Book review: Toward a True Kinship of Faiths

by the Dalai Lama

★★★★★

The most special thing about this book is the way it leaves you with the feeling that you’ve been talking face to face with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. He writes with humility and passion, on matters close to his heart.

This  book is about learning to get along, because the world is shrinking. Advances in science and industry have brought us closer together, even as religious differences seem extreme. Yet, the fascinating thing is, all of the world’s most respected religions seem to share one thing in common: A teaching of compassion. Even while some religions are theistic and others, like the Buddhist tradition of the Dalai Lama, are non-theistic, the basic teaching is the same. Compassion is, in different variations, the common denominator.

As such, the Dalai Lama shows familiarity and respect for all the popular religions, and maintains that pluralism is the healthiest answer. He pleads for inter-denominational understanding, and he writes with the authority and intelligence that would be expected of his title. I couldn't help but be both impressed and inspired. Yet, when it comes to discussing alternative religions, I doubt he will ever be able to relate on the same level to those born into those religions. The Dalai Lama can appear logical and naive in the same breath, as he dreams about mutual respect across religious boundaries. Consider this problem formula, which arises in any religion where adherents are taught that theirs is the "only true way:"

I feel the Spirit ==> God is with me and my chosen religion ==> I have found the one true way

Yet, though the Dalai Lama is optimistic for the future (as am I), he understands the problem. Religions tend toward exclusivism, so while adherents are taught concern for others, this concern often translates merely into an urge for evangelism. Christians want everybody to enjoy being a Christian! On this topic, the Dalai Lama strongly disagrees. When speaking outside his country, he often begins by assuring his audience that he is not promoting Buddhism; rather, he maintains that the best religion for any person is usually the religion of their heritage. Respect for one another's beliefs is the only way to overcome religious squabbles and promote peace.

Which, of course, is another place where the book appears a bit naïve. Fundamentalist Christians don't want peace; they get positively giddy at the thought of a world war, since this means Jesus is coming to rescue them.

So what's the answer? I'm not convinced this book has any, because I'm not convinced there are any quick fixes. But I agree that believers must, one at a time and at a grass-roots level, come to see the world in a different manner. We must see across religious boundaries and welcome every human as a brother or sister, like Jesus taught.

Well, we can dream.

John 1:12-13, Are We Children of God Now or Later?

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

//In the final age, the Jews of Bible times understood, God would come down to earth and make his dwelling there. There was an eschatological dream of kinship once again with God, as in the days of Eden.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke share this future expectation, though perhaps with a different understanding of the coming age. These gospels indicate that in the age to come and in the heavenly realm, we will become sons of God. According to Luke, if you love your enemies, "then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High," and of this coming age, Luke promises, "they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." Becoming God's son is recognized as an eschatological sign of the final age, a promise speaking of the resurrection to come. I should repeat that for emphasis: Becoming a child of God is something that happens to the resurrected in the final age.

In contrast, John and Paul treat sonship as a gift already bestowed. Paul says, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." John 1:12-13 makes it clear that God has granted the opportunity to be born again, not of natural descent but of God, and that such believers are "children of God."

As I follow battles on facebook between Preterist and Futurist believers, I'm reminded of the very same fierce conflict in the first century. Has the final age arrived, or not? John and Paul say yes; Matthew, Mark and Luke say not yet.

Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

by John Shelby Spong

★★★★★

“Death cannot contain him, we have seen the Lord!”

What really happened two thousand years ago? Bishop Spong takes us on a journey through the scriptures as he uncovers clues leading to the truth about the resurrection.

[1] Beginning with Paul and then traversing the four gospels one at the time, Spong covers what the Bible tells about the historical event.

[2] Leading into “interpretive images,” he next discusses several ways the Bible adds meaning to the story: the atoning sacrifice of Hebrews, the suffering servant, and the Son of Man.

[3] Then come five “clues,” Biblical stories that lend insight into how the resurrection of Jesus was perceived.

[4] Finally, Spong provides his own “speculative reconstruction” about what he believes truly happened.

Spong is, of course, a liberal Christian. Don’t expect a conservative explanation. He concludes, however, that “Behind the legends that grew up around this moment, there is a reality I can never deny. Jesus lives. I have seen the Lord.”

2 Chronicles 2:1-2, Solomon Builds the Temple

Solomon gave orders to build a temple for the Name of the LORD and a royal palace for himself. He conscripted seventy thousand men as carriers and eighty thousand as stonecutters in the hills and thirty-six hundred as foremen over them.

//“Conscripted.” It means to draft, or compel, someone into service.

Where did Solomon find all these workers? 153,600 of them? I never wondered, because I had always read the story of the construction of God’s Holy Temple in the book of Kings, rather than the book of Chronicles. Reading the same story in Chronicles, though, we uncover an interesting tidbit. Want to know how many foreigners were living in Israel? That’s recorded in the book of Chronicles, too:

Solomon took a census of all the aliens who were in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600.

Can’t be coincidence. Here we find what sounds like the greatest slave-labor project ever, the construction of the Holy Temple, using about six times as many workers as were required to build the pyramids of Giza.*

(* Note: Most scholars now believe the pyramid construction employed little or no slaves.)

