might seem that Dumas <i>did</i> create a plan to get revenge. But there seems to be <i>something</i> wrong.</p>
<p>Did Dumas create an actual plan to get actual revenge on actual individuals? No. He created a fictional plan to get fictional revenge on fictional characters. Notice the difference in the word “create.” Did Dantès “create” in the same sense as Dumas? No. Dumas actually created a story; Dantès has no actual existence, and therefore cannot actually create anything.</p>
<p>We could plausibly say that even if Libertarianism is true: Dumas <i>A-riginated</i> Edmond Dantès. But, being fictional, Edmond Dantès was merely a figment of Dumas’s imagination. Suppose we want to say that Dantès <i>C-riginated</i> the plan to get revenge on Danglars, Mondego, and Villefort, and that Dantès was an instrument used by Dumas – a literary contrivance that Dumas, as the author, used to tell his story. We might be tempted to say therefore that “Dumas created a plan to get revenge” is true. After all, the entire story – including the revenge plot – owes to Dumas.</p>
<p>The problem is that the reasoning used to generate the conclusion “Dumas created a plan to get revenge” violates the rules of transitivity. Transitivity holds when three things (a, b, and c) are all related by the selfsame relation. Then, if the relation is transitive, we can say that: If aRb and bRc, then aRc.</p>
<p>However, in the Dumas case, the relevant three things are not related by the selfsame relation. For we said that Dumas <i>A-riginated</i> Edmond Dantès and that Dantès <i>C-riginated</i> the revenge plot. <i>A-rigination</i> and <i>C-rigination</i> are not the same relation. Therefore, nothing follows <i>by transitivity</i>.</p>
<p>Of course, Dumas is the author of the entire story. So we want to ensure that he gets credit for everything that happens. We secure this outcome, and make things univocal, by substituting for “creates” a word like “pretends.” Then we would say something like this: Dumas <i>pretends</i> that Dantès exists and Dumas <i>pretends</i> that Dantès plots revenge.</p>
<p>Things go similarly with my robot, but not identically. Assuming Libertarianism, if I <i>A-riginate </i>a robot, then – unless the robot somehow becomes a self-aware, artificially intelligent being like <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i>’s Hal, then the robot merely <i>C-riginates</i> the sandwich. The robot did not <i>decide</i> to create a sandwich in the sense that it initiated a new causal chain. Here it seems plausible to say that <i>I created the sandwich </i>by means of<i> the robot</i>. The robot was my <i>instrument</i>. </p>
<p>But, like the Dumas case, we do not attribute the sandwich-making to me because of transitivity. Nothing follows by transitivity since <i>A-rigination</i> and <i>C-rigination</i> pick out two different relations. Rather, the whole example now seems misstated. Instead of saying <i>I created a robot and the robot created a sandwich</i>, I should have instead said <i>I created a sandwich by means of a robot</i>.</p>
<p><b>Applying It All to the Case at Hand</b></p>
<p>The takeaway might be this. If Libertarianism is true, and if sin <i>A-riginated</i> from Satan, then sin did not <i>A-riginate</i> from God <i>even if</i> Satan did <i>A-riginate</i> from God. To put it another way, even when the terms are univocal – notice that <i>A-riginate</i> is used throughout – God cannot be blamed for sin if that sin was Satan’s (Libertarian-)free choice. Satan would have initiated a brand new causal chain – one that was independent of the causal chain, initiated by God, that <i>A-riginated</i> Satan himself.</p>
<p>But suppose we substitute C-rigination. Then we get this: <i>Sin C-riginated from Satan</i>, but <i>Satan A-riginated from God</i>. Can we conclude that “sin <i>A-riginated</i> from God”? We cannot depend upon transitivity to carry this conclusion. Remember that transitivity only applies when we have three things related by the selfsame relation. But if Satan <i>C-riginated</i> sin and God <i>A-riginated</i> Satan, then, because <i>A-rigination</i> and <i>C-rigination</i> are different relations, nothing follows by transitivity alone.</p>
<p>Conservatively, I would suggest that this shows "origination" is non-transitive - since it can mean either <i>A-rigintion</i> which appears to be intransitive, or <i>C-rigination</i> which appears to be transitive.</p>
<p>We are faced with three options. </p>
<p>NUMBER ONE:</p>
<p>We could affirm either Libertarianism or Compatibilism and hold that God’s <i>A-rigination</i> of Satan is like Dumas’s <i>A-rigination</i> of Dantès. In this case, it is true that God is the author of everything. But we would seem to be compelled to have to say that everything Satan does is on a par with Dumas’s fiction. To put it differently, God pretends that Satan exists and pretends that sin exists, and so on. This doesn’t seem correct. For one thing, it seems to reduce sin to a fiction. And that’s something that I’d wager even the author of the picture-text wouldn’t want to do. After all, doesn’t an artist have creative freedom? On what objective basis could God be criticized for pretending that sin exists?</p>
<p>NUMBER TWO:</p>
<p>We could affirm Compatibilism and simply lay it down that God is the only free agent. However, this would seem to force us to say that “Satan originated sin” is misstated and should instead be “God originated sin by means of Satan.” This is the conclusion that the authors of the two picture-texts seem to want. Sure, right: <i>If</i> God is the only free agent, then everything – the good and bad – must owe to God. But why think that God <i>is</i> the only free agent? We have been given no reason to accept this. It is arguable, therefore, that the (implicit) argument begs the question against Libertarianism. Of course, this is our third option.</p>
<p>NUMBER THREE: We could affirm Libertarianism, use <i>A-rigination</i> univocally throughout the argument, and admit that God is not to blame for Satan’s new causal chain. </p>
<p>It is crucial to notice that <i>nowhere</i> on either of the two picture-texts do we have anything even remotely approaching either an argument for Compatibilism or an argument against Libertarianism.</p>
<p>If this argument shows that God is the “creator” of sin, then we seem impelled to say that it only does so by assuming a contentious and eminently reject-able view about free will.</p>
<p><b><i>Brief</i> Summary & Concluding Remarks</b></p>
<p>As far as I can tell, this argument only plausibly suggests that <i>God is the “creator” of sin</i> if all the following are the case:</p>
<p>- “Creation” / “origination” have a univocal sense that works throughout the argument;</p>
<p>- “Creation” / “origination” are transitive;</p>
<p>- Augustine’s view of evil is false;</p>
<p>- Libertarianism is false; and</p>
<p>- Compatibilism is true.</p>
<p>However, quite obviously, <i>none</i> of these has even been attempted – let alone accomplished or established.</p>
<p>Moreover, by my lights: “creation” / “origination” are equivocal; “creation” / “origination” are non-transitive; St. Augustine's view of evil is defensible, compelling, and possibly true; Libertarianism is defensible, compelling, and possibly true; and Compatibilism, while defensible, is less-compelling and arguably false.</p>
<p>So the first line of the first picture-text is merely an unargued assertion resting upon a highly questionable resolution to the metaphysical problem of free will. And it’s passed off as if it were an uncontroversial tenet of Christianity. The picture-text gets worse from there! But I am out of time for today.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> What follows is my much-condensed adaptation of Robin Collins’s evaluation of Sankara’s version of Hinduism, as found in “Eastern Religions,” Michael J. Murray, <i>Reason for the Hope Within</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich. and Cambridge [U.K.]: William B. Eerdmans, 1999, pp. 182<i>ff</i>, esp. p. 189. Any errors are doubtless my own.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> I am merely illustrating something, here. I am not pretending to have made irrelevant all other philosophical debate over the truth or falsity of Hinduism.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Briefly, on this view, God possesses all of the “perfections” or “great-making properties.” These properties may be defined as “those properties, with intrinsic <i>maxima</i>, that it is inherently better to have than to lack.” For example, it is inherently better to have knowledge than to lack it. Therefore, God would have to have knowledge. But knowledge also (plausibly) has an intrinsic maximal value: namely, knowing, of all true, actualized propositions that they are true, and knowing of all false propositions that they are false. (We might also add: knowing the truth-values of all counterfactual and otherwise possible, but non-actual propositions. But I will leave this aside, presently.)</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> In Latin: <i><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2182266">Aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit</a></i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Genesis 1:26-28 and 31, New International Version.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> In Latin: <i><a href="http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html">Imago dei</a></i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> I.e., <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence">Omnibenevloent</a></i>. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> This seems the charitable thing to do. After all, it is not at all clear that “Satan created sin” is true. It seems to me clearly false. But the “originate”-reading does not sound as obviously false (though it still may be). So I will go with that.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> To put it slightly differently, “murder is evil,” is something like an abbreviation for a string of propositions (e.g., “S stabbed T to death,” “S shot and killed T,” and so on) none of which could be prefixed by the predication “it is good that.”</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> This works for holes of all sorts. “There is a hole in the dirt, here” is just another way of saying that “here is a place where there is no dirt,” and so on.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> Of course, in this case we have an angel who, after making a free choice bereft of goodness, fell from his lofty position and became the Adversary.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> “Transitive,” <i>American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language</i>, 5<sup>th</sup> Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ., 2016, <<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transitivity">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transitivity</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="">[13]</a> Darren Brierton, “Objects, Properties and Relations,” <i>Philosophy </i>Vade Mecum, Univ. of Missouri – Kansas City, <<a href="https://cas.umkc.edu/philosophy/vade-mecum/2-3.htm">https://cas.umkc.edu/philosophy/vade-mecum/2-3.htm</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> Recall that the burden of the previous section was to show that nouns like “chaos” have no positive existence. However, also recall that I began the present section on the assumption that everything I wrote previously was wrong. If the reader has the sense – as indeed I do – that “creating chaos” and “creating Jeffrey Dahmer” involve two different senses “creating,” then I invite him or her to revisit the preceding text. I think that the same problem plagues premise 16.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> This is, of course, embedded in a tangled thicket surrounding the problem of free will. There are numerous views. On one pole, some people endorse “Hard Determinism.” This is the view that “choice,” strictly speaking, does not exist. In its “Scientific Version,” all things are held to be absolutely predetermined by the laws of the universe together with the initial conditions. In a “Theological Version,” Divine “predestination” would also play a role. God is the only free actor. Going a bit farther, “Fatalism” is the view that the laws and conditions themselves could not have been otherwise. Fate implies a thoroughgoing determinism on “all metaphysical levels.” In any event, determinists can be of “Hard” or “Soft” varieties. The “Hard Determinist” thinks that “freedom” and “determinism” are incompatible; there is, in fact, no such thing as “free will.”<br />
<br />
A somewhat middle of the road position is “Soft Determinism” or “Compatibilism.” “Compatibilism” designates the idea that “freedom” is <i>compatible with</i> “determinism” after all. Confusingly, Compatibilism also comes in “Hard” and “Soft” varieties. The “Hard Compatibilist” holds that “freedom” <i>requires</i> determinism. Roughly, this is because a choice without a sufficient, efficient cause is thought to be utterly random. At the other extreme from determinism, some endorse “Simple Indeterminism.” This is the view that <i>nothing</i> is determined. </p>
<p>On the other hand, others are “Soft Compatibilists,” who hold instead that free choice does not require determinism, but is compatible with it. So the Soft Compatibilists want to try to preserve free will and determinism. Some “Soft Compatibilists” (called “Passive Self-determinists” or “Classical Compatibilists”) tend</p>
<p>to hold that a person is free just in case she can act according to her strongest inclination. “Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want – and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature),” “Compatibilism,” <i>Theopedia</i>, <<a href="http://www.theopedia.com/compatibilism">http://www.theopedia.com/compatibilism</a>>.</p>
<p>In theological contexts, Calvinists tend to be Compatibilists of this sort. While the inclination (i.e., desire) <i>determines</i> the “choice,” still, a person can count as “free” on this view if she isn’t hindered from acting on her inclination. “Compatibilists argue that if all of our choices are uncaused, they would then be completely arbitrary, unpredictable, and not really moral actions at all,” <i>ibid</i>.</p>
<p>“Incompatibilism” is the view that freedom simply cannot be <i>determined</i> – strictly so-called – in <i>any</i> sense. One form of Incompatibilism, called “Libertarianism” (in a non-political sense), holds that for a person to be free with respect to some action, A, is for that person to be able to do A or not do A – regardless of “inclination” or “desire.” In other words, Libertarians hold that it <i>is</i> possible for a person to act against her inclinations and desires. Against the Compatibilist, Libertarians contend that while our actions and choices are “uncaused” in the sense that they lack antecedent, <i>efficient</i> causes, they are not altogether “uncaused” because our (rational) actions and choices have final causes, that is, <i>reasons</i>. (Recall that Aristotle enumerated four different “causes”: Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final.)</p>
<p>In the vicinity is another Incompatibilistic view called “Agent Theory” or “Action Theory” which holds, roughly, that determinism applies to events, but denies that “choices” and “actions” are events in the relevant sense. On this view, Agents (something like “conscious beings”) can <i>initiate</i> new causal chains and perform Actions (also termed “Happenings” – something like “events,” but importantly different in that they are not just strings of efficient causes) that are not mechanically determined by events. </p>
<p>For more, see Milton D. Hunnex, <i>Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1986, pp. 29<i>ff</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16]</a> William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, <i>Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview</i>, Downer’s Grove, Ill. InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp. 278 & 279.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17]</a> Of course, the action of “creating the light bulb” was a complex, rather than simple, action. I will assume, though not argue, that some conjunction of propositions could be specified such that: collectively, the propositions adequately describe the complex action; the propositions have time-orderable, simple actions as constituents; and that the constituent simple action that comes first in the time sequence is plausibly a case of A-rigination.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-58361458148283173792016-11-20T17:15:00.000-08:002016-11-24T10:26:40.582-08:00Thinking About Socratic Morality<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/69/75569-004-3B260631.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/69/75569-004-3B260631.jpg" width="431" /></a></div><br />
<p>One reader's comments to my previous post (available <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2016/11/is-having-8000-manuscripts-supposed-to.html">HERE</a>) got me thinking again about the elements of Socratic morality.</p>
<p>Reader <a href="#c3967117569170373312">apsterian</a> wrote:</p>
<p>>>I agree w[ith]. Plato/Socrates that no one willingly sins. There's insanity, but no "evil." Why would anyone do something that gets him sent to heck?--only insanity.<<</p>
<p>These are certainly deep philosophical waters. Let's dive in.</p>
<p>Socrates and Plato are provocative thinkers. Of course, what we know of the historical Socrates - who wrote nothing of his own - comes primarily from Plato's dialogues. Those dialogues are generally divided into three groups, the early, middle, and late. Although there is disagreement, the consensus is that Plato's early dialogues fairly accurately represent the views of his mentor, Socrates. In the middle dialogues, Plato begins to experiment with his own ideas. By the late dialogues, Plato simply uses Socrates as a vehicle to deliver his own, mature thought (and, indeed, his criticisms of his own views).</p>
<p>Assuming this threefold categorization, it is clear that Socrates surely <i>did</i> hold that no one willingly does what it is bad. However, it's not at all obvious that "Plato/Socrates" ever said "that no one willingly sins."</p>
<p>Our English word "sin" derives from the Greek word <i>hamartia</i>. Aristotle certainly wrote about <i>hamartia</i>, and subsequent Christians picked it up via the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek translation of the Old Testament). But as far as I know, neither Socrates nor Plato ever used the term "hamartia." Moreover, neither Socrates nor Plato used any other term that straightforwardly maps onto the Christian concept of "sin."</p>
<p>It seems, therefore, that we need to make a distinction between "doing bad" and "sinning." </p>
<p>As I understand it, Socrates's basic position can be sketched (roughly) as follows.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>1. If an act, choice or object, x, is bad, then x is harmful.</p>
<p>2. If x is harmful, then x makes the actor or subject, S, more miserable or worse off than he or she was before choosing x.</p>
<p>3. If x makes S more miserable or worse off, then S becomes a failure or unhappy.</p>
<p>4. Therefore, if x is bad, then S becomes a failure or unhappy.</p>
<p>But then Socrates expressly states that:</p>
<p>5. No one wants to fail in life or to become unhappy.</p>
<p>6. Therefore, no one wants what is bad.</p>
<p>Firstly, even if this argument succeeds, I do not think that it shows that no one willingly <i>sins</i>. Rather, if it succeeds, it seems to show that there is no such thing as sin.</p>
<p>Western Christians of almost all theological hues have historically held that "sin" is (bound up with, if not identical to) "willful disobedience." So, for instance, in the <i>Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms</i>, by Protestants Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> "sin" is defined as "...a person's purposeful disobedience to God's will as evidenced in concrete thought or act" (p. 107).</p>
<p>This is even clearer in Catholicism. In "A Simple Glossary of Catholic Terms," by Fr. Jerome Bertram and Raymond Edwards, we read that (mortal) "sin" is: "A serious violation of the law of God; it must be freely chosen, be an act that is objectively gravely wrong, and the person committing it must be aware that it is gravely wrong" (p. 59).</p>
<p>The problem becomes, then, that if:</p>
<p>7. No one ever willingly does what is bad;</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>8. "Sin" is willingly doing what is bad;</p>
<p>then:</p>
<p>9. Therefore, no one ever sins.</p>
<p>(That is: 7'. No person is a person who willingly does bad; 8'. All sinners are people who willingly do bad; 9'. therefore, no persons are sinners.)</p>
<p>From a historic Christian point of view this is not correct. So either:</p>
<p>10. At least <i>some</i> people willingly do what is bad;</p>
<p>or:</p>
<p>11. "Sin" is not willingly doing what is bad;</p>
<p>or both.</p>
<p>But as I said, in the historic Christian tradition - as far as I can tell, anyway - "sin" <i>is</i> willingly doing what is bad. But then it follows 10. is true. If 10. is true, then 7. must be false. But if 7. is false, then EITHER one or more of the premises 1. - 6. must be false, OR one or more of the moves from premises-to-conclusion must be invalid.</p>
<p>By my lights, the best candidate for a false premise is 5. <i>Very briefly</i>, I think that 5. ("No one wants to fail in life or to become unhappy.") is <i>not</i> clearly more plausible than it's negation. Some people <i>do</i> appear to me to <i>want to be</i> unhappy.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>But also, I think that 6. may not follow. I think that there is an unexpressed assumption that:</p>
<p>12. S wants x.</p>
<p>implies that:</p>
<p>13. S wants everything that follows from x.</p>
<p>Indeed, Socrates is well-known to have held that virtue is a sort of knowledge. He also distinguished "wanting x" from "seeing fit to do x." The difference is that one only "wants x" if one has all the relevant knowledge about x. Else, one only "sees fit to do x."</p>
<p>I doubt that "wants" functions like this. Is it the case that if: S wants A and A implies F; then: S wants F?</p>
<p>For example, from:</p>
<p>14. Jane wants to divorce John;</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>15. Janes knows that divorce would hurt the kids;</p>
<p>Does this follow?</p>
<p>16. Jane wants to hurt the kids.</p>
<p>Or again, from:</p>
<p>17. Bob wants to buy a bigger house.</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>18. Buying a bigger house would put bob into debt.</p>
<p>Does this follow?</p>
<p>19. Bob wants to be put into debt.</p>
<p>I just don't think 16. and 19. do follow.</p>
<p>Socrates would probably rejoin by saying that "wants" can be irrational or rational. After all, this is just one way of cashing out his distinction between "wanting" (properly Socratically so-called) and "seeing fit." "Wanting" would be "rationally desiring;" and "seeing fit" would be "irrationally desiring."</p>
<p>If Jane does not "want" to hurt the kids, then Jane should not want a divorce. It wouldn't be rational; she would only be "seeing fit" to get a divorce. Additionally, if Bob does not "want" to get into debt, then Bob should not want a bigger house. He's not rational to want to buy a bigger house if buying it would put him in dire financial straits.</p>
<p>Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not enough that Jane merely "not want to hurt the kids." Maybe she needs to "want NOT to hurt the kids." Likewise, perhaps Bob ought to "want NOT to be in debt."</p>
<p>I am just not sure about this!</p>
<p>I am tempted to say that BOTH "Jane wants a divorce" AND "Jane does not want to hurt the kids" are possibly true and possibly rational, even if getting the divorce <i>would</i> hurt the kids. It even seems likely to me that Jane could BOTH <i>rationally</i> want to get a divorce AND want not to hurt the kids.</p>
<p>Likewise, I would like to say that BOTH "Bob wants a bigger house" AND "Bob does not want to get into debt" are possibly true and rational, even if getting the house would put him into debt.</p>
<p>These issues point to larger ones concerning the difference between theoretical and practical rationality. </p>
<p>An agent, S, is practically rational BOTH:</p>
<p>if BOTH she wants some end, e, and she believes that performing some action (i.e., by φ-ing), she is more likely to bring about e than she would be without φ-ing;</p>
<p>AND:</p>
<p>these considerations bring S to begin φ-ing.</p>
<p>Practically, then, if S wants to separate from her husband or pursue another love interest, and S believes that getting a divorce is likely to secure these results, then S will get a divorce.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if S wants to avoid hurting her children, and S believes that NOT getting a divorce is likely to secure this result, then S will NOT get a divorce.</p>
<p>But practical rationality alone cannot adjudicate between these competing desires.</p>
<p>Socrates seems prepared to say that increasing Jane's knowledge should be sufficient to help her to adjudicate between what she merely "sees fit" to do and what she really "wants" to do. I am sympathetic with this. After all, suppose that Jane were to discover – for example by direct divine revelation – that if she pursues one course of action, c, then her life would veer onto a trajectory that would lead to her eternal damnation. For the Christian, this is the ultimate, negative teleological consideration. What can we say? </p>
<p>Can we say that, if Jane is hell-averse, then she would presumably <i>want</i> to avoid c? Or can we say that if Jane is hell-averse, at least she <i>ought to want</i> to avoid c? </p>
<p>I think that we can only say:</p>
<p>If Jane is hell-averse, then she would avoid c – regardless of what she wants.</p>
<p>Of course, perhaps this information, which I have given to Jane via direct divine revelation, would be unavailable to her otherwise. Or maybe she would have to intuit it, or discern it in the voice of conscience, or detect it in some scriptural injunction, or solicit it as advice from a competent pastor, or whatever.</p>
<p>But I suppose that, for me, the philosophical bottom line would be that we are called to exercise our wills in accordance with (our apprehension of) the objective good. Furthermore, we are called to know the objective good – that is, to know the Triune God, whose nature <i>is</i> the Good. </p>
<p>I think that Christians have historically maintained, therefore, that we are called to choose the good - not to want the good. This does NOT mean that it wouldn't be better to want the good also. But this would seem to mean that choosing the good is good enough - regardless of what we want.</p>
<p>The "moral" might then be this. We - none of us - are slaves to our desires. Our will is capable of transcending our desires, whether they be good or bad. When we have strength of will, perhaps through God's grace, we are able to choose the good despite our bad desires. We may even, through sanctification, eventually find that our desires are themselves purified. But when we experience weakness of will (<i>akrasia</i>), we may indeed choose to do what we know is bad.</p>
<p>This, I take it, is what Christianity has historically called "sin": choosing to act on desires that we know (or justifiably believe) are bad. Far from impossible, I also take it that this is constitutive of the human condition.</p>
<p>But this entails that, on this point anyway, Socrates was wrong. We can willingly do bad; we do it all the time.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> The following is an adaptation of notes that I took from various lectures delivered by Professor Jon McGinnis.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> See, e.g., articles like "Are You Addicted to Unhappiness?" by David Sack, <i>Psychology Today</i>, Mar. 5, 2014, <<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/where-science-meets-the-steps/201403/are-you-addicted-unhappiness">https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/where-science-meets-the-steps/201403/are-you-addicted-unhappiness</a>>.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-88497100319388028012016-11-18T16:21:00.000-08:002017-01-23T20:18:39.289-08:00Is Having 8,000+ Manuscripts Supposed to be Bad?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/555495_171729389630166_20802101_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="689" src="https://religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/555495_171729389630166_20802101_n.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>(<a href="https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophicalAtheism/photos/a.253431698126491.1073741828.253419431461051/914432362026418/?type=3&theater">Image source</a>)</p>
<p>Today’s Facebook <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/facebook-polemics.html">picture-text polemic</a> comes to us by way of the Facebook page “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophicalAtheism/">Philosophical Atheism</a>” (hereinafter abbreviated “PA”). Let’s begin by noting that this polemic, as opposed to others that I have analyzed, actually bothers to gesture towards evidence. The bottom-most line of the image reads:</p>
<p>“References: <a href="http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z">http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z</a>, <a href="http://bit.ly/Mymb9J">http://bit.ly/Mymb9J</a>”</p>
<p>The first source resolves to the article “Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts,” by Peter van Minnen.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> The second reference redirects to “A Brief History of the King James Bible,” Laurence M. Vance.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> We will turn to these authors as we examine PA’s claims. </p>
<p>CLAIM: “The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.”</p>
<p>REPLY: This is far from the whole story. According to Paul Wegner’s <i>The Journey From Texts to Translations</i>, the King James Version was produced by “54 translators – most of the leading classical and oriental scholars of the day and some laymen.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>Even PA’s own cited second source, Vance, writes: “Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.”<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a></p>
<p>The eminent translators included Laurence Chaderton and Thomas Harrison, who were Puritans, and therefore certainly <i>not</i> straightforwardly “members of the Church of England” - at least in the sense of mainstream Anglicans. (They were a reforming element therein and arrayed themselves against the "old guard" Anglicans.) Yet, in fact, the Puritan John Rainolds is often credited as having initiated the project that later – if colloquially – became known as the “King James Version.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>Wegner also helpfully establishes some historical context. “England experienced a time of great reform and growth during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). …Bible translation was freely tolerated, giving rise to several new translations – the Bishop’s Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609-10). …Great strides in scholarship in general were made, achieving a high standard of excellence, and it was within this historical context that the King James Version was born.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a></p>
<p>This context is important at least because it shows that the scholarship that produced the King James Version was, for its time, first-rate.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a> The translators primarily followed the Greek New Testament tradition as it had been transmitted in what was called the <i>Textus Receptus</i> (the “Received Text”) – a text that had its roots in the work of Lucian of Antioch, on whom St. Jerome had drawn for the Latin <i>Vulgate</i>.</p>
<p>Again, PA seems not to have noticed that its own second cited source, Vance, declared: </p>
<p>“The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:</p>
<p>“‘The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.’”<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a></p>
<p>CLAIM: “There were (and still are) no original texts to translate.”</p>
<p>REPLY: This claim equivocates on the phrase “original texts.” One could be designating the <i>abstract</i> <i>ideas</i> that the New Testament authors articulated,<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> or one could be referring to the <i>physical manuscripts</i> upon which those ideas were first fixed (or both). We need to disentangle these two senses – call the ideas “propositional content” and the physical stuff the “papyrus container” – since it is possible to have one without the other.</p>
<p>We could, for instance, possess the original, physical papyrus upon which the authentic propositional content had been written originally. Term this “Situation 1.” We would have this if we possessed the original papyruses, but found that they had been defaced sometime after being inscribed. Such papyruses might not even be recognizable as the original, physical “containers.” We see, then, that Situation 1 would be worthless, epistemically.</p>
<p>Alternatively, we could have the authentic propositional content that the biblical authors communicated without having access to its original, physical container. This would be the case, for example, if the authentic propositional content had been copied, memorized, or otherwise preserved apart from the protection of the original papyrus. Call this “Situation 2.”</p>
<p>In fact, Situation 2 is arguably – and, from a textual-critical standpoint, pretty obviously – what obtains. After all, PA admits that we have 8,000 manuscript copies.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a> </p>
<p>Consider that PA’s first cited author, Peter van Minnen, begins with this sentence: “The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text.”<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a> </p>
<p>To put it another way, the absence of the original papyruses, or <i>autographa</i>, does not in the least undermine the textual reliability of the New Testament because the authentic propositional content has been preserved and transmitted to us.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a></p>
<p>Van Minnen goes on to state that all of the extant “manuscripts are mere copies, and the great majority of them are copies of copies,” but he stresses that “ultimately they all derive from the originals.”<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a></p>
<p>Both the Christian community and the scientists involved in textual criticism concur: the derivative texts that we possess are good enough.</p>
<p>CLAIM: “The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died.”</p>
<p>REPLY: Again, we have an ambiguity here. The problematic phrase is “the oldest manuscripts.”</p>
<p>The difficulty is that the manuscript evidence is not all-or-nothing. Although the actual state-of-affairs is complicated, for our purposes let us say that manuscripts may be either <i>full</i> (that is, containing the entire New Testament) or <i>partial</i> (that is, containing only a part of the New Testament). </p>
<p>Our total set of evidence includes two proper subsets, then: the subset of full manuscripts and the subset of partial manuscripts. What are the oldest manuscripts in each?</p>
<p>Before we answer, it is crucial to remember that, prior to the 4<sup>th</sup> century, Christianity was often <i>effectively</i> (if not always-and-everywhere literally) outlawed. Creating a full manuscript, particularly of a text as lengthy as the New Testament, would have been a substantial undertaking in the ancient world. To say that there are no full manuscripts that date to earlier than the 4<sup>th</sup> century is simply to say that, prior to the 4<sup>th</sup> century, Christians, circumscribed globally and sporadically persecuted provincially, lacked the resources to produce a complete New Testament codex.</p>
<p>So it is true that the earliest complete (or near-complete) New Testaments we possess date from the 4<sup>th</sup> century. These include Codices<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a> Sinaiticus (א, 01) and Vaticanus (B, 03).<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a></p>
<p>However, this understandable deficit of pre-4<sup>th</sup>-century <i>full</i> manuscripts – due to the shortcomings in pre-4<sup>th</sup>-century Christian capabilities and resources – does not imply that there are no extant <i>partial</i> manuscripts. Indeed, there are. </p>
<p>Of especial importance is the early 2<sup>nd</sup>-century manuscript fragment known as <i>p52</i>.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a> Although it is only a scrap, its existence both verifies the fidelity of portions of chapter 18 from the Gospel of John, and demonstrates that our total manuscript evidence extends all the way back to just a few decades after the death of the last apostle. In the case of p52, which is often dated to around AD 125, we have a manuscript fragment that dates to only 30 or 40 years after the death of St. John.</p>
<p>PA seems not to have noticed that its primary source, Van Minnen, wrote: “The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. …For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century.”<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a></p>
<p>Hence, PA’s claim can be rewritten as follows: “The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 30-40 years after the last apostle died.”</p>
<p>That’s what textual critics call spectacular early evidence. And p52 is not the only such early fragment. Other probable-2<sup>nd</sup>-century partial manuscripts include p4 (containing the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1-6), p75 (Luke chapter 3 and John chapters 1-15), p90 (John chapters 18 & 19), p98 (the Book of Revelation chapter 1), and p104 (the Gospel of Matthew chapter 21). And these are only the 2<sup>nd</sup>-century manuscripts. Dozens more date from the 3<sup>rd</sup> century. </p>
<p>CLAIM: “There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts…”</p>
<p>REPLY: It is vital to appreciate that the possession of 8,000 manuscripts is unequivocally a good thing. </p>
<p>To put things into perspective, “[f]or Caesar’s <i>Gallic War</i> (ca. 50 B.C.) there are only nine or ten good manuscripts, and the oldest dates from 900 years after the events it records. Only thirty-five of Livy’s 42 books of Roman history survive, in about 20 manuscripts, only one of which is as old as the fourth century. Of Tacitus’s fourteen books of Roman history, we have only four and one-half, in two manuscripts dating from the ninth and eleventh centuries.”<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="">[18]</a></p>
<p>By contrast, the textual basis for the New Testament is positively astounding.</p>
<p>“In the original Greek alone, over 5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments of portions of the N[ew]T[estament] have been preserved from the early centuries of Christianity. …Scholars of almost every theological stripe attest to the profound care with which the NT books were copied in the Greek language, and later translated and preserved in Syriac, Coptic, Latin and a variety of other ancient European and Middle Eastern languages.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="">[19]</a> …</p>
<p>“The point is simply that the textual evidence for what the NT authors wrote far outstrips the documentation we have for any other ancient writing, including dozens which we believe have been preserved relatively intact. There is absolutely no support for claims that the standard modern editions of the Greek NT do not very closely approximate what the NT writers actually wrote.”<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="">[20]</a></p>
