The world into which some scholars stray

Adrian H N Green-Armytage writes in John Who Saw.

There is a world—I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit—which is not the world in which I live.

In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance. But in that world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from the facts but always from somebody else's version of the same story.

Writers of books need earlier books as sources when they write ‘em.
Those earlier books, yet earlier books, and so ad infinitum.

In my world, almost every book, except some of those produced by Government departments, is written by one author. In that world almost every book is produced by a committee, and some of them by a whole series of committees.

In my world, if I read that Mr. Churchill, in 1935, said that Europe was heading for a disastrous war, I applaud his foresight. In that world no prophecy, however vaguely worded, is ever made except after the fact.

In my world we say, "The first world-war took place in 1914–1918." In that world they say, "The world-war narrative took shape in the third decade of the twentieth century."

In my world men and women live for a considerable time—seventy, eighty, even a hundred years—and they are equipped with a thing called memory. In that world (it would appear) they come into being, write a book, and forthwith perish, all in a flash, and it is noted of them with astonishment that they "preserve traces of primitive tradition" about things which happened well within their own adult lifetime.

Turning to more detailed matters, in my world, if a fisherman makes an unusually good catch, he counts and weighs and measures each fish and can accurately (even maddeningly) recall these statistics to memory until the end of his life. In that world a ‘draught of 153 great fishes’ is necessarily fictitious and the number must be symbolical. In my world, if a party of uneducated and probably superstitious men is sent out by moonlight to arrest a man who is said to be in league with the devil and to be able to work miracles, they go in some trepidation; and when the wizard suddenly appears out of the darkness and challenges them, using those words so awe-inspiring to Jewish ears, ‘I AM’, they are apt to be considerably taken aback. But in that other world it is ‘ludicrously unhistorical’ to suppose that the high priest’s servants ‘went back and fell to the ground’ in precisely these circumstances. In my world a man of even the humblest origin can become, by the end of his life, a very learned man. In that world a Galilean fisherman can never, as long as he lives, become acquainted with the writings of Philo or the terminology of contemporary religious and philosophical thought.

A theodicy is not ad hoc

The reason is that the theodicy argument as proposed by atheists and ad hoc theorists is not true. Theodicy is asking why God may permit evil, the existence of evil itself is not an argument against God.

1. The existence of evil is an argument for theism based on the moral argument. If we concede that evil is in fact real (not just unpleasant) then theism is true.
2. This argues not solely for theism, but good theism, ie. a good God. This is because evil does not exist of itself, it is parasitic; evil is a perversion of good.
3. Therefore the existence of evil raises the question of why would a good God allow evil. The existence of evil does not raise the question of God's existence; rather his existence is proven by the existence of evil.

Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism?

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy has posted a video on what he considers the top 10 reasons from the Bible on why young earth creationism cannot be correct. These are biblical arguments on the error of creationism, not purported scientific errors.

His top 10 problems are:

10. Genesis 17:17. Abraham's age when he was to father Isaac.
9. Genesis 8:5-9. The extent of the Flood.
8. Genesis 2:24. Metaphors in the creation account.
7. Genesis 3:22. Are humans mortal or immortal?
6. Genesis 2:4. Genesis 2 recaps Day 6 of creation.
5. Jeremiah 4:23-26. Jeremiah alludes to creation.
4. Genesis 1:14. Creation of light before the sun.
3. Genesis 1:28. The meaning of subdue and rule.
2. The meaning of bara. It does not mean "create out of nothing".
1. Genesis 1:1. Earth created or modified.

Now Jones is well read on a variety of claims around the early chapters of the Bible, and the Christian appeals to reading the Bible through an Ancient Near East perspective, and a variety of archaeological claims. My concerns are several-fold: he does not appear to be well read on creationism, many of the issues he raises have been discussed for years; he gives too much credence to secular opinions that are often very antagonistic to Scripture; and, while he reads some things in Scripture closely, oftentimes he does not read Scripture closely enough.

Here are my brief responses to these claims and why I think they do not argue against God creating over 6 days a few thousand years ago.

10. Genesis 17:17

The claim is that God told Abraham that he was to father Isaac at age 100 and Abraham is incredulous. Jones thinks that Abraham had no reason to be incredulous because many of his ancestors fathered children over the age of 100 in the recent past, including his own father Terah. Presumably if Abraham's ancestors lived much further in the past, or if the ages given are non-literal then 100 would be too old, but if the genealogies are literal then why is Abraham incredulous?

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Note carefully what Abraham says: "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" Abraham's age is given in the context of his wife's age. Abraham knows he has already had a child at age 86. Sarah even suggested Abraham take her maidservant as a concubine (Gen 16:2) which implies that Sarah thought Abraham was virile enough for this. Abraham is incredulous because of the promise that Abraham will father a son to Sarah. He will become a father with Sarah for the first time at age 100, and her at 90, despite them trying for children for decades. God had promised Abraham that he will father peoples before Abraham left Ur at age 75. God made a covenant with Abraham mentioning posterity when Abraham was possibly in his 80s (Gen 15). So this next promise when Abraham is 99 seems unbelievable. And more importantly, Sarah was not just barren, she was past the age of childbirth. Shortly after his promise to Abraham the Lord appears to Abraham and says

The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.” (Gen)

"The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah" means that her periods had ceased, Sarah was past menopause. This is why Abraham is incredulous. Yes, Abraham was old and he recognised this (Rom 4:19). But the predominant reason for incredulity is that Abraham and Sarah had tried for years to have children together but Sarah remained barren all that time, and now was past menopause. Could such a thing happen? Sarah conceive? The age of Abraham's ancestors fathering children is far less relevant in his own situation.

9. Genesis 8:5-9

Here it is argued that Genesis talks about the entire earth being covered. This is correct, Scripture is quite adamant on this: the entire earth, even all he mountains under the whole heavens, to 15 cubits.

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (Gen 7:17-20)

This does not seem to Jones to be compatible with the landing of the ark some months later.

God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. (Gen 8:1-5)

Then Noah releases a dove which returns

But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. (Gen 8:9)

So "whole earth" apparently can exclude the tops of the mountains because Noah could see the tops of the mountains after the Ark came to rest on a mountain; and "whole earth" is subsequently mentioned  in Genesis 8:9. The argument is that "whole earth" is hyperbolic in Gen 8:9 and therefore hyperbolic in Genesis 7. Further, because the waters dried from the earth, but there is still water over most of the globe, then "earth" cannot mean the globe.

The problem here is that this reasoning does not follow. Something can be essentially true and still true, or it can be hyperbolic to illustrate a point. But being essentially true is not the same as hyperbolic language.

To use an example, if a school has 984 students and the  principle says he runs a school of a thousand, this is essentially true, though not fully precise. One doesn't get to say that because 1000 is not the same as 984, then the principle is using hyperbolic language and he really only has 18 kids at the school. That's not how language works.

In Genesis the author is using many words to emphasize the extent of the flood. Specifically, the noun "everything" (kol) describes both the earth and under the heavens.

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains which were under all the heavens were covered. (Gen 7:19 NASB footnote)

The author really does mean the entire earth and goes out of his way to emphasize this. He specifically includes the mountains which give added clarity, and then the mountains are repeated to mention that the water is above them.

