John 20:28, "My Lord and My God"

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

//Several passages in John’s Gospel we know are not original, but were added sometime later. John’s Gospel, though a personal favorite, may be the book in the Bible that has changed most since its original composition. This naturally invites a bit of skepticism about any passage which doesn’t seem to fit the theology or pattern of the rest of the book.

Here is an example. Near the end of the Gospel, the risen Jesus magically appears to his followers in a locked room, where he bestows peace upon them.  But the scene seems to happen twice, in the same house, with the same message of peace, as if two versions of the appearance story are presented side-by-side.

In the second story, Thomas becomes a guinea pig, his unbelief providing opportunity for a dramatic proof of the resurrection. Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." We all know Thomas' response: He pronounces Jesus his “Lord and God.”

This “touching” opportunity contradicts the words of Jesus to Mary just a few verses earlier. So does Jesus’ pronouncement, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed” contradict Johannine theology, where “seeing” is never meant literally. According to John, one “sees” Jesus by being born again. But if this second story is a later redaction, what prompted its inclusion? Is it merely there to reinforce the doctrine of a corporeal resurrection body? Or is there something more to the passage?

Possibly, a clue to the story’s addition may be seen in the competition between Christianity and the cult of Caesar worship. Domitian had recently declared himself divine, and began to demand the title “Lord and God.” The Christian response, then, may have been to emphasize Jesus in that role.

Book review: Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil

by Elizabeth Clare Prophet 

★★★★

I bought this book just so that I would have a bound translation of the Book of Enoch, and wound up reading … well, most of it. The translation provided here is by Richard Laurence, LL. D. But there’s much more in Prophet’s book than this translation.

Genesis chapter six tells how the sons of God (the Watchers) procreated with the daughters of men to create a race of giants known as the Nephilim. The Book of Enoch, much of which was written as early as the 3^rd century BC, expands upon the story of the Watchers, and was well-read in the century of Christ. It seems to have been revered as scripture, quoted directly in the Bible. Rabbis and Christian Church fathers in later centuries, however, denounced the book and banned it.

Prophet takes about eighty pages of her book to detail the “hidden references” in the Bible to the Watchers and the Book of Enoch, and this section alone is worth the price of the book. When researching for my book about Revelation, I became convinced that there was simply no way to understand what John was writing about without reading Enoch; it contained the source of many of the beliefs espoused by Revelation.

So, let’s talk about the origin of evil. Did rebel angels take on human bodies to fulfill their lust for the “daughters of men?” Did these fallen angels teach men to build weapons of war? Prophet takes Enoch quite seriously, and delves into other ancient literature as well as she details what we should know about embodied angels. In a chapter titled Spiritual Solutions, she teaches us to chart our “divine self.” You get the idea; I’m afraid this isn’t really my thing, so my rating of four stars is based upon the translation and research, not the evangelizing.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

2 Kings 9:30, The evils of makeup

Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window.

//In this story, Jehu rebels against Israel’s king Jorum and goes on a murdering rampage, protesting the “many whoredoms and sorceries” of Jorum’s mother, Jezebel. Jehu nails King Jorum with an arrow and chucks his corpse aside. Then he charges after Judah’s king Ahaziah, and murders him, too. Finally, he marches to Jezebel’s palace.

It becomes a Rapunzel theme with a twist. The damsel (Jezebel) slathers on the makeup, gets her hair all ready, and peeks out the window. She asks if her handsome prince has come in peace. But Jehu instead hollers up at the window, asking if anyone else is up there. “Two or three eunuchs” peek out, and the prince doesn’t take time to climb up her hair for a rescue; he tells the eunuchs to just toss her out the window.

Unfortunately, the story ends badly. She “spatters” on the ground and is trampled under horses. Then, she’s eaten by dogs.

Don’t feed badly, it’s apparently what she deserves. Jezebel was the first biblical character to wear makeup, and the act is implicitly linked to her “whoredom.” To this day, some Christian denominations continue to associate makeup with the harlotry of Jezebel.

Book review: Revelation, The New Cambridge Bible Commentary

by Ben Witherington III 

★★★★★

I promised a review of my favorite Witherington book today; you should have guessed it would be about Revelation. Whether you’re a scholar of Revelation, a believer in future fulfillment, or just curious about early Christian eschatology (the study of the end times), this book is a gem. It’s a New Cambridge Bible Commentary, which is a well-respected series. I think a quote from the back cover expresses my opinion blandly but accurately:

“Without sacrificing scholarly perspective or academic rigor, it is written to be accessible for pastors, scholars, teachers, seminarians, and interested laypeople.”

