DIALOGUE WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 5 (RIGHT AND WRONG)

Your essay expresses an interesting variation on the tenets of sociobiology in that it includes protection of the group's leader as one of its driving forces. I probably would not have thought of that as a goal since I am not as politically minded as you are. The raging debate concerning sociobiology seems to me to be a variation of the old nature vs. nurture controversy of previous generations, but dressed up in evolutionary terminology. You wisely included both factors in your analysis since neither can be properly said to explain human behavior alone (unless one considers nurture to merely be a cultural outgrowth of nature). If you haven't already read it, a good overview of sociobiology is given in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology/. Most of it seems consistent with your basic thoughts on the subject, but the various critiques in the article should be carefully noted.

One should at this point state the obvious: employing either nature or nurture, or any combination of the two, to explain human behavior is the result of a purely naturalistic and mechanistic world view. Whether it is genetic make-up or environmental influences which cause us to act the way we do, in neither case does a human being have the capacity to make a choice in how he/she behaves. Therefore your use of the words “choose,” “choice,” “follow,” “guide behavior,”and “freedom” are rather misleading within the picture you have outlined, and are really purely illusory. I know of few atheists who actually operate with this belief system fully in mind, but then few of us are wholly consistent. The existentialists realize this ultimate consequence of naturalism but “choose” to act out their lives as if it had purpose even though they know it doesn't. Even the ultimate choice of “to be or not to be” is denied them. It is interesting that one of the most prominent existentialists, Camus, is reported to have converted to Christianity a few years before his death. A theistic viewpoint recognizes the genetic and environmental influences on a person's behavior but also believes in his capacity to choose to behave in spite of those influences since he possesses a spiritual component that is, strictly speaking, outside the mechanistic forces of the universe. I know of no strictly materialistic theory that opens up that possibility, but I would be very interested if you have anything to add to that subject.

Besides the above-mentioned pragmatic objection to a strictly sociobiological explanation for human behavior, the problem of altruism also must be faced. This is too large a subject for me to cover here, but a number of critics have shown the difficulty in meshing specific altruistic behaviors observed in man with any sort of simplistic gene theory. The Wikipedia article on sociobiology says, “When altruists lavish their resources on non-altruists at the expense of their own kind, the altruists tend to die out and the others tend to grow. In other words, altruism is more likely to survive if altruists practice the ethic that 'charity begins at home.'” Unfortunately, the facts do not necessarily bear this out, and one could easily argue that much of society has become more indiscriminately altruistic with time, not less so.

Take Christianity as an example. It was by practicing the counter-intuitive (and certainly anti social- Darwinian) teachings of Jesus that the movement was able to spread rapidly throughout the world. He taught that although anyone could practice love toward one's friends and relations, we were called to love those outside our immediate gene pool, those who were not in a position to reciprocate (the poor, slaves, social outcasts, lepers, etc.), and those who were not highly disposed to reciprocate (including political and religious opponents). Because of the example of this ethic, his followers increased rapidly in numbers throughout the Greco-Roman world in spite of (some would say because of) widespread persecution. The same story is being repeated today in areas such as China. In fact, the only time the altruistic movements tend to die out is when they become politically powerful and start turning against others and one another (witness the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.).

Lisa Goddard (University of Liverpool PhD thesis, Nov. 2007) has perceptively pointed out that ”Rather than being primarily selfish in motivation, humans are both more altruistic and more egotistical than the sociobiological view can accommodate.” For a rather biting and (overly) sarcastic attack on sociobiology from a theistic point of view, see www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/against-sociobiology-12. It includes an oft-repeated statement that sociological beliefs as usually formulated are not really testable, and therefore it is not a true science. One is left with a mere belief in hypothetical constructs in no way more logical than a belief in supernatural forces.

Considering the naturalistic assumptions behind your whole argument, your conclusion gives a very clear picture of the resulting options. However, since it is based on no absolute values that one can rely on other than those hard-wired into us to cope with an entirely different societal situation, at best it offers only a pragmatic solution to the question of morality. And I would argue that it really offers nothing along that line either. You use some indirect statements: “it becomes possible” and “a range of goals can be targeted.” The real questions are: “Who will do this and what specific guidelines will they follow?”

Take the current question of health care. How does one optimize the happiness factor? If we go with the benefit to the most people, then we tax the rich and middle class and give universal health care to the poor masses. But that penalizes the most productive members of society, and all of society ultimately suffers. The same could be said for healthcare providers. Do we lean toward the side of the doctors who actually provide the care to make sure that people remain motivated to enter the medical field? Or do we side with the insurance companies in our legislation so that they can provide affordable coverage? To take a local example, the city I now live in has stripped just about all of the health benefits from their employees (including my son-in-law). Is that justified because only a small number of people are involved compared to the relative large number of taxpayers who have to foot the bill? Whose happiness comes first?

Since none of the above can be dispassionately calculated using mathematical models, morality by your definition becomes a pliable tool in the hands of those who wield the most political or propagandistic power. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the common criticisms of sociobiology is that it plays right into the hands of those who believe in euthanasia and racial discrimination.

A second problem with your conclusion is that it zeroes in on individual happiness and freedom as a universally accepted goal. Let's consider those two “absolutes” one at a time.

Happiness is a rather vague term, but we probably all have a rough idea of what most people feel it should entail: good health, a good paying job, nice house, loving family, leisure time to pursue hobbies, etc, etc. The fact is that such a non-stressed picture often leads, in reality, to the overwhelming desire for more material goods, a higher position in society than one has, the desire for a new trophy wife, a feeling of emptiness and lack of purpose in life, and general envy of all those who still have more than we do. This can perhaps be demonstrated by the observed higher than average suicide rates in the Scandinavian welfare states. Somewhat surprisingly, New Testament teachings on the subject turn the concept of happiness head over heels.

