The Year of the Lectureship

This academic year, 2007-08 has involved my giving a variety of lectures and doing a variety of lectureships in a variety of places, to say the least. In the fall I did the Strauss lectures at Lincoln Christian College and the Distinguished Parchman lectures at Truett Seminary at Baylor University. In the new year I gave three lectures at St. Andrews University in Scotland and one at my alma mater Durham University in England. Then I gave the Cooley lectures at Gordon-Conwell Charlotte campus, and have just returned from doing the Hall lectures at the University of South Carolina. What follows in this post is a sample of one of the lectures I gave at USC in Columbia. Kudos and thanks to all those who gave me such gracious hospitality along the way. A fuller form of this discussion can be found in my book Jesus the Seer and the Progress of Prophecy (Hendrickson).

JESUS THE SEER

There are few things that all scholars agree on when it comes to the historical Jesus. One of those however is that Jesus used two key phrases in his public discourse– Son of Man and Kingdom of God What is seldom asked about this usage is– is there an OT text where we find both these phrases or essential concepts together? The Answer surprisingly is--- Yes.

Dan. 7.13-14 reads as follows: “In my vision I looked and there before me was one ‘like a son of man’ (bar enasha) coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” This text should be compared to Dan. 7.25-27 where we are told this everlasting kingdom is handed over to the saints, and is taken away from the beastly ruler and empire which had existed before. The whole pattern of inhumane empires (4 of them) followed by a human and humane one, is the big picture. This should be compared to 2 Sam. 7.12-13: When your days are over…I will raise up your offspring to succeed you…and I will establish his kingdom.”

Notice the difference between these two texts which were read messianically in Jesus’ day. The one refers to a normal succession of a royal family– from David to his offspring. The other refers to an everlasting kingdom ruled by ‘the one like a son of man’ who can be so closely identified with the saints that they can be said to rule in Him, or through him. Dan. 7.13-14 is remarkable in another regard as well. The figure in question comes down (not up) from heaven, for the judgment scene upon the earth, and is handed authority, power etc. to rule by the Ancient of Days. Of course in the OT the Yom Yahweh was normally envisioned as the Day Yahweh came down in theophanic fashion and judged.

Even on a minimalist approach to the evidence about the historical Jesus, while we do not much find Jesus calling himself Son of David, nor does he ever cite 2 Sam. 7, scholars are quite clear about Jesus referring to himself as Son of Man, and his speaking of a everlasting Kingdom which he is inaugurating. The question that begs to be asked is– what kind of person thinks he can personally reign forever (not him and his offspring, but just him)? Or again what sort of person thinks he can bring the eschatological saving reign of God upon the earth, the one that eclipses and replaces all previous human attempts at Dominion?

My answer is– a person who thought he was both human and divine, and here is the interesting bit. It is the title Son of Man, not the title Messiah, or some other more familiar ones that has the potential to convey the notion of both humanness and more than humanness. And interestingly, the title Son of Man, was not all that much used in early Jewish messianic speculation, and so Jesus was free to fill it with the content he had in mind, without being pigeon-holed by other people’s preconceived notion of what a Savior or Messiah must be and do. In short, Jesus, in his prevalent use of these two concepts conveyed an exalted image of who he was and what he came to do and be, and it is likely this, and a few other things Jesus said, that led to exclusive claims being made about him by his first followers, claims such as Jesus being the way the truth and the life and no one comes to God except through Jesus. While that claim is found in John 14, in essence the same sort of claim is made by Jesus in Mt. 11 where Jesus says that know one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals God. Notice the language of special revelation. Jesus claims to have special revelation from God that others do not have. This saying, if authentic, places Jesus in the category of a remarkable seer. Do we have other evidence that suggests this as well? In fact we do.

The earliest form of the story of Jesus’ baptism in Mark’s Gospel, a story which all stripes of scholars believe contains historical substance, not least because you don’t make up a story about your messianic figure being baptized by another remarkable prophetic figure if you want people to think Jesus is more important than John the Baptizer. In order to understand the account fully in Mark 1, we need to say something about the history of prophecy.

Prophecy in the ANE, including in the Biblical tradition was a complex phenomenon. One of the features which rose to prominence in Biblical prophecy during the exile was apocalyptic prophecy, which is to say prophecy based on visions. Sometimes these were day visions, sometimes they came in the form of night visions or dreams, but in either case they were different from the earlier oracular forms of prophecy which were a matter of the prophet listening and then repeating verbatim what he believed the deity was saying. With visionary prophecy a whole new element was added to the picture, namely what the prophet had seen in a vision. I need to be clear at this juncture that visions, whether waking or in dreams were not seen as purely subjective phenomena in antiquity, not something generated, for example, by an overactive imagination or wish projection. No, these were seen as one form of revelation from God, and increasingly during and after the exile they were seen as the main form of revelation from God.

Scholars have often remarked on the fact that Jesus does not use the oracular formula—‘thus says Yahweh’ nor does he quote God, so to speak, and on this basis some scholars have concluded that Jesus was not a prophet in the OTmental sense. This however is a mistake, as it involves mistaking the part for the whole. Jesus clearly was not an oracular prophet like an Isaiah or an Amos. Rather he was a visionary prophet like Daniel or Zechariah. It is no accident that Jesus was so indebted to these two sources for his sense of calling and self-understanding. He too was a visionary prophet like those earlier Jewish figures.

In the Markan account of the baptism, we find several major features of a visionary account. The sky is said to split open (cf. Rev. 1,4), the Spirit of God descends, and is described in typical apocalyptic diction (‘it was like….’) and then, and only then Jesus hears the divine voice speaking directly to him saying “You are my beloved Son”. Mark’s account differs clearly enough from Matthew’s in that it recounts a public occasion, but a private vision that happened on that public occasion. The voice from above did not speak to everyone, but only to Jesus. The Matthean account makes it a more public affair. We need to stick with the earlier account.

What we can say about what happened on this occasion, besides Jesus being baptized by John, is that Jesus received identity confirmation, an indirect commissioning, and indeed an empowering for ministry. It is no accident that it is only after this event that the ministry proper is said to begin, nor can it be accidental that we are told in Mk. 1.15 that Jesus’ begins with a proclamation John himself could have made--- ‘repent for the Dominion of God is at hand’.

Less often noticed than some of these features of the story, is the connection it has with the sequel. Mk. 1.12 is emphatic--- the Spirit cast Jesus out into the Judean wilderness and he spent 40 days there being tempted by Satan. He is both with the wild animals, and angels also attend him. What is less seldom noticed is that having just been called God’s Son, he is now tested as a royal figure in a fashion like the king was tested in Daniel when he was out in the fields with the animals, or as Solomon was tested in Wisdom of Solomon. But here again we are still in the realm of vision, visions that Jesus saw whilst in the wilderness.

