Book review: Evidence for Jesus

Monday, November 7, 2011 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Ralph O. Muncaster

★★

I don’t know where to start with this one. I seldom give bad reviews, preferring to ask the author if they’d rather I withhold my review if I can’t recommend their book, but this is one I bought on my own … and wasted my money.

Of late, I’ve immersed myself in several books attempting to prove not just the historicity of Jesus’ life but the Gospel story of nature miracles and resurrection. They just keep getting worse. In light of my disappointment in these studies, I’ll go out on a limb, here, and state that the worst thing Christians can do is try to “prove” their beliefs. It ain’t working. Religion is not about evidence, but about faith where there is no evidence (or, often, in the face of opposing evidence).

Each chapter of Muncaster’s book wraps up with a short summary of its conclusions, so I went back through the book just reviewing these summaries. They’re a head-shaking assortment of absurdities and false claims. Here are the first few:

“The inability of the Jewish leaders and the Romans to produce the corpse of Jesus is powerful evidence that it didn’t exist—given that everything reasonable was done to protect it and there was no motivation for others to steal it. The logical conclusion would be that Jesus indeed rose from the dead.” How many absurdities can you count in one claim? Why would anyone guard the tomb of a man they considered a crucified criminal? It’s only Matthew who reports this unlikely story. The logical conclusion is not that Jesus rose, but that he was never in a tomb (or at least a known tomb) to begin with.

“The martyrdom of the apostles, who knew Jesus intimately, is a powerful example of eyewitnesses who were absolutely convinced that Jesus Christ died and rose again from the dead.” Well, if we had any reliable historical evidence of martyrdom, we might have some indication that this is true. In truth, we simply don’t know what happened to any of the twelve, beyond some incredible legends.

“There were many highly memorable events during Jesus’ time, capped by his resurrection. These would certainly gain attention and would be widely discussed. The many witnesses of the events and the resurrection—including the apostles, the friends and family of Jesus, and at least 500 others who saw the risen Christ—would attest to his resurrection.”  Wouldn’t it be nice if this were true? But for all the miraculous events (darkness at noon, Herod’s killing of babies, nature miracles), we simply have no corroborating evidence outside of evangelistic Christian writings. No “widely discussed” events. We have complete silence where we should have astounding and surprising historical records. As for the “500 witnesses” to his resurrection, Muncaster’s own summary of the next chapter undermines this:

“Paul, who probably had accepted the ‘official story’ of the corpse of Jesus being stolen, had a radical change of mind upon seeing the risen Christ.” What Paul describes seeing is a light from heaven … and, yes, he counts this “vision” as just as authentic as any of the other Jesus sightings, including his story of 500 people seeing Jesus at once. Where’s the resurrected, physical body Muncaster wants us to see? Had enough, or do we keep going?

“If this resurrection did not take place historically, the Christian church would not have existed at the outset, nor would it exist today.” Muncaster wants us to imagine that Christianity’s entire foundation is on the witnessed resurrection of Jesus. He would do well to open his eyes to the multitude of other religions, both today and then, that thrive and thrived even as Christians pooh-pooh the supernatural claims of their competitors.

I won’t close my review, however, without saying something positive about the book. Nineteen chapters into it I finally came to the final summary. Here, Muncaster concludes,“After 2,000 years, Jesus is still changing people’s lives. The evidence is startling and overwhelming: Millions of people gladly testify to the positive, dramatic difference Christ has made in their lives and the strength and hope he gives them every day.” Finally, I can say that I agree. I do not know how belief works, I do not understand why it doesn’t seem to matter whether or not one’s beliefs are true, I only know that believing is magical. I can imagine just about any explanation for this phenomenon except the one Muncaster pushes—that a man climbed out of his tomb, ascended into heaven, and there controls our destinies. That one must remain a matter of faith.

Luke 22:17-19, the Order of the Eucharist

Sunday, November 6, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you … And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it …

//In, Luke, and only in Luke, the cup is served before the bread. Five other places in the New Testament suggest the reverse order. So why is Luke different, and who is right?

Right or wrong, Luke may be actually describing the earlier tradition. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and Luke’s order more closely matches first-century Jewish custom, where a cup of wine is blessed and passed at the beginning of the meal. Moreover, the Didache, perhaps the earliest Christian document not in the Bible, carefully describes the ritual of the Eucharist … and it clearly indicates the cup is shared before the bread.