In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 4) he states that those who are, or will ultimately be, blessed (i.e. happy) are actually the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger for righteousness, those who are merciful to others, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted and reviled by others. Similarly, James (chapter 1, verses 2-3) states that trials of any kind should be welcomed with joy (a word usually understood to be a deeper concept than mere happiness since it does not depend on external circumstances) because they are necessary to produce a mature person, complete in every way. If these teachings are correct, then the best way to promote individual happiness would be to welcome physical difficulties in our lives and devote more time trying to meet other people's needs rather than exclusively our own.

Individual freedom is another absolute goal that you feel we could all agree on. There are several things to say about that statement. First, freedom can be defined as mainly freedom from something (want, fear, etc.) or freedom for something (pursuing one's individual goals and pleasures unimpeded, etc.). Depending on which of these two concepts one most agrees with will often result in quite different ideas on what is the right or wrong way to proceed in order to optimize this goal. Similarly, even within the U.S. there are two diametrically opposed views on what freedom means and how to achieve it. There is an interesting sociological book on this subject entitled Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways. The author demonstrates that depending on which part of the British Isles immigrants came from, they generally settled in different parts of America and brought their differing concepts of freedom with them. Thus, part of the U.S. today believes that the only way to ensure individual freedoms is by the promulgation of numerous laws to put limitations on those who would transgress society's rules. Another part of the country believes firmly that freedom means that the government interferes in one's life as little as possible even if it results in rampant abuses among the general populace.

Next to consider is the fact that you, as an American, happened to choose individual freedom as a supposedly universal goal. In fact, that may be a highly culturally determined goal. Freedom above all else is certainly the American mantra, but you might be surprised to find that many in other cultures do not rank it nearly as highly as we do. At the risk of grossly overstating the point, I would say that even in today's time frame, individual freedom for all is subservient to political correctness in Canada, to national security in Israel, to xenophobic feelings in Japan, to vengeance on one's enemies in many splinter countries, and to propagation and enforcement of certain political (Communist countries) and religious (Islamic and Hindu states) ideologies.

In summary, I'm not sure that your essay was properly entitled. Recognition of Right and Wrong assumes that an absolute morality exists, and the main problem is to agree on what it is. Instead, you propose a set of genetically hard-wired societal goals originating in early hominids which you then assume should still be somehow applicable to today's quite different situation if properly re-defined and publicized by some authoritative or influential group or individual.You throw a bone to religion as providing a possible way to further this process, but I would argue that religion should be the driving force from the start since only revelation from outside the naturalistic world holds the possibility of truly telling us what is right or wrong.

 

ADDING AND SUBTRACTING FROM THE BIBLE

 

Unfortunately, in Bible study, novelty is rarely a plus and often leads to Scripture twisting. As one example, consider the occasions of adding or subtracting.

In Appendix 1 below is a list of entire NT verses you will find in the KJV that were totally removed from most modern translations, let alone a number of additional changes within other verses. Those who swear by the KJV are incensed over this blatant disregard for God's word while those who embrace the modern translations make fun of those who are still clinging to a translation that is filled with material that has crept into the text over the years. One is accused of subtracting while the other is accused of adding to the Word. Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if all of our handwritten manuscripts of the Bible read the same. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Here is where the science (and art, I should add) of textual, or "lower," criticism comes in. The goal is to figure out as closely as possible what the original writings actually said. Why don't all the copies agree? There are a number of ways in which unintended mistakes in copying can arise, especially in the NT where most of the copyists were not trained scribes. There are even a very few suspected examples of purposeful changes in the text. The situation is quite similar to the field of family genealogy. Certain lines in your ancestry will proliferate because one branch will have lots of children while another branch may die out entirely. In a similar manner, the many existing copies of the NT that we have tend to fall into two different families with similar characteristics, the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine text. So what do we do?

When I was in junior high science class, the teacher asked this question of the class: when you boil water, is that a chemical or a physical change? He then went down each row asking each student in turn. The first student said, “chemical change.” Since the teacher didn't jump all over that answer, every student from that point on gave the same answer until he got to the next to last row and came to a good friend of mine who was an actual genius, and he said, “physical change.” I was in the last row and I gave the same response. I already knew it was the correct answer, but even if I hadn't, I would have gone with my friend's opinion, weighing it against the collective ignorance of the rest of the class.

This illustrates the classic fallacy of counting evidence instead of weighing it. And that is basically the same fallacy followed by those who rely on the Byzantine text. There may be many more manuscripts that all say one particular thing, but if they all copied the same errors over and over, sheer numbers don't count for much. Instead, modern translators tend to assign much higher weight to the earliest manuscripts since they are closer in time to the original writing with not as much time for errors to arise and accumulate.

By the way, if this whole discussion worries you and you now doubt whether you can trust any translation, keep in mind that the vast majority of differences in manuscripts have no effect whatsoever on any Christian doctrines. In addition, we are much much more certain of the NT text than we are of comparably ancient documents in terms of the number of manuscripts we have to compare and the relatively short amount of transpired time between the original writings and copies we have. Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is a popular and helpful treatment of this subject.

