Friday, November 21, 2014

Source Criterion Soundoff

From the October 2011 E-Block.

***

Sources of the Jesus Tradition (SJT), edited by Joseph Hoffmann, is an official product of the Jesus Project, a mixed collaboration of scholars and other participants who were supposed to be performing a rational evaluation of the sources for Jesus. The Project (hereafter JP) underwent some embarrassing difficulties in its early stages, and like this book, does not portend a great deal of significant effort. We will not have much to say about most of the material in this book, but we will also use it as a springboard to discuss the broader question of the methods used by some scholars to decide which words of Jesus are authentic.

In one essay, Justin Meggitt offers a case for the contents of the Gospel as containing myth -- or rather, spends most of it explaining how the Greco-Roman world engaged in mythmaking, and then using this as a bludgeon to suggest by association that the Gospel authors did the same. Meggitt's only "offensive" against the Gospels as reliable sources of tradition consists of a mere 2 1/2 pages addressing claims that the Gospels find their sources in structured oral tradition, with one page of that being descriptive. (Let it be recalled that we offered multiple chapters in support of this hypothesis in Trusting the New Testament.) His arguments amount to the following:
  • There are no "explicit statements" about controls being set on oral tradition by community representatives. This is simply a case of Meggitt raising the bar of evidence arbitrarily high to suit his purposes; and it is also rather hypocritical, in light of the fact that there are also no "explicit statements" that the Gospels are myth (there are warnings against mythmaking in the epistles -- cf. 1 Tim. 1:3-4 for example -- but it would beg the question to directly apply these to the Gospels). That said, Meggitt does admit that such a process was performed by "particular individuals" -- and as we showed in TNT, structured oral tradition would be the norm for a teacher like Jesus; no "explicit statements" are needed to validate this. In an attempt to denigrate the value of such individuals, however, Meggitt alludes to (but does not quote) statements concerning Papias, a leading collector of the oral traditions [77]:
    ...Papias himself not only seems extremely haphazard in his approach, questioning those who just happened to be visiting to his church (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, 3.39.4) but, for all his protestations, seems to have been drawn to sensational paradoxa (marverlous tales; 3.39.8f) as anyone else, and his judgments about the veracity of traditions were disturbing the later Christians. Eusebius complains that the collection of oral traditions that Papias compiled in the five books...contained "strange parables and teachings of the Savior, and some other more mythical things" (Historia Ecclesiae, 3.39.11).
    Aside from the fact that indicting Papias for these things hardly condemns all Christian leaders in the early church on the same counts, Meggitt's description of these passages is highly tendentious. The first citation is not as carefree as "those who just happened to be visiting to his church" would imply:
    If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.
    For one thing, it is clear that Papias sought authoritative witnesses, not just "those who happened to be visiting." Second, there is nothing "haphazard" about such an approach at all; Meggitt seems to think that appeal to random visitors implies haphazardness, but apart from Papias' stated discretion of seeking those with authority, Meggitt is hardly in a position to designate Papias' own church as a bad place to meet such people. Indeed, it is not clear from Eusebius' quote where exactly Papias met people; but if we assume it was in Papias' own home area, Hierapolis, then he was partway between Rome and Jerusalem, near a major urban center where many people visited, and this is no more "haphazard" than setting up a survey booth along a busy highway where you know at least some of your target subjects are bound to pass. Not only so, as long as Papias lived, and as well connected as he was (to John), he could afford to be stationery and still get what he wanted. Meggitt is manufacturing a "haphazard" scenario out of presumption.
    In terms of sensational material, Meggitt is being tendentious again. The word paradoxa is the same used in Josephus of the works of Jesus, and can mean strange, wonderful, or marvellous. Not only so, but there is nothing in what Eusebius says to indicate that Papias "seems to have been drawn" to such things, as though to the exclusion of being sensible:
    But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
    As for the final point about "strange" parables and teachings, Eusebius says this in the context of his own prejudicial assessment of Papias' eschatology, with which he strongly disagreed, and is otherwise lacking in specifics (apart from one small eschatological point) as to what exactly Papias reported that was "strange" or "mythical," and in what contexts, any why. Meggitt is making far too much of lack of data as a way to subvert available data.
    Other than this, Meggitt notes John 21:25:
    Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
    Meggitt complains of this indicating that the selection of material from the Jesus tradition was "expressly theological" and John "does not show any concern for the authenticity" of the material he does not include. In this, Meggitt commits two broad errors. The first is the begged question that "theological" motive is in some way incompatible with selecting authentic material as opposed to inauthentic material. The second is that Meggitt merely assumes that the body of material John has to choose from has not already been vetted for authenticity, leaving John no reason to express such pedantic concerns to his readers. Meggitt's complaint that John seems "indiscriminate" because he does not express any "doubting" over the authenticity of the material places John at the beginning of a process when he is closer to the end of it -- indeed, as one of the Twelve, would hardly need to engage in any "authentication" of material for which he was a primary eyewitness.

    Finally, Meggitt makes vague appeal to the reputed use of Matthew by Mark (begging the question of Markan priority) and the "widespread abbreviation, addition, omission, conflation, elaboration, and reordering of material". [78] Without specific examples showing the alleged problem, not much can be said, but a significant burden stands in order to move from any of these to "fabrication" or "mythmaking".

    Next we would briefly discuss some of the criterion used by some scholars to authenticate the words of Jesus. In an essay that we otherwise would not address, Carrier offers a list of 17 representative criterion; we'll comment on the first few of these.

    Dissimilarity: If dissimilar to Judaism or the early church, it is probably true. This criterion is perhaps one of the more absurd, as it deems of lesser qualification any saying of Jesus which is contextually suited to his social and cultural environment. This is an especially absurd dictum inasmuch as teachers were expected to affirm and repeat that which reflected the accepted cultural mores of their society; in other words, much of what Jesus would be expected to say as a teacher would be very much similar to Judaism. 