The later passages in Genesis 8 then specify that the mountain tops can be seen. We have a picture of the entire earth still covered with water, but which some mountain tops are seen. And the Ark seated on one of the mountains. So the author has again specified the environment carefully but adding the the waters were still over the earth. This is descriptive of the waters still essentially covering the earth, it not at all suggestive of hyperbole.

8. Genesis 2:24

Jones states that this passage has a metaphor and thus is not literal. This argument is a non sequitur. Creationists claim that they take the Bible in its straightforward reading. This often means that we take passages literally, especially historical narrative. The problem with the term "literal" is that it is misconstrued: either by pointing out non-literal passages, as here; or by insisting on hyperliteralistic readings of Scripture.

Genesis 2:24 says that the man and his wife shall become one flesh which is not literal because they are two beings and not one being. Granted, but the extended passage reads

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

That the man and woman are two beings suggests that "one flesh" here has a more metaphorical meaning. Which is fine as Scripture has many non-literal readings: metaphors, fables, idioms. Even in Genesis chapters 1 through 3.

Interestingly though, even here, the metaphor has an element of literalism. The rib (or the side) refer to a literal part of Adam containing literal flesh and bone. Adam recognises that the woman like him in a way that the animals are not, and that she is made from him. It is not just that she has flesh and bone, as do other animals, but human flesh and bone from Adam. And the meaning of becoming one flesh carries more than the concept of companionship or marriage, it also alludes to coitus. And in coitus we see an act in which the male and the female are becoming one entity, one flesh in as much as it is possible for two creatures to do so. So much so that the act creates new flesh. So, there is an aspect to this metaphor, "one flesh", that is more literal than a standard metaphor (which solely seeks to show a similarity between two distinct items).

7. Genesis 3:22

Creationism states that death came about because of the Fall. Jones is arguing that the requirement to eat from the tree of life means that humans were created mortal, not immortal, thus they would have died had they not eaten from the tree of life.

All this is true enough. The question is: Are humans intrinsically mortal or intrinsically immortal (at least with regards to this life). 

1. Did God create Adam intrinsically immortal such that he would not die? But God caused him to die after he ate the fruit of knowledge. Or;
2. Did God create Adam conditionally immortal such that he would not die if he continued to eat the fruit of life? And then God bared Adam and Eve from the fruit of life so that he would die because he had eaten the fruit of knowledge.

This is an interesting question, and I favour the later of these two explanations: conditional immortality. But I fail to see how either of these options are fatal to creationism. Jones says that death is a possibility before the Fall. But only a theoretical possibility, not an actual possibility. Clearly death came to Adam because he ate the forbidden fruit. God says that Adam will die if he eats the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17), then God prevents Adam from eating the tree of life so that he will not live forever (Gen 3:22), and Paul says that death came through one man:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14).

So there is no doubt that death came to Adam after he ate the forbidden fruit. Further, it is clear that the Fall affected creation. God cursed childbirth and work; both became a burden or toilsome. And elsewhere Paul says,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:20-22)

Further, I think that Jones gets the dust reference wrong as well. He says that Adam is called dust because dust is an idiom for mortality. Which may well be true, but this ignores what God specifically says,

By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return. (Gen 3:19)

This is a reference back to God creating Adam from the ground. Jones gets causation precisely backwards here.

6. Genesis 2:4

This verse states,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Which is a toledoth. There are 11 of these within Genesis. They introduce subsequent narratives and may represent underlying source documents for Genesis. Jones' claim is that toledoth always introduce what follows the phrase, it does not recap what came earlier. The first problem with this is that Genesis 1 is not introduced by a toledoth. And it is not clear whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 was written first. Chronologically Genesis 1 belongs before Genesis 2 but because Genesis 1 does not form part of the toledoth structure of Genesis it is hard to see why the first use of toledoth in Genesis 2 cannot cover material in Genesis 1, whether that be days 6 and 7, or even the entire week.

Secondly, this claim is not correct elsewhere in Genesis. Compare

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (Gen 5:2)

And

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. (Gen 1:27-28)

Also, the toledoth of the sons of Noah (Genesis 10) gives Shem's descendants through Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber then Peleg. The toledoth of Shem (Genesis 11) repeats these 5 generations and then further.

There are two toledoths of Esau (Genesis 36) that largely cover the same material.

The material of Genesis 2 clearly covers Adam being placed in the garden and the creation of Eve which is largely parallel with Day 6 of creation in Genesis 1 and there is no convention that prohibits this. Even Jesus links the creation of man and the marriage of man

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Gen 1:27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [Gen 2:24]’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mat 19:4-5)

5. Jeremiah 4:23-26

When prophesying the destruction of Judah Jeremiah uses language that alludes to Genesis 1. The claim is that Jeremiah is metaphorical not literal, therefore Genesis can be metaphorical rather than literal.

The passage in Jeremiah uses several terms from Genesis and it is likely that Genesis 1 influences this prophecy. Though this is hardly unique in Scripture. Frequently authors of Scripture borrow from other passages. There are thousands of quotations and allusions in Scripture to other Scripture.

We need to consider the nature of prophecy, and the nature of historical narrative. Further, Jeremiah is not necessarily metaphorical as opposed to descriptive. To say something is empty and void can be somewhat descriptive. Darkness can be void of light without there being a complete absence of light. There can be a relative absence of men and birds compared to usual. If the town square is empty, it does not need to have no one present at all for this statement to be true. The claim it is metaphor in Jeremiah therefore metaphor in Genesis, is not true. Rather Jeremiah is using the concept of reversing creation to describe judgment. His language may be metaphorical, though it may be descriptive in a more literal sense, or both.

But a greater principle is that history can be used allegorically without denying history. Jesus is our Passover lamb and there really were actual Passovers with actual lamb slaughters even though Jesus was not literally ovine. Even in this passage Jeremiah calls for men to circumcise themselves and remove the foreskin of their hearts (Jer 4:4). Jeremiah is applying a metaphor to the Jews, but this in no way calls into question that Abraham and his household were literally circumcised.

4. Genesis 1:14:19

God made the sun and moon on Day 4 and appointed them to rule over the day and the night. It has been argued by creationists that God can make light on Day 1 without the sun and all that is needed is a light source to provide day and night to earth. This is correct. Jones addresses a peculiar argument about how the sun was made from gathered light. I do not intend to address this as these are speculative ideas that are worth pursuing but, if incorrect, do not argue against creationism.

Interestingly, Jones dismisses creationist claims on how the sun was made, but then skips the "made" aspect and offers his interpretation that the sun and moon were merely appointed as rulers. Yet, the passage both specifies that God made the sun and moon and that he appointed them rulers. That the sun and moon are appointed as rulers is fully consistent with creationism.

3. Genesis 1:28

The argument against creationism concerns the meaning of the words for "subdue" and "rule". Creationists argue that the earth was good before the Fall and there was no death of humans or animals. Jones says that the command to subdue and have dominion over the earth and all the animals means that the world was a wild place that needed to be brought under control. Further, that this command gave humans the right to use animals as they pleased including for food and clothing.

This passage and following verses say,

God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Gen 1:24-31)

It is worth noting that the passage itself tells us what God intends. God specifically states that plants are food for man and animals. Thus an argument that claims an intrinsic meaning for a word, and then what that meaning might imply, and then that this implication means something contradicting the very passage in which it occurs, is false on the face of it. It is a convoluted argument that overinterprets and misinterprets. Word studies are fine, but this illustrates how they should not be done. Even if the word "to have dominion" could be interpreted to include using an animal for food in certain contexts, it clearly does not mean this in this context where it says that plants are for food.