ADDITION With that out of the way, here is the first type of creative change to discuss: expansion or addition. And it takes many different forms. Going back to the Garden of Eden example, what is wrong with Eve adding to God's command that they should not even touch the tree? Wouldn't that make doubly sure that they didn't eat of it? That was exactly the technique used by the Pharisees called "building a fence around the Torah." Jesus had a lot to say about this mindset:

You say that if anyone tells father or mother, “'Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban' (that is, an offering to God')-- then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this. (Mark 7:11-13(

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24)

Concentration on minutia distracts from discerning the really important things that God wants you to believe and do. Another unfortunate fallout of this mindset is that your children can see through the nonsense you have tacked on to your brand of Christianity and may reject it along with the gospel message itself. I have seen this happen a number of times regarding cultural, scientific or political views that their parents are convinced are part and parcel of God's word, but really aren't.

One Sunday after services I went out to the parking lot and found that someone had put fliers on everyone's windshield. It was election time, and the flier conveniently listed all the candidates a Christian should vote for and the “core biblical values” that they upheld, including less restrictive gun control laws. You can believe whatever you want concerning gun control, just don't claim in any way that the right to gun ownership is somehow taught in God's word.

Then there are those who are rightly concerned about the problem of alcoholism who sometimes go to the extreme of trying to explain away the references to wine in the Bible by claiming that the Jews used unfermented grape juice for their Passover services and that this was the “fruit of the vine” that Jesus and the apostles drank.

One of the most distressing examples of this sort of strong association of Christianity with a special cause is the fact that among my daughters' contemporaries today the word “evangelical” has one meaning and one meaning only – a member of the political right wing. And if that doesn't happen to be their own political stance, they will use that association to reject our religious beliefs as well.

Another way to add to God's word is simply to overemphasize the importance of one passage, especially an obscure or controversial passage, way beyond its original importance. In I Corinthians 15:29, Paul makes a passing allusion to baptism on behalf of the dead during his discussion on the reality of the resurrection. This one verse is the sole biblical basis for the Mormon practice of baptism by proxy of one's ancestors, with the net effect of turning family genealogy into multi-million dollar businesses for some of their members. But keep in mind that Paul neither condoned nor condemned the practice. And it may not even refer to vicarious baptism on behalf of someone physically dead. It may mean that when the Corinthians commemorated their own baptisms it was also a reminder of the fact that their dead brothers and sisters in Christ would rise again, so it was conducted in part with those dead saints in mind (on their behalf). Other scholars feel that “dead” in this verse means those who are alive in body but spiritually dead. Thus, a Christian's baptism is a witness to those not yet saved. Just remember that any important teaching in the Bible will occur more than once.

Here is another example of expanding the Word: "When he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, 'Why could we not cast it out?' He said to them, 'This kind can come out only through prayer (and fasting).'” Mark 9:28-29

"Fasting" is in KJV and some minor translations that rely on later manuscripts rather than the earliest ones which do not have this word. Famous commentators of a previous generation who relied on the KJV exclusively assumed that “and fasting” was in the original and commented appropriately. For example, Spurgeon wrote: “He that would overcome the devil in certain instances must first overcome heaven by prayer, and conquer himself by self-denial.” A great thought, but one based on a word that probably wasn't in the original. Here is the most logical way this addition arose in the first place. In a hand-written document, the scribe added his own comments in the margin. The next person copying this manuscript may have thought that the previous scribe had inadvertently left a word out and then squeezed it into the margin. So when he, in turn, copied the document, he inserted the word into the text itself, where he thought it must have belonged.

It is easy for us to criticize Catholics for their beliefs and practices which aren't found in the Bible. We 

need to first remember that their Bible contains OT books not found in most Protestant Bibles. They 

call these deuterocanonical books while we generally know them as the Apocrypha (listed in Appendix 

2 with brief descriptions). It is from these apocryphal books that they find partial justification for 

doctrines such as praying to saints and saying masses on behalf of the dead. Should these books be in 

the Bible? That is too large a subject to pursue in this class, but there are several lines of reasoning that 

lead to the conclusion of “no.”

Also, Catholics make no secret of the fact that their faith is based on the Bible plus church tradition 

that supplements or interprets the Bible. II Peter 1:20 is a common proof text used by Roman Catholics 

to show that only the Church has the right to interpret the Bible, not the individual. But it turns out that 

the Catholics, as well as some Protestants, have misinterpreted this passage completely. Verse 20 is 

only part of a sentence, which continues into verse 21. Here is the whole passage: “First of all, you 

must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no 

prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Note that the whole sentence is concerned with the origin of scripture, not its subsequent interpretation. 

Here is how two translations bring out this fact:

    “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things...” NIV

    “No prophecy recorded in Scripture was ever thought up by the prophet himself.” Living Bible

And the following three commentators agree with this understanding:

    “Peter is addressing the divine inspiration of Scripture and not discussing its interpretation by his 

contemporaries or by us today.” Robert Harvey & Philip H. Towner, 2 Peter & Jude

    “Peter is talking about the divine origin of Scripture, not about its proper interpretation.” Michael 

Green, 2 Peter and Jude

    “It seems better to understand the reference to the origin rather than the understanding of Scripture.” 

David H. Wheaton, New Bible Commentary)

But we evangelicals aren't immune from adding to the Bible. For years, the only study Bible in English 

was the Scofield Bible so a whole generation or more of Christians started to treat his notes as if they 

were the only possible interpretation. Today we have a wealth of different study bibles and can 

compare notes with one another. But on occasion, you will still hear someone say in a Bible study,

 “Well, my Bible says...” meaning “the notes in my Bible say.” And on occasion, a commentary on the 

Bible gets elevated to the status of Scripture itself, such as the way Mary Baker Eddy's book is treated 

by Christian Scientists.