One reason to imagine the Didache presents the more original order is that it may capture the more primitive meaning in the ritual. It’s nothing like Paul’s rendition. No mention of the Last Supper, no sacrifice, no body or blood. It’s not about the death of Jesus at all, but about his vision of God’s Kingdom. It’s about thanksgiving to God for his provision, and the practice of community sharing. Converts shared a full meal together, not a sip and a wafer.

Book review: Man of God

Saturday, November 5, 2011 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Debra Diaz

★★★★★

This is an intriguing story about the birth of Christianity among the Gentiles, particularly in the city of Rome. It’s a sequel to Diaz’s first book, Woman of Sin, though I don’t believe it’s necessary to read book one in order to enjoy book two.

Paulus and Alysia, with their daughter, Rachel, hide from the Roman authorities while spreading the message of Jesus in Christianity’s underground movement. However, the time comes when they must all three take a stand for their beliefs. The plot is engaging, and the tension builds as they choose to leave things in the hands of God, though it’s never a question of God’s power, but of His will. Will God rescue them, or will He stand idly by and let them succumb to Roman torture and cruel death?

I love Diaz’s chosen historical era! Little scholarly emphasis has gone into studying Christians of this period, the 30’s and 40’s of the first century, and precious little is known about how Christianity took hold. Paul’s letters give us our best hints. So Diaz clings pretty tightly to the Pauline picture of church-planting as she recreates the atmosphere of early Mediterranean beliefs. For example, the characters battle against spirits and bodily possession. (The main character, Paulus, manages to exorcize a demon from a man, though his wife, Alysia, fails in her attempt to perform the same miracle on the Emperor, Caligula.)

There is an exception, however, to its authenticity. Diaz portrays the Christianity of the early first century very much like today’s Christian teachings. This is my one disappointment with the story; its lack of authenticity in this area stands out since the spread of Christianity is the focus of the story. I’ll give an example:

In one scene, Paulus, the main character, meets a friend’s father on his deathbed and tries to convert him. “When your soul leaves your body it will go to one of two places. To be forever with God, or to be forever separated from him in a place of torment, reserved for those who refuse to accept his son as savior, the one who paid for their sins.” The fellow dies, and we hear no more about him. So why include the scene? If it’s meant to add historicity, a more interesting and authentic choice of theology would be the apostle Paul’s teaching that the sinful die forever (annihilationism) or the Greek teaching of soul punishment for the extremely evil (which this man was not) or the Jewish belief in a physical, bodily resurrection for God’s chosen nation (such as that described in the book of Revelation). All of these theologies would be more believable for the time period of the story, and in my opinion more interesting. Diaz’s choice to use contemporary beliefs made me feel a little like I was being preached at.

Then I reached the climax. Excellent!! Exciting, authentic, appropriate, thought-provoking, mildly disturbing, all my complaints dissolved in twenty pages as Diaz came through with the perfect ending. Christianity is born!

Mark 6:17-18, How Did John the Baptist Die?

Friday, November 4, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

//You know the story. Herodias’s daughter danced for Herod at a birthday party, and so pleased him that he promised her anything she wanted. She asked her mother, Herodias, what to request from Herod, and Herodias told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter.

Is this really the way it happened? Jewish historian Josephus gives us a different story. Josephus tells us that Herodias was not married to Philip, but rather to another brother of Herod who was also named Herod. Perhaps Mark’s Gospel confused the two Herods, and invented the wife-stealing story as an explanation.

If so, then how did John die? Josephus does confirm that his death was at the hands of Herod. John, according to Josephus, was “a good man” who baptized not for the remission of sins but for “the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” Herod feared that the influence of John could start a rebellion, and sent him as a prisoner to the castle Macherus, where he was put to death.

Book review: The Last Week

Thursday, November 3, 2011 in Bible Commentary, Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Marcus J. Borg & John Dominic Crossan

★★★★★

Beginning with Palm Sunday and continuing through the following Sunday, resurrection day, Borg and Crossan lead us day-by-day through the events of Christianity’s holy week. There are differences between the Gospel accounts, especially when it comes to John’s Gospel, so the authors are at times forced to play favorites. Because Mark is the earliest Gospel, and because Mark goes out of his way to chronicle the day-by-day events of the Passion week, the authors chose Mark as their primary source.

