Ehrman on Judas’ motives

Posted on August 20, 2011 by christopher fisher

In all four Gospels Judas Iscariot is said to be the one who betrayed Jesus to the authorities, leading to his arrest. The four accounts differ on why Judas did the foul deed. There is no reason stated in Mark, although we are told that he received money for the act, so maybe it was out of greed (14:10–11). Matthew (26:14) states explicitly that Judas did it for the money. Luke, on the other hand, indicates that Judas did it because “Satan entered into him” (22:3). In other words, the devil made him do it. In John, Judas is himself called “a devil” (6:70–71), and so presumably he betrayed his master because he had an evil streak. (Jesus Interrupted, p. 45-46)

Bart Ehrman likes to set up “contradictions” of this sort. He says, one gospel shows different motives than another or gives a different reason for something or another. In this section, he applies this claim against Judas’ motives. On the face value this claim of discrepancy looks like valid argument. After all, different gospel writers are explicitly giving divergent reasons for Judas’ actions. The Christian response is predictable: both (all) accounts are correct. Sometimes multiple reasons lead to certain outcomes. Ehrman thinks this is invalid:

The literary conclusion is that as is the case with Jesus himself, so too with Judas. Every portrayal of him is different, and we do a disservice to the author of each account if we pretend that he is saying exactly what some other author is saying. If Matthew wants to say that greed is what drove Judas to do what he did, but Luke wants to insist that the Devil made him do it, it is not really fair to either author to argue that they mean the same thing. If that’s what we think, we have, in effect, taken what Matthew says, combined it with what Luke says, and created then a mega-Gospel (for which we might as well throw in Mark and John as well, for good measure)—a Gospel found nowhere in the New Testament but simply in our own heads, as we write a Gospel of our own to substitute for the Gospels of the New Testament. In my view as a literary and historical scholar, that is not the best way to treat the early accounts of Jesus’ (or Judas’s) life. (The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, p. 33)

Heavy teaching! Ehrman is insistent that we not mix and match divergent accounts. It is curious then, when Ehrman recounts his conversion from Christianity that he gives similar divergent accounts:

“What I actually did learn at Princeton led me to change my mind about the Bible. I did not change my mind willingly—I went down kicking and screaming… it became clear to me over a long period of time that my former views of the Bible as the inerrant revelation from God were flat-out wrong. My choice was either to hold on to views that I had come to realize were in error or to follow where I believed the truth was leading me. In the end, it was no choice. If something was true, it was true; if not, not. (Jesus Interrupted, vii)

In Jesus Interrupted, it is crystal clear: problems with the New Testament led to Ehrman’s rejection of Christianity. It was these facts that led him “kicking and screaming” from the Church. Contrast this with Ehrman in God’s Problem:

“On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It’s a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things.” (God’s Problem, p. 3)

If we were to take Ehrman’s own methology, we would be forced to claim that one of these books was not written by Ehrman’s own hand. They contradict each other: one states that Ehrman left Christianity because the Bible was not inerrant, the other, because he could not reconcile God with evil.

This discrepancy can be explained away by pointing out that human beings are not single input robots. Human beings usually have multiple and competing (sometimes even contradictory) reasons for the things they do. A captain of industry might highly desire money and might also highly desire power. These may lead him to establish a corporation. Only rarely will one find a critic citing both reasons as the motivation for his actions. Usually, authors stick to a main motivation which complements the theme of the author’s point. In a text on Biblical errancy, Ehrman will highlight his struggle with the Bible. In a text on God, Ehrman will highlight his struggle with the problem of evil.

But Ehrman discounts this methodology for the Bible. To use Ehrman’s words against him:

This account, claiming both motivations to be true, is creating then a “mega-Ehrman” (for which we might as well throw in his other books which remain silent on the issue, for good measure)—a Ehrman found nowhere in his own writings but simply in our own heads, as we write a story of our own to substitute for the stories of the Ehrman texts. That is not the best way to treat the accounts of Ehrman’s conversion.

A common objection I have to Ehrman is “humans don’t work that way”. Ehrman prefers the mechanical approach to understanding complex human beings. One motive, one action. One author, one subject (as in individual). A more fluid understanding of any historical figure is to evaluate what each author says about the individual, and then form an image of a complex human being possessing complex inward struggles. Only when motives do not line up with the character should we discount them because they “conflict”.

So what is true about the motives of Judas? Ehrman paints an amazingly probable picture of who Judas could have been:

And so we can draw some important—and widely overlooked—inferences about who Judas was, based on the hard fact that he was one of the Twelve. Like the others, he followed Jesus because he accepted his message. He was so devoted to Jesus and his message that Jesus chose him to be one of the inner circle. Jesus understood this circle—and presumably the twelve members of it understood themselves—to be emblematic of those who would survive the coming judgment to be brought by the Son of Man, who would bring with him the Kingdom of God. These twelve represented the twelve tribes of Israel; in being responsive to Jesus’ teaching, they showed themselves faithful to the God of Jesus. Like the others, Judas anticipated that the end of all things was at hand. Moreover, he must have taken Jesus at his word, that he, along with the others, would be rulers once the Kingdom of God came. This would be soon—within their own generation. (The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot p. 152)

For Judas, Jesus’ interpretation of his anointing may have been the last straw. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, the disciples, including Judas, were looking ahead to the time when they were to rule in the coming kingdom… (The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, p. 167)

So why did Judas betray Jesus? It is possible, as I suggested above, that he simply thought matters were getting out of hand and he wanted Jesus securely taken out of the way before any violence broke out. But maybe it was the delay of the end that finally frustrated Judas and made him rethink everything he had heard. He, along with the others, thought they were to be glorious kings. They had made a trip to Jerusalem, raising their hopes that this would be the time, but nothing was happening and nothing evidently was about to happen. Maybe Judas had a crisis of faith, triggered by Jesus’ enigmatic references to his own coming demise, and out of bitterness he turned on his master. Maybe his hopes were dashed. Maybe he rebelled. Maybe he turned on the one he had loved out of despair, or anger, or raw frustration. (The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot p. 168)

