Apples and Aircraft Carriers

I do not think a week goes by in which I don't see some conservative Christian blogger talking about how the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is so much better than that for other ancient writings like the Illiad. I have never found this comparison particularly meaningful. It seems to me to be not just a case of comparing apples to oranges, but a case of comparing apples to aircraft carriers.

Suppose for an example that I was quite happy with my barber, but I were to find myself in need of an operation on my brain. In seeking out a brain surgeon, I would not be impressed by someone who recommended a particular surgeon on the grounds that he was just as reliable as my barber. I would simply not measure the reliability of a barber on the same scale as the reliability of a brain surgeon. By the same token I don't see the sense in comparing the reliability of a document that purports to be the inerrant and infallible message of God to humanity to the reliability of a document that purports to be nothing more than an ancient work of fiction.

Don't Know Much About History: The Sandy Rios Story

On Monday afternoon, evangelical radio gabber Sandy Rios interviewed Michael Newdow, an atheist who is suing to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Throughout the interview, Rios demonstrated her ignorance of history, historical methods, and principles of government. Naturally, she believed that she understood all the relevant facts.

Given her belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, you might think that Rios might have some grasp of the concept that some documents and statements are more authoritative than others. She doesn't. When Rios quoted a prayer that George Washington offered for the United States that was directed to "almighty God," Newdow correctly pointed out that the prayer reflected Washington's personal beliefs rather than the position of the government. When Newdow noted that almighty God wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, Rios replied "That doesn't matter." To Rios, the personal beliefs of various notable Americans are more than adequate justification for ignoring the Establishment Clause.

Rios did not seem to have a very good command of what was in the Constitution. At one point, she challenged Newdow to explain why the Bill of Rights referred to being "endowed by their Creator." Of course, that is the Declaration of Independence, which unlike the Constitution, is not the supreme law of the land. Perhaps I am being unduly harsh on Rios since it is the kind of mistake that the vast majority of Americans would make. Still, if you are going to claim to understand the Framers position on religion, you need to know which ideas made it into the Constitution.

Rios did not even seem to have a very clear idea of when the Constitution was written. At one point she claimed that she "like[d] to read the things that go back closest to the actual events" when she considers historical questions like this. However, she then proceeded to cite something lauding Christianity that was written by the House Judiciary Committee in 1854, seven decades after the adoption of the Constitution. Of course there was also the question of why she considered the statement authoritative as she did not say why the Committee issued the statement, i.e., whether it was some sort of official report or just the bloviating of a committee member or a witness.

As I have noted before, in order to claim that their belief in the Bible is a matter of provable facts, evangelical Christians must embrace a very distorted notion of what constitutes evidence. The Culture Campaign routinely asserts that their position is conclusively proved when they can find anything that supports it. Campaign President Sandy Rios demonstrated that anything that contradicts their position can be routinely dismissed, even the Constitution of the United States.

The Case for the Real Jesus (4): Craig A. Evans

Lee Strobel designates his first challenge "Scholars Are Unconvering a Radically Different Jesus in Ancient Documents Just as Credible as the Four Gospels." To answer this challenge, he claimed that he looked for someone "who would be respected by both conservatives and liberals" and came up with Craig A. Evans. (TCFTRJ p. 28) Of course, your average reader of The Case for the Real Jesus (including me) is not going to know what liberal scholars think of Strobel's experts, but I would think that someone who shows respect to other scholars is much more likely to be respected by them than someone who repeatedly resorts to sarcasm. "For crying out loud;" (TCFTRJ p. 34) "Come on;" ( p. 34) "Oh, that's absurd;"(p.36) and "Oh yeah, what a brilliant argument;" (p.38) are not the kind of comments that normally tend to endear one to one's peers.

