A Heathen's Day

Pinheads R Us

2009-07-11T09:59:00.001-04:00

I spotted this piece on CNN.com this morning and wanted to share it here. You can well imagine that this group would be the first to condemn any sign critical of Christianity because, as the pinhead says, there is only "one way or no way". Judge for yourselves:

The Lesson Fate Teaches

2009-07-09T09:02:00.002-04:00

Like many people, I mourn the passing of former NFL quarterback Steve McNair, who was a victim of a murder/suicide this past Saturday. When I think about fate, I see in his life and death a compelling lesson. People die all the time, and quite often, their death is in some way influenced by the decisions they made while alive. For example, my former sister-in-law died as a result of methadone prescribed for her by the doctor. She chose to take this medication, she chose to go to this doctor, and so even though we can blame the doctor and/or the health care system in this country (she only got the methadone because the insurance company would not pay for the alternative) her own decisions have to be factored in. Even so, it was a pointless death and she was in far less control of the circumstances than somebody like Steve McNair.

Here is a married father of four engaged in an illicit affair with a woman almost half his age. His decisions, his choices, demonstrate what I'm talking about when I say we create or shape our own fate. His decisions brought him to the point in which, while apparently asleep on the couch, his mistress fired a round into his temple, and then fired four more into his body before killing herself. Reports are that she felt she was losing him, and/or that she believed he had another girlfriend (not to mention a wife!).

He chose to cheat on his wife. He chose to be there with this girl the day he died. My father used to have an expression about "keeping your pecker in your pants" in order to avoid a great many complications, and we see the wisdom of his words demonstrated here as well. We all make choices, all the time, every day. As former NFL running back (and former team-mate of McNair's) Eddie George said, we all do things we later regret. He said he was not in a position to judge, and neither am I judging. However, we have to be aware of how the things we do bring us to where we are now.

Our ancestors believed we shaped our own fate. But a hero could rise above his fate. Beowulf, for example. How do we respond to our situations? Do we bail? Do we blame? Do we accept responsibility? Do we try to rise above it and make it right? That is the measure of the man, in the thought-world of the ancient Heathen. Even a nithling, an outlaw, could be redeemed through his actions.

I am sitting here, where I am, largely on account of decisions I have made. You sit where you sit for the same reasons. Certainly luck and chance have played a roll, however you see those things. The actions of other people have also impacted and influenced our lives. And that is why it is important to know the lineage of those you allow into your lives. Their orlog impacts yours. You tie yourselves to people you deal with and therefore common sense dictates you must be cautious in whom you place your trust (a lesson many young NFL players newly come to money would do well to heed). The important thing is, as Heathens, that we do not blame everyone else for what happens to us. We do not blame society, we do not blame our friends or our enemies or a souless culture. We take responsibility for that part we can control. And if we can, we rise above them.

I'm fond of a little passage from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."

Indeed. Remember that. Remember there are forces and tides out there beyond your control. But remember also, when all is said and done, that it was you who chose to place your foot outside your door, and which path you take from there.

My Big List of Bible Contradictions

2009-07-08T08:53:00.004-04:00

I thought I'd throw this out for consumption and comment: It's My Big List of Bible Contradictions, including those I put into my last post. You can be certain that this list is not exhaustive and I'll do what I should have done before and include my footnotes. These should probably be put into some kind of order but I haven't had time to do that so apologies up front:

The Bible is full of contradictions great and small and we have touched on these in the course of our examination of Christianity’s myths. These contradictions are disturbing because Irenaeus assured us in the second century that “the scriptures are perfect because they were uttered by the Word of God and his Spirit.” If this is so, if Irenaeus did not lie, then the Christian God if one flawed individual, or perhaps suffers from a multiple personality disorder or even dementia. Read my list below; check it out for yourself. Do you see a coherent whole inspired by either "perfect" God or his spirit?

Some apologists still cannot admit to this lack of perfection; it is a violation of their faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But the contradictions are there for all to see. Others will now argue them away by asserting that “These are not contradictions in substance.”[1] Of course, this is an entirely inaccurate assertion. Whether or not man is saved by Works or Faith seems like a substantive issue, doesn’t it? This is not simply a problem of chronology but the fate of man’s immortal soul. So there are greater and lesser problems to be found. Some make little difference either way; others are of a more critical nature. And as always there is the reminder that where one mistake exists, others are likely also. We can identify some, but can we identify all? If the books of the Old and New Testament are so full of contradictions and mistakes, how comfortable can we be with regards to the accuracy of the rest?

The Creation Story

* The Book of Genesis presents us with two mutually incompatible creation stories. From 1-2.4 we have the standard 7-day model with which we are all familiar. But from 2.4 on we are given an entirely new scenario, one which sees the creation of Adam and Eve (remember, they were already presumably created along with all the other men and women in 1.26, where he enjoined them to “be fruitful and multiply.” Of course, this turns out to be very bad advice indeed, since this is the sort of nonsense that gets them in trouble in the second story. As Robin Lane Fox observes, the second story “flatly contradicts the first.” In the second story, man precedes vegetation but in the first, vegetation appears at 1.12 while man only arrives at 1.26 – a neat trick. Remember too that the Garden of Eden exists only in the second story; it is not present in the first, an interesting omission. Obviously, the two stories date from different times, but both before 400 BCE, after which date a third writer combined them into a single account. “Probably,” as Lane Fox concludes, “the two stories had become too well known for either to be excluded.”[2]

Will the Real Ten Commandments Please Stand Up?

* Even the famous 10 Commandments so popular with Right Wing Christianity in America are not so cut and dried as people seem to think (including those self-same Right-wingers. The 10 Commandments are given twice, once at Exodus 20 and again at Deuteronomy 5. If that isn’t confusing enough, we are also presented with three mutually incompatible sets of laws (Exodus 20-23; Leviticus 11-27; Deuteronomy 12-26). In any case, as Lane Fox rightly observes, “There are not ten, and they are patently not original commands which were given to Moses by the mountain god of Sinai.” Though they may originally date from around the 10th century BCE, “the versions which we now read have been enlarged and varied and their final form may be as late as c. 550 BC.”[3]

How Many Exiles?

* Everyone is familiar with the story of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem and the exile of Jews to Babylon. However, what is seldom mentioned is that the Old Testament gives three separate figures for the number of Jews sent into exile. Jeremiah (52:28-30) gives the figure of 3,023. 2 Kings 24.14 says 10,000, and 2 Kings 24:16, 8,000. All three numbers cannot be true. And why does 2 Kings contradict itself in the space of only two passages?

Jesus’ Birth

* We are given two different events by which to date the birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, they are mutually contradictory; both cannot be true. The first is the account in Luke. Luke tells us that the Annunciation (the foretelling of Jesus’ birth) takes place in the reign of Herod (1.5), who died in 4 BCE (some scholars place his death a year earlier). Her pregnancy must have been of unusually long duration though because at 2.1 Luke tells us that Jesus was born when Quirinius took his census, which was 6 CE. Therefore Jesus was in Mary’s womb for a good 10 years, possibly 11! Matthew (2.1) tells us that Jesus was born “during the time of King Herod” and there is no mention of Quirinus. The simple problem is that the taxation could not have taken place during Herod’s reign because under Herod they were Jewish, not Roman citizens. If the taxation took place after Herod, a problem still remains, because Galilee was not part of the Roman province over which Quirinus oversaw the census. No Galilean would have been compelled to leave an independent Jewish tetrarchy in order to be taxed in an adjoining Roman province.[4] In the end, the very fact of these inconsistencies is testament to early Christian ignorance of the details of Jesus’ birth and of the relatively late date of their written accounts.

Miracles

* In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus spurns the use of miracles to reveal his identity (ex: Matt 11:38; Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-18). But in John, Jesus performs miracles willingly, and in order to prove his identity (20:30-31; 5:15). We might also argue that in the earlier passages Jesus spurned the use of miracles, even rejecting Satan’s temptations to do so (to turn stone into bread), answering “Man does not live by bread alone,” but then reverses himself later in the same books in order to do just that: manipulate loaves in the wilderness to feed the multitude (Matt. 15.32-39; Mark 8.1-10). Suddenly, man does appear to live by bread alone!

Paganism

* In Acts 17:23-31 we are told that Paul’s view of Pagans is that they are not accountable for their beliefs. But in Romans 1:18-32, Paul says that Pagans are accountable for their beliefs.

Who are we to believe? What is the poor Pagan to do? This would appear to be one of those “substantive” contradictions Kreef & Tacelli assure us do not exist. Obviously, Paul’s view of Pagans was a rather dim one, but the author of Acts, writing at least a half-century later, was trying to present Christianity in a more favorable light to Roman authorities. Either way, for a religion which claims to have a lock on “Truth” this seems expose a very relativist position.

Paul’s Audience

* In Acts we are told that Paul’s sermons were addressed to Jewish audiences (18:4-11). But Paul himself repeatedly claims that his mission is to the Gentiles (1 Cor 12:2).

So who do we believe? Did he feel his mission was to the Gentiles or to the Jews?

Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem

* Who are we to believe? Paul in Gal 1:18-20 says he “saw none of the other Apostles except James the brother of the Lord” and adds in 2:1 that he did not “go up again to Jerusalem for fourteen years.” But Acts (9-12) describes a different career for Paul, including a visit to Jerusalem at the time of the famine in Claudius’ reign, 46-48 CE (11:28-30). He cannot have done both, be both away from Jerusalem and be present. Either Acts lies, or Paul does, and there seems no good reason to disbelieve Paul.

Raising of Lazarus

* In Mark 5:21-43 Jesus heals the young girl in private. But in John, in keeping with the use of miracles to prove his identity, Jesus heals her in public (11:1-44).

* In Mark, in another episode related to the raising of Lazarus from the dead, Jesus is delayed inadvertently (5:21-43). But in John, Jesus intentionally stays away until Lazarus dies, in order to make an example of his power (11:1-44).

Appearance of the Risen Jesus

* In 1 Cor 15:1f Paul gives his version of events. But in Luke 24:13 (and remember, Luke was an educated Greek speaker) Luke “shows a close similarity to the report of the appearance of the deified Romulus, Dion. Hal. II.63.3f, and Livy I.16.5f

Gentiles and Jewish Law

* This should be a no-brainer. We know from Galatians 2:11-15 that Peter disagrees with Paul in this regard. But Acts 15:6-11 says that Peter disagreed with Paul.

Mission to the Gentiles

* This is another easy one. Most Christians know Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. He says he is, right there in Galatians 1-2. But if we turn to Acts 10-11, we see that it is Peter that starts the mission, and in Acts 15, Peter claims that no less than Jesus himself assigned Peter to this important task. If Paul lied about this, what else did he lie about? Conversely, if Acts lies, what else is Acts lying about?

The Meeting of Peter and Paul

* Acts 9:26-29 tells us that they met right after Paul’s adventure in Damascus. But Paul says in Galatians (1:16-18) that they met years later.

The Last Supper

* Mark 14:12 says that the Last Supper was the Passover Meal, or Pesher, but John 19:14 states that the meal occurred the day before Passover.

Healing Simon’s Mother

* Mark 1:30-31 says that before Jesus healed her before he was rejected in Nazareth, but Luke 4:38-39 has the healing occur after Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth.

Peter Called to Discipleship

* Here we have three different versions. Mark 1:16-17 says that this occurred at the outset of Jesus’ ministry. But Luke 5:1-11 says that some miracles occurred first, showing that Jesus had already begun his ministry. John 1:38-41 gives us an entirely new slant on events, claiming not that Jesus recruited Peter but that Peter went looking for and found Jesus.

Peter Recognizes the Messiah

* In Mark 8:29 Peter recognizes Jesus for what he is halfway through his ministry. But in John 1:41-42, Peter makes this connection at the very beginning.

Peter’s Name

* In Matthew 10:2 Jesus calls him “Simon who was called Peter” but a little later, in 16:17-18, Jesus gives Simon the name Peter as though he did not already have it!

Peter’s Hometown

* In Mark 1:21, 27 Peter is from Capernaum, but in John 1:44 he is from Bethsaida.

The Origins of the Law

* In Exodus we learn that God gave the law to the Jews directly. But Paul in Galatians (3:19) asserts that the law came not from God but through angelic intermediaries. This is obviously another substantive contradiction, since Paul’s argument was designed to show that the Law was unimportant. If, however, Paul was wrong and the Law was handed down to the Jews directly from the hand of YHWH, then it would seem inopportune, not to say unwise (to say the least) to disregard it. After all, according to Paul then, the 10 Commandments really aren’t all that important, are they?

The Temple

* In Acts the disciples of Jesus pray at the Temple, but John 4:21; 2:21 says that the True Temple is not in Jerusalem but is the body of Jesus. Another substantive contradiction, since the validity of the Temple as a center of worship is in question, and this is obviously a concern. Does Jesus replace the Temple or does he not?

Eschatological Fervor

* In Mark (10:37) John son of Zebedee has strong apocalyptic hopes, but in John 18:36 eschatological teaching is gone and the Kingdom is described as “not of this world.” Either John missed the boat or the teaching changed.

Paul on Circumcision

* In Acts 16 we see that Paul has Timothy circumcised to placate the Jewish Christians, but in Galatians 2:3 Paul refuses to allow Titus (who by the way is not even mentioned in Acts) to be circumcised to placate the Judaizers. He makes his point against circumcision again at 5:6-7. Was Paul afflicted by relativism or is one of our sources lying to us?

Did Paul go to Jerusalem?