<p>To punctuate this point, look back at the textual base for <i>Gallic Wars</i>. Few if any scholars would seriously contend that we do not have substantially the original contents of <i>Gallic Wars</i> even though the text we possess rests only on ten (10) manuscripts.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="">[21]</a> But then, <i>a fortiori</i>, we cannot reasonably question the fidelity to the originals<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="">[22]</a> of the New Testament when the New Testament rests on a base of 8,000 manuscripts!<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title="">[23]</a></p>
<p>CLAIM: Concerning this rich textual evidence of “…over 8,000 …old manuscripts, …no two [are] alike.”</p>
<p>REPLY: First we have to get clear on just what standard is being assumed for “alikeness.” Is it permissible that two statements express the same proposition, or must they be tokens of the exact same sentence type? For example, are these two sentences “alike”?</p>
<p>1. Johnny engaged an attorney when he was swindled out of his sofa.</p>
<p>2. Johnny contracted a lawyer when he was cheated out of his couch.</p>
<p>What about considerations such as grammatical voice? Are these “alike”?</p>
<p>3. Johnny hired a lawyer.</p>
<p>4. A lawyer was hired by Johnny.</p>
<p>What about minor typological errors? Are these “alike”?</p>
<p>5. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.</p>
<p>6. The quick brown fox jumpt over the lazy dog.</p>
<p>7. The speedy brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.</p>
<p>8. The quick brown fox fox jumped over the lazy dog.</p>
<p>9. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog</p>
<p>10. The fox jumped over the dog.</p>
<p>The reader who thinks these questions are simply picking nits has probably never considered that the preponderance of textual “differences” are no more weighty or interesting than those illustrated by statements 1-10 above.</p>
<p>“All kinds of minor variations distinguish …[the New Testament] manuscripts from one another, but the vast majority of these variations have to do with changes in spelling, grammar, and style, or accidental omissions or duplications of words of phrases. Only about 400 (less than one per page of English translation) have any significant bearing on the meaning of the passage [in question], and most of these are noted in the footnotes or margins of modern translations and editions of Scripture (unlike the K[ing]J[ames]V[ersion]). …</p>
<p>“But overall, 97-99% of the NT can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages.”<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title="">[24]</a></p>
<p>Consider this illustration. Suppose that a professor delivers a lecture to a class of one hundred students, from his typed notes. Suppose that each of the one hundred students themselves takes some sort of hand-written or typed notes. Finally, suppose that the professor leaves his briefcase on top of his car’s roof and drives away, losing his case and his notes. The idea is that the professor’s original notes could be reconstructed from the students’ notes.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title="">[25]</a></p>
<p>Plausibly, each student would have recorded slightly different points. Some will contain spelling errors. Some of the points will have been recorded in a time-order that differs from the order in which the notes were delivered. However, if the notes from the one hundred students could be collected, compared, and contrasted, the original notes could be approximated. Indeed, the greater the number of students, the greater the number of lecture-note copies. And the greater the number of lecture-note copies, the more one has to work with in piecing together the professor’s original notes. If we add in the factor that the students are intentionally trying to maximize fidelity – which the original Christian copyists were – then the chances of total recovery get even better.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title="">[26]</a></p>
<p>This, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, is what textual critics do. And with 8,000+ manuscripts to work with, each generated by copyists that were by and large trying to maximize fidelity to the originals with which they worked, it is no wonder why Blomberg relates that most scholars hold that we can be supremely confident that the contents of modern New Testaments very closely approximate what the biblical authors wrote.</p>
<p>CLAIM: “The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.”</p>
<p>This is not a fair assessment.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title="">[27]</a> Of course, in 1611: “Textual criticism was still in its infancy…”.<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title="">[28]</a> Hence, whether “King-James-Only advocates” like it or not, it is true that the <i>original</i> 1611 version of the King James Version is not going to be <i>as</i> textually reliable as a modern New Testament edition that takes cognizance of input from the science of textual criticism.<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title="">[29]</a> </p>
<p>Still, the translators of the Authorised Version in 1611 made use of then then-existing, proto-critical texts that had been cobbled together by such pioneering thinkers as the famed Dutch Catholic humanist Desiderius Erasmus,<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title="">[30]</a> French printer Robert Stephens,<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title="">[31]</a> and the French Reformer Theodore Beza.<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title="">[32]</a></p>
<p>Beside this partial dependence upon a Catholic-compiled Greek text, we have already noted that the project was spearheaded by a Puritan. Of course, being virtually bankrolled by the government, the final product would have to receive its ultimate approval.<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title="">[33]</a> However, not being linguists, theologians, or translators, it is likely that both King James and the various parliamentarians would have deferred to the committee of translators on the issue of the adequacy of the translation.<a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title="">[34]</a></p>
<p>SUMMARY OF CLAIMS: “So, 21st Century [<i>sic</i>] Christians believe the ‘Word of God’ is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century [<i>sic</i>] translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th Century [<i>sic</i>] scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century. That’s not faith. That’s insanity.”</p>
<p>SUMMARY OF REPLIES: The crux of this particular polemical picture-text seems to be that the textual reliability of the New Testament is a necessary condition for the New Testament’s being the word of God. However, the picture-text asserts that the New Testament is not textually reliable. From this it would follow that the New Testament is not the word of God.<a href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title="">[35]</a></p>
<p>Of course, I have nowhere argued that the New Testament’s being textually reliable is <i>sufficient</i> to demonstrate that it is the Word of God. However, PA’s argument is fairly interpreted to be an argument that textual reliability is a necessary condition of the New Testament’s being the Word of God. Contrary to PA, I have argued that this necessary condition is fulfilled. </p>
<p>The necessary condition is not just <i>barely</i> fulfilled. With hundreds of times more pieces of textual evidence than selected works like Caesar’s <i>Gallic Wars</i> and the writings of Roman historians like Livy and Tacitus – none of which works have their authenticity questioned – the New Testament is in a class of its own, textually. In fact, the New Testament has better textual support than any ancient book on any topic whatever.</p>
<p>The 8,000+ New Testament copies and fragments include partial manuscripts that may be reliably dated to within 30-40 years after the end of the apostolic period. Scientists working in the field of textual criticism generally agree that the New Testament is textually reliable. Really, there is no debate on this point.</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Duke Univ., dated Dec. 12, 1995, and online at <<a href="http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html">http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> The hosting website appears to be titled “Dial-the-Truth Ministries,” and the undated article may be found at <<a href="http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html">http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Paul D. Wegner, <i>The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004, p. 307, <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kkVFOTsBOAEC&pg=PA307">https://books.google.com/books?id=kkVFOTsBOAEC&pg=PA307</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> <i>Loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Gordon Campbell writes that “…John Rainolds, the leader of the puritan delegation to the Hampton Court Conference[,] …had successfully argued the case for a new Bible…,” Gordon Campbell, <i>Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611 — 2011</i>, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010, p. 51.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> <i>Ibid</i>. Wegner: “A new air of toleration and freedom ensued when Elizabeth reversed the pro-Catholic policies of Mary I; England’s growing political force led to the stunning defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. … Rapid literary growth gave rise to such notable English figures as William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Edmund Spenser (c. 1552-1599, known in his time as the prince of poets), Philip Sidney (1554-1586, poet), Francis Bacon (1561-1626, philosopher, statesman, and essayist), Richard Hooker (1553-1600, theologians, best-known for the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity), Ben Jonson (1572-1637, dramatist), and Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593, the father of English tragedy).”</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> It is true that the text was sponsored by the King James and the Hampton Court Conference (1604) in order to try “to bridge the ever-widening gap between the translations rendered by Anglicans and those following Puritan or Reformed traditions…”, Wegner, <i>loc. cit</i>. But this need not imply that the King James Version would be politicized. It could equally well be argued that the “Authorized Version,” which is what the King James Version was called, would strive to neutralize the sectarian translations just mentioned.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> <i>Loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> Of course, orthodox Christians would add that the human authors wrote under divine inspiration. However, this is tangential to the present line of inquiry.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> Additionally, though PA does not mention it, we also know of the existence of a community that preserved the substance of the apostolic teaching orally – even through the intense persecutions of the 2<sup>nd</sup> century.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> <i>Loc. cit</i>. Emphasis added.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> Some commentators have added that God may have providentially prevented the <i>autographa</i> from being preserved. While I will not defend this idea here, it is not altogether implausible. After all, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that, were the <i>autographa</i> available, they would have become totems, or objects of worship. But this is certainly anathema to the idea that God alone is worthy of worship. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="">[13]</a> <i>Loc. cit</i>. Emphasis added.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> The codex was a kind of forerunner to the book, written on parchment or vellum. In the case of these manuscripts, the codices in question were written in all capital letters (majuscule), yielding a text-type called an “uncial.”</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> Other important, and only slightly later, uncial manuscripts include Codices Alexandrinus (A, 02), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, 04), and Bezæ (D, 05). </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16]</a> These were actually papyrus.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17]</a> <i>Loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="">[18]</a> Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” William Lane Craig, <i>Reasonable Faith</i>, Rev. Ed., Wheaton, Ill.” Crossway, 1994, p. 194; citing F. F. Bruce, <i>The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?</i> Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1960, p. 16.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="">[19]</a> Again, the New Testament has over 5,000 manuscripts in the Greek language alone. When Latin and Coptic versions are added into the mix, the manuscript total skyrockets to around 20,000.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="">[20]</a> Blomberg, <i>op. cit</i>., pp. 193 & 194. Emphasis added.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="">[21]</a> We have 8 manuscripts for Thucydides’ <i>History</i> and 8, also, for Herodotus’ <i>History</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="">[22]</a> Don’t misunderstand. The point of citing of the textual evidence for the New Testament is not to say that, based upon the vastly superior textual-critical foundation of the New Testament vis-à-vis other ancient texts, the resurrection account is, in virtual of the unparalleled textual evidence alone, shown to be veridical. The point is, rather, that because of the vast textual evidence, we can say with a high degree of certitude that the New Testament that we possess today contains the texts as they were written, by their original authors. Evidencing of the veridicality of the resurrection occurs by other means – which I have touched upon <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/07/contra-christ-conspiracy-et-alia.html">elsewhere</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title="">[23]</a> That makes the textual support for the New Testament 80,000% better than the support for the <i>Gallic Wars</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title="">[24]</a> Blomberg, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 194. Emphasis added.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title="">[25]</a> Interestingly, the <i>The Blue and Brown Books</i> attributed to philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein are in something of a similar situation to this. “<i>The Blue and Brown Books</i> are two sets of notes taken during lectures conducted by Ludwig Wittgenstein between 1933 and 1935. They were mimeographed as two separated books and a few copies were circulated in a restricted circle during Wittgenstein's lifetime. …The lecture notes from 1933–4 were bound in blue cloth and the notes dictated in 1934–5 were bound in brown. Rush Rhees published them together for the first time in 1958 as Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations.’ …” “<i>The Blue and Brown Books</i>,” <i>Wikipedia</i>, Jul. 1, 2016, <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_and_Brown_Books">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_and_Brown_Books</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title="">[26]</a> Think, again, of sentences 5-10. Suppose that this had been among one of the sentences spoken by the professor. Even if one student (or a handful) had erroneously written:</p>
<p>11. The quick brown dog jumped over the lazy fox.</p>
<p>This error would have been detectable in virtue of the likelihood that the majority of note-takers who recorded the sentence, would probably have recorded it correctly.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title="">[27]</a> True, Van Minnen writes: “Until the nineteenth century New Testament scholars and translators availed themselves only sparingly of other manuscripts.” Loc. cit. And Van Minnen notes that this situation did not change much until “the work of the German scholar Constantin Tischendorf,” <i>ibid</i>.</p>
<p>But two things must be kept in mind. Number one, “sparingly” is not the same as “not at all.” As I will show, the King James Version did avail itself of critical editions that preceded it. Number two, Van Minnen’s judgments, here, are comparative. <i>Compared to modern translations</i>, yes, the King James Version used manuscripts “sparingly.” However, <i>compared to other editions contemporary with it</i>, the King James Version was a real monument to scholarship. Credit needs to be given where it is due.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title="">[28]</a> Alexander Roberts, <i>Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament: Explaining the Reasons for the Changes Made on the Authorized Version</i>, New York: Cassell, Petter, Galpin, & Co., 1881, p. 43, <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=maA9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43">https://books.google.com/books?id=maA9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43</a>>. And “the materials for it had not [yet] been [fully] gathered, the principles of the science had not been studied, and the labours of Mill, Bentley,s Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and other great scholars, to secure the purity of the text of the New Testament, were as yet unheard of, and only to be put forth in the course of many future generations,” <i>ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title="">[29]</a> The King James Version did go through several printings. Additionally, there was a substantial revision in 1769. Finally, a critical edition, known as the New King James Version was compiled between 1979 and 1982 and is now widely available.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title="">[30]</a> See Erasmus’s editions (Basle: Froben, 1516; Venice: Aldus, 1518; self-publ., 1519; 1522; 1527; and 1535), the latter of which took account of the so-called Complutensian Edition, <i>ibid</i>., pp. 37-38.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title="">[31]</a> See Stephens editions (1546 and 1549), based partly on “manuscripts in the Royal Library, and …[on] the Complutensian text,” <i>ibid</i>., p. 38.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title="">[32]</a> See Beza’s editions (1565, 1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598), <i>ibid</i>., p. 39.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title="">[33]</a> PA’s second source, Vance, quotes King James to this effect. “I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.” <i>Loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title="">[34]</a> Bear in mind that, during the 17<sup>th</sup> century, a rift was forming between the king and parliament. This would issue in the English Civil War and, eventually, the execution, by order of parliament, of King Charles I.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title="">[35]</a> PA’s argument could be formalized this way. Premise 1: <i>If the New Testament is the Word of God, then the New Testament is textually reliable. </i>But, Premise 2: <i>The New Testament is not textually reliable. </i>Conclusion: <i>Therefore, the New Testament is not the Word of God</i>. The argument is deductively valid. However, Premise 1 is open to criticism. I have not undertaken this project here. Rather, I have argued that Premise 2 is false. The New Testament is textually reliable. If I am correct about this, PA’s argument fails.</p>
<p>As an aside, astute readers will no doubt have noticed that the lines "That's not faith. That's insanity." do not appear on the version of the picture-text that I installed atop this page. This in itself is an interesting exercise in textual criticism. It suggests that this polemic has been edited by one or more parties as it has assumed its role as an internet "meme."</p> Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-70967021792257909612016-10-16T18:02:00.000-07:002016-10-19T16:20:54.307-07:00Towards a Defense of Hell<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://67.media.tumblr.com/7a01e1b2b6bc89868d484f197076459b/tumblr_oapynzsigB1unh9e9o1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="357" src="http://67.media.tumblr.com/7a01e1b2b6bc89868d484f197076459b/tumblr_oapynzsigB1unh9e9o1_500.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Towards a Defense of Hell<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>On the Christian view, God is the source (or <i>maybe</i> the "ground"<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a>) of all being as well as of beauty, goodness, joy, and love.</p>
<p>Among other things, this means that every existing thing owes its continuing existence to God. It’s not simply that God is responsible for getting existence “going” – as it were. It’s that God also <i>sustains</i> all of existence. He keeps it all going.</p>
<p>This means that it is – metaphysically speaking – impossible for any existing thing to be completely separated from God. The argument is straightforward. If God is the source of existence (or being) then no (contingently) existing thing can exist apart from God. God is the source of being (on the Christian view that we are considering). Therefore, no existing thing can exist apart from God.</p>
<p>What about people who don’t want to have anything to do with God?</p>
<p>People who reject God, insofar as they continue to exist, continue to be “related” (in a broad sense) to the source of existence. But since, as we have said, God is the source of existence, it follows that people who reject God continue to be “related” (in the same broad sense) to God. </p>
<p>What can God do with such people, in order to respect their rejection of Him?</p>
<p>God has two options. </p>
<p>Number one, God could simply stop sustaining such people in existence. However, if an existing thing is entirely cut off from the source and sustenance of existence, then that thing is cut off from existence. But if an existing thing is cut off from existence, then that thing ceases to exist. Since God is the source and sustaining "force" of existence, anything that is entirely cut off from God ceases to exist.</p>
<p>So suppose there were no hell. Suppose, instead, that people who reject God simply ceased to exist. On standard theistic assumptions about God’s power, God is surely able to cease and desist from sustaining in existence those who reject Him. However, would the Christopher Hitchenes of the world be satisfied with this alternative to hell? After all, what is a person saying when he or she declares that he or she wants nothing to do with a God who is the source of existence? Maybe such a person really is saying that he or she does not want to exist at all.</p>
<p>I cannot speak for them, of course. But it seems plausible to think that this would not be well-received. After all, on this alternative, Hitchens might have written instead: “God loves you so much that you’ll cease to exist unless you love him back.”</p>
<p>It seems reasonable to suspect, then, that this would not be looked upon favorably by those who, like Hitchens, purport to impugn God’s fairness, justice, or love by suggesting that there’s something untoward about hell.</p>
<p>But what other choice would God have? It is well to remember that God is (or would be) a necessary being, whereas humans (along with electrons, rocks, galaxies and what have you) are all contingent beings. We could have existed or not existed. No power in heaven or on earth can “promote” a contingent being to a necessary one.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a> No, besides withdrawing his sustaining activity, God has but one alternative. </p>
<p>Number two, God could continue sustaining in existence the person who rejects Him. This is the only other option because <i>God sustains a person in existence</i> and <i>God does not sustain a person in existence</i> are propositions that express logically complementary alternatives.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> </p>
<p>But it is plausible to think that God’s sustaining activity can be “dialed up,” as it is in the case of heaven – where God’s presence is overwhelming and, so to speak, “in your face”; or God’s sustaining activity can be “dialed down,” as it is in the case of hell – so that God’s presence is as underwhelming and unassertive as metaphysically possible. To put it another way, it seems reasonable to think that God could sustain a person in existence with as minimal a manifestation of His presence as is possible to achieve the sustaining action.</p>
<p>To be somewhat artful, if someone tells God that he or she wants nothing to do with Him, then God seems able to grant that person a kind of bare-bones existence that is as far removed from God’s overwhelming presence as it is possible to get without that person ceasing to exist.</p>
<p>However, recall that, on the Christian view that we are considering, God is not simply the source of existence. He’s not only some kind of cosmic “power cell” apart from which our batteries die. He’s also the wellspring of beauty, goodness, joy, love, and so on. </p>
<p>This implies, though, that if a person is to be as separated from God as is metaphysically possible, then that person is also to be as separated from the source of beauty, goodness, joy and love as is metaphysically possible.</p>
<p>What do we call a “place” of bare-bones existence that is characterized by being as ugly (beauty-less), evil (goodness-less), joyless and loveless as it is metaphysically possible to get without slipping into outright non-existence? The Church calls such a “place” <i>hell</i>, and the Bible variously describes it as a place of anguish, darkness, pain and suffering. </p>
<p>Hell is of course an unfortunate thing. However, hell exists, as someone else once put it, as a complement to human free choice.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>For more information, see Michael J. Murray’s article “Heaven and Hell.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> </p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> There are doubtless several things that could be meant by the word “defense.” Here, availing myself of basic tenets of Christianity, I propose to sketch an account of what hell <i>is</i> so that the account may serve to show that the doctrine of hell is not indefensible. By the “doctrine of hell,” I mean the view that there exists a “place” of misery, something of an “opposite” to heaven, where go the souls of those who reject God.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Of course, I do <i>not</i> mean to take on board all of the connotations and consequences that Paul Tillich baked into the phrase "ground of being." Here, I mean merely that God is the creator and sustainer of all contingent beings and, therefore, their the "source" of their being / existence.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Think about it. A necessary being is a being for which its non-existence is impossible. A necessary being is a being that never <i>began to exist</i>. Contingent beings, on the other hand, did begin to exist. Some began to exist longer ago than others, and some persist for longer than others. But in any case, a contingent being is a being that, at some time, began to exist. If a contingent being could “become” a necessary being, then it would have to be the case that a being that began to exist in fact is somehow changed so that it never began to exist. But such a change is not only physically impossible (since it implies backward causation), but it is also metaphysically impossible (on standard assumptions about the nature of broadly logical necessity).</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> To put it another way, the following disjunction exhausts the available alternatives: either an entity is sustained in existence or it isn’t.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Evangelical writer Lee Strobel attributes the following quotation to the Catholic thinker G. K. Chesterton: “Hell is God’s great compliment [sic] to the reality of human freedom and the dignity of human choice,” <i>The Case for Christ</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000, p. 235; citing Cliffe Knechtle, <i>Give Me an Answer</i>, Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity press, 1986, p. 42. However, in the online edition that I was able to inspect, Knechtle does not provide a source for this quotation. See <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=gCq6eFcN7FQC&pg=PA42">https://books.google.com/books?id=gCq6eFcN7FQC&pg=PA42</a>>. It seems to me that hell is not a “compliment” to human freedom – where “compliment” means “a polite expression of praise or admiration.” Rather, hell is better understood as a <i>complement</i> to human freedom – in the sense that is “completes” human freedom. God does not eradicate those who reject Him. He sustains them in existence and thereby “honors” their request to be apart from Him. It’s simply that being apart from God is not at all nice, objectively, since God is the source of all good things.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> In Michael J. Murray, ed., <i>Reason for the Hope Within</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich. and Cambridge (U.K.): William B. Eerdmans Publ., 1999, pp. 287-317, <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=2T-Msjk0OSEC&pg=PA287">https://books.google.com/books?id=2T-Msjk0OSEC&pg=PA287</a>>.</p>
<p>Image credit: "Atheist Uprising."</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-17111639170573201062016-02-12T19:19:00.000-08:002016-02-12T19:19:33.589-08:00Goddess Cults<p>“Goddesses may have become important symbols to many feminists. …But, warns Cynthia Ozick, ‘Let’s not romanticize them. Their purpose was often human sacrifice. Babies were killed to appease them. Mothers were brainwashed to want their children chosen for death.’” <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Quoted by Letty Cottin Pogrebin, “Anti-Semitism in the Women’s Movement,” 1982; Dawn Keetley and John Pettegrew, eds., <i>Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism</i>, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 328.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-43581845026041532262016-01-10T19:04:00.000-08:002016-01-10T19:10:25.675-08:00Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and ‘Bad Faith’? A Response to Terri Murray<p>Abstract:<i> Matthew Bell defends Jean-Paul Sartre against Terri Murray. Murray’s rebuttal of Sartre is undermined by a failure to distinguish two senses of “cowardice” and “homosexuality.” This leads Murray to misinterpret Sartre. When the terms are carefully disambiguated, Sartre’s point is upheld and shown to apply equally to heterosexuality and homosexuality. </i></p>
<p><b>Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and ‘Bad Faith’? A Response to Terri Murray</b></p>
<p>A Response to <a href="http://www.hampsteadfinearts.com/college_staff.php">Terri Murray</a>’s “<a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/39/Is_Homosexuality_Bad_Faith">Is Homosexuality ‘Bad Faith’</a>?”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>Terri Murray gets many things right. Murray correctly notes that “bad faith,” for Jean-Paul Sartre, is the avoidance of responsibility for our actions and choices. </p>
<p>Additionally, as far-reaching as is our freedom to act, it does not range over absolutely everything about us. For example, I cannot choose to be constituted so as to be able to fly. There are some things about my makeup that I simply cannot alter. Murray reports: “These conditions which are not part of our freedom [Sartre] called facticity.” </p>
<p>For some people, their facticity might include elements of a cowardly disposition. Sartre asks us to consider whether a cowardly action, such as running away, can be suitably explained by the declaration, “Well, what did you expect? I’m a coward!” The question is whether the cowardly action can be accounted for by appealing to a cowardly “nature.” </p>
<p>Sartre thinks not. In fact, Sartre denies that human beings have any predetermining “natures.” Therefore, treating cowardly actions as unavoidably issuing from cowardly natures is “bad faith.” To use the contemporary slang for it, it is a cop out. </p>
<p>So far so good. However, Sartre proceeded to compare cowardice to homosexuality, and argued that the homosexual who explained away his homosexual actions as the unavoidable issue of a homosexual nature was displaying just as much bad faith as the coward who ran away. </p>
<p>Murray thinks that Sartre is mistaken in this comparison. For Murray, “[h]omosexuality is a part of some people’s facticity.”</p>
<p>Resisting Sartre’s comparison, Murray suggests a way to argue against Sartre. “Imagine for a moment,” Murray writes, “that instead of drawing the analogy between cowardice and homosexuality, Sartre had instead used cowardice and heterosexuality.” Murray adds that “most heterosexuals do not think of themselves as having any choice about their attraction to the opposite sex”. Murray expands upon this latter point, stating: “I submit that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a heterosexual who includes amongst his choices the mere fact of being attracted to the opposite sex.”</p>
<p>Murray wishes us to keep in mind the difficulty – if not the <i>impossibility</i> – of choosing (or, presumably, <i>not</i> choosing) to be “attracted to the opposite sex.” Then we are asked to contrast this difficulty with the “coward’s” difficulty in avoiding cowardly actions. Murray thinks that this juxtaposition is damning because, while we cannot choose our sexual attractions, “[c]owardice …is a choice.”</p>
<p>I’m afraid that it is here that Murray goes off the rails. In fact, the contrast is doubly flawed. Let us agree that homosexual attraction may be part of a given person’s facticity. It does not follow, however, that homosexual <i>actions</i> are likewise to be subsumed under the heading of “facticity.” In fact, to do so is precisely what Sartre labels “bad faith.”</p>
<p>Firstly, the word “homosexual” is ambiguous, that is, it is susceptible to more than one interpretation.</p>
<p>On the one hand, the designation might be applied to persons who have an attraction (whether professed or unprofessed) to persons of the same sex – whether or not this attraction is ever acted upon.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the designation might be applied to persons who actually choose to engage in sexual activities with members of the same sex, whether or not the actions were the expressions of any sort of same-sex attractions (whether latent or patent). </p>
<p>Actually, this cleavage between <i>attraction</i> and <i>action</i> yields four possible combinations. For completeness, I will enumerate them.</p>
<p>Number one, a person could feel a homosexual attraction and also act upon that attraction. Number two, a person could feel a homosexual attraction but not act upon it. Number three, a person could engage in a homosexual act without necessarily feeling any (overt or covert) homosexual attraction. (Think for example of certain, although by no means all, instances of “prison sex,” where the participants are plausibly opportunists without any felt “attraction” to one another – or to anyone of the same sex.) Number four, a person could both fail to experience a homosexual attraction and also refrain from engaging in a homosexual act. </p>
<p>It is important to realize that these four categories do not necessarily distinguish “personality types.” They merely describe the possible ways that instances of attraction can be matched with particular, associated actions.</p>
<p>However, this is just to say that the word “homosexual” is ambiguous. To put it another way, “homosexual” has at least two senses. Let us call one the <i>homosexual-attraction sense</i>, and let us term the other the <i>homosexual-action sense</i>. </p>
<p>Two things should strike the reader. In the first place, not only does homosexuality divide into these two senses, but heterosexuality does as well. To be exact, on this view we have no trouble distinguishing heterosexual attraction from heterosexual action. </p>
<p>One gets for “heterosexuality,” then, a perfect analog of the fourfold taxonomy earlier displayed by “homosexuality.” A person could feel a heterosexual attraction and act upon it. A person could feel a heterosexual attraction, but not act upon it. A person could engage in a heterosexual act without necessarily feeling any (overt or covert) heterosexual attraction. And a person could both fail to experience a heterosexual attraction and also refrain from engaging in a heterosexual act. </p>
<p>In the second place, cowardice seems to divide similarly. Here we also find the second flaw in Murray’s contrast. </p>
<p>Secondly, “being a coward” is arguably <i>also</i> ambiguous. A person can have a “cowardly thought.” For example, in a suitably scary context, I might imagine running away from danger, or I might wish to be someplace else. These “cowardly thoughts” seem sufficiently analogous to having sexual thoughts that I am able to compare feeling “cowardly” with feeling sexual attraction – whether heterosexual or homosexual.</p>
<p>However, these “cowardly thoughts” are surely distinct from cowardly <i>actions</i>. For example, it is one thing to <i>imagine</i> running away from danger, it is another thing to <i>actually</i>, <i>physically</i> run away.</p>
<p>For all we know, “Old Blood and Guts,” United States Army General George S. Patton, might have continually imagined hightailing it out of whatever sticky situation the Third Army and he found themselves. What we know for sure – at least as well as we can know anything about history – is that he did not, in fact, run away. This is to say that he did not display cowardly <i>actions</i>, even if he harbored cowardly <i>feelings</i>. (I am not suggesting that he <i>was</i> plagued by such feelings.) </p>
<p>We see, then, that “cowardice” likewise divides into “cowardly thoughts” and “cowardly actions.”</p>
<p>Given all of this, we can suggest that Murray’s criticism is malformed. Murray follows Sartre in defining “bad faith” in terms of <i>actions and choices</i>, but then unceremoniously slides into talking instead about “attractions” and “orientations.” “Homosexuality” is thus represented only in what I have termed the “homosexual-attraction” sense. Subsequently, Murray contrasts the homosexual-<i>attraction</i> sense against an <i>action</i> sense for being “cowardly.” This runs contrary to the proverbial wisdom that warns against comparing apples with oranges. </p>
<p>Of course, Murray seems correct that, when we consider cowardly <i>actions</i>, we are dealing with <i>choices</i>. However, we need to compare actions to actions and choices to choices. We cannot responsibly compare homosexual <i>attractions</i> to cowardly <i>actions</i>. </p>
<p>The more apt comparison, which also makes for a more charitable reading of Sartre, would be something like the following. Homosexual attractions and cowardly thoughts are similar in that people sometimes misconstrue them as inevitably issuing in homosexual actions or cowardly actions, respectively. To put it another way, there is a misguided temptation to argue that because one has cowardly thoughts, therefore, one must inevitably choose to perform cowardly actions. </p>
<p>This is precisely what Sartre warns against. As Murray recognizes, it is an “attempt to shirk [the] burden of freedom – to misrepresent ‘what we are’ as inevitable, to attribute what we have become to the agency of a secret self, an unconscious self that controls the conscious one.”</p>
<p>We are inveterate free agents. Harboring cowardly thoughts neither excuses nor necessitates the performance of cowardly actions. While a cowardly disposition might be part of my facticity, I remain a free agent. I retain the freedom to choose whether to act according to my cowardly thoughts, or against them.</p>