But do these words have only negative connotations? A word can have an intrinsically positive or negative connotation, or it could be relatively neutral with the context being positive or negative. Further, over time a neutral word can gain a positive or negative connotation if it is predominantly used in only positive or negative contexts.

"Subdue" is the Hebrew kabash which basically means "to place under". It occurs 14 times in the Old Testament. It is used concerning people or land (meaning the people of the land) in the majority of occurrences. Any context describing the subduing of people is going to have a somewhat negative connotation as the people are not subdued prior to becoming subdued. Nevertheless, the use of "subdue" need not imply that the land or animals are not good. Nor that it is inappropriate to put things under man's power that are supposed to be there. Further, something can be good and still be improved upon.

To "rule" or "have dominion" is the Hebrew radah having the meaning "to rule". It occurs 22 times in the Old Testament. It does not intrinsically mean "rule harshly". There are a couple of passages in Scripture where it as a neutral meaning. Leviticus (25:43; 46; 53) warns men against ruling (radah) ruthlessly; this implies one can rule kindly. Solomon is said to rule in several passages (1Ki 4:24; Psa 72:8) and Solomon was noted to have a peaceful kingdom. Solomon's chief officers ruled over the workers (1Ki 5:16; 9:23; 2Ch 8:10) and there is no hint that they were harsh. Benjamin is a ruler (Psa 68:27) and it is noted that his tribe is little, not descriptive of harsh ruling at all. The claim that this word (radah) implies injustice or oppression is just not true. 

What does the Genesis passage say? That man is the culmination of God's creation and that we are to rule over the earth. We are made kings of the realm.

The meaning of bara

Does the Hebrew "bara" intrinsically mean creation out of nothing? Jones argues no and many creationists agree with him. The word bara occurs 48 times in the Old Testament. It appears to only occur with God as the subject. It is frequently used (if not always) for God making something that did not previously exist, whether out of something that exists or out of nothing (ex nihilo).

(Jones reference to David eating is a different Hebrew word that sounds similar: "barah".)

But "bara" can refer to creating out of nothing depending on the context. So the issue is what does it mean in Genesis 1? And the context of Genesis 1, especially Genesis 1:1 suggests creation out of nothing.

Genesis 1:1

The first few verses of the Bible read,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)

Jones proposes that a better translation starts,

When God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void,...

I do not have the knowledge of Hebrew to address this issue. It is worth noting that there is a long history of translating the first verse: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In fact, a large number of English translations do not differ at all (save minor variability of "heaven" versus "heavens"): KJV, ASV, ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, JB, HCSB, NLT. So one should really treat this as speculative (unless there is a strong argument otherwise).

But even if (for the sake of the argument) we allow for an ancient heavens and/or earth, we still have nothing on the earth. There is no vegetation, no animals, no birds, no humans. An ancient earth without flora and fauna does not achieve what it proponents want.

Summary

Several of Jones' claims are incorrect. Some of them rely on a specific creationist claim that he has come across but which is not necessarily intrinsic to creationism and, if false, says nothing about the creationist worldview.

Yet there are bigger issues here. One is the reliance on the ancient near eastern (ANE) perspective that has gained ground. Of course, there is nothing wrong with better understanding the thought processes of the ancients, but they do not have priority. Much can be gained by reading the Old Testament and seeing how the narrative unfolds. And the common practice of placing the Old Testament alongside ANE texts but often subtly underneath them, is somewhat reminiscent of the previous practice of comparing Luke with Josephus and assuming Luke is errant when they differ. There are many reasons to assume that the Old Testament has priority over both ANE texts and modernist claims for ANE worldviews.

Further, Jones added this comment to his video,

Let's remember YECs constantly claim theistic evolutionists have to add meaning to the Biblical texts, and they just take the plain reading. Well, in order to deal with the issues I brought up in the video they will have to add meaning to several of the passages I went over.

But this is not what creationists are arguing. Of course we need context. We can't even interpret the Bible if we don't know how to read or speak a language. And the better we understand the meaning of words and textual context, and the cultural context, and allusions to other Scripture, the better we can read the Bible. 

In the video Jones confuses imprecision with hyperbole; makes a word imply the exact opposite of what the text clearly states; uses non sequiturs; references books that make claims that are likely false. The Bible is not unclear in many places. It can be read in a relatively straightforward manner. That often means literal. Not everything is literal, but you don't get to turn factual statements into metaphor at will. Many difficult passages are known to be difficult. Readers can identify difficult passages readily. But there are clearer passages and there are less clear passages, and we don't get to reinterpret the perspicacious with the obscure.

The process of hermeneutics clarifies the apparent meaning, it may modify it, it seldom reverses it. And if it does, then this has to be demonstrated very carefully and rigorously.

Early oral tradition about Jesus

It has been said that Paul includes an early oral tradition about Jesus in his first letter to the Corinthians. Paul reiterates in his letter what he had already told them in person

• That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
• And that he was buried,
• And that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
• And that he appeared to Cephas,
• Then to the twelve,
• Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep,
• Then he appeared to James,
• Then to all the apostles. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

Paul concludes with his own encounter

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul's encounter is probably his addendum to the prior account. Note also that the parenthetical comment, "most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep," may also be an addition. Some place all of the material from the 500 brothers onward as Paul's addition.

Paul prefaces this list with

For I delivered (paradidomi) to you as of first importance what I also received (paralambano) (1 Corinthians 15)

Apparently the combination of paradidomi with paralambano was understood by a the ancients to mean that the speaker is passing on an oral tradition that has been received from others. I am uncertain as to whether there is an implied expectation in these two words for the hearer to also memorise. The earlier use of this phrase by Paul directly to the Corinthians, and then his repetition in the letter seems to suggest so in this instance.

1 Corinthians was authored in the early 50s. However there are apparently clues that this phrase maybe an oral history originating several years earlier. Paul was writing in Greek though he also knew Hebrew and Aramaic^*. The saying as recorded in 1 Corinthians has marks of translation from Hebrew/ Aramaic into Greek as it is written. Paul likely had the saying memorised in Hebrew/ Aramaic and translated it to his secretary.

These clues are possibly the use of the Semitic "Cephas" rather than the Greek "Peter", though Paul does use "Cephas" consistently in 1 Corinthians and uses it more than "Peter" in his other letters. And the construction "And that" (kai hoti), which is the Greek translation of the waw consecutive, a Semitic construction.

So recorded in 1 Corinthians is a very early oral tradition about Jesus that antedates all the New Testament documents probably within a few years of the resurrection of Jesus, in the Hebrew/ Aramaic language.

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
And that he was buried,
And that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
And that he appeared to Cephas,
Then to the twelve,
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
Then he appeared to James,
Then to all the apostles.

---

^*Many scholars suggest that the language in Judea at the time of Christ was Aramaic, a language from Babylon (and Assyria) closely related to Hebrew. Others claim they spoke Hebrew.

What is baptism for the dead?

In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes

Otherwise, why do they do it, those who are being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why indeed are they being baptized on behalf of them? (1Co 15:29)

This is a much debated passage. What does Paul mean here? And is baptism for the dead a valid practice?

I am not aware of any translation issues here. It appears that Paul is referring to a practice where some people are being baptised on behalf of other people who have already died.