* In Galatians 1:17 Paul says emphatically that he did not: “Before God, I do not lie!” (1:20). But In Acts 9:23-30 we are told that Paul went directly to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. This is naturally a rather important issue, since it has been claimed that Paul’s teachings were in line with the teachings of the community led by Peter, then James. N.T. Wright, for instance, (cite)

Paul’s Trip from Athens to Thessalonica

* In Acts 17:15 and 18:15 Timothy and Silas do not accompany Paul, but Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians that Timothy was with Paul in Athens, but was sent back to Thessalonica (3:1-2).

Paul’s Conversion

* Acts alone has three mutually incompatible versions of Paul’s conversion. These are to be found in Acts 9, 22 and 26. Which is true, if any of them? At least two must be incorrect. Did the author of Acts lie? Or did he perhaps not know? This is one of the more obvious sets of contradictions in the New Testament and it, among other defects, calls into question Acts’ historical reliability.

The Parousia

* In 1 Thessalonians Paul says that Jesus is coming back right away. His return is expected at any time. But in 2 Thessalonians this has changed to “other things have to happen first” (2:1-12). What happened? Obviously, the Parousia didn’t.

* In 1 Corinthians and also in 2 Corinthians, Paul argues that the resurrection has not already occurred (cf. Rom 6:1-6) but in Ephesians, a letter not considered by scholars to be genuine, Paul argues that they have already experienced the spiritual resurrection and are already “sitting in the heavenly places.” This poses no problems for liberal scholars willing to admit one letter is a forgery, but how do apologists reconcile the fact that one must be wrong if both texts represent the inerrant word of God?

Who Crucified Jesus?

* Who crucified Jesus? The Romans or the Jews? In the Synoptic Gospels it is clearly Pilate who ordered Jesus to be crucified, for instance Mark 15.16-20, though in all three cases blame is made to rest with the Jews. But in John 19.16 we are told outright that, “Then he [Pilate] handed him [Jesus] to them [the Jews] to be crucified.” Mark says that “he [Pilate] delivered him to be crucified” (15.15) which Brandon feels could be “due to Mark’s reluctance to admit that Pilate actually ordered the execution of Jesus”[5] but the episode which follows at 16.20 and the mention of the centurion commanding the detail in both Mark and Matthew (Matthew 27.54; Mark 15.39) demonstrate that it was indeed Pilate who ordered it and the Romans who carried it out. In fact the greatest contradiction is within John itself, where Pilate tells Jesus that he has the power to free him or crucify him and Jesus acknowledges this (John 19.10) yet John portrays Pilate as having no power at all, making such power lie with the Jewish people who decide his fate. A final contradiction in John is that it is Pilate who places the titulus on the cross (John 19.19), indicating the sentence, which is odd indeed if the Jews crucified him as John asserts.

Resurrection

* In the Synoptic Gospels we see that Jesus proves the necessity of resurrection by a reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But in John (11:25) Jesus is himself the resurrection and the life.

Church Hierarchy

* In 1 Corinthians, there are no church pastors in Paul’s churches – they are charismatic communities. But in 1 and 2 Timothy as well as Titus – all forgeries dating from a later period, the churches now suddenly have pastors and are “efficiently organized and structured” as Ehrman says.[6]

What explains this contradiction? History:

What would happen if the end didn’t come? Well, what happened in Corinth was a good deal of chaos. Eventually it became clear that the charismatic communities Paul had established were going to be around for the long haul. For any social organization to make it through the long haul, there has to be organization and leadership. In the generation after Paul himself had passed off the scene, his communities developed hierarchical structures in which there were established leaders of the churches. There were elders and deacons, for example. And there was one person with ultimate oversight, the pastor or bishop.[7]

Paul’s Theology and Means of Salvation

* In Acts 13:16-42 Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. But in Paul’s epistles what we learn is that Christ’s death provides atonement for sins (a sacrifice made for the sins of others – “this atonement purchased a right standing before God” But forgiveness is being let off the hook altogether for something you’ve done, no requirements of payment. In Acts, sacrifice is required for forgiveness of the debt because this is Luke’s explanation for why Jesus had to die. Christ’s death here is an occasion for repentance. This is not the same as atonement, and this is an important theological problem indeed, not just a matter of peripheral details. [8] This is yet another of those substantive contradictions that are not supposed to exist, and a rather important one at that.

Paul’s Devotion to Jewish Law

* Acts 21-22 and 28:17 shows that charges against Paul are trumped up. Paul has done nothing contrary to the Law. But in 1 Cor 9:21 and 2:11-14 we see that Paul could live like Jew or a Gentile yet attacks Cephas for not living like a Gentile. In Gal 2:21 Paul tells us that if the Law is necessary, then Jesus died in vain.

The Ascension

* Which version do we trust? That in Luke 24:50f or Acts 1.9f?

Judas and the Reasons for Betrayal

* The recent publication of the Gospel of Judas not only did not solve the riddle of Judas, it added to it. For we have four different versions of Judas in the four canonical Gospels. In Mark 14 no motive is given for Judas’ betrayal of his master. Matthew 26 advances the story a bit: Judas did it for cash. Then Luke offers a version in which Satan himself was responsible. Finally, in John 12 it is revealed that Judas was himself a devil (6:70) and that Judas who was the group’s treasurer had been embezzling funds all along (12:4-6). The Gospel of Judas offers another explanation entirely, one that, as one scholar remarked, turned Christianity on its head. For in this latest Gospel account, Judas is not a devil, or in the service of the devil; he does not embezzle and he does not do it for money. He betrays Jesus because Jesus asks him to do so in order that he might be freed of his earthly existence.[9]

Was Jesus Flogged?

* Mark (15.15) and Matthew (27.26) present Jesus as being scouraged, as in before an execution, but in Luke (22.63) a beating is only of the type given to a man before his release. Though the beatings may appear the same in English, Lane Fox warns us they are not, as the words used in each case “are exactly chosen and their difference is supported in Roman law. One refers to the heavy beating which was administrered before a death sentence, whiel the other refers to a cautionary beating which was also recognized as a legal option.”[10] This does not prevent Christian authors from describing the beating as a severe flogging that opened up his flesh and caused severe bleeding and intense pain. However, by portraying events in this way, these authors are denying the validity of Luke’s account. An alternative, to describe both beatings, would be to deny both Gospel accounts by combining them and creating a series of events nowhere described.

Faith versus Works

In Galatians Paul writes “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is (any longer) in force, but rather Faith working by love. You were running well. Who stopped you, that you did not obey the Truth? (5:6-7). In Galatians he speaks of his freedom from the Law and of Law as slavery (2:4-5). In Corinthians he writes again about his freedom from the Law, comparing himself to a runner in a race (1 Cor 9:24-26). In 1 Cor 8:7-11 and 9:22 he characterizes those who obey the Law as “weak”. Yet James says, “For whoever shall keep the whole Law, but stumbles on one (small point), shall be guilty (of breaking) it all (2:10). And most tellingly: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder’ (James 2.14-19) and at 2:26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

Both cannot be right, both Paul and James. Who is to be believed? Or will it be recognized finally that these are two entirely different theologies, Pauline Christianity and Judaism? This is the “Mother of All” substantive contradictions and for very obvious reasons. How is a Christian to get to heaven? Of necessity one of them must be wrong, and that doorway, if chosen, leads not to heaven but to eternal damnation.

Notes:

[1] Kreeft & Tacelli Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 215, who fail to mention any of these substantive errors in their meager collection.

[2] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (NY: Vintage Books, 1991), 15-23.

[3] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, 53-54.

[4] Herod’s death is dated by an eclipse of the moon dated to 12-13 March, 4 BCE. The date of the census is known from Josephus, Ant. 18.1 and from Cassius Dio (find citation), and there is nowhere any record of an “empire-wide” census such as that described in Luke. The Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated in Christianity on March 25.

[5] Brandon, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, 191, n. 124.

[6] Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, 157.

[7] Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, 159.

[8] Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, 143-144.

[9] For a discussion, see Bart Ehrman “Christianity Turned on its Head: The Alternate Version of the Gospel of Judas,” in Kasser, et al, The Gospel of Judas, 94.

[10] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, 292.

Paul vs. Acts of the Apostles

2009-07-07T16:50:00.004-04:00

Preston, in his comments to my previous post, asks for evidence of contradictions between Paul's epistles and the Acts of the Apostles (author anonymous). I have provided them here rather than trying to squeeze them into a little comments box:

Paul’s Audience

• In Acts we are told that Paul’s sermons were addressed to Jewish audiences (18:4-11). But Paul himself repeatedly claims that his mission is to the Gentiles (1 Cor 12:2).

So who do we believe? Did he feel his mission was to the Gentiles or to the Jews?

Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem

• Who are we to believe? Paul in Gal 1:18-20 says he “saw none of the other Apostles except James the brother of the Lord” and adds in 2:1 that he did not “go up again to Jerusalem for fourteen years.” But Acts (9-12) describes a different career for Paul, including a visit to Jerusalem at the time of the famine in Claudius’ reign, 46-48 CE (11:28-30). He cannot have done both, be both away from Jerusalem and be present. Either Acts lies, or Paul does, and there seems no good reason to disbelieve Paul.

Appearance of the Risen Jesus

• In 1 Cor 15:1f Paul gives his version of events. But in Luke 24:13 (and remember, Luke was an educated Greek speaker) Luke “shows a close similarity to the report of the appearance of the deified Romulus, Dion. Hal. II.63.3f, and Livy I.16.5f

Gentiles and Jewish Law

• This should be a no-brainer. We know from Galatians 2:11-15 that Peter disagrees with Paul in this regard. But Acts 15:6-11 says that Peter disagreed with Paul.

Mission to the Gentiles

• This is another easy one. Most Christians know Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. He says he is, right there in Galatians 1-2. But if we turn to Acts 10-11, we see that it is Peter that starts the mission, and in Acts 15, Peter claims that no less than Jesus himself assigned Peter to this important task. If Paul lied about this, what else did he lie about? Conversely, if Acts lies, what else is Acts lying about?

The Meeting of Peter and Paul

• Acts 9:26-29 tells us that they met right after Paul’s adventure in Damascus. But Paul says in Galatians (1:16-18) that they met years later.

Paul on Circumcision

• In Acts 16 we see that Paul has Timothy circumcised to placate the Jewish Christians, but in Galatians 2:3 Paul refuses to allow Titus (who by the way is not even mentioned in Acts) to be circumcised to placate the Judaizers. He makes his point against circumcision again at 5:6-7. Was Paul afflicted by relativism or is one of our sources lying to us?

Did Paul go to Jerusalem?

• In Galatians 1:17 Paul says emphatically that he did not: “Before God, I do not lie!” (1:20). But In Acts 9:23-30 we are told that Paul went directly to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. This is naturally a rather important issue, since it has been claimed that Paul’s teachings were in line with the teachings of the community led by Peter, then James.

Paul’s Trip from Athens to Thessalonica

• In Acts 17:15 and 18:15 Timothy and Silas do not accompany Paul, but Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians that Timothy was with Paul in Athens, but was sent back to Thessalonica (3:1-2).

Paul’s Theology and Means of Salvation

• In Acts 13:16-42 Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. But in Paul’s epistles what we learn is that Christ’s death provides atonement for sins (a sacrifice made for the sins of others – “this atonement purchased a right standing before God” But forgiveness is being let off the hook altogether for something you’ve done, no requirements of payment. In Acts, sacrifice is required for forgiveness of the debt because this is Luke’s explanation for why Jesus had to die. Christ’s death here is an occasion for repentance. This is not the same as atonement, and this is an important theological problem indeed, not just a matter of peripheral details. This is yet another of those substantive contradictions that are not supposed to exist, and a rather important one at that.

Paul’s Devotion to Jewish Law

• Acts 21-22 and 28:17 shows that charges against Paul are trumped up. Paul has done nothing contrary to the Law. But in 1 Cor 9:21 and 2:11-14 we see that Paul could live like Jew or a Gentile yet attacks Cephas for not living like a Gentile. In Gal 2:21 Paul tells us that if the Law is necessary, then Jesus died in vain.

The Ascension

• Which version do we trust? That in Luke 24:50f or Acts 1.9f?

I think it should be clear from the above that "Luke" was not with Paul on his travels, did not know Paul (Luke and Acts were written much to late for that in any case) and that Acts especially is a work of pious fiction designed to create a myth of Jesus that appealed (or at least did not threaten) Pagan Rome. The "We" passages may well come from an earlier source but all the author apparently did was write a story around them, something any decent novelist does.

Finally, as Bart Ehrman points out in his examination of the Bible (The New Testament, 150): "There is only one certain reference to Luke in Paul's writings, Philemon 24, which neither calls him a Gentile nor identifies him as a physician. There would be no more reason for thinking that this person wrote Luke-Acts than anyone else Paul mentions in any of his letters."

Throwing back the shroud

2009-07-06T13:00:00.002-04:00

A little history (but not fantasy) for you all:

Oldest Known Bible Goes Online

FTA:

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

Imagine that!

The bible can be found here: Codex Sinaiticus Project

For more information on early Christianity as it was in truth and not in fantasy, I recommend two excellent books by Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford, 2003) and it's companion volume, Lost Scriptures (Oxford, 2003). And you can't go wrong by getting hold of Professor Ehrman's textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford, 2004).

Always remember, and this is a cautionary tale to all, not only Christians, that if you are going to base your religion on history, be aware that what's true of one period of history may not be (and probably won't be) true of another.

A Tale of Two Interfaces

2009-07-03T09:08:00.000-04:00

So here I am, summer half over, fall looming on the horizon, and many, if not most, of my landscaping projects addressed to various degrees of completion. I've spent a lot more time away from my projects here on the Internet than I ever intended, but to be honest, while I can talk about being a Pagan here online, I can be a Pagan outside. It's not that I'm less of a Pagan here, I suppose, but there is something far more tangible about the fresh air, the leaves, the loam, than words about those things.