As research for a book I completed a few months ago, I collected a stack of books about Revelation that would rival most any library. This one was probably the most fun to read. Witherington writes respectfully and from a Christian viewpoint but still dives deeply into the historical roots of Revelation. He jumps often into sidebars which he titles “Bridging the horizons” and “A closer look.” (He alternates between the two sidebar titles, and it took me most of the book to recognize this; what’s up with that, Ben?) Anyway, these sidebars alone are worth the price of the book. Here are a few topics from them:

God and Christ as the Alpha and Omega

The mythological background of Revelation 12

666, Nero, and the ancient art of Gematria

Fallen angels in early Judaism and Christianity

Heavenly Jerusalem or Sky City?

What a Bible geek I am! I get giddy just paging back through the book to write this review. I’m gonna read it again.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 22:44, God the Son? Part IV of IV

"The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."

//These are the words of David, as quoted by Matthew. It means, "God said unto David."

Matthew loves to quote scripture. But Matthew was writing in Greek, quoting the Greek translation of the Old Testament's original Hebrew. The Hebrew rendition makes a distinction between the divine name of LORD (Hebrew: Yahweh) and the lesser title Lord (Hebrew: adown). "Yahweh said unto adown." But Matthew uses the same Greek word, kyrios, for both: Kyrios said unto my kyrios. English translators, to help clear things up, have substituted LORD (capital letters for God) and Lord (lower case letters for lordship).

Here's another one. Deuteronomy 6:16 says, Ye shall not tempt the LORD (Hebrew: Yahweh) your God. When Matthew quotes the verse in Greek, it becomes Thou shalt not tempt the Lord (Greek: kyrios) thy God. It's left as a lowercase Lord in the English translation, because no distinction is necessary. We know it means God.

Now we come to the argument most often put forth by Trinitarians hoping to prove the Bible's consistency: Lord, like LORD, can apparently mean God. Matthew calls God and Jesus both kyrios, as did the Septuagint before him (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), so, Trinitarians reason, God and Jesus must be the same. The Greek word kyrios, they explain, was revered so much that it was used by first century Jews exclusively in replacement of Yahweh.

Except that this is not so. Today's verse shows clearly that kyrios can mean either Yahweh or adown. We cannot assume that where Matthew uses kyrios, he means the divine name of God. Nor can we assume that Matthew's willingness to call God by the lesser word kyrios implies that when he calls Jesus kyrios he then means Jesus is God. It just doesn't work that way. The "divine name" argument serves only to complicate the simple message of Matthew, and with this final Trinitarian protest debunked, it leaves us with absolutely no reason to ever believe Matthew shared the high Christology of John.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew's mind.

Book review: Papias and the Mysterious Menorah

by Ben Witherington III & Ann Witherington

★★★★

Witherington is one of my favorite authors. He’s very well steeped in the history and Christianity of the first and second centuries, and an excellent source for learning. But I never knew he wrote fiction until my own publicity agent mentioned it to me! Bob Todd Publicity represents Witherington as well, so he sent a sample my way for review. It's the third of a series about a lovable archaeologist named Art West. Indiana Jones with half the testosterone and twice the education.

In this book, Art investigates the discovery of the house of Papias, who forms an important link between the church fathers of the second century and the original apostles and writers of the first century. Art helps uncover a find that would make any Christian archaeologist salivate: evidence by Papias’ own hand that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were not written anonymously, but truly penned by their traditionally named authors: Matthew, a tax collector, and Mark, the sidekick of Peter.

Sorry, folks, it’s fiction; Papias’ home hasn’t been discovered, nor has proof of traditional Gospel authorship. But much of the book is factual, built upon current archaeological finds.

I don’t think Witherington’s fiction is quite as good as his nonfiction. This one will appeal primarily to fellow archaeologists and wannabees. I never did get used to the stilted language, and my editor would tell Witherington to swap his passive for active verbs. But I loved the subject matter, and I definitely enjoyed learning about first- and early second-century Christianity from a different angle.

In a couple days, I’ll review a nonfiction Witherington book which I found absolutely fascinating.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 1:21-23, God the Son? Part III of IV

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

//Matthew loves to quote scripture. Jesus wasn't named Emmanuel, but that doesn't matter: If Isaiah had prophesied a child named Fred Flintstone, I suspect Matthew would have found a way to tie that name in, so badly does he wish to show Jesus as the fulfillment of scripture.

Continuing  the theme of the last two posts, we're discussing the title God the Son (which was never used in the Bible), and whether or not Matthew shared John's vision that Jesus was God incarnate. Some readers point to today's verse as evidence of Jesus being God, but it really proves little. "God with us" doesn't mean "I am God"...if it did, no other person on earth would be named Emmanuel. More likely, Matthew imagined Emmanuel to mean something along the lines of, "I am bringing the Kingdom of God to you." Matthew, in fact, explains precisely how he relates the name Emmanuel to the name Jesus in today’s verse:  "for he shall save his people from their sins." And in Matthew's version, this is done without God, who forsook Jesus on the cross. Bluntly put: to Matthew, Emmanuel could be pretty much anybody except God.