There are several things worth noting about this phrase.

1. Paul uses the pronoun "they"
2. The Greek for "baptism" means "dipped" or "immersed". Though baptism as a ceremony is probably meant, immersion could have another meaning in the passage.
3. Paul is using this practice to illustrate his point.

On point 3, Jesus, Paul, and others may refer to a concept to illustrate a truth without approving of the concept.

Prior to these verses Paul summarises they gospel he taught them (1Co 15:1-11). Within this summary he mentions that Christ was raised on the third day then appeared to many. Following this Paul addresses the issue of resurrection, specifically that some of the Corinthians were denying the resurrection.

Now if Christ is preached as raised up from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1Co 15:12)

Paul then argues for the truth of the resurrection from the dead. Firstly by arguing the consequences if the resurrection is not true; then affirming the truth of the resurrection and what that means. It is following Paul's defense of the resurrection that Paul makes this statement of baptism on behalf of the dead.

It is possible that Paul here is showing up the inconsistency of being baptised on behalf of the dead yet denying the resurrection.

Now if Christ is preached as raised up from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ...Otherwise, why do they do it, those who are being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why indeed are they being baptized on behalf of them? (1Co 15:20,29)

If this is the case, then Paul is showing the inconsistency of those denying the resurrection by illustrating that they are baptised on behalf of the dead, a practice that logically implies that the resurrection is true. If there is no resurrection from the dead then it is pointless to be baptised on behalf of an already dead person.

Further, if the people who deny the resurrection whom Paul is addressing are the same people who are practicing baptism on behalf of the dead, they are not people whom we should emulate.

Cosmological argument

Alexander Pruss proposes 2 versions of the cosmological argument:

1. There are no infinite causal regresses or causal loops.
2. Every ordinary entity has a cause.
3. So, there is an extraordinary entity.

And

1. There is a causal explanation why there are any ordinary entities.
2. Causal explanations are not circular.
3. So, there is an extraordinary entity.

Do atheists need to believe in God to be moral?

The traditional answer to this is that Christians are not claming that atheists are immoral without God, they are arguing that God must exist for morality to be true. We need an objective source that says that all people have oughts. Without God the oughts are arbitrary. If there is no God then all the oughts come down to reasons like maximising happiness, minimising harm, treating others how you wish to be treated. The problem with this is we are relying on ideas like happiness and altruism are good, and pain is bad. While I generally agree with this, why is this so? If someone else believes that his happiness takes preference over group happiness what can the atheist appeal to? Or who? We are left with people disagreeing.

The moral argument is that if morality is real (not just an arbitrary collection of principles we agree to live by, but can change or abandon) then there is a moral giver. The existence of morality is evidence for God. Consistent atheists realise this and often become nihilists. Though I suspect all men still know that some things are wrong.

Atheists can act morally because they are made in the image of God. Our conscience means that we know there are oughts. This is why the atheist wishes to have a reason for morality: he knows oughts are real, but his worldview denies a deity.

So the Christian argument is that atheism doesn't have an explanation of morality, not that the atheist is immoral. Nevertheless, I think there is reason to suspect that atheists on average are less moral. There are biblical reasons to suspect this, but I wish to raise a more pragmatic one.

Atheist morality frequently reflects the culture (Christians can also be unduly influenced by culture and agree with culture over Scripture). So the atheist call is that they can be just as moral as Christians; moreover, they often argue a superiority because they do not need a deity to tell them not to murder whereas Christians supposedly need God to prevent them killing others.

Of course this is not true. If God gives man his conscience then God is telling the atheist not to murder as much as he tells the Christian. The atheist pretension to superiority backfires as not only does he also require God to tell him right and wrong (by his conscience) he acts immorally by denying his Creator.

But there is a bigger reason the atheist is more immoral? Atheist morality is generally reflective of culture. The Christian thinks that murder and theft and lying are wrong. Atheists will generally agree these things are wrong—we are just as moral as Christians but don't need God! Yet God also condemns many other things. Murder of children is wrong in or out of the womb, sodomy is wrong, government overreach is wrong. Western culture, despite its Christian heritage, by and large has rejected these laws. The atheist who says he is as moral as the Christian because he disapproves of murder and theft is not as moral when it comes to abortion or sodomy. Worse, he condemns the Christian who, despite the culture, recognises these legal actions as sins against God. The Christian is condemned by the atheist as holding to bigoted views that oppress others. Further, the atheist now argues that he is morally superior to the Christian in these areas. But all the atheist has to go on is the spirit of the age. He only has his conscience to bear witness: his conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse him (Rom 2:15).

So atheists can be moral. The atheist has a conscience that is given to him by God, even while he denies the God who made him. His conscience is somewhat reflective of the culture (or sub-culture) he belongs to and so his morality variably lines up with God's law. And because atheists suppress the knowledge of God many eventually abandon God's law.

40 answers on same-sex attraction and the Bible

Matthew Vines posted 40 questions to Christians who believe that people of the same sex cannot get married.

Below are the questions; a couple of comments about the them. Some are written from the perspective that homosexual behaviour is a morally acceptable therefore they can be difficult to answer without addressing or rejecting the assumptions behind the question. Further, I don't buy into the concept of gay Christian. The term gay is used to identify those who have sexual desires toward those of the same sex. But we don't say diabetic Christian, or covetous Christian, or vegan Christian, or lusting Christian. Christians who struggle with wrongly-directed sexual attraction should not define themselves by their inappropriate desire.

1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?

I think that sexual desire is a complicated situation. Men who desire other men do so to varying degrees. It is hard to know why this is always the case but it seems that sexual abuse by other men and lack of father input can contribute to this. This may mean an absent father or a soft father, especially in the context of a domineering mother. Other actions within the child's life such as a lack of redirecting desire or an encouragement toward same-sex desire can make things worse. Same sexual activity,even experimental in those who do not have much same sex desire, can intensify desire. That is, both actions by the person and actions by others, especially in formative years, can strongly influence later desire. There may also be intrinsic qualities, such as effeminacy, that contribute.

2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?

I think it can be in some circumstances. It depends on the strength of the underlying desire, the age at which it is addressed, the behaviour already engaged in, and the degree to which the environment encourages and discourages such behaviour. It can also be very difficult when there are significant spiritual issues that are not addressed.

3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?

How does one answer this and why is it relevant? And what do you mean by meaningful. For years it was pushed that 10% of the population is gay. This was unlikely to be true and shown to be false. Figures closer to 1% were more likely though I think this may rise as it becomes more culturally acceptable and somewhat trendy. Assuming 1% of the population are gay may suggest that 1% of my meaningful relationships would be with gay people but that's not how it works. I have greater or lesser meaningful relationships with people of various careers and ages and religions depending on my job and age and religion. As it is I don't exactly know because I don't know who is gay. Unless someone is vocal about their sexuality or demonstrates overtly gay stereotypes I do not know that they are gay. I have known people for several years before finding out that they are gay (openly so). On balance of probabilities, most people I know are heterosexual. Of the 10 I work most closely with 1 is gay.

4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?

Again, why is this relevant? And why would it be likely that I have close friends that are gay. My closest friends are Christian, yet the number of Christians in society is much lower than the percentage that are my closest friends. Some good friends are highly skewed careerwise. Friendships are not random. Men have more male friends. Policemen have more police friends. If I have say 10 good friends there is no reason to suspect that at least one of them would be gay, especially if my friends are more likely to be Christian.