    It is just as absurd to apply this criterion with respect to the early church: What movement would not say and do things reflective of its founder? 

    Embarrassment: If it was embarrassing, it must be true. In the same way, this criterion is useless because it is prima facie likely that Jesus did not go around saying embarrassing things 100% of the time. To lessen the qualification of a saying because it is not embarrassing is also absurd. 

    Coherence: If it coheres with other confirmed data, it is likely true. The usefulness of this depends on specific applications and what is meant by "confirmed data" and "coheres" and so is too general for further comment. 

    Multiple Attestation: If attested in more than one source, it is more likely true. Again, a begged question surfaces, that a saying only attested once is of lesser qualification. But why should this be the case? We very seldom have "multiple attestation" for what is said by most figures in historical texts. Moreover, since this was a primarily oral society, the presence of a saying in written sources should hardly be used to determine anything.

    Contextual Plausibility: It must be plausible in Judeo-Greco-Roman context. This criterion is the first we would say is of significant value.

    Historical Plausibilty: It must cohere with a plausible historical reconstruction. This one is also of value, but has the potential for abuse inasmuch as "plausible" is too frequently defined in terms of a critic's personal incredulity as opposed to actual plausibility.

    Natural Probability: It must cohere with natural science. We hardly need say more than that this merely begs the standard question of Hume.

    Oral Preservability: It must be capable of surviving oral transmission. This has some value, but can be abused by setting illicit criteria for what can survive. As it stands, nothing recorded in the Gospels -- not even in John -- would not be capable of surviving oral transmission, if not verbatim, then in substance.

    Crucifixion: It must explain (or make sense of) why Jesus was crucified. It seems hardly likely that 100% of what Jesus said would have in some way have contributed to him being crucified, so this criterion is useless for disqualifying sayings.

    And so on. The point is that while some have indeed concluded that there are no reliable ways to decide what Jesus did or did not say, a more pertinent question is why leeway should be given to those who doubt in the first place. In a later essay in the book, Robert Price raises the spectre of uncriticallly granting authenticity to anything Jesus may have said as recorded in any source, and disdains those who would accuse him and others of "skeptical ax-grinding" and points out that we have examples like the Infancy Gospels where it would typically be granted that sayings of Jesus were invented; thus, by analogy, why not the same for the Gospels of the canon? But that is Price's typical tactic of slipping by with a conclusion before he proves his case. The Infancy Gospels are later products; the canonical Gospels are (despite his attempts to show otherwise) not. The Infancy Gospels and others were produced by Gnostics who claimed divine revelation as the only source for their information; the canonical Gospels -- again, despite Price's vain attempts to argue otherwise -- are credibly scored to witnesses or to those who knew them.

    Furthermore, the telling weakness of Price's analogies to legendary accretion in places like the Muslim hadith (which were rather later than Mohammed) is that his system is conveniently non-disprovable and allows for no way that any word of Jesus (or any figure we choose to set our sights on) could be acknowledged as authentic. As such, it is no surprise that Price cannot and does not substantially engage the detailed treatments of oral transmission practices as we do in TNT, and thinks it sufficient to just call such comparisons "apologetics" (as if that decided the veracity of the matter; it still escapes Price that he, too, is an apologist, for his own position) and vaguely accuse of "prejudice" and "bias" those who exclude non-canonical materials, while also vaguely suggesting that the "diversity, anachronism, and tendentiousness" of the Gospels (no specifics offered) makes an analogy involving fabrication much better. Unfortunately, Price's history is one that shows that it is once specifics are engaged that his case becomes most transparently ineffectual.

    So what then might we do to evaluate authenticity? Initially, the burden should remain -- as it historically has -- on the doubter to show why some word or deed is inauthentic. It is likely folly to set down many rules in advance, as though anyone's words or deeds can be said to follow any set pattern subject to uniform criterion. Some very few of the ones above -- like contextual plausibility -- have universal value; thus I have used the example that if Tacitus refers to Nero making a microwave burrito, we have valid reason to think Tacitus was not the author. Beyond that -- we are right to place the burden on critics like Price who think their own personal incredulity is sufficient for disqualification.

    We might briefly comment on the inclusion of an essay by Frank Zindler in the book. Zindler is allowed to prop for the highest of absurdities here, including the Christ-myth and the Nazareth myth, while remaining oblivious to all contrary arguments. That he is allowed to do so speaks to the JP as a substantially unprofessional project with little interest in accuracy. Finally, we would also comment on an extended essay by Ellens which attempts to deeply psychoanalyze Jesus as a way to explain how he came to believe in his own divinity. Unfortunately, Ellens errs from the start by subjecting Jesus to modern, Western categories of psychology and identity; having Jesus internalize some figure in his own imagination, or from apocalyptic texts, as his "own real self" does not comport with how collectivist persons achieved and acted on their personal senses of identity. His further notion that the Christian message gained acceptance because of its ability to empower others in the face of death is also substantially at odds with what we know of the social world of the first century. 

    In the end, SJT is a mishmash of sometimes interesting but more often irrelevant and/or misguided material. I have doubts that the Jesus Project, however, will do much better than this.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Musicians' Gambit: Stryper


From the October 2011 E-Block.
***
The band Stryper, in my high school days, was controversial just on the basis that it seemed impossible that there should be anything as oxymoronic as a "Christian heavy metal" band. Today, as it happens, they are enjoying a revival, so our survey becomes just as relevant now as then, as we ask: How much "meat" is there, theologically, in what they present? This will be a rather objective study for me -- since even in the 80s, as now, I was badly tone deaf and hardly understood most of the words in songs like these!

We'll start with selections from the 1980s, and this one, which is apparently programmatic of Stryper's mission:

The hair is long and the screams are loud and clear.
The clothes are tight, earrings dangling from the ears.
No matter how we look, we'll always praise His name.
And, if you believe, you've got to do the same.
Loud, clear, let the people hear.
Scream, shout, show what it's all about.
Loud, clear, let the people hear.
Scream, shout, show what it's all about.
Some of us were always pushed around in schools.
That's why I wrote this song to sing to pushin' fools.
At least we can say we love doin' what we do.
And we're here to say that you can have salvation too.