Next let's look at what I consider to be one of the most outrageous example of addition to the Bible, the 

gap theory. It proposes that between the first two verses of the Bible there is a gap of millions to 

billions of years. The proponents of this belief state that the original earth was in the hands of Satan 

and he populated it with various hideous prehistoric creatures and hominoids and generally made a 

total mess of things. When God got around to seeing what Satan had done, he kicked him and his 

angels out of heaven and judged that particular earth by wiping out everything on it and then re- 

creating it again according to the way He wanted it, as described in the rest of Genesis 1.

How do they come up with this scenario? First they have to re-translate Genesis 1:1 as “The earth 

became void” even though there is no justification for doing so. Next, they state that the words 

“without form and void” only appear in the context of God's judgment (Isaiah 34:1; Jeremiah 4:23-26), 

which is shading the truth a bit to say the least. And as the clincher, they cite Isaiah 45:18 (“He is the 

God who formed the earth and made it. He established it and did not make it a waste place but formed 

it to be populated.”) in order to prove that God couldn't have created the earth originally as a void. As 

you can see, this passage only says that it wasn't God's intention to leave the earth empty, but to 

populate it.

And where did they get the idea that this was the time period when Satan was kicked out of heaven 

before Genesis 1:2, even though other OT passages show that Satan was still in heaven in much later 

times? They quote, totally out of context, Ezekiel's poetic and sarcastic condemnation of the king of 

Tyre and apply it literally to Satan instead. “You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect 

in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you...I drove you in 

disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you by a guardian cherub from among the fiery 

stones...so I threw you to earth.” (Ezekiel 28:12-17) Read the whole chapter and you will clearly see 

that a human being is being described, not Satan. In reality, a great deal of the gap theory scenario is 

based more on John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost than on the Bible itself.

One step even further is to claim a belief as being biblical based on the fact that its opposite isn't 

mentioned in the Bible. This is the argument from silence, and the most prominent example is the 

banning of musical instruments in the churches of Christ. It is hard to be consistent in this approach. Is 

there any warrant in the NT for the use of pews, each person having a song book written in English, 

employing electric lighting in a church, or of men wearing ties, etc.? By the way, I have nothing 

against the churches of Christ and was actually a member of one wonderful congregation for a year 

before I moved to a different town.

Here is another argument from silence dreamed up by someone who couldn't tolerate the idea that any 

form of gambling might be taught in the Bible. Matthias was chosen by the remaining eleven apostles 

partially by casting lots. Since Matthias is never mentioned again in the Bible, the apostles were 

obviously in error in choosing him since God's choice for the 12th apostle was Paul. (an argument from 

silence followed by a statement not found in the NT).

SUBTRACTION There are similarly many ways to subtract from the Bible knowingly or unknowingly. Since I just mentioned the church of Christ I attended, they practiced an unusual form of subtraction from the Bible. Before I joined, I talked to their minister of education and told him that I happened to note that none of the Sunday school classes seemed to be teaching out of the OT. He looked a little embarrassed and explained that they recognized that their churches have been rightly accused of being legalistic and that they felt this would be one way to counter that tendency in their own congregation. I applauded their motive but couldn't really agree with their solution.

The next example of subtraction comes from those who are called the hyper-dispensationalists. They have a quite detailed scheme dividing up the teachings in the Bible according to the time periods or dispensations in which the teachings apply. We had a young teacher in our Sunday school class at one church I attended who made the statement that since Christians are already forgiven of their sins, there is no need to ask God for forgiveness for sins we commit now. I brought up the Lord's Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” His reply was that Christians are not supposed to recite the Lord's Prayer since that teaching only applied to the 3-year period when Jesus was alive on earth. The notes to the Scofield Bible, and to a lesser extent the Ryrie Bible, assign each of Jesus' parables, for example, to the particular dispensation in which they apply, past and future, and say that it is a mistake to apply them to any other time period. This is an effective way to rob most of Jesus' teachings of their power to affect us today.

I will pick on the dispensationalists one more time to illustrate another way that we all have of subtracting from the word, and that is approaching the Bible from our own area of interest and viewpoint only. The justification used by dispensationalists for their approach to biblical interpretation was historically based on II Timothy 2:15 which appears prominently as the title of some of their prophecy charts. That was the idea that we need to accurately divide the Word of God. Unfortunately, this KJV translation is in error. The Greek word translated “divide” really means to be straightforward in your presentation (NEB), rightly or accurately handle the word (RSV, NIV, NASV), etc.

Here is the whole verse: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” Now, to the blue collar church I grew up in, this passage meant to them that the members of their congregation didn't need to feel inferior to those who had more education than they did. Unfortunately that is not the meaning of “ashamed” in this verse. The immediate context shows that it is a warning not to engage in futile arguments and chatter or you will be ashamed before God. Now I am not denying that a verse may speak to each of us differently. The main thing to watch out for is limiting the meaning of the passage to only our own understanding and closing off our mind to other valid applications. This sort of subtracting from God's word is often a subtle process.

I ran into another example in talking to a lawyer friend from work who also attended the same church. He was having trouble relating to my passion for deeper and deeper Bible study because I loved the way the Bible was so open-ended and there was always the possibility of new insights. He said that when he studied the Bible it was to determine the exact meaning of a passage so that he could leave that verse and go on to pin down another passage. I told him that he was treating it like a study in case law, identifying precedents one by one. Then I realized that I was probably just as bad in treating Bible study as a never-ending research project because of my own career in research. We each have our own filters we put on to view the world and the Word.

