Lee Harmon's Blog, page 111
November 11, 2011
Book review: Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography
by Bruce Chilton
★★★★
Definitely one of my favorite authors. I believe he's the one who called my most-studied scripture, Revelation, a "perfectly rancid book." But I forgive him; I think that quote sets the tone for his book about the practical, historical Jesus in 180-degree contrast to the bloody warrior image some Jews & Christians wished of their Messiah.
Chilton is a great story-teller, and his writing immerses us in the world of Jesus. Temple procedures and the Roman Empire come alive. Chilton knows his stuff. Do be aware, however, that he makes up his own caricature of Jesus--a caricature that more closely resembles the popular Buddha in looks and practices than the popular Jesus. It's a fill-in-the-gaps series of best guesses. I'm sure Chilton would be the first to admit he has flavored the image of Jesus somewhat for our reading pleasure. For example, Jesus grows fat because he's known to enjoy a good meal.
Chilton's Jesus is a bitter-but-lovable dreamer who begins to believe his ambitions are God-ordained. Though he ultimately fails in his reformation of the Temple and transformative vision for Judaism, he does accomplish a splinter movement which grew rapidly in the second century, and his legend lives on and continues to inspire, adding meaning to our lives two millennia later.
If Chilton does have a spiritual agenda in writing, it's a commendable one. The Epilogue states,
"The rabbi from Nazareth never claimed he was unique. His Abba was the Abba of all. His teaching, purifying, exorcism, healing, prayers, signs, meals, and sacrifices were not for himself alone, nor were they intended to demonstrate his personal power or bring him adulation for his attributes or accomplishments. All his work was undertaken to open the gate of heaven so that Israel might enter before the Throne of God.
Far too much theology has been preoccupied with closing that gate. By exalting Jesus as the only human being to sit on the right hand of God, many theologians have denied heaven to others. They remind me of Jesus' complaint about some Pharisees, who used the key of knowledge to shut God's Kingdom to those of lesser learning."
★★★★
Definitely one of my favorite authors. I believe he's the one who called my most-studied scripture, Revelation, a "perfectly rancid book." But I forgive him; I think that quote sets the tone for his book about the practical, historical Jesus in 180-degree contrast to the bloody warrior image some Jews & Christians wished of their Messiah.
Chilton is a great story-teller, and his writing immerses us in the world of Jesus. Temple procedures and the Roman Empire come alive. Chilton knows his stuff. Do be aware, however, that he makes up his own caricature of Jesus--a caricature that more closely resembles the popular Buddha in looks and practices than the popular Jesus. It's a fill-in-the-gaps series of best guesses. I'm sure Chilton would be the first to admit he has flavored the image of Jesus somewhat for our reading pleasure. For example, Jesus grows fat because he's known to enjoy a good meal.
Chilton's Jesus is a bitter-but-lovable dreamer who begins to believe his ambitions are God-ordained. Though he ultimately fails in his reformation of the Temple and transformative vision for Judaism, he does accomplish a splinter movement which grew rapidly in the second century, and his legend lives on and continues to inspire, adding meaning to our lives two millennia later.
If Chilton does have a spiritual agenda in writing, it's a commendable one. The Epilogue states,
"The rabbi from Nazareth never claimed he was unique. His Abba was the Abba of all. His teaching, purifying, exorcism, healing, prayers, signs, meals, and sacrifices were not for himself alone, nor were they intended to demonstrate his personal power or bring him adulation for his attributes or accomplishments. All his work was undertaken to open the gate of heaven so that Israel might enter before the Throne of God.
Far too much theology has been preoccupied with closing that gate. By exalting Jesus as the only human being to sit on the right hand of God, many theologians have denied heaven to others. They remind me of Jesus' complaint about some Pharisees, who used the key of knowledge to shut God's Kingdom to those of lesser learning."
November 10, 2011
John 1:18, God the Son
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
//Today's verse is a sticky one, very difficult to translate ... but incredibly important. At the crux of this interpretation may be a question that Christians have argued about for two millennia: Is Jesus God?
The ESV translation highlights the difficulty in this passage with a straightforward interpretation: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Huh? Only God has ever seen God?