And it's been a rewarding experience. The warmer, more humid weather has been somewhat limiting of late, as have the bugs, but I still get out as often as possible. I've also had to spend a couple of days nursing a sore foot. I seem to have become more injury prone as I've gotten older. Then again, there are a lot of ways to hurt yourself outside.

I suppose I shall just have to get used to the idea that winter is for the Internet and summer for the outdoors. I cannot keep up with one while doing the other. I will make this a blanket apology to all those whose blogs I normally visit with some degree of regularity. I haven't been good about that this summer, but then I haven't been good about visiting my own blog either! I've been intermittent at best. It's not that I don't have things to write about, or ideas of things to write about; it's just that I haven't had the time.

I wish everyone could get out in the yard and participate in nature's magic. I can only think of nature as the interface between Middle Earth and the Other World, the world of the divine which seeps through to surround us on all sides. Sitting at my desk can be comfortable, and though it functions as an interface (between me and you) it does not interface so well with the divine. I like clean hands but there is something magical and rewarding about sinking your hands into the soft, dark earth, feeling it and smelling it. I wear gloves to protect myself when I'm in among the weeds, but as often as possible I go bare handed when working in the soil. There is a connectedness that I would miss otherwise.

When I work on pruning plants, including some of the less healthy trees around the yard, I apologize to them. I like to touch the big old black walnuts in the backyard. I can almost feel the life humming through them. And I talk to them, and thank them, and stand back to admire them. What tree could resent that? They are good trees, not only in the sense that they do what such trees should, produce fruit, but they also provide shade for we humans. Good friends indeed, and as interfaces go, nothing to complain about.

The critters are nice too. I've seen lots of bunnies lately. They're fun to watch, noses scrunched up, little jaws working as they eat, hopping across the lawn with their legs tight together. Lots of squirrels, and even a chipmunk has joined the menagerie this past spring. I had a nice close look at the groundhog the other day as he crept along my landscaping in the front of the house, and the deer still come around from time to time and eat the fallen apples. And at night, from time to time, one of the raccoons comes up to the house to sample either the fallen berries or the bird food spread out on the ground or on the back steps. I woke up this morning and pulled the curtains and found a bunny staring at me.

So much as I've missed the Internet I've enjoyed the outdoors. It hasn't been as consistently unpleasant as last summer, which has helped, and I know the weather will offer even more opportunities as things cool towards fall. I hope to get back to all the Internet activities I've gotten started, including updating Mos Maiorum and being a regular again on the forums. I hope everyone will bear with me!

The Heathen Memory Project

2009-06-26T09:42:00.000-04:00

“Memory constructs identity”
- Regina Schwartz, The Curse of Cain, 143.

Our very lives are defined by our memories and we are the stuff of our experiences. Our memories of those experiences can be altered by our preconceptions, our prejudices, and even time, but those memories can also alter us. As Regina Schwartz says, they construct our identity. Why then are we so careless with our memories?

I’ve often wondered about my father’s and my mother’s memories. What were they? Were they mostly happy or sad? Good, or bad? As Heathens we see ourselves as defined by our time on this Middle Earth, and all that remains after we are gone to the Halls of our Ancestors is the memory of our deeds, for good or for ill. But when we are gone, so too disappear our own memories of all that we have seen and done. I will never know what my mother’s memories of her life were, or my father’s. I wish I could access my parents' memories, not only for their historical value of times gone by, but for the insight they would offer with regards to their makeup. I knew them both externally, but what made them who they were is lost to me. What they did not write down is gone. What they did share that I did not write down is gone. What remains is memories of memories.

I do not think it is self indulgent to want our children to know what we know. Rather, I think it is one of the most important and necessary functions we can perform both as inheritors and progenitors. Our ancestors felt it important to pass on the myths of our people. They were memories of a people, the identity of a people. To lose them is to lose us, to be set adrift and with no way home.

Nor should what we impart to them begin and end with “Don’t buy magic beans with your grocery money.” There is so much more we can tell them, so much more we can teach them, and not only of ourselves but through ourselves, the world. There are so many things our parents tell us, things they try to share or to teach that at 15 we are too arrogant to heed and which at 50 we can no longer remember. How wonderful it would be if we could retrieve those words like the fragile and precious treasures they are. But that hope is beyond most of us, and with the passing of years go not only what remains of their memories but also our own.

Over the past few years I have lost both my parents and a father-in-law I loved as a parent. But I have lost more than their mere physical presence. I have lost the sum total of all that they were, good and bad, their dreams, their desires and aspirations, their joys and their sorrows, their successes and failures; in short, all those things that made them what they were. In the end, we fragile humans are more than the sum of our parts, more even than the much vaunted union of mind and body, and if you believe in such things, soul.

I don’t want my children to lose me in the same way I have lost my parents, in such a totality. I would like to leave something of myself for them, part of who I am, who I was, and who I would like to be, or to have been, because when I am gone, so too will my memories pass away. But we are part of a lineage, we Heathens, stretching not only back into the known past but into the unknown future. It seems only fitting that we be able not only to listen to the voices of our ancestors but to speak to our descendants, those whose path we have prepared for by our time on this Middle Earth.

To that end, it is imperative that we let our voices be heard by our children, and by their children. The best method of preserving our memories in a non-oral society is to put them to “paper” – be that paper the product of mills or electrons, as is this document. There are various ways we can go about doing this. We can write letters to our children, to be read when they are old enough, or when we have gone to the Halls of our Ancestors. Or we can keep journals, or diaries, or record our thoughts and memories for them to listen to in our own voices. And these recordings, in whatever medium, should be backed up against the threat of the elements and of time and stored in safe places. In this way, what we have to tell can be heard when our children are ready to listen, and not when they know too much to listen to us, to “benefit from our years of experience” as my father used to put it. And perhaps then, when they are old enough, and wise enough, they will understand us better, and through us, themselves, and the past, our past, which is also their past, will not perish, and be forgotten, but will remain the memory of our people.

We are both inheritors and progenitors, but we have lost the ability to function in that latter sense. We have been conditioned to think only in terms of ourselves, our generation, and of our individual salvation, and not about past or future generations. The past is gone and so our interests there tend to be little more than abstract, while the future has not yet happened and so is intangible. Little thought is given to what we leave our children and such efforts are usually devoted to physical inheritances. Memories are seldom the stuff of last wills and testaments. But they can, and should be, at least as important as money.

Do not let your memories be lost. We are all of us part of a lineage, and we all of us have an obligation not only to our dead ancestors, but to our unborn descendents. As the Hávamál says,

Cattle die,
kinsmen die,
oneself dies likewise,
but good renown
will never die
for him who earns it.

Sadly, in our non-oral society, this is no longer true. Memories do die, and daily, because we no longer honor them, and treasure them, or pass them along from one generation to the next. Ask yourself: How many people are familiar with the deeds of their ancestors beyond perhaps a parent or a grandparent? I know that my maternal grandfather served in the US Navy in China and his father was a policeman. His father served in the Sixth Minnesota Regiment of Volunteer Infantry in the Civil War. Of my paternal grandparents and beyond I know almost nothing. All has been lost to the passing of years. Not even a story survives, and my father went to his grave refusing to speak of his own deeds in the Second World War, marking a voluntary withdrawal from his own lineage, a recluse in more than one sense of the word. But even when a few details are remembered, a good name no longer has the value it once had. No one cares, unless you are the child of a celebrity, whose son you are, or what his deeds might have been. But this can change, and we can be the instrument of that change. It is no small undertaking, but it is not a difficult one by any means. It lacks only the will. You can be that will.

None of us want to think about our end. But it will come nonetheless, sooner or (we all hope) later. The best way to prepare for that time is not savings and not investments or even wills, but memories. Making accessible the true wealth of our time here on Middle Earth, our experiences. Share your lineage; pass it along. You are only borrowing it for a short time anyway and it belongs to the whole line of your people.

Finding Home - The Old Religion

2009-06-26T09:09:00.001-04:00

I want to thank Granamyr for pointing this lovely video out to me. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did. It speaks to the heart.

An Encounter with the Nine Herbs Charm

2009-06-19T09:09:00.008-04:00

I had an encounter with the old Saxon Nine Herbs Charm yesterday. Not in a book, but in my yard. I was doing some landscaping and came across some stinging nettles. I wear leather gloves when pulling weeds because the yard is full of poison ivy and other less than friendly forms of flora, but in this case, the nettles went right through my gloves. I must have pulled up a dozen of them at least, enough to make all sorts of healing compounds, I'd imagine, and to give me shiny hair for a month.

I can understand now why Shakespeare used "nettle" to describe an annoyance. Fortunately, I am not as severely affected by poison ivy and other "itchy" plants so my reaction is rather mild, if annoying. Even so, I have learned something valuable and will always, in the future, recognize at least this particular plant! I am not well versed in herb lore, but as they say, we learn through experience :)

The charm:[1]

Remember, Wormwood, what thou didst reveal,
What thou didst prepare at the great proclamation.
' Una' thou art named, the eldest of herbs;
Thou art strong against three and against thirty,
Thou art strong against venom and against infection,
Thou art strong against the Evil Thing that goes throughout the
land.

And thou, Plantain, mother of herbs,
Open from the east, mighty within.
Over thee carts creaked, queens rode over thee,

Over thee brides made cries, bulls gnashed over thee. 10

All those thou didst withstand, and dashed against them ;
So mayst thou withstand venom and infection
And the Evil Thing that goes throughout the land.

Water-cress is this herb named ; it grew on stone.
It stands against venom, it fights against pain.

Nettle is this called; it dashes against venom,
It drives away cruel things, it casts out venom.
This is the herb that fought with the snake ;
This is strong against venom, this is strong against infection,
This is strong against the Evil Thing that goes throughout the 20
land.

Fly now, Betonica, the less from the greater,
The greater from the less, till there be to them a cure for both.

Remember, Camomile, what thou didst make known,
What thou didst bring to pass at Alorford,
That for the flying ill he never yielded up his life
After one prepared Camomile for him to eat.

This is the herb that is called Wild-Apple.
The seal sent this over the back of the sea,
To heal the hurt of other venom.

These nine attacked nine venoms. 30

A serpent came sneaking; he slew a man.
Then took Woden nine glory-twigs,

Smote the serpent then so that it flew in nine pieces;
There the apple ended it and its venom,
So that it never would enter house again.

Thyme and Fennel, two exceeding mighty ones,
These herbs the wise Lord made,
Holy in the heavens; He let them down,
40 Placed them, and sent them into the seven worlds
As a cure for all, the poor and the rich.
It stands against pain, it dashes against venom,
It is strong against three and against thirty,

Against the hand of an enemy and against the hand of the cursed, . . . And against the bewitching of my creatures.

Now these nine herbs are strong against nine cursed things, against nine venoms and against nine infections : against the red venom, against the gray venom, against the white venom, against the blue venom, against the 5o yellow venom, against the green venom, against the black venom, against the brown venom, against the purple venom ; against snake-blister, against water-blister, against thorn-blister, against thistle-blister, against ice-blister, against poison-blister; if any venom come flying from the east, or if any come from the north, or any from the west over the people.

Christ stood over venom of every kind. I alone know running water, and the nine serpents behold it. All grasses may spring up with herbs, the sea vanish away, all the salt water, when I blow this venom from thee.[2]

Notes:

[1] Taken from Select Translations from Old English Poetry by Albert Stanburrough Cook, Chauncey Brewster Tinker (1902), 169-170.
[2] For the Nine Herbs Charm aloud, in beautiful, original Saxon, see http://fred.wheatonma.edu/wordpressmu/mdrout/category/nine-herbs-charm/

Some Sad News

2009-06-11T13:14:00.004-04:00

Speaking of ancestry, my ex-sister-in-law has gone on to join her ancestors. She died on the 8th, and she will be missed. She was light, bright, and full of fun, and leaves two children behind. Her father preceded her some years ago. He was as good a man as any who has lived, in my opinion, and was more a father to me than my biological father. The world was made a lesser place without him. But now his daughter is with him and perhaps they'll lift a cup of mead in toast to us here. I know I will do likewise from my perch here on Midgard.

I don't know how to write a real eulogy, and I don't want to make this a opportunity to talk about Heathen ideas of the afterlife so I'll just say that I last saw my former sister-in-law about three years ago, when my son Ross and I stopped at her place to say "hi" on our way out west. I regret that I didn't have an opportunity then to visit much, and that I didn't get to see her again before she died. I will miss her, and I know her sisters and family will miss her. One day perhaps we'll meet again on the other side.

A Bit More on Heathen (Ancestral) Values

2009-06-10T13:17:00.003-04:00

Quite a few Heathens, no doubt, have seen the film 13th Warrior, based upon Michael Crichton's novel "Eaters of the Dead", itself inspired by the actual historical account of the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan.

They are equally well aware of the prayer uttered by the beleaguered Norsemen as they make their final stand against overwhelming odds. It's the best, and most moving part of the film. Fewer people may know that Michael Crichton took his inspiration from the account of the real Ibn Fadlan. Here is the Crichton version:

'Lo, there do I see my father. 'Lo, there do I see
My mother, and my sisters, and my brothers.
'Lo, there do I see
The line of my people
Back to the beginning.
'Lo, they do call to me.
They bid me take my place among them.
In the halls of Valhalla
Where the brave may live forever.