Modifying Ehrman’s portrait: Judas, a follower of Jesus, was expecting Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel. A Messiah, as Ehrman explains, that: “would be a great and dynamic figure who would execute God’s will here on earth, such as by overthrowing God’s enemies in a mighty act of power.” (p. 124) This was not Jesus, and Judas may have been resentful. He might have joined thinking he was part of the elite and found nothing but misery and persecution. He was not going to be a King, as he was promised. The breaking point comes when Judas witnesses a woman pouring a year’s salary worth of perfume on Jesus’ feet. At some point in the past he had started embezzling money (his gateway rebellion action), and wanted that money for himself. He stirs up the other disciples to complain. Jesus rebukes him while telling of the Messiah’s own death, and Judas is pushed over the edge. He turns Jesus over to the authorities, telling them that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. He is angry at Jesus, raging with bitterness, and doubting if Jesus really is the Messiah. If Jesus is a false prophet, then Judas has wasted 3 years of his life and deserves what is coming to him. If Jesus is a true prophet, Judas thinks that he is acting as a catalyst to actually fulfill Messianic actions. Jesus may overcome and bring the kingdom that was promised. Judas may even see this scenario working out with Judas being proclaimed as the truest and most praised disciple. Once Judas sees Jesus’ true fate, though, he is shamed. All this plans are failed. He is not much more than a murderer. For all his bitterness and anger, Judas sees that he has done evil. Judas kills himself.

Now this story is not found in the gospels, at least not directly. But the gospels are not novels on the life and times of Judas. In fact, Judas is a minor character throughout the gospels except in a few fleeting passages. None of the gospel writers ever claimed to have a complete character sketch of Judas, detailing all his innermost thoughts. They ascribed their own evaluations and talking points when discussing Judas. Just as Ehrman describes different conversions from Christianity to highlight different points, the gospel writers do the same. Ehrman consistently confirms this throughout his writings.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Ehrman, People | 2 Comments

why can we trust the Bible

Posted on August 14, 2011 by christopher fisher

The following is a email I sent to someone who liked my YouTube videos and some of my video game modding work. He asked me about spirituality and how we can trust the Bible. Here was my response:

Sir,
Thank you for the kind words. I will try to respond to any questions you may have.

You expressed a sense of default skepticism in regards to our understanding of the Bible. Skepticism is a rational default position with the medley of religions in today’s world, so then the question would be how would a rational person either accept or not-accept historical accounts; how you know what you know about history.

I assume you believe that Abraham Lincoln lived, breathed and died. Have you ever examined your belief in these events; by what authority or by what evidence do you believe in the life and death of Abraham Lincoln. By what standard is any historical event to be believed? To be intellectually honest, we should apply the same standard to the Bible.

History is an odd creature. We might drive to the grave of Abraham Lincoln, dig him up, point to his bones, but that in itself will not prove it was Lincoln. It most certainly would not prove some of his ascribed actions took place. We, by necessity, have to accept most of what we know of history by witnesses. Now there are a few types of witnesses, first hand, second hand and third hand. Of course, those who see things themselves are in the best position to tell us the truth, but then they might be biased as well. In the Bible, the common standard was multiple witnesses proclaiming the same thing, and that gave validity (Deu 17:6, 19:15, Mat 18:16, 2Co 13:1, 1Ti 5:19). The more witnesses of an event, the more likely it is to have been true.

Jesus Christ himself understands this and says that he alone does not vouch for himself:

Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Joh 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

In all, the Bible has about 40 different authors across a timeframe of 3000+ years. Many of the authors detail the exact same events, some firsthand and some secondhand. They also reference others who saw the events described. Paul proclaims boldly that 500 people saw the resurrection of Christ (any enemy of Christianity would have a field day if the 500 did not exist). Christianity, since its beginning, has been falsifiable (meaning there are evidences, if true, that would invalidate the religion).

Pretty quickly after its birth, Christianity had strong critics, most notably Celsus (whose writing is largely still existent through the point by point rebuttal of Origen) and Porphyry who was a neo-Platonist (his works were mostly destroyed by the Christians). It is interesting to note that both Celsus and Porphyry do not argue against Christ’s miracles or existence, they instead try to marginalize him as being one of many “Christs”. It is obvious they had direct access to the modern books of the New Testament as they try to discredit very specific stories. Even in their rejection of Christianity, they point to its validity.

Other witnesses include the Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37AD-100AD) who tells both about John the Baptist and also Jesus. This is important because this is a non-Christian source for Christ.

One witness, that is often neglected, is archeology. The Bible describes many events which would leave massive amounts of physical evidence on earth. A global flood would result in millions of dead things buried in rock layer all over the earth. In fact we have fossilized fish eating other fish, dinosaurs fighting, animals giving birth, sea fossils on the tops of mountains and a plethora of other strange and interesting fossils around the world. Fossilization requires rapid covering, a catastrophe. Our fossil record is a record of these sudden changes.

Other events that would leave vast amounts of physical evidence include destructions of entire cities. I was watching a history channel on Sodom and Gomorrah in which the historians had found those cities, those cities had been destroyed the way the Bible had records, and the historians rejected the Biblical account. Jericho is another exciting find, with the walls fallen outwards and grain intact (raiding armies usually plundered cities but the Israelites were forbidden to raid Jericho).

My favorite piece of historical evidence is Mount Sinai, not the one identified by Constantine’s mother, but the one identified as Jabal Al Lawz. Jabal Al Lawz sports a black top (where God descended onto the mountain), a split rock with water damage (where Moses disobeyed God and struck the rock with his staff) and also an uncut stone alter (the Israelites were unique in that they did not embellish their alters like all pagan tribes). (Do a youtube search on Mountain of Fire to see this firsthand)

Of course, atheists try to discredit these where they can. Jericho is said to have the wrong style pottery and travel times are said to be too optimistic for one million Hebrews to Jabel Al Lawz as described in the Bible. But it is interesting to note how many of these criticisms recede with time or when placed in context. I visited Corinth in Greece and saw the excavation of a road with the name Erastus inscribed upon it: “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.” The Higher Critics had denied his existence due to the name and no historical record for hundreds of years before proof positive was actually found. Similar reversals include a lot of proper titles given to officials throughout the Bible and the existence of Biblical figures (such as Solomon). The Biblical critics keep backtracking and changing their story.