All translations agree from the verse's context that John is talking about Jesus. The KJV, shown above, renders Jesus as the "only begotten Son." But let's look at some other translations, which are admittedly evangelical. The NLT reads, "No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us." The NIV reads, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." But have these translations taken extra liberty, reading into the text a divine claim for Jesus that doesn't belong?
The NRSV edition prides itself on its unbiased translation, including interfaith contributors on its translation committee. Shall we get its opinion? "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
How often I've heard non-Trinitarians preach that the Bible talks about "God the Father," but never "God the Son." Perhaps they're wrong.
//Today's verse is a sticky one, very difficult to translate ... but incredibly important. At the crux of this interpretation may be a question that Christians have argued about for two millennia: Is Jesus God?
The ESV translation highlights the difficulty in this passage with a straightforward interpretation: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Huh? Only God has ever seen God?
All translations agree from the verse's context that John is talking about Jesus. The KJV, shown above, renders Jesus as the "only begotten Son." But let's look at some other translations, which are admittedly evangelical. The NLT reads, "No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us." The NIV reads, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." But have these translations taken extra liberty, reading into the text a divine claim for Jesus that doesn't belong?
The NRSV edition prides itself on its unbiased translation, including interfaith contributors on its translation committee. Shall we get its opinion? "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
How often I've heard non-Trinitarians preach that the Bible talks about "God the Father," but never "God the Son." Perhaps they're wrong.
November 9, 2011
Book review: Kingdom Coming
by Michelle Goldberg
★★★★★
Goldberg, a secular Jew, provides a hard-nosed look at the agendas and power of ultra-conservative Christian organizations in the United States. Goldberg calls this trend "Christian Nationalism," after the openly-stated goal of many fundamentalist leaders to "take back America." From, of course, the gays, the morally decadent (such as distributors of birth control), the Darwin-lovers, and the unpatriotic atheists who believe in separation of church and state.
Goldberg comes on strong and occasionally a bit sarcastic—for example, she bemoans the way Intelligent Design proponents have flaunted academic degrees to present their theories as "something more respectable than creationism in drag"—but her anti-fundamentalist rhetoric may not be overstated at all. Her research exposes the very real underground motives of the religious right, who feel bound by their beliefs to combat a spiritually bankrupt nation. There's no greater motivation than the conviction that one is following God's explicit orders.
"Dominion theologians" nationwide take Genesis 1:26-28 (where God tells Adam to assume dominion of the world) as scriptural direction for Christians to assume control by divine right. The Christian duty is to seize it. Evangelists with crazed followings preach that the separation between religion and politics is "what Satan likes most," and call for a regime that will clean up the "dung-eating dogs" (gays). Jews better repent, too, since the holocaust God planned didn't seem to get through to them. But more dangerous than these extremists are the everyday right-wingers who are raised to carefully infiltrate government and the Judicial bench for the good of Christ, so that that our nation can be set right … so that we can quit handing out condoms, quit treating gays like they're equals, quit pretending evolution is more scientific than creationism. Under President Bush's lead, government grant money by the millions poured into these agendas. The back cover promises a "witty, funny" read, but I couldn't laugh. Religion-gone-bad is jaw-droppingly frightening, and this is a hard book to put down.
Goldberg calls for action. She explains that "the anxieties that underlay Christian nationalism's appeal—fears about social breakdown, marital instability, and cultural decline—are real. They should be acknowledged and, whenever possible, addressed. But as long as the movement aims at the destruction of secular society and the political enforcement of its theology, it has to be battled, not comforted and appeased."
★★★★★
Goldberg, a secular Jew, provides a hard-nosed look at the agendas and power of ultra-conservative Christian organizations in the United States. Goldberg calls this trend "Christian Nationalism," after the openly-stated goal of many fundamentalist leaders to "take back America." From, of course, the gays, the morally decadent (such as distributors of birth control), the Darwin-lovers, and the unpatriotic atheists who believe in separation of church and state.
Goldberg comes on strong and occasionally a bit sarcastic—for example, she bemoans the way Intelligent Design proponents have flaunted academic degrees to present their theories as "something more respectable than creationism in drag"—but her anti-fundamentalist rhetoric may not be overstated at all. Her research exposes the very real underground motives of the religious right, who feel bound by their beliefs to combat a spiritually bankrupt nation. There's no greater motivation than the conviction that one is following God's explicit orders.