Mark of course only mentions the visionary experience in passing but Matthew and Luke give us a detailed account. The Matthean account seems to be closer to the original form of the story, and we will follow it. Notice immediately that Jesus is tested in regard to the very same title that had been revealed to him at the baptism--- Son of God, in the form “if you are the Son of God… then….” Of course some scholars have scoffed at treating this story as an historical one, completely forgetting it is possible to take this as a relating of a visionary experience Jesus had whilst full of the Spirit, and we might add in a limnal state. Matthew is explicit that Jesus had these visions of the nefarious one after having fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, which makes the first temptation, to turn stones into bread, a quite natural one. Now one of the most remarkable features about this visionary encounter with the Adversary, Satan, is that Satan is tempting Jesus to do things that mere mortals cannot do. I have known some people who can turn bread into stones, but not any that have been tempted to do the opposite. The point here is that Jesus is being tempted to act in a fashion that only a divine Son of God was capable of doing. This story then undergirds the theology that Jesus was no ordinary or mundane messianic figure, and like the title Son of Man, the story suggests a more than mundane character for Jesus. Now a temptation is hardly a temptation if you know perfectly well you can’t do. The point here is that Jesus is being tempted to act in ways that would obliterate his true humanity and his identification with us. The essence of Jesus’ being truly human and acting in accord with that is being put to the test. To be human means to have certainly limitations of time, space, knowledge and power. Yet Jesus believed he could transcend these limitations in some fashion, and here he was being tempted to go ahead and do so. What kind of person believes such things about himself? Notice then that Jesus respond’s to Satan by quoting Scripture, a resource any human being could use to combat evil. Jesus throughout the Gospel acts by the power of the Spirit and by using the Word of God, the same two resources these Gospels say Jesus bequeathed to his followers. This is interesting.

Returning to the vision itself, the second temptation is to cast himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Here Satan becomes the exegete and cites Ps. 91. 11-12 to encourage Jesus to do it. The text refers to ministering angels who would bear him up if he leapt off the pinnacle and not allow him to harm himself. This is interesting since Mark had mentioned that Jesus was ministered to by angels in the wilderness. But again, Jesus resists the temptation. Notice that here Jesus responds, in a battle of Bible quotes “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” Scholars have resisted seeing this as evidence that Jesus placed himself in the category of the Lord God, but surely that is the most natural implication here, and it is interesting that Jesus’ brother, James is later to say emphatically that God cannot be tempted and he tempts no one (James 1). Perhaps he knew of the story of Jesus’ vision quest and battles with the powers of darkness.

The third and final test is indeed the climactic one where Jesus is offered the kingdoms of the world if he will just bow down and worship Satan. Jesus refuses to do so and like a good monotheist says only the one God should be worshipped. Notice and compare the reply to test 2 and the reply to test 3. In test 2 Jesus identifies himself with the Lord God, in test 3 his reply distinquishes himself from Yahweh. What sort of person sees both identity with and distinction from God as categories he could freely use to describe himself?

Lest we think that we have exhausted the evidence for Jesus as a Seer, it is not so. There are interested logia, like Lk. 10.18 where Jesus, upon the report of his disciples performing exorcisms successfully like their Master says “I saw Satan fall like lightning from the sky.” This should be compared to a text like Mk. 3 where Jesus’ exorcisms are recognizes by his antagonists, but they attribute them to his being in league with the Devil. Jesus counters by saying that to the contrary, he had to first bind that strong man Satan before he could loose his captives. Far from being in league with Satan, the work of Jesus has been to destroy his strongholds and liberate his captives. This, I would suggest is what Lk. 10.18 suggests as well. It has often been noted that the most frequent sort of miracle predicated of Jesus in Mark, is exorcism. Furthermore, it is the sort of activity which led to the later rabbinic charges that Jesus was a magician, dabbling in the dark arts. There must indeed be a historical foundation for this aspect of Jesus’ ministry, whatever one may personally believe about demons.

And here it will not go amiss if I say something about evaluating Jesus on his own terms. Whether or not one personally believes in the powers of darkness is really irrelevant to the historical quest for understanding Jesus, as it is perfectly clear that many early Jews, probably most of them, did believe in such beings, and there is no good reason to doubt Jesus did as well. We cannot eliminate evidence from our quest for the historical Jesus just because we don’t share such a belief system or particular belief. Jesus was without doubt different from many moderns in what he believed in, and if the goal is to understand him, and understand his self- understanding and presentation, then it is a mistake to evaluate the evidence with certain anti-supernatural prejudices or biases in place. This may tell us much about ourselves, but such biases skew a fair and accurate assessment of Jesus’ self-understanding and self-presentation.

Our next port of call is Mt. 11.27, the so-called Johannine thunderbolt. This text, it will be remembered presents Jesus as claiming that no one knows the Father but Jesus and those to whom Jesus reveals him. Now this text speaks to the apocalyptic mentality and frame of reference of Jesus. The basic assumption of apocalyptic is that heavenly and spiritual things are now hidden from fallen mortal gaze, and can only be known if they are revealed through a revelator, one who sees into the other realm. Jesus is presented as one such person who does so. Indeed, Jesus presents himself as one who plays out the apocalyptic script of Daniel and Zechariah not only by proclaiming the Kingdom and calling himself Son of Man, but even by performing prophetic sign acts like riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, as Zechariah spoke of, or cleansing the temple. The closer we look at the drama of Jesus’ life, the more he seems to be dancing to an apocalyptic tune not entirely of his own making.

And this brings us to the trial narrative in Mark 14. After offering a whole chapter of prophetic pronouncements about the near and more distant future, in Mk. 13 (notice that the cosmic signs are only associated with the second coming account, whereas the signs upon the earth are associated with preliminary mundane events which lead up to the destruction of the temple), we have the trial narratives seriatim. While it is noteworthy that Jesus predicted the demise of the Herodian temple within a Biblical generation (40 years), a prediction which was spot on as the British would say, since the temple fell in 70 A.D. and Jesus made the prediction in 30 A.D. not long before his own demise, what is more important for our purposes is that the predictions about the return of the Son of Man in Mk. 13.32 prepare for the prediction at the trial narrative in Mk. 14.62 where Jesus partially quotes Dan. 7.13. Here to the high priest who assumed he was judging Jesus and would have the last word about him, Jesus in effect turns the tables and says to the high priest—‘yes I am messiah, Son of God, but what you really need to know is that you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds to a theater near you, judging you.’ What kind of person thinks that his own life will have an earthly sequel?

Now it will be noted that I have stuck carefully to our earliest witness Mark, and the Synoptics in this lecture without bringing the later Fourth Gospel into the discussion. This was intentional, but here is where I say that the Christological portrait of Jesus in Mark is hardly any less exalted than the one in John, its just differently focused. John famously does not give us an exorcism stories nor does he mention Jesus being an exorcist. But just as the first canonical Gospel raises the question--- what sort of person can get in a championship cage match with Satan and live to tell the tale, so the last Gospel raises the question, what sort of person thinks he came from God, and is ‘of God’? The claims are presented differently, but the end result is much the same. There is no canonical Gospel which does not present in a clearly heavenly light, all the while emphasizing his true humanity as well. In other words, there is no non- messianic Jesus to be found at the bottom of the well of historical inquiry. Like or not, Jesus made some remarkable claims for himself and his ministry, and it is the job of the historian not to explain the claims away, but rather to explain them.

