"Did Judas Iscariot Exist?" by Bishop John Shelby Spong
Some Christians think John Shelby Spong isn't worth reading, but if William Lane Craig can debate him then he's worthy to read, and he did...
I think the problem with most Christians about Spong is that they wonder to themselves how someone like him can continue to believe even though he debunks the foundations of their evangelical faith, and I agree with them about this. But he presents the results of scholarship on the issues that divide us very well. I recommend his writings. See for yourselves. Here's an excerpt from his book The Sins of Scripture:
THE ROLE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT IN THE
RISE OF ANTI-SEMITISM
I am suspicious of the historicity of Judas Iscariot and of his role in the Christian story as the traitor. That suspicion has been created by five easily identifiable, documentable facts.
First, a careful reading of the New Testament reveals the not-fuIly suppressed memory of a man named Judas, in the inner circle of Jesus' disciples, who was not evil and who was not a traitor. In the Fourth Gospel John refers to a disciple named Judas, who is not Iscariot (14:22). Luke in his list of the twelve disciples names, in addition to Iscariot, another disciple named Judas, identified only as the brother of James (6:16). This Judas replaces Thaddaeus in the list recounted by Mark (3:14-19) and Matthew (10:2-4). In addition to this, there is an epistle that bears Judas' name that was included by the Christians in the New Testament. The author of this book is identified as Jude, which is simply another variation of the name Judas, and he is called in that epistle "a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (Jude 1:1). There is clearly an early Christian memory of a faithful Judas in the inner circle of the Christian movement.
The second source of my suspicion comes from the fact that the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era. Prior to that time, we have the entire Pauline corpus, which was written between the years 50 and 64 CE. We may also have what scholars call the Q (or Quelle,i.e., "source") document, which many believe to be a lost "sayings gospel" that both Matthew and Luke are said to have incorporated into their narratives as a supplement to their use of Mark. Because we still have Mark, we can easily show that Matthew and Luke copied some of the content of Mark almost verbatim into their gospels. But when all of this Markean material is removed from Matthew and Luke, these two gospel writers still have material so identical that it has to have had a common source. That shared material has led many to the assumption that both Matthew and Luke had a second written source other than Mark, a source that is now lost. When these identical or nearly identical passages are lifted out of Matthew and Luke and studied separately, they appear to be largely a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Hence Q is assumed to be an early collection of Jesus' sayings. Some scholars date this Q material as early as the 50s. If that is accurate, then this is a second major pregospel source that must be examined."
Turning first to Paul, we discover that the concept of betrayal prior to the crucifixion enters Paul's writings merely as a dating device, with no content whatsoever. Addressing a letter to the Corinthians in the mid-50s Paul says, "For I have received from the Lord, what I also delivered to you; that the Lord Jesus Christ on the night when he was 'betrayed'; took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is broken for you.'" (1 Cor. 11 :23-24). Paul's intention here was simply to tell the story of the inauguration of the Last Supper. However, in doing that he used a word that the English translators in the seventeenth century said means "betrayed." In the Pauline quote above, I placed 'betrayed' into a single quote because this word literally means "handed over," which does not project the same meaning that comes to mind when we hear the word betrayed. It is worth noting that in his entire written corpus Paul gives no evidence that he was aware of a betrayal that took place at the hand of one of the twelve disciples, but the English translators knew the later gospel stories, and so they placed that meaning into their rendition of this word. It was one more of many examples in which later Christians were guilty of reading Paul through the eyes of the gospel narratives. We need to keep in mind that Paul had died before the first gospel was written. While in this particular text Paul does not rule out the betrayal possibility, he does appear to do so just four chapters later.
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-6, Paul once again declares that he is passing on to his readers the sacred traditions that he has received. Then he gives the barest outline to the details of the final events in Jesus' life. He says that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter]' then to the twelve."
"He appeared to ... the twelve." Judas was still among them when Easter dawned: that is Paul's testimony! When Matthew related the first biblical story of the risen Christ appearing to the disciples on a mountaintop in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20), he asserted that it was only to "the eleven" that Christ appeared. Sometime between when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (ca. mid-50s CE) and when Matthew wrote this account of a resurrection appearance (ca. 82-85 CE), the story of Judas as a traitor appears to have entered the Christian story. Paul did not know about this tradition. His writings in 1 Corinthians make that perfectly clear.
When we turn to the Q source, we discover that it is in this common, and presumably earlier, tradition that both Matthew and Luke quote Jesus as saying to the disciples, with Judas present, "At the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). Luke has this text read, "You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of lsrael" (Luke 22:28-30). The assumption here is that among the twelve disciples who will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Judas is included. The editors appear to forget that one of the twelve will be judged unworthy. The Q material, if it was indeed a separate and earlier source, seems to have been collected before the story of Judas the traitor came into the tradition, and both Matthew and Luke failed to make their source fully conform to the changing tradition that now included the story of a traitor among the twelve. That is additional evidence that the story of the betrayal of Jesus by one of the twelve, named Judas, was not an original part of the Christian narrative. It was added later, which of course begs the question as to when and why it was added.
The third reason I am suspicious about the historicity of the betrayal story is the way the Judas account so obviously grows once it has been introduced by Mark, somewhere between 70 and 75 CE. Mark has Judas go to the chief priests to betray Jesus. They "promise to give him money," but no amount is stated, and "he sought how he might conveniently betray him" (Mark 14:10-11, KJV). In Mark's version of the Last Supper, Jesus identifies the traitor as "one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me" (14:20, NRSV). Mark then has the act of betrayal take place at midnight in the Garden of Gethsemane with a kiss (14:44-45). That is the last time we see Judas in Mark's gospel.
Matthew, writing about a decade after Mark, builds on Mark's meager details. In his growing story Matthew adds the price paid for the betrayal. It was, he says, thirty pieces of silver (26:15). Matthew also introduces dialogue between Judas and Jesus at the moment of betrayal that Mark does not mention (26:25). The disciples, Matthew tells us, resisted those who would take Jesus after this betrayal, but Jesus rebuked them (26:51-54). Matthew then tells the story of Judas repenting and trying to return the blood money. The temple leaders refused to receive the money back, so Judas cast it into the temple and, according to Matthew proceeded to hang himself. Matthew then tells us that the chief priests used the money to buy a potter's field in which strangers could be buried (27:3-10). That is the end of Judas for Matthew.
Luke, writing some five to ten years after Matthew, portrays the chief priests and scribes as aggressively seeking to lay hands on Jesus but being restrained by their fear of his popularity with the people. So they sent spies pretending to be righteous messengers trying to entrap him (Luke 20:19-20). Judas, as the traitor, is introduced against this background. Luke explains Judas' treachery by saying that "Satan entered [him)" (22:3) and caused him to strike a deal with the chief priests and officers. Finally, what it was that Judas actually betrayed is introduced in Luke for the first time: Judas was to lead them to Jesus apart from the crowd (22:6). This is a rather weak explanation. Surely the authorities could have followed Jesus at night and discovered where he slept apart from the crowd. He was easily identified, after all. When he was arrested, he reminded his accusers that he had been daily in the temple teaching (22:53). It is worth noting that what Judas actually did for them could have been accomplished without his assistance. It thus has the feel of a manufactured story. There Judas exits Luke's gospel.
However, in the book of Acts Luke adds, in a speech delivered by Peter to the disciples, that it was Judas rather than the Jewish authorities who used the reward of iniquity to purchase a field. When inspecting that field Judas fell "headlong," Luke says; "he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:16-18). It was a rather more gross way to die than simply by hanging and it quite specifically contradicts the hanging account. Both situations might bring death, but one's bowels do not gush out when one is hanged by the neck. The story obviously was still growing.
John paints Judas with an even more sinister brush. Judas was really a thief, he says (12:6). He was filled by a satanic spirit (13:27). There is no Last Supper in John, but after the foot-washing ceremony that is substituted for it, John describes a discussion that took place in which Jesus identified the traitor as "he who ate my bread" (13:18). The disciples wondered and looked around at one another. The beloved disciple then asked Jesus quite specifically the "who" question, and Jesus responded, "The one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish" (John 13:26, NRSV). Then dipping the bread into the common food supply, he handed it to Judas and said, "Do quickly what you are going to do" (John 13:27, NRSV). Judas then went out of the upper room, and as he did, John comments, "It was night" (13: 30). After the Last Supper was concluded, Judas arrived in the Garden of Gethsemane at the place where Jesus was praying, accompanied by a band of soldiers from the chief priests, and the traitorous act was accomplished (18:2-9). Peter fought back with a sword, John says, cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest (John 18:10-11). That was Judas' last appearance in the gospel tradition.
The distinctions are fascinating! Clearly the story was evolving, the details supplied as each phase of the narrative entered the tradition. The whole story of Judas has the feeling of being contrived. My suspicions are not alleviated by the details.
The fourth reason for my suspicion is that the story of the act of betrayal is set very dramatically at midnight. It is just too neat a detail to have what the gospel writers believed was the darkest deed in human history occur at the darkest moment of the night. That looks more like a liturgical drama than it does a fact of history.
My fifth and final source of suspicion is the name of the traitor itself. Judas is nothing but the Greek spelling of Judah. The name of the traitor is the very name of the Jewish nation. The leaders of the orthodox party of that nation, who defined the worship of the Jews, were by the time the gospels were written increasingly the enemy of the Christian movement. It is simply too convenient to place the blame for Jesus' death on the whole of orthodox Judaism by linking the traitor by name with the entire nation of the Jews. When that fact is combined with a specific attempt to exonerate the Romans by portraying Pilate as washing his hands and saying, "I am innocent of this [just] man's blood," then we see the shifting of blame. It simply looks made up. The Romans killed Jesus, but by the eighth decade of the Christian era, when the story of Jesus was being written, something compelled the gospel writers to exonerate the Roman procurator, Pilate, and to blame the Jews. That was when Judas the traitor, identified as one of the twelve, entered the tradition. That identification sealed the fate of the Jews as the perennial object of a violent and persecuting Christian anti-Semitism.
109 comments:
Spong is a good writer, he just comes up short in the "ideas" department. I don't have time to read your post at the moment, so keep that in mind.
Your post here actually caused me to review a couple of his books while I was at the bookstore. I took some notes:
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism
The entire book is essentially based on the premise that modern day 'liberal' values are "tops", and that the Bible, when it doesn't conform to these values, should be ignored. I did not see a justification for this premise, except that Spong doesn't like some of the things he reads in the Bible. This is the least of my complaints with his books.
Often times he hits the "panic button" based on only a flimsy argument for a possible error in the Bible which is neither critical to essential doctrine or the reliability of the Bible as a whole. For instance, his example of the possible mistranslation of "camel" in Jesus' metaphor of a camel trying to fit into the eye of a needle. He claims that "camel" in Aramaic is similar to "rope" and therefore its likely a mistranslation. I think that argument is poor, but he then takes a nose-dive by extrapolating this out to Matthew's misquotes of Isaiah pertaining to Jesus being born of a virgin. He obviously knows nothing about Jewish exegesis (something you would expect if he truly was in tune with scholars), though this is a topic that I will go more in depth on when I review a certain chapter of your book.
He makes constant layman mistakes because he doesn't have the scholarly discipline to put the Bible in its proper context. Now, to be fair, neither do I. But its sad that someone with just the bare bones of research (myself) is able to point out mistakes that Spong makes.
He conveniently wrote a laundry list in this book of his own warrantless assertions and weak connections.
In a telling unscholarly mistakes, he misuses Biblical slavery.
He argues that one could fault God for hardening Pharaoh's heart, but gives no explanation. So I fail to see how the case could be made, except that he's assuming that his audience is as ignorant as he is.
He claims the Israelites "robbed" the Egyptians in the Exodus. Now, I don't know what definition of "robbery" Spong is using, but when someone willingly gives me their belongings, I find it impossible to call such an act "robbing".
Liberating the Gospels
He demonstrates a basic ignorance of history by claiming that religion as a whole was opposed to Darwin's theory of Evolution, when in fact much of the early church rushed to embrace it.
He claims Protestant America should apologize to John Scopes for their supposedly mistreatment of him in the "Monkey Trial". I, on the other hand think Scopes and the ACLU should apologize for purposefully snowballing a movement which would stifle free scientific inquiry in public education. Lest we forget that the ACLU found Scopes so that they could instigate a lawsuit under the false pretense that public schools should "teach both theories". Well, what do we have today? Only one theory is taught, and any competition is dogmatically faught out of the schools, tooth-and-nail.
Those are all the notes I had time to take. You can read J.P. Holding's review of "Why Christianity Needs to Change or Die", and from what I read of Spong, I generally agree with Holding's critique.
That is why I don't take Spong seriously, and why I won't waste anymore time or money on him. In a nutshell.
One more note I forgot to make. Your argument that Craig's willingness to debate Spong proves Spong is worthy to read, I believe, is lacking.
For instance, I disagree with much of Ehrman's opinions, though I find him to be a proper scholar. Craig debated him, but that doesn't make Ehrman's opinions anymore valid. In fact, would Craig really debate someone who's opinions he thought were valid?
It may be possible that some of the people Craig debates are worth a Christians time, even if s/he disagrees with that person, but it isn't necessarily true.
IF said...I don't have time to read your post at the moment, so keep that in mind.
Okay, but what I posted is a good example of him bringing scholarship to popular audiences. I don't defend everything he says, nor anyone else for that matter. This was the example I highlighted. Deal with it, okay?
IF said..He obviously knows nothing about Jewish exegesis...
On the contrary, he does a good job of it and his views do represent the views of the scholars for the most part, because I have read the scholars to know. Again, I think he gets a bad name from the fact that he still claims to be a Christian in the church. Christians don't like the liberal scholars views either, so what's new? It's just that they think they can attack someone who doesn't have a Ph.D. who writes on a popular level much easier. Christians would dismiss the views of the scholars just as easily if they lacked Ph.D's and wrote on a popular level. But again Spong represents good, solid scholarship in every area I have seen from him, and I have read the scholars to know.
I'm not interested in telling you whether his books are worth your money or not. You decide. But, given your own level of understanding they would introduce you into the world of good liberal scholarship on a popular level. Writers on a popular level representing scholarship are very much needed, and he fits the bill admirably.
As far as Craig goes, he would not waste his time debating someone who is unworthy of his time, and that's my undisputable point. Why do you feel the need to argue against this? What does it gain you to do so even if you're successful? Ahhhh, I know, you're used to arguing for the indefensible...;-)
Oh, and if you want to adopt the bombastic and non-credentialed Holding's view of Spong, then note too that he calls almost every scholar he disagrees with as stupid, dumb and obtuse. Given that he puts Spong in that same category should alert the skeptical jucies you claim to have. He merely disagrees with Spong, but surprise, that's to be expected.
Again, I'm not interested in whether you buy Spong's books, and I'm not interested in defending everything Spong writes either. I posted something here I believe is based upon good scholarship and good detective work. Sure you'll disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it as unworthy of your time.
"It is worth noting that what Judas actually did for them could have been accomplished without his assistance. It thus has the feel of a manufactured story."