"Dominion theologians" nationwide take Genesis 1:26-28 (where God tells Adam to assume dominion of the world) as scriptural direction for Christians to assume control by divine right. The Christian duty is to seize it. Evangelists with crazed followings preach that the separation between religion and politics is "what Satan likes most," and call for a regime that will clean up the "dung-eating dogs" (gays). Jews better repent, too, since the holocaust God planned didn't seem to get through to them. But more dangerous than these extremists are the everyday right-wingers who are raised to carefully infiltrate government and the Judicial bench for the good of Christ, so that that our nation can be set right … so that we can quit handing out condoms, quit treating gays like they're equals, quit pretending evolution is more scientific than creationism. Under President Bush's lead, government grant money by the millions poured into these agendas. The back cover promises a "witty, funny" read, but I couldn't laugh. Religion-gone-bad is jaw-droppingly frightening, and this is a hard book to put down.
Goldberg calls for action. She explains that "the anxieties that underlay Christian nationalism's appeal—fears about social breakdown, marital instability, and cultural decline—are real. They should be acknowledged and, whenever possible, addressed. But as long as the movement aims at the destruction of secular society and the political enforcement of its theology, it has to be battled, not comforted and appeased."
November 8, 2011
Colossians 1:15, Jesus, the Firstborn
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
//Does this verse mean that Jesus wasn't born at the start of the first century, but at the beginning of creation? Does it mean that since Jesus was born, he did not exist eternally … but was part of the creation? Does it mean that since Jesus is the firstborn, there are other siblings?
Perhaps it means those things, but in actuality, you can't read a literal definition into the word "firstborn," as used in this sense. It simply doesn't mean what it sounds like it means … not in the Bible.
For example, Ephraim is called the Lord's firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) even though Manasseh was born first. David is called the Lord's "firstborn" (Psalm 89:27) even though he was the youngest of Jesse's sons.
"Firstborn," as least as it relates to God's chosen people, means simply preeminence; the one God has chosen to uplift.
//Does this verse mean that Jesus wasn't born at the start of the first century, but at the beginning of creation? Does it mean that since Jesus was born, he did not exist eternally … but was part of the creation? Does it mean that since Jesus is the firstborn, there are other siblings?
Perhaps it means those things, but in actuality, you can't read a literal definition into the word "firstborn," as used in this sense. It simply doesn't mean what it sounds like it means … not in the Bible.
For example, Ephraim is called the Lord's firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) even though Manasseh was born first. David is called the Lord's "firstborn" (Psalm 89:27) even though he was the youngest of Jesse's sons.
"Firstborn," as least as it relates to God's chosen people, means simply preeminence; the one God has chosen to uplift.
November 7, 2011
Book review: Evidence for Jesus
by Ralph O. Muncaster
★★
I don't know where to start with this one. I seldom give bad reviews, preferring to ask the author if they'd rather I withhold my review if I can't recommend their book, but this is one I bought on my own … and wasted my money.
Of late, I've immersed myself in several books attempting to prove not just the historicity of Jesus' life but the Gospel story of nature miracles and resurrection. They just keep getting worse. In light of my disappointment in these studies, I'll go out on a limb, here, and state that the worst thing Christians can do is try to "prove" their beliefs. It ain't working. Religion is not about evidence, but about faith where there is no evidence (or, often, in the face of opposing evidence).
Each chapter of Muncaster's book wraps up with a short summary of its conclusions, so I went back through the book just reviewing these summaries. They're a head-shaking assortment of absurdities and false claims. Here are the first few:
"The inability of the Jewish leaders and the Romans to produce the corpse of Jesus is powerful evidence that it didn't exist—given that everything reasonable was done to protect it and there was no motivation for others to steal it. The logical conclusion would be that Jesus indeed rose from the dead." How many absurdities can you count in one claim? Why would anyone guard the tomb of a man they considered a crucified criminal? It's only Matthew who reports this unlikely story. The logical conclusion is not that Jesus rose, but that he was never in a tomb (or at least a known tomb) to begin with.
