Lee Harmon's Blog, page 97
April 9, 2012
Job 1:18-19, Job Repulses His Children
While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
//You know the story, how Satan, with the permission of God, persecuted Job. In this verse, a messenger brings word of the death of Job's children.
But then, much later, Job's children are discovered alive. Or at least this verse hints they still live:
Job 19:17, My breath is offensive to my wife, And I am repulsive to the children of my own body (NKJV).
So, did his children miraculously survive? Not all translations agree. Some say Job repulsed not his own children, but the children of his mother...that is, his brothers. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) also discovered the incongruence of this story and tried to fix it, naming the children sons of Job's concubines.
I guess we'll never know who felt repulsed.
//You know the story, how Satan, with the permission of God, persecuted Job. In this verse, a messenger brings word of the death of Job's children.
But then, much later, Job's children are discovered alive. Or at least this verse hints they still live:
Job 19:17, My breath is offensive to my wife, And I am repulsive to the children of my own body (NKJV).
So, did his children miraculously survive? Not all translations agree. Some say Job repulsed not his own children, but the children of his mother...that is, his brothers. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) also discovered the incongruence of this story and tried to fix it, naming the children sons of Job's concubines.
I guess we'll never know who felt repulsed.
April 8, 2012
John 20:14-15, Easter and the Garden Tomb
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
//This is it, guys and gals. The empty tomb is the reason there are over 2 billion Christians in the world. Something very special happened on this day.
John's Gospel alone indicates that the tomb was in a garden. This is an important theological note: John begins and ends his Gospel with the Genesis story. Mary spies Jesus (whom we now understand, after twenty chapters, is God) and thinks him to be the gardener. Here stands God, once again tending his garden, like in the days of Eden. God has come back, and the world begins anew, in the same manner it started, with a new Eden.
The human Christ is often portrayed as the second Adam, the first of the new beginning. Perhaps Paul was the first to note this connection: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.—1 Corinthians 15:22. Augustine compared the opening of the Lord's side on the cross to the opening of Adam's side to create his "bride," the body of his believers. It's impossible to overstate the impact of the empty tomb, but perhaps Paul says it best:
Behold, all things are become new. –2 Corinthians 5:17
//This is it, guys and gals. The empty tomb is the reason there are over 2 billion Christians in the world. Something very special happened on this day.
John's Gospel alone indicates that the tomb was in a garden. This is an important theological note: John begins and ends his Gospel with the Genesis story. Mary spies Jesus (whom we now understand, after twenty chapters, is God) and thinks him to be the gardener. Here stands God, once again tending his garden, like in the days of Eden. God has come back, and the world begins anew, in the same manner it started, with a new Eden.
The human Christ is often portrayed as the second Adam, the first of the new beginning. Perhaps Paul was the first to note this connection: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.—1 Corinthians 15:22. Augustine compared the opening of the Lord's side on the cross to the opening of Adam's side to create his "bride," the body of his believers. It's impossible to overstate the impact of the empty tomb, but perhaps Paul says it best:
Behold, all things are become new. –2 Corinthians 5:17
April 7, 2012
Isaiah 40:1, Second Isaiah
Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
//The book of Isaiah is made up of two parts: Chapters 1-39 prophesy doom upon Judah and upon any nation which opposes God. Then, chapter 40 begins a new theme, opening with today's verse. The second half of Isaiah promises a renewed nation of Israel where God will again dwell with his people, a beautiful and glorious dream of a new kingdom.
Scholars are nearly unanimous in asserting that "Second Isaiah" was written by another author a couple hundred years later. Perhaps there were two additional authors; evidence seems to point to a "third Isaiah" as well. These later writings were then combined with the "authentic" Isaiah.
Why would anyone do this? Were these later authors trying to be deceptive, passing their additions off as original?
Probably not. It simply has to do with the size of the scrolls the stories were recorded on. A papyrus scroll, made from an Egyptian plant, could be about 35 feet long, rolled up for ease of transport.