I get a bit suspicious when I see a claim like that. One could argue that the apparent 'strangeness' of the scenario is good evidence that it is true because if he was making things up he would have chosen something superficially more plausible, like that Judas gave away their hideout or something. I'm sure that other scholars have suggested why this particular scenario was necessary (perhaps criminal procedure of the day required it) and it would have been good if Spong addressed some of the counter-arguments.
Still, it's interesting to speculate on so thanks for putting up the quote. I might grab one of his books when I get through my current backlog of reading.
Dear John W. Loftus,
Since I am an Episcopalian-in-exile, I feel that I can in all clear conscience post a comment here.
First, in all Christian charity, Spong is an inveterate dunderhead.
Oiks! Alas! Awonk! Bill Gnade has typed his first ever insult at Debunking Christianity (and virtually his first anywhere else on-line). But Bill Gnade, as anyone knows who knows him, realizes that his dunderhead retort is full of jocularity! (You should have read what I first wrote before conscience reared its editor's head -- scandalous!)
___________________
But THIS NEXT statement is NOT an insult without warrant: SPONG IS AN ANTI-SEMITE! Can I defend my thesis? We'll see!
___________________
Second, if we look at Spong's first premise, we find a fallacy, or so I believe.
SPONG: "There is clearly an early Christian memory of a faithful Judas in the inner circle of the Christian movement."
Really, the scholarship at this point is dizzying! That this smacks of a non causa pro causa fallacy is immediately evident (in fact, even if you do not know what a fallacy is, you know that Spong has committed a fallacy -- and to think some people deny miracles!).
Third, Spong's next premise(s) is rooted in this presupposition (that is not proved): If a thing is added later, it must be false.
Fourth, because Spong accepts his hidden presupposition that a thing that is added is false, he heaps upon it another idea, that because the added thing GROWS or is AMPLIFIED, it is all the more false.
Moreover, Spong's stumbling over "paradidOmi" is curious, especially since it reads as a transitive and not an intransitive verb: the verb implies that someone is handing Jesus over to someone else; and this begs the question that Spong misses completely: if Jesus is indeed merely "handed over," who is doing the handing over? The disciples? Jesus? Of course, it hardly matters since the word is used to mean "betray" in many other verses of the New Testament. But accepting Spong's own analysis, Jesus is indeed handed over by someone to someone else. Paul would not be even remotely suggesting here that Jesus was, for example, handed over by the priests to the Roman guards; that sort of thing is hardly significant in the midst of St. Paul's comments about the Lord's Supper, since such a thing was standard operating procedure. No, what is significant is that Jesus was BETRAYED on that night, not that he was handed over from one authority to another.
__________________
Of course, Spong does not deal with the obvious implication of his final point that anti-Semitism emerged at the hands of the gospel writers some 7-8 decades after the fact. What did Spong miss? He missed that he is accusing Jewish writers of spawning anti-Semitism. One can hardly think of a more vicious anti-Semitic insinuation. And if my meaning is not yet clear, it can be put another way: According to Spong, anti-Semitism can only be blamed on Jews -- since THEY created it in some elaborate plan, some grand hoax.
All this adds up to confirm that Spong is indeed an inveterate dunderhead. (I guarantee you Spong has never noticed that he's blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.)
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill, no wonder you've chosen to make an insult here since I insulted you when commenting on my book without reading it beginning here.
No, you are not more qualified to comment about Spong because you’re an Episcopalian-in-exile. To think you believe Spong is a "inveterate dunderhead" and meant to say something worse is not a laughing matter. You obviously haven't read much on biblical critical scholarship. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean people who disagree with you are "inveterate dunderheads." Only a truly ignorant person not fully aware of the issues involved would attribute ignorance to those who see things differently. That's true ignorance. Among educated people, one does not attribute ignorance to other educated people who disagree.
What did Spong miss? He missed that he is accusing Jewish writers of spawning anti-Semitism. One can hardly think of a more vicious anti-Semitic insinuation. And if my meaning is not yet clear, it can be put another way: According to Spong, anti-Semitism can only be blamed on Jews -- since THEY created it in some elaborate plan, some grand hoax.
Let me burst your bubble here. In John’s gospel is the oft repeated phrase, “the Jews.” It occurs about seventy times, in contrast to five occurrences in the other gospels. In John’s gospel it is a stereotype for Jesus’ opponents. Compare 7:13: “for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (Jesus)” (See also John 2:18-20; 5:15, 18; 7:1; 9:18, 22; 10:31; 12:9; 18:28; 19:38; 20:19). But these people were all Jews! How do Jews fear the Jews? The Gospel writer himself was a Jew, if it was John! A Christian apologist might object that the phrase “the Jews” merely meant those people who lived in the province of Judea, but several of these occurrences could not be just about people in Judea (John 2;13; 4:22; 5:1; 6:4, 41; 18:20, 33; 19:3,21,19,40). Such a usage reveals the complete break up between official Judaism and Christianity, which occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. It is a very odd use of the phrase, leading some to believe John the Apostle didn’t even write this gospel, because he himself was a Jew.
You see, this anti-Semitism is found in the New Testament itself, and it may not have been introduced by Jews at all.
I need not repeat myself in what I said earlier about Spong, but once again I affirm everything I said.
Bill argued...the verb implies that someone is handing Jesus over to someone else; and this begs the question that Spong misses completely: if Jesus is indeed merely "handed over," who is doing the handing over?
That's, "'whom' is doing the handing over.” But you do know your Greek.
Given the propensity of exaggeration and embellishing of stories that people (especially ancient superstitious ones) have, it's not surprising that people asked the same question you did and supplied the answer…someone on the inside, named Judas. But by itself Paul suggests nothing. It could be that the Sanhedrin handed him over to Herod, and that Herod handed him over to Pilate given their disagreements with Jesus, silly.
But a better, sinister, more exciting answer is an insider betrayed him. That makes Jesus' pain more vivid, just like Mel Gibson wanted to make Jesus' physical suffering out to be more than it really could've been for the same reason.
Once again I affirm everything I said about Spong.
I have read and enjoyed several books by Spong. I realize that he is writing for a popular audience, but it is nice to hear John Loftus report that his works are consistent with scholars with better academic credentials. That has been my impressision as well, but I am not nearly as well read in the field.
Spong may be one of the reasons that I have never taken the step from agnostic to atheist. The main reason is that it seems to me that God's non-existence is just as unknowable as God's existence. However, Spong's writings still make me think that it is possible to be a theist and even a Christian without abandoning reason and rationality.
Bill, I will not call you an "inveterate dunderhead" if you didn't know of the anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John. However, I would have to call you ignorant in comparison with Spong, whom you described that way. Before you call someone else such names you had better be more informed than they are on the issues.
If this is new information to you then you were indeed ignorant. If this is not new information then surely you have a ready answer that is in keeping with your earlier comments. What is it?
Mind you, I'm not hard on people who are ignorant, but I am hard on people who claim to be better informed than others who are not.
Dear John W. Loftus,
My friend. Are you sure you mean to correct my use of "who?" You better double-check.
Helpful reminders on WHO and WHOM:
WHO is asking the question? To WHOM is the question being asked?
Surely you see it. I said, "Who is doing the handing over?" Your correction would be, well, an in-correction. "Whom is doing the handing over?" is obscene. Who does, whom receives; who is the subject, whom is the object. And I will add that your "correction" is also rather unnecessary, since usage boards agree at the very least that the distinction I've made has virtually vanished from the oral landscape; the who/whom distinction should be maintained in formal writing, at the very least, or so go the usage panels.
Now in this (set of) comments you have said something else: Someone other than Jews wrote the New Testament. Is that what you are saying? I mean, you've just said you agree with Spong; Spong says that this stuff was added in 70 A.D. Who, pray tell, but Jews are going to be writing this stuff? Spong has not suggested anywhere here that someone else did the writing. So, is this REALLY your view, that the New Testament was not written by Jews?
But if this is not your conviction, we are thus left with the fact that Spong believes that Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism. After all, there is on ONE ELSE to blame -- is there -- if Spong is right?
And, as I said, the use of paradidOmi in 1 Corinthians 11 makes no sense in Spong's exegesis; and I've already discounted your suggestion that "handing over" has something to do with one group of authorities -- the Sanhedrin -- handing over a man to some other authority, a routine transaction if there ever was one. Hardly worth noting in the context of the Lord's Supper. It would be a statement of the obvious: Oh, Corinthians: Jesus, you know, was arrested. No, the context in 1 Cor. 11 is about UNITY and DISUNITY in the body of Christ; the Corinthians were -- in a sense -- betraying each other -- the Body of Christ -- in how they celebrated the Holy Eucharist. Hence, St. Paul was showing that even as Jesus was being BETRAYED, He instituted a sacrament of unity and life.
Spong is flat-out wrong. You are free to be cruel about my jocularity here. And if you think I believe I am credentialed in any meaningful way because I am Episcopalian is for you to engage in gross eisegesis. My remarks were mostly tongue-in-cheek. Of course, I have made an insult of someone who is not here; you have insulted me directly, no? Strange that you should equate the two. Stranger still that you should think me incapable of knowing more about Mr. Spong and his theology than you might, especially since I am an Episcopalian who has watched him for a long time. Really, John, I am disappointed at the veiled ad hominem here. (I am grateful for your link leading me to where you've insulted me, but perhaps you could also search for the link where I've insulted you.)
Look, you told Irish Farmer (and by extension, the rest of us) this:
Okay, but what I posted is a good example of him [Spong] bringing scholarship to popular audiences. I don't defend everything he says, nor anyone else for that matter. This was the example I highlighted. Deal with it, okay?
Your interest -- and please correct me if I am wrong -- is not in what Spong or others say elsewhere, your interest is in THIS passage from Spong. I dealt with the passage directly; you then chide me, saying, "You obviously haven't read much on biblical critical scholarship."
Which is it? Should I just respond to Spong or should I respond to all of the critical scholarship you deem proper?
Lastly, you know nothing about my capacities in matters theological. Is that fair to say?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear Vinny,
Blessings to you!
I would contend that you can be an orthodox Christian and still be fully reasonable. In fact, orthodoxy and reason are siblings that cannot† be parted from each other.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
†"Cannot" probably should be "need not" or "must not," but I will stick with it for now.
Bill, once again you are commenting on something you didn't even read in it's entirety. Spong has written 27 pages on this issue in his book. You called him an "inveterate dunderhead." What do you base that on? Based upon this excerpt? You clearly have an emotional agenda here.
Clearly there is background information that isn't (and cannot) be specified in any short (or long) piece. Surely you understand that. I was offering some background information to what he argued for. Now you question whether he himself knows this. I say he does. I've read all 27 pages and I'm not inclined to type them in to prove this to you.
Surely you'll reply that I said this excerpt is a good one and you analysed this particular excerpt, as I requested. But that is completely unfair of you since no one can possibly cover every objection in such a short excerpt. And if I typed in all 27 pages there would be unanswered questions that he didn't deal explicitly with there too, which he probably deals with in another book.
You're frustrating me. I'm tempted to tell you to take your ignorance elswhere. But then, I know you're not truly ignorant, and I do learn from you. But for some reason you are revealing an ignorant side to yourself today. What exactly is your problem? Are you trying to save Irish Farmer from the arguments in my book? If that's the case get it and help him, I don't care if you do. But ignorance about my position or Spong's will not cut it.
BTW Bill, how do you explain the anti-semitism found in the 4th gospel?
Bill Gnade wrote "I would contend that you can be an orthodox Christian and still be fully reasonable."
I encounter many such contentions. I find that demonstrations are much less common.
While Spong deals with the anti-Semitism of the New Testament in the book I quoted from, a description of what I previously argued for from the fourth gospel can be found in Spong's book, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism (pp. 188-189):
"Perhaps most distressing of all, taken literally this Gospel had fed the dark side of religious bigotry more than any other part of the Christian Scriptures. On most occasions when the words "the Jews" were used in the Fourth Gospel the connotation was evil. The Jews are "from below," the Johannine Jesus asserted (John 8:23). "You [the Jews] are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires," Jesus declared (John 8:44). For Jesus to call Jews "children of Satan" is out of character to the divine nature, but because it is in Scripture it has served to justify religious, bigotry for ages. If Jesus could insult Jews, how much permission do his disciples need to go and do likewise?"
Oh Bill, where are you now? How do you explain the anti-semitism found in the 4th gospel? Surely you have a ready made answer, or else you didn't know what Spong knows. Where are you? Are you researching this new data for an answer? How do you explain it?
Dear John W. Loftus,
Actually, I just got back from skiing (seriously). No research necessary. I am a wicked good skier.
I mean -- WICKED.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
"Again, I think he gets a bad name from the fact that he still claims to be a Christian in the church."
John, you know as well as I do that I never made that accusation in my entire post. Instead of reading my mind, you could address the reasons for my negative opinions of him.
"Okay, but what I posted is a good example of him bringing scholarship to popular audiences. I don't defend everything he says, nor anyone else for that matter. This was the example I highlighted. Deal with it, okay?"
My point wasn't in claiming that I could debunk every argument he makes, only that he tends to make poor arguments, even in simple matters, let alone scholarly matters.
Any critique I would level at his post would consist of me questioning his arguments, since I do not have access to the data he uses on the issue of Judas.
If you really want me to, I can deal with the post when I have time, however, I'm simply explaining why I don't take Mr. Spong seriously in general.
"It's just that they think they can attack someone who doesn't have a Ph.D."
Although a person with a Ph.D. is more likely to make informed arguments, ultimately its the argument that matters.
You'll notice when I write my review, that I will never criticize your arguments on the grounds that you lack a few letters after your name.
""Perhaps most distressing of all, taken literally this Gospel had fed the dark side of religious bigotry more than any other part of the Christian Scriptures. On most occasions when the words "the Jews" were used in the Fourth Gospel the connotation was evil. The Jews are "from below," the Johannine Jesus asserted (John 8:23). "You [the Jews] are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires," Jesus declared (John 8:44). For Jesus to call Jews "children of Satan" is out of character to the divine nature, but because it is in Scripture it has served to justify religious, bigotry for ages. If Jesus could insult Jews, how much permission do his disciples need to go and do likewise?""
For Jews to use such strong wording against one another is hardly out of character. People in a society like that which valued 'Dramatic Orientation' were expected to be theatric in "word (language, eloquence, hyperbole, boasting) and deed (heroic gestures, speaking as if the deed already took place)."
Jesus was portrayed by his followers as exactly this kind of person.
Jesus cleansing the temple is a well-known example of what we would consider overboard, but what would otherwise have been considered "heroic" in a dramatically oriented society.
Further, "Eloquence involves the skill of verbal exaggeration and over-assertion..."
Such language might not make sense to us on the surface (at least for those of us with a bone to pick...), but it made perfect sense to people of that time.
[Pilch, John J. et al. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, pp. 50-51]
As far as the reference to the Jews being children of the devil goes...
"In the Bible, anytime anyone is called a 'father' who is not a biological father, the title refers to the role and status of a patron."