<p>Construed this way, Sartre’s comparison is not only reasonable, it is also arguably correct. It is entirely understandable that Sartre should warn us against thinking that homosexual attraction must <i>inevitably</i> issue in homosexual action. </p>
<p>This is no one-sided attack upon homosexuality. The consideration generalizes beautifully. There should be no difficulty for an honest heterosexual to endorse a corollary formulation; heterosexual attraction does not inevitably issue in heterosexual action. Regardless of whether my facticity includes a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation, my sexual actions are not determined. I freely choose my actions despite my orientation, whatever it is. </p>
<p>Having a particular sexual “orientation” does not guarantee the performance of any particular sort of sexual action (or even any sexual actions at all) any more than having a “cowardly” disposition compels a person to run away. </p>
<p>This point is made equally well using heterosexuality as the example. <i>Both</i> homosexual attraction <i>and</i> heterosexual attraction are similar to cowardly thoughts in that people sometimes misconstrue these as inevitably issuing in various sexual or cowardly actions. There is no orientation-bias in the application of Sartre’s principle of “no excuses,” properly understood.</p>
<p>Perhaps the Sartrean “moral” is this: There is no inevitability connecting, on the one hand, feelings or thoughts and, on the other hand, actions. Between the two is also and always a free agent.</p>
<p>Murray’s criticism thus appears to melt away, and Sartre is arguably vindicated. It <i>would be</i> bad faith for anyone – heterosexual <i>or</i> homosexual – to abdicate their concrete sexual choices to an abstract sexual “orientation.” We might rightly suspect that such an “orientation” is merely a euphemism for the sort of “nature” that Sartre eschewed.</p>
<p>In the end, things are as Murray relates: “For Sartre, there are no excuses.” While we may not hold sway over our attractions or “orientations,” we always have a choice about whether to act upon, or in accordance with, them or not.</p>
<p>© Matthew Bell 2015</p>
<p>Matthew Bell has a B.A. in theology from William Tyndale College and an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Missouri, St. Louis.</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Terri Murray, “Is Homosexuality ‘Bad Faith’?”, <i>Philosophy Now</i>, vol. 39, Dec.-Jan. 2002-2003, pp. 26-27 and online at <<a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/39/Is_Homosexuality_Bad_Faith">https://philosophynow.org/issues/39/Is_Homosexuality_Bad_Faith</a>>.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-66955093233242145752015-12-29T18:22:00.000-08:002015-12-29T19:56:55.443-08:00Can Mary's Sinlessness Be Defended?<p>Here is an argument, mostly directed toward Protestant Christians, in favor of the Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>1. Grace is that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (Scriptural supports include Eph. 2:8, "For by Grace you have been saved..." and Rom. 6:14, "sin will have no dominion over you, since you are ...under Grace.")</p>
<p>2. Mary was "full of Grace" [kecharitomene]. (According to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Lk. 1:28.)</p>
<p>3. Therefore, Mary was full of that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (From 1 and 2.)</p>
<p>4. To be "full" of something is to be unable to accommodate any more of whatever that something is. (This just seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word "full.")</p>
<p>5. Therefore, Mary's being "full of Grace" is for her to have been unable to accommodate any more Grace. (From 2 and 4.)</p>
<p>6. If she had lacked Grace at any time, then she would have been able to accommodate more Grace. (Admittedly, this is the least obvious premise. However, I think that it is plausible. Although, with something like water, a bucket's being full-today does not prevent it's having been empty yesterday, in the case of God's Grace, things are arguably different. God is able to view and consider our lives in toto - from their beginnings. It is reasonable to think that if Mary had lacked Grace at any time, then she wouldn't really have been "full" with it.)</p>
<p>7. Therefore, Mary did not lack grace at any time. (From 5 and 6 by modus tollens.)</p>
<p>8. Therefore, Mary did not lack the the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice at any time. (By 1 and 7.)</p>
<p>9. If Mary did not, at any time, lack the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice, then Mary was never separated from God by sin.</p>
<p>10. Therefore, Mary was never separated from God by sin. (From 8 and 9, by modus ponens.)</p>
<p>11. Any person never separated from God by sin is sinless. (From the definition of the "sin.")</p>
<p>12. Therefore, Mary is sinless. </p>
<p>Here is an objection.</p>
<p>If it was requisite that Jesus's parents, God the Father and Mary, be without sin, then it should be requisite that Mary's parents, Joachim and Ann, be without sin.</p>
<p>One way of cashing this out would be as follows. Call this Argument A.</p>
<p>13. If a person, S, is born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.</p>
<p>14. Mary was born without sin.</p>
<p>15. Therefore, Mary's parents were sinless.</p>
<p>There is a confusion, here, rooted in an ambiguity contained in the idea of sinlessness.</p>
<p>On the one hand, someone might think that the Catholic claim is that Mary's freedom from Original Sin was not owed to anything but to her own Good nature. Let us call this the idea that Mary was "necessarily free" from Original Sin. </p>
<p>As far as I can tell, this is not, nor has it ever been, the Catholic claim.</p>
<p>For on the other hand, Catholics answer that Mary's freedom from Original Sin was owed to God's Grace. On this view, the Catholic view, Mary was "contingently free" from Original Sin.</p>
<p>This is no mere verbal jousting. If the claim were indeed that Mary owed God nothing in virtue of her freedom from Original Sin, then the notion that Mary "had no need for a savior" would be obviously true.</p>
<p>On the actual claim, Mary owed her preservation from Original Sin to God. Thus, Mary certainly did need - and had - a savior. </p>
<p>At least one reason to think that Argument A is a failure can be gleaned from this distinction. A person, S, is "necessarily-sinless" if S's sinlessness is essential and could not be otherwise. Moreover, if S *is* necessarily-sinless, then S does not need a savior. If, on the other hand, S is "contingently-sinless," then S's sinlessness could have been otherwise.</p>
<p>Taking these distinctions into account, we could formulate Argument B:</p>
<p>16. If a person, S, is necessarily born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.</p>
<p>17. Jesus was necessarily born without sin.</p>
<p>18. Therefore, Jesus's parents (Mary and God the Father) were sinless.</p>
<p>But Argument B is not extended to Mary. Consider Argument C:</p>
<p>16. If a person, S, is necessarily born without sin, then S's parents are sinless.</p>
<p>19. Mary was necessarily born without sin.</p>
<p>20. Therefore, Mary's parents (Joachim and Ann) were sinless.</p>
<p>Argument C is unsound - by Catholic lights - since premise 7. is false. </p>
<p>It is not the case that "Mary was necessarily born without sin." Mary was contingently born without sin. Her sinlessness was entirely at the Grace and pleasure of God. Jesus's sinlessness was essential. As the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, his paternity conferred sinlessness to Him. But since, again by Catholic lights, Mary was contingently-sinless, Jesus's maternity also conferred sinlessness to Him.</p>
<p>Hence, Jesus was necessarily-sinless because both of his parents were sinless. His thus being essentially sinless secured His status as savior who did not need saving Himself.</p>
<p>Still, Mary's sinlessness arguably, partially secured Jesus's sinlessness. Although, as has been stated, Mary's sinlessness was neither due to her own nature nor to anything that she had accomplished. Mary was, in other words, saved as the rest of us are: "...by grace ...through faith - and this is not from [herself], it [was] the gift of God - not by works, so that [she cannot] boast". (Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV.)</p>
<p>And, indeed, "boastfulness" is nearly as far from the character of the Virgin Mary as could be conceived. This is why Mary exclaimed: "[M]y spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47, NIV), and why, henceforth, "all generations will call [Mary] blessed" (Luke 1:48, NIV.)</p>
<p>There is no impropriety in reporting that Mary was saved by God's Grace. It is simply that in her case, the saving Grace was given to her at conception, preserving her from the stain of Original Sin, whereas in our cases, the grace comes after our births.</p>
<p>But there is another objection.</p>
<p>Some Protestants immediately object on the ground that verses such as Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 (and so on) imply that Mary sinned.</p>
<p>The problem, here, is straightforward.</p>
<p>21. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)</p>
<p>22. Mary was human. (Self-evident.)</p>
<p>23. Therefore, Mary sinned. (From 21 and 22.)</p>
<p>To see at least one problem with this, consider a parallel argument.</p>
<p>21. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)</p>
<p>24. Jesus was fully human. (From Christian theology.)</p>
<p>25. Therefore, Jesus sinned. (From 9 and 10.)</p>
<p>Obviously, 25. is unacceptable to any Protestant. What can be said about this? What could a Protestant say?</p>
<p>One first-pass reply surely would be for the Protestant to point out that we have good reason, from other Bible passages in the Bible (such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, etc.) to think that the word "all" in passages like Romans 3:23 (<i>et alia</i>) really does not mean "each and every human without exception."</p>
<p>A principle might be asserted such that: "All" means "each and every, unless we have good Scriptural grounds thinking it does not." In the case of Jesus, the Protestant would surely hold, we have good Scriptural grounds for thinking that it does not.</p>
<p>Actually, this need not be construed as making an "exception." One way to view it is in terms of what philosophers call a "restricted domain." A common example goes like this. If I tell John: "Put all the beer into the refrigerator," I probably should not best be understood as telling John to get <i>all of the beer that there is</i>. Probably, I mean something more like <i>all of the beer that I have in the shopping bags</i>, or <i>all of the beer that there is on my table</i>. The point is, most likely, I am using the quantifier "all" in a restricted sense.</p>
<p>Surely it is plausible to think that Saint Paul is using the word "all" similarly in Romans. On this reading, Paul means (something like) "For all of my readers have sinned."</p>
<p>Of course, we could also hold that Paul did indeed imply an exception. Whereas Protestants may believe that Paul meant "For all have sinned except Jesus," Catholics may hold that Paul meant "For all have sinned except the New Adam [Jesus] and the New Eve [Mary]."</p>
<p>Protestants justify their reading by appealing to Scriptural counter-evidence. Catholics simply believe that, in addition to having good ground to make an exception for Jesus, we also have good reason make an exception for Mary.</p>
<p>This does not place Mary on the "same level" as Jesus. As I argued previously, Jesus's sinlessness was <i>essential</i> to him, whereas Mary's was (on the Catholic view) contingent. Jesus was the savior. Mary was saved by Grace (it's just that she was so saved from the moment of her birth).</p>
<p>Finally, Protestants might say: "Yes, but in Jesus's case, the New Testament is more explicit about this exception; Mary's 'exceptional' status must be inferred."</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, to address this worry, Catholics merely need to do two things. Number one, they need to provide a good reason why the the New Testament is not more explicit about Mary's sinlessness. This does not seem too difficult to do. There appears to be a fairly straightforward reason close at hand. The New Testament is primarily about Jesus (in the Gospels) and about Jesus's Church (from Acts onward). Therefore, we receive the most information in the New Testament regarding Jesus and the Church.</p>
<p>However, as a Catholic, I do not believe that the New Testament is entirely silent about Mary's sinlessness. I believe that the New Testament's clear references to Mary as the "highly favored daughter" who is "full of Grace" and who will, by all future Christians, be called "blessed" are best-explained by the doctrine that Mary was sinless.</p>
<p>This leads to number two, Catholics must provide a good reason to think that Mary was sinless. But this good reason has already been set forth. It can be coherently argued from the Biblical datum of Luke 1:28 that Mary's having been "full of Grace" implies her sinlessness.</p>
<p>In order to rebut this, Protestants must find some fault with the argument that was given in its favor. Short of this, Catholics seem to me to be quite within their rational rights to hold that Mary was indeed sinless, as the Church has believed since ancient times.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> This argument is not due to me, but has been adapted and expanded by me from David Armstrong, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Verses-Passages-Protestants/dp/1928832733">The Catholic Verses</a></i>, Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Inst. Press, 2004, pp. 181<i>ff</i>.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-86761547712942540432015-12-29T13:21:00.001-08:002015-12-29T17:16:48.324-08:00Surrejoinder to Clayvessel<p>Continuation of a discussion from Michael Hoffman's weblog,
<a href="http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html">http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html</a></p>
<p>PART ONE OF THREE</p>
<p>Dear Clayvessel, I am, by temperament and by training, used to long and sometimes (even often!) tedious arguments. It’s easy for me to forget that not everyone shares these traits.</p>
<p>My text-length is not an attempt to "win" by attrition. My efforts were primarily and sincerely centered on defending my Catholic belief against your claim that "If [Mary] had no sin, she had no need for a savior."</p>
<p>This concern of yours is simply not a tenet of Catholic Mariology. Nor, I respectfully suggest, is it communicated by any of the 30,102 verses in the Protestant Bible. It is simply based upon the deliverances of the "human reasoning" of various non-Catholics (and, in some circles, it has become something of a non-Catholic tradition).</p>
<p>I am sensitive to the worry that the relevant Catholic doctrine renders Mary such that she wouldn't need a savior. What I have personally come to believe is that Mary's need for a savior is grounded in the contingency of her sinlessness, granted to her at the Grace and pleasure of God - and not the outgrowth of any essentially good nature, as Jesus's sinlessess is.</p>
<p>This resolution is attractive to me because the distinction between contingency and necessity is not ad hoc and because I can find no biblical datum that causes me disquiet. I submit that your interesting (albeit enthymematic) argument that if "it was ...required that [Jesus's] mother be without sin[,] then the same requirement becomes necessary for her mother, and her mother, etc" is effectively blocked with this distinction. </p>
<p>Now you speak of burden of proof. It is not entirely clear to me where the "burden of proof" lies, in this case. But since burden of proof might be thought to attach to positive assertions or predications (i.e., to assertions that say things like "S is f") as opposed to negative assertions (such as "S is not-f"), "Mary is sinless" would indeed need evidence in its support. </p>
<p>One trouble with Catholic-Protestant dialogue is brought into sharp focus, here. What standard of evidence shall we use? Non-Catholics (chiefly, Protestants) either expressly affirm or implicitly adopt an evidential stricture known as "sola scriptura." This "formal principle of the Protestant Reformation" essentially limits allowable evidence to, as you put it, "Scriptural supports." Your request that I "support [my] stance ...with any verses you can find" seems to be an endorsement of sola scriptura.</p>
<p>Catholics do not endorse sola scriptura (at least, not on what is sometimes called its formal reading). Given the idea that positive assertions stand in need of justification, those who explicitly affirm or operationally assume sola scriptura - which asserts that "only Bible verses are allowable evidence" - also bear a burden of proof. What is the argument for sola scriptura?</p>
<p>(End 1/3)</p>
<p>PART TWO OF THREE</p>
<p>It is clear that Catholics have a more expansive set of evidence than do Protestants. Catholics nowhere deny that the Bible is God's Word. But I, for one, do deny that "the Bible is God's Word" is an identity statement. I think that it is a predication. The notion that the definite description "the Bible" and "the Word of God" are coextensive is not anywhere clearly expressed in the aforementioned 30,102 verses. </p>
<p>Is it the case, then, that Catholics and non-Catholics can never have any evidence in common? It depends, in part, on what "Scriptural support" comes to. Let me take a moment to try to get clearer on what that phrase plausibly involves - and does not involve. </p>
<p>On a narrow construal, one might require a "prooftext." As Hoffman has just noted, though, most - but not all - Protestants affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no "prooftext" for this in the narrow sense of some passage that says "God is Triune." But there are certainly "Scriptural supports" in the broader sense of passages that: (a.) do not contradict the notion, and (b.) serve as premises from which the Trinity can be inferred. From this consideration (and others like it), I am impressed that "prooftexting" cannot be relied upon to provide "Scriptural supports" for all the doctrines that Christians affirm to be true.</p>
<p>Hence, I understand "Sciptural support" in a broader sense. For the sake of defending the Catholic belief, I will suggest a "Scriptural support," in a broad sense, for the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. By "broad sense," I mean that I will state what I take to be biblical truths as premises of an argument, the conclusion of which will be (at least close to) the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. (This argument is not due to me, but has been adapted and expanded by me from David Armstrong, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Verses-Passages-Protestants/dp/1928832733">The Catholic Verses</a>, Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Inst. Press, 2004, pp. 181ff.)</p>
<p>Sketched *very roughly*, a broad defense might look like this.</p>
<p>1. Grace is that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (Scriptural supports include Eph. 2:8, "For by Grace you have been saved..." and Rom. 6:14, "sin will have no dominion over you, since you are ...under Grace.")</p>
<p>2. Mary was "full of Grace" [<i>kecharitomene</i>]. (According to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Lk. 1:28.)</p>
<p>3. Therefore, Mary was full of that by which God applies the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice. (From 1 and 2.) </p>
<p>4. To be "full" of something is to be unable to accommodate any more of whatever that something is. (This just seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word "full.")</p>
<p>5. Therefore, Mary's being "full of Grace" is for her to have been unable to accommodate any more Grace. (From 2 and 4.)</p>
<p>6. If she had lacked Grace at any time, then she would have been able to accommodate more Grace. (Admittedly, this is the least obvious premise. However, I think that it is plausible. Although, with something like water, a bucket's being full-today does not prevent it's having been empty yesterday, in the case of God's Grace, things are arguably different. God is able to view and consider our lives <i>in toto</i> - from their beginnings. It is reasonable to think that if Mary had lacked Grace at any time, then she wouldn't really have been "full" with it.)</p>
<p>(End 2/3)</p>
<p>PART THREE OF THREE</p>
<p>7. Therefore, Mary did not lack grace at any time. (From 5 and 6 by modus tollens.)</p>
<p>8. Therefore, Mary did not lack the the Saving power of Jesus's sacrifice at any time. (By 1 and 7.)</p>
<p>However, in its basic form, the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness just is the declaration that Mary was saved - by Grace - from the moment of her bith.</p>
<p>I have to add that "Mary sinned" is also a positive assertion and, by this standard, would also place a burden of proof on its asserter. What is your evidence that Mary sinned? Here you have given verses such as those well-known passages in Romans indicating that "all have sinned." (E.g., 3:23 and 5:12.)</p>
<p>The problem, here, is straightforward.</p>
<p>9. All [humans] have sinned. (Romans 3:23.)</p>
<p>10. Jesus was fully human. (From Christian theology.)</p>
<p>11. Therefore, Jesus sinned. (From 9 and 10.)</p>
<p>Obviously, 11. is unacceptable. As you point out, we have good reason - from other Bible passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15 and so on - to think that the word "all" in passages like Romans 3:23 (<i>et alia</i>) really does not mean "each and every human without exception."</p>
<p>Catholics simply believe that we have good reason to think that Mary is an exception also. Mary is not on the "same level" as Jesus. As I argued previously, Jesus's sinlessness was essential to him, whereas Mary's was (on the Catholic view) contingent. Jesus was the savior. Mary was saved by Grace (it's just that she was so caved from the moment of her birth).</p>
<p>Why is the New Testament not more explicit about this? I should say that there is a fairly straightforward reason. The New Testament is primarily about Jesus (in the Gospels) and about Jesus's church (from Acts onward). Therefore, we receive the most information in the New Testament regarding Jesus and the Church. However, I am a Catholic because I do not believe that the New Testament is entirely silent about Mary's sinlessness. I believe that the New Testament's clear references to Mary as the "highly favored daughter" who is "full of Grace" and who will, by all future Christians, be called "blessed" are best-explained by the doctrine that Mary was sinless.</p>
<p>Still, for me anyway, no Catholic "convinced" me of this so long as I still believed in sola scriptura. So I understand your hesitation and can only recommend to you that you pray and think about the doctrine of sola scriptura.</p>
<p>All the best to you, Clayvessel.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Matthew J. Bell</p>
<p>(End 3/3)</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-38613042016113888542015-12-29T13:20:00.002-08:002015-12-29T15:23:14.809-08:00Rejoinder to Clayvessel<p>Discussion from Michael Hoffman's weblog,
<a href="http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html">http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/12/merry-christmas-mary.html</a></p>
<p>>>[M]y intention ...was to have a conversation with [Hoffman] about his own words.<<</p>
<p>Hoffman's personal email address is posted on the right-hand side of the page. I would respectfully suggest that you use that convserational method if you wish to discourage the entry of other discussants. If you post publicly, then you invite public replies.</p>
<p>>>...I am not interested in an exchange that leads to "I said the most words therefore I win."<<</p>
<p>Nor am I interested in such an exchange. Albert Einstein reportedly once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." What I write about at length (and I deny that these comment-sections of 1,400 characters are "lengthy") I do so because either: I believe no fewer words can clearly communicate the point that I am making; or, what is perhaps more likely, (to paraphrase Blaise Pascal) "I haven't the time to make my replies shorter" by editing them down.</p>
<p>>>If [any other revelation] in any way contradicts God's Word it is not embraced as doctrine.<<</p>
<p>I appreciate and agree with this. But what you apparently do not consider it that most Catholics, myself included, deny that Catholicism embraces doctrines that "contradict God's [Written] Word".</p>
<p>Before I address your parting shots, however, I have to say a few words about your recurring use of phrases such as "human logic" and "human reasoning."</p>
<p>You provide no definition for these terms, possibly in the (mistaken) belief that no definition is required. I will therefore suggest one for you. In the broadest sense, "human reasoning" (and the like) would merely be "reasoning carried out by human beings."</p>
<p>Unless, Clayvessel, your responses were dictations from On High, your replies - no less than any Catholic's - were the products of "human reasoning" - namely, your own. The majority of your words are not Scripture quotations, and of the words that *are* Bible quotations, they are not given as they are in the Bible. </p>
<p>You have therefore used human reasoning to join together various Scripture passages in order to make your points - just as have the other responders used human reasoning to join together Bible verses to make their points. </p>
<p>To deny this is simply disingenuous. Those who cast aspersions on "human reasoning" only seem to protest when the reasoning issues from a camp other than their own. Their own reasoning is either, and fallaciously (since it would be special pleading), immune from this "criticism," or else, and implausibly, it poses as non-human (or perhaps, outrageously, as divine) reasoning.</p>
<p>>>The Scriptures do not support the doctrines of Mary's sinlessness or assumption...<<</p>
<p>Catholics deny this. I cited several supports from Luke (1:28 and 1:48). I furthermore deny that you have even remotely demonstrated what you pretend, namely, that the Bible "contradicts" the idea that Mary was sinless.</p>
<p>You cited Luke 1:47, to which citation both Hoffman and I explicitly replied by noting that the Catholic affirmation of Mary's sinlessness in no way militate against Mary having had a savior. (For the details, see above.)</p>
<p>To this you added a hand-waving remark about "all hav[ing] sinned," alluding to "Rom. 5:12, Rom. 3:23,Rom. 3:10, etc."</p>
<p>This is a case-study in the disingenuous assertion that only one side in this debate is using "human reasoning," while the other side is merely quoting Scripture.</p>
<p>No Christian should hold that "contradicting God's [Written] Word" should always and everywhere be decided by a woodenly-literal reading of Biblical passages. One flippant example may be found in Mark 4:31, where Jesus Himself is recorded as having asserted that "a mustard seed ...is the smallest of all seeds on earth." Should readers merely attend to the face-value of this verse and conclude that either Jesus or the Bible is in flagrant error? Is there no explanation that can keep both a high-view of the Bible and a high-regard for Christ intact? This is the comeuppance for those who bandy about words like "contradiction." </p>
<p>Or, more seriously, according to James "God cannot be tempted by evil..." (James 1:13b). But the author of Hebrews attested that Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are - yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15).</p>
<p>When resolving prima facie difficulties such as these, Christians of all stripes employ what Clayvessel disparagingly calls "human reasoning" - as, I presume, she would also. This is what the respectable and time-honored discipline of apologetics is all about. </p>
<p>Those who denigrate "human reason" might as well deny that theology has any place in Christianity. And forget about homiletics. Without "human reasoning" sermons and homilies would merely consist of direct biblical quotation. It would be dubious for any preacher to so much as string together verses from different parts of the Bible - for in doing so (unless string in question received direct divine sanction) they depart from one-dimensional quotation and beginning mixing in their own dreaded "human reason."</p>
<p>Happily for Christianity, this is a cartoonish and ahistorical view. Besides being false, it is simply unpractical. To my knowledge, no sub-sect of Christianity functions this way. </p>
<p>>>...or the idea that the New Adam had to be born on undefiled ground.<<</p>
<p>That Adam *was* born on undefiled ground may be inferred from the numerous analogies between the First Adam and First Eve and the Second Adam (Jesus) and the Second Eve (Mary), as has now been mentioned several times. If Jesus's birth on undefiled ground was indeed a "requirement," then it was a requirement instituted by God and, in any case and as far as I can tell, is nowhere contradicted in the Bible.</p>
<p>>>I can call Mary "blessed" (as I did in my comment above) without directing my prayers to her. (Catholics deny that they worship Mary. So? I see them bow on bended knee and pray to her "Hail!"<<</p>
<p>Firstly, Catholics believe that the Church Triumphant (i.e., those men and women of God who are now enjoying heaven) is connected to the Church Militant (i.e., those men and women of God who are now alive on the earth). Catholics further believe that death is the separation of the body and soul, but that the dead person has not been destroyed. Christians of all sorts request prayers on their behalf from other believers. It is simply the Catholic conviction that those who have gone before us to their eternal reward are still, by God's authorization and Grace, able and willing to pray for us.</p>
<p>Secondly, your semi-mocking invocation of Catholics who say "Hail" to Mary is stupefying given your professed concern for the Written Word of God. Whence do Catholics derive this greeting? It comes right out of Luke 1:28! 'Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (According to the venerable non-Catholic King James Version of the Bible.)</p>
<p>>>...[Y]our doctrines of tradition ...[have] no Scriptural supports.<<</p>
<p>The Scriptural supports extend at least from Genesis 3:15, to Luke 1 and finally through to Revelation 12 and beyond. </p>
<p>>>You will not convince non-Roman Catholic Christians...<<</p>
<p>Being "convinced" is a complicated process. It is quite sensitive to many things, including how well the person being "convinced" pays attention, how capable is the person doing the "convincing," the general level of rapport, and on and on. Ultimately, though, being "convinced" of Christian truth is between the Holy Spirit and the individual. (See John 16:13, NIV.) Perhaps the best that I can do is to invite people into the historic Catholic Church.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the Catholic position is: (i.) a justifiable inference from the biblical data such as Luke 1:28 and 1:48 (etc.); (ii.) not "contradicted" by the most reasonable interpretations of verses like Romans 3:23 (etc.); demonstrably a part of the earliest Church's confessions (as can be gleaned from the writings of Apostolic Fathers like St. Justin Martyr); and better-situated to defend a high-Christology than the view that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sullied with sin. I recommend this position to you.</p>
<p>Pax vobis.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-31514517432491188382015-12-25T19:59:00.000-08:002015-12-27T12:25:45.896-08:00Re: 'Skuzzy Ruins Christmas'<p>Response to Gabriel.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>>>Even if you are a Christian, or at least <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/07/contra-christ-conspiracy-et-alia.html">accept Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus) as a historical figure</a>, the virgin birth is not a tenable position.<<</p>
<p>You have charged that belief in the doctrine of the virgin birth (hereinafter the "Virgin Birth") is "untenable." According to my lexicon, an "untenable" position is one that is "not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection." To show that a belief is untenable, it is plausible to think that at least three things must be shown.</p>
<p>(1) One argues that a belief, b, is more likely to be false than its negation.</p>
<p>(2) One at least surveys the strongest available defenses of b, and then one shows that these defenses, one and all, are inadequate.</p>
<p>(3) One provides some reason to think that no other defenses will be successful.</p>
<p>Now you have clearly argued that the doctrine is false. Thus, in the words of the definition for "untenable," you have mounted an attack on, and brought forth objections against, the doctrine of the virgin birth.</p>
<p>But attacking the Virgin Birth is not obviously sufficient to establish that it is "untenable." You have neither sampled the standard rejoinders to your objections, nor provided surrejoinders. In other words, at best, you have performed the step outlined in (1), but not the steps outlined in (2) or (3). </p>
<p>You have not shown, therefore, that the Virgin Birth is unable to be defended. In order to show that it is tenable, I merely have to show that the Virgin Birth is "able to be maintained or defended against" your attack and your objections.</p>
<p>My defense is interspersed between your previous remarks.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>>>1.) The Silence of Paul. The epistles are the earliest surviving documents of the Christian faith, and Paul is blissfully ignorant of any such thing...<<</p>
<p>One problem that cuts across several of your points is a failure to take full cognizance of the relevant literary genres.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<p>As you know, an epistle is a letter. Paul's letters were, as most letters are, written for particular recipients and concerning specific circumstances.</p>
<p>What a writer chooses to include in his letter is, thus, indexed to his audience and to his topic(s). Contrariwise, what a writer does not include is also relative to his writing aims.</p>
<p>It is apparent, then, that there is no forced march from the fact that a proposition is not included in a given letter to the conclusion that the author was "ignorant" of the proposition. For it may still be - both in theory and for all that you have said - that the author, given his audience, goals and subject matter, simply had no reason to mention the proposition in question.</p>
<p>For example, Paul nowhere mentions the fact that torturing children for fun is morally wrong. It is by no means clear, however (nor even remotely plausible), that Paul was "blissfully ignorant of any such thing."<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>The point can be made straightforwardly. Imagine taking every email, letter and text message (etc. – add in whatever else you wish) that you have ever composed, and creating a massive conjunction containing all your epistolary assertions. Could we conclude that you were "ignorant" - blissfully or otherwise - of any fact not explicitly represented by its own conjunct? I think not. But then why think that Paul is “blissfully ignorant” of a doctrine, evident in the writings of his bosom pal and associate, Luke,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> merely because he nowhere mentions it explicitly in the surviving copies of a dozen or so of his letters? You have given no reason.</p>
<p>>>...--which is telling, since it would have frequently bolstered his argument.<<</p>
<p>In order to show that a proposition's lack of inclusion in a letter has any significant bearing on the question of the extent of an author's belief set, we must have a reason to think that it is more likely true than not that, if the author had the piece of information in question, then he would have mentioned it.</p>
<p>You owe us an example of instance for which Paul's express articulation of the Virgin Birth "would have ...bolstered his argument." You assert that this occurred "frequently," but do not scruple to provide even a single concrete illustration. </p>
<p>For all that you have said, that Paul did not include any mention of the Virgin Birth may signal nothing more than that none of his letters concerned any topic that would have been usefully advanced by its mention.</p>
<p>Later, you make similar mistakes handling the Gospel data. For instance, you complain that <i>Mark</i> does not say anything about a Virgin Birth, but <i>Matthew</i> does. However, this discrepancy is explicable in virtue of their divergent intentions.</p>
<p>According to the received analysis of Mark's audience, Mark wrote for Gentile Christians - in particular, Christians living in Rome.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>On the other hand, Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> The Virgin Birth would have had meaning for Jews that it would not have had for Romans. This is so due to the fact that the Virgin Birth had a distinctly Jewish context. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah had prophesied: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a> </p>
<p>Therefore, it is apparent that a mention of the Virgin Birth would be more expected in a communication addressed to Jewish as opposed to Gentile believers.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a> </p>
<p>>>For a guy who was nipples-to-nosehairs with the Force Ghost of the Almighty for who-knows-how-long, Paul actually doesn't seem to know much at all regarding the Divine Biography. It must not have come up.<<</p>
<p>Of course, Paul was raised and trained in a Jewish theological context. From an ontological point-of-view, the "Divine Biography" extends to infinity-past; from a textual vantage point, it ranges back to the Old Testament books beginning (in terms of arrangement and not necessarily dating) with Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Paul knew quite a lot about the "Divine Biography." In fact, he would have known so much that, had it been his project to do so, he likely could have written volumes on the subject. </p>
<p><i>Had it been his project to do so</i>. It was evidently <i>not</i> his project. He wrote letters to specific churches and persons, addressing specific issues. And for all that you have said, nothing precludes the judgment that these audiences and topics simply would not have been relevantly enriched by any mention of the Virgin Birth.</p>
<p>>>2.) Its Absense in the Earliest Gospels. Mark was likely penned anywhere from 60-75ad. It never mentions it.<<</p>
<p>I will stipulate the dates and simply reiterate that Mark's audience and purpose differed from that of Matthew's. What each author excludes and includes is relative to, and must be evaluated in the light of, these different intentions and readership.</p>
<p>>>Matthew followed, roughly 5-15 years later. This time, we see the tale clearly as an insertion in the text, to correspond more closely with the Lucan narrative.<<</p>
<p>This second sentence is doubly problematic. </p>
<p>Firstly, the phrase "clearly as an insertion in the text" is at best misleading and at worst well beyond your academic competence to pronounce upon definitively - let alone dogmatically.</p>
<p>As to its being misleading: To those unfamiliar with the lingo of textual criticism, calling the Virgin Birth an "insertion," sounds like whereas Mark wrote that "Jesus was born," Matthew shoehorned in a descriptor to get "Jesus was virgin-born."</p>
<p>In fact, as I have been repeating, the differences between Mark and Matthew are understandable only when due consideration is given to their divergent audiences and goals. The simple fact is that Matthew's Gospel is addressed to Jews for whom the opening genealogy<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> and the Isaiah reference<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a> would have had meaning that neither would have had for the Gentiles to whom Mark was writing.</p>