There are scientific evidences as well. Atheists do not like it, but nearly everything is contaminated with Carbon 14, even diamonds. If diamonds, one of the hardest to contaminate substances on earth, has Carbon 14 it means the contamination must have been present during its formation. Carbon 14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. These diamonds can in no shape or way be formed millions of years ago as atheists claim.

Other items which defy atheistic timeframes are protein, DNA, and other biological substances. Taken from BEL’s list of “not so old things”:

– allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
– allegedly 100 million year old dinosaur fossil contains protein (Science News 1992)
– allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
– allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
– allegedly 30 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
– allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

The list is endless, but oddly enough they disrule atheistic attempts to explain the origin of life (as is living material could come from nonliving substance, not to mention the unbridgeable gulf that is consciousness). This all fits the Bible’s narrative of events.

But how do we know the Bible has not been changed and perverted by men? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls long ago shook the foundation of those who doubt the integrity of the Old Testament. The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament we have not only is nearly identical to the Old Testament we have now, but also these documents pre-date the New Testament. People who claimed the Old Testament was rewritten to fit Christianity were dead wrong. Likewise, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts in existence agree with each other almost always (the New Testament was written in Greek). There are about 5500 in existence and they coincide with each other about 99% of the time. Try handcopying something 1000 times and see how close to the original you have. We can be rest assure we have an accurate representation of the original documents.

Critics will always point out the oldest documents we have are the most divergent from the Majority text, but I will counter that my NIV Bible looks brand new while my NKJ and KJV Bibles look fairly wore out. They were both purchased around the same timeframe, but why would I use the NIV when it is an inferior version? Those divergent texts are still around because they were such shoddy copies that they were unused. FYI the NIV is translated based on those Minority Texts whereas the NKJ and KJV are based on manuscripts much closer to the Majority text.

I believe the Bible because the stories line up very well with science, archeology, and are internally consistent. Most of the inconsistencies fade away for people who understand the Bible and Biblical context in which things were said. Sometimes cultural figures of speech need to be understood and sometimes the original languages need to be understood as well.

Skeptics Annotated Bible has served me very well in the past when debating other Christians. It is a site maintained by Atheists who hate the Bible. They list “contradictions”, what they consider “absurdities”, and also other things they find repulsive. For example, they list contradictions as to if we are saved by works or by faith. Paul’s ministry was one of faith alone, while James, John, and Christ preached a ministry of faith and works. But Paul was ministering to Jews and Gentiles a new gospel, while James, John, and Christ were ministering to the Jews alone in an entirely different context. What seems like a contradiction is just pulling quotes out of context. This would be like me having two quotes “I am 15 years old” and “I am 27 years old” and other people claiming those statements as contradictions whereas they were just uttered 12 years apart from each other.

The biggest take-away from all this is that the Bible should be evaluated as we would evaluate any other historical document. If the evidence overwhelmingly points us in the direction that the Bible is accurate, it should be accepted.

You ask if I would consider you a Christian. It depends. Paul outlines the basic salvation gospel in 1 Cor 15:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

The gospel is that the Son of God came and died for our sins, rose again, and was seen. Paul points out that Christianity is false if Jesus did not rise from the dead. The early Christian religion could have been easily squashed by the Romans if they could only produce the body of Christ:

1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

But this gospel (historical, falsifiable, and highly witnessed) is what defines Christians and Christianity. Christianity is unique in this respect, it is a historical religion centered on the truth of a historical event. It is not about people’s actions, their feelings, going to church, or any other criteria. It is based on the historical life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

I hope this answers your questions to extent you desired. There is a lot of additional information that works together and solidifies these points, but it is much too much to cover in the short amount of time I have today.

My favorite quote from BSG is during the first season when Thrace interrogates Loeban: “I know that God loved you more than all other living creatures and you repaid His divine love with sin, with hate, corruption, evil. So then he decided to create the Cylons.” It illustrates the free choice we have in all our actions, and it illustrates the corruption of mankind against God, with him choosing alternatives based on a response to his creation. That entire scene is the best in the series. [The writer had referenced Battlestar Galactica]

Posted in Bible, Theology | Leave a comment

money worship and the “buy local” scam

Posted on August 14, 2011 by christopher fisher

The following is a letter to the editor I wrote in response for a call to “Buy Local”. The name and location have been removed:

A very interesting article appeared in the xyz News in which xyz lauds “buying locally”. He writes: “The thing is, you can’t argue with the concept – buy local and the money stays in our community.”

For sake of time, I won’t argue with that. But I wonder why he does not take it a few steps further: “Don’t buy anything at all and the money stays with your own family!” Imagine how wealthy each family would be. We would be swimming in pools of money. Of course, we would all be destitute: any attempt to limit our own sphere of trading makes us poorer to the extent of what we could have bought otherwise.

Unlike Mr Murch, real people care not about monochrome images of dead presidents, but about real goods and services.

A thought experiment: Who is richer: Fort Knox, which is wall to wall security ensuring not one ounce of gold will ever escape, or me after buying a 5 dollar strawberry shake at McDonald’s? Sure, some people might get pleasure knowing that vast amounts of bricks sit unmolested in locked rooms, but I have a shake that I actually get to drink! Money is not the end goal, maximizing well-being is. The more goods and services we buy with the same dollar, the more well-being we achieve.

The reason the public must endure these “buy-local” appeals is that families intuitively understand spending more money on the same (or inferior) product does not make them better off. In fact, it makes them poorer. Poverty is not the key to growth.

Posted in Economics | Leave a comment

Answering a few Atheist questions

Posted on August 14, 2011 by christopher fisher

Recently I came across a challenge put forward by an atheist blog for Christians to answer atheist questions. I wrote up a series of answers, with no expectation it would ever be published by this site. Political correctness will never allow these disingenuous sites from publishing real opposition. Are these atheists looking for real answers?