Which is why God was often referred to as Father, and why in a dramatic twist, someone would rather dramatically declare that someone had made Satan their patron.
[ibid. p.151]
Now, Spong may not like what he perceives to be "name-calling", but there is no reason to think that this was an anti-semitic addition, and enough reason to believe that this is truly how Jews spoke to one another.
In light of the social data, he'll have to use more than bald assertions to make his case with anyone who isn't willing to take him at his word.
Now, as far as the general issue of calling Jewish people "The Jews" goes...
"The term "Jews" can refer to either the leadership (strictly) OR to the people (more generally)"
"The data is VERY strong that when the term "Jews" is used of the PEOPLE, it is a good (or at least, neutral) term--indicating that it is not a 'racial/ethnic' slur, but a term used for specific identification (in context) of that ruling community that violently rejected their King."
"It is worth noting that John's gospel is deliberately evangelistic, and the general trend of scholarship today is to view his intended audience as not just Jews, but SPECIFICALLY the Jews of the Diaspora--the ones Paul used the terms "JEWS" on so strongly!"
"As Carson notes in his Intro to the New Testament, p 171.:
The constant allusions to the Old Testament show that John's intended readership is biblically literate; his translation of Semitic expressions (e.g., 1:38, 42; 4:25; 19:13, 17) shows he is writing to those whose linguistic competence is in Greek. His strong denunciation of the "the Jews" cannot be taken as a mark against this thesis: John may well have an interest in driving a wedge between ordinary Jews and (at least) some of their leaders. The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway: salvation is still said to be "from the Jews" (4.22), and often the referent of "the Jews" is "the Jews in Judea" or "the Jewish leaders" or the like. "Anti-Semitic" is simply the wrong category to apply to the fourth gospel: whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, not on race. How could it be otherwise, when all of the first Christians were Jews and when, on this reading, both the fourth evangelist and his primary readers were Jews and Jewish proselytes?"
[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ajews.html]
I would definitely recommend you check out that website, since it demonstrates what a mature, well-rounded analysis of the issues might lead one to believe.
Spong seems to be projecting modern standards on the text, and while I'm sure its certainly true that many people misused the text for their own bigoted agendas, that has no bearing on the original intent of the gospel.
IF said...If you really want me to, I can deal with the post when I have time, however, I'm simply explaining why I don't take Mr. Spong seriously in general.
And I'm presenting you one of the many things he's written. I could continue on with this for a long time but I won't. I'm saying you are ignorant to dismiss his arguments. They are based on liberal critical scholarship, and I can prove this to be generally the case too, if I cared to do so by showing which scholar says the exact same thing, if need be.
Now to my contention about "the Jews."
IF said...Such language might not make sense to us on the surface (at least for those of us with a bone to pick...), but it made perfect sense to people of that time.
Well, well. That's the apologetical defense I get whenever I cannot accept something in the Bible because of ancient standards that modern people reject. As you'll see in my book, I consider this defense the Achilles' Heel of Christianity. When you finally get to that part you'll see what I mean. Really, if by our more rigorous, logical, scientific and civilized standards today we cannot accept what we find in the Bible, then what does God expect from us? The standards of the Bible are barbaric, uncivilized, less than rational, and superstitious, and God still want me to believe the Bible is true? I can't lower my standards. I just can't do it.
Read D.A. Carson's gerrymandering closer, much closer, and note that which he assumes, the wrong things, and that's the difference. Then he states that "The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway," which means he admits that there is anti-semitism there.
As I argue in my book we're dealing with control beliefs which make all the difference in how we approach an issue like this. I argue that my way of seeing things makes much more sense out of the data.
This is totally lame and off topic, but I have always wanted to know, and now is as good a chance as I will ever get -- does anyone know how John Spong actually pronounces his last name? I feel like a moron whenever I try to talk about him because I havent been able to find it anywhere.
Does it sound like "sponge" -- as in, er, well -- "Spongebob Squarepants", I guess (yes, I have kids, why do you ask? Oh, barnacles....)
Anyway, awny help would be appreciated! We now return to your regularly scheduled thread
:)
Richard
"And I'm presenting you one of the many things he's written. I could continue on with this for a long time but I won't. I'm saying you are ignorant to dismiss his arguments."
Perhaps, but I don't see how.
Which might either be because I'm too ignorant, or I haven't been shown by I'm wrong, or some combination thereof.
"They are based on liberal critical scholarship, and I can prove this to be generally the case too, if I cared to do so by showing which scholar says the exact same thing, if need be."
The arguments I criticized are backed up by liberal scholars? I'll take your word for it, and consider it another reason to reject liberal-thinking. :)
I sincerely doubt, for instance, that a liberal would defend the notion that stealing is the same thing as being willingly given something.
If you're referring to your post on Judas, then that's fine. As I said, I hadn't had time at the moment to read the entire thing and digest it. So its quite possible that he has a sound argument. I'm willing to trust you that he supports his argument with liberal scholarship as well.
"Well, well. That's the apologetical defense I get whenever I cannot accept something in the Bible because of ancient standards that modern people reject. As you'll see in my book, I consider this defense the Achilles' Heel of Christianity. When you finally get to that part you'll see what I mean."
I remember reading the title of that chapter, but I hadn't the foggiest idea what that chapter was about. I guess I know now. Way to ruin it for me! :)
"Really, if by our more rigorous, logical, scientific and civilized standards today we cannot accept what we find in the Bible, then what does God expect from us?"
Well, in reference to my specific point that they lived in a "Dramatic Oriented" society, this seems like little more than cultural snobbery. Our science and logic has nothing to do with the issue at hand, so it seems to me you simply feel "too civilized" to accept a book written by such brutes.
And that's fine, if that's your opinion on the matter, I'm not going to try to argue this point with you in your comments section.
I can address such a viewpoint when I review your book. For the time being, however, my aim was to point out that Spong's argument that John is anti-semitic is baseless.
"Read D.A. Carson's gerrymandering closer, much closer, and note that which he assumes, the wrong things, and that's the difference."
Can you clarify this for me? I don't want to sound stupid, but I don't quite follow...
"Then he states that "The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway," which means he admits that there is anti-semitism there."
He also states, "whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, not on race" (whatever hostilities are present are not based on race, that pretty much excludes any hostilities from being based on race...) ""Anti-Semitic" is simply the wrong category to apply to the fourth gospel:"
I believe that in the larger context, the phrase "anti Jewish" wasn't being used in the sense of racism. Which is why Carson distinctively uses the phrase "anti-Semitic" as opposed to "anti Jewish". This distinction is based on the duality of "Jew" as both nationality and religion.
But regardless, you and Spong would have readers believe that Jews spreading the Gospel to Jews included anti-Semitic language which would ultimately alienate Jews which is the exact opposite of the goal of the Gospel, seeing as it was meant to reach the Jews?
I believe you pronounce "Spong" as you would "long".
Dear Richard M.,
Spong very much rhymes with "bong," though it is commonly pronounced in its more specific form as "heretic." Of course, I jest. There is no specific form.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
To make a long story come to an end here for me, just like Spong I too am suspicious of Judas Iscariot the betrayer in the New Testament. And I once again affirm Spong is a very good popularizer of liberal and critical scholarship. Just off the top of my head you can read what Robert M. Price says about Judas in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pp. 306-310; Uta Ranke-Heinemann in Putting Away Childish Things pp. 122-129; and John Dominic Crossan in Who Killed Jesus? pp. 71-75. [In case you haven't heard of Ranke-Heinemann, she was the first woman professor of Catholic theology, and taught at the University of Essen in Germany]. While you will disagree with them all, YOU CANNOT SAY THEY ARE NOT SCHOLARS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES INVOLVED. And Spong's argument is much the same as theirs.
For my part I just find it very implausible that an American would say to Americans, "You Americans are children of the devil." Or that someone would tell a tale about an American (Mark Twain?) in an American society and then say "For fear of Americans no one spoke openly of him.”
Is it possible that this was some sort of acceptable discourse? Well I suppose, even if I just cannot see how. But at some point I gave up trying to base my faith on what was possible, and decided to believe what is most probable.
Apologists retreat to what is possible to defend what they believe far too many times...just like Jim Carrey did in the movie "Dumb and Dumber." The girl of his dreams said he didn't have a "one in a million" chance with her, and he smiled and responded, "so there is a chance." Of course there's a chance. But it's very improbable.
J.Loftus, thoroughly enjoyable piece of writing & excellent 'post' in trying to explain the "Veracity" of this "Narrative" regarding Judas Iscariot. I, for one am in total agreeance with everything that you've written here about this 'biblical' account of it; although i'm not a religious minded person, thought it was a splendidly written explanation of this 'Biblical fable', & you've clearly 'ruffled a few feathers' in the process.....!!!
Interesting post. It's discrepancies such as this that make me wonder how people can claim literal belief in the Bible. You must do a rather complicated dance in order to piece together some sort of ad hoc "true" version of God's Word.
Spong's hypothesis that "what Judas actually did for them could have been accomplished without his assistance" was anticipated by Jorge Luis Borges in his Tres Versiones de Judas (from Artificios, 1944; in English here):
Skillfully, he begins by pointing out how superfluous was the act of Judas. He observes (as did Robertson) that in order to identify a master who daily preached in the synagogue and who performed miracles before gatherings of thousands, the treachery of an apostle is not necessary.
Borges goes on to claim, through his character Nils Runeberg, that Judas was the Word made Flesh, and that his treachery was indispensible for our Redemption. Indeed, Judas made a greater sacrifice than Jesus, because Judas willingly went to Hell to make the Crucifixion possible, whereas Jesus rules in glory at the right hand of his Father.
Of course, Tres Versiones de Judas is fiction. But so is the Bible, and I find Borges' version of Judas just as compelling as that in Scripture, if not more so.
Dear John W. Loftus,
Greetings on this late-autumn morning (and this late-spring morning for you folks down under)!
SPONG ANTI-SEMITIC?
I think I've made myself quite clear here several times. I was jesting when calling Spong a dunderhead; what I wrote is clear enough. Coupled with the fact that I am an Episcopalian, my words suggest I'm a disillusioned Episcopalian disgusted by the rogue liberalism of Mr. Spong; it is pseudo-Christian gnostics of his kind that have damaged the Episcopal Church and its standing in the Anglican Communion. I can have an OPINION about this without needing to justify that opinion here.
Besides, any justification of the claim that Mr. Spong is indeed a dolt would be to succumb to a red-herring, because my "dunderhead" remark is utterly irrelevant to this post.
What is not irrelevant is the one thing every person here who favors Spong's argument has refused to address: Spong is claiming Jews are the source of anti-Semitism. That is just plain-and-simple factual: Spong's argument lays the blame for anti-Semitism on Jews. Yes, he might say that he means just those Jews who identified themselves as Christian; yes, he might be right that these people totally manufactured the gospel records for political, economic and social gain; BUT, the fact remains that the only people who fit this narrative are indeed Jews. Not Gentiles, not Egyptian merchants or Samaritan thugs. Jews.
That no one has even posted a link to where I might see this issue discussed elsewhere here is noteworthy. In fact, it makes me suspicious that folks at DC have never noticed what I have pointed out: If we claim that the New Testament is rife with anti-Semitic language then we are saying that certain Jews are anti-Semitic, and thus, we are blaming "the Jews" for anti-Semitism. THIS conclusion, I will posit, is scandalously anti-Semitic. And since Spong himself argues that these anti-Semitic (e.g., Judas as traitor, inter alia) passages were amended to the gospel narrative circa 70 A.D., then we are forced to admit that Spong has made no claim that these allegedly anti-Semitic passages come from anyone other than Jews.
_________________
REGARDING MY IGNORANCE
Now, John W., you might think me ignorant, which is your prerogative. But let me say this myself: I am ignorant.
That having been said, I am not ignorant of the internal problems with Spong's own exegesis here. He does indeed commit a non causa pro causa fallacy (essentially the fallacy of confusing correlation with causality); and he does argue from gnostic if not materialistic presuppositions that have nothing to do with what he's concluded from his research of Christian tradition. He BRINGS his bias to his scholarship; and nothing proves his blindness like the very egregious blunder he's made, namely, that he blames Jews for anti-Semitism!
I would also like to point out that you come dangerously close -- I think -- to committing the fallacy of appealing to authority when you cite either Spong's allegedly impressive "27 pages" or the volume of material presented by other biblical critics. As you know, I am not interested in what is OUTSIDE this Spong excerpt you've cited; my concern is with what is cited. And what I can say is this: I have examined it on its own and it is pathetic.
You may disagree, and for that I will neither insult you as you have insulted me, nor will I even suggest that we need to agree with each other. You are utterly free to conclude what you wish to conclude. I even applaud that: If you follow facts and premises you believe are sound and uncorrupted from bias and land on a conclusion with which you are comfortable, then I am thrilled for you. I've said it several times to you since we've "met:" I am genuinely glad that you are at peace with your beliefs. I am even jealous of your certainty.
___________________
ABOUT THE ALLEGED ANTI-SEMITISM OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
Forgive me if I take a moment to state that I believe the introduction of alleged anti-Semitism in the gospel of John is off-topic. The question is whether Spong's article is convincing. But since you believe this is germane -- and it is in a much broader discussion -- then I will attempt a reply.
First, as has already been said by IrishFarmer, there is no evidence in the gospel of John that the phrase "the Jews" is hate speech. And I will use the term "hate speech" here since you've already permitted your modern/post-modern standards to guide you in this study. After all, you wrote --
"Really, if by our more rigorous, logical, scientific and civilized standards today we cannot accept what we find in the Bible, then what does God expect from us? The standards of the Bible are barbaric, uncivilized, less than rational, and superstitious, and God still want me to believe the Bible is true? I can't lower my standards. I just can't do it."
Hence, it is only fair of me to use a more recent phrase like "hate speech."
Is using "the Jews" hate speech? I doubt it, nor do I even think it implies hate (at least in the sense of people deserving hate).
Second, I have long been under the no doubt mistaken impression that the entirety of the New Testament was written and assembled for Christians. It was not written to anyone but believers, be they Jewish believers or Gentile. The redactor of Matthew might have shaped his material gleaned from Mark, Q and other sources to interest more Jewish readers; while the redactor of Luke might have shaped his material more toward a Gentile audience; but the fact remains that the New Testament is for Christians. In other words, it is a written repository of Christian lore, history and teachings given to believers, to folks already IN. The New Testament is not meant to impress outsiders; it is not a defense or apologia. There is nothing in it intended to convince the unconvinced; it is not a polemic aimed at skeptics or "sinners." (Nearly all of my Christian friends, especially my more evangelical ones, squirm a bit when I tell them that not one sentence of the New Testament is aimed at non-believing readers.)
Hence, St. John's use of "the Jews" is meant solely to distinguish those who were not receptive of Jesus' teachings from those who were.† Had John used "the Jews" to also refer to those folks who accepted and followed Jesus (i.e., the readers themselves), then all hellish confusion would result: Who is (Jesus or) John talking about?