5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?

Faith? As much as they wish to talk about it. Sexuality, not a lot, but then I don't talk about this a lot with my friends either. And some gays are more than happy to tell me far more about their proclivities than I really wish to listen to.

6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?

No I do not accept that, at least for those who wish to follow Christ. While this question requires a post of its own, I think that marriage between a gay man and a woman, or a gay woman and a man can be useful depending on the reasons, and so long both parties are aware of the other's struggles. If the issue is companionship then (heterosexual) marriage may be appropriate as most men can find companions in either men or women. If the issue is sexual desire then many gay men can perform sexually with a woman even if they do not desire a female in a sexual manner.

7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?

I think that unmarried gay men should avoid sex just like all unmarried men and women. I also think the term celibacy is unhelpful rhetoric. Chaste is the expectation.

8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?

I have walked the path (in as much as it is appropriate) with a single woman for many years; she would like to be married and is not and is therefore not sexually active. I have encouraged a Christian who struggles with attraction to men to hold onto God's grace in his struggles. I know of men married to women who struggle with attraction to other men and who struggle with this at times. But again, why is this relevant and why is every Christian expected to both know and walk with multiple Christians who struggle with homosexuality?

9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?

Press into Christ. And address the issues that make suicide seem like an option.

10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know?

Chaste behaviour leads to less problems than unchaste behaviour in Christians. I don't see why this should be different for those who are gay.

11. How many married same-sex couples do you know?

I deny that same sex couple can ever be married. The concept is oxymoronic. Further the issue is the same as #3 and #4. If it matters, I have worked with a a few females who have longish-term relationships with other women, one of whom would call herself married. Many gay men I meet are highly promiscuous.


12. Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?

I believe a relationship could show that. Any relationship between 2 people, married or unmarried, friend or acquaintance, could exhibit patience for example. But this is not really what the fruit of the Spirit means. Rather it means that these (love, joy, etc.) are qualities that the Spirit is developing in those in which he dwells. Unbelievers can exhibit some of these qualities in various measures. I don't believe that the sexual aspect of same-sex couple's relationship is one that is revealing the fruit of the Spirit. Such sexual behaviour is a fruit of abandoning God.

13. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?

Yes and no. My concept of salvation is such that people can believe a range of things including unorthodox ideas. A person may be a Christian and misguided about this. If they have been a Christian for some length of time and this issue has been addressed and they do not come around to understanding that marriage is between men and women they may not be Christian. If they have gone from thinking that marriage is only between men and women to thinking people of the same sex can get married then they may not be Christian or may have abandoned the faith. If they are in a position of leadership in the church and they advocate for same-sex marriage then they are a wolf in the church and should be removed.

14. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?

Yes.

15. If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?

Not applicable, but note also what it means to be saved.

16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?

Yes. Much worse. One must also distinguish between the institution of slavery and the slave trade.

17. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?

I don't believe it is always wrong. The Bible condemns kidnapping (Deu 24:7) and the slave trade (1Ti 1:10). It does not condemn owning slaves, though freedom is better than slavery (1Co 7:21). It seems ironic that you seem to think slavery is wrong and not homosexuality given that both appear in the same vice list: the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers.

18. Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?

It concerns me that moderns don't understand these distinctions.

19. Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the center of the universe?

While I don't hold to geocentrism for our planet within the solar system, the idea that our planet and solar system is near the centre of the universe is not an unreasonable assumption. It also has some empirical evidence depending on one's interpretation of red-shifts. The church held to the idea of geocentrism as much as the surrounding un-churched culture. It did so partly based on the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolomy. It was Christian scientists who challenged this belief based on their strong Christian convictions. They were opposed by those within the church who were married to the pagan ideas. Kind of opposite to the current situation.

20. Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?

No. It delights me that faithful Christians (such as Kepler) thinking God's thoughts after him made such strides in understanding  the natural world.

21. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?

I am familiar with verses that some have used to defend geocentrism in times past. The interpretation is poor and unwarranted by context. More importantly, although I think the Bible talks to history and facts that are observable, morality is not the same kind of issue. A book can mention the colours of various plants and a person may observe the same plants, but morality is not observed in the same way. Some morality can be observed in the sense of natural revelation, but more is gained from special revelation. Aristotle was wrong in thinking physics could be entirely deduced by logic. Moderns are wrong in thinking that moral knowledge can be obtained via experiment.

22. Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships?

I don't know enough specific writings but am aware that prior to the 20th century the church taught that sex outside matrimony is sinful as was sodomy was condemned.

23. If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?

Chaste behaviour is a very traditional position: no sex for those who are not married and  sex only with one's spouse for those who are married. You are trying to create arbitrary categories to legitimise your claim.

24. Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life?

I believe the Bible teaches that men can only marry women and women can only marry men. I do not believe it bans people who are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex from marrying someone of the opposite sex, and in some situations that may be appropriate.

25. If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?

Again, arbitrary categories. If people wish to be sexually active they must be married to someone of the opposite sex.

26. Do you believe that the moral distinction between lust and love matters for LGBT people’s romantic relationships?

No. I believe that wrongly directed sexual desire is lust. Expressed desire: behavioural or willful (covetness) towards anyone you are not married to is lust. Expressed desire: behavioural or willful to someone as the same-sex as you is lust. All sexual activity including kissing, petting and sodomy between 2 men is inappropriate desire, that is lust, regardless of their feelings.

27. Do you think that loving same-sex relationships should be assessed in the same way as the same-sex behavior Paul explicitly describes as lustful in Romans 1?

Yes. Sin between 2 people is forbidden even if they both agree to it. Bondage is sinful between a married man and woman even if they both wish to engage in such behaviour.

28. Do you believe that Paul’s use of the terms “shameful” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 means that all same-sex relationships are sinful?

I believe that all same-sex sexual relationships are intrinsically sinful. "Shameful" and "unnatural" are descriptors of this. There are sins that are not shameful. There are sins that are not unnatural. Paul uses natural (φυσικα) to highlight that the activity is contrary to nature. He probably uses shameful (ασχημοσυνην) because of its connection to nudity, and because the behaviour should make them ashamed but doesn't.

29. Would you say the same about Paul’s description of long hair in men as “shameful” and against “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11:14, or would you say he was describing cultural norms of his time?

It is not completely certain what Paul means here. Samson certainly had long hair as did any Nazirite; and also Absalom. Although "long hair" is the usual translation for koma (κομα), the context is in comparison to women's hair; it may mean "tresses". The point seems to mean that it is unnatural for a man to grow out his hair in order to look like a woman. Thus this passage speaks against effeminacy. And Paul says that this is more dishonourable (ατιμια) than shameful.

30. Do you believe that the capacity for procreation is essential to marriage?

Yes, in the sense that procreation is a design feature of marriage.

31. If so, what does that mean for infertile heterosexual couples?

It means we should mourn with them that they suffer this way in a fallen world.

32. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of LGBT-affirming Christians like Justin Lee, James Brownson, and Rachel Murr?

Never heard of them. While I believe that such engagement may be necessary in the current milieu for the sake of the church; the idea that one can affirm sin, aberrant sex, and psychologically disturbed positions is antithetical to the Christian faith.

33. What relationship recognition rights short of marriage do you support for same-sex couples?

In terms of their relationship, as opposed to any contract 2 people enter? None specifically, though I expect the courts to honour property issues that have been agreed to such as shared ownership of a house.