In the words of Henry Hazlitt:

The first thing we must do is to adopt a complete change of attitude toward an opponent’s arguments. Whenever we meet with a fact which we would not like to cite in a debate — because, to put it mildly, it would not help our side — we should carefully investigate that fact. We should consider whether if true it changes the aspect of things. We should get rid of the idea that in order to vindicate our side we must answer every contention our opponent advances. For this opponent of ours will very likely be a man in full possession of his senses; at least some of his arguments will be rational. When they are, we should be willing to acknowledge it. Their truth does not necessarily make his side right. His arguments may be irrelevant; they may be outbalanced by some other reason or reasons.

The goal should always be the truth. Are these atheists on a quest for knowledge? Reading the questions shows unequivocally that they could care less how their questions are answered, they more wish to attack Christianity. I will take the bait anyways:

Christian answers to Atheist disingenuousness (part 1)

P.Coyle

1. Do you believe that God has moral obligations? Why or why not?

Yes, because morality is independent of God. See the Christian answer to Euthyphro’s dilemma.

2. What is a “soul”?

A “soul” is the lifeblood of an animal. Often this is used interchangeably with blood in the Bible. What most people identify as a “soul” in modern culture is actually a “spirit”. Human beings are body, soul, and spirit. A spirit is the essence of a human being. In it is contained our link to the intangible (memories, abstract thought, personality, etc). A spirit is the identity of a being and is enternal, whereas a body or soul can (and does) cease to exist.

3. Do you believe that Jesus had perfect knowledge of the mind of God (the Father)?

Jesus was perfectly sinless. In that sense, he had the same mind as the Father. This question is vague, so I will answer what I think you are asking: The Bible is quite clear that Jesus did not know everything: “Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” and Jesus also tries to influence God the Father into other actions: “Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

Did Jesus and the Father share a mutual mind? no. Were they and are they both sinless? yes.

Matt DeStefano

1. Explain how free will and absolute omniscience can logically co-exist.

No.

That was my attempt at humor. Matt, you make an excellent point. As I read George H Smith’s Atheism: the Case Against God, my highlighter was very busy highlighting everything I agree with. The Platonic notion of absolute omniscience is a Pagan adoption into Christianity. Early Christianity quickly became an extension of the Greek Mystery cults and adopted their pagan views. Paul writes against the Platonists in Colossians. See my honor’s thesis for a longer discussion of the Platonic influence in Christianity. I also have a lot more in work currently that is unpublished on this topic.

2. Why should I believe the Bible is literally true when referencing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ but take it to be metaphor when telling me all the languages of the world are due to the Tower of Babel, or all of the animals in the world fit on an Ark, or the world is only 6,000 years old? Or, if you believe those are literally true… what kind of drugs are you on and where can I get some?

Drugs, never tried them. If you are attempting to belittle a position with mocking, the same can be applied to you: “You believe, proof, life spawned from non-life; dinosaur soft tissue can survive for millions or years; that carbon contaminated diamonds; you fool! What drugs are you on?”

I will answer your foolish mocking.

For language, see: [link]
You must not be an expert in ancient languages (or done any study at all). As you go back in time, languages get much more complex, not more basic. The syntax becomes exceptionally complicated. It does not become grunts.

For Ark dimensions and animals, see: [link]
You should also research the witness sightings of the ark for a description of the inside layout. This is assuming those eye witnesses are correctly identifying the ark.

3. The evidential argument for evil (or inductive argument from evil). Which can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Not really a question, but for human beings to truly love God they need to be able to freely reject God. Evil is the consequence of man’s rejection of God. If God were to intervene to stop all evil, then all mankind would be virtual robots. God could have made a galactic version of The Sims, micromanaging all situations always. But like a good parent (and unlike most atheists), God is not a micromanager control freak.

4. Why is God a necessary being and why should it be your specific version of God? Why should I discount Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc?

Your own laws of physics necessitate God. Answer me this, has the universe:
1. always been here (2nd law of thermodynamics)
2. spawned from nothing (1st law of thermodynamics)
3. Created by a creator not subject to the laws of nature
4. other _______ (propose a forth)

Why God is my specific version (as if I create God from my own imagination) you should look to historical evidence that the Bible is true. If the God of the Bible were the true God, one would find archeological evidence of miracles (Jericho’s walls falling outwards and unlooted grain in the city) and God’s actions. One would find the Bible interally consistent. You would also see vast evidence of the claims made in the Bible. When this evidence abounds and is consistent, you get evidence that the God of the Bible is true.

The Bible is big on evidence: Jesus talks about things being true based on multiple witnesses (Joh 8:14), Paul sites hundreds of eye witnesses (1Co 15:6), etc. Because of multiple evidences and frames of reference (in contrast to Islam and Mormonism), you can control of falsehoods.

This question is really meant for a longer discussion. But that is the basics.

Why should you discount other gods? Evaluate their evidence in the same fashion.

Tell me, what evidence would you accept for a historical event to be true? Also, what evidence would you accept that some non-Earth entity created life on this Earth? To bring it back one level: what is your standard of knowing things to be true in general? How do you know you are sitting on a chair, that your hair is brown (insert correct color), or that Obama is president? How do you know you are not in a dream world and are sleeping? What is your standard of evidence for truth?

I can answer these questions and be consistent, can you?