The stage is set early, on the first day of the week, as Jesus rides a donkey down from the Mount of Olives, through the east gate of the city. On the opposite side of the city, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, arrives at the head of a column of imperial cavalry and soldiers. Jesus’ procession hailed the arrival of the Kingdom of God; Pilate’s, the power of the Empire. It’s not going to go well; this becomes clear early on, as Jesus plans his symbolic resistance. He arrives back on Monday and “attacks” the Temple, overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

The following two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, portray the disciples in their attempt to comprehend what is going on. The very first “Christian” perhaps appears during this time: An unnamed woman recognizes that Jesus is about to die, and anoints him for burial.

Thursday may be the most theologically significant day, as we experience the Passover meal, the Gethsemane prayer, and the arrest.

Good Friday needs no introduction. Jesus succumbs to the Roman machine, dies with a cry of despair, and leaves the disciples in a great state of confusion and sorrow through Saturday, the Sabbath. (Mark’s Gospel itself says nothing at all about Saturday; the feelings and events must be inferred, or taken from elsewhere, such as the tradition of Christ descending into Hell.)

Finally, Easter, and the joy of resurrection. By far, this is the most confusing day of the week. Again, Mark’s Gospel leaves us with little to go on; the original ending in Mark is very abrupt. Three women discover an empty tomb, and run away afraid, telling no one. It is only in the unfolding legends of other Gospel writers that we can try to piece together what this day meant to Jesus’ followers. Regardless of how we imagine the actual events, the message is clear: Jesus lives!

Genesis 2:18-20, Adam’s First Temptation

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: … but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

//Today’s verse is an absolutely hilarious story about how God parades all manner of animals in front of Adam, hoping to satisfy Adam’s need for a mate, but Adam isn’t tempted and holds out for a woman. Don’t you think this is a fantastic story? It’s gotta be my favorite story in the Bible.

I meet all kinds through my blog, but there are two kinds of people I guess I’ll never be able to reach:

[1] Believers who wonder why I am trying to destroy their faith in the Bible.
[2] Nonbelievers who wonder why I bother wasting my time on the Bible.

Sigh. Yes, I write often about funny stories and contradictions in the Bible. I honestly do think it’s healthy to be able to laugh at the human touches within our holy book. But it’s still the Bible! Capital B! I’m not mocking it. It’s still the most miraculous and fascinating collection of stories in existence. It’s still Christianity’s written link to the divine.

Readers: please understand that I have no desire to shake your faith, but to refine it! You can read the Bible differently, recognizing its human contributions and myths, and still appreciate God. The modern age of enlightenment, which forced everybody to divide even the Bible into neat little piles of facts and non-facts, has ruined its reading for many. Nobody used to think critically like this. The Bible never used to be peered at through a microscope. Nobody used to worry about making sense of religion in a literal way. The scientific age has killed us, science has killed us, because we have let science rise up as some sort of adversary to our spirituality. We have let critical thinking change how we read God’s Word. We have to get back to that old-OLD-time religion, where ultimate truth rises above the base, boring facts, if the Bible is going to survive.

The story of Adam and Eve is great religion and unquestionably belongs in our Bible, whether or not it really happened.

Book review: The Language of God

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Francis S. Collins

★★★★★

Current-day proponents of the New Atheism like to push the idea that atheism is the only rational belief, and believers are weak-minded non-thinkers who hide from science. This just simply isn’t so. Some very accomplished scientists in many different fields are believers.

Here’s one. Francis Collins is a devout believer and distinguished scientist (he is the head of the Human Genome Project) with a questioning mind and a reverence for reason … and for the merger of science and religion. From the cover flap, “In short, Dr. Collins provides a satisfying solution for the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious–combined into one worldview. The God that he believes in is a God who can listen to prayers and cares about our souls. The biological science he has advanced is compatible with such a God. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it.”

That’s a pretty intriguing claim, and it aroused my curiosity. In this book, Collins wrestles with questions like “What came before the big bang?” and “How did life originate?” I should set things in perspective before continuing; Collins is not promoting some flaky version of pseudo-science. He’s for real. He praises Darwin and admits that no serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution. “The relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it.” A lot of effort is spent explaining “biological truth,” and in a chapter titled Deciphering God’s Instruction Book, Collins introduces–no, not the Bible–the lessons of the human genome.