There's not much meat here, to be sure; but there wouldn't need to be for such a thematic presentation. Arguably Stryper was using their very appearance and identity to good effect, using the very shock value to reach others: "Wait a minute. A Christian heavy metal band? Really?" It's much the same effect I strive for in my efforts on YouTube. ("Wait a minute. Cartoons on Christian apologetics? Really?")

The two sides of the debate which emerged, and still might:
  1. "Such appearances denigrate the Gospel! They shouldn't look like the world." That was apparently the take of Jimmy Swaggart when he condemned the band – all the more ironic given Swaggart’s eventual fall from grace. I can well imagine he’d say the same of my work.
  2. "We must be all things to all men -- and this can reach people who otherwise would never hear the Gospel."
The debate won't be settled any time soon because it can't be -- there are examples in which each can be true. The question is whether a given expression so leans towards 1 that it compromises on 2. The question here: Where does Stryper fall? Based on this song, their goal as expressed was to reach for 2:

I've changed my ways from wrong to right.
The devil never pays, no, he robs just like a thief in the night
So many bands give the devil all the glory
It's hard to understand, we want to change the story
We want to rock one way, on and on.
You'll see the light some day
All say Jesus is the way.
Satan is a fool and it's so insane.
Some people think he's cool, you play with fire,
You'll feel the pain.
Why lose when you could win? Give God a try.
The devil's not your friend, the truth is not a lie.
I've changed my ways from wrong to right
Evil never pays, no, the truth is not a lie.

Even as a preterist I can't help but commend a group that is so bold as to call Satan a "fool" -- and so directly strike the heart of a countercultural conception of Satan as a figure to be admired. Moreover, such a message could hardly have endeared them to other heavy metal bands or many typical heavy metal fans. If their goal was to be like the world for the sake of it, this was not the way to do it -- or with lyrics like this:

They say that rock and roll is strong
But God's the rock that makes us roll
Don't need no drugs to help us push on
We've got his power in our souls

On the other hand, even at this early date we could see a bit of the unfortunate overfamiliarity with God creeping in, as here...maybe?

You know I really love you
Your love is beautiful, lasting and true.
I've searched for a true love for such a long, long time
Now, my search has ended, yes, cause you are mine.
I'll always love you and I'll always tell you so
As long as I'm with you, my love I'll always show
Whenever I'm sad and feeling real blue
I begin to feel happy as I sit and think of you.
I think of your face and your personality.
You are so beautiful, you mean everything to me.

I say "maybe" because I am not clear on whether the subject of this song is God -- or some person. The concrete terms (like "face") point to the latter -- unless these fellows were covert Mormons! I found a few other songs of this type as well, but have no memory of them on Christian radio (and nor does Mrs H -- and she DID understand them!).

On the other hand, this one was clearly speaking of God:
Some people think they're happy, livin' for themselves.
But when they're sad they long for something else.
And you can find the answer in an honest way.
To get you thru the sadness, to start a whole new day.
We've found a life that keeps us happy.
Yes, we have and we'll live eternally.
We'll always have the light to see, and so can you.
Are you feeling lonely?
Are you feeling blue?
Does your life seem empty?
You know what to do.
You say you've go some troubles, yeah, oh so many downs.
You need a light to lift you off the ground.
And if your life feels senseless, just accept the Lord.
And He'll make you see things you never have seen before.
An everlasting life abounding, oh yeah.
Yes, He will and He's always giving more.
And His light will never stop shining, it's for you, yes it is.

This is an early (yet mild) expression of God as therapeutic. It has a ways to go before it reaches the almost pathological overfamiliarity of "I Can Only Imagine". Other songs by Stryper offer similarly mild expressions, but are balanced out by bold, in-your-face challenges like this one, which establish God's transcendent superiority:

We are the soldiers under God's command
We hold His two-edged sword within our hands
We're not ashamed to stand up for what's right
We win without sin, it's not by our might
And we're fighting all the sin
And the good book -- it says we'll win!
Soldiers, Soldiers, under command
Soldiers, Soldiers, fighting the Lords battle plan
Are you a soldier under God's command
Help fight the good fight, join us while you can
The battle that's waiting is fought so easily
Through Him, without sin there is victory
And were fighting all the sin
And the good book -- it says we'll win!

It is also interesting to note that Stryper did a rendition of Battle Hymn of the Republic!

Since that time, apparently, Stryper has become somewhat disillusioned with Christian music, and I have to say I can’t blame them. Judgmental and ignorant leaders like Swaggart certainly did little to encourage them with their surface judgments. While I doubt Stryper was perfect in all they expressed, their critics appear to have been too distrustful of innovation to understand what was going on – and I cannot help but wonder if that fear of innovation had anything to do with the insipid contents of today’s Christian music.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Emergent Gurus: Carl Medearis, Part 2


From the September 2011 E-Block.
***
We now offer Part 2 (and last) of our close evaluation of Carl Medearis' Speaking of Jesus (SOJ). 

97 -- Medearis' supposition that whether Christianity is "winning" is reckoned based on number of converts reflects a simplistic understanding shared by Skeptics. Regardless of number of converts, Christianity wins or loses based on nothing except the Resurrection-- even if the number of people who believed it happened was zero. Medearis typifies emergents who fail to so much as pay lip service to the historic event of the Resurrection as the basis for the validity of their professed faith. 

99 -- In line with his reform program, Medearis makes far too much of worrying about people feeling "attacked" when they are evangelized. Does it not occur to him that even his mild "point to Jesus" evangelism can be deemed an "attack" by someone who simply decides to pretend (or just plain decides!) to be sensitive enough to be offended? Does he bother to ask if any first century people felt "attacked" when they were evangelized -- and whether it matters? Isn't it better to understand that those who pretend to, or do, "feel attacked" by evangelism are simply (to put it bluntly) whining too much, or looking for excuses to not have to perform a close evaluation of their own beliefs?