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Theology | Leave a comment

quotes on education

Posted on July 25, 2011 by christopher fisher

Teenagers treating other teenagers cruelly is part of growing up when compulsory schooling is part of growing up.
–David Henderson

Nothing provokes more angry letters from schoolteachers than saying that most college students who go into teaching are from the bottom half of their class. But author Martin Gross says the bottom third and Professor Diane Ravitch of NYU, the leading historian of American education, says that many are from the bottom quarter.
–Thomas Sowell

Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents’ consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve?
-Ayn Rand

Human communities depend upon a diversity of talent, not a singular conception of ability.
–Sir Kenneth Robinson

When the American pedagogue became a professional, and began to acquire a huge armamentarium of technic, the trade of teaching declined, for only inferior men were willing to undergo a long training in obvious balderdash.
-H. L. Mencken

Ask any schoolchild why they don’t like school and they’ll tell you. “School is prison.”… Let me say that a few more times: School is prison. School is prison. School is prison. School is prison. School is prison.
–Peter Gray

Why are government officials and enthusiasts often hostile to leading corporations such as Microsoft, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Martha Stewart? Why are they often hostile to other bases for independent private cultural power such as private builders, private schools, and talk radio? Part of the answer may be that they are jealous in guarding their role as medium and focal point in TPR [The People’s Romance]. Why are they hostile to placeless “suburban sprawl,” private communities, private shopping malls, the private automobile (especially big ones), gun ownership and toting, and home schooling? Because these practices are means of withdrawing from TPR and creating an autonomous circle of authority, power, and experience.
–Daniel B Klein

Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?
-Ayn Rand

As a society we could, perhaps, rationalize forcing children to go to school if we could prove that they need this particular kind of prison in order to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to become good citizens, to be happy in adulthood, and to get good jobs. Many people, perhaps most people, think this has been proven, because the educational establishment talks about it as if it has. But, in truth, it has not been proven at all.
–Peter Gray

A prospective teacher of biology, say, or mathematics, or physics, cannot outfit himself for his career by reading a few plays of Shakespeare, memorizing the rules of grammar laid down by idiots, and learning to pronounce either as if it were spelled eyether; he must apply himself to a vast mass of strange and difficult facts, and mastering them requires a kind of capacity that is not common. The stupider fellow turns to something that is easier and more obvious, which is to say, to the language that every “educated” man is presumed to know, and the books he is presumed to have read…
-H. L. Mencken

The truth is that the average schoolmaster, on all the lower levels, is and always must be…next door to an idiot, for how can one imagine an intelligent man engaging in so puerile an avocation?
-H. L. Mencken

The pedagogues there incarcerated are all inferior men—men who really know very little about the things they pretend to teach, and are too stupid or too indolent to acquire more. Being taught by them is roughly like being dosed in illness by third-year medical students.
-H. L. Mencken

Posted in Education, Human Nature | Leave a comment

Jesus on contract law, minimum wage, and discrimination

Posted on July 7, 2011 by christopher fisher

The parable of the Day Laborers:

Mat 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
Mat 20:2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Mat 20:3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
Mat 20:4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
Mat 20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
Mat 20:6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
Mat 20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.
Mat 20:8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
Mat 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
Mat 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
Mat 20:11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
Mat 20:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
Mat 20:13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
Mat 20:14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
Mat 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Jesus is making an acute point here. He is stressing the concept that those who repent will receive mercy and salvation in the same fashion as those who have all along been righteous. He stresses disproportioned rewards and forgiveness throughout his teachings (Luke 7:41-46 and Luke 15:11-32). Although Jesus is teaching theological concepts, there is much tangential learning that we can get through Jesus’ use of this parable.

Parables are used to illustrate concepts. In order to illustrate concepts, the actors or objects need to mirror reality in some fashion. Would Jesus ever compose a parable likening God to a Mafia boss? For example:

A certain Mafia Boss had two sons whom he contracted to kill rival bosses. He gave them each an advanced payment. One son carried through with the hit while the other decided to spend all the advance payment on partying. After he had spent all his money he crawled back to his father and asked for forgiveness for not performing the hit. The father was overjoyed that his son was asking forgiveness and called for a celebration. In that manner, God will receive those sinners who return to him.

This parable would never been seen in the scriptures. God will never be likened to an evil man. God is the shepherd, the father, the vineyard planter, and the potter. God is not likened to evil people. Likewise, God’s acts in the parables are never likened to evil acts. Jesus never illustrates God’s commands as sins. The shepherd is not shown beating his sheep. The father is not shown torturing his sons. The planter is not shown hoarding the seeds. The potter is not shown making clay idols. Gods actions are not compared to evil.

Likewise, Jesus uses familiar examples. He does not illustrate examples using nuclear physics or abstract metaphysical concepts. Jesus illustrates through watchmen, workers, candles, seeds, and highway thuggery. People understood the connotations and the processes of which Jesus spoke. Their familiar knowledge of the things helped them understand the point of a parable. For example, if Jesus likened God to a contractor hiring laborers then it is very safe to assume that Israel understood that the methodology described in the hiring process was right and good. Understanding this helps the reader of scriptures control for modern cultural biases that they might superimpose on the scripture.

With these concepts in mind, the parable of the Day Laborers teaches Christians much about contract law.

Mat 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
Mat 20:2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

These first verses show that it is morally acceptable to contract for services. This also shows mutual consent in the contracting process and that temporary work relationships are moral. I am reminded of those who criticize Wal-Mart for hiring mostly part-time labor.

It is important for the understanding of the rest of the parable to note that this “penny a day” was market rate (it was the rate at which many individuals thought was fair for a day’s labor).

Mat 20:3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
Mat 20:4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
Mat 20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
Mat 20:6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
Mat 20:7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

Jesus reinforces the notion that the coming payment is good and just as he hires successive waves of labor.

Mat 20:8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

The lord of the vineyard is doing something interesting here. He is lining up wage payouts in reverse order. He knows that this action will inspire instant bitterness that will trickle down the various waves as payout occurs. It appears he is purposefully irking the workers. Is it to help illustrate a principle?

Mat 20:9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
Mat 20:10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

Jesus paid each person a fair days labor wage. This resulted in unequal pay for unequal work. The modern leftist chant is “equal pay for equal work” which they wish to enforce via government force. Take that in contrast to how Jesus treats unequal wages and contract terms and conditions.

Mat 20:11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
Mat 20:12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

Despite having contracted for a penny’s wage, the workers are complaining about unfairness. They are aptly described as murmurers. See how Jesus treats these thoughts of “unfairness”:

Mat 20:13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

Jesus states that they are getting the pay for which they contracted. He clearly says that this is not wrong. Even though the contract was not “fair” or “equal” in the relativistic sense of the word, mutually accepted contracts are good and right.