So, by the time of John's Gospel, his readers were those who were Jews by birth and cult but no longer defined themselves by anything other than their allegiance to the Jewish Messiah. Hence, we can understand why John uses "the Jews:" these were those who did not define themselves by the Messiah. "The Jews" were simply those who did not believe.
Surely this is textually evident: the redactor of John is making distinctions between those who accept and those who don't. That's it. That's all. No racial slur is intended. It's merely a literary device to assist the Christian reader (and it works even if the reader is a Gentile). It may indeed be a latent "us versus them" sort of issue, but it is hardly anymore hateful than that used today between politicians: "You know, 'the Republicans' are not to be trusted." In fact, it is far more innocuous.
That anyone should find these words in St. John's gospel as signals for hatred says more about the person who hears hate where there is only a literary device meant to distinguish players in a narrative.
That, at least, is my opinion. Heaven knows, I am grateful that you have your own.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
†Please note that I am not saying that John 8 is easy, clear or without difficulty. There is some very heavy stuff going on if the report is at all remotely accurate (since most people here think it isn't, then it can't be accurate even in a negative way). It is clear to me that the redactor slips between "the Pharisees" and "the Jews" rather freely; the redactor also says "the Jews who had believed (pisteuO) [Christ]." (v.31) We even see Jesus being called a demon-possessed Samaritan, which, if true, is a profound slur -- especially if Jesus is indeed "the Jews'" TRUE father in the flesh. In short, this is a tough set of verses, and they are dripping with theological import. There can be nothing easy or even immediately clear about them; I am even open to the idea that this passage is possibly more obscure because of the way it was redacted. But to see these verses as somehow basal to anti-Semitism in general is to do eisegesis, I think.
Bill, I tire of seeing otherwise intelligent people trying to defend what cannot be defended because of their Christian biases.
Bill said...What is not irrelevant is the one thing every person here who favors Spong's argument has refused to address: Spong is claiming Jews are the source of anti-Semitism.
No he’s not! Who wrote the Gospel of John? Surely you don’t think the apostle John did? According to Dwight Moody Smith, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation; Divinity School; Duke University: “Most modern scholars do not think that the Gospel is apostolic in origin.” Now it’s one thing for him to say he doesn’t think John the apostle was the author. He’s saying most scholars don’t think so, and given the fact that an overwhelming number of Biblical scholars are believers then the very fact that most of them don’t think John was the author is very telling. But this is a discussion for another time. Have you read up on this issue? I’ll bet Spong, that "invertabrate dunderhead," could deflate your own certainty on this issue.
Bill said...Spong…BRINGS his bias to his scholarship; and nothing proves his blindness like the very egregious blunder he's made, namely, that he blames Jews for anti-Semitism!
Bias? I spend half of my book defending why I approach the Bible with a skeptical bias in the first place. You can read about it here, and keep in mind this is just a summary of my argument, okay? I know more than I can tell, and I didn’t tell all I know there. YOU have a bias too, so don’t claim he and I have something you don’t. I doubt very much you have any good reasons for starting with your biases. If you do, I’d like to compare notes.
Bill said...As you know, I am not interested in what is OUTSIDE this Spong excerpt you've cited; my concern is with what is cited. And what I can say is this: I have examined it on its own and it is pathetic.
And that is entirely unfair! I provided an excerpt out of a book, which should be judged in light of everything he’s written. But that's all I can provide, an excerpt, since I cannot post everything he's ever written, dunderhead (sometimes an obtuse person needs a taste of his own medince). That’s all it is…an excerpt. It cannot be anything more than that. AND IN AN EXCERPT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE OBJECTIONS SOMEONE MIGHT THROW AT IT. If you think what you do is fair then may I suggest you write something on your blog and deal with all of the objections I could possibly throw at it, and if you fail, I would be right to once again call you a dunderhead for not thinking of these objections by dealing with them originally (like you did Spong, and by extension me, since I recommend his writings). Try it and we’ll see. If you respond that I shouldn’t have provided any excerpt at all then what would you have me do? Nothing? An excerpt is an excerpt and that’s all it can be, and from that excerpt it is obvious he knows something about scholarship and he offers good reasons for being skeptical about Judas, even if you disagree. YOU are the pathetic one! I think I have more than established this with your reasoning skills.
Bill said...I am genuinely glad that you are at peace with your beliefs. I am even jealous of your certainty.
Again I have never affirmed I am certain of what I believe, dunderhead. In fact, I have denied it at least twice already in discussions with you! And I am not affirming with certainty that Judas didn’t exist either.
Bill said...(Nearly all of my Christian friends, especially my more evangelical ones, squirm a bit when I tell them that not one sentence of the New Testament is aimed at non-believing readers.)
Okay, I suspect you have some gerrymandering to do here, because that sentence is but an excerpt of what you may want to claim. But based on this excerpt of your argument I think not. What about John 20:21? No doubt you’ll say this was written to believers, but how much ground can you actually get out of your claim? Of course the NT was written to Christians, but the over-all goal was to fulfill the great commission. And doesn't Billy Graham ask unbelievers to read the Gospel of John in his rallies? Why do you think he does? The gospel writers are called "evangelists" for some reason, and the NT contains many arguments in debates that are recorded to help convince people and by extension to help the readers convince still other people. And to think that you denigrate Spong?! I’d say most all of the people I’ve read who denigrate Spong reveal that they are ignorant and he is not, so far, you included. You waste my time, for either what you said is obvious and doesn’t need to be stated except that you simply love to debate and have a lot of time on your hands, or it means something more than that the NT was written to believers.
"The Jews" were simply those who did not believe.
It’s more complicated than that, but if you have a concordance you can do the study for yourself. Dust it off and look under the Greek or English word “Jews.”;-)
The fact that we find so many references to “the Jews” in the fourth gospel when compared to all three Synoptic gospels should tell you the theme was important to the author(s). But since there are positive references to Jews as well as denigrating references, the most probable interpretation of them is that the book went through different stages, and the final redactor of this gospel didn't harmonize how they were all used. We are all inconsistent and don’t realize our inconsistencies. Can YOU explain why there are both positive and negative meanings to “the Jews” apart from this? Or maybe you can harmonize them into one single meaning? I can’t. Want to try? Do that study and report back to class.
Now, I’ve got better things to do, don’t you?
Dear John W. Loftus,
Immediately you misrepresent what is going on here. It is irrelevant that John DID NOT WRITE THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Please note that I have already conceded this point. The ONLY relevancy is Spong's tacit conclusion: Jews created anti-Semitism. That's Spong's conclusion, not mine. Moreover, Spong -- YOUR MAN! -- posits that the offending texts were written no earlier than 70 A.D.; he does not suggest that they are written much later. Thus, the only folks who could be writing this stuff are Jews; THEREFORE, Jews are the source of anti-Semitism.
That you have not yet showed me that you or anyone else here have EVER before noticed this conclusion is telling. And it also means this: the argument presented by Mr. Spong is intrinsically anti-Semitic.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill said...Moreover, Spong -- YOUR MAN! -- posits that the offending texts were written no earlier than 70 A.D.; he does not suggest that they are written much later.
This is an agument from silence about an excerpt. You could settle this whole debate by showing us where in this except he dates the fourth gospel, dunderhead.
Bill said...Thus, the only folks who could be writing this stuff are Jews; THEREFORE, Jews are the source of anti-Semitism.
Not true at all. How does that follow? The word "ONLY" is a very large claim and the larger the claim the harder it is to defend. If the offending gospel material was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the scattering of the Jews, then what reasons do you have that the authors were Jews at all, especially the final redactor? More to the point, since we're talking about Spong, where does he say that Jews wrote these passages?
It's surprising to me that a person who calls Spong an "invertabrate deunderhead" (and me by extension), does not know what he is talking about.
Dear John W. Loftus,
After reading the totality of your most recent response to me, I am puzzled how you have been able to turn this discussion into a debate about who wrote the Gospel of John. (In the post dated Dec. 11 at 11:00 AM, I referred to the author as the "redactor".) Where have I ever said that John wrote that fine work? Did I? Have I? And how is that relevant, anyway? The point is solid and solidly made: the only source for anti-Semitism in Spong's argument are "the Jews" themselves.
If you would like to enlighten me as to how this is all utterly preposterous, well, honestly, I am listening. But I think my point is incontrovertible. If you have evidence that someone other than Jews wrote the offending passages and that these folks were vile enough to disguise hate speech as Holy Writ, then please do so.
But if you can't, then you have Spong's very ugly -- albeit subtle -- conclusion that is actually not so subtle, a conclusion that instantly puts Spong in a very bad light.
My only question to you here regarding anti-Semitism in the gospels has nothing to do with apostolic authorship. What it has to do with is who is to blame for anti-Semitism in the New Testament.
So, who is responsible for anti-Semitism in the New Testament?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
"Is it possible that this was some sort of acceptable discourse? Well I suppose, even if I just cannot see how. But at some point I gave up trying to base my faith on what was possible, and decided to believe what is most probable."
I think that Glenn Miller makes a powerful case that this is so.
"While you will disagree with them all, YOU CANNOT SAY THEY ARE NOT SCHOLARS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES INVOLVED."
Nor would I want to. I would never deny that a scholar is a scholar, I would only deny that all scholars are immune to criticism.
"Apologists retreat to what is possible to defend what they believe far too many times"
Spong is retreating to the possible to bolster his case. Everything he says is "possible" to varying degrees of probability, so I don't see the difference.
The question isn't whether these things are only possibilities, that much is undeniably true, the question is whether or not they are probably true.
" & you've clearly 'ruffled a few feathers' in the process.....!!!"
I've never understood this insinuation that if Christians stand up for their beliefs under attack, their "feathers" must have been "ruffled".
Dear John W. Loftus,
OK. Let us say that Spong DOES NOT date the fourth gospel. OK. Fair enough. How is THAT relevant? Besides, the issue at hand HAS NOTHING to do with the fourth gospel. The issue is about Judas Iscariot, and Spong does indeed date that at the 8th decade AD.
That means he has dated it around 70 A.D.
So the question STILL remains: Who is responsible for the Judas Iscariot addition that Spong deems anti-Semitic if not "the Jews?"
This is the nub of my argument, and I've done nothing ridiculous here. There is no cheating, no sleight-of-hand. I am utterly fair with the material.
Spong believes that the gospels contain anti-Semitic verses. OK. Let me say he's right. Now, we are still left with this question: Who wrote them?
I await someone's reply.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill said...So, who is responsible for anti-Semitism in the New Testament?
Christians, silly. It couldn't be Jews. And because of this it is not I who has the burden of proof to show otherwise. It's obvious that Jews did not do this. So if you want to maintain Jews did, you have the burden of proof to show why they would do such a thing.
Dear John W. Loftus,
I am glad you said that Christians are the source of anti-Semitism. I finally have an answer.
So what this means is that all decent Bible scholars agree that the gospels are not Semitic in origin. They are Gentile in origin. Christianity is the construct of Gentiles, in toto. That is the only way we can explain the presence of anti-Semitism in the New Testament: it comes from the exclusively Gentile Christian authors who also happen to hate Jews.
Does this sound right to you? I defer to your expertise in the field of Biblical scholarship. Do all the scholars you find compelling -- and the ones Spong allegedly draws from -- agree that the gospels in particular are non-Semitic in origin?
And how is it "obvious" (your word), from all you know about biblical origins, that the gospel writers were not Jewish? Have you written about this elsewhere, that the Jews were not the source for these anti-Semitic verses, and that the gospels are Gentile in origin? Perhaps you could post a link to what you've written that explicitly explores what is obvious to you and clearly obscure to me.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill, I'm going to let Spong have the last word. Keep in mind this too is an excerpt, and from my reading of the scholars it is completely in sync with what they argue for as the best explanation of all the data.
When speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Spong wrote:
"The Jews lost everything in the Roman devastation of the first century: their nation, their holy city, their temple, their priesthood...
At the time of this tragedy, the followers of Jesus, who were still predominantly Jews, blamed the orthodox party in Judaism for bringing this disaster upon their nation. At the same time Roman hostility toward and persecution against those Jews whom they believed to be responsible for the hostilities was rampant. To separate themselves from being identified with the orthodox party, the Jewish followers of Jesus decided to tell the Jesus story by saying that they too had been victimized by these rigid temple Jews. The same people who brought this war on our nation had earlier been responsible for the death of our leader, Jesus of Nazareth, said these Jewish revisionists soon to be called Christians, to the Romans; we have a common enemy. If the agenda was to blame the orthodox party for the death of Jesus, and thus to separate themselves in the minds of the Romans from those responsible for the war, how better could they accomplish that purpose than by telling the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation? How better could they seek Roman favor than by whitewashing the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, in their narrative of Jesus' final days, exonerating him of any blame in the death of Jesus? So Pilate, in the developing gospel story, was portrayed as washing his hands, proclaiming himself "innocent of this man's blood" (Matt. 27:24). The Jewish crowd was portrayed as accepting the blame: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). The shift in blame was complete. The Jews did it. They are the enemy. Judah/Judas did it. He is the enemy. Pilate was and the Romans are our friends...
To survive in a hostile environment, the Christians courted the favor of the gentile Roman government, painting Pilate sensitively and positively while they helped shift the blame for Jerusalem's destruction onto the laps of the orthodox authorities. So Judas, the antihero, was born and the fate of the Jews in history was sealed. The Christians could hate the Jews with impunity; they could persecute them with a clear conscience; they could make their self-centered quest for survival appear to be an act of morality and virtue. That is how anti-Semitism was born. That is how it was destined to grow: it was fed year after year when the story of Jesus' passion and death was read anew to justify again and again Christian violence against Jews.
That is the ultimate seed out of which this Christian prejudice has grown. That is the source out of which all the hostility toward the Jews has flowed. That is what allowed Christians to tolerate and even to celebrate a violent, killing anti-Jewish undercurrent that would emerge in chilling horror in the writings of the church fathers, in the Crusades, in the Inquisition, in the response to the bubonic plague, in the writings of reformers like Martin Luther and in the Holocaust. Judas is our clue. Christians took the life of one disciple who had the name of the entire nation and made him the Antichrist, thereby avoiding their own persecution as Jews by the conquering Romans, and that act brought the annual infusion of bigotry and a killing anti-Semitism into the essence of Christianity. The sin of anti-Semitism was thus transformed into a virtue in Christian history."
Bill your last comment unfairly characterizes what I have claimed, and so I'll not comment on it. Doing so would be a waste of time.
Since this whole thread is about Spong's argument, I'm done here.
No doubt you'll try to gain some ground in that I said Christians did it while Spong argues revisionist Jews did. When it comes to Mark he's right, but the fourth gospel is another story altogether. Besides, according to Paul there was no longer Jew nor Greek, but Christian.;-)
If the following passage is seen in the light of destruction of the Temple, it could surely shed some light on this subject.
Mat 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and [my] fatlings [are] killed, and all things [are] ready: come unto the marriage.
Mat 22:5 But they made light of [it], and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated [them] spitefully, and slew [them].
Mat 22:7 But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
I meant to say that was from the Blue Letter Bible.