"The martyrdom of the apostles, who knew Jesus intimately, is a powerful example of eyewitnesses who were absolutely convinced that Jesus Christ died and rose again from the dead." Well, if we had any reliable historical evidence of martyrdom, we might have some indication that this is true. In truth, we simply don't know what happened to any of the twelve, beyond some incredible legends.
"There were many highly memorable events during Jesus' time, capped by his resurrection. These would certainly gain attention and would be widely discussed. The many witnesses of the events and the resurrection—including the apostles, the friends and family of Jesus, and at least 500 others who saw the risen Christ—would attest to his resurrection." Wouldn't it be nice if this were true? But for all the miraculous events (darkness at noon, Herod's killing of babies, nature miracles), we simply have no corroborating evidence outside of evangelistic Christian writings. No "widely discussed" events. We have complete silence where we should have astounding and surprising historical records. As for the "500 witnesses" to his resurrection, Muncaster's own summary of the next chapter undermines this:
"Paul, who probably had accepted the 'official story' of the corpse of Jesus being stolen, had a radical change of mind upon seeing the risen Christ." What Paul describes seeing is a light from heaven … and, yes, he counts this "vision" as just as authentic as any of the other Jesus sightings, including his story of 500 people seeing Jesus at once. Where's the resurrected, physical body Muncaster wants us to see? Had enough, or do we keep going?
"If this resurrection did not take place historically, the Christian church would not have existed at the outset, nor would it exist today." Muncaster wants us to imagine that Christianity's entire foundation is on the witnessed resurrection of Jesus. He would do well to open his eyes to the multitude of other religions, both today and then, that thrive and thrived even as Christians pooh-pooh the supernatural claims of their competitors.
I won't close my review, however, without saying something positive about the book. Nineteen chapters into it I finally came to the final summary. Here, Muncaster concludes, "After 2,000 years, Jesus is still changing people's lives. The evidence is startling and overwhelming: Millions of people gladly testify to the positive, dramatic difference Christ has made in their lives and the strength and hope he gives them every day." Finally, I can say that I agree. I do not know how belief works, I do not understand why it doesn't seem to matter whether or not one's beliefs are true, I only know that believing is magical. I can imagine just about any explanation for this phenomenon except the one Muncaster pushes—that a man climbed out of his tomb, ascended into heaven, and there controls our destinies. That one must remain a matter of faith.
★★
I don't know where to start with this one. I seldom give bad reviews, preferring to ask the author if they'd rather I withhold my review if I can't recommend their book, but this is one I bought on my own … and wasted my money.
Of late, I've immersed myself in several books attempting to prove not just the historicity of Jesus' life but the Gospel story of nature miracles and resurrection. They just keep getting worse. In light of my disappointment in these studies, I'll go out on a limb, here, and state that the worst thing Christians can do is try to "prove" their beliefs. It ain't working. Religion is not about evidence, but about faith where there is no evidence (or, often, in the face of opposing evidence).
Each chapter of Muncaster's book wraps up with a short summary of its conclusions, so I went back through the book just reviewing these summaries. They're a head-shaking assortment of absurdities and false claims. Here are the first few:
"The inability of the Jewish leaders and the Romans to produce the corpse of Jesus is powerful evidence that it didn't exist—given that everything reasonable was done to protect it and there was no motivation for others to steal it. The logical conclusion would be that Jesus indeed rose from the dead." How many absurdities can you count in one claim? Why would anyone guard the tomb of a man they considered a crucified criminal? It's only Matthew who reports this unlikely story. The logical conclusion is not that Jesus rose, but that he was never in a tomb (or at least a known tomb) to begin with.
"The martyrdom of the apostles, who knew Jesus intimately, is a powerful example of eyewitnesses who were absolutely convinced that Jesus Christ died and rose again from the dead." Well, if we had any reliable historical evidence of martyrdom, we might have some indication that this is true. In truth, we simply don't know what happened to any of the twelve, beyond some incredible legends.