Mat 20:14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
Mat 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Jesus says “take your pay and go away”. He then affirms property rights: he can do what he wants with his own money no matter how “fair” other people think it is. He then calls the complainer “evil” because the complainer was filled with bitterness, jealousy, and (more explicitly revealed in the text) was trying to tell other people what is right and fair to do with the other person’s own money. Jesus despised the leftists.

In my family we have a rule: “do not begrudge others for getting things that we are not entitled to get.” For example, my section at work, for a time, were required to come in an extra hour early to curb vehicle traffic. We left an hour before everyone else. Problematically, when everyone was given a last minute hour off of work, my section missed out on it. One day I was driving away bitter as I thought the situation through. I was in the wrong, I concluded. I am not entitled to any free hour off of work. I contracted for a set amount of time. Just because those in other sections get a benefit that I do not, does not entitle me to bitterness or anger. Begrudging others is evil, especially when it involves being rightly compensated for your own contract.

A good Christian can apply these concepts to a whole host of evil government laws: minimum wage laws, affirmative action laws, equal pay acts, government enforced CEO pay caps, and anything else involving other parties telling a second party what prices are “fair” and “right” to pay certain people.

This concept can extend further: those who tell employers who they can and can not hire are also evil. If an employer wants to only hire males who have stay-at-home wives, and reject all single women, Jesus would say to the complainers: “Is thine eye evil, because I am good?”. Those who tell others how much and with whom to contract are evil.

Posted in Bible, Christian Maxim, Contracting, Jesus, Theology | Leave a comment

was Jesus sent to the Jews only

Posted on June 27, 2011 by christopher fisher

There is a really odd part in Luke in which Jesus’ rise is detailed. He begins preaching in a synagogue. The people are at once amazed, and they wonder: “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luk 4:22). Jesus then responds to this murmur:

Luk 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Luk 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
Luk 4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
Luk 4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
Luk 4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
Luk 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Luk 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
Luk 4:30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

When it comes to odd things to become enraged over, this seems to take the cake. Verse 23 indicates that Jesus is telling the people of Nazareth he will start doing miracles in the future, the people will see them, and he will deny the miracles to the people of Nazareth. It could be that the people are angry over Jesus’ prediction of future miracles or the unflattering predictions of their own actions.

Probably, the real reason the people rose up against Jesus was that he used an example of a prophet going to a Gentile over the Jews. He was, in effect, saying they were worst than Gentiles. See 2 Kings 5 for the account of Naaman.

Albert Barnes cites one possible reason of the anger as such:

5th. That it was a part of his design to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and not confine his labours to them only.

This possible reason is re-enforced by the extra-Biblical claim of Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

Contrary evidence in favor of Jesus being sent only to the Jews can be found throughout the Gospels: In Mat 15, there occurs the most pronounced incident:

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

If a modern Christian were to guess at Jesus’ next actions, it would probably be the exact opposite of what actually occurred:

Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

The disciples are trying to send this Gentile away, and Jesus takes to ignoring her. What is going on in this situation? Is Christ being un-Christ-like? Finally, after enough pestering Jesus rebukes her:

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

After the rebuke, the woman, graciously, begins to worship Jesus. If the modern Christian would be inclined to guess again at Jesus’ next action, they would again be dead wrong:

Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Instead of helping this woman who is worshiping him, he calls her a dog. Jews thought of the Gentiles as unwashed heathen, not worthy of their time, thus, the potency of the parable of the good Samaritan. The woman persists:

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This is an interesting passage from which Christians can learn much. A sinless Jesus was calling names and refusing to help someone in need. His priorities were elsewhere (the Jews). If Jesus was systematically ignoring Gentiles like this, how many Gentile followers did he actually have? And note that Jesus explicitly says his ministry was only to the “lost sheep of Israel”.

Another story of Jesus’ interaction with Gentiles can be found in Luk 7, in which a Centurion uses Jewish elders to communicate to Jesus for help. The text explicitly points out this Centurion helped out the Jews in the past as to set up a Quid Pro Quo situation.

Other evidence that Jesus’ ministry was only to the Jews can be found in his commands to his followers:

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Peter also reiterates the “Jews only” position and helpfully sums up Jesus’ ministry:

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

And again in Acts 10:

Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

The Bible, despite inferences in Luke 4, seems to be of an unanimous position that Jesus was sent only to the Jews. Even the one person who has the most stake in the Gospel to the Gentiles, Paul, claims that Jesus was sent to the Jews. Jesus was sent to the Jews alone.

How then should we take Josephus? Ignoring claims of Eusebius adding text, it could be the case that Paul (who died in 64 AD) had a large immediate influence in Christianity. He did the most traveling of all the apostles and the Gospel spread like wildfire among the Gentiles. When Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews (93AD, almost 30 years after Paul’s death), there was probably a large Gentile following of Christ, especially in Rome (to whom the book of Romans was written). Josephus could be referring to this group of people or could have using his current prejudices to project who the followers of Christ would have been.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Jesus, Theology | 3 Comments

Bart Ehrman: Chronology Fallacy

Posted on June 27, 2011 by christopher fisher

Another of Erhman’s claims is that the gospels are not chronological. Ehrman is very astute on identifying that the events across the four gospels do not align.

For example, the Gospel of Mark indicates that it was in the last week of his life that Jesus “cleansed the Temple” by overturning the tables of the money changers and saying, “This is to be a house of prayer . . . but you have made it a den of thieves” (Mark 11), whereas according to John this happened at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John 2).

This might be a problem if the authors of the four gospels ever claimed to be writing a chronological history. Again, modern standards are being inconsistently and retroactively applied to the authors of the gospels. Additionally, modern historians often record history out of chronological order. There are many different ways to sort events: by subject matter, to illustrate points, chronologically, or even haphazardly, to name a few. In normal human conversation, non-chronological order is the norm. If a person is talking about their childhood they might just report events as they come to mind. If a person is talking about their events last week, order of significance makes the most sense. If a person is detailing the lives of multiple historical individuals, then events may be sorted by individual and then sub-sorted by chronology. Just because events are not always reported chronologically, this fact does not negate the truth of the report.