Although I am not qualified to comment on many of Evans' assertions, there are a few points that seem obviously false. For example, Evans claims that many liberal scholars' ignorance of "the Semitic background of the New Testament" causes them to misconstrue Jesus' use of the phrase "Son of Man." "They didn't know how it was linked to the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7, where there are divine implications. Instead they pursued a bizarre Greco-Roman understanding, translating 'Son of Man' as 'Son of Adam,' which doesn't clarify anything." (TCFTRJ p. 35)

"For crying out loud," does Evans really mean to assert that it takes a doctorate in biblical languages to spot a connection that is footnoted in almost every Bible printed? I know for a fact that John Dominic Crossan and Geza Vermes understand the link because I have read books in which they discuss it and I know that Bart Ehrman understands it because I have heard him discuss it. Contrary to Evans, the liberal scholars seem to be sophisticated enough to consider the possibility that the phrase might be used differently at different times in different gospels. Geza Vermes notes that John seems to use "Son of Man" almost exclusively as a title referring to a "heavenly being temporarily exiled on earth," but concludes that [i]n contrast, the bulk of the 'son of Man' instances in the Synoptics can best be interpreted in a nontitular sense." (The Changing Faces of Jesus p.188) It is not through ignorance of the issues that he reaches a different conclusion than Evans.

Evans' claim about liberal ignorance concerning Jesus' use of the phrase "the kingdom of God" strikes me as an even bigger shovelful of manure. "It's not complicated if you have the Semetic context: Jesus was basically proclaiming the 'rule of God.'" (TCFTRJ p. 35) Oh really? Isn't the apostles' failure to understand what Jesus really meant by the "kingdom of God" a significant theme in the Gospels? Did the apostles lack the "Semetic context" that Evans' possesses? "Come on."

Another argument that strikes me as more than a little bizarre is Evan' assertion that the anonymity of the canonical gospels helps proves their authenticity. Commenting on the practice of second century writers attribuing their works to Mary Magdalene or Judas, Evans says "by the way, that's what Gnostics would do. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke circulated anonymously. Their authority and truth were apparent. Everyone knew this was what Jesus taught, so there wasn't much concern over who wrote it down." (TCFTRJ p. 46) So not knowing the source of a document makes it more trustworthy rather than less? "Oh yeah, what a brilliant argument."

Coming back to whether Evans is respected by liberals, I did find a review by Stephen Patterson of Evans' 2006 book Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.

My real difference with Evans is that I do not share his evangelical stipulations about the text. This is a divide that we must increasingly deal with in biblical studies. Competently trained scholars now operate on both sides of this great divide. How we handle that difference honestly and respectfully is our unique challenge. On that score this book fails miserably and can best serve as a counterexample of how not to engage one’s colleagues in discussion and debate.

Case for the Real Jesus (3): Is Strobel at It Again?

On the question of whether early Christians borrowed myths from other ancient religions, Lee Strobel has an article on the internet citing a Swedish scholar name T.N.D. Mettinger as concluding that "there were absolutely no parallels between them [i.e., other ancient resurrection myths] and Jesus because these myths dealt with such things as the vegetation cycle." (read, think, pray live) Now I have not read Mettinger and I am not planning on tracking his book down, but I would just like to note that Mettinger's own words as quoted by Strobel don't sound nearly as emphatic. "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising Gods in the surrounding world." (TCFTRJ p.161) This quote certainly supports Strobel's apologetics, but I don't think it rises to the level of "absolutely no parallels."

I also think that Strobel's latest article makes Mettinger sound stupid. Is it really such an incredible leap to go from a dying and rising god in a vegetation cycle to a dying and rising messiah? Is this something that was completely beyond the imagination of first century Jews? I might just as well argue that there are "absolutely no parallels" between George Lucas' Star Wars movies and Norse mythology (or where ever it was he lifted his stuff) because Thor and Odin did not have spaceships.

Speaking of parallels, Strobel's embellishments provide a nice model of how the stories about Jesus may have grown over time. Mettinger being unaware of any prima facie evidence becomes "absolutely no parallels." Sherwin-White's brief and general reflections become a "meticulous" study. And just as early Christians may have been unconcerned about being contradicted by eyewitnesses, Strobel seems completely unfazed by the possibility that someone might go check the sources he is citing.