Book review: The First Paul

by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

★★★★★

This book is my favorite among the works produced by the alliance of Borg and Crossan. What happens when you separate the original works of Paul from the later pseudonymous works? What kind of Paul emerges as the "real" Paul, the one who really walked the earth, the one who witnessed the post-resurrection Jesus as a light from heaven and whose visionary experience instilled a radical, superhuman drive to spread the message of Christ?

Of the thirteen Pauline letters in the New Testament, only seven are universally accepted as genuine. The pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus are generally accepted as not written by Paul. Scholarship waffles on the third group: Ephesians, Colossions, and 2 Thessalonians. Borg and Crossan are among those who see these three letters as post-Pauline. They break the Pauline letters into three categories: The radical Paul behind the authentic letters; the conservative Paul behind the questionable letters; and the reactionary Paul behind the pastoral letters.

Slavery: What does the radical Paul have to say? The pseudo (conservative) Paul? The anti (reactionary) Paul? Patriarchy: What do the three Pauls have to say? How about suppression of women? The meaning of the cross? The return of Jesus? Lordship and Christology?

We watch, within the New Testament's pages, the historical Paul evolve into pseudo-Paul, and finally into the anti-Paul--in many cases, a 180-degree turnaround from what Paul actually taught. The subtitle of this book is Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon, and anyone interested in first-century Christianity will be delighted by this portrayal. This is an eye-opening, controversial book you don't want to miss.

Mark 11:13-14, Cursing the Fig Tree

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

//Ever wonder why Jesus cursed the tree for not producing fruit, when it wasn’t the season for figs anyway? This seems to puzzle a lot of people, but it wouldn’t puzzle Palestinians. Because the fig tree does produce fruit before its fig season. This fruit is called phage (fah-gay) in Hebrew, and begins to appear as soon as the first leaves appear in the spring. While Mark’s story takes place before the season for sukon (Greek, meaning, ripe figs) and the fact that the tree had leaves at all indicates that it should have also had the edible preseason phage.

After Jesus visits Jerusalem, he and his entourage pass back by the fig tree, and find it withered. This is a literary technique Mark uses multiple times; he sandwiches one story inside another. In this case, his visit to Jerusalem is the time when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. He says the merchants are making the House of God into a den of thieves … “and the scribes and chief priests heard it,” echoing the language at the end of verse 14. Clearly, Jesus ties the withering of the fruit tree to the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple forty years later, when it literally became a “den of thieves.”

Book review: Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas

by Elaine Pagels

★★★★★

Pagels is a recognized scholar of religion, and the author of The Gnostic Gospels, among others. This book might be her best.

Don't buy this expecting a dull, scholarly exposition on the Gospel of Thomas. It's hardly that. It's sort of an unobtrusive evangelism for unorthodox Christianity, a plea for the kind of "religious truth" that can never hide behind a stale set of doctrine.

Pagels bares her soul in this book, and her passion for spirituality, religion and Christianity shines. The result is inspirational. This is the book that turned me on to Pagels' scholarship, and I've felt a distant kinship ever since. It's really less about the Gospel of Thomas and more about diversity and meaning within the early Christian movement. John's Gospel actually gets as much attention as the Gospel of Thomas. While John hints of gnostic influence, it also finds itself in direct opposition to Thomas on many topics, such as the divinity of Christ. Pagels embraces this diversity of ideas, and spends a great deal of time discussing how the canon of acceptable scripture grew.

I love engaging, thought-provoking books, and Pagels never disappoints.

Mark 13:2, Not One Stone Left Upon Another

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

//As the story goes, one of Jesus’ disciples pointed out to him the grandeur of the Temple, and Jesus responded that the day was coming when the Temple would be so thoroughly destroyed that not one stone would be left upon another. All three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree on this wording.

A bit later, four disciples approach Jesus and ask about when these times will be. Jesus launches into a discussion of how there will be earthquakes and wars, famine and affliction. False prophets will arise, the Abomination of Desolation will be set up. The sun and moon will be darkened, the stars will fall, heaven will be shaken. Then the Son of Man will come.

Forty years after Jesus died, in 70 A.D., the Temple fell. The Romans so leveled the Temple that not one stone stood upon another. So dramatic was this time of tribulation for the Jews, and so closely did it match the Christian prophecies, that Full Preterist Christians today believe Jesus must have returned back in the first century as promised.

But here’s the fascinating story behind the story. As the legionnaires of Rome set fire to the Temple, they suddenly discovered untold wealth within its walls. But the fire raged and the gold of the treasury began to melt. So intense was the heat that the molten gold seeped between the huge stones of the Temple. As the story goes—and I’m not entirely convinced, but many are—it was the greed of the soldiers and not their desire for revenge that caused them to dismantle the Temple. They toppled all the stones in search of gold.

Book review: The Scholar's Bible: Mark

by Daryl D. Schmidt

★★★★★

As the first gospel penned about a man who would command the attention of a third of the world … as the book that would form the foundation for the next two gospels written … the influence of Mark’s Gospel is undeniable.