While I am not denying that there is such a thing as “attack” evangelism – it kept me away from Christianity when I was much younger – that is no excuse for letting others define “attack” whatever way they want. Also, if Medearis believes his "point to Jesus" program is the solution to stopping offense, he is wrong. Instead, the ground he gives away will be taken and then overrun, and before he can turn around twice, being "really nice" and "talking about Jesus constantly" (103) -- his own version of "evangelism" -- will within a short period be decided to be an "attack" by those who simply want to avoid confronting the truth. And in fact, this is already happening in my personal experience.

109 -- Ironically, Medearis does realize that Jesus tuned his message to his audience, including being "[d]ownright mean to the Pharisees." But he does not at all perceive how this is in contradiction to his own instructions for evangelism and dealing with others.

112 -- Just as ironic is Medearis' emphasis on presenting the gospel as "good news". Yes, that is what "gospel" means, but he has no realization that the content of the gospel was anything BUT "good news" to the first century person who first heard it. In reality, it was offensive, disgusting, and entirely contrary to critical means values held close to that social setting.

This of course is not to say we ought to add offense to the message gratuitously. However, Medearis' desire to avoid offense is simply a fantasy.

115 -- Thankfully, Medearis here at least admits to the importance of sound doctrine (even as he had been saying the opposite up until now). However, he advises against "lead[ing] a conversation with doctrine rather than Jesus Himself." And this means what exactly? That's not too clear. He tells a story of having ignored a Muslim doctor who interrupted a Bible study he held with other Muslim doctors by asking his fellow Muslims how they could sit with someone who believed Jesus had been crucified. Rather than answer the man, the host asked him to join the study, which proved embarrassing to the man.

I detect some problems here. The first is that these Muslims (who were from Lebanon) undoubtedly adhered to an honor-shame social view. In that light, the host's refusal to answer the question -- whether Medearis understood so or not -- was actually a shaming device which told the man that his question wasn't worthy of being answered. So in a nutshell, Medearis has mistaken a public shaming for not wanting to "lead with doctrine." And he has also offered an example that would have failed miserably had the group been made up instead of American atheists, for example.

Second, there is nothing "doctrinal" about Jesus being crucified. That is a matter of historic fact or not. Muslim insistence that Jesus was not crucified is, to put it bluntly, an embarrassing contrivance. (And for that reason, the public shaming of the man was all the more appropriate.)

Finally, in light of all this, Medearis is wrong to suppose that this shows that "fighting over doctrine" would have been "a huge error" any time such a situation arises. It would not have been at all times. In this group, he tells us, everyone was a doctor; they were all social equals, and the host was quite able to respond in kind as he did. The situation would have been quite different had the objector been a social superior to the host -- or an inferior. Medearis has unwittingly fallen for the sort of one-size-fits-all methodology for which he expresses disdain.

117 -- In the end, Medearis' one other anecdotal example in this matter is to merely suppose that "possibly" a Jewish man he spoke to had not converted to Christianity because others had "led with doctrine." Possibly, and two anecdotes, isn't sufficient basis for any conclusions of any sort.

122 -- a minor but amusing error as Medearis refers to the Romans as "pantheistic". He means polytheistic, but is apparently confused by the use of the word "pantheon" to describe a collection of deities.

126 -- although rightly describing discipleship as something long term, Medearis anachronizes (typically) by calling it "a journey of relationship that encompasses support, trial and error, and difficulty" while claiming it isn't "based on the explanations and doctrines of a religious system." In reality, it could not have been conceived of as the first, and the second would have been regarded as one essential part of being a disciple (though not the whole). Not surprisingly as well, he offers the common error of overfamiliarity which imagines God in terms of modern friendship (141). The reference to "difficulty" is reflected as well later when it is suggested that "struggling with Jesus is part of Jesus' plan." (145) Could it be? Not likely: Otherwise there would have not been any sort of accessible revelation.

148-9 -- and of course, though I am by no means inclined to all conservative political causes, there is the typical misapplication of "love your enemies" to the interactions of nations.

151 -- Medearis is much exorcised by Christians being perceived as "against" things. Two things ought to occur to him. The first, as we have noted with prior emergents, much of the "against" is in itself a reaction to those who are so vicious and voracious "for" something else, and use the media, the government, and all else they can to achieve their goals. Second, why not consider that the perception of Christians as "against" is merely a manufactured excuse that doesn't deserve credence, or a case of spin doctoring to avoid the more serious issue (like “pro-choice”)? Medearis refers to those who say Christians "fight us and judge us and hate us." To pose questions as emergents are so fond of doing: What if the fight is legitimate and necessary for the greater good? How about the fact that we are called to judge rightly (but not hypocritically)? What if "hate" is just coded language for, "I don't like being told I am doing something wrong"?

152 -- relatedly, it is amazing that Medearis does not see that Jesus could just as readily be defined as "against" things if those who complained about it wanted to "spin" it that way. It also does not occur to him that the reason they do not is that they have never read the New Testament in whole -- and that his own edited Jesus does not aid in revealing that to them. It is also amazing that he thinks there is something unusual about defining a football team by who they have beaten. I am no sports fan, but I have seen enough to know that teams or players are often defined by who they have beaten, particularly if there was a great upset. To this day, for example, the 1981 defeat of the Dallas Cowboys by the San Francisco 49ers is regarded as a defining moment in the latter's history.

161-2 -- Medearis gives space to a non-Christian friend who recounts negative encounters with Christians, but who admits in the end that "most of my personal interactions with Christians have been positive." If this is so, then this is a clear anecdotal case of Medearis' "point to Jesus" by way of living example failing to work. His friend sees in Jesus: "The intrinsic value of all. Total forgiveness. Love. Kindness. Giving." Is that all? What about the condemning of the goats, the conditions of forgiveness by joining the new covenant and forsaking all else, the railing against the Pharisees, the demands for obedience?