Sometimes the loudest argument is one from silence. If Matthew wanted to convey that Jesus is God, he could have said so simply, as John did. But Matthew never once refers to Jesus as God. Not once, despite ample opportunities throughout the Gospel to do so. As I said, Matthew dearly loves to quote the prophets. If he wanted to portray Jesus as God, here is a very powerful verse, a missed opportunity, from Matthew's favorite prophet, Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Wow! Could any prophecy in the Bible be more useful to a theology of God incarnate? Problem is, Matthew wants absolutely nothing to do with it. It doesn't match Matthew's beliefs. Instead, he goes with the biteless Emmanuel prophecy, turning Jesus’ birth into a miracle story, and the theology of God creating a Son by impregnating a virgin.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew's mind.

Book review: The Search for the Twelve Apostles

by William Steuart McBirnie, P.H.D. 

★★★★

Whatever happened to the men who learned at the feet of Jesus?

I picked this book up to provide a little insight into the legends and remembered personalities of Jesus’ entourage, for my upcoming book about John’s Gospel. It turned out to be exactly what I was looking for.

Written by a believer, but properly skeptical about the legends that sprang up, the book goes through each of the Twelve and then wraps up with a discussion of five other notable apostles: John Mark, Barnabas, Luke, Lazarus, and Paul. As tradition dictates, Nathanial in the Gospel of John is assumed to be Bartholomew in the other three Gospels.

For each figure, McBirnie relates a bit of what the New Testament says, what later Gospels and church fathers report, and what traditions are known. He discusses where they later preached, what they were recognized for, how they died, where they were buried. Where legends disagree (and there are many contradictory traditions) McBirnie reports on them all. He personally visited several countries learning local traditions, so much of the research is original.

Interesting and easy to read, I recommend this book for anyone who is curious about the legends of Jesus’ closest followers.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 19:17, God the Son? Part II of IV

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good."

//We continue our discussion of the Christology of Matthew. In this verse, Jesus denies that he is God. You've probably heard it said that Jesus was somehow telling this man that since he (Jesus) was good, he had to be God. Very unlikely. The rule of thumb is, keep it simple. If it helps, try inserting another name to help decipher the meaning of the verse without bias. What would the verse mean if anybody besides Jesus said it?

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Paul replied. "There is only One who is good."

Now the meaning of the verse comes across clearly. But this is not the only verse in Matthew in which Jesus is distanced from God. Here are a couple more:

26:64, "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Might One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Given Jesus' words in 22:44, it is clear that "the Mighty One" is God. Jesus and God sit side by side.

27:46, "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Matthew portrays Jesus as someone who can be forsaken by God. That would be quite a trick if Jesus was God. Matthew repeatedly shows Jesus and God (not "the Father") as separate entities. God has to come down out of heaven to form a Son. God has to come down out of heaven to bless this Son at his baptism. God departs from his Son at the cross. God sits beside his Son when they rule. The God of Matthew is not "everywhere," he is located in space, as is Jesus. They are separate beings, in separate locations.

All through the book of Matthew "the Father" is interchangeable with "God," but "the Son" is not. You cannot replace "the Son" with "God" or vice versa without introducing syntactical tongue twisters that leave poor Jesus talking to himself, sitting beside himself, praying to himself, forsaking himself. Contrast Matthew's primitive understanding with the Gospel of John. In John there are no such problems, because in John the Son interacts not with God but with the Father. In John, both the Father and the Son are identified as God, but this never gets in the way of the separate identities of Father and Son.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew's mind.

Book review: John

by R. Alan Culpepper 

★★★★

Three hundred seventy six small-print pages about the life and legends of St. John the Apostle. Culpepper is one of the foremost authorities on Johannine writings, and I’m a Culpepper fan, but this was overkill.

My current project is a story about the making of John’s Gospel, and naturally, John the Apostle is a primary character. For this, Culpepper’s book proved to be an exhausting resource. Oops, I meant exhaustive. Must have been a Freudian slip.

I had to give the book a strong rating for its research; there is simply nothing like it out there. You’ll learn stories about John in the Bible, a discussion of his possible identity as the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel, the evidence of Johannine thinking in the epistles of John, how the Gospel of John gained acceptance in the church (walking first through Gnostic strands of Christianity), various other extra-canonical Christian writings portraying John as a hero, legends about John written by more than twenty church fathers, how he became an icon in art and literature, all leading to current-day opinions by Bible scholars. Whew.

Buy it as a reference book.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Matthew 1:18, God the Son? Part I of IV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

//In several past blog posts, I introduced the high Christology of John's Gospel. In that Gospel, Jesus is presented clearly as God. On the other side of the spectrum, however, is Matthew's Gospel. These two gospels--Matthew and John--build upon some of the same building blocks, but have gone two different directions. Nowhere is this more evident than in their differing Christology.