As I draw this lecture to a close I would like to remind us all that who a person is, who a person claims to be, and who others say a person is can all be different things. The age old question--- ‘Who do you say that I am?’ is actually preceded by the historical question, who did Jesus think he was, and who did he claim to be? In my view there is continuity between Jesus’ self-understanding, his self-presentation, and the later theologizing that was done about Jesus. They are not identical things, but there is a historical continuum that binds these things together.

The earliest disciples after Easter had been Jesus’ disciples before Easter, and Easter, whatever it entailed, did not have the affect of creating massive amnesia on the part of these persons. This means that a historian has to explain how the high Christology of the church could have arisen after the unexpected and precipitous demise of Jesus through crucifixion. This conundrum becomes more puzzling, not less, for those who don’t believe in Jesus rising from the dead, than for those who do.

It was Martin Dibelius the old German form critic who said “one must posit a large enough X to explain how Easter faith could have arisen after the shaming and crucifixion of Jesus.” On any showing the crucifixion should have put an end to the Jesus movement once and for all, in an honor and shame culture like early Judaism. The disciples on the road to Emmaus in Lk. 24 were not heading for a spiritual retreat experience, they were leaving town with their tails between their legs mumbling “he had hoped (past tense) he was the one to redeem Israel”. Their actions spoke as loud as their words--- they had abandoned such hope, until fate, in the form of an appearance of a stranger, intervened. In my view, the X which Dibelius spoke of which bridges the life of Jesus and the rise of Christianity, must include the fact that Jesus made some exalted claims about himself directly and indirectly long before his disciples responded in kind. He is as Eduard Schweizer once said—“the man who fits no one modern formula”. In this regard, he was as much of an enigma as the visions he related to his followers. It appears it still take divine intervention from above to decode the man and his mysterious self-revelation, for “no one knows the Son except the Father” or so I’m told.

On Authenticating Ossuary Inscriptions-- Gabriel Barkay's 10 Commandments

In his compelling lecture on how a scholar should go about establishing the authenticity of an ancient inscription, whether on an ossuary or in some other form, Barkay provides us with 10 points that need to followed to get to the bottom of the matter. I find myself very much in agreement with what he says. This brief lecture is excellent and is presented on the BAR website. Among other things he stresses that it is too extreme a view to suggest we should ignore unprovenanced artifacts, or simply assume they are forged. Here is the link--- see what you think.

http://forgerydownload.webtransit.com/biblical_arch.mp3

If this link does not work go to www.bib-arch.org and look under the James ossuary bits and click on the Gabby Barkay link.

Dr. Seuss' --'Horton Hears a Who'

There are certainly not many G rated movies any more. When I was growing up, back at the dawn of time when the earth was still cooling, there were plenty of them, and the movie makers never wanted to get even an R rating. Pg 13 was as far as most dared push the envelope. One of the great pleasures of being a child in the 50s was that reading was actually emphasized as important, and was rewarded. Those Weekly Readers got you somewhere, and the library was a regular and popular destination for the young. Certainly some of the most popular books children enjoyed reading in that era, and later were the some 40 books of Theodor Seuss Geisel (1904-91). He was famous for his zany characters and his even more entertaining drawings of wild and woolly characters. He made the Disney characters look like Vanilla Ice Cream, and even the Looney Tunes Characters were outdone from time to time. It is all the more amazing that it took so long for some of his classic children's books to be made into movies. Of course his most famous books were 'The Cat in the Hat' (and its sequels) 'Green Eggs and Ham' and 'How The Grinch Stole Christmas'. One of the most creative aspects of his books were his clever rhymes. Indeed most of his books were rhymes from start to finish. I have no doubt that these books affected me early on and were one impetus propelling me into writing poetry that rhymed. Rhyming was made cool by Dr. Seuss.

But there was much more going on in Geisel's books than just entertaining rhymes and fascinating animal characters. Geisel had some interesting educational and philosophical messages to convey, and 'Horton Hears a Who' is a perfect illustration of this tendency.
What most will not know about Theodor Geisel is that his Dr. Seuss books came at the very end of a long and interesting career as a writer, political cartoonist, satirist, writing of documentaries and much more. Here is one summary of what happened in the early 50s to prompt the writing of these books, courtesy of Wikipedia---
----------------------

"At the same time, an important development occurred that influenced much of Seuss' later work. In May 1954, Life magazine published a report on illiteracy among school children, which concluded that children were not learning to read because their books were boring. Accordingly, Seuss' publisher made up a list of 400 words he felt were important and asked Dr. Seuss to cut the list to 250 words and write a book using only those words. Nine months later, Seuss, using 220 of the words given to him, completed The Cat in the Hat. This book was a tour de force—it retained the drawing style, verse rhythms, and all the imaginative power of Seuss' earlier works, but because of its simplified vocabulary could be read by beginning readers. A rumor exists,that in 1960, Bennett Cerf bet Dr. Seuss $50 that he couldn't write an entire book using only fifty words. The result was supposedly Green Eggs and Ham. The additional rumor that Cerf never paid Seuss the $50 has never been proven and is most likely untrue. These books achieved significant international success and remain very popular.

Dr. Seuss went on to write many other children's books, both in his new simplified-vocabulary manner (sold as "Beginner Books") and in his older, more elaborate style. In 1982 Dr. Seuss wrote "Hunches in Bunches". The Beginner Books were not easy for Seuss, and reportedly he labored for months crafting them."

--------------------

With this background were in a bit better position to evaluate what Seuss accomplished. For one thing he was the champion of the little person, and this comes through so very clearly in 'Horton Hears a Who'. Even small people are people deserving of respect and love. This same book also reveals Seuss' satirizing of those who don't believe in anything bigger than themselves, or anything that they can't see or touch. Every chance he got, Seuss ridiculed cynicism, and championed the use of the imagination to create solutions in life. He had reason to believe in such things since he had to support his family through the Great Depression by his wits. He drew ads for General Electric, the Saturday Evening Post, Vanity Fair, Life Magazine, NBC, and even Standard Oil during that period of his life. He was a master of ridiculing those who took the fun, joy, and excitement, and sense of wonder out of life (see 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas').

So what should we think of the new movie, which very cautiously tells us it is an adaptation of Seuss' book? Adaption it is, since most of this movie (clocking in at 1 hour and 50 minutes) has no rhymes at all. Well on the positive side, Carol Burnett does a wonderful job as a buoyant but annoying kangaroo Mom who thinks her job is being the thought police for her jungle community. And both Steve Carrell (as the Mayor of Whoville) and Jim Carrey (as Horton) are effective in their voicings of the characters. And of course the animation is very good indeed, with the presentation of Whoville offering us the real flavor and color schema of Seuss' work. But something is missing.