Why do the gospels often not align chronologically? Bart Ehrman hits the nail on the head: “Once one comes to realize that the Bible might have discrepancies it is possible to see that the Gospels of Mark and John might want to teach something different about the cleansing of the Temple, and so they have located the event to two different times of Jesus’ ministry.”

Sadly, Ehrman then comes to a false conclusion:

Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.

This conclusion is very odd coming from someone who has, himself, written extensively on historical events, and not always chronological. In his lecture notes on “From Jesus to Constantine— A History of Early Christianity”, Ehrman transverses 300+ years of history multiple times according to subject matter. Even within lessons, not everything is chronological. In his lesson on “The Christianization of the Roman Empire” he talks about the numbers of converts from Christ through Constantine and then afterwards reflects on the various reasons for each generation for those stated numbers. Is Erhman recording history? Why does he jump around chronologically? Chronological inconstancies in the gospels should be held at the same standards (as well as allowing for adjustment in cultural standards).

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Ehrman, People | Leave a comment

Bart Ehrman: Categorical Storytelling Error

Posted on June 27, 2011 by christopher fisher

In one passage, Ehrman writes:

The same can be said of Peter’s denials of Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the cock crows twice.” In Matthew’s Gospel he tells him that it will be “before the cock crows.” Well, which is it—before the cock crows once or twice? [Jesus Interrupted, 7]

A few things must be remembered. Mark and Matthew were both written well after the events that they describe. Not only must these retellings transcend space and time, but also languages. Both authors must translate from Aramaic to Greek. A final point on the wording is that in the New Testament, the Greek was originally written without punctuation, spaces, or verse numbers. Any representation of a direct quote, might, in fact, be a paraphrase. There is no iron law that quotes must be verbatim; irrationally assuming translated quotes can be verbatim.

These rules of history are all English cultural biases that modern readers project onto past peoples that did not adhere to these concepts. We cannot hold the ancient to modern standards of “accurately” recording history. We must hold them to their own standards, providing they are reasonable. The Gospels are a reasonable recording of history.

I am reminded of my own personal storytelling techniques. I have one story I repeat about the time I was backpacking across Europe. On New Year’s 2006 I scaled a Romanian mountain to Dracula’s castle, dodging Romanian guards, guard dogs, and narrowly escaping capture. These events I tell time and time again. Naturally, the story differs after each telling. Sometime the events will be given in different chronological order. Sometimes the quotes of the supporting characters will vary. Does this make me a liar because I do not reproduce the same events and dialogue each time I tell this story? Does this make the events untrue or untrustworthy? Does the fact that my stated quotes are really not verbatim make my quotes wrong?

Human communication is not a computer program that must be precise in all instances or else end up crashing. Human communication is all about concepts. Even the understanding of meaning of words is not constant from person to person. This does not mean no truth can be known ever. This does not mean that concepts must be communicated in exact minute detail before accurate knowledge is conveyed. Human beings, and thus history, communicate in imprecise concepts.

Not even the most astute historian expounds on every single word such that no imprecision is present. History, when being reported, is not false because the telling differs slightly from the actual events. The concepts are what matters, the ideas contained in the words. Human communication works that way.

Did Jesus say “before the cock crows twice” or “before the cock crows.” His direct quote was most definitely neither; he spoke in Aramaic and not English. Which is the better translation, and would a third translation be more accurate? It would be assumed the more detailed of the two would be closer to what was actually quoted.

Even if the first was closer to what was stated, this would not invalidate the historicity of the gospels. For example, even a high school student knows to be in their seat “before the bell rings”. Even if there are two bells, the natural conception if that the final bell before the start of the class is what is meant. If some future translator or transcriber were to write “before the second bell” in place of “before the bell” this would not be a violation of truth. Likewise, if a parent tells one child to tell another child “to come upstairs for dinner”, the first child might accurately report the parent as saying “stop playing your video game and come eat”.

In order to show a real contradiction in the history of the gospels, the alleged statements must contradict in concept. Many, but not all, of Ehrman’s alleged contradictions fall under this categorical storytelling fallacy.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Ehrman, Figures of Speech, History, People | Leave a comment

was Canaan the child of Ham and Noah’s wife

Posted on May 29, 2011 by christopher fisher

The Story in Genesis

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This is a very interesting text. It brings to mind many questions. Why would Noah curse a child for the sins of his father; doesn’t the Bible condemn this (Ezekiel 18:20)? Why does Noah not curse Ham? Why is seeing your father naked a sin, after all, can a father not bathe in the same bath as his child? Why is Noah mad at this? What exactly did Ham “do to” Noah?

Before addressing the meaning of the text, it is important to understand how the Bible was written, to whom the Bible was written, and how to know the meaning of stories in the Bible.

Cultural Idioms

Throughout the Bible, Jewish cultural idioms are used. American authors do this all the time. They speak of “hitting the road”, someone “stabbing” someone in the back, or doing something “against the clock”. It would be a tragic injustice for future readers not to understand cultural idioms and, instead, interpret the words literally. Take a few Biblical examples:

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is a very curious passage. Taken literally, the events described would horrify any normal person. The text, however, seems to gloss over (“glossing over” is another American idiom) this statement. This statement makes very little sense unless it is realized that “lowest parts of the earth” and “womb” were idiomatically identical in Jewish culture. See King David’s Psalm on the formation of unborn children:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

It is clear, from the wording of verse 13 and verse 15 that womb and lowest parts of the earth are used interchangeably.