We've discussed John, so over the course of several posts, I'd like to discuss Matthew's take on who Jesus is. The conclusion, each time, will be that it never crossed Matthew's mind that Jesus is God.

In preparing for this discussion, I urge you to recognize that all of the Gospels were written anonymously. All were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus died, by men who had most likely never seen Jesus. All were written in Greek, not Jesus' native Aramaic tongue. It is important for this study to divorce yourself from the assumption that the authors of Matthew and John sat together at the feet of Jesus, learning the same doctrine.

Let's begin with Matthew's greatest contribution to Christian theology. It is this: Jesus is God's son. Now, this doesn't sound very astounding at first. Every Gospel writer calls Jesus the Son of God, and so does Paul, the earliest Christian writer. But how might this phrase have been meant by other writers? In the century of Christ, there were two common understandings of how this phrase was meant in the Old Testament:

[1] A minor deity or angel. The "sons of God" procreated with the daughters of men in Genesis, and the "sons of God" traversed the earth in Job.

[2] One ordained by God, such as the kings of Israel.

Matthew rejects both of these meanings, and falls back on legends of gods mating with humans. Such legends were common in the Hellenistic world, and can even be read in the Bible: See Genesis 6:4. To Matthew, "Son of God" means precisely what it sounds like. Matthew quotes from the Septuagint, rather than the original Hebrew, to show that a "virgin" (instead of just a young maiden) will conceive and bear a son. Matthew's particular contribution here is very important: He is dogmatic that Mary was impregnated not by Joseph, but by God Himself. She was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Now we see just how astounding Matthew's claim is! Matthew insists that Jesus is more than the expected Messiah. He is--gasp--the very offspring of God! When Matthew uses the phrase "Son of God," he in no way implies "God the Son." Contrary to John, Matthew gives no hint that Jesus existed before birth. God, in spirit form, came down from heaven, impregnated Mary, and formed a half-human-half-god offspring. Jesus.

Jesus is God? John says yes. But it never crossed Matthew's mind.

Book review: Good Book

by David Plotz 

★★★★★

100% recommended! This romp through the Hebrew Bible is much more than just fascinating and funny. It’s also engrossing, mildly irreverent, thought-provoking, disturbing--you'll love the Good Book whether you’re a believer or not. This is the Bible unveiled in all its grime and greatness. The characters in Genesis are especially unforgettable, from the story of Abimalech lusting after a 90-year-old woman (Sarah, Abraham's wife) to a diabolical mother-and-son plot to rob the simple-minded Esau of his blessing from an over-trusting father.

Book by book, Plotz takes us through the scripture. If Genesis is the best part, then the appendix runs a close second. There you'll learn the Bible's twelve best pick-up lines, the thirteen most spectacular murders, the nine best parties, the best prostitutes, the most hellacious divine punishment, the trippiest dreams, and more.

This is for all you skeptics who think reading the Bible is a waste of time. Plotz apparently thought the same thing before taking on this project. After thirty-nine books, 929 chapters, more than 600,000 words, and just over a year, Plotz admits he's become "a full-on Bible thumper. Everyone should read it--all of it! In fact, the less you believe, the more you should read."

Start with this book as an introduction to get the juices flowing. Plotz is more than a good researcher, he's a great writer. I'm in awe. I could enthusiastically read anything he writes, I'm sure of it. So, when he tackles a topic already fascinating to me (the Bible) it's pure delight. He's also unfortunately a Jew, which means we only get the Old Testament in his Good Book. Please, David, can't you give Billy Graham a listen? 

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Numbers 5:29-30, Got a Cheating Wife?

This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her.

//Here's a sure-fire solution for all you guys who wonder if your wife has been cheating. It's called the "Law of Jealousy," and it comes straight from the mouth of God to Moses, so you know it will work.

First, get your wife to a priest. Be sure to bring a half gallon of barley flour as a "jealousy offering."

The priest will help her stand trial before God. He'll put some holy water in a clay jar and mix in some dust from the floor. He'll let her hair down, so she looks the part of a prostitute. While she holds your half gallon of barley flour as an offering to God, the priest will stand in front of her with the dirty water. He'll put her under oath and promise no harm will come if she has been faithful to you. On the other hand, if she has been unfaithful, a curse will be upon her; her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrivel. As she watches solemnly, the priest will write this curse on a piece of leather, and "wash it off" into the bitter water.

Then, the priest will take your barley flour from her hands and carry it to the altar. A handful of it is burned in sacrifice while your wife drinks the curse.

If she has been faithful, she'll be unharmed and still be able to have children.