And the Ibn Fadlan original:

"The first time they raised her she said, 'Behold, I see my father and mother.'
The second time she said, 'I see all my dead relatives seated.'
The third time she said, 'I see my master seated in Paradise and Paradise is beautiful and green; with him are men and boy servants.
He calls me. Take me to him.' "

Obviously, the Crichton version is more poetic and stirring, but we have to remember the Norse gift for poetry and the fact the Ibn Fadlan had the words through an interpreter, and that Muslim concepts of the afterlife no doubt colored his understanding of what he heard, the idea of "paradise" for example. It is clear that Crichton captured the essence and spirit of the original heard by Fadlan.

Another film that captures the Heathen spirit perfectly is Lord of the Rings. The Rohirrim, few Heathens will have failed to notice, are quintessentially Heathen in their attitudes. And when Theoden King falls before the Witch King, the words he speaks to Eowyn are perfectly Heathen, and perfectly in accord with my previous "Heathen Values" post:

I go to my fathers in whose mighty company I shall not now feel ashamed."

Finally, an example of how important ancestors were to our own ancestors, I will provide the example of the Norwegian Heathens who, in the tenth century, demanded that King Hákon participate in their rites by drinking toasts not only to the gods Oðinn, Þórr, Njörðr, Freyr and Bragi but to "their kinsmen who lay in barrows."

I realize ancestry isn't important to many modern Pagans, particular of the New Age variety, but that is why we Heathens are Heathens, I suppose :)

Pagan Values Month - Heathen Values

2009-06-09T09:19:00.006-04:00

Since this is Pagan Values Month, I've tried to put together a post on just that. This is my third post of the day, so apologize for the sudden string (if you're interested, there is below this a petition from MoveOn.org about clean energy, and photos of my landscaping project).

For Heathens, ancestry is very important. We might almost say it's central. So much depends upon not only who you are, but where you came from. None of us can say we "know" our ancestors. Most of them are long dead. But it is there actions that have placed us on this Middle Earth (Midgard), providing us with our "starting locations".

In the old days, it was your lineage that told, not your credit score. Your word, your honor, was critically important. If you were the son of an outlaw, it diminished you. We still haven't escaped the idea of "guilt by association" though to most of us it probably seems backwards. But in those days such things had to matter. We didn't have any way to check credentials or do background checks or "vet" a person. But if you were the son of an honorable man, whose deeds were known, it put you in good stead with your fellows. I suppose the idea must have been that a good man would not raise a "thug" or a ne'er-do-well.

In our American West - and I think this is the true origins of our sense of individualism - it really didn't matter who your family was. Many people changed their names. They forged new identities, new lives, based on their own actions. This sort of rugged individualism is sometimes thought of as Heathen but only if you're speaking of the Viking Age, when society changed drastically. In older Heathen society, family did matter. Name mattered.

So the value I want to stress is ancestry.

Is ancestry a value? Yes. We, as Heathens, desire to honor our ancestors. We wish, when our time comes, to go before them with our heads held high. To have honored them through our words and deeds, and to be worthy ancestors of those who follow us on Midgard.

If you honor your ancestors, if you value what they have done, you will strive to be less selfish, to be more conscious of the ripple effect of your actions. You are not only living in accord with a lineage, but you are continuing it, and passing it on. You are inheritor and progenitor both. It isn't the selfish idea of rewards but a sense of selflessness, of duty.

Certainly, good reaps good and bad reaps bad. Certainly we believe that we are rewarded for our good actions. Actions performed on behalf of the family, clan, or in the wider sense, community, bring rewards. And this is good. But our actions help all. They are not focused on the self at the expense of the community because what helps the community is good; what hurts it is evil.

And if you remember ancestry, if you remember to think about the lineage of those you deal with, you can avoid much evil. Remember, you are affected by those with whom you come into contact. Associate with good people, not with bad, not with those with a bad reputation. You do not want their bad orlog to wash over you. There are outlaws, even if they haven't been put into a prison, they have placed themselves outside the bounds of the community, the innangarðr, and by their actions have put friends, family, and community aside. I do not think such an outlaw, such a niðling, can go, head held high, before his ancestors.

So this rugged individualism isn't really much of a good thing for a traditional-sort of Heathen. Remember your ancestors. Remember their deeds, for though you may die, the memory of your deeds will not be forgotten, and that is how you will be judged by those who come after. And that is as should be.

Clean Energy

2009-06-09T09:02:00.003-04:00

I am posting this at the request of MoveOn.org. I hope everyone will sign the petition.

It's 2009. Democrats have ample majorities in both houses of Congress. President Obama campaigned on the promise to tackle climate change and boost our economy by investing in clean energy.

So why on earth is Congress considering an energy bill that:

* Would weaken current law, repealing President Obama's authority to crack down on dirty power plants,1 and
* Doesn't actually require the creation of new solar or wind power? (The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that the clean energy standards won't make power companies produce more clean energy than is already in the works.)2

Why? Because Big Oil and Coal have teamed up with conservatives in both parties, and they've been successful in weakening the bill.

These are major flaws, but the bill has a lot of really good provisions, too. The key thing is that Congress can still strengthen it—if there's a public outcry. But we don't have much time: Congress is expected to vote on this bill in less than three weeks.Can you sign this petition to Representative Mark Souder today? Eighty thousand MoveOn members have already signed. We need to double the number of signatures by Wednesday—that means we need 34 more signatures in Fort Wayne. MoveOn members will personally deliver this petition to many congressional offices the next day. Click here to add your name:

Petition

The petition says: "We need a stronger energy bill to fulfill Obama's vision of a clean energy economy. Congress should strengthen the clean energy standards and restore Obama's authority to crack down on dirty coal plants."

Congress must change the energy bill to require power companies to produce more clean energy for America. Wind and solar create more than twice as many jobs as coal and oil.3 And Congress needs to hold polluters accountable by restoring President Obama's current authority through the EPA to crack down on global warming pollution from power plants.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analysis finds that the current version of the clean energy standard "won't require utilities to use any more renewable electricity than...would be generated as a result of state renewable electricity standards already in place and the recently enacted stimulus package."4

If we just sit back, we'll miss our chance to go big with wind and solar—and we'll lose the jobs those industries would create. Big Oil and Coal will keep getting billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. And President Obama will be powerless to stop more than 100 new dirty coal plants, which will crowd out the clean energy growth we need to boost our economy.5

There are some good parts of the bill, but these are significant problems. As the Sierra Club's Carl Pope writes, the bill establishes strong long-term goals for cutting carbon pollution and very strong energy-efficiency investments, "but in its present form, it won't do all that's needed. The oil, coal, and dirty-utility interests...were able to prevent enactment of President Obama's much bolder vision...Yes, they will try to kill the green-jobs recovery in its cradle, and yes, they will try to block our clean-energy future."6

Please urge Rep. Souder to fight for a stronger energy bill. Clicking here will add your name to the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/cleanenergy/o.pl?id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=5

Thanks for all you do.

–Anna, Michael, Joan, Noah and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Bill Needs Strengthening to Guarantee Necessary Carbon Reductions, New Green Jobs and Consumer Benefits, Science Group Says," Union of Concerned Scientists, May 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51475&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=6

2. "EPA urged to act on climate, not wait for Congress," Associated Press, May 18, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51479&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=7

"American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Library of Congress, May 15, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51482&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=8

3. "Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy," Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 2008
http://www.peri.umass.edu/green_recovery/

4. "Bill Needs Strengthening to Guarantee Necessary Carbon Reductions, New Green Jobs and Consumer Benefits, Science Group Says," Union of Concerned Scientists, May 14, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51475&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=9

5. "Stopping the Coal Rush," Sierra Club
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51483&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=10

6. "So How Good Is This Climate Bill, Anyhow?" Sierra Club, May 22, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51478&id=16315-6770804-h.O2CKx&t=11

Landscaping Project Unveiled

2009-06-09T08:44:00.003-04:00

Here are some photos of my landscaping project, over which I uttered the blessing previously posted. First is what I hope is an omen of health - a friendly little amphibian. Since these guys are the first ones to suffer when the environment changes, I do take his presence as a harbinger of success.

This is a long view of the project, looking towards the street. It looks empty in the back (left side) because my four little festuca there are so small they really don't show up. After fertilizing again and the recent rains, they're actually (finally) growing. I don't suppose they'll catch the bigger plants this year but they're perennials so there is always next year!

For the record, the larger and darker plants are something called "Red Fountain Grass" (Pennisetum setaceum 'Rubrum'), which grow to about 5 feet in height, and the smaller ones in the same row are an upright perennial called "Merleau Blue Salvia, which should grow to about 12" (they're nearly there). The plants along the border are all festuca.

This is the centerpiece of the project, an old piece of fence I stained and stuck down into the clay (no - it's not going anywhere). The birds have already given it their own blessing, as you can see. The rocks I pulled up from various places around the yard, one of them from the little creek way in the back. It was covered with muck but cleaned up nicely (it's the big one on the right (near) side. You can barely see the two small lights I put in front of the big rocks. They get plenty of sunlight so they light up well at night.

Finally, here is a larger view, looking down the street. As you can see, the plants in my driveway are dying (I used the good stuff on them before they could take over). I still have to weed a bit around the project but I thought it turned out well, and pretty much as I had envisioned.

A Heathen Blessing for Planting

2009-06-02T10:51:00.003-04:00

I finished my planting today, putting in my precious and very hard to find festuca. I ended up with four very small and fragile plants from the original 12 I ordered, and eight more from the local Lowe's which are both bigger and hardier. I offered this blessing as I did my planting. I will post pictures tomorrow, when the light is (hopefully) better.

(Lifting the plant to be put into the soil before you)
May the Lord and the Lady (i.e. Freyr and Freyja)
Bless you
And Grant you long life
and good health

For you are as much a part of this world as I am

(as you place the plant in the ground)
What I take away from Midgard (i.e. the earth) [I cut down plants/trees, pull weeds, etc]
I return to it. [by planting new things - restoring balance]

(as you fill in the soil around the plant)
Grow well little children of the soil
under sun and moon and stars
This blessing I offer

Persecution Myths: Nero

2009-05-27T13:25:00.002-04:00

I’ve discussed some persecution myths already, but only as groundwork for the “big one” if we can call it that. This is the persecution that every Christian KNOWS happened. I knew it happened when I was a Christian. I mean, it just did. Everyone knows that.

But it didn’t.

Yes, this is one of those stories that is told that nobody has any proof for whatsoever. Sort of like the silly stories saying Custer walked into an ambush at the Little Big Horn. He didn’t. He surprised the Native American camp that day – not just once, but twice. Not bad. And not at all what you’ve been led to believe. There are other myths surrounding that battle but this is not the place for them. My point is that we “know” things to be true that are not, in fact, true.

In large part, this is why I started this blog. To make people stop and think. Mostly, I wanted to make them stop and think about Heathen matters. It IS a Heathen’s Day, after all. But each Christian myth is damaging to Paganism in some way, and I mean, to all Pagans. So it is worth my time to clear the air a bit. So I’ll go ahead here and challenge this popularly held assumption, what we might refer to as the First Urban Legend.

1. Introduction

It is during Nero’s reign that we come to the first supposed persecution of Christianity. It is a much heralded, much alluded to moment in Christian history, a litmus test in Christian identity, the point at which Christ’s suffering comes to fruition. The image is indelible, the huddled, helpless families in the arena, awaiting their deaths at the hands of wild beasts.

For centuries, we have been told it did; not only by apologists but by filmmakers and even scholars. That Eusebius of the 20th century, W.H.C. Frend has in his monumental and influential magnum opus The Rise of Christianity, a chapter entitled “The Neronian Persecution” and almost any history of Christianity you care to look at will makes similar claims.[1] For example, evangelical Bible scholar Ben Witherington III states as fact that after the burning of Rome “Nero launched a limited persecution of Christians, blaming them for the fire.”[2] Frend opens his chapter with that all-too familiar refrain of the apologist, “Why?”: “Why Nero attempted to make the Christians the scapegoats for the disastrous fire on 19 July 64 that gutted entire districts of the city is unknown.”[3] Why indeed? A great many presuppositions lay behind this single line of text:

1. That there were Gentile Christians in Rome to persecute

2. That Nero did blame the fire on them,

3. That they were innocent of the charges, and,

4. That they were persecuted as a result

There are great many “ifs” here and they ought to give us pause. Do we have good reasons for making the assumptions Frend does? There certainly ought to be better reasons than simply stating “we know it’s true” which seems to be the motivating factor in apologetics, and sadly, all too often in historiography. Simply repeating what everyone else has said hardly constitutes a legitimate source.

First of all, where does our evidence come from? In fact we are not without evidence from the Pagan Roman camp for this event as it is described for us by both Suetonius (born c. 70) and Tacitus (born c. 56), who both grew up in the post-fire Rome, as well as by Dio, writing later. These accounts all have a common (anti-Neronian) source, perhaps Fabius Rusticus.[4] We also have some later sources, which appear to be based on these accounts but which do not qualify as independent witnesses in themselves. The most important fact to keep in mind is this: All – that is to say, 100% - Christian witnesses date from a much later period. We will examine the evidence more fully in due course. A brief review will suffice for now.

Since apologists seem determined to conflate two separate incidents it is important that we look first to what our biographer Suetonius has to say. In his Life of Nero he says “punishment” by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, “adherents of a new and dangerous superstition.”[5] Note that no executions or tortures are mentioned, despite Suetonius’ well known appetite for salacious rumor-mongering. If there was any muck, or any hint of muck, Suetonius would be throwing it about promiscuously. Significantly, he does not.