Still, Collins respects the Bible. He dives into the debate about what Genesis really says, and why we have contradicting versions of the creation in the Bible if this poetic and allegorical writing was really meant to be read literally. Young Earth Creationism just simply isn’t compatible with modern science; neither, really, is the trendy Intelligent Design explanation. Thankfully, Collins finds an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis unnecessary. Collins proposes a solution for compatibility, which he calls BioLogos. He finds harmony between science and religion in “theistic evolution.”

Finally, having dispensed with our concerns regarding the science-versus-religion conflict, he brings up the crux of the matter. Regardless of where else we are to read the Biblenonliterally, evidence supports the fantastic story of a unique individual, Jesus, who lived, died, … and rose from the dead! Collins leans a bit on C. S. Lewis as he builds toward the climax: he, a rational scientist,logically concludes that the Jesus story is true and literal. God came down to earth in the form of a person. Wow!

While not convincing enough in itself, and leaving many other questions about the believability of the Christian God unanswered, I do highly recommend this book! It will never turn a nonbeliever into a believer, but it will definitely refine the faith of believers, helping them to overcome the dogmatism of outdated theology. Besides, it’s a fun, educational read!

Genesis 4:17, Who was Cain’s wife?

Monday, October 31, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 2 comments

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.

//But where did Cain find her? It’s a tricky question, but it does have an answer! Let me guide you there in a roundabout way.

We have at least two legends about man’s arrival in the Bible, by two different authors. These two stories have been spliced together in Genesis. For more about how we know they were originally two separate stories, I refer you to the Documentary Hypothesis.

In one story, God creates the universe in six days. On the final day, God makes mankind, men and women both, and sends them forth to multiply. Kind of a boring story.

The second story is a bit more interesting. It begins in Genesis 2:7. God doesn’t make mankind, he forms a man, (Adam) sculpting him out of the dust of the ground. God has planted a garden, and wants somebody to tend the garden.

Story 1: All future generations descend from Adam. Story 2: No such assumption is made; Adam isn’t necessarily numero uno.

Suppose we keep reading in the Bible, past these two legends. One day, Adam’s son Cain shows up with a wife! If Adam was the first-ever man on earth, then where on earth did Cain find her?

Story 1: Presumably, Cain hangs around and chooses a sister. Story 2: Probably, Cain chooses a wife from the heathen nations rather than choosing one of Adam’s daughters. So which one is it?

Story 1: in Genesis 5:3-4, When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.* There isn’t any first-born Cain in this story. Repeat: No Cain in story 1. The firstborn is Seth. Story 2: Adam eats of the tree of knowledge, which apparently results in a sexual awakening, and lo! Children. Can you imagine their surprise? Anyway, as Genesis chapters 3 and 4 make clear, the first startling arrival is a fellow they name Cain. The second-born, Abel, comes along quite routinely. As the story continues, one child (Cain) kills the other and is driven away from the family. Cain pleads for mercy: “Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Cain seems to know that there are plenty of other people waiting on the other side of the mountain.

So, there you have it. Cain belongs to story 2, and probably found his wife among the nations of the world.

(*Note: Likely, the story of Seth as the firstborn of Adam is of yet another source, possibly an earlier source than Genesis chapter one, but may have been known to the writer who penned his six-day creation story.)

Book review: A New Reformation

Sunday, October 30, 2011 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

by Matthew Fox

Genesis 14:7, Those Pesky Amalekites

Saturday, October 29, 2011 in Bible Commentary | 1 comment

And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites.

//You think Israel is the only nation that God resurrected? Here’s a nation that was destroyed four times, and kept coming back to life. In today’s verse, the wording seems to imply that all of the Amalekites were smitten, but apparently it wasn’t so. They were still around a bit later for Saul to destroy again:

1 Samuel 15:20, And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, … and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

This time, the wording is pretty clear. But Saul must have been wrong; it’s not over yet. Next, it’s King David’s turn:

1 Samuel 27:8-9, And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites … And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive.

There! That should do it! Surely this time they’ll stay dead, right? Not so; three chapters later, the Amalekites are still wreaking havoc.

1 Samuel 30:1, And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; So, David goes after them, and in verse 17, he smites them “from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.” Then, 1 Chronicles 4:43 tells what happened to the remnant: “And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day.”

Let’s hope that finally did the trick.