<p>Secondly, the idea that Matthew smuggled in the Virgin Birth in order "to correspond more closely with the Lucan narrative" depends, as you surely realize, upon the truth of some non-standard analysis of the "Synoptic problem." For those who are unaware, the "Synoptic problem" is the so-called "problem" of the similarities between the "Synoptic Gospels": Matthew, Mark and Luke.</p>
<p>According to the most widely accepted accounts, Mark was written first - possibly utilizing a mysterious, possibly oral and now-unavailable source labeled "Q." Matthew and Luke were written later. But on the most popular version, Matthew and Luke were written separately and, thus, would not have purposely rejiggered their materials "to correspond more closely" with the other's narrative.</p>
<p>Of course, it is open for you to argue for some non-standard resolution to the Synoptic problem. But you must actually do this heavy lifting before your claims about alleged collusion register as anything more than speculation. </p>
<p>>>The style of Greek is more polished and the tone is slightly different.<<</p>
<p>In your concluding remarks you mention being able to "source it if you like." Up until now, much of what you have written can be addressed at a fairly general level and without the need for attestation. But unless you have some demonstrable credentials in the analysis of the writing styles of Koine Greek and are prepared to explain your judgments about "polish and ...tone" - with examples - I should say that comments of this sort are mere hand waving.</p>
<p>In this case, if you are deferring to the judgment of some other critic, I will have to know who he or she is (and, more importantly, what his or her arguments are) before I can make heads or tails of this assertion.</p>
<p>But let me say in any case, and without agreeing that there even is a style change that needs to be explained, that writing style changes can be explained in many ways. I will simply list one obvious example.</p>
<p>When one writer quotes another there will be a discernible change in style. For instance, Matthew 1:23 is an allusion to Isaiah 7:14. It is entirely reasonable to think that a style change with respect to Matthew 1:23 - as contrasted to other verses in Matthew - will be explicable in virtue of the fact that that verse hearkens back to a text from an entirely different author. My suspicion would be that many so-called style shifts could be satisfactorily accounted for with this observation alone.</p>
<p>>>It was not presumably written by the same hand that penned the remaining chapters. Unless this was the result of scribal changes, Matthew's gospel most likely begins with its genealogy.<<</p>
<p>Readers are owed a whole lot more than a mere assertion if the underlying point is to be established that such-and-so passages were "not presumably written by the same hand that penned the remaining chapters."</p>
<p>As were your comments immediately above, this is a highly detail-dependent claim. Everything turns on the quality and content of the analysis that stands (or purports to stand) in its support. What is the analysis?</p>
<p>>>Matthew was written with the clear intent of selling the gospel to the Jews...<<</p>
<p>Yes, Matthew likely had a primary Jewish audience.</p>
<p>>>...--hence its often ersatz usage of the Septuagint to bolster its claims.<<</p>
<p>"Ersatz usage" like what, pray tell?</p>
<p>>>A gospel written for the Jews would not necessarily contain this narrative in its original form, since the very concept would have been quite alien to their collective mindset.<<</p>
<p>I either do not understand this claim, or you are simply saying that Matthew wouldn't have mentioned Virgin Birth to Jews because Jews were not used to virgin births. If the latter, then, for what peoples <i>would</i> virgin births been old hat?</p>
<p>Of course it was "quite alien to their collective mindset" - as it seems "quite alien" to the "collective mindset" of the <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/05/evolution-doesnt-help-those-who-wont.html">"IFLScience" brigade</a> these days.</p>
<p>The claim was included because Matthew: (a.) believed it to be true and (b.) believed it to have been prophesied by Isaiah, thus situating it in a Jewish context.</p>
<p>If this is not what you were saying, however, what <i>were</i> you saying?</p>
<p>>>3.) The verse from Isaiah used to justify the "miracle" is a mistranslation.<<</p>
<p>Firstly, it is not entirely obvious what "the verse" is that you have in mind (you neither reproduce nor cite it). My best guess is that you are thinking of Isaiah 7:14, as it is alluded to in Matthew 1:23. Since you do not say for sure, the best that I can do is hope that my guess is correct.</p>
<p>Secondly, the phrase "[t]he verse from Isaiah ...is a mistranslation" is ambiguous. On the one hand, and implausibly, you could be asserting that "the verse" as-it-appears-in-Isaiah is a "mistranslation" of some, heretofore unspecified, source material. I doubt that you mean this, however, so I will ignore this possibility. On the other hand, you might really be trying to communicate the thought that "the verse" in Isaiah is mistranslated by someone (presumably Matthew?). For what follows, I will assume this second option. </p>
<p>However, thirdly, I am also unclear as to how you are using the word "justify." As far as I can see, "justify" has three senses, which I will designate philosophical, theological and typographical. Let me consider them in reverse order.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a></p>
<p>In its typographical sense, "justify" designates the action of "adjust[ing] the spaces between words" so as, for example, to end up with margins that are "flush with" (that is, aligned straight against) their left or right sides (or both). Obviously, this usage is completely irrelevant and may be set aside.</p>
<p>In its theological sense, the word has to do with God "declar[ing a person] innocent; absolv[ing a person] from the penalty of sin." If I substitute this meaning into my re-creation of your sentence, I get something like this: "Matthew mistranslates the verse from Isaiah that he uses to declare the Virgin Birth innocent." This does not seem quite right. For one thing "justify," in its theological sense, is an action that God is supposed to perform upon persons. It seems to make no sense, therefore, to speak of God declaring an event - like the virgin birth is supposed to have been - "innocent." It seems that this meaning, too, must be set aside. </p>
<p>Finally, we come to the philosophical sense. On this sense, to "justify" a claim is to "show [it] to be right by providing justification or proof." We can put this slightly differently by saying that "justification" is that which "is offered as grounds for believing an assertion."<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a></p>
<p>Plugging this into our reconstructed sentence, we get something like: "Matthew mistranslates the verse from Isaiah that he use to prove the Virgin Birth." This appears to make better sense than any of the other possibilities surveyed. The problem is that it appears to me to be doubly false.</p>
<p>Number one, you have not established that Matthew's "translation"<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a> of Isaiah 7:14 is a "mistranslation." You merely say:</p>
<p>>>The word "almah" can mean "virgin," but most frequently does not.<<</p>
<p>Showing that some passage, x, is a "mistranslation" involves a bit more than noting that one of the words in x "frequently does not ...mean" what it is said to mean in x. This is especially the case when the word in question could mean what it is said to mean x.</p>
<p>You admit that "[t]he word 'almah' can mean 'virgin'...". Therefore, you implicitly admit that it <i>could</i> well mean this is Isaiah 7:14. Hence, the best that you have shown is that it might be a mistranslation. But since "x might be mistranslated" does not entail that "x is mistranslated" your assertion cannot stand, as it is.</p>
<p>>>Actually, in at least seven other instances in the Old Testament, it simply means 'young woman,' and to the translators of the Septuagint, a young woman was likely a virgin. It was simply taken for granted.<<</p>
<p>As James Orr has pointed out: "the term rendered 'virgin' in Isaiah ...denotes ...a young unmarried woman. The context, however, seems clearly to lay an emphasis on the unmarried state, and the translators of the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) plainly so understood it when they rendered it by <i>parthenos</i>, a word which does mean 'virgin.'"<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a></p>
<p>The point should be underlined. Matthew did not "translate" Isaiah at all. <i>The scholars responsible for producing the Septuagint</i> translated Isaiah this way. And their translation was in place perhaps as early as the 3rd century B.C. but, in any case, by the 2nd century B.C.</p>
<p>Hence, the assertion simply won't do that the translation of <i>almah</i> as <i>parthenos</i>/"virgin" is due to Christian wheedling or special pleading.</p>
<p>>>And--like most verses used to "prove" Jesus was the Messiah--it should be noted that this verse is being taken out of its context.<<</p>
<p>Of course, this is somewhat backwards. It's not that Jews, looking forward, understood Isaiah 7:14 as a clear Messianic prophecy and then, come now the Apostles to say, "Hear ye, we have found the virgin-born."</p>
<p>"It is ...singular that the [pre-Christian-era] Jews do not seem to have applied this prophecy at any time to the Messiah...".<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a></p>
<p>Rather, it was the circumstances of Jesus's birth that disclosed to attentive viewers the import with which this ancient passage had been invested. Or as Orr says: "The germs now indicated in prophetic scriptures had apparently borne no fruit in Jewish expectations of the Messiah, when the event took place which to Christian minds made them luminous with predictive import."<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a></p>
<p>>>...this prophecy was an omen granted to King Ahaz regarding the impending Aramite invasion.<<<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a></p>
<p>One thing that astonishes me is that, for all of your reading, in your post you evince no awareness of the often subtle views that Christians have advanced regarding prophecy. Since I hesitate to ascribe ignorance of this topic to you, I must conclude that you have chosen to ignore such niceties for the sake of your presentation.</p>
<p>But these things cannot be responsibly excluded. </p>
<p>In the first place, theists of all hues typically hold that God is superior to human beings in intellect and power. If one follows the stream of thought that owes its name to Saint Anselm, then one holds that God simply "is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This can be cashed out in several ways, but usually it involves the recognition that any candidate for God must be (i.e., is essentially) all-knowing (omniscient) and all-powerful (omnipotent).</p>
<p>Given these basic background assumptions, however, it seems to me incredible (i.e., not-credible) to suppose that God's prophecies must be understood by the people to whom they are given and at the time when they are given. Even in George Lucas's fictional Star Wars world we have a "prophecy" (about a Jedi destroying the Sith) that was not understood until it was fulfilled (ostensibly by Anakin killing the emperor). However, the fact that Lucas could come up with the idea of an initially-obscure prophecy that is only fully-understood upon fulfillment - and the fact that most audiences seem to understand this story-component perfectly well - seems to show that it is not nonsense.</p>
<p>Therefore, even if "almah" did usually mean "young married woman," one answer is: So what?</p>
<p>Yes sure, a Christian could say. "Almah" merely meant "young married woman" to Isaiah and generations of Jews - until God brought out the full significance of it in the Christ event. Once the Virgin Birth occurred, the "virginal" meaning - always secondarily present in "almah" - was seen in its full importance.</p>
<p>Assuming Christian commitments, what is wrong with this answer?</p>
<p>The fact that the word can mean "young, unmarried woman" could be said to hint strongly that the story was not a fabrication. For had the entire story been a fable, there would have been no need to introduce the friction-inducing notion of a Virgin Birth. </p>
<p>Your earlier claim that "the very concept would have been quite alien to their collective mindset" militates against you here. For this statement of yours is really an admission that anyone fabricating a Virgin Birth story could hardly have hoped to sucker anyone into believing it.</p>
<p>You later admit this by stating: "There was no need among the thinkers and seekers of the time" (on which, more below). Why include the element then? Were the authors saboteurs?</p>
<p>The fact that so many Jews did believe in a miraculous Jesus, and subsequently abandoned many of their ancient (even for that time) traditions - despite it being thoroughly un-Jewish to do so - strongly suggests to me that they believed the events in question really happened.</p>
<p>You seem unable to account for these sincere beliefs.</p>
<p>In the second place, and similarly related to the remarks above, there is a depth to be expected of any text that purports to issue from an omniscient and omnipotent God. Your complaint that Isaiah 7:14 was "taken out of context" is simply misplaced.</p>
<p>There are two things that I can say about this, but it is important to note that the issue is fundamentally one of worldview orientation. One thing is perhaps less "offensive" to non-Christian ears. The other will be more "offensive." But both are likely to be dismissed by the non-Christian. However, remember my project. My project is not presently to convert into believers any non-believers reading this thread. It is to rebut the allegation that the Virgin Birth is "untenable" by producing a defense of it and thereby showing it to be tenable after all.</p>
<p>To "defend" a belief it is surely unnecessary to convert any and all hearers to it. Or else it might appear that no belief is "tenable," which seems to abuse the word. </p>
<p>As to the less offensive, I have in mind the notion of partial fulfillment. It is open to the Christian to argue that initial context - the message to Ahaz - was only a partial fulfillment of a prophecy that would later be totally fulfilled in Jesus.</p>
<p>As to the more offensive, I have in mind invocation of the doctrine of inspiration. To take a statement "out-of-context" primary indicates a misuse of language whereby the hearer or reader of a message ignores the author's intention in writing. However, it is the historic Christian conviction that the numerous books of the Bible were, if not "authored" directly by God, then superintended by God in their authorship such that God guaranteed that his message was adequately communicated. Of course, in the present case we have two passages - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 - that, according to the Christian view, were both written by human authors being superintended by God. Therefore, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 that was identified by Matthew<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="">[18]</a> was superintended by God not only when it was included as the fullest, but still-obscure intention of Isaiah 7:14, but also when it was brought out clearly by Matthew.</p>
<p>Again, I remind the reader that in mounting a defense of one Christian doctrine (e.g., the Virgin Birth), I am permitted to marshal other resources included in the Christian worldview. This is not special pleading. It is no fairer to forbid the Christian from invoking other elements of Christianity in defense of one of its doctrines than it would be to forbid a proponent of biological evolution from invoking other elements of biology in defense of Darwinism.</p>
<p>To be sure, this does not mean that the other elements invoked are unproblematic. But it means that the conversation cannot proceed until the expanded context is taken into account.</p>
<p>>>As an aside, does anyone in the New Testament actually call Jesus by "Immanuel"...ever? As in, "Hey Immanuel, can you pass me that wine?" or "Hey Immanuel, I can see your house from here!" No?<<</p>
<p>I was tempted to relegate this comment to a footnote, both because I view it as insubstantial and because you yourself deem in "an aside." Still, because the confusion that it embodies is worth clearing up, I have left it in the main text.</p>
<p>I will make two points here as well. Though here the points divide into easier-to-understand and harder-to-understand. Let's tackle the harder one first.</p>
<p>The harder point is that there is a distinction between an object and a (common or proper) name and a distinction between first-order names and nth-order names. Here is a colorful illustration from Lewis Carroll's <i>Through the Looking Glass</i>.</p>
<p>"'You are sad,' the Knight said in an anxious tone: 'let me sing you a song to comfort you.'</p>
<p>"'Is it very long?' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.</p>
<p>"'It's long,' said the Knight, 'but very, VERY beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings the TEARS into their eyes, or else--'</p>
<p>"'Or else what?' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.</p>
<p>"'Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called "HADDOCKS' EYES."'</p>
<p>"'Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested.</p>
<p>"'No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. 'That's what the name is CALLED. The name really IS "THE AGED AGED MAN."'</p>
<p>"'Then I ought to have said "That's what the SONG is called"?' Alice corrected herself.</p>
<p>"'No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The SONG is called "WAYS AND MEANS": but that's only what it's CALLED, you know!'</p>
<p>"'Well, what IS the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.</p>
<p>"'I was coming to that,' the Knight said. 'The song really IS "A-SITTING ON A GATE": and the tune's my own invention.'"<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="">[19]</a></p>
<p>In Carroll's text we have an object (the song itself, "A-Sitting on a Gate") and a proper name ("The Aged Aged Man") and each of these bears a second-order name that it "is called" (the object, "A-Sitting on a Gate" is "called" "Ways and Means" while the name, "The Aged Aged Man" is "called" "Haddock's Eyes.") Similarly, we have an object (the Second Person of the Trinity-become-man) and a name "Jesus." "Immanuel" is, using the vocabulary introduced a moment ago, a second-order name on either the name "Jesus" or on the Person of the God-man Himself.</p>
<p>Although it is confusing, there is nothing the matter with this.</p>
<p>The easier reply has two sides. Number one, I simply note that the verse in question says that they will call his name "Immanuel," not that he would be assigned the proper name "Immanuel."<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="">[20]</a></p>
<p>Number two, "Immanuel" is simply a word that means "God with us." If a Christian were asked questions such as "When was 'God with us' on earth?" or "Who was 'God with us'?" I am confident that you would agree that the answers would probably be, respectively, "When Jesus incarnated" and "Jesus." This suffices to show, I think, that the referent of "God with us" is indeed unambiguously fixed on the God-man, Jesus.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="">[21]</a></p>
<p>>>4.) There was no need among the thinkers and seekers of the time. In the 1st Century, the adopted son was as or more likely to be given the birthright. In fact, the adopted son was most frequently regarded as the "chosen one"--the thinking being that you could not choose your own flesh and blood, but you could choose whom you adopted.<<</p>
<p>Once again, I have to confess myself unable to determine your meaning.</p>
<p>Start with the sentence: "There was no need among the thinkers and seekers of the time." You seem to mean that "People living in Jesus's day would not have required Jesus to have been born of a virgin in order to accept his claims to Messiahship."</p>
<p>I think that this is probably true. I already favorably quoted Orr to the effect that pre-Christian-era "Jews do not seem to have applied [the Virgin Birth] prophecy at any time to the Messiah."</p>
<p>Why think that this should have been a "need" for "thinkers and seekers of the time"? You don't say. More importantly, why should any "thinker"/"seeker" "needs" have constrained God's actions? Are we talking about actual, physical or psychological "needs" like food, love and water? Or are we talking about desires like the pervasive, modern-day desire to see evidences spelled-out in conformity with the canons of naturalistic science? I would like to know more about these alleged "needs" - whether or not they were exemplified by the thinkers and seekers of Jesus's day.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="">[22]</a></p>
<p>But maybe you did not mean to assert (what I take to be implausible, namely) that God would, if he existed, have been constrained to conform his incarnation to the evidential or psychological desires of the thinkers of the time. Perhaps you meant that Jesus Himself did not need to incarnate in a Virgin Birth scenario in order to receive the "birthright" of God. Perhaps you're saying that God could have "adopted' Jesus.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title="">[23]</a></p>
<p>Let me first try to clarify what you might mean.</p>
<p>Do you mean to endorse one of the following claims?</p>
<p>(4) Possibly, incarnation can take place without Virgin Birth.</p>
<p>(5) Possibly, an "adopted" savior can atone for humanity's sins.</p>
<p>If so, what are your arguments for these claims? Why think that these are indeed possible?</p>
<p>After all if, as some Christians maintain, the only acceptable sacrifice for human sin had to be made by a being who was both man (and thus part of the class of persons who owed God a debt) and God (and thus part of the class of persons who could pay off a debt to God), then it follows that (4) and (5) are impossible, metaphysically speaking.</p>
<p>>>The most obvious example of this from the time period would be Tiberius Caesar.<<</p>
<p>Just when I think I am on the track of your intention, you throw in a curve. Of what does Tiberius Caesar serve as an obvious example?</p>
<p>Possibly, you mean that he is an example of a human being who claimed adoption by a divinity.</p>
<p>However, how far does this example get you?</p>
<p>Are you saying the following?</p>
<p>Jesus did not have to be Virgin Born in order to be accepted by the Jews as the Messiah, since Tiberius was accepted [by whom? the Jews? the Romans?] as something [as what? emperor? a god?] without having been virgin-born.</p>
<p>Besides the ambiguities highlighted by my bracketed text, I should say that this is a maladroit comparison.</p>
<p>Number one, Tiberius was not accepted by the Jews as a god. It is doubtful whether the Romans "accepted" (from a psychological point-of-view) him as such either. Clearly, the Jews and Romans had to treat him with outward respect, and this might be difficult to distinguish from "acceptance" of the relevant sort. But in Tiberius's case, the explanation for his treatment is close at hand: he commanded the Roman army. A best, I should say that Tiberius serves as an example of the fact that a person can be treated-as-god provided that he or she has an army to enforce their claims. Jesus had no such army. So I fail to see the force of the example.</p>
<p>Number two, your entire point rests on your un-argued assumption that Virgin Birth was a fabrication calculated to make Jesus an "acceptable" Messiah. Even if your points 1-3 go through - and I have argued that none go through - at best you are able to show that John, Mark and Paul didn't know about the Virgin Birth and that Matthew "mistranslated" Isaiah. You have not even remotely shown that the Virgin Birth was an intentional fabrication. Who did the fabricating? Mathew? How do you move from "mistranslation" to fabrication? Was he by himself? How did he obtain the assent of the early church?</p>
<p>It is especially interesting to ask how a fabricator would obtain the assent of the early church on a point that you claim was not "needed" by thinkers and seekers at the time. Why would any fabricator wish to risk rejection of his claims by including an element that was not grounded in psychological desires and expectations and which was likely to strike hearers as outlandish? </p>
<p>The Christian view is that, like the claim or not, it was simply true.</p>
<p>Is it your view that Matthew and Luke smuggled into the Gospels an unnecessary flourish that was probably as scandalous then as it is now? Are you saying that Matthew and Luke tried to sabotage Christianity? </p>
<p>If not, your point does not make much sense to me.</p>
<p>>>5.) Its very nature is legendary.<<</p>
<p>On at least one interpretation of this, you are here taking back with your left hand what you earlier put forward with your right. You opened by stating: "Even if you are a Christian, or at least accept ...Jesus ...as a historical figure, the virgin birth is not a tenable position."</p>
<p>Yet here you speak of the "very nature" or something as "legendary."</p>
<p>The nature of what?</p>
<p>If you answer, "the nature of the Virgin Birth," then you beg the question.</p>
<p>Apparently, the question under dispute is: Was the Virgin Birth actual or not?</p>
<p>You seem to be arguing that it is it not actual. But you cannot non-fallaciously argue:</p>
<p>(6) If the Virgin Birth is non-actual, then it is non-actual.</p>
<p>(7) The Virgin Birth is non-actual.</p>
<p>(8) Therefore, the Virgin Birth is non-actual.</p>
<p>But what does the assertion "[i]ts very nature is legendary" come to if not the claim that "the Virgin Birth is non-actual"?</p>
<p>This is not an argument for the Virgin Birth being non-actual, it is simply a restatement of that claim.</p>
<p>But if you say instead, "the historical Jesus," you renege on your opening provision. It turns out that you are trying to mount a full assault on the historicity of Jesus.</p>
<p>>>It is an expansion or adaptation of rival god myths.<<</p>
<p>As it stands, this is pure speculation. You merely assert this; you do not argue for it.</p>
<p>I will leave you to make an actual case for this claim before I argue against it. But I will say a couple of things, in advance.</p>
<p>Firstly, similarity between two things, x and y, does not entail that one caused the other.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title="">[24]</a></p>
<p>The similarity between x and y could be explicable any of the following four ways (at least).</p>
<p>(9) x caused y (the similarity is due to x).</p>
<p>(10) y caused x (the similarity is due to y).</p>
<p>(11) a caused x and y (the similarity is due to a).</p>
<p>(12) a caused x; b caused y (the similarity is accidental).</p>
<p>Moreover, it is not enough to merely catalog comparisons. If serious study is to be done, we must take stock of contrasts as well. </p>
<p>The fact - even if it be granted, which I am not prepared to do - that there are "similarities" between elements of Jesus's life (as disclosed in the four Gospels) and elements of pagan mythology is, by itself, an incomplete analysis. We need some accounting of the dissimilarities as well. Otherwise, it's simply shoddy scholarship.</p>
<p>I enumerate other problems with this sort of "Parallelomania,"<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title="">[25]</a> <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/zeitgeist-style-polemics.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>>>...the virgin birth is a reconstruction of any number of "entrance myths"... My favorite was always Zeus fornicating as a giant serpent, but that probably just ruins "Clash of the Titans" moreso than Christmas.<<</p>
<p>Once again, "the virgin birth is a reconstruction of any number of 'entrance myths'..." is a mere assertion. To assert something, of course, means to declare it to be true without argument or evidence. It is not the obligation of a hearer to argue against an assertion; it is the obligation of the asserter to defend the assertion with argument and evidence.</p>
<p>Therefore, I will wait for an analysis that presents "the virgin birth is a reconstruction of any number of 'entrance myths'..." as a conclusion, not as a premise.</p>
<p>>>...Krishna, Romulus, Heracles, Dionysus, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia, Horus, etc., were all born of a "virgin" under miraculous circumstances.<<</p>
<p>Of course, I included the above under the description "assertion." Listing seven names followed by two vague descriptors is hardly adequate to the task of demonstrating that the Gospel accounts are "adaptations" or "expansions" of myths.</p>
<p>In my above-mentioned weblog post I go into more detail about the pitfalls associated with unrestrained speculations about parallels between the Bible and pagan mythology. I will here summarize some of my main points, taking Attis as a case study. </p>
<p>Firstly, according to the <i>Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology</i>, Attis's "story is related in different ways."<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title="">[26]</a></p>
<p>It is disingenuous for proponents of parallelomania to assert anything that implies that "the" story of [insert pagan god name] has parallels to such-and-so aspect of the Gospels. Many times, the parallel-fixated have simply cherry-picked the one version of the myth in question that displays some interesting parallel and ignored variants that lack the feature in question.</p>
<p>This is not a case of one Gospel endorsed by the selfsame Church recounting different aspects of Jesus's life or emphasizing different themes. This is a case of various localized cults with radically divergent accounts of the relevant god.</p>
<p>In Attis's case, Pausanias, the second-century Greek traveler and writer, gives two different accounts of the god's parentage. According to one account, bereft of even the fainest whisper of a "virgin birth," Attis "was the son of Galaos the Phrygian" - period. </p>
<p>The second account is more amendable to a parallel-cataloging program. On this account:</p>
<p>"Zeus, it is said, let fall in his sleep seed upon the ground, which in course of time sent up a demon, with two sexual organs, male and female. They call the daimon Agdistis [Kybele]. But the gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ. There grew up from it an almond-tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river Saggarios (Sangarius), they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once disappeared, but she was with child."</p>
<p>Now there are perhaps two poles of reaction to this.</p>
<p>On the one hand, someone (like me) might not perceive much of any "parallel" to the Virgin Birth.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title="">[27]</a></p>
<p>On the other hand, I will suppose, someone might exclaim: "Wow, that's uncanny. Zeus ejaculated on the ground, spawned a demon who was then castrated and whose detached sexual organ blossomed into an almond tree, the fruit of which subsequently impregnated 'a daughter of the river'? Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, right! The Christmas story, of course!"</p>
<p>However, this second, hypothetical enthusiast has missed two key things.</p>
<p>"Firstly, responsible 'comparative religious study' is carried out by noting contrasts as well as comparisons. Typically, however, in Zeitgeist-style presentations, contrasts between Jesus and the various pagan deities are seldom (if ever) acknowledged."<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title="">[28]</a></p>
<p>I tried to bring these contrasts out in the tongue-in-cheek dialog, above. But the serious point is that there are numerous contrasts that need to be examined before the overall level of "parallelism" can be responsibly gauged. </p>
<p>Amongst the features of Jesus's birth narrative that have no echo in the Attis legend are: the main characters (two human beings engaged to be married), a dream, a longstanding prophecy, a census, a king, some actual towns, etc. Among the features of the second Attis myth that have no analog in the Jesus story are: a god spilling his seed on the ground, the generation of a "demon," a castration, an almond tree, a river demigoddess, and a possibly-unmentionable maneuver with an almond, etc.</p>
<p>I lay all of that on my balance on the "contrast" side. (I suppose that you <i>might</i> be trying to lay it on the "comparison" side by slapping the label "miraculous circumstances" on it. But, I hope not.)</p>
<p>On the comparison side you want to say that Attis was "born of a 'virgin'." Pausanias nowhere relates that the relevant "daughter of the river Saggarios" was a "virgin." But even if I ignore this and allow you to lay "virgin-born" on the "comparison" side of the scale, on any reasonable standard the contrasts outweight the comparisons. Why then should anyone who is relying on the actual, available evidence conclude that the Gospel account of Jesus has been borrowed from the Attis myth? I am hard-pressed to see why anyone should think that there is any interesting comparison to be found at all!<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title="">[29]</a></p>
<p>Secondly, the parallelomaniac has seemingly missed the fact that Pausanias called the only interesting variant of the Attis myth "the current view about Attis." Current when? Well, it turns out that Pausanias lived in the second century, roughly A.D. 110-180. This means that the only Attis tale that yields any interesting comparisons to the Jesus story actually dates from a period of 75 to 100 years after Jesus's death.</p>
<p>It is not at all clear, therefore, that the Attis myth itself was not changed in order to conform more closely to, or to incorporate elements of, the story of Jesus, rather than the other way around. And, as I have said so often in this response, nothing that that you have said impels me to prefer your explanation over the alternative that I just sketched.<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title="">[30]</a></p>
<p>As a final point, I mention that some of Pausanias's near-contemporaries would have been the Christians St. Ignatius of Antioch (martyred ca. A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (martyred A.D. 165) and St. Irenaeus (possibly martyred ca. A.D. 200).</p>
<p>In all of these early writers, part of the group known as the Post-Apostolic Fathers, the Virgin Birth is upheld. This is notable for at least two reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly, St. Ignatius was himself an associate of John the Evangelist. Now, John does not mention the Virgin Birth, but if Ignatius knew of and endorsed it, then it is plausible to think that John did as well. Similar comments can be made about Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp (who had been an associate of John). Thus, it is reasonable to hold that the Johannine apostolic stream contained the Virgin Birth despite the fact that John never mentioned it explicitly.</p>
<p>Secondly, these three early Christian doctors went to their deaths (certainly two of them did - along with many hundreds that I have not listed) in attestation of the Christian faith. Many of them, especially St. Justin, had come out of paganism. It strains credulity to the breaking point to think that these early churchmen would have been martyred for rejecting Roman paganism while espousing a belief set that was, to hear you tell it, virtually shot-through with paganism anyway. Come to think of it, why should the Roman Empire have had a problem with Christianity if it was indeed just paganism warmed over?</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>But my project has been modest. In summation, let me just rehearse my purpose.</p>
<p>You began by charging that the Virgin Birth was "untenable" - that is, not able to be defended.</p>
<p>My purpose, therefore, was to show that a defense of it is possible and, thereby, establish that the Virgin Birth is tenable after all.</p>
<p>Having, in my estimation, fulfilled this limited purpose, the defense rests.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Merry Christmas.</p>
<p>Matthew J. Bell</p>
<p>Notes: </p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Gabriel 'Skuzzy' Zolman, "SKUZZY RUINS CHRISTMAS, vol. 1," Facebook, Dec. 24, 2015, 3:44am, <<a href="https://www.facebook.com/stigmatador/posts/10207491226632922">https://www.facebook.com/stigmatador/posts/10207491226632922</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Note: For what follows, I will stipulate your general comment about the dating of the epistles.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Some might immediately object that "torturing children for fun is morally wrong" is at least a candidate for an absolute moral truth or, at least, a moral truth for which little to nothing need be said.</p>
<p>I would insist that my general point holds nevertheless: lack of mention in a letter does not entail ignorance on the part of the author</p>
<p>Still, numerous other examples could be suggested. For instance, according to the Acts of the Apostles (see, e.g., chapter 9, verse 2), at least some early Christians called their nascent movement "the Way." Paul never mentions this, despite the fact that we are even told: "[S]ome of [Paul's Jewish audience] became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them." (Acts 19:9, NIV.)</p>
<p>Are we forced to conclude that Paul was "blissfully ignorant" of the fact that at least some early Christians were called followers of "the way"?</p>
<p>Not at all. All we must do is suggest a plausible reason why Paul wouldn't mention this. Here are two possible reasons, given, as you say, "off the top of my head."</p>
<p>First, it might have been that the name "the Way" was not in use for long and that, by the time Paul wrote his epistles, the Jesus movement was called by other names. (It makes no difference to this point that Paul's epistles are dated earlier that the date of the authorship of Acts. Acts is written about a period of time that was before Paul wrote his epistles.)</p>