How about the subject of preaching from the Bible? Some people rightly point out potential dangers associated with topical sermons. For example, I grew up in a church that practiced topical preaching only. By the time I was 21, I was convinced that I knew the whole Bible since I had been attending church almost every week of my life. I didn't realize until later just how selective our preachers had been in avoiding scriptures that were a little difficult or embarrassing to their point of view. Much later in life I started attending a church that practiced only expository preaching – going through a whole book of the Bible verse by verse. This church made a great virtue of that fact because it forced us to be exposed to every single verse in the Bible, even the hard ones. But expository preaching is not free from criticism either since a congregation may spend over a year hearing sermons from only one book in the Bible and completely miss out on lessons from any other portion. It boils down to this: no Christian should rely wholly on Sunday morning preaching and teaching to get a complete exposure to Bible.

A classic example of someone subtracting from Scripture is the Jefferson Bible. At least he was honest 

about his beliefs. Modern liberal Christians aren't quite as obvious but still tend to explain away 

anything in the Bible that is too miraculous for them to believe in. One approach to the Bible that is 

taught in mainstream denominational seminaries is called Form Criticism. The idea is to take each 

form of literature in the Bible such as a Miracle Story or a Hymn of Praise, for example, and collect all 

the examples of that genre found in the Bible. Then the various components of that type of literature 

are listed to come up with a stereotypical model. So far, so good. However, the next step, unfortunately, 

is usually to compare each individual passage of that type against the model you have constructed and 

reject anything that is out of the ordinary as being a later addition to the text.

As one example from the Book of Exodus, consider Moses' song of triumph after the Israelites passed 

through the Red Sea and the Egyptians were drowned. Conservative scholars would simply call this a 

victory psalm, but others detect bits and pieces of verses that they feel belong better in other types of 

poetry and settings, so they label these verses as probable later additions to Exodus 15 that don't fit the 

mold they have constructed – another effective way of subtracting from Scripture.

APPENDIX 1: Whole verses found in KJV but not found in most modern translations

Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24

APPENDIX 2: Books in the Apocrypha

1 & 2 Esdras: supplementing Ezra and Nehemiah

Tobit: a short story

Judith: a short story

Additions to Esther: mainly prayers and proclamations

The Wisdom of Solomon (also called Ecclesiasticus or Sirach): wisdom literature

Baruch: supposedly written by Jeremiah's brother

The Letter of Jeremiah: addition to the book of Jeremiah

The Prayer of Azariah

The Song of the Three young Men (while in the Lions' Den)

Susanna: a short story involving Daniel

Bel and the Dragon: two short stories involving Daniel

The Prayer of Manasseh

1 Maccabees: a fairly accurate historical account of the period between the OT and NT

2 Maccabees: more fanciful account of the same time period

GALATIANS 4:8-20

4:8 The Gentile Galatians used to worship multiple deities. But rather than use the henotheistic language we sometimes encounter in the Old Testament (which seems to suggest that God is only the greatest of many existing gods), Paul is very clear that they did not at all meet the definition of gods by any stretch of the imagination.

4:9 Paul revisits his language of v. 3 where he accuses the Galatians of being enslaved to the “elementary spirits.” This is a related problem that the church members have which has apparently replaced, to some extent, their earlier out-and-out idolatry. Much depends on what is exactly meant by that key phrase. Suggestions include: (1) the four basic elements of earth, air, fire and water that were supposed to govern human destiny (Martyn), (2) the basic precepts of a particular philosophy, as in Hebrews 5:12 (D. Guthrie), (3) cosmic powers such as mentioned in Colossians 3:8,20 (Bruce, C. Brown), (4) obedience to the law and idolatry (Calvert), (4) basic knowledge (Mikoleski), (5) “focusing on minutiae rather than the larger picture, intellectual idolatry” (Seitz), (6) “all sorts of legalistic stipulations” (Ridderbos), and (7) adapting Jewish practices (Bruce). Martyn concludes that there is a “striking absence of a consensus.”

4:10 The third accusation is that they had started to observe special days, months, etc. This could refer to them beginning to observe the Jewish calendar. If that is true, then could this passage be used to criticize any sort of liturgical calendar in our church worship services or even to condemn the celebration of Christmas or Easter as some groups do? Cole asks the same question in his commentary on Galatians.

Another possibility is that “special days” refers to the Roman practice of determining “lucky days” for people by employing oracles and astrological charts (Cole). I had a Sunday school teacher when I was a preteen who swore by the “science” of astrology and could see no incompatibility with her Christian beliefs. Or one could cite the example of Nancy Reagan who advised her husband on what days to make key decisions based on astrological readings.

4:11 Paul sinks into despair when he feels that his careful teaching of them has all been undone. To a very small extent I have experienced the same feeling when I realized on occasion that the pains I have taken to get an important theological point across have been totally forgotten when a person picks up some random comment on-line to the contrary and falls for it completely.

4:12-15 You can feel Paul's heartache here as he remembers how kind the Galatians were when he first preached to them in a weakened physical state. But in v. 18 he reminds them that it is also necessary to show the same kindness and respect to people when they are not physically present.

The exact nature of Paul's physical condition or illness has been the subject of much speculation, and most commentators conclude that attempts to pin it down are bound to be futile. However, among the candidates are the following: malaria, epilepsy, opthalmia, or, in Martyn's words “the physical scars – and illnesses – that are marks of his association with Jesus.” One specific example of the last-mentioned possibility is Paul's stoning described in Acts 14.

4:16-17 Now we get hints at the root of the problem – false teachers have gained power in the church and are turning their hearts away from Paul and his teachings.

4:19-20 Up to this point in the letter, Paul has addressed the Galatians rather harshly as “foolish” in 3:1, then “brothers” in 3:15 and 4:12, and now as “my little children” in 4:19. Thus, he softens his approach as he gets further into the letter. So, in a way he is apologizing for his earlier tone in v. 20, but he admits that he is totally puzzled by their behavior. From this point on in the letter, Paul's tone will be much calmer in his attempts to again explain the truth to the church.