Book review: New Testament Essays

by Raymond E. Brown 

★★★★

This is a collection of fourteen early essays by Brown (1928-1998), recently republished. I’m a big fan of Brown’s research, especially in the area of Johannine writings, of which he is considered perhaps the foremost scholar of the 20^th century. Brown was a Catholic priest whose critical scholarship of the Bible seemed to only increase his faith in God. By way of introduction to the book, I’ll just list a few of my favorite essays.

Our New Approach to the Bible. Though not so new anymore, Brown discusses archaeological and literary accomplishments of the 20^th century that force us to read the Bible differently.

The Eucharist and Baptism in John. There are actually two very good essays about John’s treatment of these two Christian rituals.

The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles. John’s treatment of dualism was long considered his own invention, until the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, where many parallels to Johannine thinking can be seen.

The Problem of Historicity in John. Scholars still on occasion categorically reject the historicity of John, without giving proper consideration to the many geographical and political references that have in recent studies been proven accurate.

The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer. Brown takes us sentence by sentence through the most famous prayer in the Bible, explaining its significance as a prayer for an eschatological age.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Exodus 12:40-41, How long was Israel in Egypt?

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD's divisions left Egypt.

//430 years Israel lived in Egypt. To the very day, it says. Sounds pretty precise. Let’s add things up, and see if we agree.

Genesis 46:7-11 starts the story, telling how Jacob took all his family, including grandchildren, into Egypt. One of these grandchildren making the trip was Kohath.

In Exodus 6:18-20, Kohath has a son named Amram, and we learn Kohath lived 133 years. Then Amram has a son named Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

Exodus 7:7 tell us Moses was 80 years old when he confronted Pharoah. They left Egypt shortly thereafter.

Suppose Kohath entered Egypt as a newborn. Suppose further that Kohath conceived Amram from his deathbed, and Amram conceived Moses from his deathbed. That still leaves us with a maximum possible number of years of 133 + 137 + 80 = 350 years that Israel lived in Egypt.

430 years to the day? Anyone see where my math is wrong?

Book review: Michael's Reward

by Mario Bernheim 

★★★★

Michael's Reward is an imaginative, modern day retelling of the book of Job in the Bible. You know, that rich dude who lost everything but who stayed true to God, so he got it all back with interest.

Parts of the story must have been difficult for Bernheim to write. Michael's pain, when he loses his children, his wife, his wealth, his health, is just too vivid. Thankfully, I couldn't really relate, or the painful half of the story might have been overwhelming. It's a riches-to-rags-to-riches story in the extreme, with little common ground for us regular guys. I associated with Michael briefly on the way down, and briefly again on the way back up.

This is a good retelling, faithful to the spirit of Job and the conundrum he faces. It'll bring the biblical story alive for you, I guarantee it. And that, for me, was the problem. I don't like the book of Job, and I like it even less now. The idea of God playing games with human lives is distasteful. The idea of wealth as a measure of God's approval is equally distasteful. Didn't Jesus tell us not to lay up treasure on earth, but in heaven?

Which brings up a point. There is one major difference between the old Job and the new Job, and it's this: Today's Job knew his children were in heaven, and knew he would someday be up there with them, and that makes the second half of the story--the rise to riches--seem beside the point. We have since found more realistic ways to imagine a reward for a life faithfully lived. We don't have to pretend God will swoop in and provide a fairy tale ending on earth, which is a good thing, since real life doesn't happen that way. It just doesn't. We haven't thought that way since the age of the Maccabees, when the harshness of real life forced us to abandon the idea of justice on earth, and we instead became believers that we would be rewarded for faithfulness in the afterlife. For me, the story of Job is obsolete, a product of antiquated religion.

Nevertheless, while Michael/Job left a sour taste in my mouth, and while I can't rate the story highly for its inspirational value (no problem: I'm positive many other readers will), it deserves a high rating from me because it made me think. It made me talk about it. It took me out of my comfort zone and held me captive until the final page, and I'm still trying to break free.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Mark 8:6, One Miracle Feeding or Two?

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.

//In my opinion, the story of Jesus feeding the multitude with loaves and fishes has a distinct aura of historicity about it. It is the central "sign" of John's Gospel, and it relates directly to the anticipation of a Messiah who would initiate an age of plenty. It is mentioned in all four gospels ... in fact, in Mark and Matthew, the story is told twice!

Which makes one wonder: Did Jesus feed the multitude twice, or are we reading two different interpretations of the same event? Matthew's Gospel is recognized as an update of Mark with a new theological direction; 90% of the verses in Mark find their way into Matthew, many almost word for word. So, it's probably not significant that Matthew sides with Mark about the event happening twice.

Luke also wrote his gospel with the book of Mark open in front of him. But Luke appears to have had more sources of the Christ story available to him than Matthew, and is less concerned about occasionally disagreeing with Mark. Luke presents only one miracle feeding.

John's Gospel, the most independent of the four, again relates the story only once.