Does the Religious Right Root for our Government to Fail?

Sandy Rios frequently rants about liberals who root for the United States military to fail in Iraq, although I don't think recognizing failure is the same thing as rooting for it, nor do I think that continually redefining success lower and lower is the same thing as succeeding. On the other hand, it seems to me that Rios and many evangelical Christians root for the American government to fail at everything else it does in order to preserve their claims that their brand of religion is the only hope for America.

This comes to mind because I finally saw Michael Moore's Sicko last week. I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about socialized medicine but it seems to be a basic tenet of evangelical Christians that universal health care would be a terrible tragedy. In the last two weeks, I have heard Rios, Pat Robertson, and James Scudder all tell their listeners that the last thing we want is what the rest of the civilized world has. Now I will acknowledge that I am skeptical about Sicko's portrayal of Cuba's healthcare system, but I suspect that the French, Canadians, and British really do prefer what they have.

One of the most striking things in Sicko was the way that different countries create incentives for doctors. In Britain, a doctor can be financially rewarded when his patients quit smoking or lower their blood pressure. In the United States, doctors working for insurance companies are financially rewarded for denying patients treatments that could save their lives. Is it any wonder that America spends more per capita on healthcare with poorer results than countries with socialized medicine?

Apologist N.T. Wright was recently quoted at the American Academy of Religion Conference as saying that "[t]he Church must get on with the works of justice, beauty, and healing that the systems [of the world] know they should do, but can't figure out how to do." Could it be that some of the systems of the world have figured out how to do some of these works? Could it be that evangelical Christians deny these successes rather than allow that good can be accomplished without them? Could it be that the Religous Right delights in the failures of the Bush administration because it confirms their belief in that good belongs exclusively to the(ir) Church?

Case for the Real Jesus (2): Defining Essentials

The main reason I got hold of The Case for the Real Jesus was to see what Strobel's expert on textual criticism, Daniel Wallace, would have to say about Bart Ehrman and his book, Misquoting Jesus, which I had read and enjoyed. Based on conservative reviews of the book, I suspected that Strobel had not accurately presented Ehrman's position, but I was not sure exactly how Wallace had responded. I had a very cordial conversation with an evangelical Christian who blogs as The Dawn Treader who focused primarily on the fact that inerrancy and inspiration are doctrines that apply only to the original autographs of scripture, not to their transmission. From this perspective, Ehrman's concern with errors made by scribes and copyists is a bit of a red herring.

I was rather surprised to find that Wallace did not seem to be at all concerned with the distinction between inerrancy in transmission and in the autographs. Rather, Wallace suggested that biblical inerrancy is not as important to evangelical Christianity as Ehrman had made it out to be.

Personally, I believe in inerrancy. However, I wouldn’t consider inerrancy to be a primary or essential doctrine for saving faith. It’s what I call a “protective shell” doctrine. Picture a concentric circle, with the essential doctrines of Christ and salvation at the core. A little bit further out are some other doctrines, until, finally, outside of everything is inerrancy (TCFTRJ p.76)

So when Ehrman asks "How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired," (MJ p.7)Wallace's answer seems to be that Christians do not need that much help from inerrancy anyway.

In my earlier discussion, Dawn Treader had argued that corruption in transmission was not a big concern because, as he quoted Wallace, "The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all the essentials - not in every particular, but in all essentials - our New Testament manuscripts go back to the originals." (TCFTRJ p.71-72) I thought this smacked of comparing apples and oranges. A liberal scholar who agrees that it is possible to get back to the originals in all essentials might be saying something very different than a conservative scholar simply because a liberal scholar who does not affirm the resurrection, the virgin birth or the divinity of Jesus would not consider very many things to be essential. However, it turns out that Wallace (who I assumed to be a conservative) did not consider very many things to be essential either.