This movie, unlike say 'Ratatouille' lacks creative spark, unlike Seuss' original book. It relies too much on motion and action and too little on the intellectual side of Seuss' work. The characters are likable enough, but they certainly do not capture the heart or imagination like other such films (say for example the 'Lion King', or the 'Emperor's New Groove'). As a holiday movie, its the best there is in the theaters just now, and is not likely to offend any one, but it is also unlikely to make many see the larger human values that Seuss sought to encode into his work, which is a pity. It would have been nice as well if there had been a better sound track for this film as well. All in all, I give this film a B- compared to the better work in its genre. Not bad, but it could have been much better.
------------------

Rolling the Stone in front of the Jesus Tomb Theory

An article just appeared in National Review about the actual outcome of the Princeton Conference in January which among other things discussed the controversial Jesus tomb theory about the Talpiot tomb. Here is the link:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQwZjI5NWQ4Zjg1NTlkYjgzY2Y4NGExOTNiYTE1YTE=

In terms of fair representation of what all the scholars at the conference (save one) concluded about the matter (namely they all rejected or were highly dubious about the theory including all the archaeologists and epigraphers present), this article provides a far less distorted picture than the original coverage of Time magazine.

Its time to roll the stone in front of that tomb theory once and for all, as it has been tried, and found wanting over and over again in various ways. The forthcoming article by Richard Bauckham on the onomasticon is decisive in my judgment.

REJUVENATION

The image here is a bit dark, but then it is Nikolai Ge's Painting 'The Harbingers of Resurrection' The picture is of Mary Magdalene coming from the empty tomb, face uplifted to the rising sun, having seen the risen Jesus. She is walking by the old walls of the city of Jerusalem, and in the right foreground there is a downcast Roman centurion walking in the opposite direction-- like two ships passing in the night one going forth into light, the other into darkness. I have loved this painting ever since I first saw it in Russia, and it has inspired the following poem. Happy Easter to one and all--- Christos Anesti.

-------------------

The Cool of the tomb

The heat of the sun,

Returning to remedy

What was undone.

The spices in hand,

The ointment in jar

Daybreak excursion

That didn’t get far.

The guard was asleep

The stone rolled away

The body was gone,

What could they say?

Did someone steal in

Under cover of night

Purloin the body

Vanish from sight?

Was he moved by the gardener,

As he cleaned up the mess?

The women would wonder

In the midst of distress.

The angel attendants

Sat idly by,

‘Why are you weeping?’

Was their instant reply.

Cruel question or pointless

Why need they to ask?

‘They have stolen his body,

And I can’t do my task’

What kind of cruel villain

Disturbs the dead,

Was his death not enough

Was there no mortal dread?

Had all of Christ’s miracles

Led to this end,

To a grave and a tomb,

And the loss of a friend?

Could the great Physician

Not heal himself then

Not avert disaster

Not rise up again?

Jairus’ daughter

The Nain widow’s son,

The Beloved Disciple

But what of the One?

Who would come to his rescue,

Who would champion his cause,

Who would touch his cold body,

Who would unwrap the gauze?

No mortal dared enter

Was sacrilege done?

Who stole their poor Jesus,

God’s only Son?

Not empty tomb or angels,

Could assuage such deep grief

Or convince he was risen,

Or provide soul relief.

No vision of the Master,

No delusion too grand,

Could overcome disaster,

Could meet their demand.

‘They would see Jesus,’

He must call them by name,

No similar stranger

Their hopes could reclaim.

But then in an instant,

‘Miriam’ and she ran…

And suddenly she was clinging

To the risen Son of Man.

‘Go tell the disciples,

Go tell them it’s so

God’s yes to life,

Is louder than death’s no!’

So Miriam went proclaiming

So says the script

The males maligned the preacher

Women’s ‘fantasies’ they quipped.

Empty tomb insufficient

Angelic vision grand or gruff

Even an ascended Jesus

Wasn’t resurrection enough.

It was Jesus’ appearances

To friend and to foe

That turned around history,

Showed it where to go.

The denier was restored

The deserters were found

The women who were grieving

Were all turned around.

And Saul the assaulter

Stopped dead in his tracks,

Saw Jesus arisen

And finally turned back.

And James his own brother,

Who had previously sneered (Jn. 7.5)

Began to believe

Just because he appeared.

No one witnessed Easter

At the dawn of that day,

But they saw the result,

Meeting Him on the way.

On the road to Emmaus

Or in mid-flight from the tomb

Or hiding in darkness,

Or near Damascus’ gloom.

They didn’t find Jesus,

No dreams calmed their fears

What changed their whole lives

Was when Jesus appeared.

The story’s too improbable

NOT to be true,

And that is why Easter,

Can still happen for you.

BW3 March 21 2008

Easter Miracles-- Russian Style

"I'll believe Jesus rose from the dead," said the angry Communist, " when the atheist leader of the Soviet Union becomes a Christian." These remarks, of course were typical during the years of the Soviet Empire and the Iron Curtain. Teenagers in America today hardly realize what a remarkable change has happened in Russia since the early 90s. Indeed it is nothing short of miraculous, and I have had the privilege of observing this first hand while teaching from time to time in Moscow.

And now comes this story about which I can only rejoice. Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Premier of the Soviet Union and the man whom President Ronald Reagan implored "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" when he was in Berlin is now openly testifying that he is a Christian. Below you will find the link to the story in the British Paper the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/wgorbachev119.xml

Perhaps most interesting of all is the influence of St. Francis of Assisi and his writings on Gorbachev in this whole process.

The Lord is by no means finished with us all yet, and the rise and flourishing of Christianity once more in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet bloc countries is a clear sign of the moving of the Holy Spirit.

The last time I was in Moscow there was a huge Christian rally at the downtown convention center which once held the large Communist rallies. Instead, there was a charismatic worship service, complete with American and British praise songs now being sung in Russian--- 'Slava Boga' (Russian for 'Praise the Lord'). There were hundreds and hundreds of young people singing at the top of their lungs. Only the coldest of Christians hearts would not be moved to tears by such a sight. Some day the day may come when Russia becomes a more Christian nation than the U.S. of A. for the Spirit moves where it will. In the meanwhile, I am thankful for all the signs of Christianity rising from the ashes in Russia even now. It must have something to do with that empty tomb in Jerusalem and the one who vacated it :)

Happy Easter

Deepak Chopra's Buddhist Jesus

In his new book "The Third Jesus: The Christ we Can't Ignore' Deepak Chopra sets up a discussion of Jesus first as a historical figure, then as Christianity's Son of God, a creation of dogma, and finally of the mystical or cosmic Christ accessible to all persons regardless of their religious orientation or affiliation. In this post I am only really interested in the third of these presentations which is the real thrust of Chopra's book, its leading edge. Here is a direct quote from the Amazon description of that third part of this book:

"And finally, there is the third Jesus, the cosmic Christ, the spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name. He speaks to the individual who wants to find God as a personal experience, to attain what some might call grace, or God-consciousness, or enlightenment.

When we take Jesus literally, we are faced with the impossible. How can we truly “love thy neighbor as thyself”? But when we see the exhortations of Jesus as invitations to join him on a higher spiritual plane, his words suddenly make sense.

Ultimately, Chopra argues, Christianity needs to overcome its tendency to be exclusionary and refocus on being a religion of personal insight and spiritual growth. In this way Jesus can be seen for the universal teacher he truly is–someone whose teachings of compassion, tolerance, and understanding can embrace and be embraced by all of us."