A quick glance at the writings of the prophets will indicate that they fall neatly into four sections, all about the size of a single scroll:
[1] Jeremiah[2] Ezekiel[3] The twelve minor prophets[4] The books of Isaiah
No deception involved; just convenience. The writings were combined where they would fit on a single scroll. In time, the books of Isaiah came to be considered a single document.
//The book of Isaiah is made up of two parts: Chapters 1-39 prophesy doom upon Judah and upon any nation which opposes God. Then, chapter 40 begins a new theme, opening with today's verse. The second half of Isaiah promises a renewed nation of Israel where God will again dwell with his people, a beautiful and glorious dream of a new kingdom.
Scholars are nearly unanimous in asserting that "Second Isaiah" was written by another author a couple hundred years later. Perhaps there were two additional authors; evidence seems to point to a "third Isaiah" as well. These later writings were then combined with the "authentic" Isaiah.
Why would anyone do this? Were these later authors trying to be deceptive, passing their additions off as original?
Probably not. It simply has to do with the size of the scrolls the stories were recorded on. A papyrus scroll, made from an Egyptian plant, could be about 35 feet long, rolled up for ease of transport.
A quick glance at the writings of the prophets will indicate that they fall neatly into four sections, all about the size of a single scroll:
[1] Jeremiah[2] Ezekiel[3] The twelve minor prophets[4] The books of Isaiah
No deception involved; just convenience. The writings were combined where they would fit on a single scroll. In time, the books of Isaiah came to be considered a single document.
April 6, 2012
Book review: Dancing in the Shadows of Love
by Judy Croome
★★★★★
It never breaks. The haunting tone of this book, with its aura of simmering emotion, never breaks until the final word. Ten pages into the book, I was already flipping through it trying to find a picture of the author. Who writes like this? Who names their main character Lulu?
This is about three ordinary-but-extraordinary women and their struggle to ride the waves of life. It's about love, betrayal, lust, trust, and learning to live again. So, yeah, it's about God.
Dancing in the shadows of love. This one kept me uncomfortable the whole time, wishing the three of them would just step out of the shadows into the light. It's not that the plot is terribly captivating, it's just that the words are arranged so … artfully? Grippingly? Hauntingly? Now that I'm finished (and after a sleepless night) I confess Croome is a fascinating author, and I'm terrified of the day she hands me another book to review. I know I won't be able to turn it down.
But what is her book doing on my religion blog? Well, the problem is, an explanation would also be a spoiler. Its value is spiritual, even if its religion is foreign. But don't worry, her Spirit King and his mysterious representative will overlay nicely atop whatever beliefs you espouse, if you do just a little stretching here and there.
Note to Ms. Croome: Page 165 still holds me spellbound. And I'm a guy.
★★★★★
It never breaks. The haunting tone of this book, with its aura of simmering emotion, never breaks until the final word. Ten pages into the book, I was already flipping through it trying to find a picture of the author. Who writes like this? Who names their main character Lulu?
This is about three ordinary-but-extraordinary women and their struggle to ride the waves of life. It's about love, betrayal, lust, trust, and learning to live again. So, yeah, it's about God.
Dancing in the shadows of love. This one kept me uncomfortable the whole time, wishing the three of them would just step out of the shadows into the light. It's not that the plot is terribly captivating, it's just that the words are arranged so … artfully? Grippingly? Hauntingly? Now that I'm finished (and after a sleepless night) I confess Croome is a fascinating author, and I'm terrified of the day she hands me another book to review. I know I won't be able to turn it down.
But what is her book doing on my religion blog? Well, the problem is, an explanation would also be a spoiler. Its value is spiritual, even if its religion is foreign. But don't worry, her Spirit King and his mysterious representative will overlay nicely atop whatever beliefs you espouse, if you do just a little stretching here and there.
Note to Ms. Croome: Page 165 still holds me spellbound. And I'm a guy.