34. What are you doing to advocate for those rights?

These are established and are indifferent to sexuality.

35. Do you know who Tyler Clementi, Leelah Alcorn, and Blake Brockington are, and did your church offer any kind of prayer for them when their deaths made national news?

No.

36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?

I suspect the case is similar for thieves, murderers, anorexics, alcoholics if we compare families rejecting and accepting them. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increased risk for any youth who are rejected by families even those without any vices.

37. Have you vocally objected when church leaders and other Christians have compared same-sex relationships to things like bestiality, incest, and pedophilia?

No. Nor do I see any reason to. One could say that paedophilia is partially non-analogous because of consent issues, but the others are fitting.

38. How certain are you that God’s will for all gay Christians is lifelong celibacy?

Absolutely certain that it is God's will for all people to be chaste. Fornication and adultery are forbidden.

39. What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone’s hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?

And this means what? So I tell the children who earn their money to spend it wisely. Is it somehow wrong that I tell a child-thief that he is not to spend the money wisely but rather return it. If I tell the young married youth to enjoy sex with each other, is it bad that I tell the unmarried youth to abstain. Your question assumes that homosexual acts are morally acceptable. If such acts are sinful the question is irrelevant.

40. Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?

It all depends. People can be mistaken; see #13. I don't think we should attempt to pull up the weeds before time, we don't want to exclude those within the kingdom who are still mistaken in their acceptance of homosexuality. But we should drive away the wolves.

The reliability of the gospels

Peter Williams defends the gospels being authentic by appealing to names of people and places mentioned by the authors. The first 20 minutes discusses just the names of various persons. Held my attention, even though I was previously aware of this argument. Worth the 30 minutes.

Hat tip: canon fodder

Markers of authenticity in the resurrection accounts

There are several features in the gospels that speak to authenticity. By this I mean there are events that would seem unlikely to include in a forgery. While events in history may happen as expected, thus a record of such would occur in authentic and inauthentic documents, less convincing events would seem less likely to be recorded by a forger trying to convince others of his story. We judge convincing events by what the readers and culture would consider persuasive, not us.

A feature mentioned frequently by apologists is the first witnesses being women. In a culture that valued the testimony of men higher than women it would be less likely that a false story about Jesus' resurrection would have females as the first witnesses.

Another interesting feature of the gospels is the lack of seeing Jesus by several of the first witnesses. The empty tomb is the earliest feature. Why not have witnesses see Jesus coming out of the tomb? Rather we have an empty tomb with Mary Magdalene assuming others had taken Jesus' body (Joh 20:2).

Next, the inclusion of irrelevant features. The location of the grave clothes, who got to the tomb first.

Further, the disciples did not immediately believe the women. Though this may be consistent with the lesser status of women as witnesses in that culture, it would seem less likely that a forger would invent this response. Latter even Thomas was noted to disbelieve the testimony of several of his friends.

Lastly, when Jesus was seen he was not immediately recognised by his followers. Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener (Joh 20:15). The disciples walking to Emmaus were prevented from perceiving his identity (Luk 24:16). Why write this into a fictional story attempting to convince others about Jesus' resurrection?

If the resurrection did not happen then the gospels are fraudulent. Yet several episodes are mentioned which would seem to be unusual for a false witness to include, a false witness seeking to convince others of the resurrection.

Abiathar or Ahimelech

In Matthew we read how Jesus responded to Pharisees about his disciples eating grain.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:1-8)

Luke tells us this story though leaves out the comment about the priests profaning the Sabbath.

And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (Luke 6:3-5)

Mark is similar to Luke but includes a comment concerning Abiathar.

And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26)

Jesus is referring to a passage in Samuel when David is on the run from Saul.

Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, ‘Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.” And David answered the priest, “Truly women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition. The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?” So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the LORD, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away. (1 Samuel 21:1-6)

This raises the question as to what Jesus means by the time of Abiathar, especially given that the priest mentioned in Samuel was Ahimelech.

In 1950 John Wenham wrote in the Journal of Theological Studies (doi:10.1093/jts/I.2.156-a)

έπι Άβιαθαρ άρχιερεως is usually translated, ‘When Abiathar was high priest’—historically an error. A number of early authorities, e.g. D, W, a, b, e, Sin. Syr. (representing three of the four pre-Byzantine families) and Matthew (12:4) and Luke (6:4), evidently recognize this and omit the phrase. The problem is how to account for the retention of the phrase for so long in the oral tradition when the error was so readily recognized, as the evidence above shows. Might not Mark 12:26 supply the answer? έπι του βατου means ‘at the passage of Scripture concerning (or, entitled) the Bush’. (So also Luke 20:37.) May not έπι Άβιαθαρ άρχιερεως mean ‘at the passage of Scripture concerning (or, entitled) Abiathar the High Priest’, for the passage referred to comes in the chapter (1 Sam. 21) which immediately precedes that recording the first exploits of Abiathar?

What Wenham is saying is that the phrase έπι του βατου appears in Mark

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, at the bush [έπι του βατου], how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:24-27)

And that this is translated

have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, 

Similarly in the parallel passage in Luke

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, at the bush [i.e. the passage of the bush], where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. (Luke 20:37)

If this unusual Greek construction is recognised to refer to a passage or section of Scripture in Mark 12 and Luke 20 when Jesus is referring to the passage in Exodus concerning the burning bush, then the same construction in Mark 2 may indicate a reference to the passage in Samuel that discusses Abiathar. It is referring to a named section of Scripture, it is not referring to the person David was talking to. It seems possible that in the time of Jesus (and earlier) Scripture was referred to (at times) by smaller units than books. Our modern system of chapters and verses was not in effect until centuries after the New Testament was completed.

Thus Mark would translate like this,

And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God—in the passage of Abiathar the high priest—and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26)

Jesus curses a fig tree

James Tissot (French, 1836-1902).
The Accursed Fig Tree (Le figuier maudit), 1886-1894.

A passage recorded in Matthew and Mark seems somewhat enigmatic.

In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. (Matthew 21)

I have heard the complaint that it was unreasonable for Jesus to curse a fig tree for not having figs on it. I suppose one could add that it is especially unreasonable as it was not fig season (Mark 11:13), though there did not appear to be even buds, just leaves. Interestingly the disciples were not particularly concerned about this. They were impressed with Jesus control over nature. When the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” (Matthew 21)

Before addressing the curse I will take a brief diversion into a discrepancy claim. Some assert that the biblical authors disagree over whether the tree withered immediately or the next day. Matthew states,

And the fig tree withered at once.

Whereas Mark says

And [Jesus] said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it....

And when evening came they went out of the city.

As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. (Mark 11)

3 comments are in order. Firstly, we must be careful how much we read into the word "immediately." It appears to be used frequently to keep the narrative running. It is common in Mark (though not used here). Within a time focused culture such as ours "immediate" implies right now, this second, no delay. While I guess this sense may be used by 1st century Jews, I am less certain it is required.

Secondly, while I have no doubt the tree died at the moment Jesus cursed it, the question is when was this noticed? An animal's death is obvious to people at the very point of death. For plants the process is different and the outward changes are delayed. To be withered to the roots within one day is "at once" for a tree.