Dear John W. Loftus,
I thank you for the lengthy Spong quote; I've read it before, but it is helpful here.
It should be abundantly clear now that Spong does not know what he has done: He has, indeed, blamed "the Jews" for anti-Semitism. Yes, he does indeed call them Christians, but the fact remains he believes these are Jews who fabricated a story in order to gain political advantage after the destruction of the Temple. That these (Christian) Jews are trying to curry favors from the Roman powers at the time is evident; that they are Jews is, too.
Hear Spong for himself:
"the Jewish followers of Jesus decided to tell the Jesus story by saying that they too had been victimized by these rigid temple Jews."
So, anti-Semitism is a Jew-on-Jew crime, according to Spong. And remember, the "Christians" don't REALLY believe that Christ is raised from the dead; they are making it all up to deceive. But who are these 'fabricated' and 'fabricating' Christians? Of course, they're those lying, sneaky Jews. (And it is for this reason that I called Spong an anti-Semite of the first order.)
Look, this has been an entirely unnecessary debate, in my opinion. I have asked the question since my first comment here whether it was fair of me to point out that Spong has unwittingly blamed the Jews for creating the anti-Semitic passages of the New Testament. That point is now proven (or maybe he knows he proved this but does not care he has).
It is for these sorts of arguments that I dismiss Spong (and others). He did not see the implications of his own argument which ran full circle: He points at Jews as the source of all anti-Semitism. He is also blaming Jews for giving the West the bane of all right thinking people, Christianity.
I believe with my whole heart that you do not agree with him now that you've seen what he's done. I believe also that you do not see him as nearly as competent as he first appeared. I do not think you are even remotely anti-Semitic, nor do I think Spong means to be. My beef with him is that he thinks he's done something helpful when in fact he has done something disastrous and even evil. Again, I am not saying he meant to do it, I am saying that he is not a good thinker. (And this is just one of his many blunders.)
And what I am ultimately saying is this: In my opinion, after debating with you for a couple of weeks, you, John W. Loftus, are way too good for Spong. He is your inferior.
You should exSponge Spong from your site.
That is my opinion, of course.
Be well, and know that I have nothing but respect for you.
Peace, always.
Bill Gnade
Bill,
Very nicely done! Anyone who is skeptical about the historicity of the New Testament can be labeled an anti-Semite since they are doubting the veracity of the Jews who wrote it. It naturally follows that evolution is not only an atheistic theory; it is an anti-Semetic one as well since it contradicts those Jews who wrote the book of Genesis. What more could one ask of apologetics than to put skeptics on the defensive without dealing with any facts whatsoever?
Vinny ive come to this blog on and off for over a year. Im pretty sure what you just did was probly the greasiest and most straw-man type of comment ive ever seen.
Bill, read some of Flavius Josephus' works, especially Wars of the Jews Book V, chapters 1, 3, & 6? See here for your convenience.
Josephus describes the seditions inside of the walls of Jerusalem as the Roman army attacked around 70 A.D. Inside those walls the Jews were fighting each other and killing each other while the Romans advanced on them. He tells us:
"....internal sedition did not cease even when the Romans were encamped near their very wall. But although they had grown wiser at the first onset the Romans made upon them, this lasted but a while; for they returned to their former madness, and separated one from another, and fought it out, and did everything that the besiegers could desire them to do; for they never suffered any thing that was worse from the Romans than they made each other suffer; nor was there any misery endured by the city after these men's actions that could be esteemed new. But it was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown, while those that took it did it a greater kindness for I venture to affirm that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition, which it was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls; so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people, and the just vengeance taken on them to the Romans; as to which matter let every one determine by the actions on both sides."
Josephus himself was a Jew, and yet he blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the Jews themselves! War and the art of survival makes people say and do things they wouldn't say and do under saner conditions. Josephus may have embellished his story since he was now in the service of the Roman army, who knows? If so, he did nothing different than those early Jewish Christians who sought to distance themselves from those Jews who caused the war. After all, the Jews who fought the Romans were so different than they were that it would be easy to disown them anyway! And they did, because they were followers of a new peaceful creed. You surely know the history of creedal violence and religious wars to know that creeds sometimes trumped all other relationships in more ancient days.
But if Josephus' account is accurate and true, then Jews hated and killed other Jews because they held different ideas inside the walls of Jerusalem as an external enemy fought them, and that's suicidal hatred of each other!
So I do think Spong is correct about the source of anti-Semitism. He is also correct to note that the figure of Judas and the writings of the Gospels have been taken out of context and misrepresented to apply to all Jews everywhere. Surely this was not their intention. When I was a Christian I could clearly see that these statements should not be applied to Jews as a whole. Are YOU saying they do? Surely not! If Spong is correct, this only means Jews distanced themselves from the other Jews of their time, Jews whom they may have had an extreme dislike for, in order to save their lives. The anti-Semite tradition grew among the Gentile Christians, no doubt, but the earliest tradition was not as blatant. Spong traces the development of this in the first passage I quoted from earlier. The early church took it to extreme ends.
You are not taking in all of the facts. But Spong stands well within what I've read from the scholars on these issues, even if there isn't complete agreement between all of them on these issues.
Now, can we move on? If not, I'll judge your persistence here as indicative of someone who just likes to argue. We've run aground. There isn't much more we should have to say.
Now, if you'll start over again from the beginning you'll at least see that Spong 1) stands within the consensus of the scholarly community, even if you disagree with us all; 2) that neither he, nor I, nor any of the other critical scholars are dunderheads, even if you disagree with us all; and 3) that your charge of anti-Semitism leveled at early Jewish Christians has a very good rejoinder, even if you still disagree.
What I wonder to myself is that if you were as well read as you claimed to be, and anyone who claims the opposing side is an "invertebrate dunderhead" does just that, then why did I have to spend so much time bringing you up to speed on this issue? You should already have known what the arguments are! If this is the case, then you just like to argue. I won't tolerate it coming from you in the future. If this is not the case, then YOU have been shown to be the "invertebrate dunderhead."
You can always say, "Well Spong doesn't argue for this like you do..." But I have seen enough good stuff from him in his books that he surely understands them much better than you...much better.
P.S. Bill, never, and I mean never ever call me or someone who's writings I recommend an "invertebrate dunderhead," or anything like that again, unless you can back it up. The pit bull comes out in me if you do.
If you want a respectful discussion then it will be entirely up to you.
Now...Cheers!
Gordon,
Really? I think that my comment took Bill Gnade's argument to its logical conclusion. Bill calls Spong "an anti-Semite of the first order" because he considers Spong's skepticism about the stories in the New Testament tantamount to calling the people who wrote those stories "lying, sneaky Jews." Since all the books of the Bible purport to be written by Jews, Bill's argument could be used to charge any skeptic with anti-Semitism since any skepticism necessarily questions the factual accuracy of something written by someone Jewish. Since I believe that the Gospels are less than factual and that Spong proposes a reasonable hypothesis for how some of the stories came to be created, I am an anti-Semite by Bill's logic.
Dear John W. Loftus,
I am impressed that you would have spent so much time responding to my query, but what you have presented is not an answer. It looks more like an attempt to hide something. And that something is undeniable: Mr. Spong has inadvertently blamed Jews not only for creating anti-Semitism, he has blamed Jews for CREATING CHRISTIANITY! So, nothing you've said helps here. Josephus merely confirms, he does not weaken.
What is evident is that no one seems to be able to show that my argument here has been anticipated by anyone at DC. And I am not saying anything about the integrity of the passages in the offending gospels; at this point their integrity or application is irrelevant. I have said over and over again that Mr. Spong has blamed Jews for creating hatred of the Jews; and he is blaming Jews for creating that extremely awful thing, Christianity. Hence, I am saying that he is, indeed, an anti-Semite, even if an accidental one.
And if Mr. Spong stands within the consensus of the "scholarly community," as you say, then it follows that the scholarly community blames anti-Semitism on the Jews, too. All this amounts to something very baleful and unhelpful. My observation is that my argument is akin to revelation for these scholars.
Let me just change this a bit.
The standard story is that Christianity -- now considered both a delusion and even a VERY bad thing -- was invented. Christianity is a hoax; there is virtually nothing about it that is rooted in actual historical fact. Since it is an invention, a hoax, it can't help but be a detrimental thing: it has spawned all kinds of oppression and abuse across the globe.
All I've asked here is this: Who is responsible for this deception? And the answer (given to me by Mr. Spong) is that "Jews" are responsible. The deceptive origins of Christianity are Judaic.
Moreover, Mr. Spong has shown that the anti-Semitic passages are born in the womb of Judaism; the scapegoating of Judas Iscariot is a Jewish act, a Jewish corruption.
Hence, two of the world's great evils, Christianity and anti-Semitism, were created by "Jews."
Are you comfortable with this? I don't think so. That is why you have not addressed this directly. Josephus is merely an aside; there is nothing you have offered that brings me up to speed at all.
I am asking you now to confront the issue directly. Nothing I've said is strange; nothing I've posited comes from anywhere but the premises as given. Where am I wrong?
Lastly, it is evident to all readers here that I am not picking a fight or "arguing" because I feel combative. I am arguing a point that I believe is fatal to Mr. Spong's argument. Unless he does not mind blaming Jews for being the source of Jewish misery (and the misery of all those enslaved by Christianity). And I am arguing against something that I think is thoroughly vulgar.
If you would be so kind, I implore you to at least show me how you've dealt with the essence of my argument in any of your books, essays, or web postings. If you can lead me to sources that deal with my claim DIRECTLY, then I will explore those and get back to you on what I've learned. Is that a deal?
Again, I only want material you've drafted that specifically deals with the issue directly.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear VINNY,
Actually, I disagree with you, in part. I am not discussing those who are skeptical of the veracity of Scripture as written by its Jewish authors. Mr. Spong has specifically said that the "Jews" created the Jesus story. Hence, Mr. Spong is not a skeptic. He knows that Christianity is a fabrication, a hoax. This is far more than being skeptical. And it is also the assertion of many non-believers: Christianity is a hoax. Of course, once non-believers begin to explore who is to "blame" for this hoax, well, people start to freak out at the implications.
The fact is that the only people who could have "manufactured" the Jesus story are indeed Jews. If you have any evidence to provide that contradicts this, please bring it forward.
Also, your evolution analogy falls rather flat. Why? Because Genesis actually teaches evolution (though not as fully as Darwin's theory). Most people miss this entirely. Hence, there is no sense in which evolution could be deemed anti-Semitic.
You may disagree with this.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear GORDONBLOOD,
Thanks for commenting. It was indeed a bit of a straw man, but I am hoping it was not nearly as bad as you've said. Admittedly, I've not been here all that long, so I defer to your experience.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill said...I am saying that he is, indeed, an anti-Semite, even if an accidental one.
You are obtuse! Any point I answer of yours you just move on and say that it is irrelevant (you've done this several times here). I've finally answered you even if you disagree with my answer. What the hell is an "accidental" anti-Semite when applied to Spong? He is NO SUCH THING and you should know this! By trying to claim he is one because of his writings about the origins of anti-Semitism in the church is not being fair with him or with the scholarly consensus. He actually denies that the anti-Semitism found in the NT is from God!
Our argument is that anti-Semitism was a by-product of Jewish in-fighting around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in order to stay alive in the midst of the Roman legions, and to pursue evangelism as unhindered as possible. The fact that there was in-fighting and intense hatred between Jews based upon creed is documented by Josephus, even if he's only trying to save his own life. Anti-Semitism grew incrementally in the NT itself up until the fourth gospel and beyond among the early church fathers down to the Holacaust.
That's an answer you reject, but Spong is clearly not an anti-Semite, and he clearly has good reasons for his conclusions even if you disagree. Are you now saying that anyone who disagrees with you is an "invertabrate dunderhead?" That's just plain stupidity, or a stubborness to admit you're wrong like few people I've ever seen before!
There are parallels to be drawn among Americans who fought in the civil war as to how one group of people can hate people of their own kind. Statements made during that era could be used to forever describe either the North or the South if encased in a so-called inspired book. Then would you also be deriding an argument that claims anti-Americanism came from Americans? Sheesh. These questions are simply historical ones. They have nothing to do with whether a scholar is an anti-Semite.
And you still mischaracterize Spong's argument. What the hell does it mean to say he "blamed the Jews for creating Christianity"? And you still haven't reported back on that little word study on "the Jews" to be found in the fourth anti-Semite gospel. How do you account for THAT! And what's your alternative to the anti-Semitism found in the NT, especially the fullest expression of it in the fourth gospel?
Nevermind. I don't want to know. I only wish I could ignore you here. It's proven to be a waste of my time. With the ignorant thinking skills you have exhibited here, no wonder you believe. Because in my opinion that's the kind of thinking skills it takes to believe.
Well, it looks like we've come a long way. One after another of your claims have been answered. The the final one, that Spong and other scholars are anti-Semitic has been answered too, even if you still disagree!
Get the point, okay? You don't have to agree in order to say we have a good argument, or that Spong represents good critical scholarship on a popular level.
So once again, Spong 1) stands within the consensus of the scholarly community, even if you disagree with us all; 2) that neither he, nor I, nor any of the other critical scholars are dunderheads, even if you disagree with us all; and 3) your charge of anti-Semitism first leveled at early Jewish Christians, and then at Spong, has a very good rejoinder, even if you still disagree.
What's left?
Bill,
It has been a few years since I read Spong, but I do not remember anything that would lead me to believe that he considers Christianity to be a hoax. As I recall, he thought that those who had followed Jesus during his earthly ministry truly believed that he had overcome death. I don't think he ever describes the Gospel stories as being manufactured or fabricated. However, there is a long gap between that initial experience and the writing of the Gospels during which stories evolved through being reinterpreted and retold.
Dear John W. Loftus,
You wrote in your penultimate comment:
'What the hell does it mean to say he [Spong] "blamed the Jews for creating Christianity"?'
Well, John, thanks for asking me to clarify. I could be wrong, but I believe Mr. Spong said this:
'"...the Jewish followers of Jesus decided to tell the Jesus story by saying that they too had been victimized by these rigid temple Jews. ...The same people who brought this war on our nation had earlier been responsible for the death of our leader, Jesus of Nazareth, said these Jewish revisionists soon to be called Christians, to the Romans; we have a common enemy. If the agenda was to blame the orthodox party for the death of Jesus, and thus to separate themselves in the minds of the Romans from those responsible for the war, how better could they accomplish that purpose than by telling the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation?'
I am sorry, John, but are you suggesting that the best biblical scholarship does NOT conclude that the "Christ story" was an invention? Do not the very best scholars agree that Christianity is a hoax, a designer religion? For if you say it was NOT a hoax, then you're going to have to admit that it is true. But if you say it is a hoax, then the only perpetrators of that hoax -- given that all the "best scholars" agree when the New Testament (particularly the gospels) was written -- had to have been Jews.
And if that conclusion is reached, then Jews are indeed being blamed for foisting a hate-filled, anti-Semitic religion on the entire world.
What I am gathering from your comments is that you had never noticed this and you do not know what to do with the conclusion. I beg you, John, ignore me, ignore the messenger. Just reply to the argument as if I had not posited it.