April 5, 2012
Matthew 17:1-3, the Transfiguration
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
//Here on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus meets with two Jewish figures from the Old Testament: Moses and Elijah. Many believed that both Moses and Elijah would return to help usher in the new age, the age of the Messiah, and today's passage is surely meant by Matthew to provide evidence that Jesus is God's anointed Messiah. Here stands Jesus, apparently planning the new age with the two great figures of Israel's past.
But what's so special about these two men, Moses and Elijah? Answer: They are representatives of Judaism. Moses represented the Law, the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and was even said to have been their author. Elijah represented the Prophets. Moses and Elijah were, in fact, synonymous with the writings they represented. When a Jewish writer says "Moses and Elijah" he means "the Law and the Prophets." Jesus, himself, used this language when referencing the law, talking about what "Moses said." Moses and Elijah were like the twin towers, the foundation of Judaism. In Jewish tradition, neither of these men died (forget what the Bible says about a grave for Moses) and were both to return at a later date, as fulfillment of scripture.
And here it is in Matthew, in black and white.
//Here on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus meets with two Jewish figures from the Old Testament: Moses and Elijah. Many believed that both Moses and Elijah would return to help usher in the new age, the age of the Messiah, and today's passage is surely meant by Matthew to provide evidence that Jesus is God's anointed Messiah. Here stands Jesus, apparently planning the new age with the two great figures of Israel's past.
But what's so special about these two men, Moses and Elijah? Answer: They are representatives of Judaism. Moses represented the Law, the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and was even said to have been their author. Elijah represented the Prophets. Moses and Elijah were, in fact, synonymous with the writings they represented. When a Jewish writer says "Moses and Elijah" he means "the Law and the Prophets." Jesus, himself, used this language when referencing the law, talking about what "Moses said." Moses and Elijah were like the twin towers, the foundation of Judaism. In Jewish tradition, neither of these men died (forget what the Bible says about a grave for Moses) and were both to return at a later date, as fulfillment of scripture.
And here it is in Matthew, in black and white.
April 4, 2012
Book review: Brain & Belief
by John J. McGraw
★★★★★
A worthwhile book, comprehensive in its treatment of the evolution of belief in the soul, and why we believe. McGraw possesses degrees in psychology, philosophy and religious studies, and he brings the three together in his writing … and in the wonderfully macabre cover of his book.
The three parts to the book are:
[1] A History of the Soul, in which McGraw leads us from our prehistoric beginnings of belief, through Shamanism, ancient Egypt, Judaism, and the famed philosopher Plato, into the development of Christianity.
[2] Part II, The Soul Matter, digs into the brain and its anatomy, the puzzle of consciousness, the effects of hallucinogens and other drugs, and illnesses such as depression.
[3] Part III, titled "Giving up the Ghost" introduces "the beautiful lie," and attempts to carefully weigh what is gained and what is lost by perpetuating a belief in the afterlife.
I read this book several years ago, and I'm sure there are a number of other reviews out there to tell you about it, so I'd rather just quote a paragraph from part three that resonated strongly with me:
"The theologians' heaven—singing, majesty, contemplation of God's beauty—implies a total transformation of personhood and its context. This existence ceases to be a personal one at all and may be considered an Easter dissolution of self into the Godhead. Once everyone ceases to do personal things and engages in a standard universal, a fawning submission before ineffable beauty, one sacrifices one's personality. At such a stage friend and lover, brother and son, all disappear. Hunger and admiration, play and sex, all dissolve into the singular experience—the singularly inhuman experience—of God worship. Every depiction of an existence worth living for disappears with the personality. Such an impersonal existence could be immortal but the person would have ceased to exist at death as surely as if he were simply mortal." (p. 329)
★★★★★
A worthwhile book, comprehensive in its treatment of the evolution of belief in the soul, and why we believe. McGraw possesses degrees in psychology, philosophy and religious studies, and he brings the three together in his writing … and in the wonderfully macabre cover of his book.
The three parts to the book are:
[1] A History of the Soul, in which McGraw leads us from our prehistoric beginnings of belief, through Shamanism, ancient Egypt, Judaism, and the famed philosopher Plato, into the development of Christianity.