With Greek on the left page, a translation dubbed the Scholars Version on the facing page, and the bottom portion of both reserved for verse-by-verse commentary, Schmidt’s work glows of authenticity. It’s like you’re reading the words the day after they were written, as if you are the person they were written for. This is not an in-depth study (at least, not alongside some of the tomes you’ll find in university bookstores), and outside the 39-page introduction there’s little topical coverage, which leaves primarily the simplicity of the Gospel translation as its selling point. I can’t even say the translation is terribly precise; it just rings to me of the proper flavor, as much as today’s English can allow.

Recommendation: Just read the translation through in one sitting to savor the Gospel story; then, go back and review the commentary.

Ecclesiastes 12:13, The Duty of Man

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

//As a child, I managed to memorize two verses in Ecclesiastes. Today’s verse is one of the two, from the very end of the book. The second one I memorized is at the very beginning of the book:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

I knew nothing in between. Which is a very good thing. Have you ever read the book? It’s twelve chapters about how meaningless life is, and how every moment should therefore be cherished and enjoyed, for it’s all we have. A live dog is better than a dead lion. You only live once. Ecclesiastes is about as secular as the book of Esther.

However many years a man may live, let him enjoy them all. But let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. Everything to come is meaningless. Be happy, young man, while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see. So then, banish anxiety from your heart and cast off the troubles of your body, for youth and vigor are meaningless.

Oddly, however, a little phrase has been inserted into the middle of this passage to give us pause: “But know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment.” Now, where did that come from? It hardly belongs, so I pulled it out. And who added the verse at the end of the book, telling us the purpose of life? Isn’t that exactly what Ecclesiastes is not about?

Someone, it appears, has taken a secular book of advice about a life well-lived and tried to add religious meaning where none was intended. I guess that’s how Ecclesiastes made it into the Bible.

Book review: The Misunderstood Jew

by Amy-Jill Levine 

★★★★ 

What started out as a light-hearted look at the Jewish Jesus quickly turned somber. This is a serious look at the pain that anti-Semitic interpretations of the Bible have caused and continue to cause. Levine, a Jew, has an excellent grasp of New Testament studies, so this is more than a rant against Christian prejudice. It's a serious look at the real Jesus, his Jewishness, and Christianity's emergence within first-century Judaism. A provocative quote from the book: "I find Jesus reflects back to me my own tradition, but in a new key. I also have to admit to a bit of pride in thinking about him--he's one of ours."

Over and over, Levine contradicts misunderstandings about Judaism, particularly first-century Judaism, and the stereotypes that have developed as a result of shallow Christian teaching. She does so from both a Jewish and a scholarly perspective. Levine made me think differently about first-century Judaism and how Jesus fit within that context.

Because I've never keenly felt the sting of anti-Semitism, or felt myself anti-Semitic in any way, much of the book was an eye opener. I felt myself often teetering on the edge between thinking Levine oversensitive and thinking her insightful. Example: Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." In this verse, Levine admits, "I hear a desire that my people, the Jews, cease to exist."

While a scholar myself of first-century Christianity, I confess it's sometimes hard for me to relate to current day Jewish-Christian tensions. On the other hand, your shrink will tell you that feelings are the ultimate truth; Christians must validate the feelings that their teachings evoke among Jews, and seek to correct the source. Levine's final chapter provides several helpful suggestions to facilitate interfaith understanding.

Luke 24:51, The Ascension

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and
carried up into heaven.

//What’s up with this floating up to heaven bit? Luke is the only Gospel
writer to tell of Jesus ascending. Matthew imagines no such thing,
promising instead that Jesus will remain with his followers always, “even
to the end of the age.” In John’s Gospel, Jesus appears offering peace and
encouragement after the resurrection; there’s nothing there about going
away again. Mark’s Gospel originally ended with no Jesus-sighting at all,
though sometime later, an ending was added matching Luke’s teaching.

Most Bible scholars agree that Matthew and Luke built upon the Gospel
originally written by Mark. Thus, Luke’s Gospel went one direction in its
continuation of the Markan story, Matthew’s Gospel went another direction,
and John’s Gospels can be considered largely independent of the other
three.

Today, the theology of Jesus ascending to heaven and awaiting the proper
moment to return is ingrained to the very core of Christianity. We all
look forward to the day Jesus comes back. But I want you to imagine for a
moment what direction Christianity would have taken if one of the four
Gospel writers hadn’t followed Paul’s theology and steered the Christ
story toward the idea of Jesus leaving. Imagine, as Matthew wants us to
understand, Jesus appearing after the resurrection and never again going
away.

How different would our theology be today? Would it suddenly make more
sense how the risen Jesus could be “seen” only by his disciples? How would
we imagine the resurrected Jesus, if we believed he lives with us today in
the same manner as he appeared to the twelve after his resurrection? And,
most importantly, how different would we act as Christians if we believed
Jesus already inaugurated the final age 2,000 years ago?