<p>Second, it may be that the information about an early name for Christianity was simply irrelevant to the topics Paul was broaching in his letters. Nothing that you have said casts any doubt on either of these possibilities.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> Colossians 4:14. It is worth mentioning that "Paul's silence" cuts both ways. Paul explicitly declares that Luke was his "dear friend." It might be thought odd, therefore, that Luke would have had information of this magnitude that Paul lacked. Additionally, Paul nowhere challenges the Virgin Birth despite the fact that he moved in the circle of those disciples who would later write about it.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> For instance, "...the Gospel of Mark reaches its climax in the confession of Jesus' deity by a Roman centurion (Ch. 15:39)," etc. William L. Lane, <i>The Gospel of Mark</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publ., 1974, p. 25; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=nIjPDDlweUgC&pg=PA25">https://books.google.com/books?id=nIjPDDlweUgC&pg=PA25</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> R. T. France, <i>The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publ., 1985, pp. 17f et passim,; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ttTgacXnLV8C&pg=PA17">https://books.google.com/books?id=ttTgacXnLV8C&pg=PA17</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> The Holy Bible, Isaiah, chapter 7, verse 14, New Intl. Vers.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> It must be recalled that the Gospels are, to some degree, fairly characterizable as audience-specific "introductions" to Christianity. For Jews whose scriptural upbringing would have been steeped in Isaiah references, the significance of the Virgin Birth, and its place in Jewish history, would have been readily apparent. Since Roman Christians did not share this Old Testament heritage, considerably more explanatory effort would have had to be expended in order that the significance of the Virgin Birth would have been clear. In future eras, this effort would be the work of catechesis. However, it is arguably out-of-place in an introduction.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> Matthew 1:1-17.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> Matthew 1:23.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> "Justify," <i>Princeton WordNet</i>, <<a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=justify&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=">http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=justify&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> Garth Kemerling, "Justification," <i>Philosophy Pages</i>, Dec. 28, 2011 [1997], <<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/j.htm%23justi">http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/j.htm#justi</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="">[13]</a> in chapter 1, verse 23.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> James Orr, "The Virgin Birth of Christ," R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon et al., <i>The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth</i>, vol. 2, reprint ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2003 [Los Angeles: Bible Inst., 1917], p. 252.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> Orr, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 252. This "fact ...disproves the theory that it was this text which suggested the story of a Virgin Birth to the early disciples," <i>ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16]</a> <i>Ibid</i>., p. 253. Other relevant passages that situate Jesus's birth in the context of salvation-history, include Genesis 3:15 and Micah 5:2-3.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17]</a> Footnote: >>Just as how verses about "Lucifer (Venus) falling from Heaven" was about the king of Babylon and not the Devil (who did not properly exist as a singular concept yet), << I am ignoring this, because it is: (a.) not evidenced and (b.) off-topic.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="">[18]</a> At 1:23.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="">[19]</a> <<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12/pg12.txt">http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12/pg12.txt</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="">[20]</a> In fact, in Philippians 2:9 we read that "...God exalted him [Jesus] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name...". The name that is above every other name is of course God's own name, Yahweh.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="">[21]</a> Call it a nickname, if you like.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="">[22]</a> Or again, why would I, or anyone else, think that there was a "need" for Jesus to have been Virgin Born? To be sure, it might be thought that Jesus needed, in a metaphysical sense, a non-standard origin to escape the taint of Original Sin. But I will not tease this out, here. I will examine it at such time as any critics formulates an argument against it.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title="">[23]</a> Of course, there was an ancient view - subsequently declared heretical - known as "adoptionism," which held something similar. But I will leave it to you to expound upon the view, if it was your intention to invoke it.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title="">[24]</a> In science, a similar warning is phrased "correlation does not entail causation."</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title="">[25]</a> That is, in general terms, the drawing of alleged comparisons with no regard for contrasts.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title="">[26]</a> "Attis," reproduced at <<a href="http://www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html">http://www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title="">[27]</a> More on this, below.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title="">[28]</a> Matthew Bell, “Zeitgeist-Style Polemics,” <i>Church Bell</i> [weblog], Aug. 22, 2012, <<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/zeitgeist-style-polemics.html">http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/zeitgeist-style-polemics.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title="">[29]</a> Of course, some may reply: "Well, you see, the Jesus myth was built out of numerous pagan myths. So even though a single myth might not display any sustained comparison, when you look at the right ones - and squint really hard - everything comes out on the side of the Jesus story being borrowed from paganism." Well, I admit that I have never bothered to carry out a detailed inspection of all the variations of all the myths of all the gods that have been named herein - or that could be named. But, again, it is not my obligation to bear. Let the person making the assertion produce an actual analysis - as opposed to typing hand-waving remarks about similarities and vaguely gesturing toward unspecified "miraculous circumstances."</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title="">[30]</a> Footnote: >>Just as the story of Lazurus rising from the dead is an adaptation of the earlier Arabic myth of Al-Hazurus<< I am ignoring this, also, for the same reasons given in footnote 17.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-60818011983429636422015-12-08T18:35:00.001-08:002015-12-08T18:50:15.711-08:00'What You Believe Depends on Where You Were Born'?<p>Here’s another <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/facebook-polemics.html">Facebook polemic</a> to appear on my radar.</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/12301755_1050767274975231_1292400186480158414_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="336" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/12301755_1050767274975231_1292400186480158414_n.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>If, as the post suggests, all of our beliefs about religion are merely culturally determined,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> then, to maintain consistency, we should say that the belief that “what you believe depends on where you were born and who you were born to” itself depends on where you were born and who you were born to.</p>
<p>To put it slightly differently, a simple extension of the operative reasoning would suggest that those who embrace such “-isms” as agnosticism, atheism, pluralism, so-called “religious skepticism” and so on, do so merely because they are products of, for example, 21st-century American culture.</p>
<p>Does it therefore follow that agnosticism, atheism, pluralism or skepticism are not true, cannot be known to be true<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> or are not worth arguing for (or against)?</p>
<p>If so, then the whole point of this picture-text is apparently undermined. (For what is this supposed to <i>be</i>, other than an attempt to argue <i>for</i> something like agnosticism, atheism, pluralism, so-called “religious skepticism”?<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a>)
<p>I submit that it is precisely in the arena of philosophy that one becomes able, even if to a limited degree, to transcend the accidents of our birth in terms of our belief sets. However, if this is even remotely correct, then the kind of absolute, environmental belief-determinism seemingly underlying the picture-text is incorrect.</p>
<center>
<p>Related:</p>
<p><a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/facebook-polemics.html">Is the Biblical Concept of “Marriage” Hopelessly Confused or Incoherent?</a> (And <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/according-to-bible-polemic.html">Here</a>.)</p>
<p>“<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/06/jesus-never-said-anything-about.html">Jesus ‘Never Said Anything’ About Homosexuality?</a>”</p>
<p>“<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2013/07/question-everything-why.html">Question Everything? Why?</a>”</p>
<p>“<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/zeitgeist-style-polemics.html">Zeitgeist-Style Polemics</a>”</p>
</center>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Here’s a possible objection. The picture text says that our beliefs “depend on” facts about our physical origins (and perhaps upbringing, although this is not stated); it does not say that our beliefs are “determined.” This is a fair point, as far as it goes. But it does not seem to me to go far. After all, if “stop fighting over who is right” is supposed to entail a cessation of philosophical argument, then it would seem that the post’s author despairs over being able to alter anyone’s belief-set by rational means. However, one might worry, as I do, that the inability to modify our “in-born” beliefs by engaging in debate and discussion, implies (if not logically, then at least by something like “implicature”) that our unalterable beliefs are determined in some fairly firm sense.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> In the philosophical sense of “justified true belief” – excluding Gettier cases.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Admittedly, the word "fight" is ambiguous and casts doubt on the effectiveness of my rebuttal, here. Some might read the word "fight" in the sense of armed, physical conflict. However, I would maintain that "argue over" is a relevant, possible sense. Additionally, if the avoidance of actual war is uppermost in a reader's mind, I would suggest that he or she endorse philosophical disputation as the preferred means of religious-conflict resolution. For if combat, "crusade," "jihad" or whatever <i>are</i> really in view, the injunction to "stop fighting" seems futile. Reasoning, on the other hand, is not obviously ineffectual. Doubtless, fideists and misologists would disapprove, but they could scarcely <i>rationally object</i> without contradicting themselves.</p> Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-50338479487306831812015-12-06T18:58:00.001-08:002015-12-07T17:15:37.358-08:00Did Jesus Fake His Death With the Help of Joseph of Arimathea and a Spongeful of Vinegar?<p>Katherine Frisk’s article “<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/who-moved-the-stone/">Who Moved the Stone?</a>” is a mess.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> It’s a tissue of speculation pretending to be “A Critical Analysis of the Crucifixion.” This offends me deeply – not as a Christian (which I am), but as a student of philosophy.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<p>A simple Google search yields a suitable working definition for “analysis.” Let’s say that an <i>analysis</i> is a “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>In the first place, Frisk’s work is insufficiently detailed. She makes numerous ill-evidenced claims.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> </p>
<p>Frisk asserts that we “know” Joseph of Arimathea to have been “the uncle of Yeshua” and that Joseph “was a trader[,] …well travelled[, and]…had been …[on] the British Isles and …the Silk Road…”. </p>
<p>On the received philosophical account, “knowledge” is justified true belief. To put it another way, in order for a person to <i>know</i> some proposition, p, that person has to: believe p; have good evidence (reasons) for believing p; and, in fact, p has to be true.</p>
<p>Since we do not have independent access to the truth of propositions, when faced with knowledge claims, we are impelled to consider the caliber of the claimant’s evidence. What is Frisk’s evidence for her claims about Joseph of Arimathea? Who knows? She does not provide any.</p>
<p>In a piece on Joseph of Arimathea, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) manages to classify the data correctly. The BBC article lists under the subheading “The legends of Joseph of Arimathea” such “stories” as that Joseph “was Mary’s uncle, and thus Jesus’ great-uncle” and that “[h]e was a merchant who visited England…”.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>Mind you, it’s not that a text should be disqualified from counting as an analysis because it endorses as true claims that are elsewhere reported to be “legendary.” However, we would at least expect proper analyses to acknowledge the tendentious nature of the endorsement. Perhaps it would not be out-of-line to ask that the author spend a little energy arguing in favor of such disputed claims.</p>
<p>All such expectations and hopes are frustrated in the present case. Frisk merely lays it down that the extra-biblical, legendary material in question in simply part of what “we know” about Joseph of Arimathea. This is a slipshod “analysis” even by non-scholarly, journalistic standards.</p>
<p>Another problem in the same vicinity is that Frisk does not scruple to disclose many of her sources. Sometimes, the oversight is egregious. For instance, she writes that “it is believed that Yeshua travelled with Joseph.”</p>
<p>Even <i>Wikipedia</i>, which is often (and not necessarily unjustifiably) criticized for its haphazard editing standards, would likely see a bare assertion such as "it is believed" decorated by a little “by whom?” in red, superscripted letters.</p>
<p>It is highly relevant whether such a declaration is, for example, made by a recognized expert in some pertinent field or is copiously and relevantly evidenced, regardless of who made it. Without any evidence, most readers will have no idea why someone should claim that “Yeshua travelled with Joseph,” and without any citations, readers have no idea even where to look for evidence if they would like some.</p>
<p>In fact, the few source-attributions that Frisk does give leave something to be desired.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> Albert Henry Ross’s pseudonymous <i>Who Moved the Stone?</i>, whatever interest it may have, can certainly not pretend to represent the state-of-the-art of “historical Jesus” scholarship.</p>
<p>Or again, at the end of her diatribe Frisk quotes from another columnist, one Palash Ghosh, who wrote about the so-called “Roza Bal” theory, which holds that Jesus didn’t really die and resurrect in Palestine, but is instead buried in the Asian province of Kashmir.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a> Frisk reproduces the risible insinuation that the New Testament’s talk of Jesus’s ascension to heaven “really” designates his having repaired to Asia, since “Kashmir is known as ‘heaven on earth.’”<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a></p>
<p>It is difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. If one consults the original article, one discovers that Ghosh, to his credit, admits that the stories about Jesus’s alleged, Kashmiri comings and goings have “no concrete incontrovertible evidence to validate” them.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> So much for that. </p>
<p>It also should not be too much to ask for an analysis to avoid employing ambiguous terms. Yet we find Frisk writing: “Yeshua was known as a Nazarene.” She then begins to speak about “the Nazarene laws,” even referring us to the Old Testament book of Numbers. </p>
<p>Careful readers will note, however, that Numbers chapter six discusses regulations pertaining to <i>Nazarite</i> vows. As it is applied to Jesus, the word “Nazarene” designates the fact that he hailed from the town of Nazareth.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a> “Nazarite,” on the other hand, names a male who had sworn off wine, cutting his hair and touching corpses.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a></p>
<p>Presumably, Frisk is depending upon the phonetic similarity of the two words to establish the truth of her belief that Jesus was a Nazarite.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a> She will have to do better than this, however. </p>
<p>It is arguable that John the Baptist had been dedicated according to the Nazarite vows while <i>in utero</i>. John’s father Zechariah had been told by an angel: “Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. …He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.”<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a></p>
<p>Jesus explicitly contrasts himself with John. “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a></p>
<p>Based upon this (admittedly meager sampling of) evidence – which is, however, more than Frisk gives – I conclude that Jesus probably was <i>not</i> a Nazarite. I could be wrong, of course. But it would take a lot more than what Frisk has amassed to demonstrate it.</p>
<p>Finally, it seems odd for an “analysis” to be shot-through with wild speculations. But this is practically Frisk’s calling card.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the irrelevancies cataloged in the opening paragraphs, Frisk volunteers that she has “a strong suspicion that [Joseph of Arimathea] was the father of Yeshua and not his uncle.” Since, for all she has shown, this is pure speculation riding on the back of a legend, it’s worthless from the standpoint of analysis.</p>
<p>Or consider a more involved example. Frisk writes: “When Yeshua said that he was thirsty, he was given a sponge which was lifted to his mouth to drink. …What was in the sponge? We are told vinegar and hysop [<i>sic</i>]. Hysop [<i>sic</i>] is an expectorant used to clear mucus from the lungs. It is also a cough reliever and an antiseptic and stimulates the central nervous system. Vinegar is used to lower blood pressure, is an antiseptic and can also be used as a pain killer. …Yeshua was not dead. The mixture he had been given to drink lowered his blood pressure to the point where his heart was bearly [<i>sic</i>] beating and he was put into a deep unconscious state which gave the appearance of him being dead.”<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a></p>
<p>Firstly, it is not altogether clear who administered the vinegar/wine mixtures. This version of the “swoon theory” falters immediately if the “they” or “he” who administered the drink were in league with the Jews or Romans.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a></p>
<p>To be sure, some commentators report that “[t]he women of Jerusalem had prepared a painkilling potion of drugged wine for condemned men to drink…”.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a> So far so good. However, “…Jesus, committed to the full agony of the cross, [initially] refuses it.”<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="">[18]</a></p>
<p>Even later, when he <i>does</i> accept the vinegar-soaked “sponge,” it’s not clear that Frisk’s interpretation is adequate. “This offer of a wine-soaked sponge may have been an act of mercy, because the wine could act as a painkiller. Perhaps the man thinks Jesus is delirious from pain. But sour wine was usually a remedy for thirst, and <i>it many have been an attempt to revive him to perpetuate his suffering</i>.”<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="">[19]</a></p>
<p>Secondly, the he-faked-his-death theorists cannot suitably account for the disciples' belief in Jesus’s resurrection. After all, even supposing that Frisk is correct and that “Yeshua …was treated by two highly trained physicians [she means Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus],” Jesus’s devastated and worn appearance would hardly have inspired a belief in his divinity.</p>
<p>To put it slightly differently, even if Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had succeeded in saving Jesus’s life – on the unlikely hypothesis that Jesus survived the crucifixion – he still would have looked like a man who had just been beaten half to death and nailed to a cross. Anyone who observed him would have been more likely to pity than worship him.</p>
<p>But even <i>this</i> depends on the truth of the hypothesis that an unassuming, thirty-something year-old Palestinian male could have fooled professional Roman soldiers into believing that he had died on the cross, when he was actually still alive. Frisk gives short shrift to this problem. She does not really argue for her view at all.</p>
<p>She basically provides a description of the medicinal properties of a couple of herbs that Jesus may have briefly sucked from a sponge. She exaggerates the effects. Frisk wishes us to believe that Jesus “cleared his lungs” from a single lick of hyssop and from a few drops of vinegar reduced his blood pressure to the point where his heartbeat would have been undetectable. </p>
<p>Anyone with even a cursory familiarity of herbal remedies will probably find Frisk’s flight of fancy fairly amusing. Vinegar (other translations say wine) has many amazing and salubrious properties. I drink a diluted mixture to relieve sore throat symptoms. It is quite true that it is possibly useful as a natural means of counteracting high blood pressure.</p>
<p>The idea that the vinegar was administered as part of a concerted effort to assist Jesus in “faking” death on the cross strains credulity. Are we supposed to believe that this was some sort of super-strength, “pharmaceutical-grade” vinegar? I probably drink more vinegar at one time than Jesus could have managed to suck from a sponge while asphyxiating to death on the cross and I have never once fallen to the floor from dangerously low blood pressure.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="">[20]</a></p>
<p>Suppose that the explanation is supposed to be that Jesus, in his weakened state, was more susceptible to the effects of the vinegar. But Frisk is mum on why a person who is so thoroughly weakened from scourging and carrying his cross to his execution site should be highly susceptible to the mild effects of vinegar, but strong enough to carry out an operation of “faking” his death.</p>
<p>We cannot forget that the crucifixion culminated when Jesus was stabbed through the heart with a Roman spear.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="">[21]</a> I was in rough shape for a week after I went through hernia surgery. To hear Frisk tell it, Jesus was tortured for hours and run through with a spear, but after a few days of rest, he was right as rain!</p>
<p>Even if Frisk’s speculations do not strike other readers as <i>prima facie</i> absurd, we are still left with the fact that she simply has not supplied arguments or evidence sufficient to support the weight of her contentions.</p>
<p>Her proffered “analysis” is nothing of the kind. She makes free use of legendary material without defending (or even acknowledging) her use of it. She does not scrupulously cite or even evidence her many controversial claims. At intervals, she employs ambiguous language. And her speculations, which in smaller quantities might suffice to bar her piece from being “analytic,” are present in such measure as to persuade this reader that her main aim must surely have been to propound her own idiosyncratic version of the shopworn “swoon theory.”</p>
<p>A more honest title would have been: “Jesus Faked His Death: A Series of Groundless Conjectures Inspired by the Crucifixion.”<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="">[22]</a></p>
<center>
<p>More:</p>
<p><a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/07/contra-christ-conspiracy-et-alia.html">"Contra the 'Christ Conspiracy'."</a></p>
<p><a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/06/jesus-never-said-anything-about.html">"Jesus 'Never Said Anything' About Homosexuality?"</a></p>
<p><a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/07/huffington-post-bible-does-not-condemn.html">"Huffington Post: 'The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality'."</a></p>
<p><a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-link-between-sodomy-and-usury.html">"The Link Between Sodomy and Usury."</a></p>
</center>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Katherine Frisk, “Who Moved The Stone? A Critical Analysis of the Crucifixion,” <i>Veterans Today</i>, Dec. 1, 2015, <<a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/who-moved-the-stone/">http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/who-moved-the-stone/</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> It’s not entirely clear to me what “critical analysis” is meant to convey, in this context. “Critical,” “criticism” and the like can of course involve “analysis” of sorts, often pertaining to dramatic or literary works. It probably isn’t charitable of me to assign that meaning, here. Otherwise the Frisk’s subtitle expresses something redundant such as “An Analytic Analysis of the Crucifixion.” Maybe she’s trying too hard to sound studious.</p>
<p>On the other hand, “critical” can describe a person who is “inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily.” Despite her claim to have “[m]any …books researching all things Christian” until her “bookshelves were bursting at the seams,” it may be that Frisk falls into the category of a person who is too ready to find fault with Christianity. Such is a matter for psychology. I forbear from making any further guesses along these lines.</p>
<p>I am curious to know, however, with what reading materials did Frisk stuff her shelves? She specifies only one title: <i>Who Moved the Stone?</i> I presume that this refers to the work (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Century Co.; 1930) by “Frank Morison,” which was the pseudonym of one Albert Henry Ross. More on this in the text body. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> If we proceed on the assumption that Frisk’s subtitle is seriously intended, one might find it striking that roughly one-quarter of the article is manifestly irrelevant to the reported main topic. The first nine or so paragraphs have nothing whatever to do with the crucifixion. </p>
<p>Frisk starts off speaking about “proving life after death.” She makes the multiply problematic claim that “[y]ou cannot prove life after death to anybody — the same way you cannot show them a radio wave,” and then promptly discontinues that line of inquiry. </p>
<p>Just for the sake of completeness, I say that her claim is “multiply problematic” for the following reasons. It is arguable that “proof” – in the sense of something like an “indubitable demonstration” – at best only applies to logic and mathematics. Other spheres of inquiry lack either incontestable axioms or uncontroversial transformation rules, or both. However, this implies that most spheres of inquiry will not allow knowledge seekers to derive “theorems.” This is simply to say that most disciplines proceed through adductive or inductive methods and arrive at conclusions that that can only be said to be true with such-as-so probability. What Frisk should talk about instead of “proof,” then, is evidence. This is her first problem.</p>
<p>Her second problem is that “you cannot <i>provide evidence</i> of life after death” is not obviously true. We have to know more about what standards of evidence will be in play, what specific pieces of evidence are to be considered, and so on. </p>
<p>A third problem is that Frisk’s claim that “you cannot show [somebody] a radio wave” also seems contentious. What is the operative meaning of “show,” for instance? Would it count as “showing” if we were to configure a radio receiver or radio telescope to produce some sort of visual indication of the presence of radio waves? She has hardly ruled it out. And this is just her opening sentence.</p>
<p>She proceeds to ramble on about crickets, Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees, and the Shroud of Turin – all without the least expression of how these matters are relevant to an “analysis of the Crucifixion.” Perhaps these matters could be shown to be relevant. But Frisk does not exert any effort to show this. This is not the sort of thing would expect of an <i>analysis</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> In an important sense, journalism and academic writing are quite different. (By “academic writing,” I mean writing that is fitting for an “academic context.” A research paper would count, for instance – provided that it meets all requirements for its particular course. Of course, the level of study is pertinent. A paper turned in for a high school physics class will presumably be less-detailed than a research paper submitted in a graduate-level physics course. Another sort of academic writing is that which is prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.)</p>
<p>One obvious difference is that the attention to detail is going to be greater in (acceptable) academic writing. It is questionable, therefore, whether a piece of journalism could ever count as an “analysis” properly so-called. But let this pass.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> “Joseph of Arimathea,” BBC, n.d. [ca. 2014?], <<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea.shtml</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> Frisk elsewhere claims that Jesus’s “childhood had been spent in Egypt, studying in the great schools in Alexandria…”. Again, what her source is for this claim is anybody’s guess, because she does not say. It is noteworthy, though, that the Babylonian Talmud does associate Jesus with Alexandria – in the same passage wherein the Talmudic authors accuse Jesus of “worshiping” a “brick.” The Talmudic hostility towards Jesus, as well as the late dating (3<sup>rd</sup>-5<sup>th</sup>-centuries, A.D., compared with the 1<sup>st</sup>-century A.D. Gospels) of the Talmudic corpus, renders the Talmudic witness of dubious value in terms of investigating the Jesus of history.<br />
<br />
In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 107b, we read: “What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: ‘From me, (Jerusalem) the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.’ He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. ‘How beautiful is this Acsania!’ (The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.) Thereupon (Jesus) observed, ‘Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.’ ‘Wretch,’ he rebuked him, ‘dost thou thus engage thyself.’ He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading, ‘Receive me!’ But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the Shema’, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. ‘Repent,’ said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, ‘I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.’ And a Master has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.’” This passage is archived online as “Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 107b,” <i>Come and Hear</i>, <<a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_107.html">http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_107.html</a>>. Cf. Robert E. van Voorst, “Jesus Tradition in Classical and Jewish Writings,” Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, eds., <i>Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus</i>, vol. 1, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011, p. 2,174; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=LuKMmVu0tpMC&pg=PA2174">https://books.google.com/books?id=LuKMmVu0tpMC&pg=PA2174</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> Apparently, this fable was originated by the Jewish agent Nikolai Aleksandrovič Notovič, who first reported it as the “Life of Saint Issa” in his <i>La vie inconnue de Jésus-Christ</i> (“The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ”), Paris: P. Ollendorff, 1894.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> Palash Ghosh, “Jesus Christ: Was the Savior Buried in Kashmir, India?” <i>International Business Times</i>, Dec. 24 2013, <<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/jesus-christ-was-savior-buried-kashmir-india-1519716">http://www.ibtimes.com/jesus-christ-was-savior-buried-kashmir-india-1519716</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> <i>Ibid</i>. It is difficult to surmise from this whether Ghosh thinks that there <i>is</i> concrete evidence, it’s just not “incontrovertible,” or whether he is saying that the available evidence is <i>neither</i> concrete <i>nor</i> incontrovertible, or something else. Is there <i>any</i> evidence at all? What is it?</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> “Nazarene,” Angus Stevenson and Maurice Waite, eds., <i>Concise Oxford English Dictionary</i>, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011, p. 956; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=4XycAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA956>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> George A. Barton and Ludwig Blau, “Nazarite,” <i>Jewish Encyclopedia</i>, 1906 ed., <<a href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite">http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite</a>>. Besides the difference in the two words that has just been noted, it may be useful to observe that “Nazarene” also designated “Ebionites,” or “member[s] of a group of Jews who (during the early history of the Christian Church) accepted Jesus as the Messiah; they accepted the Gospel According to Matthew but rejected the Epistles of St. Paul and continued to follow Jewish law and celebrate Jewish holidays; they were later declared heretic[s] by the Church of Rome” – due to the fact that, as a rule, they rejected the Jesus’s divinity. This is according to “Nazarene,” <i>WordNet Search - 3.1</i>, Princeton Univ., <<a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Nazarene&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=">http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Nazarene&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=</a>>. “Nazarene” was also sometimes “an early name for any Christian,” <i>ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> Later she employs the word “Nazarite,” asserting – again without evidence – that “Lazarus had completed a …Nazarite ceremony only a week prior to the arrest of Yeshua…”.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="">[13]</a> The Holy Bible, The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 1, verses 13-17, New American Bible, Revised Ed. (NABRE).</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> The Holy Bible, The Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 11, verses 18-19, NABRE. Cf. David L. Jeffrey, <i>A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William. B. Eerdmans Publ., 1992, p. 543; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&pg=PA543">https://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&pg=PA543</a>>. It is arguable that Jesus’s raising from the dead Jairus’s daughter, the widow’s son and Lazarus (Matthew 9:25; Luke 7:13<i>ff</i>; and John 11:43<i>ff</i>) would have placed him in danger of breaking his oath to refrain from dealing with the dead – had He made such an oath. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> Matthew 27:33-34 and 46-48: “And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of the Skull), they gave Jesus wine to drink mixed with gall. But when he had tasted it, he refused to drink. ...And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Some of the bystanders who heard it said, ‘This one is calling for Elijah.’ Immediately one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink.”</p>
<p>Mark 15:22-23 and 34-37: “They brought him to the place of Golgotha (which is translated Place of the Skull). They gave him wine drugged with myrrh, but he did not take it. ...And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Some of the bystanders who heard it said, ‘Look, he is calling Elijah.’ One of them ran, soaked a sponge with wine, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, ‘Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.’ Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.”</p>
<p>Luke 23:33-38: “When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left. [Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’] They divided his garments by casting lots. The people stood by and watched; the rulers, meanwhile, sneered at him and said, ‘He saved others, let him save himself if he is the chosen one, the Messiah of God.’ Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine they called out, ‘If you are King of the Jews, save yourself.’ Above him there was an inscription that read, ‘This is the King of the Jews.’“</p>
<p>John 19:16b-30: “So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle. Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.’ Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write The King of the Jews, but that he said, I am the King of the Jews.’ Pilate answered, ‘What I have written, I have written.’ When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down. So they said to one another, ‘Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be, in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled [that says]: ‘They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.’ This is what the soldiers did. Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.”</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16]</a> The closely related “disciples-stole-the-body” canard was an early competitor to the “swoon theory,” and one which the Gospels attribute to the Jews. “While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, 'You are to say, <i>His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.</i> And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy [him] and keep you out of trouble.' The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present [day].” Matthew 28:11-15.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17]</a> Craig S. Keener, <i>The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament</i>, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2014, p. 121; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5N3fAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA121">https://books.google.com/books?id=5N3fAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA121</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="">[18]</a> See again Matthew 26:29.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="">[19]</a> Keener, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 122. Italics added.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="">[20]</a> Again, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus refused to drink when a vinegar preparation was originally offered to him. When he finally does take some, it was administered on a “sponge.” It’s not like he took a hearty swig from some decanter. It seems reasonable to suppose that he would only have managed to extract a small amount.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="">[21]</a> I leave aside Frisk’s additional assertion that “[a] person who is dead and whose heart has stopped beating will not bleed if cut or stabbed with a sharp object.” This is simply untutored speculation. What kind of “cut” or “stabbing” is in view? There is a difference, for instance, between a superficial cut and having one’s thoracic cavity penetrated with a war spear. From the fact (if it is a fact) that bleeding does not typically occur in cases of superficial cuts to a fresh corpse, it hardly follows that bleeding will not occur even in cases where one is stabbed through the heart. Serious work has been done on the question of Jesus’s injuries. (See, e.g., William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” <i>Journal of the American Medical Association</i>, vol. 255, no. 11, Mar., 1986, pp. 1,455-1,463 and Frederick T. Zugibe, <i>The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry</i>, New York: M. Evans and Co., 2005. Edwards, for instance, who is credited as a medical doctor, expressed no disquiet about the Biblical report of “blood and water,” and said at one point that “the setting of the scourging and crucifixion, with associated hypovolemia, hypoxemia” might have involved “an altered coagulated state,” <i>op. cit</i>., p. 1,463.) Frisk evinces absolutely no awareness of any of it and therefore can hardly be said to have dealt responsibly with the subject.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="">[22]</a> Or possibly, the subtitle could have been “And the Miraculous Properties of First-Century Palestinian Vinegar.”</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-72224833409955608982015-12-05T19:31:00.003-08:002015-12-06T19:51:19.666-08:00Hanukkah: A Brief Introduction<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/33/32/11/333211f4cbcde2ea0b0a3336a226216a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/33/32/11/333211f4cbcde2ea0b0a3336a226216a.jpg" width="235" /></a></div><br />