"There were many highly memorable events during Jesus' time, capped by his resurrection. These would certainly gain attention and would be widely discussed. The many witnesses of the events and the resurrection—including the apostles, the friends and family of Jesus, and at least 500 others who saw the risen Christ—would attest to his resurrection." Wouldn't it be nice if this were true? But for all the miraculous events (darkness at noon, Herod's killing of babies, nature miracles), we simply have no corroborating evidence outside of evangelistic Christian writings. No "widely discussed" events. We have complete silence where we should have astounding and surprising historical records. As for the "500 witnesses" to his resurrection, Muncaster's own summary of the next chapter undermines this:
"Paul, who probably had accepted the 'official story' of the corpse of Jesus being stolen, had a radical change of mind upon seeing the risen Christ." What Paul describes seeing is a light from heaven … and, yes, he counts this "vision" as just as authentic as any of the other Jesus sightings, including his story of 500 people seeing Jesus at once. Where's the resurrected, physical body Muncaster wants us to see? Had enough, or do we keep going?
"If this resurrection did not take place historically, the Christian church would not have existed at the outset, nor would it exist today." Muncaster wants us to imagine that Christianity's entire foundation is on the witnessed resurrection of Jesus. He would do well to open his eyes to the multitude of other religions, both today and then, that thrive and thrived even as Christians pooh-pooh the supernatural claims of their competitors.
I won't close my review, however, without saying something positive about the book. Nineteen chapters into it I finally came to the final summary. Here, Muncaster concludes, "After 2,000 years, Jesus is still changing people's lives. The evidence is startling and overwhelming: Millions of people gladly testify to the positive, dramatic difference Christ has made in their lives and the strength and hope he gives them every day." Finally, I can say that I agree. I do not know how belief works, I do not understand why it doesn't seem to matter whether or not one's beliefs are true, I only know that believing is magical. I can imagine just about any explanation for this phenomenon except the one Muncaster pushes—that a man climbed out of his tomb, ascended into heaven, and there controls our destinies. That one must remain a matter of faith.
November 6, 2011
Luke 22:17-19, the Order of the Eucharist
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you … And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it …
//In, Luke, and only in Luke, the cup is served before the bread. Five other places in the New Testament suggest the reverse order. So why is Luke different, and who is right?
Right or wrong, Luke may be actually describing the earlier tradition. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and Luke's order more closely matches first-century Jewish custom, where a cup of wine is blessed and passed at the beginning of the meal. Moreover, the Didache, perhaps the earliest Christian document not in the Bible, carefully describes the ritual of the Eucharist … and it clearly indicates the cup is shared before the bread.
One reason to imagine the Didache presents the more original order is that it may capture the more primitive meaning in the ritual. It's nothing like Paul's rendition. No mention of the Last Supper, no sacrifice, no body or blood. It's not about the death of Jesus at all, but about his vision of God's Kingdom. It's about thanksgiving to God for his provision, and the practice of community sharing. Converts shared a full meal together, not a sip and a wafer.
//In, Luke, and only in Luke, the cup is served before the bread. Five other places in the New Testament suggest the reverse order. So why is Luke different, and who is right?
Right or wrong, Luke may be actually describing the earlier tradition. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and Luke's order more closely matches first-century Jewish custom, where a cup of wine is blessed and passed at the beginning of the meal. Moreover, the Didache, perhaps the earliest Christian document not in the Bible, carefully describes the ritual of the Eucharist … and it clearly indicates the cup is shared before the bread.
One reason to imagine the Didache presents the more original order is that it may capture the more primitive meaning in the ritual. It's nothing like Paul's rendition. No mention of the Last Supper, no sacrifice, no body or blood. It's not about the death of Jesus at all, but about his vision of God's Kingdom. It's about thanksgiving to God for his provision, and the practice of community sharing. Converts shared a full meal together, not a sip and a wafer.
November 5, 2011
Book review: Man of God
by Debra Diaz
★★★★★
This is an intriguing story about the birth of Christianity among the Gentiles, particularly in the city of Rome. It's a sequel to Diaz's first book, Woman of Sin, though I don't believe it's necessary to read book one in order to enjoy book two.
Paulus and Alysia, with their daughter, Rachel, hide from the Roman authorities while spreading the message of Jesus in Christianity's underground movement. However, the time comes when they must all three take a stand for their beliefs. The plot is engaging, and the tension builds as they choose to leave things in the hands of God, though it's never a question of God's power, but of His will. Will God rescue them, or will He stand idly by and let them succumb to Roman torture and cruel death?