Doesn't the quote from Spong above prove without any doubt that he has blamed the allegedly anti-Semitic passages in the Bible on Jews; and does he not also say that those same Jews told the Christ story solely for political gain?
You have only two reasonable options here. Actually, there is a reasonable third.
I am eager to read your reply.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear VINNY,
I think my last comment, the one addressed to John, answers rather definitively that Mr. Spong believes that certain Jews told the Christ story for political gain in strife-torn Jerusalem.
If you look at my last comment, you will see a quote where Mr. Spong admits as much.
Plus, even if we accept your idea, that the gospel changes evolved over time, we are nonetheless left with the questions -- "Who retold and misunderstood and inflated and conflated these stories? who believed what was not only false but foolish? who believed in miracles that did not occur? who created these anti-Semitic passages?" -- we are still left with the same result: Jews did these erroneous things. Or so it is alleged.
At the very least, we can say that Christianity is a deliberate hoax, or it is an accidental hoax. Either way, it is deemed false. As such, someone had to have played a definitive role in creating this delusion. Who?
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill Gnade wrote "For if you say it was NOT a hoax, then you're going to have to admit that it is true."
I believe that is what is known as a "false dilemma."
Bill,
Isn’t the Old Testament filled with stories where the Jewish people suffer as a result of their failure to heed God and His prophets? I cannot imagine anything more natural than for the early Jewish followers of Jesus to conclude that the destruction of the temple was a direct result of the Jewish leaders’ failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. All you need to get the Judas story is a couple of believers who let their imaginations run away with them in much the same way that the 911 conspiracy theorists have convinced themselves that the United States government blew up the World Trade Center.
I have no doubt that Jews in the first century sincerely believed many false and foolish things as did most people of that time. I can acknowledge that fact without being anti-Semitic.
In any case, “an accidental hoax” is an oxymoron.
Dear Vinny,
Yes, you are right, an "accidental hoax" is an oxymoron, and that is why I deliberately used it.
If we take Mr. Spong as our starting point, that Jews "told the Christ story" for political gain, and that this argument represents the very best biblical scholarship, then we can only conclude that Mr. Spong believes that Christianity was intentionally created -- by those who knew it to be false -- and handed down as truth. This means that the only explanation Mr. Spong has given is that Christianity is a hoax.
Hence, if it is not a hoax, Mr. Spong would have to admit Christianity was true -- at least until he came up with some OTHER idea why Christianity is false. But the hoax idea only works once. It is either a hoax or it isn't. If Mr. Spong only posits one option why Christianity is false (Xianity was manufactured), then I am not the one who has created a false dilemma. In fact, the dilemma is real.
But the bottom line in all of this is that the "blame" for the delusion which is Christianity and its attendant anti-Semitism have thus far been laid on the shoulders of Jews.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
I could fill pages in reply to Mr. Gnade's comments, but I shall control myself. Mr. Loftus has responded quite adequately.
I will only state the obvious, that Bill Gnade takes sophistry to new heights, though this should probably not surpise, considering what he has to defend.
What really troubles me, though, are the unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism. Vinny made a comment:
Bill,
Very nicely done! Anyone who is skeptical about the historicity of the New Testament can be labeled an anti-Semite since they are doubting the veracity of the Jews who wrote it. It naturally follows that evolution is not only an atheistic theory; it is an anti-Semetic one as well since it contradicts those Jews who wrote the book of Genesis. What more could one ask of apologetics than to put skeptics on the defensive without dealing with any facts whatsoever?
And Gordonblood replied:
Vinny ive come to this blog on and off for over a year. Im pretty sure what you just did was probly the greasiest and most straw-man type of comment ive ever seen.
Bill, you made a comment here on a post about Hector Avalos. You responded to this comment:
Andrew said...
The people who produced the Bible were barbaric?
The bible was produced by the Jews, who had a lot more advanced ideas of justice than a lot of the surrounding cultures.
So the Jews were barbaric?
Sounds like the same kind of garbage you can find in Mein Kampf.
With this:
Mr. Avalos' arguments are not just anti-Christian, they are indeed anti-Jewish. This smacks of anti-Semitism, of course, but I will not accuse Mr. Avalos of something so dreadful.
You are quite diabolical in the way you first accuse and then retract without really retracting (in fact, you might want to consider if it is not the Holy Spirit whispering in your ear, but an unholy one). Your disingenuousness is enough for me to conclude that your religion truly is irredeemably useless and evil. You seemed to suggest that if one finds certain Old Testament stories (such as that in Numbers 31) barbaric, that one is therefore an anti-Semite. If this is so, then Vinny's comment above was indeed justified, and Gordonblood has again gotten it wrong (he's pretty good at it and gets a lot of practice with his posts here).
If it is not your assertion that someone who finds the Bible barbaric and false (even someone who believes it is a "hoax" as you put it, though that is not my position, but I do believe we are dealing with myth and legend) is therefore an anti-Semite, then I apologize and would simply like a clarification of what you mean and what your definiton of anti-Semitic is.
Finally, I must comment on your Bizarro World interpretation of Genesis:
Also, your evolution analogy falls rather flat. Why? Because Genesis actually teaches evolution (though not as fully as Darwin's theory). Most people miss this entirely. Hence, there is no sense in which evolution could be deemed anti-Semitic.
Not as fully as Darwin's theory! That has got to be the funniest comment I've seen here in a long time. I think the folks who run the new Creation Museum would disagree, but I do know you don't agree with them, and I remember reading you stating somewhere else that the bible is not a science book. Why then the need to state something as ridiculous as Genesis teaching evolution? Again you seem to contradict yourself, deliberately or otherwise. According to the creation myth recorded there, the Sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, birds and sea creatures on the fifth, and land animals and man on the sixth. Even if you see a progression here, birds are on the scene before all land creatures and the stars are created after the earth. You have the first man and woman created from dirt (well, Eve is made from Adam's rib), a talking snake and God cursing the ground after the expulsion from Eden, presumably explaining the existence of unpleasant things like thorns and bee stings.
And could evolution be deemed anti-Semitic if Genesis did get it all wrong and is really (as it clearly is in reality as opposed to Christian fantasy) just the myth of a scientifically illiterate people? You seem to say so from your statement above.
Now, I'm not qualified to comment on what Spong meant, or feels, about Jews. I have not read anything by him and don't plan to. But I must come to vinny's defense here.
Let's take a look at this from the point of view of an atheist and non-dualist. I know it's a difficult headset to get into for a believer, and a dualist, just as it's hard for me to do the reverse, but let's try.
Perhaps it's akin to learning to ride a unicycle: at first, you sit uneasily on the wobbly contraption, your hands on the shoulders of two friends or the walls of a narrow hallway, and pedal jerkily without steering or balancing. After a while, you get more confident, and are able to pedal a few seconds without support. What an insecure feeling, but what freedom you have! Until you fall on your butt.
But once you've learned to do it, even if you fall occasionally, you can get up again, by yourself, and ride where you want to, not just in a straight line.
Bill- let's unpack your last statement from the point of view of a unicyclist/atheist. You say:
But the bottom line in all of this is that the "blame" for the delusion which is Christianity and its attendant anti-Semitism have thus far been laid on the shoulders of Jews.
First of all: what does "delusion" mean? We have all kinds of beliefs that may not be true in every detail- indeed, most of our beliefs outside of formal logic are not perfectly true- but are nonetheless useful. I would say that all religions are "delusions" in that they hold beliefs which are, in my opinion, very unlikely to be true (virgin births, virgins in Jannah, etc.). So yes, Jews are deluded. Christians are deluded. Muslims are deluded, and so forth.
But that does not mean that all religious beliefs are delusions. Many are ways of building societies, which are hard or impossible to improve upon: the Golden Rule comes to mind. Of course, you don't need God to appreciate the utility of such beliefs.
And we atheists, and perhaps Spong as well, also appreciate that we are not infallible either. Most of us have religious friends or even lovers. So if vinny says, or I say, that Jews are to blame for Christianity, that most decidedly does not mean that we are anti-Semitic. Of course Jews are "to blame" for Christianity, at least for part of it; although some place the "blame" squarely on the shoulders of Paul.
Which brings me to the next point: anti-Semitism. Since the Holocaust, there has been a wall of political correctness built around Judaism which makes saying anything the least bit critical about any Jews a sacrilege. This backlash against anti-Semitism is well-meant and often necessary, but it has also exacerbated the flames in the Middle East. Must I say that I deplore the Holocaust, and say that I have many Jewish friends, before I venture to say that, yes, the Jews are also guilty of all kinds of wrongheadedness?
In any case, while the Jews are largely responsible for Christianity (exactly how responsible is one of those questions with so many ramifications as to be unanswerable, imho), I don't think it's realistic to "blame" the Jews for Christian anti-Semitism. Whatever combination of people "started" Christianity (another imponderable), it seems very unlikely that they could have forseen the consequences of what they set into motion. I'm no historian, but imho, anti-Semitism developed because of many factors: the natural enmity of different religions, especially those whose beliefs are similar; the fact that Jews and Christians lived together in Europe for centuries, building friction; and that usury thing, leading to many Jews becoming bankers and thus envied and feared.
No doubt uninformed and way oversimplified, but whatever the case: saying that Jews are wrong is not anti-Semitism. And saying that the Jews invented Christianity does not mean that they invented anti-Semitism.
Bill, you've presented a formula, a caricature for you to shoot down:
"If Jews invented Christianity, and Christians are anti-Semitic, then Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism. To accuse anyone of anti-Semitism is unthinkable, therefore one should not say such things."
Need I remind you that human affairs are a bit more complicated than this?
P.S. I missed sean's post, and I will second what he says: to find an account of evolution in Genesis, one must do a dance of Byzantine sophistication. But that's what apologetics is all about, isn't it? To see the world through Bible-colored glasses requires a logical interface that performs mapping operations of great complexity; and the more one sees, the greater the complexity of the mapping necessary.
Now, we all have stories upon which we base our understanding of the world, atheists as well as believers. But to require everything we observe to jibe with one book written thousands of years ago seems to me to be an exercise in futility.
Bill Gnade wrote "For if you say it was NOT a hoax, then you're going to have to admit that it is true." Vinny responded...I believe that is what is known as a "false dilemma." In any case, “an accidental hoax” is an oxymoron.
Bill Gnade said...Yes, you are right, an "accidental hoax" is an oxymoron, and that is why I deliberately used it.
This is gerrymandering at its best! When caught saying something problematic, just claim it was said knowingly, and when answered on a point move on to another one by claiming the first point is “irrelevant.”
I haven’t got the time to retrace our steps here, but my initial point was that Spong is a good popularizer of scholarly thought. One by one I’ve answered Bill until we’re on the topic of whether the Jews perpetrated a hoax, first suggested in his latest comments. Suspecting this could go on for a long time I'm leaving this discussion unless something of relevance to my original point re-surfaces, or Bill has the intellectual honesty to finally accept my original point and apologize.
What Bill neglects to consider is that ancient superstitious people learned divine truths from dreams and visions. All he had to do is a word study of “vision” in Luke-Acts. Visionaries came up with new thoughts just like the Seventh Day Adventists did to explain why Jesus didn’t return as predicted, and the Mormons did to change their policy regarding polygamy and racism. Do people who believe and preach these new messages think they are perpetrating a hoax? No. God told them. Do people who subsequently believe these visionaries and preach what they said or wrote think they are preaching lies? No.
Just like I’m suspicious that the visionary Mark created the figure of Joseph of Arimathea, so also I’m suspicious he created Judas Iscariot. This represents critical Biblical scholarship, and Spong is a good popularizer of this scholarship.
I do not believe Bill Gnade is an honest discussion partner, although he wants us to think so.
I’m all too happy to let others carry on here. I have better things to do.
Dear Sean Vedder,
Greetings to you, and all goodwill.
So, you think me a sophist, even a devil. What can I say to that? Everything from my pen is mere trickery, mere deception. You have imprisoned me in your categorization; I cannot ever get out of it, can I? Sophists are just sophisticated, they say nothing of import. And to think I've not even yet described what a devil can do. Of course, no one believes in devils.
On the table here is that Mr. Spong has stated that Jews are the source of the scandal which is Christianity: Christianity is the result of the political ambitions of Jews. Part of those ambitions included inserting anti-Semitic references in the gospel narratives. Hence, Mr. Spong has said that both Christianity and its attendant anti-Semitism are Judaic in origin. I did not say these things. He did.
Clearly not a person so far who has commented here has ever noticed this problem regarding either the genesis of Christianity or the genesis of anti-Semitism in the gospels. I am comfortable holding this belief -- that no one has noticed this problem before -- because no one here has produced a single sentence drafted in the past that shows how they've confronted this problem.
Plus, it is quite true that a very important and beloved criticism about the genesis of Christianity is in jeopardy here. You might not think Christianity is a hoax, Sean, but many others do. Their position demands that they tell us who it is that perpetrated this hoax; given that the best biblical scholars pretty much agree when the gospels were written, then the only choice they have is to assert that Jews perpetrated this hoax. Nowhere in the best biblical scholarship do we find a single convincing voice announcing that the gospels were written by Gentiles, especially anti-Semitic Gentiles.
REGARDING EVOLUTION IN GENESIS
You do not know Genesis very well, do you? That's OK. Most people don't see what I am about to show you.
But first, allow me to admit here that I have no problem calling the creation story a myth. I am a literalist (which means that I believe the letters refer to what they do indeed refer), I just don't think that the creation myth is necessarily history. You may think the distinction sophistry, but it is merely sophisticated. True literalism, for example, believes that Jonah was swallowed by a whale; he was not swallowed by a spider. In other words, the letters (the words) tell us what the facts of the STORY are; but the letters do not mean that the story is history. I do not believe that the Jonah story is history in the pure sense.
If you do not yet understand this distinction, then I have failed as a writer. Suffice it to say that my literalism does not mean I take these things as being necessarily historically true, or completely historically true.
That said, Genesis teaches something you have clearly never seen. Of course, if you have seen it before, you are invited to submit here all the times you've noted this in your many discussions on-line or elsewhere.
Read Genesis 1:29-30:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Please note, Sean, what it says: It says that ALL living creatures were created to be vegetarians/herbivores.
I am tempted to think you already know that this is problematic, since one look at the structure of your own teeth proves that not all living creatures are vegetarian.
Now, read Genesis 9:1ff:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
So, in other words, the book of Genesis clearly teaches that biology will indeed change: humans, at the very least, will change from being herbivores to being omnivores. Of course, the implications of what Genesis is suggesting are profound: Humans CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THEY WERE CREATED. I would also suggest that the text even opens the door to the idea that other animals changed as a result of the Fall: animals that were once herbivores became carnivorous. Clearly, if Genesis IS history (which it means to be, in a very sweeping sense), then animals also have changed over time, and Genesis tacitly admits this.
So, as I said, and as I've just proved, Genesis DOES INDEED teach evolution; and though it is NOT as comprehensive as Darwin's theory (which I also said), it predates Darwin by thousands of years.