<p>The superficial story of the Judaic “feast” of Hanukkah (the festival of dedication or lights) is easily summarized. “This eight-day festival begins on the evening of the 24<sup>th</sup> of <i>Kislev</i> (November/December) and recalls the rededication of the temple in the year 164 B.C., after the sanctuary had been saved from the dangers of desecration and from being taken over by pagans.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> Each day one more candle is lit on an eight-branched candelabrum called a menorah.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> A ninth candle, called the <i>shamash</i> (servant), is used to light the others.”</p>
<p>Despite its ostensible antiquity, historically Hanukkah had only minor significance. One Rabbi Sherman Kirschner admits: “Hanukkah is a minor holiday in history. Ancient rabbis gave it little credence. The Talmud, or oral law, makes little mention of it. It is somewhat sad that Hanukkah tends to fall around Christmas, a major holiday for Christians. Many Jews have tried to equalize the importance of Hanukkah and Christmas. There is no way we could ever equate Hanukkah’s minor significance to Christmas’ deep religiosity.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>Another Jewish source elaborates on this point. “It is remarkable that while the Talmud contains an entire tractate devoted to [the Jewish holiday of] Purim, [‘lots’], Hanukkah is not even mentioned in the [Jewish legal treatises comprising the] Mishnah,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> …The Talmudic discussion begins with the question <i>ma’ee chanukah</i> (‘What is Hanukkah?’), as if the answer were not very well known.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>“Seventy rabbis were discussing various Jewish festivals. They touched on the Sabbath, the high holy days of Rosh Hashanah [the New Year] and Yom Kippur [‘Day of Atonement’], Passover and Sukkot [‘Feast of Tabernacles’], a harvest celebration. When their talk ended, one of the rabbis asked, ‘What about Hanukkah?’ The sixty-nine other religious scholars responded, ‘What is Hanukkah?’”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a></p>
<p>“The early authorities sensed that the Hasmonean<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a> victories had already lost their luster by the Mishnaic period. … It is apparent that the Hasmonean dynasty had lost its glory by the time of the Mishnah, for the last of the Hasmoneans were guilty of the very things their forebears fought against; as a result, Hanukkah was well-nigh forgotten…”.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a> </p>
<p>Hanukkah has essentially been exaggerated, apologetically, in order to offset Jewish envy around Christmastime and, polemically, in order to dilute Christian cultural elements.</p>
<p>“‘Hanukkah is not really important,’ said Rabbi [Celso] Cukierkorn [of Hattiesburg Congregation B’nai Israel]. ‘It’s a festival that <i>became</i> important in America because it coincides with Christmas.’ The gift-giving and decorating widely thought of as central to Hanukkah… are American creations designed to make Jewish children feel included during Christmas, the most important Christian holiday,<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> Cukierkorn said.”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a></p>
<p>“…Hanukkah falls in winter, usually in December, and its proximity to Christmas gives it a visibility in American culture and a consequence in American Jewish life that are far out of proportion to its minor significance in Jewish religion.”<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a></p>
<p>Additionally, in the opinion of one scholarly skeptic, Hanukkah’s <i>sub rosa</i> significance, communicated esoterically through the image of the menorah, is as a testimony to “the supreme position which the Holy Judaic People occupy in God’s eyes. …The secret of Hanukkah was disclosed by Rabbi Levi Isaac ben Meir of Berdichev (known as ‘the Kedushat Levi’ after his eponymous treatise), an important eighteenth century <i>halachic</i> [legal] authority, who revealed the fact that lighting the Hanukkah menorah does not commemorate the victory of the Biblical Maccabees. </p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_aLFr2WvDBGurdzdCKAzQjStFmil91sYg37_Z2-JfLJhPc4riFRxn0dbOcej_xQ7sJN9ADZt6yH2Mvy-W54bTfpMF1Y83hGE2e_glZa967UrW_b4yLS1wr7VBZjeMvBEqUYDlCrUcA6w/s1600/DISCOVERED.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_aLFr2WvDBGurdzdCKAzQjStFmil91sYg37_Z2-JfLJhPc4riFRxn0dbOcej_xQ7sJN9ADZt6yH2Mvy-W54bTfpMF1Y83hGE2e_glZa967UrW_b4yLS1wr7VBZjeMvBEqUYDlCrUcA6w/s1600/DISCOVERED.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<p><center>(<a href="http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html">Michael Hoffman's <i>Judaism Discovered</i></a>)</center></p>
<p>“The arcane traditional doctrine of <i>Chazal</i> (‘the [rabbinic] sages of blessed memory’) concerning Hanukkah is that it actually signifies God’s ‘delight in the Jewish people’ themselves, and their vainglorious celebrations. God provided eight days of oil not as a means of facilitating a victory or of guaranteeing the successful completion of a sacred duty, but rather as a sign (<i>halacha osah mitzvah</i>), of His continuing adoration of the Judaic people, which all the rest of us are supposed to emulate, as we in fact do, whenever we allow a menorah to be erected where a nativity scene is banned.”<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a> </p>
<center>
<p>Further reading:</p>
<p>On Saturn and the Jews, see “<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2015/10/lord-of-time.html">Lord of Time</a>“;</p>
<p>On the rainbow and “Star of David” symbolism, see “<a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2015/06/water-of-fire-on-rainbows-and-hexagrams.html">Water of Fire: On Rainbows and Hexagrams</a>“;</p>
<p>See also “<a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-name-of-lincoln-and-judaism.html">The name ‘Lincoln’ and Judaism</a>“; and</p>
<p>“<a href="http://bellofliberty.blogspot.com/2015/09/rightwing-conservative-christian.html">‘Rightwing, Conservative Christian Interests’ Versus ‘Jewish Interests’</a>.”</p>
</center>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> See 1 Maccabees 4:51-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> One “Magick”-enthusiast effused: “Several years ago I discovered that an old Hanukkah Menorah, the nine-branched candelabrum used for the celebration of the Jewish Festival of Lights, makes a great moon-centered item. It has nine branches, the number most often associated with the moon, and a Star of David, the six-pointed star which, although it today symbolizes the Jewish religion, is probably the very oldest symbol of the creator in existence,” Edain McCoy, <i>Magick & Rituals of the Moon</i>, St. Paul, Minn.: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2001, p. 28; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=WQumoNpKKiwC&pg=PA28">https://books.google.com/books?id=WQumoNpKKiwC&pg=PA28</a>>. </p>
<p>For more on the Jewish/moon connexions, see Matthew J. Bell and Jim Brandon, “Star Trek <i>In Tenebris</i>,” <i>Bell Curve</i> [weblog], Jun. 5, 2013, <<a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2013/06/star-trek-in-tenebris_5.html">http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2013/06/star-trek-in-tenebris_5.html</a>>. </p>
<p>Cf. Michael Hoffman, <i>Judaism Discovered</i>, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History & Research, 2008, esp. pp. 237-241, 256<i>ff</i>.</p>
<p>“[Guillaume] <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/09/going-postel-makings-of-judeo-christian.html">Postel</a> [1510-1581], a French mystic, translated into Latin the [Kabbalistic treatises] <i>Zohar</i> and <i>Sefer Yetzirah</i> before they were publicly printed in Hebrew. His translations included mystical annotations of his own theosophic philosophy as applied to kabbalah. His publications also include a Latin commentary (1548) on the mystical symbolism of the menorah, and eventually a Hebrew edition.” Mark Stavish, “Kabbalah and the Hermetic Tradition,” Hermetic [dot] com, <<a href="http://hermetic.com/stavish/essays/kabbalah-hermetic.html">http://hermetic.com/stavish/essays/kabbalah-hermetic.html</a>>. </p>
<p>Note that the primary menorah is depicted as <a href="http://stashpit.com/upload/big/2014/03/30/533868ce4885e.png">seven-branched</a>. This symbolic seven is related to the seven days of creation, the seven planets of alchemy, the seven “lower <i>Sephiroth</i>” of the Kabbalistic “Tree of Life” and the seven “spheres.” Ellen Frankel, Betsy Platkin Teutsch, eds., <i>The Encyclopedia of Jewish Symbols</i>, Lanham, Md.: Jason Aronson; Rowman & Littlefield, 1992, p. 106; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=PASL_g8JDqsC&pg=PA106">https://books.google.com/books?id=PASL_g8JDqsC&pg=PA106</a>>.</p>
<p>“The Talmud states that it is forbidden to use a seven-branched menorah outside of the Temple, which is why the modern-day chanukiah [<i>sic</i>] is slightly different.” “The Menorah: Seven Branches or Nine?” <i>United With Israel</i>, Nov. 23, 2015, <<a href="http://unitedwithisrael.org/the-menorah-vs-the-chanukiah/">http://unitedwithisrael.org/the-menorah-vs-the-chanukiah/</a>>.</p>
<p>“Similar to the seven-branched Temple <i>menorah</i>, but different in origin and function, is the nine-branched Hanukkah <i>menorah</i>, ‘<i>hanukkiah</i>.’ Eight of the branches, originally containing olive oil but now more typically holding candles, represent the miracle that took place at the time of Judah Maccabee, when the only undefiled oil found in the desecrated Temple, a one-day supply, lasted a full eight days. A ninth light, called the <i>shammash</i> (helper), is used to light the other candles, since Jewish law forbids making practical use of the Hanukkah candles,” Frankel, Betsy Platkin Teutsch, eds., <i>loc. cit.</i></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Sherman P. Kirschner, “Hanukkah and Christmas Not Equal,” <i>Baltimore Sun</i>, Dec. 26, 1997, <<a href="http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-12-26/community/9712190292_1_hanukkah-minor-holiday-menorah">http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-12-26/community/9712190292_1_hanukkah-minor-holiday-menorah</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> “In fact, the festival is mentioned several times in the Mishnah. …Taanit 2:10[,] …Moed Katan 3:9[,] …Bava Kama 6:6[, and] Megillah 3-4… Perhaps what Klein means to say is that there is no tractate devoted specifically to Hannukah, and only passing mention of its distinctive Mitzvot – Joshua Heller, ed.,” <i>infra</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Isaac Klein, “The Minor Festivals: Hanukkah,” <i>Guide to Jewish Religious Practice</i>, ch. 16, reproduced online by the Joshua Heller, ed., Jewish Theological Seminary, <<a href="http://www.jtsa.edu/About_JTS/JTS_Stories/Guide_to_Jewish_Religious_Practice_-_Hanukkah.xml">http://www.jtsa.edu/About_JTS/JTS_Stories/Guide_to_Jewish_Religious_Practice_-_Hanukkah.xml</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> Rachel Leifer, “Rabbi – Hanukkah Significance Is Minor,” <i>Hattiesburg American</i> [Hattiesburg, Miss.], Dec. 28, 2005; reproduced online at Rense.com, <<a href="http://rense.com/general69/haun.htm">http://rense.com/general69/haun.htm</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> “<a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Hasmonean.html">Hasmonean</a>” refers to “the Jewish dynasty established by the Maccabees,” Angus Stevenson, ed., <i>Oxford Dictionary of English</i>, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; Clarendon, 2010 , p. 803; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=anecAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA803">https://books.google.com/books?id=anecAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA803</a>>.</p>
<p>When, circa 2<sup>nd</sup>-1<sup>st</sup> c. B.C., Maccabee family wrested Judea from the Seleucid Empire, they began Hasmonean rule. One of the socio-cultural byproducts of this shift was the decline in Hellenistic Judaism. Hellenism (circa 4<sup>th</sup>-2<sup>nd</sup> c. B.C.) had a marked tendency towards religious eclecticism – mixing Greek ideas with Jewish ones. This was apparently repudiated by a group known as the Hasidæans, about which little is known. This party must, however, be carefully distinguished from the later “Hasidim.” Modern “Hasidic Jews” trace themselves back to Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer “Ba’al Shem Tov” (“lord of the good name”), and engage in theurgy (e.g., magical “curses” such as the <i><a href="http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/pulsa.pdf">pulsa denura</a></i>, “whip of fire”), pagan rites (such as the <i><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110519091219/http:/www.sichosinenglish.org/books/sichos-in-english/50/27.htm">kiddush ha-levanah</a></i>, “sanctification of the moon”) and even sexual ceremonies (like Kabbalistic “uniting the Shekinah”). For more on this, including this group’s overtly phallic hermeneutic in which whereby the Rabbinic “sage” or <i>Zaddik</i> is able to “pull” the meaning of texts (whether <i>aggadic</i>, “Jewish stories,” or Biblical) into an erect and fully manifest state – unlike the flaccid and obscured state with which gentiles and Karaites are left, see Hoffman, <i>Judaism Discovered</i>, <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p>Our contemporary "pious ones" are the heirs, through a belt of transmission that includes Merkevah, to the very same pagan, psycho-dramatic rites and symbology with which the Hellenists flirted. And, the Greeks, of course, merely inherited much of the substance of their myrionymous gods and goddesses from Babylon - and Egypt before it.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> Klein, <i>loc. cit</i>.; citing Abraham Kahana, <i>Sifrut Hahistoriyah Hayisra’elit</i>, 2 vols., Jerusalem: 1968-1969.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> This is factually incorrect. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) gets it right: “Easter commemorates the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the most important Christian festival, and the one celebrated with the greatest joy.” (“Easter,” Religions, British Broadcasting Corporation, Jul. 5, 2011, <<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/easter.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/holydays/easter.shtml</a>>.)</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> Leifer, <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> William Scott Green, “Religion and Society in America,” Jacob Neusner, ed., <i>World Religions in America: An Introduction</i>, 4<sup>th</sup> ed., Westminster; John Knox Press, 2009, p. 414; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=34vGv_HDGG8C&pg=PA414">https://books.google.com/books?id=34vGv_HDGG8C&pg=PA414</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> Michael A. Hoffman, “The Hanukkah Hoax,” <i>Revisionist Review</i> [weblog], Dec. 6, 2007, <<a href="http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2007/12/hanukkah-hoax-excerpt-from-hoffmans-new.html">http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2007/12/hanukkah-hoax-excerpt-from-hoffmans-new.html</a>>.</p>
<p>Cf. Hoffman, <i>Judaism Discovered</i>, <i>op. cit.</i>, 2008, p. 916.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-43833560258884538112015-11-23T13:02:00.001-08:002017-08-02T21:12:47.012-07:00Virgil's 'Puer'<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg/500px-Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="667" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg/500px-Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>It is lately fashionable to deemphasize the uniqueness of Christianity, and of Jesus’s Messiahship, in part by arguing that the Romans had a “messianic tradition.”</p>
<p>For instance, in the Crash Course video on Christianity, narrator John Green speaks about a coin depicting Emperor Augustus, saying: “So let’s just state at the outset that in 4 B.C.E. being the son of God, or at least being the son of <i>a</i> god, was not such an unusual thing.”<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a></p>
<p>Claims about this supposed “Roman messianic tradition” are varied. Presently, I will focus upon two main questions. Did the poet Virgil write a Messianic prophecy? And was a Roman named Asinius Gallus a competitor (of sorts) with Jesus of Nazareth for the title “Messiah”?</p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=0143105132&asins=0143105132&linkId=e5fbf2cf8ca271a95f7975163decf363&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>In order to answer these two questions, let us establish a bit of groundwork.</p>
<p>Firstly, who was Virgil and what was the “prophecy” in question? </p>
<p>Virgil (also sometimes spelled Vergil) was the name of one Publius Vergilius Maro, a Roman poet born in 70 B.C. and who died in 19 B.C., during the early part of the reign of Caesar Augustus. Virgil is best-known for the <i>Aeneid</i>, an epic poem that had to associated ancient Rome with the fabled kingdom of Troy.</p>
<p>Virgil’s <i>Fourth Eclogue</i> is part of a collection of bucolic poetry (the <i>Eclogues</i>), and is expressly addressed to a person named “Pollio.”<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a></p>
<p>The next question is obvious: Who was Pollio?</p>
<p>From <i>Wikipedia</i>:</p>
<p>“Gaius Asinius Pollio (…75 BC-AD 4) was a Roman soldier, politician, orator, poet, playwright, literary critic and historian… Pollio was most famously a patron of Virgil and a friend of Horace and had poems dedicated to him by both men.”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a></p>
<p>Under the subheading “Role in the Civil War,” we read:</p>
<p>“Pollio vacillated between Mark Antony and Octavian as civil war between them brewed,<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a> but ultimately threw in his lot with Antony.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title="">[v]</a> …In the division of the provinces, Gaul fell to Antony, who entrusted Pollio with …[particular] administrati[ve duties] …<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title="">[vi]</a></p>
<p>“In superintending the distribution of the Mantuan territory amongst the veterans, he used his influence to save from confiscation the property of the poet Virgil. In 40 BC he helped to arrange the peace of Brundisium by which Octavian and Antony were for a time reconciled. In the same year Pollio entered upon his consulship, which had been promised him in 43 BC by the Second Triumvirate. Virgil addressed the famous fourth eclogue to him, though there is uncertainty regarding whether Virgil composed the poem in anticipation of Pollio's consulship or celebrating his part in the Treaty of Brundisium. Virgil, like other Romans, hoped that peace was at hand and looked forward to a Golden Age under Pollio's consulship.”<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title="">[vii]</a></p>
<p>If the <i>4th Eclogue</i> was literally addressed to Pollio, then it is reasonable to suppose that the <i>puer</i> (Latin for “boy” or “child”) spoken of in the poem – insofar as any actual person is intended – is a son of Pollio.</p>
<p>Indeed, scholar Elizabeth Denny Pierce writes that such is “[t]he generally accepted tradition”: </p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=1330095375&asins=1330095375&linkId=295dac4cac919211595bf4c3b4992ac7&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>“The generally accepted tradition that the child was a son of Asinius Pollio is doubtless due to the fact that the latter is the only mortal referred to by name in the poem and also to the story of Asconius that Asinius Gallus, the son of Pollio, asserted that he (Gallus) was the puer of this Eclogue.”<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title="">[viii]</a></p>
<p>Pierce continues: “Asinius Gallus was the eldest son of Pollio, and was born in 39 B.C. …As his brother Herius Asinius died when a boy, Asinius Gallus was the only son left to succeed his father. …As he had incurred the ill-will of Tiberius not only by his marriage but by certain remarks made in the Senate<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title="">[ix]</a> he was condemned in 30 A.D., but kept in prison until his death by starvation in 33 A.D. Since Augustus when considering possible successors to the principate had discarded him as one who had ambition but inferior ability, and had chosen Tiberius instead, there had been friction between the rivals [that is, Asinius Gallus and Tiberius]. Gallus's marriage to Vispania after Augustus had forced Tiberius to divorce her, had been another reason for hostility. There is evidence that Gallus had made himself as disagreeable as he could to the second princeps, and it would have been perfectly possible for him to add to the emperor's unpopularity by spreading the story that he himself had been destined to be the saviour of the world.”<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title="">[x]</a></p>
<p>This information is in no way “dated.” Readers may compare Fabio Stok’s comment:</p>
<p>“…Asconius recorded (according to Serv. Dan. <i>ad Ecl</i>. 4.11) that the son of Asinius Pollio declared to Asconius that he himself was the <i>puer</i> celebrated in the fourth eclogue.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title="">[xi]</a></p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=B01N9I9J0F&asins=B01N9I9J0F&linkId=648d62625892712d600dc53dfaddb93e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>Notice the parenthetical citation. Stok cites “Serv. Dan. <i>ad Ecl</i>. 4.11.”<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title="">[xii]</a> </p>
<p>“Servius” designates the “late fourth-century and early fifth-century grammarian” Maurus Servius Honoratus who “was the author of a set of commentaries on the works of Virgil.”<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title="">[xiii]</a> </p>
<p>Keep track of the dates. Late 4th century to early fifth puts us at between, say A.D. 375 and A.D. 425, roughly. This means that Servius is writing about statements and events in the 1st century<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title="">[xiv]</a> from a vantage point 275-325 years removed – at best.</p>
<p>Now look at the difference between Pierce’s and Stok’s citations. It turns out that Servius’s “commentary on Virgil<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title="">[xv]</a> has survived in two distinct manuscript traditions.”<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16" title="">[xvi]</a></p>
<p>This means that we’re not exactly sure just <i>what</i> Servius wrote. </p>
<p>“The first [manuscript tradition] is a comparatively short commentary, which is attributed to Servius in the superscription in the manuscripts and by other internal evidence. A second class of manuscripts, all deriving from the 10th and 11th centuries, embed the same text in a much expanded commentary. The copious additions are in contrast to the style of the original; none of these manuscripts bears the name of Servius, and the commentary is known traditionally as <i>Servius auctus</i> or <i>Servius Danielis</i>, from Pierre Daniel who first published it in 1600.”<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17" title="">[xvii]</a></p>
<p>From Stok’s expanded citation – “Serv. Dan. <i>ad Ecl</i>. 4.11” – we see that the passage in question (i.e., the one that identifies Asinius Gallus as Virgil’s <i>puer</i>) comes to us from the second – and <i>later</i> – manuscript stream.</p>
<p>Furthermore, in an article by W. Warde Fowler, we read that the relevant comment comes, not in the main text, but in “a note of Servius.”<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18" title="">[xviii]</a></p>
<p>The Asinius Gallus claim therefore comes down to this: <b>According to an account first published by one Pierre Daniel in the year A.D. 1600, the 5th-century Roman literary critic (“grammarian”) Servius, reported that the failed 1st-century politician Asinius Gallus once asserted to the historian Asconius that he (Asinius Gallus) was the “<i>puer</i>” spoken of by Virgil – presumably, since Asinius Gallus was the son of the Pollio to whom the poem was addressed.</b></p>
<p>Fowler observes<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19" title="">[xix]</a> that this note from 1,600 years after the events that it describes, is nonetheless “[t]he earliest information we have about the question” of Asinius Gallus’s identication as Virgil’s “boy” (<i>puer</i>). Fowler then opines that “…the statement of Asinius Gallus …is open to grave suspicion”.<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20" title="">[xx]</a></p>
<p>The only other candidate that I was able to discover as having been a credible claimant to the title of Virgil’s “<i>puer</i>” was Jesus of Nazareth. Partly, this paucity of potentials seems due to the fact that most readers of Virgil categorized the <i>Eclogues</i> as political poetry and did not worry overly much about the possibility – made real in virtue of the Christian claims about Jesus – that Virgil had “predicted” a “messiah.” </p>
<p>“St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) …saw a prophecy of Christ in Vergil’s poem. In <i>De civitate Dei</i>, book x, chap. 27, he quotes 11. I3 and 14, and says that Vergil (<i>poeta nobilissimus</i>) spoke poetically because he was speaking in the shadowy person of another, and yet he spoke truly because the traces of guilt (<i>scelerum vestigia</i>) could be wiped away only by that Savior concerning whom the verse was written. …Cf. St. Augustine, <i>Epist</i>. 137, chap. iii. 12 and <i>Epist</i>. 104, chap. iii. ii, in both of which passages the same two lines of the eclogue are quoted as referring to Christ.”<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21" title="">[xxi]</a></p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=B005FY66EA&asins=B005FY66EA&linkId=930791e4d16bf5e72e499e7ee81610d8&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>Augustine, lived between the years A.D. 354 to A.D. 430. This makes him a contemporary of Servius. “To St. Augustine the reference in the eclogue is …clearly a prophecy of Christ”.<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22" title="">[xxii]</a> </p>
<p>Furthermore Dante Alighieri, who lived from the 13th-14th centuries (A.D. 1265-1321) also “believed, as did St. Augustine, that Vergil was an unconscious prophet of Christ.”<a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23" title="">[xxiii]</a></p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=0451208633&asins=0451208633&linkId=0f84c1ddf0203c18ddac6c295c7c2b29&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>Thus the identification of Jesus as Virgil's <i>puer</i> has testimony in its favor that is at least as ancient (and possibly more ancient, if for example Servius Danielis dates from the 10th century and is not attributable to the historical Servius) as that which identifies Asinius Gallus as the puer.</p>
<p>In any case, comparing Virgil poem, which is addressed to the real-life Pollio and invokes deities in the Roman pantheon, is hardly commensurable with the prophecies ultimately applied to Christ. The Jewish messianic tradition, albeit politically-oriented, is both quite ancient (going back hundreds of years before Jesus was born) and extensive. To call one passage, in a 1st-century poem (which was itself clearly a tribute to a real-life person) evidence of a Roman “messianic tradition” is, frankly, risible. Additionally, as I have stated, the identification of Asinius Gallus is neither indubitably ancient (possibly dating from the 5th-10th centuries) and, in any case, is inconsequential. Contemporary records indicate that Asinius Gallus was an ambitious and trouble-making rival to the eventual emperor, Tiberius.</p>
<p>What has all of this got to do with the messianic tradition of 1st-century Palestinian Jews? As far as I can see: not much.</p>
<p>So who was Virgil’s <i>puer</i>? The following seem to be the two most viable options.</p>
<p><b>If taken literally, Virgil’s “prophecy” merely fits into a picture of ancient mud-slinging and politicking and applies to a definite rivalry between Tiberius and Asinius Gallus, the son of the Pollio mentioned by Virgil.</b></p>
<p><b>If taken metaphorically, then a case that Virgil was an <i>anima naturaliter Christiana</i> (that is, a “naturally Christian soul”) and that he, perhaps unknowingly, actually prophesied about the Jesus of Nazareth, seems far and away the only interpretation with any “legs.”</b></p>
<p>Take your pick! </p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> John Green, “Christianity from Judaism to Constantine: Crash Course World History #11,” CrashCourse [channel]. <i>YouTube</i>, Apr. 5, 2012, <<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG55ErfdaeY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG55ErfdaeY</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> To see this, check the English translation posted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology website, here: Virgil, <i>The Eclogues</i>, 37 B.C., Eclogue 4, <<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/eclogue.4.iv.html">http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/eclogue.4.iv.html</a>>. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> “Gaius Asinius Pollio [Consul 40BC],” <i>Wikipedia</i>, Nov. 21, 2014, <<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Asinius_Pollio_%28consul_40_BC%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Asinius_Pollio_%28consul_40_BC%29</a>>; citing Jerome [Chronicon 2020] who “says he [that is Pollio] died in AD 4 in the seventieth year of his life, which would place the year of his birth at 65 BC,” ibid.; Virgil, Eclogues 4:8; and Horace, Carmina 2.1.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> Cicero, <i>Letters to Friends</i> 10.32, 10.33; Appian, <i>Civil Wars</i> 3.46.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> Appian, <i>Civil Wars</i> 3.97.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> Velleius Paterculus, <i>Roman History</i> 2.76.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> “Gaius Asinius Pollio…,” <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> Elizabeth Denny Pierce, <i>A Roman Man of Letters, Gaius Asinius Pollio</i>, PhD dissertation, Columbia Univ. [New York], 1922, p. 45; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=V3pfAAAAMAAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=V3pfAAAAMAAJ</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> Tacitus, <i>Annals</i>, I, 12.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> Pierce, <i>op. cit</i>., pp. 45-47.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[xi]</a> “The Life of Vergil Before Donatus,” Joseph Farrell and Michael C. J. Putnam, eds., <i>A Companion to Vergil's Aeneid and its Tradition</i>, Malden, Mass. and Oxford [U.K.]: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, p. 109.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[xii]</a> Pierce cited “Servius,” <i>ad Ecl</i>., IV, 11.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title="">[xiii]</a> “Maurus Servius Honoratus,” <i>Wikipedia</i>, Sept. 29, 2014, <<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurus_Servius_Honoratus">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurus_Servius_Honoratus</a>>. The reference to “Asconius” is to the 1st-c. [ca. 9 B.C.-ca.A.D. 76] Roman historian QuintusAsconius Pedianus.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title="">[xiv]</a> I.e., before A.D. 1 and A.D. 100.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title="">[xv]</a> Latin: <i>In Vergilii Aeneidem commentarii</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16" title="">[xvi]</a> See again Servius’s <i>Wiki</i> entry, given above.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17" title="">[xvii]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18" title="">[xviii]</a> As we have seen, this note is cited to Asconius, according to W. Warde Fowler, “Observations on the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil,” <i>Harvard Studies in Classical Philology</i>, vol. 14, Greenough Memorial Volume, 1903, p. 32 [of 17-35]; archived online at <a href="%3chttp:/www.jstor.org/stable/310376"><http://www.jstor.org/stable/310376</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19" title="">[xix]</a> <i>Op. cit</i>., p. 32.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20" title="">[xx]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21" title="">[xxi]</a> Ella Bourne, The Messianic Prophecy in Vergil's Fourth Eclogue, <i>Classical Journal</i> [a publication of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South], vol. 11, no. 7, Apr., 1916, p. 392 [in 390-400]; archived online at <<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3287925">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3287925</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22" title="">[xxii]</a> <i>Ibid</i>., p. 393.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23" title="">[xxiii]</a> <i>Ibid</i>., p. 398.</p>
<center><iframe src="//rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=kuft&banner=07V9YHKS4HY556H67002&f=ifr&lc=pf4&linkID=1530555bf68304e4f1a9cbadbbbc3e54&t=ellactor-20&tracking_id=ellactor-20" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0"></iframe></center>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-64569489780083731852015-11-10T16:52:00.002-08:002015-11-10T16:53:39.209-08:00Marco Rubio 'in Bed With' Gay Rights Activist<p>Marco Rubio, whose movement from Catholicism to Mormonism and back can hardly be described otherwise than as opportunism,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> is courting big-money "gay rights" activist Paul Singer.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<p>It is alarming, therefore, that one reads in the <i>New York Times</i>:</p>
<p>"Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President."<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>This bodes ill for Rubio's already shaky Christian bona fides.</p>
<p>"Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for [someone] to devour."<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a></p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> See Deborah Hastings, "Conservative Presidential Hopeful Marco Rubio's Religion of Many Colors," <i>New York Daily News</i>, Jun. 6, 2015, <<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-sen-marco-rubio-lost-found-religion-times-article-1.2244263">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-sen-marco-rubio-lost-found-religion-times-article-1.2244263</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Paul Singer is "a steadfast supporter of gay rights." Blake Ellis, "Street CEOs Open up About Their Gay Sons," Cable News Network, May 19, 2014, <<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/19/pf/ceos-gay-sons/">http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/19/pf/ceos-gay-sons/</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Confessore, Oct. 30, 2015, <<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/paul-singer-influential-billionaire-throws-support-to-marco-rubio-for-president.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/paul-singer-influential-billionaire-throws-support-to-marco-rubio-for-president.html</a>>. H/t: Eugene Delgaudio, email, Nov. 10, 2015, President, Public Advocate of the U.S, <<a href="http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/">http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> 1 Peter 5:8, NABRE.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-69723945578418097842015-11-09T13:31:00.001-08:002015-11-09T13:31:27.899-08:00'Heart-Shaped Box' and Abortion?Is Nirvana's "Heart-Shaped Box" (HSB) about an abortion?<br />
(1) Unofficially, Kurt Cobain (KC) seemed to have had a fascination with fetal containers. See, e.g., the "In Utero" album title.<br />
<br />
(2) He was interested in abortifacients. From Wiki:<br />
<br />
"The herb pennyroyal is sometimes used as an abortifacient. In Cobain's Journals, which was published posthumously in 2002, there is an entry where he explains the tracks on In Utero. The explanation given for 'Pennyroyal Tea' simply reads: 'herbal abortive... it doesn't work, you hippie.'"<br />
<br />
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennyroyal_tea#Meaning>.)<br />
<br />
(3) Courtney admits that HSB is "about her vagina".<br />
<br />
("Courtney Love Tells Lana Del Rey That 'Heart-Shaped Box' Is About Her Vagina," Rolling Stone, Jul. 30, 2010, <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/courtney-love-tells-lana-del-rey-that-heart-shaped-box-is-about-her-vagina-20120730>.)<br />
<br />
(4) Amongst the interpretations floating around for "meat eating orchid" is:<br />
<br />
"Orchids are known for their vaginal appearance. The Venus Flytrap is a carnivorous plant that derives its name from Venus the Roman goddess of love because of its similar appearance to a vagina. Meat (especially when placed next to the orchid) in this case could be a phallic image."<br />
<br />
(<http://rock.rapgenius.com/Nirvana-heart-shaped-box-lyrics#note-581156>.)<br />
<br />
(5) KC was obsessed with the notion that he'd father a "flipper-baby" and tried to<br />
talk Courtney into aborting the one that they actually did have. (See Charles R. Cross, Heavier Than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain, pp. 230-231, <http://books.google.com/books?id=dc-S-FAM4QoC&pg=230>.) <br />
<br />
(6) Re: "Pisces": In a brief, deranged note mentioning "bloody cum," "Satan," drugs, and "abortion," KC "signed the letter with a fish". (Cross, op. cit., p. 218, <http://books.google.com/books?id=dc-S-FAM4QoC&pg=218>.)<br />
<br />
(7) HSB was "originally titled ...'Heart-Shaped Coffin'". (Cross, op. cit., p. 278, <http://books.google.com/books?id=dc-S-FAM4QoC&pg=277>.)<br />
(8) Re: "eat your cancer"...why mention "cancer" if it's about abortion? Is it code? During the 1980s and 1990s, the "Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis" was big headlines - as well as something that certain abortion clinics were mentioning, as a possible "side effect" of abortion, to women that they "counseled." KC was fearful of consequences - pregnancy for sex; mutant babies for birth; cancer for abortion; etc.<br />
<br />
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis>.)Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-8442103541035376722015-11-03T20:00:00.000-08:002017-08-02T20:44:37.961-07:00Note on Pope Alexander VI Anti-Christian Debauchery<p>"On Sunday evening, October 30th [1501], don Cesare Borgia gave a supper in his apartment in the apostolic palace, with fifty decent prostitutes or courtesans in attendance, who after the meal danced with the servants and others there, first fully dressed and then naked. Following the supper too, lampstands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and on their hands and knees, had to pick up as they crawled in and out amongst the lampstands. The pope, Don Cesare and Donna Lucrezia were all present to watch. Finally, prizes were offered - silken doublets, pair of shoes, hats and other garments - for those men who were most successful with the prostitutes. This performance was carried out in the Sale Reale and those who attended said that in fact the prizes were presented to those who won the contest."</p>