175 -- it is perhaps understandable why Medearis is so confused about doctrine. He uses the analogy of an egg to explain the Trinity, but that illustrates tritheism.

180 -- in a rather contrived effort, Medearis suggests that Jesus did not use the "I'm the only way" tactic "typically" because "it's a door-closer." His desire not to offend is so great that he offers a three-page, convoluted answer as a way to avoid offending people by indicating that damnation is the fate of the unsaved -- even when that is the very question they directly ask.

In sum: There is nothing extraordinary here, at least not with respect the emergent church: Medearis is evasive, too prone to compromise for emotional reasons, and does little to further progress.

Friday, October 31, 2014

A Ride in the Reconstruction Zone, part 3


From the September 2011 E-Block.

***
As in our last installment, my reading of the second half of Rushdoony's Roots of Reconstruction has produced none of the controversy that I would have expected from all the naughty things I have read about him from certain disgruntled sources. There is still no promise to reinstitute stoning as a penalty if Christians get in charge. Nor is there yet anything objectionable in moral terms. 

There is also, as yet, still very little in terms of specifics of how Rushdoony sees Christians taking dominion over all aspects of life. He tells us (552), "Christainity has an obligation to train people in the fundamentals of God's grace and law, and to make them active and able champions of true political liberty and order." All right -- how? We're not told; all we have in RR is a strong emphasis on construction of Christian schools, but the means of instruction for "people" at large is not specified. We are told that we should tithe to support reconstruction (608) but other than for schools, if you're looking to be told how to spend it, you won't find it here. We are told we ought to make television a Christian domain (1102) but not told how either. Buy all the stations with tithe money and replace the programming? Take over the FCC? "The state cannot be neutral towards God." (907), we are told. All right -- so must it be a theocracy? Must all politicians be Christians? I don't wish to seem facetious, but the weight of "do this" that is unbalanced by the lack of a "tell me how" becomes disgruntling after a while, as it leaves far too much to the imagination. 

There are also some interesting parallels to today's problems of the church; again I can only imagine how much worse Rushdoony would say things are now. At one point he appears to be taking on (564) an earlier version of the emergent church. Later (582) he refers to churchgoers who "sit under pastors who know less Bible and doctrine than they do" (ouch -- how well I know that). And it is not only pastors (755): he has a few words for Christians who substitute "emotionalism and enthusiasm for discipline and work." He minces no words even for the greatest names; he refers to Billy Graham as a compromiser and charges him (689) with adhering to "basic humanism". How can I of all people dislike someone for being this straightforward? 

So are there any problems to report? Well, yes. I have noted Rushdoony's sparse documentation at times, and I selected three claims at random to check for validity. 

(570) He reports that two Nigerian personalities, Sir Ahmado Bello and Sir Abubaker, on January 15, 1965, were eaten by cannibals at a state dinner. This doesn't check out at all; Bello's death was one year later (January 15, 1966) and he was murdered in a coup. I can find no indication that his body was consumed by cannibals. Abubaker was killed in the same coup, and it appears that his corpse was found by a roadside and put in a tomb, not eaten. 

(589) He reports that on January 31, 1967, Lois Murgenstrumm was used as a living altar in a Satanist wedding. This claim is repeated without documentation in some sources of questionable reliability. Perhaps it simply is too old to be on the radar today, but it smells suspicious. 

(1021) He says that a Declaration of Mental Independence was delivered in 1825, by one Robert Owen, founder of a sort of humanist colony. He also reports a visitor to the colony, Gabriel Rey, who saw a mired horse that was left to die. On this one the year is repeated differently in different sources (one said 1826, another 1829) but it does appear that Owen did deliver such an address. On the other hand, I cannot find any confirmation of the Rey aspect of the story. 

So what does that leave us? It's not certain, especially since the book gives no source for these claims. They may seem trivial as claims, but they do raise questions in my mind about how reliable Rushdoony's research may be. 

Next up, we'll start looking at his Institutes of Biblical Law.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Cruel Vegetable Soup


From the September 2011 E-Block.
***
By request we are examining an article titled, "Did Abel or Cain Offer a Lamb in Sacrifice to God?" by John Vujicic, in which just about every hook or crook in the book is used to explain away Abel's sacrifice of an animal. The motivation here appears to be some sort of misplaced vegetarianism, or perhaps some sort of primer against animal cruelty; but of course the arguments remain the same even if the motive is for Vujicic to earn enough money to buy a new bicycle. Vujicic's treatment, however, is remarkably long, tedious, and tendentious, so we will pare it down to the basics. 

Not that any motive would do much to improve the arguments. The first resort is to suggest -- using Jeremiah 8:8's "lying pen of the scribes" as a bludgeon -- that conveniently, the particular text on Abel and Cain was changed in such a way that it happened to obscure the point of view Vujicic prefers, which is to suppose that the sacrifices were reversed, and it was Cain who killed an animal and was punished for it. Textually, this one is a no-brainer: There is no evidence for any such textual change in Genesis at all in any manuscript from any period. The Jewish historian Josephus certainly doesn’t have any awareness of a different text; so likewise Philo makes it clear that Abel performed an animal sacrifice. 

Vujicic's desperation is such, however, that he seeks any possible external confirmation for a textual change in Genesis, and he believes he has found one such in a document called the "Essene Humane Gospel" in which Jesus is quite specifically said to indicate that Abel "offered up the grains and fruits of the earth" while it was Cain who offered the blood sacrifice. As you might expect, no credentialed scholar is aware of such a text at all; I found one vegan source that claimed it was found as a third century manuscript in (of course) the Vatican library, but naturally, there is no documentation for this anywhere, and as far as I am concerned, barring evidence, this is to be dated no earlier than the 20th century in which it was printed. 