4:19 Paul uses rather unusual metaphorical language in this verse as he pictures himself as a woman in the process of giving birth, for the second time, of the same child. This is different from Jesus' image of the second birth which so confused Nicodemus in John 3. But one wonders if it would have been just as puzzling to the Galatians.

 

DIALOG WITH AN ATHEIST: PART 4

Unknowables

I believe that you misunderstood me if you thought I said that nothing supernatural can be understood by man and therefore it is not worth pursuing those avenues of inquiry. The exact opposite is true of revealed religion since it is a case of the supernatural entering into our world and helping us understand at least all that we need to know in that direction. A theist is free to use whatever tools are at his disposal (Occam's Razor, the scientific method, historical investigations, linguistic study of pertinent documents, probes into his own psyche, etc. etc.) to examine the cosmos and whatever may be beyond it. It is actually the atheist who gives up the struggle without a fight and chooses to put on blinders so that he does not even have to consider what does not fit into his preconceived box.

More on Miracles

I take issue with your assertion that the early Christians who wrote the New Testament accounts obviously had a vested interest in spreading their lies. An unprejudiced reading of the texts should convince most reasonable readers that the followers of Christ were completely disillusioned after his death and wanted nothing better than to disappear into their holes and stay out of the limelight. By openly proclaiming him just a few weeks afterward, they accomplished nothing for themselves but prison sentences, beatings, being ostracized by their friends and families, eventual exclusion from the synagogue worship, and death in many cases.

As another example, Paul was not even one of the original followers of Christ but a violent persecutor of Christians instead, as he freely admits on more than one occasion. Something earthshaking happened to him that caused a complete turnabout in his behavior and beliefs so that he was shunned by both his colleagues in the Jewish hierarchy and the Christian community (until he managed to gain their trust some time later). A noted historian, Michael Grant, has written an interesting biography of Jesus (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels) from a skeptic's perspective. Time after time he pooh-poohs the various accounts of Jesus' miracles as not meeting his strict standards of historicity (somewhat like yours). However, at the end of his book, when he deals with the Resurrection and its aftermath, he surprisingly concludes after careful analysis that this miracle has all the earmarks of a totally authentic account.

The question of which group's miracles to consider as possibly valid can't be answered in a totally logical manner. But I would go about it in much the same way I approached the truth claims of the different religions in general. Thus, start out with only the major world religions as a safe bet. Among those, (a) the early teachings of the Buddha (and even more so with Confucianism) are notably free of all supernatural elements (miraculous stories of the Buddha's life come much later in time); (b) Islam recognizes only one miracle, the Koran itself. Again, miraculous stories about Mohammed's life come from a later time period; and (c) Hinduism is loaded with the supernatural, but its polytheism is totally antithetical to the scientific process if taken seriously. That leaves only the Judeo-Christian tradition in which God is said to periodically enter into the world in various ways. Even in this case it should be pointed out that the “miraculous” is not a persistent element throughout the Bible, but generally reserved for certain landmark events in the history of the chosen people (which, by extension, I also include Christians, both Jew and Gentile).

Regarding your last brief reply, one commonsensical approach to sorting out the various miraculous claims would be to just read the claims from various sources and get a gut feel for which ones appear to be obviously ludicrous, trivial, and/or arbitrary. C. S. Lewis in Miracles makes a convincing case for the biblical miracles echoing to a great extent, but often in a compressed time frame, the natural processes of the world, thus exhibiting God's “fingerprint” or mode of operation. This observation can be best appreciated, even staying within the Christian tradition, by comparing the biblical accounts of the miraculous with those produced at a later time frame: the apocryphal writings from about 200 AD through the Middle Ages. One compilation of these writings that has been around for years and makes for entertaining reading is called The Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden (later editions may go under different names). The difference between these two groups of writings is like night and day. The Old and New Testament writings get right to the point and generally tell their stories with little or no elaboration in a matter-of-fact way, with little supporting detail or comment other than to perhaps add a one-line explanation as to the theological importance of the event. The apocryphal accounts pile on detail after detail (What was that Gilbert & Sullivan line about the necessity of adding details so that a bald and unconvincing lie would be swallowed by an audience?) using flowery language and stressing the absolute wonderment of the audience. However, they rarely tie the story into any useful context or meaning.

Alien or Supernatural

You bring up an interesting point that is a bit on the speculative side but worth considering. I have heard variations on this theme at least twice before: once from the charlatan von Daniken in his Chariot of the Gods and more recently from some serious scientists trying to get around the apparent contradiction between (a) the time estimated to be necessary for random genetic variations to produce the biological diversity and complexity we see today and (b) the relatively short available time for such processes to occur given the estimated age of the earth and its age at the various geological stages favorable for life to develop. I have every confidence that the scientific method will eventually find a way out of this crux. However, even if it doesn't, that will not at all catch me off guard or shake my faith in the basic tenets of science since there are supernatural elements in the overall process that I am willing to consider as well.

Rather than taking a completely hypothetical case, let's look at the only historical figure who claimed to be divine and is still taken seriously in that vein today: Jesus.

If a non-supernatural being from another part of the cosmos came to earth, it is highly probable that he would come from a technologically advanced race capable of, at the least, traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light. (That consideration alone should drastically lower the odds of the occurrence, but let's not rule it out for the sake of argument.) This technology would probably include abilities to heal and control nature to a degree we do not yet possess—thus explaining any “miracles” that this alien performed.