Thirdly, and most importantly, if the precise sequence in Mark is correct, which I suspect it is, then Matthew is conflating two episodes. Matthew wishes to discuss the fig tree episode in a single passage. The cursing of the fig tree occurs on the morning Jesus casts out the money changers. Matthew holds back on mentioning the speaking of the curse until the latter discussion about the disciples marvelling at the effect of the curse. He is following a more topical arrangement in this section.

But why the curse, especially if it was not the season for figs?

I do not know much about horticulture or the life cycle of fig trees. There is some information on figs over at Plant Encyclopedia. Fig trees are apparently deciduous and sprout fruit in spring and autumn, though related species can be evergreen or sprout fruit year around. The cursing of the fig tree occurred after the triumphal entry and before Passover, that is ~Nisan 10 and early spring.

The passage indicates Jesus uses the episode to teach his disciples about faith. It is likely that this was Jesus pronouncing a judgment on Israel for failing to recognise him. The episode occurred at the time of judgment concerning the temple, and fig trees are used as a symbol for Israel (Hosea 9:10). Interestingly Jesus tells a parable a year earlier.

A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ (Luke 13:6-9)

Here Jesus is alluding to his ministry. He has ministered to Israel for 3 years. Israel have failed to produce fruit in keeping with the coming of the Messiah. The owner wishes to remove the tree but is convinced to leave it a further year. Jesus will minister for a further year but if Israel still fails to produce fruit then they will come under a curse. The parable is a warning. A year later when Jesus ministry was at an end Israel had still failed as a nation to appropriately recognise the nature of Jesus. The real curse of a real fig tree was symbolic of judgment on the nation of Israel for failing to be fruitful by responding to Jesus.

Evidence for God more accessible than evidence from science

One atheist complaint about God is why is the evidence for him not clearer? Why do we have to search so hard for it? Should it not be obvious?

I actually think the evidence for God is clearer than what is claimed. However Keith Ward raises an interesting point, especially given the atheist penchant for science.

As to the question of evidence, I think that is rather like asking why we have to try so hard to discover scientific truth. Why did God not just tell us about quantum physics, and make it all obvious? There is a truth about the physical world, but it is extremely hard to discover. Part of being human is having to learn for ourselves, after taking many false paths and blind alleys, what the world is like. (Chapter 8, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God)

The irony Ward identifies is remarkable. Scientific evidence is not obvious prior to the fact. But even more damning is that the scientific method was not particularly obvious. It was late on the scene and only originated in a single culture. And even now when we understand how the scientific method operates, unravelling the workings of the world takes considerable effort.

What's more, evidences for God—the design argument and the moral argument—were known about centuries before science. Many cultures understood this evidence for God for millennia; yet the scientific method, which so enamours the materialists, took a long time to be identified. Further, the development of the philosophy of God (theology) proceeded significantly while men struggled to progress in natural philosophy (science) due to their unwarranted devotion to Aristotle.

It seems that the evidence for God is indeed much more accessible to man than science.

Daniel's Chaldean education

I have previously been asked how Daniel's service to King Nebuchadnezzar can be reconciled.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.

As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king spoke with them, and among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Therefore they stood before the king. And in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. And Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus.

In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him. (Daniel 1:1-6; 1:17-2:1. Emphases are the chronological data in this passage.)

The beginning of Daniel's time in Babylon is dated to Jehoiakim's 3rd year at which time Nebuchanezzar was called king. Daniel and his 3 friends were to be educated for 3 years. At the end of the 3 years they were brought before Nebuchadnezzar and found competent. In Nebuchanezzar's 2nd year he has a dream and orders the wise men to be killed as they are unable to tell him the dream. Daniel tells him the dream and interprets it then he is promoted to ruler over the province of Babylon.

So how can Daniel be educated in 3 years and subsequently appear before Nebuchadnezzar after only 2 years?

It seems likely that the events surrounding the dream occur after Daniel and his friends complete their training. While having Daniel appear before the king during his training may solve the chronological problem, it raises other problems, such as how Daniel would be promoted yet remain in training.

Here are some possible solutions.

Accuracy of number
The number could be miscopied. It is likely that many minor numerical copy errors crept into the Hebrew text before the numbers came to be written out in full. Alphabetical glyphs doubled as numerical glyphs in Hebrew and several letters were similar in form. The resolution would be to say that this event was not in Nebuchanezzar's second year but some time later.

Accession reckoning
The year Nebuchadnezzar brought Daniel to Babylon may have been his accession year. Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne during the year, the remainder of the year is his accession year if the Chaldeans used accession reckoning. The New Year marks the beginning of his first regnal year. By Nebuchadnezzar's second year Daniel had trained for parts of 3 years: accession, regnal 1, regnal 2. Hebrew reckoning includes parts of a year so this would be considered 3 years.

Anachronism
The first chronological datum above references King Jehoiakim's 3rd year, not Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Nebuchadnezzar is called a king but this event may have occurred before he became king thus anachronistic. He subsequently became king and the author refers to him as such, much as we could refer to, say, when King David was born.

Coregency
Nebuchadnezzar may have been a coregent. If Nebuchadnezzar was made a coregent with the previous king then his own rulership would be dated from when he became sole king, usually on the death of the previous king. Jeremiah tells us that the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:1). It is possible that Daniel's mention of Jehoiakim's 3rd year was the previous year, which may have been Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (as per the above option).

It is important to bring all the chronological information to bear on biblical chronological problems, as well as the cultural, textual and linguistic issues before concluding errors. Not all solutions are realistic, but neither are all problems real.

The deity of Christ in John

The Bible begins

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

John introduces his gospel in a similar manner

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

The Greek in John uses the same initial two words as the Septuagint.

• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Gen 1:1)
• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1)

This allusion testifies to the divinity of Jesus. Beyond the connection of the "Word" with "God" in John, John links God as creator in Genesis with the Word as creator in his gospel. Genesis states that God is creator of the heavens and the earth, a merism for everything,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

John tells us that the all things were made through the Word, and he emphasises this with the negative: there was nothing made without the Word,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The first thing created within the new cosmos was light,

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5)

Still alluding to Genesis John informs us that just as light came into the world, the Word is light to mankind.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

John's use of Genesis makes it clear that the God who created the world is the Word.

What does Bart Ehrman really know about Jesus?

Bart Ehrman, textual critic, has written an article disputing the biblical accounts of Jesus' birth. In it he disputes traditional beliefs, apocryphal claims, and biblical claims. I have no interest in discussing non-canonical writings here, though I am likely to concur with Ehrman about this, but wish to clarify popular belief and refute his antibiblical assertions. I will list the claims here but it is worth reading the article in full first.

Ehrman claims that the Bible does not mention

1. What year Jesus came into the world;
2. That Jesus was born on December 25;
3. An ox and an ass in his manger;
4. That it was 3 (as opposed to 7 or 12) wise men who visited him.

Ehrman suggests the following equivalency:

• The Proto-Gospel of James is incredulous;
• The New Testament gospels are incredulous.
• He suggests that if we disbelieve the Proto-Gospel of James we should also disbelieve the New Testament gospels.

He also complains that

1. Matthew and Luke are the only two (New Testament) gospels that contain infancy narratives;
2. Matthew and Luke are inappropriate to use as historical sources.

He mentions that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are historically problematic because they appear irreconcilable. Specifically

1. Luke and Matthew give genealogies of Jesus’ father, Joseph but they are different;
2. Joseph and Mary make a trip from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to register for a census that never occurred;
3. A star—or other celestial body—cannot lead anyone to a particular town or stop over a particular house;

I will consider each of these claims in turn.