Anachronisms

Because the Bible was written to actual human beings by actual human beings to convey actual ideas, sometimes words and concepts are used anachronistically. If someone is talking about the foundation of the city of Rome, they may say that “Romulus and Remus arrived at Rome around 750 BC”. Although the city was not yet founded, it is normal to give listeners an adequate understanding of events by anachronistically using words and concepts. The Bible does this several times:

Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

…

Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
Gen 21:32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Before Beersheba is even named, Abraham is said to be wandering in the wilderness of Beersheba. Likewise, take an example from the New Testament. In Luke the story develops John the Baptist far into his ministry before it introduces the birth of Christ:

Luk 1:80 And the child [John the Baptist] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
[very next verse is Luk 2:1]
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
…
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Someone wishing to critique the Bible might object that this was introduced anachronistically. But because human beings converse, write, and explain concepts anachronistically, these critiques should be ignored. Anachronistic use of words are normal in conversation, especially if they are used to convey meaningful concepts.

Euphemisms

The Bible loves using euphemisms (note that the “Bible loves” is another American idiom). This is especially true when talking about shameful body anatomy and shameful actions of which Paul describes as shameful “even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph 5:12). The Bible is replete with examples of this:

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Did Adam “know” his wife? Did Adam not meet his wife until she had a baby? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations as used also in Mat 1:25.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

What does “came together” mean? Does it mean that he had never seen or talked to Mary before this event? Or is this a euphemism for sexual relations?

Deu 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

Take him by his “secrets”? This is definitely a euphemism for male anatomy.

Paul uses euphemisms when talking about death:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Also,

1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Peter uses the same euphemism while quoting a hypothetical scoffer:

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Pretend a Biblical literalist would come along claiming each word was not to be taken figuratively. Each time a Biblical scholar would claim “falling asleep” meant death, the literalist would claim it meant “to take a nap”. How would one prove to this person that “falling asleep” meant death?

Hopefully, the literalist could be explained the concept that human beings communicate in idioms. Idioms communicate very effectively and efficiently to intended audiences. Where consistent phrases are used that make very little sense by the same author of another culture, the chance is that an idiom is at play. If an author explains an idiom, texts by that author which use the same words have a high probability of being an idiom.

Back to the Story

With these concepts in mind, Genesis 9 takes on a whole new meaning:

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

It is curious that Ham is linked with Canaan in verse 21 and then Canaan is cursed in verse 25. Ham, after all, had multiple children (4 boys at least of which Canaan was presumably the youngest). Literalists might claim that Canaan was the most wicked child, but this is nowhere in this text. The literalist is violating his own rules of interpretation to explain Canaan’s curse. The Bible NEVER informs the reader about the individual named Canaan except the place of his decedent’s residence and his lineage.

Canaan’s curse would make sense if it was a curse to a nation. After all, like Esau being Jacob’s servant, nowhere does the Bible explain that the man Canaan was actually a servant to his brothers. God tells us that he sees children as nations (this would be true while nations are first forming):

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Esau never served Jacob, but, today, Jacob’s decedents, living in a small country, out-gun and out-prosper the entire vast swaths of decedents of Esau. The Israelites are the ones screening day-laborers coming into their territory, not vice versa. Esau, as an individual, was mightier than Jacob, so much so that when Jacob went to meet Esau he lined up his household in reverse order of importance in case Esau would kill them all (Gen 33). The curse was national. God does not curse babies.

If God was cursing an individual it violates all rules of fairness and goodness of God. One does not punish a child for the actions of his father (Ezekiel 18:20) (Deuteronomy 24:16). God rewards individuals who turn to him (Jer 26:3 and Gen 18:23).

So why was the nation of Canaan cursed? Moses, the same author of Genesis, lets future readers in on the Hebrew idiom:

Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This idiom explains several other passages in the Bible as well. Without this explanation the verses may be hard to understand.

1Sa 20:30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

Eze 16:36 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;

Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Discovering nakedness is a euphemism for sexual relations. This makes Gen 9 all the more clear.

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk
Gen 9:22 Ham (father of Canaan is highlighted) seeing that his father is incapacitated makes advances on his mother. After all, sex is pleasurable, men tend to desire multiple partners, not many women are available after a global flood, and his mother is probably still attractive due to pre-flood aging conditions. He gloats of his conquest to his brothers.
Gen 9:23 The brothers try damage control. They cover up their mother (is she drunk also?). The Bible tends to omit relevant facts about woman in Genesis (what was her name?).
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and figures out that his wife is pregnant (after some time).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses the new nation that will be formed from this union.

The verse 22 highlighting of Ham as Canaan’s father makes sense if the Jewish reader understood the incestuous origin of Canaan. This would also be an anachronistic clarification that would be very helpful to the reader in this circumstance. Otherwise, it makes very little sense. Why Canaan over his brothers?
The lapse in time in verse 24 can be explained as would a normal storyteller would use lapses in time. In Mat 3:13, Jesus appears, out of nowhere and fully grown. The last time Mathew had talked about him, Jesus was just a child. Nowhere is there a development transition. It is normal to skip large segments of time in telling stories.

The literalist story is different:

Gen 9:20 Noah begins making wine
Gen 9:21 Noah gets drunk
Gen 9:22 Ham walks into Noah’s tent and sees him naked. Ham then has perverted thoughts or has some sort of debased enjoyment (Literalists claim this with no textual evidence).
Gen 9:23 The brothers walk into the tent backwards and cover up their naked father.
Gen 9:24 Noah comes back into consciousness and figures out that Ham saw him naked (how? The text does not tell, so the literalist must think this happened by magic).
Gen 9:25-26 He curses a baby/child/young boy for the sin of the father presumably because the son was wicked (though the text never indicates this).

Note the time lapse between verses 24 and 25 in this version as well. Did Noah wake up, realize what had happened and then proclaim a curse all without talking to the brothers or even leaving the tent? Some sort of time lapse is indicated in the sentence. Storytellers use time lapses for convenience.

In short, those who claim that Ham merely saw his father naked have no explanation for Canaan’s curse and end up claiming that God curses children for the sins of their fathers. They also end up believing that multi-generational curses can be levied for mere sight of something that naturally occurs in human beings (nakedness). They also violate their own interpretation rules with candor. The facts point to Canaan being the result of an incestuous relationship between Noah’s wife and Ham.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, History, Theology | 57 Comments