The only options you have before you is to either accept that Genesis teaches exactly what I said it taught -- evolution, that living things CHANGE over time -- or you have to create some sort of argument that suggests what I've quoted was added to Genesis sometime AFTER 1859. It will be interesting to see which option you choose.
Good luck, Sean. (I am sorry you think me diabolical.)
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
ZILCH,
How are you?! You always show up when you are most needed.
First, you will find that the defense of my assertion that Genesis does indeed teach evolution is hardly Byzantine. It isn't even, as Sean may suggest, one whit serpentine. In fact, today I make a prediction: You learn something about Genesis you never knew before. Maybe not. But I have never boasted that I am a prophet.
You do a very fine job setting up my essential argument with Mr. Spong. But you do not dismantle it.
Here are the facts: Both Christianity and anti-Semitism are considered to be evil, nasty things. Many people who pass through DC believe that Christianity is either a hoax, or a delusion, or some sort of falsehood; but most importantly they believe that both Christianity and anti-Semitism are very, very bad. No one here thinks that the hoax or delusion or falsehood is good.
That said, it follows that whoever created this falsehood, hoax or delusion gave to the world one of the worst -- if not THE WORST -- thing in history. Anti-Semitism (and some would argue Christianity) led directly to the Holocaust in Germany. Am I right so far?
PLEASE NOTE: Mr. Spong has said that the seeds of anti-Semitism (and the Holocaust) were sown in the first century AD. And who sowed those seeds? Jews.
Hence, I am not the one dancing around the squeamishness given us by PC protocol. I am staring at what Mr. Spong has said, and I am staring at it unblinkingly. Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion," was dismissed as being anti-Semitic, and yet no one seemed to notice that the source of the gospels were Jewish authors. I am stating that I am quite certain Jews are not the source of anti-Semitism at all; I am arguing that Mr. Spong's argument has crumbled before everyone's eyes who has read this thread, and they can't believe it. That is why no one is addressing the core of my rebuttal of Mr. Spong. That is why my interlocutors are majoring in minors, like that I used the word "dunderhead" or that I used an oxymoron (anyone that accuses me of shenanigans when I posted "accidental hoax" does not appreciate my skills, though Sean might, since he considers me "diabolical").
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
ZILCH,
I should have said, "...and I am staring at it unflinchingly." I did not mean the tautological, "I am staring at it unblinkingly."
But my mistake is a pretty funny one.
Peace and mirth,
Bill Gnade
Bill Gnade wrote “Mr. Spong believes that Christianity was intentionally created -- by those who knew it to be false -- and handed down as truth.”
Once again, I am unaware of Spong ever expressing such a belief. Bill complains that no one notices or deals with the problems in Spong’s writings but the problems he identifies are his own inventions.
For example, the original topic under discussion was Spong’s hypothesis that the Judas story was created in part to separate early Christians in the minds of the Romans from the Orthodox Jews who had rebelled against the empire. Bill has twisted that into “Christianity is the result of the political ambitions of Jews.” The problem to be confronted is Bill’s twisting, not Spong’s anti-Semiticism.
“Truth or hoax” is the favorite false dilemma of apologetics. John Loftus has refuted the fallacy by pointed out that dreams and visions were often a source of beliefs that were sincerely held without being true. I would just like to note that religious people have a remarkable capacity to sincerely believe things to be facts without any evidence when they need those things to be true in order to support their faith. For example, I know Christians who believe that human footprints and dinosaur footprints have been found together and that homosexuality has been proved to be a matter of choice.
Dear VINNY,
You wrote:
'Once again, I am unaware of Spong ever expressing such a belief. Bill complains that no one notices or deals with the problems in Spong’s writings but the problems he identifies are his own inventions.'
I am sorry if I've not made myself clear. I will try again by quoting Mr. Spong:
'"...the Jewish followers of Jesus decided to tell the Jesus story by saying that they too had been victimized by these rigid temple Jews. ...The same people who brought this war on our nation had earlier been responsible for the death of our leader, Jesus of Nazareth, said these Jewish revisionists soon to be called Christians, to the Romans; we have a common enemy. If the agenda was to blame the orthodox party for the death of Jesus, and thus to separate themselves in the minds of the Romans from those responsible for the war, how better could they accomplish that purpose than by telling the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation?'
For this reader, Mr. Spong is clearly saying that Christianity is some kind of invention. But let me state that he has done no such thing. He has nevertheless said that anti-Semitism is a Jewish creation. Do you think he has not said that? He surely HAS NOT said it was a Gentile creation.
Now, is this an invention on my part? Hardly. I have taken what others here have said represents what the best scholarship has uncovered; I've pronounced that what is uncovered is rife with problems. I have not yet said a thing about the quality of that scholarship, and even if I have my comment would have had to have been minor. I have commented solely on the implications of that scholarship: Jews created anti-Semitism for political gain. That is Mr. Spong's point, even if he does not realize he made that point.
Simple question: Is it not the case that Mr. Spong has said that Jews are the source of the anti-Semitic passages in the Gospels? This is a yes or no question, and it is not a LOADED question. It is bare-bones and frank.
Maybe you will answer it for me.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
In his successful defense of this Trojan Horse, Bill Gnade has raised the level of debate, polite discourse, and dialogue here at DC. Since I presume that you all here do not simply wish to evangelize to the choir, you should expect Christians such as Bill to show up and offer their views.
What is clear though is that some are not equal to the task. When shown the transparency of their arguments, some would rather fold up camp and call it done, rather than fully engaging and fulfilling their commission.
What is also clear is that in so doing, in leaving the debate, with bold and baseless assertions of victory, the commission of debunking Christianity results in nothing more than the debunking of the debunkers.
Bill is an able and worthy debater. What you see in him as a defender of Christian values and Christian teaching, is something you ultimately found lacking in yourself as Christians. Perhaps this is the genesis of the ad hominem style attacks that we see here.
Do not dismiss cogent and thought provoking arguments and responses. Metal sharpens metal. If you want to get better and if you want to survive in this Darwinian type struggle of supremacy, you must engage and you must do it convincingly or the only debunking going on here is of yourselves.
Bill Gnade wrote "Simple question: Is it not the case that Mr. Spong has said that Jews are the source of the anti-Semitic passages in the Gospels? This is a yes or no question, and it is not a LOADED question. It is bare-bones and frank."
Why is it ticking then?
The Jewish followers of Jesus believed that the Orthodox Jews had rejected the Jewish Messiah and were responsible for his death. Is that anti-Semitism? Conservative Christians frequently criticize liberal Christians and blame them for society’s problems. Does that make them anti-Christian? In both cases, it is an internal dispute within a religion rather than an attack on the religion itself. In the case of the first century Jews, the disputes did not remain internal to Judaism. As Christianity spread among the gentiles, it became separated from its Jewish roots, the stories about the Orthodox Jews who rejected Jesus became weapons to attack all Jews.
So I would say that a dispute among Jews was the source for the passages that were later used to justify anti-Semitism. I do not think that the men who wrote down the stories are responsible for the use that was made of them. Moreover, there were also gentile converts to Christianity who would have influenced the development and interpretation of the stories even if the man who actually wrote them down were Jewish.
I have not read Spong recently enough to know how closely he would agree with my formulation of the issue. However, my answer to your question is “No” because I don’t think you have fairly characterized Spong’s position.
Of course, I find it interesting when someone levels a charge that someone else is a racist because she tries to be serious about history and the facts. By those same standards Gnade would have to say Josephus, a Jew, was anti-Semitic because he blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the Jews! What idiocy! Or that Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice, a racist against blacks because he does not support the NAACP's agenda for preferential treatment.
At that point the charge of racism means nothing.
Oh, I see he's talking about Creation now. Maybe when I check back in he'll be talking about the Virgin Mary.
He'll never admit to anything, or apologize to me. His polite demeanor is a subterfuge for a troll.
Dear Vinny,
An excellent reply! Thank you.
You said:
'The Jewish followers of Jesus believed that the Orthodox Jews had rejected the Jewish Messiah and were responsible for his death. Is that anti-Semitism?'
My answer to your question is that it is not anti-Semitism. But what you've written is not what we are talking about. We are talking about INVENTING this scenario (or falling prey to a delusion), not that it was just how folks responded to a legitimate historical event. Mr. Spong indeed says that "Jews" told the Christ story and created anti-Semitic passages for political advantage; he is not suggesting that Jews honestly disagreed with each other about the historical fact of the Incarnation or whether Jesus was a REAL messiah. That, I am afraid, is the orthodox position.
At least, that is my opinion.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
I think I got Spong's position right.
“What looks to the contemporary reader like a rather vehement anti-Semetic polemic in the New Testament was in fact a typical ecclesiastical dispute between traditionalists and visionaries, the closed tradition facing the new challenge. What we tend to forget today is that both parties in this instance were Jews.” The Sins of Scripture p.195
Mr. Gnade,
I do hope you are not truly diabolical, but your response does not give me much hope in that regard.
You do not know Genesis very well, do you?
It's interesting that you can look into my mind and know what knowledge I have or don't have; unfortunately your psychic powers are as nonexistent as those of Sylvia Browne. I am well aware of what Genesis says in the passage you quote, but to find anything more in it than the superstitious explanations of an unscientific age requires the ultimate in scripture twisting skills (which you possess in abundance.) As said in my previous post:
and God cursing the ground after the expulsion from Eden, presumably explaining the existence of unpleasant things like thorns and bee stings. This is the biblical explanation for the origin of "nature red in tooth and claw." I referred to it because it states that the fall was the cause of these things, this change from the lion and the lamb frolicking together peacefully to the less merciful nature we witness today.
That said, Genesis teaches something you have clearly never seen. Of course, if you have seen it before, you are invited to submit here all the times you've noted this in your many discussions on-line or elsewhere.
I decline, for surely even someone of your wisdom can see the question begging in your invitation. As I said, I do not see in this passage or any other what your deluded mind thinks it sees. I know the passage, I simply deny your crazy interpretation of it.
So, in other words, the book of Genesis clearly teaches that biology will indeed change: humans, at the very least, will change from being herbivores to being omnivores.
So? What does this have to do with biological evolution? Where do you get the idea that humans were ever exclusively herbivores?
Humans CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THEY WERE CREATED.
Modern humans have been around and unchanged for basically 100,000 years. To which species are you referring?
I would also suggest that the text even opens the door to the idea that other animals changed as a result of the Fall: animals that were once herbivores became carnivorous. Clearly, if Genesis IS history (which it means to be, in a very sweeping sense), then animals also have changed over time, and Genesis tacitly admits this.
If because of the fall, God changed animals from vegetarians to carnivores, this does not show that the change was the result of biological evolution. I must repeat the fact that humans have been on earth for only about 100,000 years, while the first life emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago. Please explain how the fall was responsible. Were there no predators, no prey, before humans came along?
So, as I said, and as I've just proved, Genesis DOES INDEED teach evolution; and though it is NOT as comprehensive as Darwin's theory (which I also said), it predates Darwin by thousands of years.
You have "proved" no such thing. All you have shown, at most, is that it might be possible, with very creative interpretation, for a believer in the bible to accept the fact of evolution, in spite of the seeming conflict with scripture, nothing more.
The only options you have before you is to either accept that Genesis teaches exactly what I said it taught -- evolution, that living things CHANGE over time -- or you have to create some sort of argument that suggests what I've quoted was added to Genesis sometime AFTER 1859. It will be interesting to see which option you choose.
With this statement alone you prove yourself a sophist ( soph·ist, a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument. 2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.)
I withdraw nothing I wrote before. You are sure good at presenting fallacy as fact, and I thank you for giving us an excellent example of bifurcation (the false dichotomy). I deny that Genesis "teaches" evolution in any way, shape, or form. You say that my other choice is to say that what you quoted "1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." was added to the scriptures after 1859.
Why Bill, how positively stupid of me not to have seen this before. Sorry Mr. Huxley, according to Bill Gnade, the first book of the bible, called Genesis, already explained about evolution by natural selection long before Mr. Darwin set down his theory in The Origin of Species. Look at how he challenges me, stating that if I deny his mere assertion (which he takes to be proof; his word, not mine) that Genesis says this, then I must assume some devious person, perhaps Mr. Gnade himself, slipped those verses in after 1859. I think, Bill, that you know nothing about evolution, for there were ideas of evolution before Charles Darwin, just no scientifically compelling ones. But by your logic, the bible writers must of known about more than mere "change over time" , as in 1859 Darwin gave us natural selection as his explanation of how evolution happens. I'm confused. Can you please give us the relevant verses wherein this stunning knowledge of the bible authors is contained. The only options before you are to admit you were mistaken or to produce the Genesis passage I've requested. It will be interesting to see which option you choose.
Dear Sean Vedder,
I am now certain you know all kinds of things about the book of Genesis. I am remiss for thinking otherwise.
Of course, this question of yours is truly imponderable considering what you claim to know:
'Where do you get the idea that humans were ever exclusively herbivores?'
If you are asking me if I believe humans ACTUALLY were herbivores, then you are asking about something I've not posited. What I asserted was that evolution is already reported in Genesis. You denied my claim. I showed you this:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
And then I showed you this:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
Now, I am sure I've missed something along this long thread that would have prevented me from seeing everything through a great cloud, but I am entirely unclear how you could ask me how I came to have the idea that humans -- according to Genesis -- were initially created as herbivores. I just cited the passages that PROVE this! Hence, you either did not read these passages or you have forgotten what these passages have said. Of course, you must have forgotten what they said because you boasted at the top of your latest comment that you indeed were already well aware of these verses.
Alas, I beg you to tell me what is superstitious (your word) in the early Semitic belief that humans evolved? Clearly the Genesis account proclaims human evolution! And yet, amazingly, you dismiss it as "superstitious." How can this be? No doubt the early Semitic belief was imperfect, but that hardly amounts to superstition. Do you deny what the text says in plain language? Are you asserting that the text says something entirely different?
You ask, "To what species am I (Bill Gnade) referring?" Are you kidding me, Mr. Vedder? What does your question even mean here? The topic of evolution was thrown out by a sarcastic commenter who did not anticipate my retort. My initial statement was rejoined with something like a series of scoffs. Now, after I prove my point -- convincingly and ably -- you ask me a question about SPECIES? What did I say? I said that the Genesis account shows that its authors were utterly comfortable with the idea that humans had changed dramatically from their earliest manifestations. Are you not aware that homo sapiens is not the only "human?" Surely you know that humans have changed dramatically, from one subspecies to the next. Surely you've heard of our cousins, homo habilis or homo erectus. Clearly the 'homo' of 'homo sapiens' evolved over millions of years. So for you to insert your "100,000 years" marker into this discussion is absurd.
Moreover, humans are indeed still evolving -- a lot.
But I am incredulous that you would dismiss my assertion that I have proved Genesis teaches evolution. Why the incredulity? Because to dismiss the assertion is simply to be intransigent. I am not saying that Genesis teaches Darwinian evolution; I made myself perfectly clear on that point. But I am saying that Genesis includes something most of its critics not only miss but miss badly: Genesis teaches that humans have changed over time -- they've evolved.