I love Diaz's chosen historical era! Little scholarly emphasis has gone into studying Christians of this period, the 30's and 40's of the first century, and precious little is known about how Christianity took hold. Paul's letters give us our best hints. So Diaz clings pretty tightly to the Pauline picture of church-planting as she recreates the atmosphere of early Mediterranean beliefs. For example, the characters battle against spirits and bodily possession. (The main character, Paulus, manages to exorcize a demon from a man, though his wife, Alysia, fails in her attempt to perform the same miracle on the Emperor, Caligula.)
There is an exception, however, to its authenticity. Diaz portrays the Christianity of the early first century very much like today's Christian teachings. This is my one disappointment with the story; its lack of authenticity in this area stands out since the spread of Christianity is the focus of the story. I'll give an example:
In one scene, Paulus, the main character, meets a friend's father on his deathbed and tries to convert him. "When your soul leaves your body it will go to one of two places. To be forever with God, or to be forever separated from him in a place of torment, reserved for those who refuse to accept his son as savior, the one who paid for their sins." The fellow dies, and we never again meet Paulus' friend. So why include the scene? If it's meant to add historicity, a more interesting and authentic choice of theology would be the apostle Paul's teaching that the sinful die forever (annihilationism) or the Greek teaching of soul punishment for the extremely evil (which this man was not) or the Jewish belief in a physical, bodily resurrection for God's chosen nation (such as that described in the book of Revelation). All of these theologies would be more believable for the time period of the story, and in my opinion more interesting. Diaz's choice to use contemporary beliefs made me feel a little like I was being preached at.
Then I reached the climax. Excellent!! Exciting, authentic, appropriate, thought-provoking, mildly disturbing, all my complaints dissolved in twenty pages as Diaz came through with the perfect ending. Christianity is born!
★★★★★
This is an intriguing story about the birth of Christianity among the Gentiles, particularly in the city of Rome. It's a sequel to Diaz's first book, Woman of Sin, though I don't believe it's necessary to read book one in order to enjoy book two.
Paulus and Alysia, with their daughter, Rachel, hide from the Roman authorities while spreading the message of Jesus in Christianity's underground movement. However, the time comes when they must all three take a stand for their beliefs. The plot is engaging, and the tension builds as they choose to leave things in the hands of God, though it's never a question of God's power, but of His will. Will God rescue them, or will He stand idly by and let them succumb to Roman torture and cruel death?
I love Diaz's chosen historical era! Little scholarly emphasis has gone into studying Christians of this period, the 30's and 40's of the first century, and precious little is known about how Christianity took hold. Paul's letters give us our best hints. So Diaz clings pretty tightly to the Pauline picture of church-planting as she recreates the atmosphere of early Mediterranean beliefs. For example, the characters battle against spirits and bodily possession. (The main character, Paulus, manages to exorcize a demon from a man, though his wife, Alysia, fails in her attempt to perform the same miracle on the Emperor, Caligula.)
There is an exception, however, to its authenticity. Diaz portrays the Christianity of the early first century very much like today's Christian teachings. This is my one disappointment with the story; its lack of authenticity in this area stands out since the spread of Christianity is the focus of the story. I'll give an example:
In one scene, Paulus, the main character, meets a friend's father on his deathbed and tries to convert him. "When your soul leaves your body it will go to one of two places. To be forever with God, or to be forever separated from him in a place of torment, reserved for those who refuse to accept his son as savior, the one who paid for their sins." The fellow dies, and we never again meet Paulus' friend. So why include the scene? If it's meant to add historicity, a more interesting and authentic choice of theology would be the apostle Paul's teaching that the sinful die forever (annihilationism) or the Greek teaching of soul punishment for the extremely evil (which this man was not) or the Jewish belief in a physical, bodily resurrection for God's chosen nation (such as that described in the book of Revelation). All of these theologies would be more believable for the time period of the story, and in my opinion more interesting. Diaz's choice to use contemporary beliefs made me feel a little like I was being preached at.
Then I reached the climax. Excellent!! Exciting, authentic, appropriate, thought-provoking, mildly disturbing, all my complaints dissolved in twenty pages as Diaz came through with the perfect ending. Christianity is born!
November 4, 2011
Mark 6:17-18, How Did John the Baptist Die?
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
//You know the story. Herodias's daughter danced for Herod at a birthday party, and so pleased him that he promised her anything she wanted. She asked her mother, Herodias, what to request from Herod, and Herodias told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter.