Due credit may be offered in that Vujicic at least admits to his readers that the words ascribed to Jesus "may or may not be authentic". That's putting it mildly.
Vujicic offers a second document where Cain and Abel's roles are reversed, but this one is no better off. Let us deepen the irony with his detailed description:

The World Bible Publishers have put a book together which is compiled of ancient manuscripts which did not find their way into the canonical Bible. This book is entitled The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Various translators were used to translate the manuscripts from their original tongues. The manuscript we are interested in is entitled Adam and Eve. For the translation of this manuscript we are indebted to two great Bible scholars: Dr. S.C. Malan, Vicar of Broadwindsor and Dr. E. Trumpp - Professor at the University of Munich. Ethiopic and Arabic originals were used for the current English translation.

Bible scholars? Not quite. Malan was an orientalist of the 19th century, and Trumpp was an earlier translator. You’ll find this work put out today by esoteric, not scholarly presses. The very fact that the alleged “original” is said to be in Ethiopic or Arabic tells us enough of how little a case can be made for its authenticity. Scholars who do take it seriously suggest dates between the fifth and eleventh century AD.

Vujicic's next point says:

...we also know for certain that the Jews who lived in Egypt, in an area known as the Elephantine, although they built a Temple there - an exact replica of the Jerusalem one - did not kill the lamb during their Passover observance nor did they ever offer blood sacrifices. They only authorized and sanctioned the practice of a “pure oblation”. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 2, on p. 60, says:

“Meal offerings [oblations] and incense are specified as the only ritual procedures to be followed, as was done formerly. Another smaller Aramaic text dealing with the proposed reconstruction of the temple states specifically that sheep, oxen, and goats were not offered there.”

This is accurate as far as it goes, but there’s nothing in the ISBE entry to suggest that the lack of animal sacrifice at Elephantine had anything to do with some distaste for sacrifices; more likely it was because that was considered the exclusive province of the Jerusalem temple.

The next non-canonical book Vujicic turns to is the Clementine Homilies, where Peter is said to have reported that Adam disliked bloody sacrifices. In this case, Vujicic has the virtue of at least some scholarly support; some will date these texts to the third century AD. However, it is far from clear that this offers any authentic word of Adam; much less does it offer a motive that aligns with Vujicic’s, or indicate that Adam's distaste is universal. It is as well to suggest that Adam disliked sacrifices because it reminded him too much of the original sin episode, when animals were killed to make clothes for him.

There is next a section in which, having assumed the Essene Humane Gospel correct, he then uses Hebrews 11:4 as silent validation (that is, assuming Hebrews shares the view of the Essene Humane Gospel!). Vujicic's one attempt to find the re-reading in Hebrews 11:4 is to point out that whereas Hebrews describes Abel's "gifts" in the plural, Cain's "gift" is described in the singular, and this is said to cohere better with Abel offering fruit (plural) and Cain offering a lamb (singular). From what can be determined, however, both words refer to what Abel offered.

Next on Vujicic's fringe-documents list: A reputed Ebionite book called The Ascents of James in which James the brother of Jesus spoke against sacrifices. This one to has some potential as an older work (though far from first century) and has even received attention from worthy scholars. However, it is clear from the text that James’ motive was the end of the old covenant, not Vujicic’s concern for animal rights.

It is also noted that the "Church Fathers unanimously testify that James from his birth never tasted animal flesh." No citation is given, but even if this is true, it does not establish a motive in line with Vujicic’s; as it is, the low availability of meat in the ancient world just as well frames this as James being ascetic, as opposed to concerned with animal rights that way Vujicic is.

Next up, Vujicic appeals to Jeremiah 7:22 (as also alluded to by the Epistle of Barnabas) -- yes, that same one we've dealt with before -- and also another fake document, but this time one we've seen before, The Gospel of the Holy Twelve (link below). Based on the above -- not textual evidence -- Vujicic declares the text of Leviticus 7 to be forged.

The next Biblical text appealed to is Is. 43:22-24 -- as it appears in the Septuagint:

I have not now called thee, O Jacob; neither have I made thee weary, O Israel. Thou hast not brought me the sheep of thy whole-burnt-offering; neither hast thou glorified me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with sacrifices, neither have I wearied thee with frankincense. Neither hast thou purchased for me victims for silver, neither have I desired the fat of thy sacrifices.

There's no need for a fresh answer here: This is simply another version of Jeremiah 7:22, and of the same negation idiom in use. Vujicic simply interprets the text the same way a fundamentalist atheist does. The same may be said of his appeal to Is. 1:11-12 and Ps. 40:6-7, 51:16-17, and other passages in which sacrifice is said to be less preferred than mercy and good works. The use of negation idiom is a much simpler, much better attested notion than Vujicic's tendenetious and paranoid suggestion that scribes wildly altered texts all over the place. If that is the game to play, why not suggest that what the scribes actually altered was the texts that Vujicic thinks forbid animal sacrifice? In the end, he is compelled to declare many chapters of Leviticus to be fraudulent, out of preference for a mere handful of verses -- an incredibly radical suggestion made worse by both the lack of textual evidence and by his misreading of the texts (see link below) as referring to God literally using sacrifices for food.

Much space is then devoted to emotional descriptions of animal sacrifices, as well as a tendentious description of God as reputedly comparable to a little child having a temper tantrum if He's really demanding animal sacrifices. Atonement theory is rather more complex than that, but it matters little since ultimately Vujicic's solution is to say that the "lying pen of the scribes" is responsible for the introduction of these texts (or else,were written by people who didn't know that the lying scribes inserted those texts). Further, texts that decry animal sacrifice without faith are simply designated as wholesale condemnations of sacrifice based on this assumption.

So far Vujicic has been honest if incomplete in what he presents, but he does step over the line in this one:

Please note the text of Isaiah 22:12-14: “…You KILLED SHEEP AND CATTLE TO EAT, and you DRANK WINE…This EVIL will NEVER BE FORGIVEN THEM as LONG AS THEY LIVE” [Good News Bible].