<p>Source: Geoffrey Parker, ed. and transl., At the Court of the Borgia: Being an Account of the Reign of Pope Alexander VI Written by His Master of Ceremonies Johann Burchard, London: Folio Society, 1963, p. 194.</p>
<p>Note: When Catholic monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand expelled the Jews from Spain, "[m]any of the ...exiles, through the clemency of reigning Pontiff ...Pope Alexander VI, found a hospitable asylum within the Roman states." James Burton Robertson, Public Lectures delivered before the Catholic University of Ireland, on some subjects of Ancient and Modern History, London: Catholic Bookselling & Publ. Co., 1859, p. 188; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=ZRNXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA188>.</p>
<iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=B00CRFQUDW&asins=B00CRFQUDW&linkId=89c4a934747fb1d6251ecd1fbbcfb1a8&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe>
<iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=900417981X&asins=900417981X&linkId=b5d802ce3a668911213b0560062e24c7&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe>
<iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=B002N6NZX8&asins=B002N6NZX8&linkId=ba553c9768998318c684a16ab976cd07&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-20711919974011901102015-10-31T12:51:00.000-07:002015-10-31T12:54:11.421-07:00For the Fun of It<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://afaithfulfrugalfamily.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/keep-calm-and-let-s-have-fun.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="583" src="http://afaithfulfrugalfamily.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/keep-calm-and-let-s-have-fun.png" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Americans seem to have a preoccupation with "fun." However, the word has a checkered history, etymologically speaking.</p>
<p>As noted by Douglas Harper, its earliest uses are bound up with notions of trickery.</p>
<p>"fun (n.) ...'a cheat, trick' (c. 1700), from verb fun (1680s) 'to cheat, hoax,' which is of uncertain origin, probably a variant of Middle English <i>fonnen</i> 'befool' (c. 1400...). Scantly recorded in 18c. and stigmatized by Johnson as 'a low cant word.' Older senses are preserved in phrase 'to make fun of' (1737) and 'funny money' [designating] 'counterfeit bills' (1938, though this use of the word may be more for the sake of the rhyme). ...1680s, 'to cheat' ...mid-15c., 'foolish, silly' ..."<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.he-manreviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1-5-Orko.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="372" src="http://www.he-manreviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1-5-Orko.png" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Of course, the Tarot trumps begin with the Fool - emblazoned with the 0. About the word, Aleister Crowley noted: "...'Fool' is derived from 'follis,' a wind-bag."<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.eli-lsmerchantile.com/blog/assets/0_0_0_0_299_448_csupload_47823631.jpg " imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="448" src="http://www.eli-lsmerchantile.com/blog/assets/0_0_0_0_299_448_csupload_47823631.jpg " width="299" /></a></div><br />
<p>For information on the veiled meaning of the phrase "Sow Your Wild Oats," see <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/08/sometimes-sayins-say-more-than-sayer.html">"Sometimes, Sayings Say More than The Sayer Wants Said."</a>.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Douglas Harper, "Fun," Online Etymology Dictionary, 2015, <<a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fun">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fun</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Master Therion [Aleister Crowley], The Book of Thoth, reprint ed., Stamford, Ct.: U.S. Games Sys., Inc., 1996, p. 53.</p>Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-47032111351561856872015-10-14T19:20:00.001-07:002017-08-02T20:40:58.921-07:00'Lord of Time'<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ_EUdR6Nzw0rDyN7Y0rUsVt7nMok4vxi793ia8UtU61nrolSBCuEKaJZGP4E1UtfbNwV3F5ioS7VBFnRjPqC1FlT3XcStP-_7tPj9fVeBs_5eGF-6bK_pYAAnDNtI2QSyfFWZAAqer0c/s400/Saturn+2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ_EUdR6Nzw0rDyN7Y0rUsVt7nMok4vxi793ia8UtU61nrolSBCuEKaJZGP4E1UtfbNwV3F5ioS7VBFnRjPqC1FlT3XcStP-_7tPj9fVeBs_5eGF-6bK_pYAAnDNtI2QSyfFWZAAqer0c/s400/Saturn+2.gif" width="271" /></a></div><br />
<p>In his intriguing article “Saturn and the Jews,” Eric Zafran notes:<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://astrolibrary.org/images/saturn-god.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://astrolibrary.org/images/saturn-god.jpg" width="270" /></a></div><br />
<p>“[O]ne significant aspect or transformation of the ancient planetary deity …[is] the [historical] interrelationship and even identification between Saturn and the Jews. …St. Augustine considered Saturn a god of the Jews… [A] treatise of the ninth or tenth century by Alcabitius …claims for Saturn ‘the faith of Judaism’. …[A]n eighteenth-century work by J. W. Appelius …finds the melancholy temperament which derives from the influence of Saturn ultimately responsible for the ‘despicable timidity’ of the Jews as a race.”<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/Missing1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/Missing1.jpg" width="266" /></a></div><br />
<p>“A 17th-century professor of mathematics at Frankfurt, David Origanus, wrote that ‘Saturn is the significator of the Jews’. …The identification of Saturn as the ‘Star of Israel’ and [the assertion of] its ‘domination of the Judaic religion’ has been made in a different context…”.<a href="#_ftn*" name="_ftnref*" title="">[*]</a></p></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/172325main_pia09188-516.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="361" src="http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/172325main_pia09188-516.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>One should not neglect, here, to mention that the northern pole of the planet Saturn sports “[a] bizarre six-sided feature” known as “<a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2013/01/now-is-time.html">Saturn’s hexagon</a>.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/StarOfDavid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="500" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/StarOfDavid.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Of course, the symbol of the nation of Israel and, by extension, of the “Jewish people,” is the misnamed “Star of David” - a “magical” hexagram (which, as depicted, fits neatly inside of a <a href="http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55069.html">hexagon</a>).<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/HeMan_BargainWithEvil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="375" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/HeMan_BargainWithEvil.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>(From episode number 125, "Bargain With Evil," of the 1980s kids' cartoon show <i>He-Man and the Masters of the Universe</i>. Note the magical hexagram on the floor and the red Saturn design on the woman's dress.)</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7335/1451/1600/PA236722%5B1%5D.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="361" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7335/1451/1600/PA236722%5B1%5D.jpeg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ikomutoprzeszkadzalo.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2E4FCCC2F72C4F62138B244F621275.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://ikomutoprzeszkadzalo.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2E4FCCC2F72C4F62138B244F621275.jpg" width="437" /></a></div><br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6322/78/1600/pope.0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="361" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6322/78/1600/pope.0.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://biblicalconnection.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/a-pope-saturn-hat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="361" src="https://biblicalconnection.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/a-pope-saturn-hat.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>Curiously, several recent popes have donned a hat called the “<i><href="#.Vh73oyu1_eY">cappello a saturno</a></i>” or “<i><a href="http://www.sanctepater.com/2010/06/saturno.html">saturno</a></i>” for short. This so-called “Saturn hat” is a version of the “<i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappello_romano">cappello romano</a></i>.” The red “Saturn hat” is connectable to Popes Benedict XVI, John XXIII, John Paul II and Pius XII (at least).</p>
<p>It is interesting, in light of these longstanding identifications, to reflect on the words of the American existentialist thinker <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich">Paul Tillich</a>.</p>
<p>“[T]he Jewish nation is the nation of time, in a sense which cannot be said of any other nation. It represents the permanent struggle between time and space going through all times. …It has a tragic fate when considered as a nation of space like every other nation, but as the nation of time, because it is beyond the circle of life and death it is beyond tragedy.</p>
<p>“The people of time, in synagogue and in church, cannot avoid being persecuted because by their very existence they break the claims of the gods of space who express themselves in will to power, imperialism, injustice, demonic enthusiasm, and tragic self-destruction.</p>
<p>“The gods of space, who are strong in every human soul, in every race and nation, are afraid of the Lord of time, history and justice, are afraid of His prophets and followers.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>Tillich continued: “[S]ynagogue and church should be united in our age,<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> in the struggle for the god of time against the gods of space.”<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a>This is even more interesting perhaps, in light of Pope Francis’s recent visit to the United States.</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://assets.forward.com/images/cropped/statue%3D0928-1443422829.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="361" src="http://assets.forward.com/images/cropped/statue%3D0928-1443422829.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>The New York-based Jewish periodical <i>Forward</i> reported: “Nearly 50 years after the Vatican officially proclaimed Jews free of guilt in the killing of Jesus, Pope Francis made a surprise change to his schedule on the final day of his U.S. tour to convey his own message of respect for the Jewish people. In an unannounced event, the pontiff stopped Sunday to bless a sculpture commissioned by the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia that repudiates a centuries-old anti-Semitic image. At his side, was Rabbi Abraham Skorka, his good friend and literary collaborator, who had flown in from Buenos Aires, to be the keynote speaker at the dedication of the work, which took place on Friday. …</p>
<p>“Titled ‘Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time,’ the sculpture is of two women seated next to each other, much like two sisters. One holds a book, the other a scroll, and they are looking at each other’s sacred texts in mutual respect. (<i>Nostra Ætate</i> means ‘in our time.’) The work was designed to counter a medieval motif depicting the triumph of Christianity over Judaism. In the ancient sculptures, found in churches all over Europe, the Christian ‘Ecclesia’ stands proudly, wearing a crown, while the defeated ‘Synagoga,’ is blindfolded by a serpent, her staff broken, her tablets slipping from her hand.</p>
<p>“The pedestal of the new sculpture bears a quote from Pope Francis, ‘There exists a rich complementarity <a href="http://henrymakow.com/2015/09/Christians-so-naive.html">between the Church and the Jewish</a> people that allows us to <a href="http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/11/benedicts-hermeneutic-of-continuity-and.html">help one another mine</a> the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0970378459/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=ellactor-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0970378459&linkId=f60a4e7e90202c6512ffe812d94d2d2c">riches of God’s word</a>.’”<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a></p>
<center><iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=ellactor-20&marketplace=amazon®ion=US&placement=0826444539&asins=0826444539&linkId=666664050ee18f0432550b268383d481&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</iframe></center>
<p>Complementarity” is an interesting word. In Catholic contexts, it is often employed in discussions of matrimony and human sexuality. Most basically, “complementarity …means …than men and women are fundamentally different” and that they complete or “perfect” each other.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> On this reading, the Pope is saying that Christianity and Judaism “complete or perfect” each other. St. Paul proactively answers with a question: “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?”<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a></p>
<p>But “complementarity” is also a word that crops up in quantum physics - where it is crucially defined in terms of time. Here, it designates “the concept of properties that are not simultaneously measurable. …The principle of complementarity in its general form is a guideline for how we must describe nature. Quantum things, that is, very small things, cannot be described as having both exact position and momentum, just as they cannot be described as either particles or waves. They must be described as both, but never at the same time.”<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2013/07/04/17/bacon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="500" src="http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2013/07/04/17/bacon.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>On this, admittedly more difficult and speculative reading, the Pope might be hinting darkly at the difficulties that attend to ascertaining the Church’s trajectory. Do the press releases have an esoteric/exoteric duality? To put it another way, are the statements issuing from (in particular, but not necessarily limited to) the Post-Vatican II Church, susceptible to two readings: one available at the general, public level, the other only available to the few, initiated into the secret purposes at play?<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/Missing3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="362" src="http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy228/Philoso_Raptor/Missing3.jpg" width="292" /></a></div><br />
<p>Is the Church currently two-faced, like the Roman god Janus - another time deity?</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1959/1101590316_400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="527" src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1959/1101590316_400.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Is_God_Dead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="527" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Is_God_Dead.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<p>Tillich, pictured on the <i><a href="http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1959/1101590316_400.jpg">Time cover</a></i> next to a human skull, had inspired the so-called “Death of God Theology.”<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1374735026l/94578.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1374735026l/94578.jpg" width="194" /></a></div><br />
<p>The idea of the “death of god,” in this context, can be traced back to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who in his <i>Die fröhliche Wissenschaft</i> wrote:<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a> “…Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it? There was never a greater deed - and whoever is born after us will on account of this deed belong to a higher history than all history up to now!”<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a></p>
<p>“‘This thing all things devours: Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Slays kings, ruins town, And beats high mountains down.’ Poor Bilbo sat in the dark thinking… His tongue seemed to stick in his mouth; he wanted to shout out: ‘ Give me more time! Give me more time! But all that came out with a sudden squeal was: ‘Time! Time!’”<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9781843842033/old-english-dialogues-of-solomon-and-saturn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://covers.booktopia.com.au/big/9781843842033/old-english-dialogues-of-solomon-and-saturn.jpg" width="266" /></a></div><br />
<p>“[H]is last riddle, delivered when he thinks ‘the time had come to ask something hard and horrible,’ derives from a poem in Old English, the riddle-game, or more precisely the wisdom-testing exchange, between <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_and_Saturn">Solomon and Saturn</a></i>.</p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3hmLH6ZYDM-62Xh1rBEG_QFdem4tMz9eO8eh3NW8x07ma_4hG1CPTE9HDRuhlSEa4nFXXZIHwTF7HBG971NFq6F0o_3BDpk-8NJnRYWquG7KiW5SkZIpsc3inSS4yX4pVI97Ku-LheOQ/s1600/father_time3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="441" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3hmLH6ZYDM-62Xh1rBEG_QFdem4tMz9eO8eh3NW8x07ma_4hG1CPTE9HDRuhlSEa4nFXXZIHwTF7HBG971NFq6F0o_3BDpk-8NJnRYWquG7KiW5SkZIpsc3inSS4yX4pVI97Ku-LheOQ/s1600/father_time3.gif" width="305" /></a></div><br />
<p>“In this, Saturn, who represents heathen knowledge, asks Solomon, ‘What is it that …goes on inexorably, beats at foundations, causes tears of sorrow …into its hands goes hard and soft, small and great?’ The answer given in Solomon and Saturn is, not ‘Time’ as in Bilbo’s desperate and fluky reply, but ‘Old Age’: ‘She fights better than a wolf, she waits longer than a stone, she proves stronger than steel, she bites iron with rust: she does the same to us.’”<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a></p>
<p>"In our solar system, the Law of Octaves is the overall pattern of harmony in the universe expressed as a seven-stepped formula embedded in our solar system. The first seven notes of the musical scale represent our progress through the planets... In our solar system, [the] eighth note is Saturn, the one planet the alchemists considered both the beginning and end, the alpha and the omega of our transformation."<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="">[18]</a></p>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/3/122219/1805895/2001_M.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="667" src="http://payload.cargocollective.com/1/3/122219/1805895/2001_M.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>"And now I must tell you its real purpose, which we have managed, with great difficulty, to keep secret from the general public. You would have been given all the facts as you approached Saturn; this is a quick summary to put you into the picture. Full briefing tapes will be dispatched in the next few hours. Everything I am about to tell you has the highest security classification.</p>
<p>"Two years ago, we discovered the first evidence for intelligent life outside the Earth. A slab or monolith of hard, black material, ten feet high, was found buried in the crater Tycho. Here it is. ...</p>
<p>"The most astonishing thing about this object is its antiquity. Geological evidence proves beyond doubt that it is three million years old. It was placed on the Moon, therefore, when our ancestors were primitive ape-men.</p>
<p>"After all these ages, one would naturally assume that it was inert. But soon after lunar sunrise, it emitted an extremely powerful blast of radio energy. We believe that this energy was merely the by-product - the backwash, as it were - of some unknown form of radiation, for at the same time, several of our space probes detected an unusual disturbance crossing the Solar System. We were able to track it with great accuracy. It was aimed precisely at Saturn."<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="">[19]</a></p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> Scholar Moshe Idel has continued and extended this line of inquiry with his <i>Saturn's Jews: On the Witches' Sabbat and Sabbateanism</i>, London: Continuum, 2011.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> Eric Zafran, “Saturn and the Jews,” <i>Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes</i>, vol. 42, 1979,p. 16; citing Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, <i>Saturn and Melancholy: Studies in the History of Natural Philosophy, Religion and Art</i>, London: Nelson; New York: Basic Books, 1964, pp. 161, n. 115, 132 and 121; Alcabitius, <i>Introductorium maius</i>, MS at Oxford, Bodl. Marsh 663; and J. W. Appelius, <i>Historisch-moralischer Entwurff der Temperamenten</i>, 2nd ed., 1737. St. Augustine speaks of “[s]ome [who] say that [God] is Saturn” and he notes the possibility that this identification results from “the sanctification of the Sabbath; for those men assign that day to Saturn.” <i>Harmony of the Gospels</i>, book 1, chapt. 23, section 30; see Augustine of Hippo, <i>The Harmony of the Gospels</i>, Catholic Primer Reference Series, <<a href="http://www.catholicprimer.org/">http://www.catholicprimer.org/</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref*" name="_ftn*" title="">[*]</a> Zafran, <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 16; citing Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1934, vol. 7, pp. 145-6 and Emma Jung and Marie Louise von Franz, The Grail Legend, New York: Putnam; Carl G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology, 1970, pp. 205-6.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> “Saturn’s Strange Hexagon,” NASA [got] gov, Mar. 27, 2007, <<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia09188.html">http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia09188.html</a>>.)</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> A.k.a. the “Shield of David,” Magen David or even the Seal of Solomon. It is an alchemical sigil having nothing to do with King David of the Bible. “It was ‘bequeathed’ to rabbinic leaders in the 14th century by the hermeticist King Charles IV of Bohemia, and formally adopted as ‘the Star of David’ in 1898 at the Second Zionist Congress in Switzerland.” Michael Hoffman, <i>Judaism Discovered</i>, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2008, p. 784; citing Wolf Gunther Plaut, <i>The Magen David: How the Six-Pointed Star Became an Emblem for the Jewish People</i>, Washington, D.C: B’nai B’rith Books, 1991.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Paul Tillich; quoted by Elisabeth Siftonm, <i>The Serenity Prayer: Faith and Politics in Times of Peace and War</i>, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2005, p. 160; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=uiabWkyU7yEC&pg=PA160">https://books.google.com/books?id=uiabWkyU7yEC&pg=PA160</a>>.)</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> Cf. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” The Holy Bible, 2 Corinthians chapter 4, verse 4, New International Version.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]</a> <i>Ibid</i>. The Biblical God, Yahweh, is indeed sovereign over linear history. But this is evidently not Tillich’s meaning, since he explicitly espouses a sort of Nietzschean perspectivalism, from which contemporary “situation ethics” proceeds. “Afraid of missing the eternal truth, [some theological systems] identify it with some previous theological work, with traditional concepts and solutions, and try to impose these on a new, different situation. They confuse eternal truth with a temporal expression of this truth. This is evident in European theological orthodoxy, which in America is known as fundamentalism. When fundamentalism is combined with an antitheological bias, as it is, for instance, in its biblicistic-evangelical form, the theological truth of yesterday is defended as an unchangeable message against the theological truth of today and tomorrow. Fundamentalism fails to make contact with the present situation, not because it speaks from beyond every situation, but because it speaks from a situation from the past. It elevates something finite and transitory to infinite and eternal validity. In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughts adherents, and it makes them fanatical because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware.” Paul Tillich, <i>Systematic Theology</i>, vol. 1, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, [1951] 1973, p. 3; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=WIyz0mYxAwkC&pg=PA3">https://books.google.com/books?id=WIyz0mYxAwkC&pg=PA3</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8]</a> Dotty Brown, “Pope Francis Makes Surprise Stop To Bless Sculpture Symbolizing Catholic Unity With Jews,” <i>Forward</i>, Sept. 28, 2015, <<a href="http://forward.com/news/321629/pope-francis-makes-surprise-stop-to-bless-sculpture-symbolizing-catholic-an/">http://forward.com/news/321629/pope-francis-makes-surprise-stop-to-bless-sculpture-symbolizing-catholic-an/</a>>. </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9]</a> Jay Michaelson, “Is Pope Francis Backpedaling on Gays?” <i>Daily Beast</i>, Nov. 18, 2014, <<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/19/the-vatican-s-stealth-anti-gay-conference.html?source=dictionary">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/19/the-vatican-s-stealth-anti-gay-conference.html?source=dictionary</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10]</a> The Holy Bible, 2 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 15, New International Version.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11]</a> Peter Kosso, <i>Appearance and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics</i>, New York and Oxford [U.K]: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998, pp. 124 and 150.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12]</a> See Craig Heimbichner, <i>Blood on the Altar: The Secret History of the World’s Most Dangerous Secret Society</i>, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2006. For a visual hint, see Francis Bacon, Study after Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X, 1953; archived online at <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Vel%C3%A1zquez’s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Vel%C3%A1zquez’s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="">[13]</a> According to his widow, Hannah (<i>née</i> Werner-Gottschow), Tillich was also a philanderer who had encouraged his bride to enter into an “open marriage” (i.e., a “marriage” in which - ostensibly, anyway - both partners agree to jettison the mutual promise of fidelity). Hannah wrote: “He had left me often, flirting with other women, leaving each one of the in turn for another at the succeeding dinner party. Hannah Tillich, <i>From Time to Time</i>, New York: Stein and Day, 1973, p. 145; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Qr0vAQAAIAAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=Qr0vAQAAIAAJ</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> “The Gay Science,” Chemnitz, Germany: Ernst Schmeitzner; New York: E. Steige, 1882. For more on the “gay science,” see Michael A. Hoffman, “Of Human Alchemy and the Gay Science,” <i>Revisionist Review</i> [weblog], Aug. 4, 2012, <<a href="http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-human-alchemy-and-gay-science.html">http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-human-alchemy-and-gay-science.html</a>>. See also <a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2015/06/water-of-fire-on-rainbows-and-hexagrams.html">here</a>, <a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2012/09/morgan-le-fay.html">here</a>, <a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2012/09/now-playing-at-century-16-ampitheater.html">here</a> and <a href="http://curveofbell.blogspot.com/2013/12/re-alias-st-nick.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> Friedrich Nietzsche, <i>Nietzsche: The Gay Science: With a Prelude in German Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs</i>, Bernard Williams and Josefine Nauckhoff, eds., Cambridge [U.K.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001, p. 120; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Vf8KETLiKXMC&pg=PA120">https://books.google.com/books?id=Vf8KETLiKXMC&pg=PA120</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16]</a> J. R. R. Tolkien, <i>The Hobbit</i>, reprint ed., New York: Ballantine, 1988, pp. 77-78.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17]</a> Carl Runyon, “Bilbo’s Riddle-Exchange with Gollum,” n.d., <http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/crunyon/Tolkien/hobbit/riddle%20exchange.htm>. Saturn - as “Father Time” - does indeed represent old age and senescence.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="">[18]</a> Dennis William Hauck, <i>The Complete Idiot's Guide to Alchemy</i>, New York: Alpha; Penguin, 2008, p. 125.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="">[19]</a> Arthur Charles Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey, reprint ed., New York: New American Library, 1993, p. 159; archived online at <<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/endovelico/ArthurC.Clark-2001.pdf">http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/endovelico/ArthurC.Clark-2001.pdf</a>> and <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=d967AAAAIAAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=d967AAAAIAAJ</a>>. Of course, in the movie, Saturn was changed to Jupiter. See Leonard F. Wheat, Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory, Lanham, Md. and London: Scarecrow Press, 2000, p. 32; archived online at <<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=CswtVpuwbEQC">https://books.google.com/books?id=CswtVpuwbEQC</a>>.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-87169225359765664722015-09-19T11:28:00.000-07:002015-09-19T16:16:16.867-07:00Jesus 'Defended a Woman From Being Slut-Shamed'?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM0W48sSWTN4yn-3k7IypXAUPeozd_lk8BEoWParbhhhbZrydTAuzCPA7GzmJolMtLfQR-m-AQPg78SZjuUW8o7YJosL9KmDy-B9msPLj2hS7mO4c-bhzU_9QtqVGo2b7o2Q58A0eZWemk/s1600/1stum+christian+nation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="463" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM0W48sSWTN4yn-3k7IypXAUPeozd_lk8BEoWParbhhhbZrydTAuzCPA7GzmJolMtLfQR-m-AQPg78SZjuUW8o7YJosL9KmDy-B9msPLj2hS7mO4c-bhzU_9QtqVGo2b7o2Q58A0eZWemk/s1600/1stum+christian+nation.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><br />
<p>This latest <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/facebook-polemics.html">Facebook Polemic</a> is a farrago of contemporary slang applied anachronistically to first-century Palestine - as well as it is full of irresponsible <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis">eisegesis</a>.</p>
<p>Among its several errors, the most obvious – and egregious – example of misreading appears in the phrase “Defended a woman from being slut shamed and killed…”</p>
<p>According to an online edition of the <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i>, the word “<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slut-shame">slut shame</a>” designates an act of: “Stigmatiz[ing] (a woman) for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative”. Example sentences are given as: “she was slut-shamed for wearing a bikini” and “you can’t talk about sex without getting gossiped about or slut-shamed”.</p>
<p>Presumably, the author of the above picture-text has in mind the episode, recorded by John the Evangelist (John 8:1-11), of the “woman caught in the act of adultery.”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a></p>
<p>Here is the entire relevant passage, from the <i>New International Version</i> <a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a>of the Bible: </p>
<p>[B]ut Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”</p>
<p>One question is this: If the story of the woman caught in adultery is illustrative of the injustice in a certain sort of “judgmentalism,” what sort of “judgment” is supposed to be forbidden?</p>
<p>The story suggests the following moral argument.</p>
<p>(1) Adultery is morally wrong. [moral premise]</p>
<p>(2) “[T]his woman was caught in the act of adultery.” [observational premise]</p>
<p>(3) Therefore, “this woman” has done something morally wrong. [theoretical conclusion]</p>
<p>(4) Women who have committed adultery should be “stoned” (to death). [punitive premise]</p>
<p>(5) Therefore, “this woman” should be stoned (to death). [practical conclusion]</p>
<p>At what step does Jesus intervene? </p>
<p><b>Notice that Jesus never disputes the wrongness of adultery. He never questions the moral premise. In fact, Jesus endorses it.</b></p>
<p>This is apparent from the fact that Jesus concludes his comments to “the woman” with the admonition: “Go now and leave your life of sin.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a></p>
<p>If the woman is commanded to “leave [her] life of sin,” then, manifestly, she is presently leading a life of sin. The only relevant information that we have about her life is that she is an adulteress. Therefore, Jesus is either (and implausibly) speaking of “other,” unspecified sins, or Jesus is speaking of her adultery as a sin.</p>
<p>Indisputably, the most natural reading of the text is that Jesus is here saying that the woman’s adulterous behavior is tantamount to “leading a life of sin.” But, if so, then <b>Jesus is acknowledging that adultery is morally wrong.</b></p>
<p>We may conclude, then, that Jesus accepted the Pharisee’s labeling of the relevant woman. She was an adulteress, with the entire “stigma” that that term implied.</p>
<p>However, if “slut shaming” is characterized by “stigmatiz[ing] (a woman) for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative,” and if adultery is included among the list of behaviors “judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative,” then it follows that Jesus was “slut-shaming.”</p>
<p>In the opinion of this writer, “slut-shaming” is a ridiculous and faddish slang term and should be avoided. Jesus’s ultimate purpose was to point “the woman” toward the road of salvation. The politically-incorrect fact is that repentance – or the turning-away from sin and toward God – can only be effected once one acknowledges his or her own sinfulness.</p>
<p>Those who wish to employ “weasel words” like “shaming” such that all (or some subset of) violations of God’s laws may not, for fear of breach of social etiquette, be labeled “sins,” really do disservice to sinners. Insofar as charity (i.e., Christian love) is concerned, it is impossible for a person to express genuine love for John Doe if that person encourages – implicitly or explicitly – John Doe to continue in behavior that will lead to the eternal damnation of his immortal soul. </p>
<p>This, however disagreeable the sentiments may be to the “liberal” mind, is simply the historic Christian view.</p>
<p>In his <i>Quest for the Historical Jesus</i>,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> Albert Schweitzer criticized those scholars whose attempts to “discover the historical Jesus” merely amounted to the creation of a Jesus in the image of the particular scholar who happened to be writing.</p>
<p>“Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it whatever it is that they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a></p>
<p>Actually, this is not new. In the <i>Second Epistle to Timothy</i>, in the Bible, we read: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a></p>
<p>It is therefore unsurprising that embedded within this “liberal”-biased Facebook Polemic is a “liberal”-colored misunderstanding (if not willful misrepresentation) of a particular biblical episode.</p>
<p>Jesus did oppose the hypocritical Pharisee’s attempt to summarily execute the adulteress. He thus did indeed oppose (what I labeled) the “practical conclusion,” as given in the argument above.</p>
<p>Jesus counseled the woman to quit her adulterous behavior and turn to God in repentance. The Pharisees were out to satiate their bloodlust. However, neither position invalidated – or even called into question – the moral impermissibility of adultery.</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> I have discussed this passage at length elsewhere. See <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-arguments-of-jonathan-lewis-against_9861.html">here</a> and <a href="http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2013/12/bill-oreilly-political-alchemy.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2]</a> The New International Version, being a sort of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence">dynamic equivalence</a>” translation, is simply easier to understand than “classics” such as the Catholic <i>Douay–Rheims</i> and the Protestant <i>King James Version</i>. Nothing substantial, therefore, turns on my selection. It is merely for the sake of convenience.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="">[3]</a> Far from negating the moral premise, Jesus elsewhere extends it. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30.)</p>
<p>We see, then, that Jesus not only “accepts” the notion of the sinfulness of physical acts of adultery, but he broadens the definition to encompass instances of adulterous fantasizes. Furthermore, he indicates one, ultimate punishment: hell. This does not appear at all consistent with the notion that Jesus denies the sin of adultery.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4]</a> Albert Schweitzer, <i>Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung</i>, Tübingen: Mohr, 1906; in English as Albert Schweitzer, <i>The Quest of the Historical Jesus</i>, Francis Crawford Burkitt, ed., William Montgomery, transl., London: A. and C. Black; New York: Macmillan, 1910.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="">[5]</a> Shaye I.D. Cohen; interviewed in “Searching for Jesus,” <i>Frontline</i>, PBS, <<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/searching.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/searching.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> 2 Timothy 4:3.</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-89366037801519049172015-07-16T19:03:00.002-07:002015-07-16T19:04:40.272-07:00Huffington Post: 'The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality'<p><b>Responding to novel misinterpretations of Genesis 19:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.</b><a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title="">[i]</a></p>
<p>By Matthew J. Bell</p>
<p>According to a recent article appearing in the leftist Huffington Post, one Adam Phillips<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title="">[ii]</a> argues that “The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality. …”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title="">[iii]</a> Phillips sketches his ahistorical interpretations to half a dozen of the Bible verses that condemn same-sex sexual activity. I will here look at defending the received interpretations to two of those six passages: Genesis 19:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title="">[iv]</a> </p>
<p>One point should be made by way of a preface, however.</p>
<p>The Bible’s positive doctrines concerning marriage are always presented given in relation to men marrying women. This is important to emphasize. The historic Christian teaching concerning marriage – namely, that it involves persons of opposite gender – “…follows …from the whole scriptural vision of what man and woman are, of what sexuality means, and of the nature of morality.”<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><sup><sup>[v]</sup></sup></a> The foundation of “opposition” to homosexual sexual activity is that such activity militates against every positive statement regarding human sexual function and marriage made in Scripture. This point is so strong that we may say:</p>