This approach of course comports nicely with the more Gnostic and spiritualist tendencies of our culture, not to mention its religious pluralism, and also its anti-institutional religion tendencies as well. The problem of course is that Chopra turns Jesus into an advocate of pantheism, and more specifically into the Buddhist form of pantheism. And for sure, the monotheistic Jew from Nazareth would be vigorously rejecting this caricature were he here to debate Chopra in person.

I have been enjoying reading of late A.J. Jacobs fascinating auto-biographical spiritual chronicle entitled The Year of Living Biblically(I will be reviewing this book in due course), which has a passage in it which will serve quite nicely as a critique of Chopra----

A friend and her husband had come over to the Jacobs for dinner and they were talking about the answer they gave their daughter when she asked about God. The mother had said God is in the wind, the trees, the rocks, the forklift truck the cement mixer, in general in everything-- pantheism or more correctly pan-entheism. Jacobs replied:

"The only thing is, this is not the God of the Israelites. This is not the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. That God is an interactive God. he rewards and punishes them. He argues with them, negotiates with them forgives them, occasionally smites them. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures has human emotions-- love and anger. "

And then in a moment of honesty in his own mostly Jewish spiritual pilgrimage, Jacobs admits that he has not yet fully believed in such a God. He adds

"My God doesn't. My God is impersonal. My God is the God of Spinoza. Or the God of Paul Tillich, the Protestant theologian who believed that God was 'the ground of being'. Or the God of the Jedi knights. Its a powerful but vague all-pervasive force; some slightly more sophisticated version of pantheism. I don't even know if my God can be said to have a grand plan, much less mood swings." (p. 153).


The point is that Jacobs is right in his analysis of the God of the Bible, and while we are at it, Jesus is far more like that, than the portrait of Jesus we get in Chopra's book.

Jesus did not, and does not come to take us to a higher spiritual plane, so that we might better get in touch with the little bit of God that is in us all or our own God-consciousness. Indeed, he seeks to lead us to have a relationship with the God he called Abba who is wholly other, and who urges us to recognize the Creator Creature distinction. We are not God, nor is God inherently in us or a part of our being. The end result of navel gazing is that we may well get more in touch with 'our inner child', but we do not get more in touch with the 'outer' God who created the universe and all that is in it. The former sort of spirituality is a form of narcissism, or at its worse, self- worship. The latter form of spirituality reinforces the Creator/creature distinction and leads to worship of the one true God.

Jesus, if you must call him mystical at all, was an apocalyptic seer who had exclusionary visions--- he said things like " All things have been given me by the Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and to whomever the Son wishes to reveal the Father." (Mt. 11.27). In other words, the mysticism of Jesus has nothing to do with pan-spirituality. It has far more to do with his saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me." And it is salutary to remember this especially now during Holy Week.

Nouwen's Insights-- on Waiting on the Lord

During a difficult season in my Christian life, Henri Nouwen provided me with manna from heaven, water in a weary and dry place and guidance on spiritual formation that I still live out of. I would say he is certainly one of the greatest spiritual formation writers of any age. The picture on the left is from one of his books which deals both with slowing down and listening to God, and also being honest with God and waiting upon the Lord.

James Howell provided this link today---

Henri Nouwen gave a wonderfully insightful lecture on this, called “The Spirituality of Waiting,” which you can read online, or hear via a recording of Nouwen himself!

It will be worth your time.

"For those who wait in the Lord will renew their strength,

They will mount up like eagles with wings of great length. They will run and not get weary, they will walk and not faint. Giving strength to the weary, and power to his saints."



Dona nobis pacem,

BW3

A FAST CALL TO SLOW DOWN--- MANDATUM THURSDAY

In the Gospels, when the Evangelists get to Passion Week the narrative slows down, even to the point of giving us an hour by hour, blow by blow account for some parts of the story. We have arrived at prime time, or ‘Jesus hour’ as it is called in the Fourth Gospel. The Gospels have rightly been called Passion Narratives with a long introduction, and in some cases up to 34% of a Gospel will be taken up with the last week of Jesus’ life. Why? In part because of the soteriological importance of this part of the story, but also because it required more explaining, since early Jews were not looking for a crucified messiah, much less one from Nazareth in Galilee. This is also why there tends to be more fulfillment citations showing that this or that element of the Passion Narrative was after all foreshadowed in the OT. The unexpected needed to be explained and if Scriptural warrant for its happening could be given, so much the better, as it showed it was a part of God’s plan all along.

A crucial part of the entire story is the story of the Last Supper, involving a meal that likely transpired on Thursday night before Good Friday. The later Christian celebration of this night came to be called Mandatum, and then Maundy (for short) Thursday. Mandatum is the Latin for mandate, or commandment. The ‘mandate’ in question comes from the Johannine account of things--- ‘a new commandment I give you, that you should love one another’. This is where the name of the day ultimately derives from.

How should we celebrate this most holy of all church seasons? One way historically the church has done so is by fasting. And one way to do that is to follow the line of the story. Jesus at the last supper in essence says about the cup he was partaking of after the meal “I shall not drink it again, until I drink it new in the Kingdom”. I have followed this lead by fasting from Thursday night until Sunday morning, rising early for an Easter breakfast. I tend to do a solid food fast, though some do without beverages or even everything during this period. What is the point?

The point is to force yourself to slow down, and focus on the story of what happened at the end of Holy Week, and what Christ has done for you. Instead of eating, you spend the hour (or however long) praying, or reading the story, or going on a spiritual walk, or the like. When you get hungry, you simply drink water. By Friday night you will go to bed hungry, and by Saturday night you may well need some Advil to go to bed. But this spiritual discipline will remind you of the things that Jesus went through to bring us redemption. It will remind you of his last meal, because you have had your last one for a while. It will remind you that you are called to die to self and live to the Lord. As Paul puts it—“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” Are you ready to take up your cross and follow the Master? One of the benefits is that as Paul says in Phil. 4, you learn how to be content, and to live without, as well as to live with. It reminds you of your mortality, but also of your fragility. This body keeps needing air, food, water to prop it up day after day. It reminds us of those who often go without these basic necessities many days of the year. It reminds us to pray “give us this day….”

Just down from my hometown of High Point N.C. is Winston Salem, the home of the Moravians in that part of the world. Before dawn their band, rather like a Salvation Army band goes to the Moravian grave yard and begins playing there hearts out as the sun comes up over the graveyard. Then they march down the streets of Old Salem and into the Chapel there. After worship wonderful Moravian cinnamon bread and special Moravian cookies are parceled out. Half way around world at the same pre-dawn hour Greeks are running through the streets of Athens making noise and shouting Christos anesti--- Christ is risen. There are many ways to celebrate Easter. But if you do not have some concept of the cost of our redemption and what it took to get to that Sunday morning, the celebration, while still joyful, is less meaningful.