Is this really the way it happened? Jewish historian Josephus gives us a different story. Josephus tells us that Herodias was not married to Philip, but rather to another brother of Herod who was also named Herod. Perhaps Mark's Gospel confused the two Herods, and invented the wife-stealing story as an explanation.
If so, then how did John die? Josephus does confirm that his death was at the hands of Herod. John, according to Josephus, was "a good man" who baptized not for the remission of sins but for "the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." Herod feared that the influence of John could start a rebellion, and sent him as a prisoner to the castle Macherus, where he was put to death.
//You know the story. Herodias's daughter danced for Herod at a birthday party, and so pleased him that he promised her anything she wanted. She asked her mother, Herodias, what to request from Herod, and Herodias told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter.
Is this really the way it happened? Jewish historian Josephus gives us a different story. Josephus tells us that Herodias was not married to Philip, but rather to another brother of Herod who was also named Herod. Perhaps Mark's Gospel confused the two Herods, and invented the wife-stealing story as an explanation.
If so, then how did John die? Josephus does confirm that his death was at the hands of Herod. John, according to Josephus, was "a good man" who baptized not for the remission of sins but for "the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." Herod feared that the influence of John could start a rebellion, and sent him as a prisoner to the castle Macherus, where he was put to death.
November 3, 2011
Book review: The Last Week
by Marcus J. Borg & John Dominic Crossan
★★★★★
Beginning with Palm Sunday and continuing through the following Sunday, resurrection day, Borg and Crossan lead us day-by-day through the events of Christianity's holy week. There are differences between the Gospel accounts, especially when it comes to John's Gospel, so the authors are at times forced to play favorites. Because Mark is the earliest Gospel, and because Mark goes out of his way to chronicle the day-by-day events of the Passion week, the authors chose Mark as their primary source.
The stage is set early, on the first day of the week, as Jesus rides a donkey down from the Mount of Olives, through the east gate of the city. On the opposite side of the city, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, arrives at the head of a column of imperial cavalry and soldiers. Jesus' procession hailed the arrival of the Kingdom of God; Pilate's, the power of the Empire. It's not going to go well; this becomes clear early on, as Jesus plans his symbolic resistance. He arrives back on Monday and "attacks" the Temple, overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
The following two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, portray the disciples in their attempt to comprehend what is going on. The very first "Christian" perhaps appears during this time: An unnamed woman recognizes that Jesus is about to die, and anoints him for burial.
Thursday may be the most theologically significant day, as we experience the Passover meal, the Gethsemane prayer, and the arrest.
Good Friday needs no introduction. Jesus succumbs to the Roman machine, dies with a cry of despair, and leaves the disciples in a great state of confusion and sorrow through Saturday, the Sabbath. (Mark's Gospel itself says nothing at all about Saturday; the feelings and events must be inferred, or taken from elsewhere, such as the tradition of Christ descending into Hell.)
Finally, Easter, and the joy of resurrection. By far, this is the most confusing day of the week. Again, Mark's Gospel leaves us with little to go on; the original ending in Mark is very abrupt. Three women discover an empty tomb, and run away afraid, telling no one. It is only in the unfolding legends of other Gospel writers that we can try to piece together what this day meant to Jesus' followers. Regardless of how we imagine the actual events, the message is clear: Jesus lives!
★★★★★
Beginning with Palm Sunday and continuing through the following Sunday, resurrection day, Borg and Crossan lead us day-by-day through the events of Christianity's holy week. There are differences between the Gospel accounts, especially when it comes to John's Gospel, so the authors are at times forced to play favorites. Because Mark is the earliest Gospel, and because Mark goes out of his way to chronicle the day-by-day events of the Passion week, the authors chose Mark as their primary source.
The stage is set early, on the first day of the week, as Jesus rides a donkey down from the Mount of Olives, through the east gate of the city. On the opposite side of the city, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, arrives at the head of a column of imperial cavalry and soldiers. Jesus' procession hailed the arrival of the Kingdom of God; Pilate's, the power of the Empire. It's not going to go well; this becomes clear early on, as Jesus plans his symbolic resistance. He arrives back on Monday and "attacks" the Temple, overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
The following two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, portray the disciples in their attempt to comprehend what is going on. The very first "Christian" perhaps appears during this time: An unnamed woman recognizes that Jesus is about to die, and anoints him for burial.