[2] Part II, The Soul Matter, digs into the brain and its anatomy, the puzzle of consciousness, the effects of hallucinogens and other drugs, and illnesses such as depression.
[3] Part III, titled "Giving up the Ghost" introduces "the beautiful lie," and attempts to carefully weigh what is gained and what is lost by perpetuating a belief in the afterlife.
I read this book several years ago, and I'm sure there are a number of other reviews out there to tell you about it, so I'd rather just quote a paragraph from part three that resonated strongly with me:
"The theologians' heaven—singing, majesty, contemplation of God's beauty—implies a total transformation of personhood and its context. This existence ceases to be a personal one at all and may be considered an Easter dissolution of self into the Godhead. Once everyone ceases to do personal things and engages in a standard universal, a fawning submission before ineffable beauty, one sacrifices one's personality. At such a stage friend and lover, brother and son, all disappear. Hunger and admiration, play and sex, all dissolve into the singular experience—the singularly inhuman experience—of God worship. Every depiction of an existence worth living for disappears with the personality. Such an impersonal existence could be immortal but the person would have ceased to exist at death as surely as if he were simply mortal." (p. 329)
April 3, 2012
Matthew 25:31, the Son of Man enthroned
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
//One of the most fascinating and mysterious characters in Jewish lore is the Son of Man. That is, the anticipated Messiah, seen primarily (in this messianic role) in the book of Daniel and non-canonical books like 1 Enoch. Although Isaiah 42:8 expressly denies that God will ever share his throne, the book of Daniel, chapter 7, describes a "Son of Man" sharing God's ruling authority. Daniel saw this in a dream:
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel, the Bible says, was very disturbed about this dream. And rightly so: it's blasphemous to imagine worshipping anyone but God! This image, however, of a "son of man" riding the clouds up from the earth to heaven, and being granted authority to rule by God himself, carries over into the New Testament. See today's verse in Matthew, and especially the 4th and 5th chapters of Revelation.
What are we to make of this? The Bible states clearly that God alone is sovereign, but then it says God turns over his authority to the Son of Man. The Christian movement pieced the puzzle together this way: The Son of Man becomes the Son of God … indeed, he becomes God himself, God incarnate. Our monotheism survives intact, and our heavenly ruler remains the one we trust.
//One of the most fascinating and mysterious characters in Jewish lore is the Son of Man. That is, the anticipated Messiah, seen primarily (in this messianic role) in the book of Daniel and non-canonical books like 1 Enoch. Although Isaiah 42:8 expressly denies that God will ever share his throne, the book of Daniel, chapter 7, describes a "Son of Man" sharing God's ruling authority. Daniel saw this in a dream:
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
Daniel, the Bible says, was very disturbed about this dream. And rightly so: it's blasphemous to imagine worshipping anyone but God! This image, however, of a "son of man" riding the clouds up from the earth to heaven, and being granted authority to rule by God himself, carries over into the New Testament. See today's verse in Matthew, and especially the 4th and 5th chapters of Revelation.
What are we to make of this? The Bible states clearly that God alone is sovereign, but then it says God turns over his authority to the Son of Man. The Christian movement pieced the puzzle together this way: The Son of Man becomes the Son of God … indeed, he becomes God himself, God incarnate. Our monotheism survives intact, and our heavenly ruler remains the one we trust.
April 2, 2012
Matthew 22:44, Turning enemies into a footstool
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
//If you read the Bible, you've probably run across this saying multiple times. The phrase appears six times in the New Testament alone. Your enemies will be turned into your footstool.
Do you picture sitting in your easy chair, legs stretched out and resting on the back of a kneeling enemy? That's not what it refers to. It's an allusion to an ancient custom of placing one's foot on the neck of a defeated enemy.
Joshua 10:24-25, And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
More haughty victors would even use their defeated enemies as stools to mount their horses.
//If you read the Bible, you've probably run across this saying multiple times. The phrase appears six times in the New Testament alone. Your enemies will be turned into your footstool.