Book review: Revelation: The Way it Happened

By Lee Harmon

★★★★

Here’s another review of my book on Revelation. It can be found on Goodreads, by reader Logan, at: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9688311-revelation-the-way-it-happened

“This was a very intriguing read. It is a sort of hybrid between a historical novel and an exegetical review of Revelation. It gives us much of the supposed context of the writing of this book in the form of dialogues between various historical and fictional characters interrupted intermittently by 'interludes' that provide us with factual explorations of the historical and psychological context of Revelation. The historical context is unquestionably true and described in thorough detail: the influence of Rome, Greece, Jewish tradition, ancient preJudaic tradition, Jesus, &c. The mental context is also most probably true, and can be assumed through the historical lens: the interpretation of Jewish literature at the time, the meaning of the Messiah to the small sect of believers calling themselves Christians, the pressure of Rome and Judaism on commoners, &c. Both of these lend to the specific story that Harmon has created, a story in which a reactionary group writes a richly historical and allusive but also intensely innovative work of preChristian literature.

“Harmon does not treat Revelation as necessarily 'true' in the Christian sense, and so he provides an objective look at the proper historical roots of this rather odd book. I greatly enjoyed reading it, as well, for I am someone greatly interested in the Bible but largely unread on the subject of the Apocalypse and its proper place in the Judaeo-Christian canon. Both Christian and nonChristian alike would be well advised to simply try this book if they consider the Bible anything worth taking seriously.”

http://www.thewayithappened.com/

2 Chronicles 36:9, That Evil Child

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in
the sight of the LORD.

//Ever wonder if a child could sin? Apparently so, enough for him to be
labeled evil at age eight. Jehoiachin was a chip off the old block; his
father did evil, and the uncle who replaced him after Nebechednezzer
kidnapped him and carried him off to Babylon did evil in the sight of God.

Other prodigies may have been a bit more responsible. King Josiah, who was
also crowned at age eight, reigned for thirty one years. He did that which
was right in the sight of the Lord.

Were these the youngest kings in the Bible? Nope. Joash was seven years
old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem.
Joash, like Josiah, did what was right in the eyes of the Lord.

The lesson? If you’re gonna be king, and want to last more than a few
months, do what’s right.

Note: While most Hebrew translations say Jehoiachin was king at age eight,
one Hebrew manuscript and some Septuagint manuscripts say eighteen years in 2 Kings 24:8.

Book review: Has God Spoken?

by Hank Hanegraff 

★★★★ 

From the introduction: “This book counters such contentions and crafts a cumulative case for the absolute authority of the Bible. It answers the question, ‘Has God spoken?’ in the affirmative and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is divine rather than merely human in origin. Without such assurance, Christianity would not have any more authority for faith and practice than does Islam, Mormonism, or a host of other misguided movements.”

I offer the above quote to set the tone of the book. I had a hard time with this book merely because of Hanegraff’s style. Not that his writing isn’t good—it’s actually quite superb and fun to read—but because he’s so downright feisty! He takes on an apologetic role, zealously attacking Bart Ehrman, President Obama, Bill Maher, or Richard Dawkins on every other page. When he’s not dissin’ scholars, he’s dissin’ fellow religions.

He says, “It is as unlikely that Jews falsified the Exodus as it is that they fabricated the Holocaust. Archaeology provides a wholly plausible framework for Jewish contentions regarding their enslavement and emancipation. While archaeology has thoroughly discredited the Book of Mormon, internal evidence provides credence to the people, places, and particulars found in the biblical text.” Oh, wow. Need I say more? One thing archaeology can say for certain is that there were never two million people tromping around in the desert for forty years.

Nevertheless, the book does hold your attention! I definitely never grew bored. It’s a little like listening to a talk show host that drives you totally bonkers, but that you can’t shut off.

At times, Hanegraff’s apologetic stance left me bewildered. He had no trouble arguing for the historic reliability of the flood story in the Bible, while in the next breath ridiculing earlier versions of the flood myth, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Does he really not recognize that the Hebrew version of the story is just as fantastic as the others? He then waffles on the subject, suggesting that perhaps Genesis implies a local flood rather than a worldwide one, and thus totally misses the point of the myth: That the ark was necessary to sustain life on the earth, because God was going to destroy everything he had made.

If you can ignore the sermonizing, however, there is a lot of thought provoking conversation in the book. I particularly enjoyed Hanegraff’s discussion of typology. Was Isaiah thinking of Jesus as he wrote about a young maiden giving birth to the child Immanuel? No, not according to Hanegraff (and he’s surely right), Isaiah was writing about his own time period. Did Hosea have Jesus in mind when he wrote, “Out of Egypt I have called my son?” Of course not, he was writing about Israel, not Jesus. How about Jeremiah’s words, quoted by Matthew to highlight the slaughter of the innocents by Herod: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” This quote highlights the utter silliness of imagining that Matthew was taking these prophesies as predictive; unquestionably, Matthew rightly understood this passage in Jeremiah to be a warning to the southern kingdom of Judah that they were about to experience what happened to Israel. These are not predictive prophecies, but typological prophecies. In this discussion, Hanegraff brings the Bible’s prophecies back to life in a believable and recognizable way. As Hanegraff explains, Matthew saw a historical pattern of events from the past that corresponded to present situations, and he saw them as quintessential fulfillments. The historical patterns reached a climax in the life of Jesus.