Christian tradition has it that both Peter and Paul died in the persecution along with 977 other Christians.[6] Contrary to the assertions of apologists McDowell and Wilson (1988), who claim that this testimony “verifies” that Christians were “being put to death” for their beliefs, the account of Suetonius only indicates that the Christians were punished by Nero for “mischievous” behavior.[7] The implication made here by apologists is that there was a body of Gentile Christians in Rome of great enough size to be persecuted, let alone noticed by the authorities and both of these assumptions, as we shall see, are more wishful than fact-based. Earliest Christianity was a form of messianic Judaism. Jesus himself was executed for sedition and it is unlikely his followers would have been seen in a better light. Indeed, if followers of “Christ” they must be Jewish as Paul only began his mission to the Gentiles in 45 CE and had not preached in Rome. The “Christians” he writes to in the mid-50s (Epistle to the Romans) indicate that his audience had not yet heard Paul’s gospel and the last passages in Acts (28.23-31) show Paul preaching to Jews, not Gentiles.[8] This is assuming that we can trust Acts that Paul reached Rome at all.

The most important thing to remember is that Nero did not operate in a vacuum. Like Claudius he inherited an empire in which certain forces were at work, and had been at work for two centuries.[9] It displays a deplorable excess of enthusiasm, not to say naiveté, to assert that Nero could have ignored or operated outside of the forces at work around him. The Great Men and Women of history are as often swept up in the tides of history as direct them, and Nero, while his reputation has no doubt suffered unfairly, cannot be accounted one of the Great Men of history, however charitable we wish to be in our assessment of his reign. Nero’s reputation makes it difficult enough to arrive at the facts. Probably no figure before Hitler was so reviled.[10] When apologists speak of the “first persecution” they not only make a “fact” out of thin air and very little evidence but they take whatever event did happen out of context, that context being the wider Roman world and the escalation of messianic tensions in Palestine in particular.

It is up to the historian, if not the theologian, to remember the “when” and the “where” and these when added to the equation change our entire perspective. With Messianic expectation at a fever pitch in Palestine, we are no doubt justified in saying, to paraphrase Juvenal, that like the Orontes, the Jordan had overflowed into the Tiber, bringing the woes of the provinces to the heart of the empire.[11] Any emperor would be quick to react to this sort of trouble, and obviously Nero, whatever his faults as a ruler, attempted to do just that, just as Claudius and Tiberius had before him. So let us here at least, rather than condemn out of hand, give Nero his due and see what ailed his empire, examine what processes may have been at work and what actions he may have taken in response to them.

2. Evidence

Let’s return now to the fire in Rome. Our next important source for these events is Tacitus. It is important to examine what Tacitus has to say in full:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.[12]

Obviously, this is just a little too good to be true for Christians! It even mentions Pontius Pilate. But in knowing the identity of the governor in question, we would also be right to expect Tacitus to know his correct title, and Tacitus does not. Pilate was not a procurator, but prefect (praefectus iudaeae) of the province.[13] Any official records we can expect Tacitus to have consulted to learn Pilate’s name would have confirmed his correct title. The Christian interpolating this bit into the text, operating from a later period when the governor was indeed a procurator would not have known that the governors were procurators only after 44 CE (Pilate was recalled in 36). The suggestion sometimes made that Tacitus might have misinterpreted an abbreviation like “Pr” also does not seem reasonable. Certainly, a well educated Roman aristocrat and historian, a man who had himself served as governor of a province and worked his way through the cursus honorum, would have known better than any modern historian or apologist what “Pr” stood for!

There are varying opinions in the world of scholarship concerning the source for Tacitus’ information about Christians. Operating with an assumption of the Standard Model, Norman Perrin concludes that Tacitus’ information probably came from local Christian hearsay and police interrogations,[14] while Robert van Voorst overoptimistically believes that “the most likely source of Tacitus’ information about Christ is Tacitus’ own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly”[15] which seems unlikely given how few Gentile Christians there were in the first century. John P. Meier posits that “It could be, instead, that Tacitus is simply repeating what was common knowledge about Christians about the beginning of the 2d century.”[16] In the end we will never know, and as Michael Grant points out in reference to Tacitus, “systematic, careful references are a modern invention.”[17] But it must be remembered, against the Standard Model, that we are talking about a population in Rome of Jewish messianists, not Gentile Christians, during Nero’s reign, while by the time Tacitus wrote, the ratio would have been reversed, with far more Gentile Christians and likely (in the wake of the Jewish War) a much diminished number of Jewish messianists.

Whatever the sources Tacitus used for this account, and however much of it is genuinely his, we should examine what his contemporary Suetonius had to say about the famous fire and its consequences:

Yet he spared neither the people nor the fabric of his ancestral city. When someone in general conversation quoted the Greek phrase ‘When I am dead, let earth go up in flames’, he responded, ‘Rather, “while I live”’, and acted accordingly. For, as if he were upset by the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow and twisting streets, he set fire to the city, so openly indeed that some ex-consuls, when they came upon his servants equipped with kindling and torches on their property, did not stop them. He greatly desired some land near the Golden House, then occupied by granaries, and had them torn down and burnt using military machinery because their walls were made of stone. For six days and seven nights destruction raged and the people were forced to take shelter in monuments and tombs. During that time, besides the enormous number of apartment blocks, the houses of great generals of old, together with the spoils of battle which still adorned them, the temples of the gods, too, which had been vowed and dedicated by Rome’s kinds and later in he Punic and Gallic wars, and every other interesting or memorable survival from the olden days went up in flames. Nero watched the fire from the tower of Maecenas, delighted with what he termed ‘the beauty of the flames’ and, dressed in his stage attire, he sang of ‘the Fall of Troy’. And lest he should lose any opportunity of securing spoils and booty even from this, he undertook to have the corpses and ruins cleared at his own expense, allowing no one to come near the remains of their own property. Not merely receiving contributions but extorting them, he bled dry both the provinces and the fortunes of private individuals.[18]

Like Tacitus, Suetonius is hostile to Nero but clearly knows nothing about any blame for the fire falling on Christians, much less a persecution that allegedly claimed “multitudes”. The only clear similarity is the accusation that Nero was himself responsible for the conflagration but there is a difference even there, for Tacitus has doubts about Nero’s culpability while Suetonius embraces it. Obviously, and despite the efforts of apologists to squeeze proof of persecution out of these accounts, our sources offer nothing of the sort. Suetonius’ brief mention of the Christians being punished comes earlier in chapter 16 and no connection is made by the author to the fire. In fact, in chapter 16 Christians are mentioned right alongside Nero’s banishment of other troublemakers, such as chariot drivers, actors and their partisans. From this we could infer only that Christians might have been included in a general clean-up of the city, ridding it of those who are guilty of disorderly conduct, much in line with Tiberius’ actions of 19 CE but not as a result of blame falling on them for the fire. And as we have seen, “punishments” are hardly the stuff of a persecution. Based on what we know, we might as well accuse Nero of persecuting actors and charioteers! Doubtless there were more of them in Rome than Gentile Christians. It is important to note that Suetonius calls Christians “adherents of a new and dangerous superstition.” Superstition is exactly what the Romans would have deemed messianism and dangerous they were indeed. While it is a stretch to see in these Christians the Gentile sort, it is an easy fit when one puts Jewish messianists in their place.

Not only Suetonius is silent about a relationship between the fire and Christians; Dio Cassius also fails to mention it. And the next source to bring up the connection is Sulpicius Severus, who comes along three centuries later and therefore cannot qualify as an independent witness.[19] That the account of the fire as we have it had not undergone its final redaction can be proven by appeal to Tertullian, who says “consult your sources; you will find that Nero was the first to assailed with the sword the Christian sect.”[20] But he makes no mention of Christians allegedly setting Rome on fire, so we can deduce that it had not yet been added to Tacitus, and T.D. Barnes shows that in any event Tertullian’s account is modeled on that of Melito, who is cited by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (EH 4.26) so Tertullian cannot stand as an independent witness.[21]

Irenaeus goes further yet; he makes no mention of any persecution under Nero at all! None. Origen, writing in the third century, has little to say about any persecutions, saying only that “a few, whose number could be easily enumerated, have died occasionally for the sake of the Christian religion,”[22] and Eusebius satisfies himself with the remark that Nero was “the first of the emperors who showed himself to be an enemy of the divine religion” but makes no mention of “multitudes” of believers suffering martyrdom.[23] In other words, the silence from the early Christian sources is deafening. We might note also that Frend draws attention to the fact that Tacitus’ passage replicates motifs and language from Livy’s account of the Bacchanal conspiracy. For instance, “immense multitude” is also found in Livy.[24] But if we are working with the Standard Model, how could there even be a multitude of Christians in Rome? There could not. But there could be a multitude of Jews – twenty thousand or so in number.

Still, being a prisoner to the traditional orthodox view of Christian history, our Standard Model, W.H.C. Frend is able to embark upon what can only generously be termed fantasy:

On this reading of the evidence, the persecution represented a triumph for the orthodox Jews, who were able, through influence at Court, to shift the odium of the outbreak on to the hated schismatics, the Christian synagogue. This they hoped to destroy at a single tremendous blow. In the persons of Poppaea Sabina and the actor Tigellinus they had the ear of the Emperor, and they succeeded in so far as a great number of Christians were killed, including the leaders, Peter and Paul.[25]

How Frend arrives at this conclusion is difficult to understand. Certainly no known source details the arrest and execution of Peter and Paul under these circumstances. Indeed, no source places either of them in Rome at the time of the fire! Central to Christian self-understanding is the myth of persecution, that there was a distinctive new religion created by Jesus and his followers which was immediately persecuted by the Jews, so naturally enough, the Jews are really to blame, and we see the same thing from Paul Keresztes, who asserts that "on the basis of ancient Christian sources (e.g., 1 Clem 5; 6), ... modern writers --i.e., Allard [1903], Canfield [1913], Klette [1907], Bacchus [1908], and Frend [1965])-- feel certain that the Christians were finally persecuted as a result of Jewish intrigues."[26] But this assessment is without foundation outside of the mythology Christianity has surrounded itself with.

There are problems aplenty: the term “Jews” is one – there was no monolithic Judaism at the time and its hardly likely the various sects cooperated to persecute the Christians when there is no sign of persecution of any other Jewish sect by another. A second problem is proving that anything like Gentile Christianity even existed at this point. This is the 60s CE. The Roman church has yet to be founded. Paul is dead. His congregations are leaderless and likely fell under the influence of his enemies in Jerusalem, and there could never have been many of them in the first place. Scholarship must get past the idea of a monolithic Judaism but also of a Gentile Christianity that has yet to appear in any identifiable form. As for enemies, certainly the Herodians would wish to do away with the messianists (Essene, Fourth Philosophy or any other sort) because they upset the status-quo and threatened their own positions of power, and the messianists in turn wanted to do away with the Herodians. But with Paul gone probably nobody was paying any attention to the few Gentile Christians remaining in scattered congregations in Greece and Asia and the idea that a Jewish conspiracy fixed the blame on a band of Gentile Christians who cannot be proven to have existed in the first place must be seen as the myth it is.

3. Summary

1. Christians claim that Tacitus provides proof of a Neronian persecution.

But if Nero persecuted the Christians, and Tacitus provides proof, then why:

1. Why do our other Pagan sources, who were doubtless familiar with Tacitus, not mention it?

a. Suetonius (2nd century)

b. Dio Cassius (2nd century)

2. Why do our earliest Christian sources not mention it?

a. Irenaeus (2nd century)

b. Origen (3rd century)

As we have noted, Sulpicius Severus simply repeats Tacitus. But between Nero and Severus, nobody seems aware that Tacitus mentioned that Nero had blamed the Christians for the fire. We can reasonably deduce then that in the span of those three centuries, Tacitus lacked the account quoted by Severus.

The sole Christian to mention a Neronian persecution is Tertullian (2nd century) but Tertullian leaves out anything about a fire, or Christians being blamed for it. For Melito, who was Tertullian's source, bad emperor's MUST have persecuted Christians. Since Nero was a bad emperor, he must have persecuted Christians. Hardly a compelling argument!

This, along with the evidence cited above, should put paid to any ideas about a sociopathic Pagan emperor setting fire to Rome and then blaming the Christian superstition for it.

If any sort of action took place in the first century, it was against Jewish messianists, not Gentile Christians, of whom there would have been few or none in the first place.

4. Notes

[1] William Hugh Clifford Frend (1916-2005) was for a long time Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Dean of the Faculty of Divinity, in the University of Glasgow 1969-84 (Emeritus 1984-2005) won many academic honors and authored several works, including The Donatist Church (1952) and the tendentiously titled Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965)..

[2] Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 326.

[3] W.H.C. Friend, The Rise of Christianity, 109.

[4] Gregory N. Daugherty, “The Cohortes Vigilum and the Great Fire of 64 AD,” The Classical Journal 87 (1992), 229-240.

[5] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Nero, 16.2. Suetonius includes this event among Nero’s “good deeds”.

[6] Frend, The Rise of Chrsitianity, 109. These are listed in Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Acta Sanctorum), ed. L. Duchesne and J.B. de Rossi (Brussels, 1894).

[7] McDowell and Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville: Thames Nelson, 1988), 53.

[8] Gerd Lüdemann’s revised chronology (shared by Niels Hyldahl) places the start of Paul’s mission in 35 and his letter to the Romans in the winter of 53/54. See Acts of the Apostles, 357-360 for Lüdemann’s revised chronology.

[9] Very much like any American president today. And Nero (or Claudius before him) could no more have given Judaea to the Zealots than an American president could give South Dakota to the American Indian Movement..