<p>“If the classical texts on homosexual acts were to be removed altogether from Scripture, the immorality of such acts would still be an obvious implication of the biblical view of sexuality.”<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><sup><sup>[vi]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>The chief, but not sole, textual basis for this positive doctrine is set forth in Genesis. </p>
<p>The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><sup><sup>[vii]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>This foundational principle is repeated by Jesus.</p>
<p>“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><sup><sup>[viii]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p><i>“[T]he story of Lot at Sodom is probably intended to condemn inhospitality rather than homosexuality</i>.”<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><sup><sup>[ix]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Towards this conclusion, several Scriptures are sometimes cited. For example, in an allusion to the account of Lot in Genesis 19, Hebrews 13:2 exhorts readers: </p>
<p>“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><sup><sup>[x]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Ezekiel 16:49 is also quoted.</p>
<p>“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><sup><sup>[xi]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>It is then remarked that “homosexual sex” is not enumerated in the brief list of Sodom’s sins and that the men of Sodom displayed a decided lack of hospitality toward the strangers.</p>
<p>However, this hardly settles the matter. For one thing, ending the second quotation at verse 49 truncates Ezekiel’s discussion of Sodom. Verse 50 continues with the comment that the people of Sodom:</p>
<p>“…were haughty and did detestable things before me.”<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><sup><sup>[xii]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Jude 1:7 might provide insight into what these “detestable things” were, more precisely.</p>
<p>“…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. ...”<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13" title=""><sup><sup>[xiii]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>This reference to Sodom’s “sexual immorality” comports with the account given in Genesis 18-19. Here are a few relevant bits from chapter 19.</p>
<p>[T]wo angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. </p>
<p>Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, <b>“Where are the men who came to you tonight?</b> <b>Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them</b>.” <b>Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”</b> </p>
<p>“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”</p>
<p>The key point of dispute is verse 5. The men of Sodom call out to Lot. <i>The Original and True Douay Old Testament</i> gives the verse as: “And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them forth hither that we may know them.”<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14" title=""><sup><sup>[xiv]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Responding to an author who holds that “know them” should be understood to mean “get to know them” in the sense of “interrogate them,” Gregory Koukl writes:</p>
<p>Though the [Hebrew] word [<i>yada</i>] does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation [i.e., have (sexual) relations with] is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot’s response – “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly’ – makes it clear they had other intentions.</p>
<p>In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not “known” a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, “Please don’t question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They’ve never been interviewed”?</p>
<p>Yes, they were prideful, gluttonous, lazy, and inhospitable. Yes, they seemed to be rapists who humiliated their victims. Yes, they lacked love and mercy. But they also had what Paul called “unnatural passions”. They rejected the natural sexual function of human beings, and exchanged that function for unnatural, homosexual ones.</p>
<p>This element of sexual perversity simply cannot be explained away. And the crux of the sexual perversity was the homosexual nature of the sex acts.</p>
<p><i>1 Corinthians 6:9 does not pertain to homosexuality</i>. </p>
<p>The considerations turn on the sense of the two Greek terms that Paul used: <i>malakoi</i> and <i>arsenokoitai</i>. Here is a representative presentation of this objection, with replies interspersed.</p>
<p>a. “Many modern Christians have embraced false teaching about 1 Corinthians 6:9. They arrive at their false teaching by assuming that the Greek words, <i>malakoi</i> and <i>arsenokoitai</i> mean ‘homosexual’. … In the first century AD, no one would define <i>malakoi</i> to mean homosexual. The Greek word <i>malakoi</i> was rarely, if ever, used in the first century to indicate homosexual men and was never used to indicate lesbians. In the first century AD, no one would define <i>arsenokoites</i> to mean homosexual. …Based on the extant Greek manuscripts available to us today, the Greek word <i>arsenokoites</i> was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexual men and was never used to describe lesbians. Therefore, when someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10 to ‘prove’ that God is against homosexuality, they are conveying nothing more than their opinion, without any basis in fact.”<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15" title=""><sup><sup>[xv]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>“Most Greek lexicons do not define <i>arsenokoites</i> based on historical usage of that word. …Since the ancients never used the <i>arsenokoit</i> stem to mean homosexual, every Bible translation which translates <i>arsenokoites</i> to mean homosexual is wrong. …”<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16" title=""><sup><sup>[xvi]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>“…Scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then. Translating <i>malakoi</i> as homosexuals imposes a twentieth or twenty first century cultural meaning on the text which malakoi did not mean in the first century. If <i>malakoi</i> was not a universally understood reference to homosexuals in the first century when Paul used it, then <i>malakoi</i> does not mean homosexual today. The <i>Malakos</i> Word Group[:] 1.The word <i>malaka</i>, with the general meaning soft, is used three times in the New Testament, Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 10:1. It is translated disease in the KJV and sickness in the NAS. The Greek word <i>malaka</i> has nothing to do with homosexuality 2.The word <i>malakos</i> occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing. In the Bible, Jesus never used the <i>malakos</i> word group to mean homosexual. Paul uses <i>malakoi</i> (the plural of <i>malakos</i>) in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Some translations translate <i>malakoi</i> as ‘male prostitutes.’ (NIV, New Century, NRSV, NLT, ISV, WEB).”<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17" title=""><sup><sup>[xvii]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>A chief difficulty with the above presentation is the subtle confusion embodied in the aphorism: “…Scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then.” This saying, or something relevantly similar to it, is indeed a common rule-of-thumb in Evangelical hermeneutics. Numerous popular-level hermeneutical primers express the sentiment in one way or another.<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18" title=""><sup><sup>[xviii]</sup></sup></a> William Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. put the point this way: “Our goal [in the interpretive process] remains to hear the message of the Bible as the original audiences would have heard it or as the first readers would have understood it.”<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19" title=""><sup><sup>[xix]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>I do not have any quibble with this principle, expressed this way. I can agree that a text cannot mean for us what it did not mean for its original audience. Hence, whatever Paul meant is what the text means.</p>
<p>However, in this case, Brentlinger goes beyond this basic acceptable guideline. For this point of disagreement, apparently, concerns the question of what Paul meant. </p>
<p>Brentlinger seems to be insisting that Paul’s could not have intended “<i>malakos</i> and <i>arsenokoites</i>” to mean general “homosexual [activity]” in virtue of the fact that there is no recorded use of these words meaning “homosexual [activity]” prior to Paul’s use.<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20" title=""><sup><sup>[xx]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>It is important to see that that this constraint is not the same the standard Evangelical heuristic rehearsed above. The Evangelical principle compels today’s readers to understand Paul’s text the way that he meant it when he wrote it. Brentlinger’s principle attempts to limit <i>Paul’s meaning itself</i> to whatever meaning prevailed in Paul’s day. However, not only is this constraint different from the usual hermeneutical principle, it is also quite unwarranted.</p>
<p>Here is a quick illustration. According to the <i>Online Etymology Dictionary</i>, the word “gay” traces its origins back to the 12th-14th centuries, at which time it meant, variously, “wanton, lewd, lascivious” and “full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree”.<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21" title=""><sup><sup>[xxi]</sup></sup></a> According to the same source, at some point between the 1890s and 1940s, the word began to be used to designate “homosexuals.” Now, it seems undeniable that there was an author or speaker who first introduced this latter meaning. Let us call this (seemingy) unknown person “John Doe.” And let us imagine that the word was introduced in a text, call it “<i>Text A</i>.” </p>
<p>Finding <i>Text A</i>, would a reader be justified in arguing: “Well, John Doe’s cannot be using the word ‘gay’ to designate homosexuals because, up to this point, the word has never been used this way”? Apparently not. We are, after all, supposing that John Doe basically originated a shift in meaning.</p>
<p>It is true that the principle “a text cannot mean for us what it did not mean for its original audience” demands that <i>if</i> John Doe used the word “gay” to mean “carefree,” <i>then</i> we are compelled even today to read the occurrences of the word “gay” in <i>Text A</i> as meaning “carefree.” However, the principle does not limit John Doe himself to mean by “gay” only what had been meant before him. He is free to originate a shift in meaning.<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22" title=""><sup><sup>[xxii]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>Therefore, the lack of textual evidence cannot prevent Paul from originating a new meaning for the words “<i>malakos</i> and <i>arsenokoites</i>”. </p>
<p>In fact, with respect to the term “arsenokoites,” “…the term …[appears neither] in classical Greek literature… [nor] in the Septuagint.”<a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23" title=""><sup><sup>[xxiii]</sup></sup></a> However, it then seems plausible to maintain that “…Paul could have been the originator of the term.”<a href="#_edn24" name="_ednref24" title=""><sup><sup>[xxiv]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>“[B]ut, if Paul is the first in extant literature to use this compound term, then it is probable that he, as a Jew, is reflecting the sense of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13…”.<a href="#_edn25" name="_ednref25" title=""><sup><sup>[xxv]</sup></sup></a> To put it differently, it is plausible to hold that Paul meant to coin an expression “<i>malakos kai arsenokoites</i>” to designate <i>any</i> (or, at least, any male-male) homosexual sexual pairing.<a href="#_edn26" name="_ednref26" title=""><sup><sup>[xxvi]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Against this, alternative meanings are proposed.</p>
<p>b. “<i>Malakoi</i> –<a href="#_edn27" name="_ednref27" title=""><sup><sup>[xxvii]</sup></sup></a> The cultural historical religious context of 1 Cor 6:9 was temple prostitution. …English translations did not translate <i>malakoi</i> to mean homosexual until the Amplified Bible in 1958. 3. The word <i>malakoi</i> in New Testament times, was sometimes an epithet for being effeminate, not homosexual. …The remarkable semantic shift in the meaning of <i>malakoi</i>, which by 1958, came to equate <i>malakoi</i> with homosexuality instead of softness, moral weakness or effeminacy, was not prompted by new linguistic evidence. Instead, cultural factors influenced modern translators to inject anti-homosexual bias into their translation.”<a href="#_edn28" name="_ednref28" title=""><sup><sup>[xxviii]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>Brentlinger complains about a “shift” in translation – from “effeminate” to “homosexual” – that he blames on “anti-’gay’” ideology. </p>
<p>Homosexuality was very common in the ancient world. It was practiced by both males and females (the female version was then known as “tribadism”). Greece in particular had a long history of this. It has been said of Plato’s dialog the <i>Symposium</i>, which is a discourse which revolves heavily around the notion of “love,” that is has mainly in focus male-male homosexual love. </p>
<p>It was a common attitude in the Greek world that males were superior and, therefore, the idea of being “partners” with a female was unimaginable. It was commonly held that for true, reciprocal “love,” a male would need another male, since only males were capable of equality with other males.</p>
<p>However, while it is true that, in general, many Greek (usually <i>aristocratic</i>) men engaged in activities that – by modern reckoning – we would term “homosexual acts,” this generality must be qualified in several important ways.<a href="#_edn29" name="_ednref29" title=""><sup><sup>[xxix]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>For instance, of the acts that we would today call “homosexual,” the Greeks had a sort of rough-and-ready distinction between <i>respectable</i> and <i>unrespectable</i> acts. Chiefly, even if incredibly, sodomy – in the technical sense of penile-rectal penetration – was anathema. </p>
<p>The passive, male homosexual partner in an anal-penetrative situation was called a “<i>kinaidos</i>.” (This is another indicator that Paul wished to condemn a broader spectrum of conduct than anal-penetration with his pair “malakos kai arsenokoites.” His neologistic phrase is broad enough to forbid the “intercrural” (i.e., “between the legs”) relations that Greco-Romans often viewed as permissible, even when being the recipient of anal-rectal penetration was not viewed as permissible.)<a href="#_edn30" name="_ednref30" title=""><sup><sup>[xxx]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>Such a person was considered to be “effeminate” in the dual sense of being <i>weak and degenerate</i>. A <i>kinaidos</i> was thought, <i>ipso facto</i>, to be unfit for political office. The reason for this was because it was believed that since a kinaidos allowed himself to be used sexually, he was disposed to allow himself to be used in politically. </p>
<p>We might find this unbelievable today since – collectively – we seem incapable of imagining a situation in which male homosexual sex acts are <i>permissible</i>, but anal-penetrative sex is censured. If anything, though, this simply reveals the limits of our imagination. For it turns out that, during the relevant Grecian period, “respectable” or “allowable” homosexual sex stopped at inter-crural relations.</p>
<p>This is manifest in Plato’s account of Socrates’ interaction with Callicles in the dialog titled, <i>Gorgias</i>.<a href="#_edn31" name="_ednref31" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxi]</sup></sup></a> The Sophist Callicles is advancing against Socrates a position of more or less thorough-going hedonism. At one place<a href="#_edn32" name="_ednref32" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxii]</sup></sup></a> Socrates basically argues that it is obvious that being a passive sodomite (catamite) could not by any stretch – no pun – be deemed “good.” Callicles is shamed into <i>conceding</i> the point.</p>
<p>Therefore, we say that the main “shift,” circa 1958, that can be adduced from the translation choices made in that era, is a shift in general awareness of the connotations of “effeminacy.” The historical link between allowing oneself to be dominated sexually (by being sodomized) and letting oneself be dominated in other respects (e.g., politically and socially) had arguably been forgotten. Hence, the “shift” occurred in the minds of readers when the general population largely lost track of the connexion between political and sexual weakness. </p>
<p>A <i>malakos</i> is “weak” in an almost masochistic sense. However, for those who, by the 1950s, had begun to view “effeminacy” only in terms of superficial qualities – e.g., characteristics of style and dress, etc. – it was necessary to update the translation with a word that made explicit the full range of meaning designated by <i>malakos</i>. Given the circumstances, “homosexual” is perhaps the best word choice available. Although, I might agree that it would be far better to restore in readers the awareness that political and sexual weakness are directly related. </p>
<p>“Historical evidence – the way the <i>arsenokoit</i> stem was actually used in the first century AD – indicates that the <i>arsenokoit</i> stem referred to: 1. Rape 2. Sex with angels or the gods 3. Anal sex with one’s wife 4. Masturbation<a href="#_edn33" name="_ednref33" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxiii]</sup></sup></a> …<i>Arsenokoitai</i> has never been a reference to a lesbian couple or a gay male couple. Instead, in the first century, <i>arsenokoitai</i> referred to shrine prostitution or rape or having sex with angels. That is the behavior Paul was describing when he used the Greek word, <i>arsenokoitai</i>.”<a href="#_edn34" name="_ednref34" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxiv]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>“Dr. Ann Nyland, Faculty in ancient Greek language and Ancient History in the Department of Classics and Ancient History, the University of New England in Australia, Translator of <i>The Source New Testament and The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible</i>, says about <i>arsenokoites</i>: ‘The word arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been assumed to mean <i>homosexual</i>. However the word does not mean <i>homosexual</i>, and its range of meaning includes one who anally penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer or an extortionist. When used in the meaning <i>anal penetrator</i>, it does not apply exclusively to males as the receptors, as it was also used for women receptors. …”<a href="#_edn35" name="_ednref35" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxv]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>We note, at this point, that the semantic range of “<i>arsenokoit</i>” could be summarized by saying that the word has to do with a male misusing his sexual organ,<a href="#_edn36" name="_ednref36" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxvi]</sup></sup></a> whether by masturbation or anally penetrating another person – whether the recipient be male, female, or angel; and whether said penetration be willingly or unwillingly (as in the case of rape). These considerations are highly relevant to the issue of <i>why</i> the Bible opposes homosexuality, which we will discuss in the next section. </p>
<p>Finally, Brentlinger lists seventeen words that he asserts “…Paul [could] have used if he intended to condemn homosexuality…”.<a href="#_edn37" name="_ednref37" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxvii]</sup></sup></a> These we will now consider. </p>
<p>Number one, Brentlinger lists several words that fairly uncontroversially describe “man-boy” relations: “<i>arrenomanes</i> – meaning mad after men or boy crazy”; “<i>paiderastes</i> …meaning lover of boys”;<a href="#_edn38" name="_ednref38" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxviii]</sup></sup></a> “<i>paidomanes</i> – a male mad for boys or boy crazy”; “<i>paidophthoros</i> – a Greek word meaning corrupter of boys”. </p>
<p>From the fact that Paul did not choose any of these words, it appears that the safest conclusion is that Paul did not intend to limit his prohibition to cases in which an older male has sexual relations with a younger male. </p>
<p>Neither did Paul intend to merely exclude extraordinary cases in which a younger male has a more dominant role with an older male. For, number two, Paul ignores “<i>eromenos</i> – a sometimes younger male who loves an older male “.</p>
<p>Number three, Brentlinger lists several words that have to do only with various forms of lesbianism: “<i>dihetaristriai</i>…”; “<i>frictrix</i>…”; “<i>hetairistriai</i>…”; “<i>lesbiai</i>…”; “<i>tribades</i>…”; and “<i>tribas</i>…”. As far as I can tell, nothing follows from this except that Paul had something in mind other than lesbianism, either explicitly or narrowly.</p>
<p>Number four, Paul ignores the words that Brentlinger lists in conjunction with “transvestism”: “euryproktoi…” and “<i>kinaidos</i> – a word for effeminate (<i>cinaedus</i> in its Latinized form)”. The designation “...<i>cinaedus</i> is not anchored in ...any ...specific sexual practice. ...[A] <i>cinaedus</i> is a man who fails to live up to traditional standards of masculine comportment... Indeed, the word’s etymology suggests no direct connection to any sexual practice.”<a href="#_edn39" name="_ednref39" title=""><sup><sup>[xxxix]</sup></sup></a> “The signifiers of the <i>cinaedus</i>...were closely aligned to those of the castrated males, and were most easily seen in cross-dressing or in long-haired slaves.”<a href="#_edn40" name="_ednref40" title=""><sup><sup>[xl]</sup></sup></a> But, again, Paul’s avoidance of these terms tends to demonstrate that his concerns were broader than a simply condemnation of “cross-dressing” or “gender-bending” type behaviors.</p>
<p>Number five, Paul ignores the term “<i>erastes</i>” which means, simply, “lover.” As such, Paul avoids using a term that is extremely broad. His aim, it seems, it not a blanket condemnation of sexual relations – period.</p>
<p>Also avoided is the term “<i>lakkoproktoi</i>” which term, according to Brentlinger, is “a lewd and vulgar reference to anal penetration”. Hence, it appears that Paul sought to avoid slang and vulgarity. </p>
<p>The only term remaining on the list is “<i>pathikos</i>” which Brentlinger defines as “the passive penetrated partner in a male couple”. However, several points seem to explain Paul’s avoidance of it. Firstly, I do not find this term listed in the BDAG. “Pathos” is defined;<a href="#_edn41" name="_ednref41" title=""><sup><sup>[xli]</sup></sup></a> but this merely means “passion” – a cognate of which Paul used in Romans 1:26 to denote “disgraceful passions” (<i>pathe atimias</i>). <i>Pathikos</i> may either not have been in wide currency during the Koine period, or it may be that the word had connotations to some of Paul’s hearers that the Apostle sought to avoid. To be more specific, Liddell and Scott give the meaning of “<i>pathikos</i>” as merely “remaining passive”,<a href="#_edn42" name="_ednref42" title=""><sup><sup>[xlii]</sup></sup></a> which is not particularly evocative. Additionally, Lewis and Short define the Latin word “<i>pathicus</i>” as designating one “who submits to unnatural lust…”.<a href="#_edn43" name="_ednref43" title=""><sup><sup>[xliii]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>What do these exclusions show?</p>
<p>Firstly, I submit that <i>had</i> Paul used any of the above words, writers such as Brentlinger would certainly <i>not</i> have said, “Oh, I see now that Paul intended to condemn all homosexual behavior – <i>full stop</i>.”<a href="#_edn44" name="_ednref44" title=""><sup><sup>[xliv]</sup></sup></a> Rather, it is plausible to think that the reaction would have been to say, “Right: Paul merely wanted to condemn pederasty, all age-discrepancies, lesbianism, cross-dressing, all sexual relations whatsoever, obscenity, strong passions,” etc.</p>
<p>Paul shrewdly avoids giving any of these “outs” to his hearers. With his coinage of the pair “<i>malakos kai arsenokoites</i>”, what Paul arguably condemns is <i>any</i> non-vaginal-sexual pairing – regardless of the ages of the participants;<a href="#_edn45" name="_ednref45" title=""><sup><sup>[xlv]</sup></sup></a> regardless of the gender of the passive partner;<a href="#_edn46" name="_ednref46" title=""><sup><sup>[xlvi]</sup></sup></a> regardless of whether the passive partner receives the penis anally or intercrurally;<a href="#_edn47" name="_ednref47" title=""><sup><sup>[xlvii]</sup></sup></a> and whether or not cross-dressing is involved,<a href="#_edn48" name="_ednref48" title=""><sup><sup>[xlviii]</sup></sup></a> the activity is contractual,<a href="#_edn49" name="_ednref49" title=""><sup><sup>[xlix]</sup></sup></a> passionate,<a href="#_edn50" name="_ednref50" title=""><sup><sup>[l]</sup></sup></a> or especially obscene.<a href="#_edn51" name="_ednref51" title=""><sup><sup>[li]</sup></sup></a> </p>
<p>In contemporary lingo, we might say that Paul has disallowed any “top-bottom” combination of anal sexual partners – whether or not the participants are play “strict” roles or “flip-flop” in a “versatile” manner.<a href="#_edn52" name="_ednref52" title=""><sup><sup>[lii]</sup></sup></a> Since this condemnation was so sweeping, and so thoroughly foreign to the Greco-Roman culture, it is no surprise that Paul was impelled to originate his own circumlocution in order to capture his intended meaning.</p>
<br />
<hr /><p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title="">[i]</a> The following is excerpted from Matthew J. Bell, “Blueprint for Opposing ‘<i>Gay</i>’ <i>Marriage</i>’,” privately circulated, Sept. 8, 2013. Interested readers may request my present working draft by writing to <a href="witnesscomments@gmail.com">witnesscomments@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title="">[ii]</a> According to the byline Phillips is the “Pastor of Christ Church” in Portland, Oregon.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title="">[iii]</a> Adam Phillips, “The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality. Why Does Franklin Graham Not Get This?” <i>Huffington Post</i>, July 7, 2015, updated July 16, 2015, <<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality_b_7807342.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality_b_7807342.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title="">[iv]</a> The other four verses are treated elsewhere (e.g., see note i) and, as time permits, I will post fuller defenses of them here. For example, regarding Leviticus 18:22 Protestant apologist Gregory Koukl can be quoted to great effect. “Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The <i>toebah</i> [abomination] of homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech’s altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?” (Gregory Koukl, “What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” <i>Stand to Reason</i>, Mar. 8, 2013, <http://www.str.org/articles/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah>.) In order words, the prohibition of sodomy is not, in the first place, a matter of hygiene, diet, or ceremony. Sodomy is a moral abomination that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title="">[v]</a> Ronald Lawler, Joseph Boyle, Jr., and William E. May, <i>Catholic Sexual Ethics</i>, Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1985, p. 199.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title="">[vi]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7" title="">[vii]</a> Genesis 2:23-24, NIV.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title="">[viii]</a> Matthew 19:4-6, NIV // Mark 10:7-9.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9" title="">[ix]</a> Richard D. Mohr, “Homosexuality, Prejudice, and Discrimination,” William H. Saw and Vincent Barry, eds., <i>Moral Issues in Business</i>, third ed., Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 2007, p. 499. Cf. Richard D. Mohr, “The Case for Gay Marriage,” <i>Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy</i>, vol. 9, no. 1, 1995, reprinted in Robert B. Baker, Kathleen J. wininger, and Frederick A. Elliston, <i>Philosophy of Sex</i>, 3rd ed., Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp. 190<i>ff</i>. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10" title="">[x]</a> NIV.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11" title="">[xi]</a> NIV.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12" title="">[xii]</a> NIV.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13" title="">[xiii]</a> NIV.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14" title="">[xiv]</a> The King James Version renders what was said as: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them <i>carnally</i>.”</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15" title="">[xv]</a> Rick Brentlinger, “Does 1 Cor 6:9 mean I can’t be gay AND Christian?” <i>GayChristian101</i>, <<a href="http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-1-cor-69-mean-i-cant-be-gay-and-christian.html">http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-1-cor-69-mean-i-cant-be-gay-and-christian.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16" title="">[xvi]</a> [Rick Brentlinger?] “Define Arsenokoites This word DID NOT refer to homosexuals in ancient usage,” <i>GayChristian101</i>, <<a href="http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html">http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17" title="">[xvii]</a> [Rick Brentlinger?] “Malakoi is NEVER used in the Bible to mean homosexual,” <i>GayChristian101</i>, <<a href="http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html">http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18" title="">[xviii]</a> See, e.g., Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, <i>How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993 and Henry A. Virkler, <i>Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation</i>, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001, etc.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19" title="">[xix]</a> <i>Introduction to Biblical Interpretation</i>, Dallas: Word, 1993, p. 11.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20" title="">[xx]</a> Brentlinger further approvingly quotes James Barr: “The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history... [I]t is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period”, <i>The Semantics of Biblical Language</i>, Oxford University Press, New York, 1961, p. 109; quoted by [Brentlinger?] “Define Arsenokoites…,” <i>loc. cit</i>. Brentlinger seems to miss the fact that it is he who is attempting to limit Paul’s meaning by asserting that pre-Pauline etymologies must determine Pauline usage. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21" title="">[xxi]</a> Douglas Harper, “Gay,” <<a href="http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gay">http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gay</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22" title="">[xxii]</a> Of course, there is no guarantee that this meaning shift will become widespread, nor even that it will be comprehensible. But if such a meaning shift were not even possible, the word “gay” would not now mean “homosexual” since there was a past time in which there was “no textual evidence” that it meant anything other than “carefree.”</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23" title="">[xxiii]</a> David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Corinthians 6:9,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i>, vol. 150, no. 600, 1993, p. 483. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref24" name="_edn24" title="">[xxiv]</a> Malick, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 482, n. 15. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref25" name="_edn25" title="">[xxv]</a> Malick, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 484.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref26" name="_edn26" title="">[xxvi]</a> Paul’s mention of lesbianism in Romans 1 was very rare for the period. But “…if Paul spoke about female homosexuality whereas the literature of his day did not, why was he not able to speak about make homosexuality in a similar way?” Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans…,” <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 340. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref27" name="_edn27" title="">[xxvii]</a> Brentlinger himself notes: “…that <i>malakoi</i> means male prostitutes in Paul’s usage is highly unlikely since Paul has already mentioned <i>pornoi</i>, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list. Because Paul’s reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using <i>malakoi</i> with the meaning of male prostitutes”, [Brentlinger?] “Malakoi…,” <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref28" name="_edn28" title="">[xxviii]</a> [Brentlinger?] “Malakoi…,” <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref29" name="_edn29" title="">[xxix]</a> For the following points, see K. J. Dover’s seminal study, <i>Greek Homosexuality</i>, London: Duckworth, 1978.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref30" name="_edn30" title="">[xxx]</a> “Intercrural” (def.) “between the legs.” Intercrural sex occurs when the “top,” or active-dominant partner, places his penis in between the legs of the “bottom,” or passive-submissive partner.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref31" name="_edn31" title="">[xxxi]</a> 494e <i>ff</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref32" name="_edn32" title="">[xxxii]</a> <i>Loc. cit.</i></p>
<p><a href="#_ednref33" name="_edn33" title="">[xxxiii]</a> Brentlinger, “Does 1 Cor…,” <i>loc. cit</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref34" name="_edn34" title="">[xxxiv]</a> Kam, “Does the Bible say homosexuals will go to hell?” <i>GayChristian101</i>, <<a href="http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-the-bible-say-homosexuals-will-go-to-hell.html">http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-the-bible-say-homosexuals-will-go-to-hell.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref35" name="_edn35" title="">[xxxv]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref36" name="_edn36" title="">[xxxvi]</a> Or being generally abusive, as in cases of murder or extortion. </p>
<p><a href="#_ednref37" name="_edn37" title="">[xxxvii]</a> “What words could Paul have used if he intended to condemn homosexuality?” <i>GayChristian101</i>, <<a href="http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html">http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref38" name="_edn38" title="">[xxxviii]</a> Brentlinger’s enumeration of “paiderasste” is both apparently redundant as well as disingenuous. The “paid-” component clearly hearkens to the word “child,” <i>paidiwn</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref39" name="_edn39" title="">[xxxix]</a> Craig A. Williams, <i>Roman Homosexuality</i>, 2nd. ed., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010, p. 193.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref40" name="_edn40" title="">[xl]</a> Ray Laurence, <i>Roman Passions: A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome</i>, New York: Continuum, 2010, p. 85.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref41" name="_edn41" title="">[xli]</a> <i>Op. cit</i>., p. 748.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref42" name="_edn42" title="">[xlii]</a> Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, with Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, <i>A Greek-English Lexicon</i>, revised ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, online at: <<a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpaqiko%2Fs">http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpaqiko%2Fs</a>>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref43" name="_edn43" title="">[xliii]</a> Charles Short and Charleton T. Lewis, <i>A Latin Dictionary</i>, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 1314.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref44" name="_edn44" title="">[xliv]</a> Thus, Brentlinger disingenuously titles his article “words that Paul could have used to condemn homosexuality,” leaving readers to believe precisely what I just submitted is implausible – namely, that the selection of any of the avoiding words would have been taken by Brentlinger as conclusive evidence of a total prohibition of non-vaginal, penile sexual activity.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref45" name="_edn45" title="">[xlv]</a> This is arguably why he avoids all age-tinged terminology, like <i>paiderastes</i>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref46" name="_edn46" title="">[xlvi]</a> This is arguably why Paul does use “malakos kai arnsenokoites,” since the first conjunct, designating passivity, could apply to anyone who “bottoms” anally, whether catamite men or women; and the latter conjunct, arguably is only meant to broadly designate a “top” man who actively engages in non-vaginal penetration, whether of a male rectum, female rectum, or even his own hand.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref47" name="_edn47" title="">[xlvii]</a> This is plausibly the reason that Paul avoids the term <i>kinaidos</i>, which term might tend to give the false impression that Paul is leaving side intercrural sex.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref48" name="_edn48" title="">[xlviii]</a> This is evident in virtue of the fact that Paul avoids all of the terms that designate transvestism.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref49" name="_edn49" title="">[xlix]</a> Again, it is reasonable to hold that Paul’s odd coinage is intended to avoid leaving readers with the impression that he is merely condemning temple prostitution.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref50" name="_edn50" title="">[l]</a> The word <i>pathikos</i> might tend to give the impression that the trouble lies with wayward passions when, in fact, what Paul is condemning is any form of “ectopic” (non-vaginal) penile sexual activity.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref51" name="_edn51" title="">[li]</a> Hence, Paul avoids lewd and crude references which, if used, might leave readers with the false impression that what is condemned is some <i>improper way</i> of approaching non-vaginal penile sexual activity, rather than all forms of non-vaginal penile sex – period.</p>
<p><a href="#_ednref52" name="_edn52" title="">[lii]</a> The “top” is the active, penetrating partner while the “bottom” is the passive, receiving partner. To “flip-flop” means to switch roles. Interestingly, construed this way, Paul’s condemnation arguably would even apply to persons – male or female – who use sexual “toys” or other objects to anally penetrate people. Further, we see that use of terms like <i>pathikos</i> and <i>kinaidos</i> would allowed cases of “flip-flopping” to slip through the cracks, since both of these latter terms tended to mark out “strict bottoms,” that is, persons who habitually play the passive rôle. Paul can therefore be read as forbidding any non-vaginal “bottoming” – even if it is an “experimental,” one-time thing, as opposed to a “lifestyle.”</p>
Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.com5