Other topics that I enjoyed were the discussion of archaeological finds, of the Abomination of Desolation (Hanegraff’s preterist tendencies subtly poke through here and there), and of figurative language in the Bible. Hanegraff writes a great book, he just gets a little too aggressive at times. 

Jonah 3:3, How Big Was Nineveh?

So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

//Quite a sizable city for antiquity, right? Three days, it took, to walk through Nineveh! Or so we assumed from the Bible, until excavations showed the size of Nineveh to be less than three square miles. Most of us could meander across the city in less than an hour.

But the King James Version of the Bible was translated before excavations showed Nineveh's true size, so it rendered the original Hebrew in the most straightforward fashion.

Now that we know the truth, however, Bible translators struggle to relay this verse. The NRSV continues the original tradition: "Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days' walk across." Others rewrite the verse, guessing at what the author meant, such as this NLT rendition: "This time Jonah obeyed the LORD's command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all." The NIV version tiptoes even more carefully: The 1978 version claims Nineveh was so large that "it took three days to go all through it," but six years later, the NIV revised its interpretation of the "great city" to emphasize not how large the city was, but how important: "Now Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days."

Mostly, the careful wording of each interpretation reflects a willingness or unwillingness to accept exaggeration within the scripture.

Revelation 22:2, Are We in Heaven?

On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.

//Big deal, eh? If I want fresh fruit in today's world, I take a short walk to the supermarket any time of year.

Revelation promises we'll never thirst again, never hunger again. I can't say I've ever been really thirsty or really hungry in my life.

Revelation says there will be no night in heaven. Electricity has delivered on the promise.

As Lisa Miller says in Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, "Real life has delivered on so many of the Scripture's promises of heaven. We have glittering cities, blossoming public parks with gushing fountains, libraries filled with books in every language, and a government predicated on justice and equality for all. We have gyms and Pilates classes that keep our bodies youthful, Botox to ensure that our faces remain unlined."

Our every desire lies before us, and all it takes is a little cash. Far from money being the root of all evil, it appears to be the currency of heaven.

Universalists may be disappointed to learn that not all people attain heaven. Jesus promised many mansions there, and at the height of the housing boom in America, nearly 70% of us lived in homes of our own, homes that would seem extravagant if compared to Bible days. But that leaves 30% still outside the pearly gates. Perhaps hell exists as well? The blessed have money, while the not-so-blessed must be atoning for the sins of a past life.

Yes, it appears heaven has arrived, yet something remains awry. In heaven, says Revelation, there will be no tears. Yet those lives enjoying heaven-like conditions seem just as fraught with tears as those dwelling in hell. Even with all our comforts, it turns out that heaven isn't so heavenly after all.

Book review: What's In A Version?

by Henry Neufeld 

★★★★★

Henry Neufeld operates Energion Publications at http://energion.com. I've read a couple other books that he promotes, but never one he authored himself. If What's In A Version is representative of his work, then I’m hooked!

Different Bible interpretations each carry a different emphasis. The New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT) emphasize that their translators are evangelical. Other translations, such as the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) emphasize the variety on their translation committees, including interfaith participation.

So, given that translations purposefully vary, how is a person supposed to make an informed decision without knowing the source languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic)? Henry has a BA and MA in Biblical Languages, and writes for the purpose of making the Bible more accessible to the laity. I found this book to be a practical and friendly guide, describing how translations are made, so we readers are better able to understand the arguments for or against various versions. Numerous examples manage to turn what I thought would be a dry discussion into fascinating reading. A chart at the back of the book is helpful in providing an overview of the differences of various common translations. (After reading Henry's book, I know better than to call these differences "strengths” or “weaknesses," just decisions made for focus, translation preference, and religious emphasis!)

I did find a few formatting and editing errors, which was a minor distraction. 

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

John 14:6, Jesus, the Only Way

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

//I was asked recently what this verse means to me, given my liberal Christian stance. If liberal Christians validate other religions on equal footing, then what do we make of Jesus’ claims of exclusivity? I don’t think there’s such a thing as a “typical” liberal Christian, but I can answer this question in my own way.

First, Jesus was unique, with a powerful message of compassion punctuated by an astounding sacrifice. I live in awe of Jesus, and Christianity is my heritage. Even as I recognize that every believer in every religion lays equal claim to the mystery of God, Jesus is still the one for me.

But back to John’s claim of exclusivity. Were there other Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings 2,000 years ago? Were there other humanitarian teachers of enlightenment, of life in abundance? Or was Jesus the only way? Even if there were others, I’m not sure John (or the author of the fourth Gospel, if it wasn’t the apostle John) would have been aware of them. But even if he were, can we really fault John for his loyalty to Jesus, particularly in the arena of religion? Even today, when a person experiences the Spirit, when he feels the presence of God, he tends to proclaim his discovery in exclusive terms. “I’ve found it! The one right way to live, the way of God’s approval!” The first-century Christian claim of exclusivity seems as natural then as it is of today’s variety of religions.