[10] In his City of God, Augustine compares Nero’s deeds to those of the antichrist (City of God XX.19.3) and in recent times Delbert Hillers (Hillers, Delbert, “Rev. 13, 18 and a scroll from Murabba’at”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 170 [1963], 65) has suggested that the number “666” in the Revelation of John is a code for Nero. The BBCs resource on historical figures simply refers to his reputation “as an ineffectual, neglectful and brutal leader.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/nero.shtml Few people have anything good to say about Nero.

[11] The poet "Juvenal" (Decimus Junius Juvenalis), who lived in the late first and early second century CE issued the lament: “The Syrian Orontes has long since poured into the Tiber.”

[12] Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, chapter 44.

[13] We know that Pilate was prefect and not procurator thanks to a well known discovery made by Italian archaeologist Antonio Frova in 1961. In the old provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima he found a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum, which not only named Pilate [...]TIVS PILATV[...] but gave his title as [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (praefectus iudaeae). It is now in the Israel Museum and Jerusalem. See Jerry Vardaman “A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as ‘Prefect’”, Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962), 70-71.

[14] Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction, 407.

[15] Robert van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 52.

[16] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 91.

[17] Michael Grant, Tacitus, 20.

[18] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. by Catharine Edwards, Nero, ch. 38.

[19] Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.29.3. Severus simply repeats Tacitus’ account in the Annals.

[20] Tertullian, Apol 5.

[21] T.D. Barnes, “Legislation Against the Christians,” 34. “Melito had linked Christianity to the Roman Empire by maintaining both that it began under the first emperor Augustus and that it was persecuted only by the ‘bad’ emperors Nero and Domitian. Both ideas were new ones, appearing for the first time in the Apology of Melito.”

[22] Origen, Contra Celsum 3.8.

[23] Eusebius, EH 2.25.

[24] Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 162.

[25] W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (NY: New York University Press, 1967), 126.

[26] Paul Keresztes, The Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church. I. From Nero to the Severi. (Berlin, 1980), 257.

Persecution Myths: A Note on Herod the Great

2009-05-19T10:13:00.007-04:00

Herod the Great is an interesting guy. And as is usually the case, there is far more to his story than the black/white view offered by Christianity. Nuance (read as "truth") can have no place in such a simplistic worldview.

Am I saying Christian historians lie about Herod the Great? Yes, I am. And they do. Fact must fit doctrine, after all, and Herod suffers as Jesus suffers. They lie about Jesus because they don't want to know the truth about the historical Jesus. They want the theological Jesus instead. The same goes for Herod. The Herod of the New Testament is the theological, not the historical Herod.

The real Herod wasn't put there by "God" in order to fulfill prophecy. He put himself there, through skill, ruthlessness, and pragmatism. He knew what he had to do to make himself acceptable to the Romans, and he was shrewd enough to understand that it was the Roman team to whom he should yoke his chariot, not the Parthians, who were the other major power on the Eastern stage.

We are assured that Herod went after the children and slaughtered them to make sure he got the one he was after - Jesus.

But he probably never knew that Jesus existed. An illiterate family of stubborn Galileans would hardly have attractive his attention. The only thing that might have caught his eye is good old Joseph being a Galilean trouble-maker (Galilee was full of those during Herod's reign). But Christian doctrine makes no room for such a supposition, and in fact, there is no evidence to support the idea.

Just as there is no evidence at all to suggest Herod actually "slaughtered the innocents".

At the same time, if you want to believe Herod did such a thing, you might as well look for a realistic - that is to say, plausible - origin for the story. And a trouble-making Joseph, the Galilean rebel, would offer us an explanation as to why Herod would have, by default, gone after his family - including the child Jesus.

But plausible doesn't enter into it, does it? Not where Christian theology is concerned. There are many pieces on the board, or to the puzzle, and each piece has to go in exactly the right place in order to make the picture work.

Even if you have to force the pieces in where they don't belong.

And that brings us back to Herod the Great. The story of how Herod came to power says a lot about the situation that existed in Judaea and Galilee in the time of Jesus.

The Maccabean, or Hasmonean Kingdom, as it is called in history, did not flourish for long and the phase of rapid expansion soon fell prey to internal dissent. Hyrcanus II, son of Alexander Yannai, and the last man to hold both the title of high priest and king, was overthrown by his brother Aristobulus II, who in turn was besieged in the Temple by Antipater, the father of Herod the Great and Aretas III, the Nabataean Arab king, who supported Hyrcanus. It is at this point that Honi the Rainmaker (a foreshadowing of Jesus or simply another Jesus?) was stoned to death by Hyrcanus’ followers for refusing to place a curse on Aristobulus (Ant. 14.2.1 §§ 22-24). Aristobulus then appealed to the Roman legate of Syria but Hyrcanus proved to be the more fortunate in that he appealed to Pompey, one of the most powerful men in Rome. Aristobulus wisely followed suit. But when Pompey approached Jerusalem Aristobulus’ followers shut the gates against him (63 BCE). Pompey then attacked Jerusalem, breached its walls and attacked the Temple, where Aristobulus’ “purist Sadducee” supporters had fortified themselves against Antiper, Hyrcanus’ Idumean advisor, who favored collaboration with Rome (Ant. 14.4.1-5 §§ 54-79).

This is one of those critical points in history that at the time, nobody identifies as such, and much of what was to follow can be traced to these events. Pompey’s intervention put an end to all pretenses of Maccabean and even nationalist rule. But what was worse was that in the process Pompey violated the Holy of Holies but as Josephus admits, took nothing from it “on account of his regard to religion.” (Ant. 14.4.4 § 72) This violation of the temple’s sanctity took place on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. As James Tabor observes, the Jewish people had to be asking themselves how it could be “that the God of Israel, whom the Jews daily worshipped as ‘Master of the World,’ was unable to protect his own sanctuary on the most holy day of the Jewish year…The Jewish prophetic vision of a Messiah King who would rule the Land of Israel and eventually all the nations of the world never looked more hopeless.”[1] Aristobulus was captured and sent to Rome as a hostage to be paraded in front of the conqueror’s chariot in the triumph (62 BCE). At this point, Rome replaces the Hellenistic kings as effective ruler of Palestine, acting not directly, but as was becoming common practice, through client kings.

Pompey returned to Rome and joined in a triumvirate with Caesar and Crassus to rule the crumbling Republic. Caesar went off to conquer Gaul, Crassus flew headlong into disaster against the Parthians at Carrhae in 53 BCE, and with the status quo shattered, Caesar and Pompey drifted into war (49). When Pompey was murdered in Alexandria following his defeat at Pharsalus (48) Hyrcanus and Antiper marched to Caesar’s aid in Alexandria and thus earned Caesar’s favor and equitable treatment for the Jews, including the recognition of Hyrcanus and his line as ethnarchs and high priests and the return to Joppa to Jewish rule (Jos. Ant. 14.10.2 §§ 190-205. Antiper’s son Herod was made governor of Galilee and in 46. Caesar was assassinated in 44, throwing the Roman world into another bout of civil war, and Antiper himself fell prey to a rival in 43, paving the way for the ambitious Herod to exert his influence over the weak-willed Hyrcanus. At this point, the Parthians invaded, coaxed, we are told, by Antigonus, the nephew of Hyrcanus, who wanted the rule of Judaea for himself and Herod dead (Ant. 14.13.3 §§ 330-331). Not to be discouraged, Herod fled to Mark Antony and according to Josephus, bribed him for help. Antony got the Senate to agree to make Herod king of Judaea (40 BCE), which had been more than Herod had expected or hoped for, and a civil war consumed the three years of Antigonus’ reign. Herod’s victory in 37 dashed any remaining hopes of a Hasmonean renaissance and this too marks one of those critical periods for our study. When Herod seized power he immediately set about destroying the remaining Hamoneans, who had generally been popular with the people. This event shows that Pharisee position of accommodation is not the popular one as the bulk of the Jewish populace support the Maccabees.

It is noteworthy that the Galileans supported Antigonus against Herod (Jos. Ant. 14.15.4-5 §§ 413-430), revealing to us the anti-Herodian, and therefore anti-collaborationist context of Jesus’ homeland. Herod was an unpopular ruler, both because of his lack of piety and because he was perceived (correctly) as a puppet of Rome. It is noteworthy that Herod drew upon the Samaritans and various foreign troops, including Thracians, Germans and Galatians to fill the ranks of his small army (Ant. 17.8.3 § 198). Apparently he felt that native Jews could not be trusted, and he was undoubtedly right. The composition of Herod’s army is revealing. This was not a Jewish state ruled by a Jewish king but a state held in bondage by what the mass of the people felt to be a foreign un-Jewish ruler abetted and supported by his Gentile puppet-masters. But the Romans supported Herod out of pragmatic reasons. He kept control of the country, and that was their primary concern. But the nationalist and Messianic fervor that had brought the Maccabees to power did not go away while Herod was king. It bubbled beneath, and sometimes above, the surface. That it was still strong and quite volatile can be seen by the reaction of the Jewish people upon Herod’s passing.

What is the context of Herod's rule? It's complicated.

A singular messianic focus held sway and directed events from the time of Herod’s accession in 38 BCE to the events of 66 CE a century later. As Adela Yarbro Collins observes, “The second temple period of Judaism can be characterized as a time of tension between Jewish tradition, particularly eschatological expectation and the realities of foreign rule.”[2] And that expectation was of a messiah who would free Israel, a messiah who would either command armies or who would through the divine power bestowed upon him by God, slay Israel’s enemies. The Zealots might have been speaking of the former, and Jesus the latter, but both call for the destruction of Rome, both are seditious, and either would earn the adherent crucifixion. And as Klinghoffer notes, the Romans “were assiduous in putting down messianic movements in Palestine.”[3] They had to be, when a character like the enigmatic “Egyptian” could appear and in short order gather around him 30,000 supporters and declare that he would bring down the walls of Jerusalem (Josephus, War 2.261-263). Clearly, first century Jewish messianism was a potent force.

The problem Herod faced was that he was not Jewish enough. Or to put it another way, he was both tolerant and pragmatic. Tolerant of foreign beliefs and cultures and pragmatic enough not to butt heads with Rome. His wisdom was forever proved in 66 CE when his people went to war against Rome - and lost. Herod was of a people recently - and forcibly - converted to Judaism during Hasmonean rule. Perhaps his religion was skin deep. Forced beliefs often are. Scholars still argue about how much of a Jew he really was, and we'll never know for certain, unless some lost writings surface.

But Herod, though far from an ideal king, was also far from the monster he is portrayed as being. And one thing we would do well to note is his relationship with the truculent Galileans. We can never forget that Jesus was himself a Galilean and that he was known after his home town in Galilee (Nazareth). The same is true of his followers. We might bear this relationship, and this history, in mind when we consider Jesus' opposition to the Herodian establishment in Judaea.

A final episode to consider:

Execution of John the Baptizer (36 CE) Josephus gives us the date of 36 for the execution of John the Baptizer (Ant. 18.116-119), which creates problems for a Jesus chronology, as the Gospels seem to suggest a date of 30 CE for Jesus’ crucifixion and Jesus is supposed to have been executed after John, who is supposed to have been killed c. 28/29.[4] A later date is accepted by German scholar Wolfgang Schenk, who posits 35 CE as the critical year (while accepting an earlier date for Jesus’ execution).[5]

The issue of John is a critical one for any reconstruction of Jesus's life and career. Christians know him as simply a prophet who predicted Jesus, but this is later apologia and was not how his contemporaries actually saw him. First of all, that John was an Essene seems almost certain. Josephus’ description of him, superior to that in the Gospels, fits, as Robert Eisenman observes, the “righteousness/piety dichotomy and the emphasis on ‘doing’ and his baptism also matches that of the Community Rule at Qumram (Jos. Ant. 18:110-119). Further, Josephus’ description of a novice’s initiation into the community after a three-year probation (Ant. 15.373) (War 2.139-42) matches “exactly what he pictures John the Baptist teaching in the Antiquities.

It is significant that in Josephus Herod Antipas “feared he would lead them to rise up” (revolt) and so took him to Machaeros and put him to death. As Eisenman concludes, “Josephus’ presentation is the demythologized John, although highly mythologized portraits are given in the New Testament. The New Testament de-politicizes John (as it does Jesus) who is no longer the political revolutionary he was in Josephus, who states specifically that Herod killed him because he feared an uprising.[6]

James Tabor states that “It is difficult to overestimate the dramatic impact John created by his preaching…The populace was electrified at the possibility – had God at long last sent a true messenger who would inaugurate the New Age of the Kingdom of Israel?”[7] Interestingly, and as a final way of noting John’s historical importance, Josephus relates that some Jews thought that the destruction of Herod Antipas’ army by the Nabataean king Aretas IV was due to divine retribution for killing John (Ant. 18.5.1-2).

It should be obvious even from the brief overview I have provided here that the New Testament offers a very unreliable description of first century Jewish affairs. The New Testament does indeed support the Christian version of events but that is because it was written to do so. It does not, and this is significant, accord with the actual situation obtaining in first century Galilee and Judaea, the historical period and geographical area of Jesus' career. Therefore, any attempt to portray the Jews as persecutors not only of Jesus but of his followers must be reconsidered and reinterpreted in light of political, not theological motivations.

Notes:

[1] James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, 95.

[2] Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John,” JBL 96 (1977), 241.

[3] David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (NY: Three Leaves Press, 2005), 7.

[4] Indeed, it is possible as James Tabor has done, to suppose that Jesus took over John’s movement after the latter’s execution. See The Jesus Dynasty.