Thursday may be the most theologically significant day, as we experience the Passover meal, the Gethsemane prayer, and the arrest.
Good Friday needs no introduction. Jesus succumbs to the Roman machine, dies with a cry of despair, and leaves the disciples in a great state of confusion and sorrow through Saturday, the Sabbath. (Mark's Gospel itself says nothing at all about Saturday; the feelings and events must be inferred, or taken from elsewhere, such as the tradition of Christ descending into Hell.)
Finally, Easter, and the joy of resurrection. By far, this is the most confusing day of the week. Again, Mark's Gospel leaves us with little to go on; the original ending in Mark is very abrupt. Three women discover an empty tomb, and run away afraid, telling no one. It is only in the unfolding legends of other Gospel writers that we can try to piece together what this day meant to Jesus' followers. Regardless of how we imagine the actual events, the message is clear: Jesus lives!
November 2, 2011
Genesis 2:18-20, Adam's First Temptation
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
//Today's verse is an absolutely hilarious story about how God parades all manner of animals in front of Adam, hoping to satisfy Adam's need for a mate, but Adam isn't tempted and holds out for a woman. Don't you think this is a fantastic story? It's gotta be my favorite story in the Bible.
I meet all kinds through my blog, but there are two kinds of people I guess I'll never be able to reach:
[1] Believers who wonder why I am trying to destroy their faith in the Bible.[2] Nonbelievers who wonder why I bother wasting my time on the Bible.
Sigh. Yes, I write often about funny stories and contradictions in the Bible. I honestly do think it's healthy to be able to laugh at the human touches within our holy book. But it's still the Bible! Capital B! I'm not mocking it. It's still the most miraculous and fascinating collection of stories in existence. It's still Christianity's written link to the divine.
Readers: please understand that I have no desire to shake your faith, but to refine it! You can read the Bible differently, recognizing its human contributions and myths, and still appreciate God. The modern age of enlightenment, which forced everybody to divide even the Bible into neat little piles of facts and non-facts, has ruined its reading for many. Nobody used to think critically like this. The Bible never used to be peered at through a microscope. Nobody used to worry about making sense of religion in a literal way. The scientific age has killed us, science has killed us, because we have let science rise up as some sort of adversary to our spirituality. We have let critical thinking change how we read God's Word. We have to get back to that old-OLD-time religion, where ultimate truth rises above the base, boring facts, if the Bible is going to survive.
The story of Adam and Eve is great religion and unquestionably belongs in our Bible, whether or not it really happened.
//Today's verse is an absolutely hilarious story about how God parades all manner of animals in front of Adam, hoping to satisfy Adam's need for a mate, but Adam isn't tempted and holds out for a woman. Don't you think this is a fantastic story? It's gotta be my favorite story in the Bible.
I meet all kinds through my blog, but there are two kinds of people I guess I'll never be able to reach:
[1] Believers who wonder why I am trying to destroy their faith in the Bible.[2] Nonbelievers who wonder why I bother wasting my time on the Bible.
Sigh. Yes, I write often about funny stories and contradictions in the Bible. I honestly do think it's healthy to be able to laugh at the human touches within our holy book. But it's still the Bible! Capital B! I'm not mocking it. It's still the most miraculous and fascinating collection of stories in existence. It's still Christianity's written link to the divine.
Readers: please understand that I have no desire to shake your faith, but to refine it! You can read the Bible differently, recognizing its human contributions and myths, and still appreciate God. The modern age of enlightenment, which forced everybody to divide even the Bible into neat little piles of facts and non-facts, has ruined its reading for many. Nobody used to think critically like this. The Bible never used to be peered at through a microscope. Nobody used to worry about making sense of religion in a literal way. The scientific age has killed us, science has killed us, because we have let science rise up as some sort of adversary to our spirituality. We have let critical thinking change how we read God's Word. We have to get back to that old-OLD-time religion, where ultimate truth rises above the base, boring facts, if the Bible is going to survive.
The story of Adam and Eve is great religion and unquestionably belongs in our Bible, whether or not it really happened.