Next to consider is the alien's motive for coming to earth, using popular sci-fi sources as possible guides. This is not an unreasonable approach since we are using our human reasoning to imagine a being who is only quantitatively, not qualitatively (as would be the case with a supernatural being) different from ourselves.

He might have come with an evil intent, in which case he could use his superior intellect and technology to wipe us out in open warfare (War of the Worlds), turn us into zombies to do his bidding (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), lure us to his planet where he could have his way with us (the classic Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man”), or populate the world with halflings as in Village of the Damned. None of these possibilities even remotely fits the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

He might have the intent to merely observe us without interfering with our culture (instances of “recovered memories” of those who have supposedly been abducted by aliens and examined medically.) If this were the case, we wouldn't even realize that he had come to earth.

He might be stranded here by accident, trying desperately to return to his own planet (ET) or to blend in unobserved in a borrowed body (Starman) to escape capture and/or persecution. The latter is unlikely given the public nature of Jesus' ministry.

He might have come from a race of good people who are trying to enlighten us and bring us up to a higher plane of understanding. This could be best accomplished by appearing at visible government forums (The Day the Earth Stood Still) and announcing his intention for all to hear, accompanied by unmistakable works of power to convince his audience. Since this was not the case with Jesus, there is still the possibility that a more subtle approach was known by this superior race to produce more long lasting results in the general populace. If that is so, and I must admit that it is a viable working hypothesis, then it would still be to our advantage to listen to everything he said carefully, even if he were not supernatural. If this is the case, then it is interesting that his message was delivered to one of the most technologically backward cultures of the time and contained no technological content at all. This would tell us a lot about the matters of ultimate interest to a truly advanced race.

The model I have preferred to use for years is that of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Arthur C. Clarke intended his book to be taken on a more or less literal basis with a superior alien race “jump-starting” mankind by interfering with natural processes at two crucial junctures: the transition from (a) an advanced animal to a rudimentary human being and (b) from modern man dominated by the technology he has created and at a sterile dead end into a spiritually reborn being. Some of these points and their implications as a Christian parable are made more obvious in the screenplay co-scripted by Stanley Kubrick. The same is even more true in Kubrick's later films such as The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange. This last-named film was even denounced by Pravda as being blatant Christian propaganda.

Since you are infinitely more familiar with sci-fi literature than I am, I am curious how you would play this game and choose another paradigm that might fit the case of Jesus as an alien, but one whose message we could safely ignore as irrelevant even if it happens to come from an advanced race.

[At this point in our correspondence my friend replied briefly and I responded.]

The Last Word on Aliens 

Just one more comment on your brief reply: “An alien arriving in the Middle East could have deliberately emulated a god told of in local village legends, or the Mesiah (sic) of Jewish tradition” As I stated earlier, the real test is to look at his possible motives for doing so and seeing if they fit the case of Jesus. It certainly was not similar to the Roger Delazny novel [It might have been This Immortal.] in that the various accounts of Jesus' words and actions are very consistent in portraying one who had the power over the populace but repeatedly refused to exercise it. Instead, he commanded people to keep quiet about the miracles they had seen, withdrew from the crowds when they began to get too enthusiastic, told his followers not to use force to defend him against his enemies, constantly taught by word and example that the only true leader was one who was willing to become a servant to others, and said “My kingdom is not of this world” to defuse his follower's aspirations for an earthly king to depose the Roman government. This is in stark contrast to several other “messiahs” of the same time period, who all rallied Jewish troops in attempts to accomplish the same ends.

HEBREWS 1:6

A friend of mine who has been questioning the doctrine of the Trinity asked the following question:

If Jesus was “fully God” and creator, why weren’t the angels obligated to worship Him prior to His coming into the world? Hebrews 1:6 states that God decreed this as part of His glorification.

And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says,"And let all the angels of God worship Him."

There are at least ten problems in the reasoning behind such a question:

1. There is a great deal of uncertainty concerning which OT passage is being quoted here by the author of Hebrews. Ellingsworth sees a possible reference to Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 6:10; Deuteronomy 11:29; or Deuteronomy 31:21. And six additional candidates for the source of the quote are given by him and others in addition to the favorite choice: Deuteronomy 32:43. But Ellingsworth points out that if the author of Hebrews is thinking of this last verse, he is quoting in “in a form not now directly attested” by any existing manuscripts.

2. Assuming that Deuteronomy 32:43 is the text being alluded to, as the majority of scholars believe, there is even more uncertainty as to how the exact wording in that verse reads. For example, compare these two modern translations:

    “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him all you gods!” (NRSV)

    “Rejoice, you nations, with his people.” (NIV)

The NIV goes with the Hebrew text while NRSV uses the Greek Septuagint and Dead Sea scroll reading.

3. Assuming that Deuteronomy 32:43 is the text being quoted and we can pin down the correct reading, there is uncertainty regarding who the “Him” in the passage originally referred to. Buchanan explains that the Hebrew text probably indicated that the angels were to bow down in adoration before the nation of Israel. By contrast, the Septuagint version understood God to be the object of worship. Since the latter is the most likely version that Hebrews 1:6 is alluding to, that means that the inspired NT author treated Jesus as God Himself. So instead of this verse somehow disproving that contention, it actually can be added to the many other NT passages which prove his full equality with God.

4. Assuming that Deuteronomy 32:43 is the proper text and the author of Hebrews applies it to Christ, it is still not clear when the event being referred to has happened or will happen. The author of our original question assumes that the angels are being told to worship Jesus at his Incarnation. That is not at all obvious from the text. For one thing, several noted commentators point out that the word for “earth” used in Hebrews indicates a spiritual rather than earthly realm. That is why most scholars feel that the more likely time for the angels' worship was or will be at Jesus' exaltation in heaven at his resurrection (Bruce, Guthrie) or on the New Earth at his Second Coming (Stibbs, Hodges). Ellingsworth notes that all three interpretations (if the Incarnation is included) have been proposed by various authors.