So, then, to determine whether there were one or two miracle feedings, we're left with analyzing Mark. The two events in Mark (one in chapter 6, the other in chapter 8) have varying details: Jesus feeds 5,000 the first time, 4,000 the second time. He uses five loaves and two fishes the first time, and seven loaves and a few fishes the second time. He gathers twelve baskets of leftovers the first time, seven the second time. But the only fundamental differences in the story are the numbers, which surely derive from some theological significance in both stories, though scholars continue to argue about their meanings.

Would it be helpful to discuss the setting surrounding each story? This is where it gets interesting.

1. After both feedings, the meaning is misunderstood.

2. After the first feeding, Jesus crosses the sea to Bethsaida. After the second, he crosses to Dalmanutha, and a few verses later moves on to Bethsaida.

3. After both feedings, Jesus finds himself in a contest with the Pharisees.

4. After the first feeding, Jesus heals a deaf man with spittle. After the second feeding, Jesus heals a blind man with spittle.

What do you think? Are these really two separate events, or two stories Mark has collected of the same event?

Book review: Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife

by Mary Roach 

★★★★

I loved this book for its entertainment value, but … Science Tackles the Afterlife? I mean, let’s get real, this is Mary Roach. Author of Stiff. You’re not getting convincing science for your money, you’re buying a colorful ride along the surface and around the edge. Mary touches on reincarnation, electromagnetic fields, where the soul resides physically in the body, mediums in lab studies, haunted houses, and near-death experiences.

Did you know the soul weighs three quarters of an ounce? In 1907 Duncan Macdougall measured how much a dead person’s body weight abruptly drops at the precise moment, it is assumed, that the soul leaves the body. But pursuing the study became difficult. Who would volunteer to die in Macdougall’s lab? Stymied by friction with officials, Macdougall resorted to weighing dogs on a scale he set up in his barn. Owing to the difficulty of finding dogs dying from a disease that rendered them exhausted and motionless, he immobilized and then killed them via injection. Unfortunately, not a single dog showed a drop in weight as it died. Macdougall’s conclusion: Dog’s don’t have souls.

The book’s finest quality is its ability to ride the fence, simultaneously teasing you with dubious but honest-to-God studies of the afterlife while bordering on tongue-in-cheek humor. Occasionally, Mary slips up, as in her explanation of the soul’s weight.  “Theory one: Macdougall was a nutter.”

Oh, and the ghostly pictures … I loved them, too.

Can any study or anybody in this book be taken seriously? Oops, gotta go, it’s time for Ghost Hunters on the telly.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Luke 6:20, The Beatitudes in Luke

Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

//Everyone is familiar with the beatitudes in Matthew, that wonderful collection of “blesseds” from the sermon on the Mount. They provide wonderful encouragement for our spiritual needs.

But did you know that Luke preserves a record of the beatitudes as well? Bible scholars sometimes call Luke 6:17-49 the Sermon on the Plain. It’s basically the same scene and drawn from the same source as Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. But in Luke’s version, the sayings are very down to earth, not meant in a spiritual way at all. In Luke, we’re not dealing with the poor in spirit, we’re dealing with the poor. We’re not dealing with those who hunger after justice, but with those who are truly hungry. It’s not about those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, but simply all who are persecuted. Luke is not about spiritual needs, but about real life. In Luke, Jesus is concerned about those with empty stomachs, the real have-nots, the people who are weeping now.

Luke’s Gospel has a different flavor from the beginning. Consider the parable of Lazarus, the poor beggar sitting outside the gates of the rich man. This is not a story about right and wrong, but about haves and have-nots. The have-nots will be rewarded in the age to come, while the haves already have their reward. According to Luke, the only proper use of wealth is to give it to the poor.  Where Matthew says, “do not lay up for yourselves treasure on earth,” Luke is very specific in relating the same passage: “Sell your possessions and give alms.”

Is the Lukan version a more original peek into the true humanitarian ministry of Jesus? Here are Luke’s beatitudes:

Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate and persecute you … for behold, your reward is great in heaven.

Book review: The Lost Gospel Q

by Marcus Borg 

★★★★

From the introduction by Thomas Moore: “The haunting, inspiring and challenging words of Jesus have now been with us for two thousand years. During all that time they have been used to moralize, instruct, defend and condemn as well as to lead and guide. As scholars have pointed out for over a century, the four Gospels are riddled with the interpretations, biases and agendas of their editors. Amid the clutter of age-old conflicting readings, it often seems difficult to hear an original voice and to take to heart the wisdom of one of the world’s greatest teachers.”

If you’re unfamiliar with Q, here’s the idea: Matthew and Luke were written with the book of Mark open in front of them. 50% of Mark is repeated in Luke, and 90% is repeated in Matthew. But there are enough other commonalities between Matthew and Luke to determine that they shared another source, and this source appears to be a “sayings” Gospel. Just the words that Jesus taught. No such book has ever been found, so scholars have named this hypothetical book “Q,” meaning “Source.”