[5] Wolfgang Schenk, “Gefeangenschaft und Tod des Täufers. Erwägungen zur Chronologie und ihrer Konsequenzen,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983), 463-464. cited in Niels Hyldahl, The History of Early Christianity (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997), 82-83.

[6] Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, 333-353.

[7] Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, 128

Persecution Myths: The Jews as Enemy

2009-05-18T17:04:00.007-04:00

What's really interesting about Christianity is that while claiming to be the successor to Judaism (Paul: Gentiles are the new Jews, New Testament superseding "Old" Testament, Works superseded by Faith, etc), early Christians seemed to really have a hard-on for Jews. Look at the Gospels. Anti-Semitic. Each and every one of them. Some worse than others. Even Jesus talks about the Jews as though he is a Gentile and not himself a Jew.

And of course, those nasty old Jews killed poor Jesus and then persecuted his followers.

Or did they?

We can settle the Jesus question rather swiftly. Jesus was executed by the Romans. He wasn't persecuted for his beliefs. They killed him, you see, for being disloyal to the state. Sedition. Fomenting rebellion. Refusing to pay taxes and urging others to do likewise. A rabble-rouser. The cross is the key. It is the Roman punishment for sedition.

You really have to look no further than the mocking INRI nailed above his head: IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM (Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum, or, in English, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews).

If the Jews had killed Jesus, they'd have stoned him. They couldn't kill him for sedition. They didn't have the legal right. They could have stoned him for blasphemy. That they didn't is a huge clue as to what was going on in the year 30, or thereabouts.

Of course, we should note, even our Gospel sources can't agree on the whole INRI thing. It's only fair to note that,

John 19:19 gives the above version;

Matthew 27:37 renders it "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews";

Mark 15:26 has "The King of the Jews";

and Luke (KJV) offers this version: "This is the King of the Jews."

Then there is the little issue of John claiming that it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, while Matthew and Mark describe it as the charge for crucifying Jesus. Luke writes it as a statement hung above his head. All we know is that INRI is the explanation for Jesus' death.

Sedition. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Nor did the Romans care what religion his followers practiced. They were Jews, after all. Whether related to another sect or a sect all on their own, they were Jews. For the Romans, the doctrinal differences of the various Jewish sects meant nothing. All that mattered was the peace of the province. Jesus had upset that, and had threatened to upset it further.

And the Jews? There is no record of any Jewish sect persecuting any other Jewish sect. There was lively disagreement, and no lost love, but nobody got kicked around for being a Pharisee or a Sadducee or an Essene. It is therefore highly improbable that Jesus told his followers they would be persecuted. Nobody had persecuted them before; why would they now? No, far more likely is Roman opposition. Again, not on doctrinal or religious grounds but on political.

Judaea in the first century was a hotbed of violence and sedition. It was the first century's Balkan Powder Keg. And it was going to explode. It was halfway there when Jesus was executed.

Pretending Judaea was a peaceful garden province, and Galilee in particular, a sort of Garden of Eden, is just plain silly. Taking the story of Jesus out of its historical context is dishonest. Sure, you can distill it enough to get the Jesus you want, but then it's not a historical Jesus anymore. And Christianity claims to be a historical religion. How can you be a historical religion without history?

You can't.

Yet the myth persists. We'll skip ahead briefly to the "first" persecution, Nero's fire in Rome. One of the foremost scholars of early Christianity, W.H.C. Frend, being a prisoner to the traditional orthodox view of Christian history, which I will refer to as the "Standard Model," is able to embark upon what can only generously be termed fantasy:

On this reading of the evidence, the persecution represented a triumph for the orthodox Jews, who were able, through influence at Court, to shift the odium of the outbreak on to the hated schismatics, the Christian synagogue. This they hoped to destroy at a single tremendous blow. In the persons of Poppaea Sabina and the actor Tigellinus they had the ear of the Emperor, and they succeeded in so far as a great number of Christians were killed, including the leaders, Peter and Paul.[1]

How Frend arrives at this conclusion is difficult to understand.

Why would the Jews be after the followers of Jesus? They didn't go after Jesus, after all. The Romans did. So why the hostility towards his followers?

Look again at the historical context of the mid-first century: Judaea well on the way to rebellion. Messianists (which is what the word "Christian" means, after all) are killing aristocratic Jews of the priestly class for supporting Roman governance, and committing other seditious and terrorist acts. The Gentile Christians did not want to be associated with this violent anti-Roman history. Following the Jewish War, which saw the end of Jesus' community of followers, led by his brother James, the Gentile Christians moved into the power vacuum and co-opted the movement.

Eager to disassociate themselves from their Jewish messianist brethren, the Gentiles re-wrote history. It was no longer the Romans who were the enemies of Jesus and his followers, but the Jews. The nice Gentile Christians had always been pro-Roman. Jesus had himself! Look at how he appealed to them, to the Roman soldier at the foot of the cross, so moved by Jesus' death! Why, Christianity wasn't anti-Roman. It was pro-Roman! Roman friendly!

And so the Jews are thrown under the chariot wheel, so to speak. Where they remained for many centuries. And suddenly it is the poor Gentile Christians who are being persecuted, not the Jewish followers of Jesus, who in the book of Acts, nearly cease to exist, as the author attempts to paint early Christianity as one big happy family, with the pro-Roman Paul the prime-mover. It's no surprise that James, Peter, and the others, largely disappear after the first few pages of Acts. They were, to say the least, inconvenient. If they cease to exist, their anti-Roman sentiment disappears with them. And Jesus himself? Look to the Gospels, written after Paul's epistles: He sounds a lot like Paul!

I will get back to the anti-Jewish slander when I get to Nero and the fire. For now, suffice it to say, the Jews, including Jesus and his followers, to whatever extent you wish to credit Jesus with an actual existence, were chafing under Roman rule. Don't feel to bad for them, however. The Jews under the Hasmonean kings had gone out of their way to engage in a policy of ethnic cleansing a century before, slaughtering, evicting, and forcibly converting Pagans living within the theological borders of Greater Israel.

Naturally, we are meant to feel sympathy for them these days, when modern Evangelicals have to an extent abandoned open anti-Semitism for a sort of shadow anti-Semitism. But the Jews would have done to the Romans what the Romans had done to them, and in spades. The Romans allowed the Jews their existence and their religion. As the rule of the Hasmonean kings demonstrate, Jewish rule of Pagan lands would have been far more brutal and repressive. And remember, the "end time" Jesus and his followers looked forward to, like that modern Christians look forward to, meant the eradication of everything but their own religion. Genocide, ethnic cleansing. Utter destruction on a scale never before seen.

This is the end Jesus had in mind for us "Gentiles." This is the end today's Evangelicals have in mind for us as well, only now the Jews are included among the targets as well, since rather than an avenging Messiah for Israel, the Messiah will force the Jews to convert or die as well.

Happy times indeed. I think all this says a great deal about the true nature and direction of persecutions.

Notes:

[1] W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (NY: New York University Press, 1967), 126.

Persecution Myths: An Introduction

2009-05-18T12:20:00.004-04:00

Let's try a little exercise. We'll begin by exploring the power of myth.

Christianity has since Augustine in the fifth century generally asserted Ten Persecutions of Christianity by the Roman authorities.

Of course, they do not always count to ten (maybe they can't) and do not always agree who the persecutors were. But there were ten, we're told today. They're certain of that! But why?

Let's look at some basic "persecution facts":

It's impossible to create an accurate list of these ten alleged persecutions, of course, since even the Christians who lived close to them in time aren't certain as to who did what to whom. Augustine would substitute Antoninus Pius for Marcus Aurelius, for instance, while Lactantius could only count six persecutions! (four go missing somewhere).

Sulpicius Severus, a contemporary of Augustine, came up with one less than the Bishop of Hippo, which gives us 9. So were there 10, 9, or 6? Or fewer? Origen (Contra Celsum 3.8), writing in the third century, has little to say about any persecutions, saying only that “a few, whose number could be easily enumerated, have died occasionally for the sake of the Christian religion. No persecutions at all! None! Not 10, not 9, nor even 6. ZERO. Just a few stray martyrs here and there over a three century period.

Amazing. And he is not alone, as we shall see.

Despite these glaring deficiencies in the record, and the many holes already punched in the wall of Christian fantasy, I shall grant them their full ten persecutions here. These are (with the relevant (and obviously approximate) years of the persecutions in parentheses), in order:

1. Nero (64)
2. Domitian (95-96)
3. Trajan (98-117)
4. Hadrian (117-138)
5. Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
6. Septimius Severus (197-211)
7. Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
8. Decius (249-251)
9. Valerian (257-260)
10. Diocletian (303-313) - the so-called "Great Persecution"

Theologically, there is nothing wrong with this list. After all, theologically, Christians know that these emperors persecuted Christians and the reasons aren’t really terribly important since they’ve been told (and eagerly accept the idea) that Christians were persecuted simply because they were Christians.

Even though this makes very little sense to any reasoning person, they've been assured that they will be persecuted for their faith. After all, they say Jesus was, and that he told them they would be. So what's not to believe? It all fits very nicely in a theological box.

The problem is history. Historically, the whole fantasy falls flat to the ground. In fact, it plummets.

It might be noticed even by Christians that there is no persecution of Christians in the New Testament. In fact, Paul seems to get on famously with Roman governors. It's those nasty Jews that get after him again and again (no surprise here, since the very Pauline Gospels are also anti-Semitic). One would think that this fact would cause a Christian to stop and think, but stopping and thinking is right out. It's not permitted. It gets in the way of doctrine. Remember the meaning of the word "heresy". It comes from the Greek word "to choose". Choosing - that is, looking at the facts and arriving at your own conclusion - is not permitted. It never has been.

You are free to look at the facts and arrive at your own conclusions only so long as your conclusions are not incompatible with "right belief" - orthodoxy.

Therefore, no matter how insecure the foundations of these myths, they must be believed. And after all, if the pastor says so, it must be true.

But it isn't. Most of it is the stuff of fantasy. Fortunately, orthodoxy doesn't mean anything to non-Christians. We're not required to arrive at the expected conclusion. We can order a thesis based on facts, rather than ordering facts to match doctrine.

That is what I am going to do here. Look at some facts. And I will examine them. Not in light of doctrinal requirements, but simple reason.

Bart Ehrman, Christianity, and History

2009-05-17T13:48:00.005-04:00

I wanted to address the situation regarding Bart Ehrman and the history of early Christianity. It's not my desire here to get too involved in extensive religious debates centering on Christianity but it is difficult to entirely avoid them as well. My own believes should be abundantly clear to anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time.

For those interested, I have posted below links to my two-part post on my opinion of Christianity. There is also another relevant link:

My Opinion of Christianity, Part I
My Opinion of Christianity, Part II
Crap Sandwiches

Just to push my point a little, my opinion of Christianity is that it is,

a) not a religion, but a superstition
b) that Christianity is the worst blight visited upon humankind (the Black Death pales in comparison)
c) the scale of violence in the modern world would be drastically curtailed by the disappearance of monotheism, particular the Abrahamic monotheisms.

I say this because I want to be clear, given the fact that I accept Christian advertisement on this blog, that I do not promote Christianity or Christian worldviews (plural used intentionally and emphatically!). I do, however, endorse free speech and open-ended discussion of my opinions and accept well-reasoned objections to them. To the degree time and energy permit, I will even engage in debates on these points.

What I will not do is,

a) offer an apologia for polytheism. It needs none. Polytheism was ancient when Judaism appeared and far more ancient when Christianity arrived on the scene.
b) engage in a lengthy defense of my views. My views are amply put forth in the posts linked above and in other posts. I invite those interested to peruse my blog archives for these arguments.

There will never be an end to debate about the origins of Christianity. There can't be. No matter how much evidence is piled up by authors like Barth Ehrman, Christians will reject them. They have to, obviously. If they didn't, they would cease being Christians because if Jesus is not God then the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down, as any apologist will admit. So what we have is a situation in which apologists say "you are free to research the historical Jesus as long as you find that he is exactly what our religion claims he is." Obviously, we won't get far going down that particular road!

So there won't be agreement anywhere, including here. So while I invite those who disagree to make their disagreements known, I reserve the right not to reiterate the contents of two years + posting by yours truly. If you want to know what I think and why I think it, go through my archives. You'll find plenty. I don't agree with Bart Ehrman 100% of the time. I think he's far too kind and politically correct. But I think he's made a good start. Love him or hate him, he's willing to do more than simply look for what he already wants to find. Bias can't be avoided entirely, but if you want an open mind, look to Ehrman rather than an apologist who is required by doctrine to say exactly what doctrine requires.

For me, it's a no-brainer.

Etc, etc:

I'm still playing catch-up with all my blogging and website activities. I don't feel like I will ever actually manage to catch up sometimes, but I am trying. Working outside in the yard has taken up a lot of my former spare time but if I'm going to be away from here, I can't think of a better place to be, out in nature, getting my hands in the dirt.

I discovered that several people who had tried to join Mos Maiorum forums hasn't actually - apparently - joined. I would have sworn I'd hit "accept" on the membership request but I saw the names still there when I got a new request today. So apologies to everyone who has tried - and failed - to be approved. If you have tried and still do not have access, let me know and I'll see what I can do to fix it.

As I said, I hope to be more "visible" now than I have been for the past month or so. I'm back to posting here on Heathen's Day, and have some updates planned for Mos Maiorum. I still haven't put sub-categories on the forums because I don't think they have the problem entirely licked. At least, last time I tried, it didn't work. I may give it another go because I do think that would help the situation there.

Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible

2009-05-15T13:16:00.004-04:00

In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes:Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

read more | digg story

(I'd like to thank Maythen for spotting this and sending it to me!)