Do you picture sitting in your easy chair, legs stretched out and resting on the back of a kneeling enemy? That's not what it refers to. It's an allusion to an ancient custom of placing one's foot on the neck of a defeated enemy.
Joshua 10:24-25, And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
More haughty victors would even use their defeated enemies as stools to mount their horses.
April 1, 2012
Book review: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
by Bart D. Ehrman
★★★★
Not too long ago, I was asked in a religious forum whether I believe Jesus really existed. I said yes, I'm 99% sure. I meant precisely that: I'm a numbers guy, and I estimate the odds that Jesus never existed to be somewhere around one chance in a hundred. After presenting a parallel (a Bible historian who is forced to make sense of his research in light of a nonexistent Jesus would be a bit like a research biologist who shows up to work one day and is told that evolution is a lie) I gave an example of the type of argument that I find most convincing. If Jesus were a made-up figure, wouldn't the made-up stories be a bit more self-serving? Instead, for example, the Gospels tell about Jesus submitting to baptism for his sins by a competitor, a man we know from historical reports DID exist: John the Baptist. How did this whole embarrassing episode get written into the story, if it weren't literally true?
The truth is, I didn't know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.
It's not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He's been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he'd have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It's that Ehrman doesn't find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.
I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman's that-don't-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus' existence, the book is superb.
Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I'm still right where I was before: 99% sure.
★★★★
Not too long ago, I was asked in a religious forum whether I believe Jesus really existed. I said yes, I'm 99% sure. I meant precisely that: I'm a numbers guy, and I estimate the odds that Jesus never existed to be somewhere around one chance in a hundred. After presenting a parallel (a Bible historian who is forced to make sense of his research in light of a nonexistent Jesus would be a bit like a research biologist who shows up to work one day and is told that evolution is a lie) I gave an example of the type of argument that I find most convincing. If Jesus were a made-up figure, wouldn't the made-up stories be a bit more self-serving? Instead, for example, the Gospels tell about Jesus submitting to baptism for his sins by a competitor, a man we know from historical reports DID exist: John the Baptist. How did this whole embarrassing episode get written into the story, if it weren't literally true?
The truth is, I didn't know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.
It's not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He's been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he'd have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It's that Ehrman doesn't find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.
I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman's that-don't-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus' existence, the book is superb.
Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I'm still right where I was before: 99% sure.
March 31, 2012
Luke 1:36, Was Jesus really a cousin to John the Baptist?
Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren
//Were Jesus and John, son of Elizabeth, really related? Most scholars doubt it, assuming this relationship to be a literary creation of Luke. Or, equally likely, a story Luke had collected. More evidence points to the idea that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist. I've discussed this topic before, so I won't repeat myself.
But if it isn't true, why does Luke report them as cousins? It seems to be Luke's personal conclusion, based on a typology of Old Testament relations. Here's how it works.
Jesus' mother's name is Mary. John's mother's name, according to Luke (only), is Elizabeth. The only other Elizabeth (written in Hebrew as Elisheba) in the Bible is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Moses' wife's name was Miriam, a form of Mary. So, in the story of Moses, Mary and Elizabeth are sisters-in-law, and their offspring would be first cousins.
Thus, concludes Luke, Jesus and John were also cousins.
//Were Jesus and John, son of Elizabeth, really related? Most scholars doubt it, assuming this relationship to be a literary creation of Luke. Or, equally likely, a story Luke had collected. More evidence points to the idea that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist. I've discussed this topic before, so I won't repeat myself.
But if it isn't true, why does Luke report them as cousins? It seems to be Luke's personal conclusion, based on a typology of Old Testament relations. Here's how it works.
Jesus' mother's name is Mary. John's mother's name, according to Luke (only), is Elizabeth. The only other Elizabeth (written in Hebrew as Elisheba) in the Bible is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Moses' wife's name was Miriam, a form of Mary. So, in the story of Moses, Mary and Elizabeth are sisters-in-law, and their offspring would be first cousins.
Thus, concludes Luke, Jesus and John were also cousins.