Many of the modern ideas about Christmas are not entirely correct. Unfortunately Ehrman has not entirely identified popular misconceptions. The Bible does specify when Jesus was born. It states that the birth was at the time of Augustus' registration (Luke 2:1), that Herod was still alive, and that Jesus was about 30 in Tiberius' 15th year (Luke 3:1, 23). There are several other pointers in the Bible as to the time of Jesus' birth which narrows it down to a year or two as we are not fully certain concerning the intersection of the biblical dates with the Julian calendar.

Ehrman is correct in that we are not clearly given an exact date when Jesus was born, though there are clues that may allow specifying the day. The choice of December 25 may be a reasonable day to celebrate Christmas as there is some evidence that it may correspond to the Magis' visit.

The next item one presumes Ehrman means near the manger rather than in it. There may or may not have been animals around the time of the birth. It is of little consequence, but given that a manger is a feeding trough for animals their presence would not be remarkable. He would have been better to argue that Jesus was not born in a stable.

The 3 Magi possibly derives from the 3 gifts, but Ehrman is correct in that the Bible does not specify their number, or the number of their retinue.

Ehrman's comparison of the Proto-Gospel of James to the New Testament gospels fails on at least two accounts. Firstly, if a work on a topic is palpably false, it does not mean that every work on that topic is just as false. Demonstrating errors in James does not bring Luke into disrepute. Secondly, it seems there is some (unintentional) equivocation around incredulous. To the materialist all miraculous stories are incredulous. It is the miraculous that seems incredulous. Of course if God exists, the miraculous is hardly unbelievable—as if God is constrained by his own creation. To the theist, incredulity has little to do with miracles and everything to do with plausibility of the story. Jesus turned water into wine because they had run out of wine, he healed the crippled and the blind to make them well, and he frequently used such events to teach about the kingdom of God. Compare James' angels feeding Mary, Jesus walking immediately after birth, Mary's hymen remaining intact post-partum. It is not that miracles like these are beyond God's power: ravens fed Elijah. The problem is the miracles are to what purpose? This is the miraculous solely for the sake of miracle. It is incredulous not because there are miracles in the story, it is incredulous because it lacks meaning.

His next two complaints are a non-issue. There are only 4 New Testament gospels, only 2 gospels having material about Jesus' infancy is fully half of all the gospels. His statement that Matthew and Luke are inappropriate historical sources is just assertion. Luke is frequently regarded as a pre-eminent historian.

For all the length of the article Ehrman only identifies three problems specific to what is actually written in the Bible. He is wrong on all three counts.

The genealogies are not both of Joseph. Matthew's (incomplete) genealogy is of Joseph who is married to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Luke's is of Jesus via Mary. Jesus was the son as it was supposed of Joseph. Jesus was in fact the son (decendent) of Heli, Heli being the father of Mary. Luke has earlier told us that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not Joseph.

Next, there are a couple of problems with the census dismissal. The first problem is Ehrman fails to find corroborating evidence for such census and uses this missing information and reason to dismiss Luke's claims as fiction. Even if Luke were to contradict another historian this does not disprove Luke, if Luke is otherwise more reliable then he deemed more likely to be telling the truth. Yet in this passage it is not even Luke versus others, it is Luke versus no one. Why can we not believe Luke here? Luke is an impeccable historian. And he lived during this era. The second problem is that it probably was not a census. Luke says registration. A census is assumed by some interpreters but not mentioned by Luke. There could be other reasons to register. Some have suggested this registration was to offer an oath of allegiance to Augustus, about the time he was named Pater Patriae.

Lastly, the clue to the star is that it appeared to the Magi. Although God could have made a dazzling light appear in the sky to guide the way this would have been visible to everyone. The Magi saw meaning in various stars that others did not see. It was the conjunction of stars and planets (wandering stars) that led them to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem.

Reconciling the gospel nativities is not that difficult. Though some difficulties may exist in the texts, others difficulties seem to arise from an assumption that the gospels are errant.

Qualifying inerrancy

I have read a few blog posts on inerrancy over the years. I think the discussion lacks clarity at times. I have previously given my perspective on the difference between inerrancy and infallibility (as it is now used). I do not think inerrancy is a modern idea, even if the term is more recent. "Inspired" is a difficult term because of the differences people place on the idea. I think a good argument can be made for Jesus' view of Scripture being similar to an inerrant view of Scripture.

One complaint is that inerrantists are basically infallibilists once qualifications are taken into account. If one agrees with the qualifications then the term "inerrantist" is still to be preferred as holding inerrancy with qualifications is still significantly distinct from infallibility.

Another complaint is that the presence of qualifications concerning what inerrancy means undermines the term inerrancy. I strongly disagree, and may address some of these qualifications and the reasons for them in further posts. But briefly...

It is claimed that definitions can die a death from a thousand qualifications. This can be true, but it need not be true. The problem here not uncertainty over what the specific view (inerrancy) intends, it is because critics of the view raise complaints. It is often easier to critique something than it is to answer the critique, and frequently the answer is much longer.

Anyone can make an outlandish claim in a few words. Further they can defend such a claim with brief outlandish reasons. Offering a refutation more substantial than stating a contrary position, i.e. giving an explanation, is going to take more words.

Therefore the appropriateness of qualifications does not relate to their number (which is limited to the imagination of the critic) or their length, it relates to their reasonableness.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is one position on inerrancy; one that I think is moderately reasonable. Hopefully I will address some of the articles in the future.

Here is the Preface The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Proof-texting in cyberspace

Allen and Swain write on the historical use of proof-texting. While proof-texting is maligned by some, the Bible uses proof-texts, and in ways that some would fault non-biblical writers for doing the same. Good reasons exist for the way biblical authors quoted:

if we are to appreciate the way Scripture uses Scripture to prove a doctrinal point, then we must appreciate the larger hermeneutical frameworks within which citations are employed, the original (historical and literary) contexts within which proof-texts are found, and we must also possess a certain canonical sensitivity to how biblical motifs and themes unfold in the history of redemption, and, perhaps most importantly, how Christ is understood to be the climax of that unfolding historical development.

They distinguish between the citation techniques and the hermeneutical considerations at play: the quote may not be the (full) explanation. In other writings, reference to Scripture may be shorthand to not only the scriptural context, but commentaries written by the author and even others on the passage cited. Consider Aquinas,

The quotation of a biblical passage in the Summa [Theologiae] is meant to point the reader to a commentary written by Thomas or to an exegetical tradition of which he and the intelligent reader would be aware.

The Summa covers a wider terrain than any one biblical commentary—in fact, it could be characterized as a whole-Bible commentary with its very structure being shaped by what we now call “biblical theology.” The particular biblical commentaries contain more detailed expositions of pertinent passages that are merely referenced offhand or quoted briefly in the Summa. For example, he discusses the equality of power of the Father and of the Son in two types of texts (ST 1a.42.6 and in his Commentary on John 5:19). In the article in the ST, Thomas mentions a number of other texts in John’s Gospel (5:20; 5:30; 14:31), and he makes reference to no patristic sources. When you trace those references or quotations to his commentary, however, you see extended analysis of a deep patristic tradition.

A proof-text is, in modern parlance, a hypertext.