Book review: Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John

by Steven J. Friesen 

★★★★★

If you are a serious student of Revelation, this is a book you must read. I don't think there's another book like it ... yet. That Revelation's warnings often relate directly to the Imperial Cult of the late first century has been understood for a long time, but this book tackles the topic head on, in scholarly fashion. Friesen relates what archaeology has discovered about Caesar worship in Asia Minor, Revelation's target audience. Much can be gathered from the study of coins, temple ruins, and writings. The Caesars were often simulated into the worship of traditional Greek deities, and what we understand from archaeology about both the public and mystery rituals is detailed.

One conclusion Friesen draws is that the Imperial Cult was definitely founded upon Caesar Augustus and his accomplishments. Augustus was worshiped as Zeus, the high god of the Greeks. In my mind, at least, there can be little doubt that the first of the seven kings of Revelation is Augustus ... not, as some preterists insist, Julius Caesar. Friesen also concludes that the Flavians, including Vespasian and Titus, were also highly honored in myth. This matches the findings and conclusions in my own book, Revelation: The Way it Happened.

Friesen's book is in two parts: First, the study of the Imperial Cults, and then, how Revelation relates to that study in its direct opposition to Roman imperialism and the abomination of Caesar worship. Of particular interest to readers of Revelation, of course, is Nero Caesar, considered by most to be either the fifth or the sixth king of the seven (depending upon whether you begin counting with Augustus or Julius). Most studied scholars of Revelation agree that, at least on some level, John was surely writing about Nero as the Beast of the Sea. 

(click picture to buy on Amazon)  

John 11:47, The First Trial of Jesus

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

//Much is made of the fact that, unlike the other three Gospels, John’s Gospel records no trial before Caiaphas, the high priest, before Jesus moves on to the court of the Romans. But I think such claimants are not reading John carefully.

Space prohibits me from covering this topic in detail, but you may find it an interesting study. Here is the Johannine version of the trial, in verses 11:47-53. Some of the Jews report the raising of Lazarus from the dead to the Pharisees, resulting in a Sanhedrin session, where the high priest, Caiaphas, decides on a course of action to put Jesus to death. As scholar Raymond E. Brown has noted, if we combine this story with chapter 10 of John, where Jesus debates with the Jews, we have a scene virtually identical to the Synoptic trial. There is even concern expressed by the Jews that the Temple would be destroyed.

The significant difference is that, in John, Jesus isn’t present at his “trial.”

Book review: Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs

by Ralph Ellis 

★★★★

What a fun book! A conspiracy theory in the extreme, but that's okay. Sometimes it's entertaining to simply recognize the parallels--in this case, the strong resemblance between Biblical characters and the Pharaohs of Egypt--and run with them, to see where they take you. This book leads deep into Egyptology, relating the stories of the Bible directly to ancient Egypt, and concluding that Judaism, including its offshoot Christianity, stems from ancient Egyptian ritual. You'll find Abraham, Moses, even Jesus among the Pharaohs.

Ellis' analysis of the exodus as stemming from the eruption of Santorini is one of the book's more interesting passages. This isn't a new idea (see Acts of God, by Graham Philips) but Ellis fleshes it out, explaining the boils on the skin and more. His point is that the Biblical account is historical and fits nicely into the timing of his thesis, relating Moses to the Hyksos people.

Ralph Ellis has produced a suite of similar books, and this is apparently the one that started the ball rolling. Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs has gone through at least two reprintings. There's an awful lot of original information here, and a lot of conclusions drawn on linguistics and minimal evidence, but if Ellis and his topic piques your interest, there's much more available to read.

While this is not a religious book, its intent is to uncover the truth about Christianity. It is, according to Ellis, "The true history of religion revealed." It's dedicated to his children so that they "may know the truth." Ellis obviously wants us to take his conclusions very seriously, and change our view about religion. While I can accept that Egyptian history and myth influenced the stories written in the Hebrew scriptures on some level--this should not be terribly surprising if Israel really escaped from Egypt--I can't quite carry the parallels as far as Ellis does. But I still found the book fascinating and learned a lot.

(click picture to buy on Amazon) 

Revelation 11:19, What Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

//In the sixth century B.C., the Babylonian empire, under King Nebuchadnezzar, sacked and plundered Jerusalem, destroying the Temple. Inside the Temple was Israel's most holy relic: The Ark of the Covenant. But what happened to the Ark is unknown, and has been debated for centuries. If the Babylonians took it, they did so secretly, because the detailed lists they prepared of other vessels taken from the Temple contain no mention of the Ark. Some have wondered if it wasn't burned down inside the Temple, purposefully melted to collect its gold.

Other scenarios have been proposed. According to some sources, King Josiah of the Jews learned of the coming invasion by the Babylonians and hid the Ark. One midrashic source (Maimonides, Laws of the Temple, 4:1). claims that Solomon predicted the destruction of the Temple and prepared a cave near the Dead Sea, in which King Josiah eventually hid the Ark. Another (Yoma 53b) says he dug a hole under a storehouse on the Temple Mount and buried it there. If that’s where it went, then Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer claims to have found the most plausible spot for its burial. In the precise center of the location where his research places the Holy of Holies within the Temple is a section of bedrock cut out in the dimensions that may match those of the Ark as described in Exodus.

It's also possible the lost Ark isn't lost at all. The church of St. Mary of Zion, in Ethiopia, claims to have the ark in their possession. It's carefully guarded by a monk known as the "Keeper of the Ark." It's location, however, is unverifiable, since only this one monk is allowed in its presence.