The ellipsis hides a certain sin, though – look at the whole text:

And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Vujicic dishonestly omits the special command to mourning, which is what defines the sin here – not performing sacrifices per se. In similar fashion, Amos 6:4-7, which is properly read as a condemnation of the indolently wealthy who have no regard for God, is imaginatively taken as a condemnation of animal cruelty; eg, Amos point out that these people sleep on ivory beds, not because to do so signifies wealthy indolence, but because, “[i]n order to enjoy this luxury, one must slaughter many elephants.” That reading is as doubtful as one that would say that winebibbers are condemned in the same passage because wine drinking requires the squeezing of so many grapes.

Further on, Prov, 23:20 is read as a condemnation of all eating of meat; it is ignored that what is condemned is gluttony (excess), not meat eating per se. The most obnoxious mishandling of Scripture occurs, however, in the use of Zechariah 11:4-6:

The LORD my God said to me, act the part of the shepherd of a FLOCK OF SHEEP THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUTCHERED. THEIR OWNERS KILL THEM AND GO UNPUNISHED. They sell the meat and say, praise the LORD! We are rich! Even their own shepherds have no pity on them.

Vujicic takes this as God condemning those who kill actual sheep, but the context clearly indicates that the “sheep” here is those in Jerusalem who are about to be judged.

The article closes with some ethical arguments about vegetarianism that are beyond our scope. However, we have seen enough to say that Vujicic is not a reliable exegete. He calls on documents with little concern for their provenance, merely assuming they reflect early teachings; he arbitrarily declares as late insertions any texts he disagrees with, and mishandles texts to make them say what he wants to hear.

It’s enough to make me want to go get a burger.

Jer. 7:22
Gospel of the Holy Twleve
Relevant item from the ThinkTank

Friday, October 17, 2014

Musicians' Gambit: Petra

From the September 2011 E-Block.
**
For this Musicians' Gambit entry, we'll take a step back in time to one of the more classic bands, Petra. I once read this group described as a "meat and potatoes" band, which might suggest that we'll see a lot less fluff than we do in many of the groups we have reviewed so far. That does seem indeed to be the case.

Consider first this set of lyrics:

This thirsting within my soul
Won't cease till I've been made whole
To know You, to walk with You
To please You in all I do
You uphold the righteous and Your faithfulness shall endure
Adonai, Master of the earth and sky
You alone are worthy, Adonai
Adonai, let creation testify
Let Your majesty be magnified in me
Adonai you are an endless mystery
Unchanging consuming fire
Lift me up from mud and mire
Set my feet on Your rock, let me dwell in Your righteousness
When the storms surround me, speak the word and they will be still
And this thirst and hunger is a longing only You can fill

Although there are certainly touches of what we would come to see as an over-focus on a too-personal relationship, the balance of these lyrics is weighted overwhelmingly towards the attributes and majesty of God, and the references to our own experience, even so, are the minimum necessary to express the inevitable I-thou aspect of interaction with God. In short, there is a transcendence here that has been missing from so many of the groups we have previously surveyed.

And where before have we seen doctrinal matters so clearly laid out, than with words like these?

When our labor all retire
there will be a trial by fire
Will your treasure pass the test
Or will it burn up with the rest
You may build upon a sure foundation
With your building in delapidation
When it all comes down to rubble
Will it be wood hay and stubble
Or precious stones, gold and silver--
Are you really sure
And we all will stand at the Bema Seat
All will be revealed--it will be complete
Will there be reward in the fiery heat
When we see our lives at the Bema Seat
Every talent will be surely counted
Every word will have to be accounted
Not a story will be left untold
We will stand and watch the truth unfold
Every score--will be evened--nothing to defend
Every building will be shaken
Every motive will be tried
He'll give reward to the faithful
Will you recieve or be denied

Apart from Casting Crowns, we have seen no group put such a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility -- but not even CC laid the weight this heavily upon the listener, and placed their focus in the main on the experience of the one who suffered, as opposed to the process of judgment. Arguably one might say that there was a balance that needed to be struck between both, and that this is a case of a pendulum swung too far, reactionarily, in the wrong direction.

Petra was, as I recall, not a group that considered themselves beneath a little humor. To this day, "Breakfast" by the Newsboys remains one of my favorite songs, and this one by Petra seems to have been of the same type:

Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
We're beginnin' to think you're touched
We hear ya got religion
Ya ain't been 'round to see us much
Ya threw away your corncob pipe
And your jug of moonshine brew
And we hear ya ain't been doin'
All those things you used to do
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
You're shavin' ev'ry day
You ain't been chasin' women
And you kissed your wife today
You went to church last Sunday
And you shook the preacher's hand
And they say that you been talkin'
'Bout a home beyond this land
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
Ya never cuss no more
We hear you ain't been feudin'
You hung your rifle by the door
Ya take a bath each Sunday
If ya need it or not
And ya go to work on Monday
Even when it's hot
Lucas McGraw, what's come over you?
We're beginnin' to think you're touched
We hear ya got religion
Ya ain't been 'round to see us much
But ya know we've all been wonderin'
If what ya got just might be real
And all the while we're laughin'
Is it really God, Is it really God
Is it really God you feel?

I must confess to have never heard this one before, on Christian radio or anywhere else! But we probably should have. The emphasis on personal testimony, which I normally consider out of place, likely has its best expression in settings like these where it becomes a sort of self-effacing mechanism (as opposed to a sort of "tell all scandal" format).