I remember the first time I ever preached a sunrise service, and we sang “Up from the Grave He Arose”. I was starving, but I was giddy with joy. Jesus was arising, and would meet me at breakfast, like the breakfast by the sea in John 21. Find a way to make this Holy Week something special for you and your own spiritual journey. I promise you will not regret it. Why not join me in my fast, and thereafter tell me of your experiences and we will post it on the blog.

Here is a quote from the great Jewish Mamonides about the OT food laws, but it could just as easily be applied to the discipline of fasting:

It trains "us to master our appetites; to accustom us to restrain our desires; and to avoid considering the pleasure of eating and drinking as the goal of human existence."

Bart Ehrman's New Book-- God's Problem

Well its Holy Week, and of course we have come to expect bombshells lobbed at the church by various pundits during this week, and right on cue we have a new book by Bart Ehrman that suggests "we can't believe a good all powerful God exists because there is suffering in the world." My friend Dr James Howell, the senior minister at Myers Park UMC in Charlotte has now reviewed an advance copy of the book, and here is his review (see link below)--- right on target. (N.B. Howell has a PhD in theology from Princeton and a top drawer degree from Duke as well. He is not your average minister).

This book is sad in many ways, not the least of which is, it doesn't even meaningfully interact with any of the great scholars and theologians over the past 2,000 who had wrestled with the issue of God and suffering. It is as if Ehrman discovered there are issues in regard to suffering for a belief in God.

In one sense of course, Bart Ehrman's views are understandable. If you are raised to believe that a good sovereign God before the beginning of time pre-determined all things that have happen in this world, then indeed you have a severe problem of logic when it comes to both sin and suffering, both misery and mayhem. But in fact the God of fatalism with all things predetermined is not the God of the Bible. That is the God of Islam, but not Christianity at its best.

The Bible teaches that most of human suffering is of our own making, not predestined by God. There is this little doctrine called the Fall, and also the matter of humans being created with wills of their own. Both the Fall and at least the power of contrary choice in fallen persons more than adequately explains most of the wickedness we see in the world--- it is, as Tennyson used to say "a case of man's inhumanity to man". Read Jame's review and see what whether you think you need to read Ehrman's polemic or not.

http://www.charlotte.com/440/story/537338.html

New Time Article on Rob Bell's Take on early Judaism (and Mine)

You might not realize it from the most recent article in Time about Rob Bell and myself, but I am a Rob Bell fan, and am very grateful for numerous things he is doing for Christ. I do have an issue with his use of early Jewish sources that date from after the time of Jesus, and the attempt to read Jesus as if he were a post-70 A.D. rabbinic figure, when in fact he seldom sounds anything like a rabbi in the way he teaches, but rather more like a Jewish sage such as Honi the Circle Drawer, or Hanina ben Dosa. Here is the link to the article itself, and a good article it is by a fine writer (David van Bema). See what you think, and compare it to my earlier posts on Rob, which you can easily find by doing a search on my blog typing in Rob Bell.


10. Re-Judaizing Jesus

Southern Baptists Turn Green (or at least Go Green)

In a move that will surprise many, various Southern Baptist leaders have decided to support a declaration on climate change. This involves some 44 significant Baptist leaders and it marks a departure from the position on global warming adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention itself.

Here is the article in the NY Times---

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/10baptist.html?th&emc=th

These leaders, which include Rev. Frank Page, the current leader of the SBC, are concerned that the Convention position is too timid, and does not address or recognize the seriousness of the case for global warming and climate change. There is now a Southern Baptist Climate Change Initiative as well. Dr Timothy George of Beeson Divinity is one of the signers and supporters of these new stances that take issue with the 2007 declaration by the SBC itself. SBC watchers have noted that this initiative is being spear-headed by some of the younger and rising leaders in the SBC.

Things We Did Not Learn in Seminary

My former student Omar, has sent me the preaching sample of the week. In this sermon clip from You Tube you will learn: 1) how for a Christian male to be a real man; 2) what's wrong with America and even its President; 3) why the' ole King James' is still the best; 4) what's wrong with Germany, 5) why the translators of the NIV did a bad job, and that 6) God physically wrote the Bible, among other wonderful things. Learn for yourself from pastor Steve in Faithful Wyoming.

Here is the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4&eurl=http://thirdwatch.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/bad-hermeneutics-3

P.S. If you have trouble with this link, then go to You Tube to the source Sanderson 1611 and look for the item entitled 'Baptist preaches on KJV...'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4&eurl=http://thirdwatch.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/bad-hermeneutics-3/

Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' -- An Exercise in Mythmaking

In a post-modern post-Christian age where atheism has gained some new life, it was to be expected that there would be some persons who thought it might now be possible to make Jesus and Christianity vanish without a trace through a certain kind of prestidigitation, or at least an enormous amount of revisionist history writing. One such effort is that of Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle', which draws on some of the tenets of G.A. Wells and others of their ilk. In response to too many requests here is the basic deconstruction of such unhistorical and even anti-historical myth-making.

The basic tenets of 'The Jesus Puzzle' are listed below in numerical fashion can be summed up as follows (my comments on each of its twelve tenets can be found in bold and in a different color):

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

THESE ASSERTIONS INVOLVE SUCH OBVIOUS BLUNDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1) FIRST OF ALL THE EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARE PAUL'S LETTERS (WRITTEN BETWEEN A.D 49-64 OR SO) IN THESE LETTERS NOT ONLY DO WE HEAR ABOUT JESUS AS A HISTORICAL FIGURE BUT ALSO PETER, JAMES, JOHN, AND A HOST OF OTHERS WHO WERE EYEWITNESSES OF JESUS' EXISTENCE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES THAT HE PERFORMED MIRACLES, TAUGHT VARIOUS THINGS AND DIED ON THE CROSS. 2) IN THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FIRST CENTURY WE HAVE NUMEROUS SUMMARIES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS, NOT TO MENTION CLEAR REFERENCES TO MARY AND THE BROTHERS OF JESUS AS WELL. PAUL ALSO MENTIONS THESE BROTHERS CLEARLY ENOUGH IN 1 CORINTHIANS. IN SHORT, THERE IS NO SILENCE ABOUT THESE FIGURES IN OUR EARLIEST NT DOCUMENTS 3) FURTHERMORE, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS ARE BOTH MENTIONED NOT ONLY IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, BUT ALSO IN JOSEPHUS,' ANTIQUITIES, WRITTEN IN THE LATTER DECADES OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 4) TO THIS WE MAY ADD THE TESTIMONY OF TACITUS WHO REFERS NOT ONLY TO JESUS BUT TO HIS EXECUTION UNDER PILATE.

IN SHORT, THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ABOUT SUCH MATTERS, BUT RATHER PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. TO THIS SHOULD BE ADDED THE FACT THAT THE CANONICAL GOSPELS, WHICH ARE ALREADY KNOWN AND CITED BY CHURCH FATHERS IN THE SECOND CENTURY, WERE ALL EXTANT IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. AND ARE WRITTEN EITHER BY AN EYEWITNESS ( THE FOURTH GOSPEL) OR BY THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH THE EYEWITNESSES (MARK, LUKE, AND SOMEONE WHO KNEW MATTHEW). THIS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS AT THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. (SEE RICHARD BAUCKHAM'S JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES).