Written in the 50’s only a couple decades after Jesus’ death, presumably by his contemporaries, this is as close as we can get to Jesus’ original teachings, away from the supernaturalism and moralizing of later Gospels. Q is the sacred “soul” of the Gospel message. Most of its sayings are about how to live “the way” that Jesus taught. Q is the Gospel for Liberal Christians.

Once past the introductory sections, Borg’s book provides just one saying per page, sometimes with a bit of historical commentary. This is a short little book that you can read in a couple hours. Or, if you prefer reading one saying per day, the book would provide daily inspiration for three months.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Revelation 1:1, Revelation's Purpose

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.

//My recent review of The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran sparked a discussion of whether there are similar "hate texts" in the New Testament. I couldn't provide any examples except the obvious: the vengeance promised in the book of Revelation. Nothing in the Koran compares to the level of gruesome bloodshed in Revelation, yet more Muslims are incited into a holy war than Christians. How is it that the Koran's hate texts are so much more effective than the Bible's?

Could it be that Revelation's dreams are just too bloody and extraordinary for modern Christians to relate, and the book is largely ignored? Revelation was probably written shortly after the war of 70 A.D., meant as encouragement to Christians under Roman oppression. Judean Christians would have been especially demoralized at the time, having suffered both the loss of family members and dislocation from their homeland and Temple.

Don't worry, says Revelation, Jesus hasn't forgotten you, he is coming back pronto to help you slaughter all the unbelievers and to restore your beloved Jerusalem to even greater grandeur. The irony is that Revelation was never needed; you might even say it failed miserably. Christianity quickly grew into a peaceful religion as Christians instead came to terms with their lot in life.

Yet, even without violent scripture (other than the misunderstood Revelation), Christians have embarked on multiple holy crusades through the centuries. Today, they seem to have outgrown the phase. Islam, too, appears to be slowly outgrowing its current violent phase. This begs the question:  Can a religion's holy book influence its believers toward bloodshed, or is violence a matter of environment rather than religion? I’ll be the first to admit that religious extremism is a complex problem, and I don’t have answers. What do you think?

Book review: Wide Awake Worship

by John Henson 

★★★★

The subtitle of this book is Hymns and Prayers Renewed for the 21^st Century. John Henson is a retired Baptist minister, now residing in Wales, and he put together this collection of what he calls “reset gems and polished buttons.” I asked him for a copy, hoping to keep my finger on the pulse of progressive Christian worship worldwide. Not knowing entirely what to expect, I found the collection to be a wonderful indicator of the direction Christianity is moving. I couldn’t help feeling uplifted and encouraged as I read.

Henson writes out of concern for the “many Christians who have told me they find it difficult to join in the traditional prayers and hymns of the churches with honesty since the words no longer accurately express their genuine beliefs and commitment. Yet at the same time is felt a sense of loss that is more than just nostalgia for the tools of devotion of former years.”

Well, that certainly struck a chord! The result is a compilation of worship prayers and hymns that (with a few welcome exceptions, such as a prayer for deeper love between even same-sex couples) will be appreciated by Christians of all denominations, from the most liberal to the most fundamental. It’s a welcome aid to worship for progressive believers and a step toward the dream of uniting Christians of all types.

Here is a favorite of mine, based on Psalm 1:

Splendid are folk who never copy

Those who trash another’s creed,

Thinking only of themselves,

Making fun of others’ need.

Splendid those who honor God

And night and day think on God’s love;

Their lives are green like leafy plants

That grow beside the river banks.

Like trees they offer tasty fruit,

And shade for those who feel the sun;

They guarantee the planet’s health,

Sustaining life for everyone.

The selfish have such trivial aims,

Their cravings wander with the wind;

Their lives will fail the test of time,

Unlike the lives of those they scorn.

The caring know the help of God,

The selfish live and die alone.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Numbers 31:17-18, Texts of Terror

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

//As instructed by a vengeful God, Israel destroyed Midian. The men of Midian were killed in battle, the cities burned, the women and children taken as plunder. But when the officers of the Israelite army returned with their plunder, Moses was displeased; God apparently did not yet feel vindicated. Moses therefore gave instruction to murder the women and children as well, keeping only the young virgins as sex slaves.

While I am no fan of the “texts of terror” within the Bible, they do need to be trotted out every once in a while, and read to those who believe the Bible is superior in moral teaching to, say, the Koran. The Bible, while truly an inspirational book that has spiritually fed millions for millennia, is too human (or inhuman) to be touted as perfect. The title of today’s blog post comes from feminist theologian Phyllis Trible’s book of the same name. It examines four Old Testament women who experienced terrible abuse: Hagar, Tamar, the woman of Judges 19, and the daughter of Jephthah. The primary cause is the social understanding of the day of women as property, and of these four, one story is particularly gruesome, so let’s dig into that one. A Levite’s unnamed concubine is unfaithful; she leaves him and returns home to her father. The Levite goes after her, and stays in the home of her father. While there, the house is accosted by thugs:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

Commentary is unnecessary. OK, I’m done with my obligatory reminder of the occasional inhumane instruction in the Bible. Back to more inspirational and instructive stories tomorrow.