A Lovely Video

2009-05-15T09:00:00.002-04:00

This was sent me by Granamyr and I wanted to post it here because it was quite beautiful and evocative. Thank you, Gran!

What's in a Religion?

2009-05-13T09:44:00.003-04:00

I think a great deal about religion, despite the fact that I don't belong to an organized religion. Christians especially get the idea that if you're not in Church that you're missing out, or that you're distancing yourself from "God" or that you're off skating and sinning, or something. They love to say "I haven't seen you in church lately" as though it's an accusation of some kind. The hint is that you've been derelict in your duties.

It's interesting that despite Jesus' injunction to honor YHWH in private, Christians follow the advice of Paul instead and are all public and demonstrative. I guess we know who wears the pants in that family! But though there is nothing wrong with honoring your gods in groups, there is equally nothing wrong with doing so in private.

As we know, a great deal of Pagan worship was family-centered. You don't have to be a priest or hold a priesthood to honor the gods. The women had their mysteries, and the men theirs. It's all a part of honoring the divine. A Christian could sit at home and pray or read his Bible if he wanted. I don't think he'd be less of a Christian for doing that instead of going to Church. But Church is more than a place to honor "God." It's designed to enforce doctrine, to make sure everybody is on the same page and part of a collective and that nobody strays into "heresy" which is really just thinking for yourself.

Without doctrine, if you're just a "simple" polytheist, there is no possibility of heresy because there is nothing you're required to believe. No doctrine, no dogma, no set of rules or laws. Sure, in the old days different shrines had different rules regarding how a god was to be worshiped, what you should wear, how you should purify yourself, etc, but this varied from place to place and god to god. It wasn't something that you had to trouble yourself over on a daily basis, and especially not at home.

Religion, in my opinion, is all around us. It, like the mythical "force" of Star Wars, permeates our existence. We live in a world filled with the divine. It is all around us, in nature, in the ground, in the sky, in the flora and fauna of the natural world. It is in us. I can show devotion by going outside and touching a tree, or by leaving an offering from it, or by lighting incense on my altar indoors, or pouring a libation, or lifting my hands skyward and uttering a prayer. "Let it rain on the fields of the Athenians," as Marcus Aurelius instructed us. A simple prayer, not of greed, but for the common good. I could also engage in magick, with a little ritual, but magick really stands outside religion, and not as part of it. Magick tends to be more self-oriented. Spells of love and wealth and so forth, or a concern for your own future manifested through Tarot, etc. The ancients understood this. They didn't shun magick. They just knew it had its own realm of concerns. The realm of religion is to honor the gods. That, and that only.

So I added a statue of Thor to my altar recently. Does this make me more devout? No. The statue of Thor is a focus. A focus of my devotion. A way for me to honor a god. I could honor him in other ways, of course, and I do. This is just another way. That's why people create statues of deities, after all. To honor them. It's fine if you want to believe a spark of the god exists in the statue, or dwells in the shrine. Even the Jews thought this of their holy of holies. And why not, if the divine is around us and inside us? It does no harm to clean your statue with devotion, as the ancients once cleaned, oiled, and dressed the statues in the great temples. Again, it's part of religion.

I don't have to believe any particular thing as I go about my various devotions. I ask Thor to hallow my meal. I don't thank him for providing it. He didn't. I don't have to worry about what I think as I do this. Thor exists and he is owed my devotion. It's that simple. I don't have to worry about sinning in my heart as I sit in a church pew, or about whether or not I'm sinning by not believing every word the pastor says or every word I read in the Bible in my lap. I don't have to worry about some divine set of laws or rules that might, at any moment, send me spiraling down into the embrace of Satan if I misstep. That is a religion gone ugly. A religion used to beat people over the head or to instill obedience through fear of divine wrath.

But my gods are benign, and nature is at worst, neutral, which is exactly what you'd expect it to be. It is what it is. Just as I am what I am and the gods are what they are. Life is really simple if you don't go out of your way to complicate it. Religion should be simple too. Why let fear and anger and doubt color something that should be beautiful? Honor the gods, honor the divine around you, and the divine within each of us. Keep it simple and you can wear religion rather than chasing after it.

Meeting the Ancestors

2009-05-06T13:40:00.002-04:00

A story is making the rounds among Evangelical Christians about a mysterious hitchhiker who seats himself in the backseat of cars and then says, "my lips are on the trumpet" before abruptly disappearing. Of course, the Talibangelicals cream their pants at even a whisper of this tale. The story is that State Troopers will tell the motorist (gods only know why a State Trooper always happens to be on hand or why the motorist admits to having a disappearing hitchhiker) that this is happening all over the place, that it's the sixth of the day, etc.

The time is at hand, my friends! The Rapture is upon us! Or so they so desperately want to believe that they're willing to buy into and spread this nonsense about.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for the Rapture. The sooner somebody scoops up all, ALL the sons of Abraham, the better off the world will be. Don't miss a single one.

But seriously, there can't be a rapture. Can't. The Jews abandoned their national gods, Baal and Asherah, El, etc. They are worshiping a foreign god who isn't likely to care much for them either way (he sure hasn't stood up and been noticed throughout going on three millennia!). So of course, a bunch of idiot Gentiles adopting the same foreign god doesn't speak much of their chances either. Nor does the fact that Jesus, assuming he lived at all, was an illiterate Galilean peasant and is now a dead illiterate Galilean peasant. Dead Galilean peasants aren't known for having any sort of rapturous-like powers.

So give it up already.

Seriously, we're far more likely to meet our ancestors the old fashioned way. Dying. As in leaving THIS world for the Other. And not because some disappearing hitchhiker has an oral fixation.

Probably an elf. Elves are known for their trickster behavior. If so, it's a good one. Gotta hand it to them.

But why be so anxious to leave this world that you want to believe crap like this? Life-denying, life-hating, death-worshiping - these are a few terms that come to mind when I think about the Christian superstition.

Embrace life. This world was given to us to live in, and this life to us to enjoy.

One thing is for certain. I'll have some tales to tell my ancestors when at last we meet. And my goal in this life is to enable me to meet them head held high, and unashamed. I think that's a far worthier goal than praying for it all to end.

Will the Real Barbarian Please Stand Up?

2009-05-04T06:03:00.004-04:00

I was watching a couple of episodes of Terry Jones' "The Barbarians" (2006) the other night. Terry Jones, in case you don't remember him, is a Monty Python alum. He is also a medievalist. And an entertaining fellow. And as willing, as it turns out, to play with the facts every bit as much as anyone else in order to prove a point.

Facts are funny things, you see. They are, if they truly are facts, indisputable. Put them all together and you get a picture - generally a realistic picture. The problem is, there tend to be LOTS of facts. If you leave a few facts out, are the facts that remain still facts? Well, yes, they are, but they form an incomplete picture. In other words, your facts are still facts but the factual sum of the parts does not equal the factual parts. This is a case where facts can be made to lie.

Terry Jones is quite anxious to show that those nasty old Romans weren't really the civilized party. Or, to put it more accurately perhaps, that those nasty old barbarians the Romans were always going on about, weren't really the barbarians. In the first of the two episodes I took a look at, he talked about Gaul and Caesar's conquest. It was very interesting and he had me smiling a time or two, sometimes because he's a witty fellow and other times because of his attempts to spin the facts. To make them dance for him.

One example was the fate of Vercingetorix. If you'll remember, the defeated Gaul was brought to Rome and thrown into a pit, or prison, for five years while Caesar finished the Civil Wars. He was then trotted out, along with some other conquered leaders, and paraded in Caesar's triumphal procession. He was then quietly strangled and his body dumped. Jones gleefully pointed out how barbaric the nasty old Romans were. Now I'm not trying to assume the posture of a Roman apologist, but let's be fair, at the very least, Terry! You point to Vercingetorix? I invite you to look at what we still do to foreign leaders today. Take a look at Nuremberg, if you will. Or if that's not recent enough for you, to Saddam Hussein. We still kill defeated leaders. Are you telling me the Gaul's wouldn't have killed Caesar had roles been reversed?

Or let's look at another nifty attempt to spin the facts. Jones, ever so apparently guileless but clever, almost with daemonic glee, built up the tension as he led into some deep, dark, horrible secret about the Gauls that horrified the Romans. What was it? Human sacrifice? No, of course not. It was the role of women. Apparently, if we are to believe Jones, the Romans were terrified of the Gauls because the Gauls granted women a higher status in society than the Romans did. Funny, what I remember horrifying the Romans was human sacrifice. You see, by Caesar's day, nobody could remember human sacrifices in Rome. The last had been while Hannibal was knocking on the gates of the city itself. Caesar was as removed from the reality of human sacrifice as we are from slavery. We can't imagine the reality of it and unless you're a member of the Republican base, you don't much care for the idea. We find it horrible.

But Rome attacked Gaul because Gaul treated its women well?

I'm not saying some peoples did not treat their women better than others. Or probably to be fair, differently. But let's face facts. Gaul and Brennus no more attacked Rome in the fourth century BCE over its treatment of women than Caesar and the Romans attacked Gaul in the first century BCE over its treatment of women. The Romans tended not to be terribly offended by what other cultures did. Mock them, yes. But everybody mocks every body else because they're different. We still do that in today's world. But the Romans, like America in Iraq, attacked not out of moral outrage, but out of avarice and other usual excuses, such as natural resources, glory, avarice, etc.

And let's face another fact: fact cannot be, should not be, taken out of context of other facts. This applies not only to my point about how we treat defeated leaders, but about historical context. Caesar didn't invade Gaul in a vacuum. Jones was right to bring up the memory of Brennus and how much it affected even the Romans of Caesar's day. Historical memory can be long. Ask the Russians. Ask the French. But history did not hop from 387 BCE to 58 BCE. There is the little issue of continuity - the arrival of the Cimbri and Teutones in Gaul and the crushing defeat of several Romans armies and the threat posed by these migrations to Rome itself. Rome, like Russia, remembered invasion - Russia from the east, Rome from the north. Or, to use another example, France remembered well the march of the Prussian army across France in 1870 when World War I began - about the same span of time from the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones to Caesar's consulship.

But we don't want to let some facts get in the way of other facts, do we? It's nearly impossible not to let how we feel about things get in the way. And I understand Jones' point. He wants to point out that we understand the barbarian peoples through the lens of Roman writing. And of course, the victor writes the history. Point taken. There is more to the "barbarians" than we have been led to believe. Going only from a Roman PoV is no more fair than looking at Pagan culture through a Christian lens. Another sin historiography has long been guilty of - and at times, still is.

But in our quest for truth, we should not "lie" to make our point. It rather diminishes the nobility of our goal, and taints our success.

Another little point Terry Jones forgot to mention, in his efforts to make the Gauls, and in a second episode, the Celts as a whole, look good, besides ignoring the issue of human sacrifice (after all, they had a more accurate calendar than Rome!) is head-hunting. Yes, the Gauls and Celts were head-hunters. They'd lop them off and hang them from walls. Welcome to my home! Yes, this is Getorix. I killed him last year. Handsome chap, eh? They had religious reasons, of course. But human sacrifice had religious motives as well. We still find it horrifying. So did the Romans. And the Celts were still doing it in the Middle Ages.

But pointing out that his near perfect Gauls had this unappealing habit might might have diminished his attempts to make the Gauls look good by making the Romans look bad. A fair and balanced treatment, I will argue, could have achieved the same results. In fact, I'd have been much more impressed had he taken the trouble to mention the Cimbri and Teutones (rationale: If Rome controls Gaul, Rome can better defend Italy and Rome) and if he'd mentioned human sacrifice and head hunting rather than the role and status of women in society. After all, if Gauls treated women better than Romans, Pagan Romans still treated women better than the Christianized barbarians who followed in their wake - as a medievalist like Jones should know. In fact, they treated women better than some cultures treat women today. After all, Roman women could be priestesses and even have authority over men. You won't see that happen in the Catholic Church or in many conservative Protestant denominations.

So let's at least attempt, as we study history, to use a fair and balanced approach, and accept history with all its warts and blemishes thrown in. No culture is perfect. Since there cannot be a cultural "norm" towards which all should reach, it's a silly idea. Cultures are not superior or inferior. They're different. And one country does not attack another country over cultural differences. Religious, yes, but even Jones did not attempt to turn Rome's invasion of Gaul into a crusade.

I think there is a lesson here for all of us, for Pagans and Christians alike. We have to accept the fact, as we look backwards in time, that there was no Golden Age. I know I've said this before but I think some modern Pagans still get that silly notion that life was perfect before the rise of Christianity. It wasn't. It never will be. If Christianity disappeared today the world would not magically transform into utopia. People are people. They will always be people. And whatever religion dominates, whatever culture dominates, there will always be crooks and sociopaths and those who seek to better themselves at the expense of others.

It's simplistic to say the Romans were the "good guys" and the Gauls were the "barbarians." Yes. But it's not an improvement to say the Gauls were the "good guys" and the Romans were the real barbarians.

The lesson here? When you read anything, watch anything, even here on my blog, take it with a grain of salt. We all have points of views and its virtually impossible to avoid an agenda of sorts when you write. Take the opportunity instead to educate yourself. Read, read, read. Then read some more. And most importantly, THINK. Think and analyze and reason and come to your own conclusions.

Addendum: In the interest of fairness, I should also point out that Jones did mention one less than savory practice of Roman culture - the exposure of unwanted infants. Using Medieval texts he then argued that the ancient Celts cared for the old and infirm as well as the young. I don't know how accurate this claim is because I'm no expert on Celtic culture, but again, in the interest of fairness, he should also then have mentioned the head hunting and human sacrifice.