IN SHORT, MR. DOHERTY HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK ON THESE MATTERS.


Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO THESE MISTAKEN NOTIONS ABOVE, TO WHICH CAN BE ADDED TACITUS WAS NOT WRITING THE ANNALS IN 115 A.D. AND SHOWS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF HAVING CLOSE CONTACT WITH ANY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. AS FOR JOSEPHUS THOSE SCHOLARS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THE 'ANTIQUITIES' ARE QUITE CLEAR-- THE REFERENCES TO JESUS IN THIS WORK CANNOT SIMPLY BE WRITTEN OFF AS LATER CHRISTIAN INSERTIONS, EVEN IN TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM, WHERE THERE WERE SOME LATER CHRISTIAN ADDITIONS. DOHERTY'S CLAIM THAT IT IS 'UNIVERSALLY' RECOGNIZED IS SIMPLY A CANARD, WHICH SHOWS HE HASN'T BOTHERED TO EVEN READ THE SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXT CRITICISM ON JOSEPHUS' WORK. FAR FROM THE JOSEPHUS' REFERENCES BEING INCONCLUSIVE, THIS EVIDENCE IS DECISIVE. CONSIDERING THAT JESUS NEVER WANDERED FROM THE IMMEDIATELY VICINITY OF THE HOLY LAND IT IS NO SURPRISE AT ALL IN AN AGE BEFORE THE INTERNET THAT HE IS NOT WIDELY ATTESTED IN THE FIRST CENTURY. INDEED, THE SURPRISE IS THAT HE IS ATTESTED BOTH BY A JEWISH AND A ROMAN HISTORIAN WHO HAD NO AXES TO GRIND IN THE MATTER.

Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

THIS MUST BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS-- A BALD FACED ASSERTION WHICH COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE. GAL. 4 IN PAUL'S EARLIEST LETTER WRITTEN IN A.D. 49 OR SO WE HEAR THESE WORDS " BUT WHEN THE TIME HAD FULLY COME, GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF WOMAN, BORN UNDER THE LAW TO REDEEM THOSE UNDER THE LAW." IN ONE OF HIS LATEST LETTERS WE HEAR: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL."

IN SHORT, DOHERTY SEEMS TO HE CHANNELING THE MISINFORMATION OF THE LATER GNOSTIC GOSPELS, NOT THE EARLIER AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED CANONICAL ONES. NOT ONLY DOES HE BADLY MISREAD PAUL, HE EQUALLY MISREADS THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ON THESE VERY MATTERS. IT IS PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF REMARKS WHICH SHOW SUCH IGNORANCE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHICH LEAD NT SCHOLARS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, JEWISH FAITH, AND NO FAITH TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PURE POLEMICS OF DOHERTY--- HE IS NO HISTORIAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONVERSANT WITH THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE VERY MATTERS HE WANTS TO PONTIFICATE ON.


Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

HERE AGAIN THIS SORT OF ASSERTION BETRAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL'S WRITINGS, AND INDEED OF EARLY JEWISH DEMONOLOGY. IN EARLY JUDAISM DEMONS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN SPHERE AND IN THE HUMAN REALM, AS WELL AS IN THE HEAVENLIES. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR MATTER. PAUL CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUGGEST JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. TO THE CONTRARY, PAUL RECITES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CREED IN 1 COR. 15.1-5 THAT JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED LIKE ANY OTHER MORTAL, AND THEN WAS SEEN ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER HIS DEATH. SINCE TACITUS AS WELL STRESSES JESUS DIED A MUNDANE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF PILATE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROMAN RECORDS, IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE, OR PROJECT IT INTO A MERELY SPIRITUAL REALM. FURTHERMORE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN SOME SPIRITUAL REALM ( SEE E.G. HEB. 13, OR HEB. 7-11). IT DOES REFER TO JESUS GOING TO HEAVEN AFTER HIS DEATH AND ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN. BUT HIS DEATH IS SAID TO BE A SACRIFICE ON EARTH, LIKE THAT OF A PASSOVER SACRIFICE. ONCE AGAIN. DOHERTY HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO INTERACT WITH ANY OF THE EXPERTS ON EITHER PAUL OR HEBREWS, AND CHOOSES TO MAKE UP HIS INTERPRETATIONS AS HE FEELS LED.

Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THERE WERE SOME EARLY JEWS AFFECTED IN THEIR THINKING BY PLATONISM. PHILO WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE, AND THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS MAYBE ANOTHER. HOWEVER, MOST OF WHAT IS SAID ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH AND SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ARISES NOT OUT OF REFLECTION ON THE WORKS OF PLATO BUT OUT OF EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC THINKING WHICH BEGAN IN EXILE BEFORE ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR THE AFFECTS OF HELLENISTIC THINKING ON JEWS. IT IS TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THE SOURCE OF OTHER WORLD AND AFTERLIFE THINKING IN THE NT AND IN MOST EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE IS CLEARLY ENOUGH BOOKS LIKE DANIEL, EZEKIEL, ZECHARIAH AND OTHER JEWISH APOCALYPTIC PROPHETS. THE 'HELLENISTIC' EXPLANATION OF THEIR OTHERWORLDLY THINKING COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EARLIER JEWISH LITERATURE, WHICH BTW WAS THE SOURCE OF JESUS' OWN SELF- UNDERSTANDING--- ESPECIALLY DANIEL 7 AND ZECHARIAH INFLUENCED JESUS.

Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS MISINFORMATION IN DETAIL IN MY POST ON THE ZEITGEIST MOVIE LAST FALL. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED HERE. SEE THAT POST (JUST TYPE IN ZEITGEIST MOVIE IN THE SEARCH FIELD FOR THIS BLOG).

Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.

THIS COULD BE SAID TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF GNOSTIC THEOLOGY, THAT GOD WHO IS SPIRIT WHO CAN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD, BUT IT BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE THOROUGHLY JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE NT WRITERS WHO NOT ONLY AFFIRM AN INCARNATION OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION ON EARTH BUT STRESS HE WILL RETURN TO EARTH TO BRING IN A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NT REFLECTS THE OT THEOLOGY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE MATERIAL CREATION. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE STRONG AFFIRMATION OF THE GOODNESS OF CREATION THAN THAT GOD'S SON WOULD TAKE ON A PHYSICAL AND GENUINE HUMAN NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ATTEMPT TO READ A RADICAL SPIRITUAL /MATERIAL DICHOTOMY INTO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA AND ITS FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, AND AGAIN REFLECTS A TOTAL FAILURE TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES AS THEY EXIST.

Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

I MUST STRESS THAT WE NOW HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ACTS BEING A FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY). FURTHERMORE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NT SCHOLARS THINK THAT JOHN IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL STORY, INDEED IT CLAIMS TO BE AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (ON THE TRUTH OF WHICH--- SEE MY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS?. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY ODD ABOUT THIS TENET OF DOHERTY'S IS THAT IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE THREE SYNOPTIC ACCOUNTS. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST THEY ALL ONLY HAD ONE VERSION OF THE STORY. IT SUGGESTS THEY HAD SEVERAL, AND INDEED THE PROLOGUE IN LK.1.1-4 MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY--- LUKE CONSULTED BOTH EYEWITNESSES AND EARLY PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND INDEED HE ADMITS VARIOUS PERSONS HAD WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY BEFORE HIM, NOT JUST MARK. I WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A REFERENCE TO AT LEAST MARK AND MATTHEW'S ACCOUNTS.

NOTICE AGAIN THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE USE OF GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE--- "NOW ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SCHOLARLY CONCLUSION". HE CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT NT SCHOLARS, OR CLASSICS SCHOLARS, OR ANCIENT HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD. SO WHAT SCHOLARS IS HE REFERRING TO. SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THIS SORT OF BRAZEN POLEMIC WHICH DOES NOT DEAL EITHER WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, OR WITH THE CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP DONE FOR CENTURIES UPON IT.

Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO SCHOLARS OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS WHO SUGGESTED MIDRASH WAS INVOLVED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS TODAY, THIS SUGGESTION IS REJECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENRE AND NATURE OF THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES. MIDRASH IS BY DEFINTION A FORM OF CREATIVE EXEGESIS ON A PRE-EXISTING JEWISH TEXT. IT IS NOT A LITERARY GENRE AT ALL. MOST SCHOLARS TODAY RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE THE GOSPEL WRITERS DO SOMETIMES CREATIVELY INTERPRET THIS OR THAT PIECE OF THE OT IN SERVICE OF EFFECTIVELY PREACHING CHRIST, THAT THIS IN NO WAY ACCOUNTS FOR THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CHRIST STORY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OT DOES NOT PREDICT A CRUCIFIED MESSIAH. NO EARLY JEWS READ ISAIAH 53 THAT WAY. FURTHERMORE, ISAIAH 7.14 DOES NOT PREDICT A VIRGINAL CONCEPTION IN THE GOSPEL SENSE OF THE PHRASE. WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GOSPELS IS EVENTS WHICH HAPPENED TO JESUS WHICH WERE UNEXPECTED, AND UNTIL FURTHER DILIGENT STUDY OF THE OT WAS DONE, NO ONE HAD THOUGHT SUCH THINGS WERE PREDICTED IN THE OT. AS RICHARD BURRIDIGE'S BOOK 'WHAT ARE THE GOSPELS' SHOWS AT LENGTH, THE GOSPELS ARE LIKE ANCIENT BIOGRAPHIES AND HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS, NOT LIKE THE EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUE OF MIDRASH. YOU COULD NEVER HAVE CREATED THE JESUS STORY OUT OF THE OT ITSELF, BUT ONCE THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JESUS HAPPENED AS IT DID, THIS FORCED A RE-READING OF THE OT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVENTS OF JESUS' LIFE.

Piece No. 10: THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

Q IS A CIPHER FOR THE NON-MARKAN MATERIALS FOUND IN COMMON IN LUKE AND MATTHEW. THIS MAY REFLECT ORAL TRADITIONS THESE TWO GOSPEL WRITERS KNEW OF, OR AN EARLIER WRITTEN DOCUMENT, BUT WHICHEVER IT IS, I KNOW OF NO Q EXPERT WHO SUGGESTS THAT THE Q COMMUNITY INVENTED A JESUS FOUNDER FIGURE. IN FACT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL Q SCHOLARS WOULD REJECT THIS ASSERTION AS PURE NONSENSE AND WISHFUL THINKING ON DOHERTY'S PART. TO THE CONTRARY, IF YOU STUDY THE Q MATERIAL CLOSELY IN THE GREEK, YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT THERE IS BOTH NARRATIVE AND SAYINGS MATERIAL IN THIS SOURCE, AND BOTH REFLECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIFE, EVENTS, AND TEACHING OF A HISTORICAL FIGURED NAMED JESUS OF NAZARETH.

AS FOR THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS A Q COMMUNITY, THIS IS DEBATED, BUT IT APPEARS THAT A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS EVER A COMMUNITY THAT HAD Q AS ITS ONLY CHRISTIAN SOURCE MATERIAL, OR THAT ONLY BELIEVED IN A JESUS THAT WAS A TEACHER. THAT IS RATHER LIKE ARGUING THAT THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY ONLY BELIEVED IN THE DOCUMENTS IT HAD CREATED FOR ITSELF, NOT ALL OF THE OTHER SOURCE MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO IT.

Piece No. 11: A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

I HAVE SHOWN AT LENGTH IN WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS HOW VERY WRONG THIS WHOLE THESIS IS. FIRSTLY THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WAS A TIGHT KNIT SMALL OFFSHOOT FROM EARLY JUDAISM. ITS LEADERS WERE CALLED APOSTLES AS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM PAUL, THE GOSPELS, 1 PETER, REVELATION AND OTHER SOURCES. NOT ONLY WAS THEIR A HIERARCHIAL LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE, WITH APOSTLES AND THEIR CO-WORKERS AT THE TOP, WE KNOW WHO WERE THE LEADERS WHO SPANNED THE EMPIRE AND HELPED BIND THE MOVEMENT TOGETHER--- PAUL AND HIS CO-WORKERS, PETER AND HIS, THE BELOVED DISCIPLE AND HIS CO-WORKERS, JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS AND HIS, AND SO ON. THE ATTEMPT TO PREDICATE THE LATER DIVERSITY FOUND IN THE LATE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH CENTURIES BACK INTO THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH SECT CALLED CHRISTIANITY IS BOTH BAD HISTORY WRITING AND POOR RESEARCH. IT ONCE AGAIN COMMITS THE SCHOLARLY SIN OF ANACHRONISM-- READING THE TRAITS OF A LATER AGE INTO AN EARLIER PERIOD. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS IT IGNORES THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF ORTHODOXY AND ORTHOPRAXY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM THE START. THIS IS HARDLY A SURPRISE IN A MOVEMENT FOUNDED BY DEVOUT EARLY JEWS. ALL THE NT BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY SUCH JEWS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LUKE-ACTS AND 2 PETER.

Piece No. 12: JESUS BECOMES HISTORY

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

THIS FINAL TENET HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY THE DISCUSSION ABOVE. IGNATIUS I AM SURE WOULD BE TRULY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK OF A HISTORICAL FIGURE NAMED JESUS WHO LIVED AND DIED UNDER PILATE. NO, THIS WAS ALREADY WIDELY KNOWN FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE. NOTICE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL'S WORDS IN 1 TIM. 6.13-- "IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHO GIVES LIFE TO EVERYTHING, AND OF CHRIST JESUS, WHO WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE MADE THE GOOD CONFESSION..."

MR. DOHERTY UNFORTUNATELY IS A MERE POLEMICIST. HE HAS NOT DONE HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK, HE CLEARLY HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE BROAD RANGE OF NT SCHOLARSHIP, AND OF COURSE HE COMES AT HIS STUDY WITH A STRONG AX TO GRIND.