Today’s verse provides yet another possibility. Apparently, the ark's location was a hot topic even 2,000 years ago. According to Revelation 11:19, all you ark hunters can give up the search. It's already up in heaven.

Book review: Eternal Life: A New Vision

by John Shelby Spong 

★★★★★

For all you Spong fans who were beginning to grow frustrated at his vagueness, this book tackles an important subject head on. What are liberal Christians (at least those in the Spong mold) supposed to make of the Bible's promise of eternal life?

We needn't depend upon the supernatural in order to grasp eternal life, for all life is deeply linked. Spong quotes Einstein's provocative claim to explain: "I feel myself so much a part of everything living that I am not the least concerned with the beginning or ending of the concrete existence of any one person in this eternal flow." Spong wants us to "embrace infinity," to "transcend time." But he hopes for us to discover the eternal in a very practical way. Eternity is within us, it is what it means to be human.

Spong writes, "The power of love flows through all forms of life, but it ceases to be instinctual and comes to self-consciousness only in human beings. That power of love is also part of who God is for me. This means that the more deeply I am able to love, the more God becomes a part of me. This is why no religion can in the last analysis ever really be about proper beliefs and proper practices ... Religion has to be about the enhancement of life through love." You've probably heard this before if you're a Spong fan, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. Love is, after all, the key to finding life eternal.

But what about reward? Spong is quite happy to rid religion of both heaven and hell, having never been a fan of either. "The fact is that if you and I live our lives motivated by our desire to gain paradise or to avoid eternal punishment, then we have not escaped the basic self-centeredness of life that is so natural to survival-oriented, self-conscious creatures." In other words, eternal reward only gets in the way of the true Christian message.

Uplifting and timely, this is a book worth reading twice. I have.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Luke 23:33, The Passover Spit

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him.

//Some time ago, a friend laughed when I compared Christ stretched on the cross to the Passover lamb stretched on the spit. We were discussing the Gospel of John, and John’s theology of Christ as the Lamb. In this Gospel, and this Gospel alone, Christ dies before the Passover; he does not eat a Passover meal with his followers. Rather, he dies on the cross at the moment the lambs are slaughtered in the Temple.

I wondered if the apostles, as they shared a Passover meal the next day, would have recognized the image of their master in the lamb on the spit. My friend thought my imagination was running away with me, but my idea was far from original.

It took me a while, but I found the reference I was trying to remember, from second-century apologist Justin Martyr:

The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the Passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on Him … and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. –Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho

Book review: Bakkhai

by Euripides, translated by Reginald Gibbons 

★★★★

For those who don’t recognize the title, this ancient Greek theater piece is about the god Dionysus, god of wine. It was first performed in Athens, in 405 BC. And for those who still don’t catch the connection to my blog, it’s this: Many of the characteristics of Jesus are shared with this frivolous Greek god, and at least one of Jesus’ miracles—turning water into wine—also seems closely related. In fact, the late Byzantine play, The Passion of Christ, drew heavily on the Bakkhai.

Greek tragedies are a little hard for us to fully enter into two and a half millennia later, particularly as we struggle to understand on just at what level the Greeks believed in their gods, but the commentary of this book does a great job of making something foreign feel familiar. In the play, you’ll see Dionysus’ more unpleasant side … his usual ecstasy and abandon turn into vengeance and bloodlust, aimed toward a young king who seeks to discredit him. True to Greek form, the god wins, with no apparent attempt at a climaxing plot; we understand from the beginning that humans are doomed to subjection before the gods. The punishment for disbelief far exceeds the crime, with no hint of pity or apology, as befits the gods’ disdain for lesser beings.

I found the forty page introduction superb, and the notes following the play a bit less so, though still helpful in illuminating the setting.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 2:23, Did Nazareth Exist?

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

//Some scholars continue to insist that there was never any such city as Nazareth in Galilee. Today’s verse, rather than bolstering the argument for Nazareth’s historic existence, is actually used to argue against it. Scholars doubt that there is any connection between the Nazarenes and the inhabitants of Nazareth; Matthew should have known better. Perhaps Matthew was trying explain the title “Jesus of Nazareth,” while knowing no such place exists?

Why is there any skepticism in the first place? Skeptics point to the fact that Joshua chapter 19 lists all the towns of the tribe of Zebulun. Nazareth isn’t listed. Josephus gives the names of 45 towns and villages in Galilee. Nazareth isn’t on his list. The Talmud names 63 towns and villages. No Nazareth. You can see why some wonder if there really was a “city called Nazareth.”

One strong argument for the historic existence of Nazareth, however, is a large 24” by 15” marble tablet containing an edict of Caesar (either Tiberius or Claudius), found in Caesarea. This artifact was uncovered in three fragments, the final third being discovered in 1962. It is known as the Nazareth inscription since it’s the first known inscription citing the name Nazareth. It contains a list of 24 priests (see 1 Chronicles 25:7-8 for these priestly orders) with their surnames and the locations of the Galilean towns where they relocated following the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

The Nazareth inscription is actually famous for a different reason; it contains a strong polemic against tomb robbery, and is thought by some to be a countermeasure taken by Caesar himself in regards to the missing body of Jesus! Had news of the empty tomb gotten back to Rome? Why else would Caesar enforce so severe a punishment for a relatively minor crime?