5. Perhaps the greatest leap in logic is to assume that angels can only worship the Son when God specifically tells them to. In Revelation 4:8-9 and 5:11-14 we have the angels in heaven as well as other spiritual creatures spontaneously breaking into hymns directed to Christ. And as an analogy, look at any of the twenty or more psalms in which the same sort of command using the word “let” is given as in Hebrews 1:6. In these various psalms it is the people or the nations which are told to praise, give thanks to, sing to, or fear God the Father. Does that imply that any of those people had not done any of those actions at any prior time? Certainly not!

6. Even if all of the above is correct and that it refers to the time of the Incarnation, Hebrews 1:6 says nothing whatsoever regarding the angels' worship of Christ before he came to earth. To make that leap of logic is called arguing from silence. And, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. If you look at the hymns to the risen Christ in Revelation 4 and 5, their worship consists of ascribing “glory and honor” to him. Turning to John 17:5, Jesus speaks in his prayer of the “glory” that he had in heaven in his pre-incarnate state. From this we can at least get a hint of the way he was received by the heavenly host before coming to earth.

7. Next to consider is the context in its present NT setting. We must look at why the author of Hebrews quoted this particular OT passage and six others found in Hebrews 1:5-13 in the first place. It was strictly to demonstrate Christ's superiority to the angels. To take it out of this context and try to use it to demonstrate the Father's superiority to the Son is completely unacceptable exegesis.

8. Another problem in not considering the immediate context comes from the fact that the four verses directly preceding Hebrews 1:6 are actually there to explain Christ's divine nature. They state, among other things, that he is the heir to all things, the creator and sustainer of the world, the exact imprint of God's glory, etc. So Hebrews 1:1-5 can be added to the list of NT passages that equate Christ with God.

9. Finally is the violation of three other well-accepted principles of interpretation. Firstly, NT passages are to be utilized to fully explain the OT, and there are plenty of NT passages I have quoted elsewhere to adequately establish the fact of Christ's full equality with God the Father. Secondly, it is poor hermeneutics to quote a poetic passage (such as Deuteronomy 32:43) to try to contradict simple prose statements on the same subject. Lastly, you can't establish a doctrinal point such as the angels not worshiping Christ in his pre-incarnate existence by using just one proof text, even if it were an unambiguous one, which Hebrews 1:6 certainly isn't by any means.

10. One final, and overarching, violation of hermeneutics found in the original question is that clear passages are used to interpret obscure ones, not vice versa.

 

NOTES ON DEUTERONOMY

Deuteronomy 4:10,15  See Exodus 19.

Deuteronomy 5:6-21   See Exodus 20:1-17.

Deut. 5:16  This is a bridge between the commandments before and after: parents represent 

God to us and are also our closest neighbors. 

See Leviticus 19:1-4 for coupling this commandment with the first commandment.

Deuteronomy 6:5-7 begins with our own relation with God and then turns toward children.

Deuteronomy 7:9 A slight variation on these words is found inscribed on tiny silver scroll dating from 

the late 7^th Century BC excavated in 1970's at Ketef Hinnom.

Deuteronomy 14 The antiquity of these regulations may be seen in the distinction between fish that 

have fins and scales (fast swimming) and those without which tend to be bottom feeders (eels). In 

muddy fresh water, like the Nile River, the latter are more susceptible to parasites. In salt water, the

distinction has no health reason.

Deut. 14:1-2 starts with hope in God—not grieving.

Deut. 14:21 shows that not all dietary laws are for health reasons.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 The description of the son as a glutton and drunkard may in fact point to the 

fact that “he was a religiously deviant consumer eating against the societal and ritual norms of his 

Yahwist community.” Rebekah Welton, BAR, Winter 2020, pp. 52-57

Deuteronomy 22:5 See Judges 5:24-27.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 See Genesis 38:15.

Deuteronomy 24:12-13 Archeologists have found an ostracon (piece of broken pottery) in 7^th cent BC 

Hebrew reading, “May the official, my lord, hear the plea of his servant. Your servant is working in the 

harvest; your servant was at Hasaar-Asam.... Your servant did his reaping, finished and stored the grain 

a few days ago before stopping work. When your servant had finished his reaping and had stored it a 

few days ago, Hoshayahu ben Shabay came and took your servant's garment. When I had finished my 

reaping, at that time a few days ago, he took your servant's garment. All of my companions will vouch 

for me, all who were reaping with me in the heat of the sun; my companions will vouch for me that 

truly I am guiltless of any infraction. So please return my garment. If the official does not consider it 

an obligation to return the garment, then have pity upon me and return it from that motivation. You 

must not remain silent...”

Deuteronomy 29:10-15 Note the repeated "this day." Kaiser calls this "a graphic illustration of the 

scriptural phenomenon of contemporizing past events. It is very similar to what the Church does when 

it partakes of the Lord's Supper." (This is my body...)

Deut. 29:16-17 BAR Summer 2020, pp. 53-54: “detestable things” and “fetishes” The latter term can 

also mean dung. It may refer to Egyptian dung beetles (scarabs).

Deuteronomy 32:8 The Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuagint have what may be the original reading of 

this verse in which sons of Israel reads "sons of God" (i.e.. angels).

Deut. 32:10 “Apple” of one's eye is a KJV invention. The word means pupil or center of one's eye.