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

by Robert Spencer 

★★★

I was disappointed in this book. Whether it’s true or not hardly seems to matter; I was still disappointed.

Spencer hopes to introduce casual readers to the words of the Koran, and he has nothing good to say about it. He compares it to Mein Kampf. Here are some of the chapter titles:

The Muslims’ Worst Enemies: The Koran on the Jews

The Koran on Christians: They’re Not So Hot, Either

The Koran on Women: Crooked and Inferior

The Koran Teaches Nonviolence—Oh, and Violence, Too

Here’s the bottom line: If you want to know what’s in the Holy Book of Islam, read Spencer. If you want to know what Muslims believe, read Karen Armstrong. Islam is a religion of peace, which—like Christianity—attracts a few extremists. Like Christianity, its holy texts are in places downright abominable. Like Christians, practicing believers generally learn to ignore or spiritualize the ungodly portions of their scriptures.

Spencer says about his work, “You will find nothing in this book about Islamic ritual practices or prayers. This is an Infidel’s guide, focusing on where the Koran came from and its specific portions that are—or should be—of concern to Infidels.” It is, by Spencer’s admission, one-sided, and not reflective of general Muslim practices.

Tomorrow, I’ll balance this with a discussion of the Texts of Terror within the Bible, so we can realize how much Christians ignore in their holy book. It might help put things in perspective.

(click picture to buy on Amazon)

Revelation 22:15, No Dogs In Heaven

Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

//I may be committing blogicide with this verse, but here goes.

According to Revelation, the doors of the New Jerusalem are closed to “dogs.” And what is a dog? It’s a derogatory label for a male prostitute, so named in antiquity because of the coupling method of men with men.

Don’t believe me? The New Jerusalem, in Revelation, replaces the Temple. It becomes the new House of God atop Mount Zion. Revelation’s teaching comes directly from the Old Testament, in a text responding to Israel’s ungodly acceptance of Temple prostitutes:

Deuteronomy 23:18—Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God.

I’ll leave you to decide what to make of this.

Book review: Woman of Sin

by Debra Diaz 

★★★★★

A while back, I was needing a break from nonfiction, and decided to ask some publishers for fiction to review. I found Borg's book,  Helms' book, Deeth's book, Witherington’s book (not yet reviewed) … and this one, with the steamy title. Woman of Sin … (cough). Romance? Really?? That would be a first for me! I was assured it had a Christian theme, but I remained unconvinced, and resigned myself to hiding the book under the couch. Now, having read it, I understand the title and find it hilariously appropriate. Great stuff, Diaz!

The story takes place in the years just before and after the crucifixion of Jesus, so the setting is naturally appealing to me. I think it’s only fair to point out that the book does have a religious flavor. By book’s end, the characters undergo a conversion to Christianity. I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler; it needs to be said. This shift of focus will be off-putting to some, but will increase the reading enjoyment of others.

Precisely because of the religious nature of the book, it invites a more rigorous criticism, more than just “great read, well researched, buy it now.”  It is a great book, and Diaz is a very good fiction writer. She has eloquently captured the life and politics of first-century Jerusalem and the Empire, and has spun a terrific story around one of the Bible’s most mysterious characters. But if Diaz had an evangelical purpose in writing, this may be the only five-star review she doesn’t appreciate; I found the most “fictional” part of her book to be the assumptions she makes about early Christianity.

By her own concession, Diaz had as a goal to be “historically and Biblically accurate.” But when the two clashed, she clearly preferred “Biblical.” If her research into all things non-religious weren’t so precise, her portrayal of the origins of Christianity wouldn’t stick out.

One example will suffice: Immediately after the resurrection, the characters repeatedly refer to Jesus as God. Kudos for Biblical accuracy: In John’s Gospel, Thomas, upon feeling the nail prints of the risen Jesus, exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” But in truth, it was likely many years afterward before Jesus would first be considered God, as evidenced by the evolving understanding of God that surfaces when we read the New Testament in chronological order. (John’s Gospel was written 60 years or more after Jesus died.) It would be less jarring in a historical novel for Diaz to reflect the very earliest Christian beliefs, rather than the religion that grew later in Jesus’ name. Laying a current-day version of Christianity atop an early first-century story made me feel the book was trying to convert me.

Religious content aside, it remains a very entertaining work of fiction. I absolutely loved it and wholeheartedly recommend it! From now on, only pseudo-romance novels will grace my book review blog!  :)

(available in electronic form only)