Even more amazingly, Petra offered a similar song based on an incident in the life of St. Augustine:

...one night I heard a knock at the door
The boys were really painting the town
I was just another bored teenage boy
Kickin' up and actin' the clown... Yeah
One dare led to another dare
Then things were getting out of control
We hopped the fence and we stole the pears
And I threw away a part of my soul
Yes, I threw away a part of my soul (now it's)
Haunting me how I stole those pears
'Cause I loved the wrong
Even though I knew a better way
Not for hunger or poverty

It is hard to imagine some of our current groups (aside from CC) making use of what is a relatively obscure story like this one; but there is perhaps a connection to be made here between depth of theological knowledge and awareness and "meatiness" of lyrics. Those who make themselves earnest disciples will bear fruit (not pears!) in accord with that.

Petra was also not afraid to be critical of the brethren for misplaced priorities:

Everybody look there's a new bandwagon in town
Hop on board and let the wind carry you around
Seems like there's not enough to keep us busy till the Lord comes back
Don Quixote's gotta have another windmill to attack
Another Witch Hunt looking for evil wherever we can find it
Off on a tangent, hope the Lord won't mind it
Another Witch Hunt, takin' a break from all our gospel labor
On a crusade but we forgot our saber
There's a new way to spend all our energies
We're up in arms instead of down on our knees
Walkin' over dollars trying to find another dime So send out the dogs and tally ho
Before we sleep tonight we've got miles to go
No one is safe, no stones left unturned
And we won't stop until somebody gets burned
Bro Bro Bro Bro Bro Bro Brothers

My one reservation is that I have no idea where Petra would draw the line between a "witch hunt" and a genuine doctrinal dispute worthy of attention. I can only say based on their lyrics that I tend to think they'd draw a line that was a responsible one.

Did I find anything that looked too familiar, like so much of today's music? This came closest to crossing the line:

Why should the Father bother to call us His children?,
Why should the Spirit hear it when we pray?,
Why should the Father bother to be concerned with all our needs?
It's all Because of what the Son has done.
Once we were lost out on the Ocean with no direction or devotion,
tossed about by every wind & wave , Now we are in the world not of it,
and we can surely rise above it, Because the Lord has risen from the grave
And we cry "Abba Father", "Abba Father" ,"Abba Father" , "Abba Father"
We cry "Abba Father", "Abba Father", "Abba Father" , "Abba Father",
Once we were strangers from the Promise, We were doubters worse than Thomas,
Till the Spirit opened up our eyes, Now he has offered us Adoption & we have taken up the option, To be His family Eternally.
It's all Because of what the Son has done.

It came closest....but was ambiguous enough to not cross the line into the problematic "buddy God" treatment. In that regard I found Petra to be entirely sound and never lacking in reverence.

For our next few entries in this series, we'll continue to look at older groups, and perhaps there will be some sort of identifiable trend in which we find that the overfamiliarity of the most recent Christian music can be seen as a relatively recent aberration. It's hard not to wax nostalgic here -- I still recall such favorites as Petra, Stryper, and David Meece, and they now seem so reverent compared to what we have today.

That I describe Stryper as reverent in comparative terms might speak enough for itself!


Friday, October 10, 2014

The Elite Set


From the August 2011 E-Block.
***
A reader requested that we have a look at an item by Stan Telchin titled, "Messianic Judaism is Not Christianity", and the quote marks should be noted, as the title is reputed to be a quote of what is said by some Messianic Jews. I'd have to sum up this item by saying it is an extended exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill: Telchin makes rather too much out of what he perceives to be "elitism" (that in quotes in him, too) that he thinks inconsistent with the Bible.

I'd like to use this opportunity to both briefly evaluate Telchin and expand upon similar perceptions sometimes had over other matters -- such as, for example, the believer who chooses to inform themselves as an apologist might. I'll illustrate that with a personal example.

There was a trying time not long ago for my beloved and I when one of her relatives -- a professing but insincere Christian -- justified some outrageous behavior of his with a particular Bible passage. I corrected him, appealing in the process to sound contextual scholarship, but he dismissed me and my explanation on the grounds that I was being prideful.

Telchin also raises the specter of pride against messianic Jews, and does so in an equally clumsy and unjustified way. He remarks upon one woman who said she would "feel as though" she was being "discriminated against" and was stunned when one man said, "If you don't read the Old Testament in Hebrew, you really cannot understand what is being said."

Stunned? Why? It's a given that every language has nuances lost in translation; thus, the man's statement, if intended (as is most likely the case, as hyperbole) is nothing to be "stunned" about and is not in any sense elitist. You do either need to read the Hebrew, or the works of someone who does, to get the bigger picture; all else is filtered through what is called "bilingual interference" and while not entirely incoherent, will at least be lacking in potentially important contextual parameters.

At the heart of all this is a matter that may pain some modern ears: The Bible teaches equality and elitism in the Body of Christ. It should be recalled that Jesus taught two parables which show this. One showed men being hired throughout a workday, with all being paid the same at the end (Matt. 20:1-20). The other (more than one, actually – example, Luke 19:20-27) has people being rewarded proportionately according to effort. It would be correct to say that the former parable represents salvation, and few have problems accepting this, but the idea of rank and honor in heaven by works tends to grate on the modern ear – and we seldom hear as much about it.

It was C. S. Lewis who once remarked that “democracy” is badly taken to mean that everyone should be equally untalented, ungifted, and unaided. We can see the dark shadow of this kind of “democracy” in Telchin’s protests, and they are supported, as Lewis also predicted might happen, by appeals to how the other person “feels” by not being part of the gifted group. To not recognize unique giftedness has manifest results in the church at large: Unless your gift happens to be to entertain people in some way (eg, as a singer, or a musician), you’re very likely to end up looked down upon for having a gift, to be supposed to be putting on airs, or end up not being trusted or given a chance to exercise your gift.

The result, as Lewis predicted, is a democracy of the lowest common denominator. It has also been a recipe for inactive Christians. Assured that all are equal under salvation, without the complementary message that works will be rewarded in kind, the result is a broad exercise of the gift of being seated, with little if any awareness of larger issues which affect faith – and paradoxically, believers who take a sort of perverse pride in being equal to everyone else.