Sounds a bit presumptious to me, so I’ll let you decide for yourself. Here’s the full text of the edict:

1. EDICT OF CAESAR

2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs--whoever has made

3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household

4. members--that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally

5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted

6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who

7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has

8. moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a

9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in

10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat

11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to

12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if

13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under

14. the title of tomb-breaker.

Book review: Evidence for the Historical Jesus

by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson 

★★★★

Great book! I enjoyed reading it, and it’s chock full of fascinating facts and interesting arguments. I’ve got margin notes and highlights all over it. While the authors seem a bit defensive at times, they do provide a lot of meat to chew on. I enjoyed learning about Jesus the Jew, arguments against the two-source theory, arguments against Christianity as a copycat of the mystery religions, and the discussion of Jesus’ own Messianic and divine understanding.

I really did enjoy the book. Unfortunately, as far as the book's purpose of providing evidence of the Historical Jesus, I came away underwhelmed. Such "evidence" ends on page 87 with the statement "That Jesus actually lived in history should be obvious by now." It's actually anything but obvious; by this point, the authors have reviewed only rabbinic writings, secular writings like those of Josephus, and the testimony of the early church fathers. They argue that surely no martyr would die for a cause he didn’t 100% believe in. None of this convinces me of a historical Jesus beyond, say, about a 50% surety. But unfortunately, from this point forward in the book, the authors shift focus to proving the historic accuracy of the Bible, and in doing so, they overreach and leave some of their arguments crippled. The Gospel story does provide much indirect evidence for the existence of Jesus, but in trying to prove the Bible happened literally, word-for-word, the authors wind up falling back on logic that just doesn’t work for me. Because of the authors’ stated premise of proving Jesus lived, a critical review must address primarily this goal, so it’s going to be rather long and sound more negative than the book deserves. But here goes.

Here’s an example of the type of claim that betrays the authors’ bias: “A comparison between the false writings and the canonical ones often immediately confirms the obvious superiority and authenticity of the canonical gospels.” Well, if that were even remotely true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Perhaps the canonical gospels have a more authentic air than the non-canonical ones, but that hardly confirms that any of them are authentic. Here’s another typical assumption: “The New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events of teachings of Jesus.” Again, if we knew this to be true, the discussion about Jesus’ existence wouldn’t be necessary. How about this: “The New Testament accounts of Jesus began to be circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts.” Oops! The story of Jesus was written outside the territory where Jesus taught, in a language Jesus and his closest followers probably didn’t speak, 40-80 years after Jesus died. Perhaps by “New Testament accounts” the authors mean the writings of Paul, but then much of the “did Jesus exist” argument becomes centered around whether or not Paul really did teach a human Jesus. Or perhaps by “within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of [Jesus’] life” they mean primarily John the Apostle. Tradition holds that John outlived the other apostles into the final decade of the first century. John, then, could have read the other gospels, and would have had opportunity to contradict them, right? Well, guess what? John’s Gospel does just that; just about every place John refers to a story in the Synoptics, it’s to contradict the story. That’s hardly an endorsement of the Synoptic gospels.

Sometimes, the arguments presented by the authors seem to hurt their cause more than they help. Because an early date of the Gospels seems important to them, they point out how the book of Acts does not mention the war of 70 AD, and conclude that it must have therefore been written earlier than the year 70. Then, because Acts refers to an earlier writing (presumably the Gospel of Luke), they conclude Luke must have been written earlier yet. But they forget to mention that Luke writes very specifically about the war; thus, a historical-critical approach to the Gospel story must date Luke after 70 AD. Here’s another howler quoted from the book: “There is no mention of Jesus’ tomb ever being venerated as were those of at least fifty other prophets, later including Hanina ben Dosa. The only good explanation is that Jesus’ bones were no longer there.” Um, sorry, the only really good explanation is that Jesus was never there in the first place!

My opinion: By taking on the role of apologists, the authors may have relinquished some of their strongest Biblical arguments. They discuss John the Baptist, but by taking an apologetic stance, they can’t question why the Gospels would record the embarrassing story of Jesus being baptized by a competitor “for his sins” if it weren’t historically true. They mention how Paul refers to James as the brother of Jesus, but because they prefer not to emphasize the friction between Paul and the Jerusalem Christians, they cannot argue that Paul didn’t mean “brother” as a title or in a spiritual sense. They ignore the lonely cry of despair of Jesus on the cross, or any of the other human traits of Jesus in the book of Mark, such as his occasional failures. They argue that Matthew was written before Mark, presumably to defend the claims of the early church fathers, but in doing so, they destroy a valuable argument: by tracing the declining Christology of the New Testament as we step backward in time, the way current scholarship chronologically orders the books of the New Testament, we aim straight for a human Jesus.

Finally, let me say it one more time for emphasis, because I realize I came down pretty hard on the book. I really enjoyed it! It just falls flat of its stated purpose by trying to prove too much.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)