THEREFORE, Genesis teaches evolution. In that, it is way ahead of its time.
Lastly, you have created a straw man in your closing paragraphs. You are free to do as you wish. But the fact is that I have proven my case. You simply deny it. You do not SHOW that I am wrong, you merely state that I am wrong. Big difference.
You do not know my position about evolution, I would gather. Surely you cannot gather a single bit of information about my position from this comments thread. My sense is that you think me some sort of Young Earth/Six Day Creationist, or, at best, some form of direct and immediate creationist. I am very far from either. And what, do you think it will benefit everyone here if I list what I know about Lamarck, Buffon or Huxley? Do you want me to engage in a game of pedanticism? (No thanks. I stink at that game.)
There was a quip made in this thread that teaching evolution would be considered anti-Semitic (which is the central topic at hand). I countered that it would not be considered anti-Semitic, since evolution is found in Genesis, a very Semitic text. Scoffs followed. But I have proven my case. Therefore, the quip was shown to be rather inept.
Most critics reject Genesis as a meaningful source of knowledge regarding origins because they believe Genesis teaches a static creation. I have shown that it does not teach a static creation. It teaches a dynamic and evolving one; it does so in ancient and vague categories, wrapped in myth.
But it clearly gets something right.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Bill,
While I'm very much a laymen here, I don't see explicit support for your position in Spong's quote.
Spong says...
"...how better could they accomplish that purpose than by telling the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation?'
To support your argument, Spong would have had to have said...
"...how better could they accomplish that purpose than by telling the Christ story since the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bares the name of the entire Jewish nation?'
In no way does Spong explicitly state that Christians invented the Christ story to blame the Jews. Instead, he's saying Christians decided to tell the Christ story with the implication that the Jews were responsible for it's conclusion.
Bill wrote:"Do not the very best scholars agree that Christianity is a hoax, a designer religion? For if you say it was NOT a hoax, then you're going to have to admit that it is true. But if you say it is a hoax, then the only perpetrators of that hoax -- given that all the "best scholars" agree when the New Testament (particularly the gospels) was written -- had to have been Jews. "
You seem to imply the Christ story falls apart if the Romans, or some other faction, were implicated instead of the Jews. Is it your position that the entire story hinges on this single fact?
Bill, you truly are hopeless. Or at least, you seem to be. I would like to think better of you than that what Mr. Loftus said: "I do not believe Bill Gnade is an honest discussion partner, although he wants us to think so," is true.
Let's take another look at your preposterous claim:
You denied my claim. I showed you this:
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
And then I showed you this:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
Yes, of course these passages must be talking about evolution! If Bill Gnade can see it, it must be true, by his word alone. What we see from these verses is simply God giving animals as food as he previously gave plants. If anyone but dear, confused Bill can see that his is unequivocally the only interpretation reasonably possible, please let us know (oh, but we do know, Bill has stated that he has "proved" this to be so, just by stating it!
Bill says:
But the fact is that I have proven my case. You simply deny it. You do not SHOW that I am wrong, you merely state that I am wrong. Big difference.
Perhaps our dear commentator has never heard of the burden of proof. Has Bill PROVEN his case? What else do I have to do to SHOW that these verses do not say what he claims?
Alas, I beg you to tell me what is superstitious (your word) in the early Semitic belief that humans evolved? Clearly the Genesis account proclaims human evolution! And yet, amazingly, you dismiss it as "superstitious." How can this be? No doubt the early Semitic belief was imperfect, but that hardly amounts to superstition. Do you deny what the text says in plain language? Are you asserting that the text says something entirely different?
There was no early Semitic belief that humans evolved, not that anyone has ever shown with reasonable evidence. Bill is begging the question again, and worse. Here is the belief of the bible writers on the origin of man: Genesis 2:7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
And woman: 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 2:19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
There, I have just proven that they did not believe that the human race evolved over millions of years to our present form! I think it is at least as good a "proof" as Bill's.
You ask, "To what species am I (Bill Gnade) referring?" Are you kidding me, Mr. Vedder? What does your question even mean here? The topic of evolution was thrown out by a sarcastic commenter who did not anticipate my retort. My initial statement was rejoined with something like a series of scoffs. Now, after I prove my point -- convincingly and ably -- you ask me a question about SPECIES? What did I say? I said that the Genesis account shows that its authors were utterly comfortable with the idea that humans had changed dramatically from their earliest manifestations. Are you not aware that homo sapiens is not the only "human?" Surely you know that humans have changed dramatically, from one subspecies to the next. Surely you've heard of our cousins, homo habilis or homo erectus. Clearly the 'homo' of 'homo sapiens' evolved over millions of years. So for you to insert your "100,000 years" marker into this discussion is absurd.
Note my statement that he is referring to here: Modern humans have been around and unchanged for basically 100,000 years. To which species are you referring? Do you notice that I said MODERN humans? Bill then asks if I am not aware that homo sapiens are not the only humans that have ever existed. Our cousins are extinct, so what other species could I have been referring to except homo sapiens by my qualification modern? Bill requires exactness only from those who disagree with him, and not when he is writing his own arguments, or quoting bible verses.
But I am incredulous that you would dismiss my assertion that I have proved Genesis teaches evolution. Why the incredulity? Because to dismiss the assertion is simply to be intransigent.
Bill is now guilty of idolatry (or could it be something else)? as he proclaims that to disagree with him is to be intransigent.
I've met fundamentalists more reasonable than this guy!
My sense is that you think me some sort of Young Earth/Six Day Creationist, or, at best, some form of direct and immediate creationist. I am very far from either.
I guess I have to quote myself again, as Bill apparently didn't even read the posts he is responding to in their entirety. I said: I think the folks who run the new Creation Museum would disagree, but I do know you don't agree with them
I am not saying that Genesis teaches Darwinian evolution; I made myself perfectly clear on that point. But I am saying that Genesis includes something most of its critics not only miss but miss badly: Genesis teaches that humans have changed over time -- they've evolved.
THEREFORE, Genesis teaches evolution. In that, it is way ahead of its time.
You can believe in any fantasy you want to. It's a free country (mostly). It seems Bill is confused, he takes any statement where the Bible states that something "changed" (lions eating lambs, where previously they were good buddies; humans now being able, on God's permission, to sit down to a juicy steak instead of a salad) as some kind of evidence in the Bible that what the writers really meant was biological evolution, Darwinian or non-Darwinian.
Lastly, you have created a straw man in your closing paragraphs. You are free to do as you wish.
It was Bill Gnade who said the following:
The only options you have before you is to either accept that Genesis teaches exactly what I said it taught -- evolution, that living things CHANGE over time -- or you have to create some sort of argument that suggests what I've quoted was added to Genesis sometime AFTER 1859. It will be interesting to see which option you choose.
Notice he is the one who choose the year 1859! That was, of course, my point, because he declares that the only way for me to deny his view of these verses is to assume they were included after that date, after The Origin of Species was published. Does he say he admits it was a mistake to name that year, no, he instead accuses me of creating a strawman!
Bill Gnade has a mind lost in utter confusion, and he wants everyone else to go down the same dangerous path. No thanks, Bill!
Good day to you.
Dear Scott,
Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. It is a pleasure to read your comment.
Let me try to state my argument again using something you wrote. This is what you said:
'In no way does Spong explicitly state that Christians invented the Christ story to blame the Jews. Instead, he's saying Christians decided to tell the Christ story with the implication that the Jews were responsible for it's conclusion.'
Fair enough. But the problem as I see it is in your use of the word "Christians." Why? Because these Christians were Jews. Hence, your last sentence (from the above quote) that you drafted could reasonably read:
'Instead, he's saying JEWS decided to tell the Christ story with the implication that the OTHER Jews were responsible for it's conclusion.'
Surely you see the problem. And please note that Mr. Spong is saying that these "Christian" Jews -- (who are not REALLY Christians because they are making up the Christ story; the story is fictive) -- these "Christian" Jews made a decision: there was willfulness in their political subterfuge.
Also, notice that I have argued throughout this thread that Mr. Spong does not even realize the implications of his argument, i.e, that he is blaming Jews for planting the seeds of anti-Semitism (as if the Jewish people do not have enough to bear!), and that his colleagues and supporters don't realize those implications either.
I do not think anything falls apart if the Romans are implicated, because no one has implicated them (no one is arguing that the gospels are a Gentile construct). The "facts" as provided by Mr. Spong lead us to only one conclusion: Jews seeking political advantage over other Jews planted the seeds of anti-Semitism. All Mr. Spong does (and a few others here have done the same) is to call those conniving and opportunistic Jews "Christians." Plus, Christianity is a false religion, no? Hence, Jews created that false religion -- either intentionally or by accident (they were deluded) -- and this false religion was passed down to the world through those Jews.
So, I do not think anything hinges on a particular fact, as you suggest. I am following the leadership of Mr. Spong. As a result of following him, I find that he has led me to a very unpleasant place.
I am curious, Scott. Do you think I am doing any fancy footwork here? I don't see it. This is as simple as simple gets without being simplistic. The only hard part is what this all means, what it portends, for the argument Mr. Spong is proffering. There is something very hard for people to accept about the implications of Mr. Spong's argument, don't you think?
Well, I think so.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
I started off with my first comment on this post by referring to what Vinny had said, and pointed to a post Bill had made on Hector Avalos. I asked Bill to define anti-Semitism, as he had accused (or nearly had) Mr. Avalos of it as well. Bill said:
Mr. Avalos' arguments are not just anti-Christian, they are indeed anti-Jewish. This smacks of anti-Semitism, of course, but I will not accuse Mr. Avalos of something so dreadful.
I had simply asked what he meant, as it seemed to support what Vinny has stated. Mr. Gnade did not give me an answer, which is fine, that is his choice. He did respond on the evolution question, but his passages had no discernible reference to what he claimed they did. So, I focused on that in my reply to him. He asked this question:
You ask, "To what species am I (Bill Gnade) referring?" Are you kidding me, Mr. Vedder? What does your question even mean here?
I must refer to Mr. Gnade's chosen text to really answer this:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
Notice it is a statement to Noah and his family. Bill said:
So, in other words, the book of Genesis clearly teaches that biology will indeed change: humans, at the very least, will change from being herbivores to being omnivores. Of course, the implications of what Genesis is suggesting are profound: Humans CHANGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THEY WERE CREATED. I would also suggest that the text even opens the door to the idea that other animals changed as a result of the Fall: animals that were once herbivores became carnivorous.
And thus my question: Modern humans have been around and unchanged for basically 100,000 years. To which species are you referring?
What then did my question mean?
Bill said , in his later post:
I said that the Genesis account shows that its authors were utterly comfortable with the idea that humans had changed dramatically from their earliest manifestations. Are you not aware that homo sapiens is not the only "human?" Surely you know that humans have changed dramatically, from one subspecies to the next. Surely you've heard of our cousins, homo habilis or homo erectus. Clearly the 'homo' of 'homo sapiens' evolved over millions of years. So for you to insert your "100,000 years" marker into this discussion is absurd.
Since the passage in question clearly refers to Noah, does that mean Mr. Gnade thinks Noah and his sons might have been other than homo sapiens? That was the purpose of my inquiry to him, but instead of an honest, reasoned answer, he skips around the question and misses the point by a mile, choosing instead to ask derisively if I know that other human species existed.
I had also asked in the earlier post: Please explain how the fall was responsible. Were there no predators, no prey, before humans came along? in reference to his statement:
I would also suggest that the text even opens the door to the idea that other animals changed as a result of the Fall: animals that were once herbivores became carnivorous.
He did not answer this either.
He says the 100,000 year marker is absurd, so just when does he suggest the fall happened, and was it a pre-human or a human species that was responsible? And if, as he suggests (see above) that it was after the fall that other animals changed, and that they were herbivores to begin with, when did that change take place? Before mammals came on the scene? For surely there were predators and prey among the ancient creatures of the sea and the dinosaurs. Maybe it was our reptilian ancestors who defied God? Will we have to go all the way back to bacteria to find the culprit? I'm just asking.
Clearly my question made sense, even if Mr. Gnade could not comprehend it.
Bill wrote: "And please note that Mr. Spong is saying that these "Christian" Jews -- (who are not REALLY Christians because they are making up the Christ story; the story is fictive) -- these "Christian" Jews made a decision: there was willfulness in their political subterfuge."
But if the Christ story does not hinge on who is implicated in it's conclusion, then on what basis can you claim that it was conceived entirely as political fiction?
Does the core theistic message not remain the same?
Would you conceder the Christ story not worth repeating if the Romans were implicated instead? If not, why do assume the early Christians must have manufactured all of it for political gain?
Again, this is the only way I can bridge your claim with Sprong's quote as he says "...telling the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation?'"
This is in contrast to telling the Christ story "without" the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation.
Or telling the Christ story "with" the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus being Pontius Pilate of the Roman Empire.
Clearly, the Christ story can exist separately from an implication of responsibility. You're created a connection here where none is implied.
Sorry I couldn't reply right away, Bill, but Sean has already made the same objections I would have. I, too, would love to hear from you how lions and barracudas ate veggies before the fall, with their sharp carnivore teeth.
Bill, you said, or rather God said, or whoever wrote Genesis said:
Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
You claim this is proof that evolution was recognized in the Old Testament. This is a good example of reading with a great deal of wishful thinking, imho. Did God say anything about evolution, or new kinds of humans, or modified dentition? No. He just said, "now I give you meat (to eat) as well". As you probably know, Bill, even modern humans with their omnivore dentition are capable of living as vegetarians, so the most parsimonious interpretation of the passage would be, as Sean already said, merely that God allowed people, with the teeth they had, to eat meat as well. To read anything about evolution into this is not only unjustified, but leads to the problems already pointed out. Not to mention the incommensurability of the account of the Creation in Genesis 1 with evolution (and astronomy, etc.). Picking and choosing, and massaging to make Scripture fit Science: that's apologetics.
I once read a Chick tract about a biology professor being pwned (that's "defeated" for you non-gamers) by a Creationist student, who threw Piltdown Man and the ever-increasing number of missing links at the hapless atheist. Then the true believer brought out his trump card: "If protons repel one another, how can they stay together in the nucleus of atoms?" The professor, who was already reduced to tearing out his hair, shouted "I don't know!" (somehow he had missed the physics lecture about the strong nuclear force). Chick's Creationist hero quoted triumphantly from the Good Book (Colossians 1:17): "He is before all things, and in him all things are held together."
So it's Jesus who holds all those pushy protons together, and the Bible explained it almost two thousand years before physicists finally caught up!
Bill- if we accept your interpretation of Genesis as prefiguring Darwin, why not Chick's interpretation as well? How do we know where to draw lines in apologetics between the plausible and the risible?
Bill writes ”Also, notice that I have argued throughout this thread that Mr. Spong does not even realize the implications of his argument, i.e, that he is blaming Jews for planting the seeds of anti-Semitism (as if the Jewish people do not have enough to bear!), and that his colleagues and supporters don't realize those implications either.”
Actually, I notice that Bill’s argument began as “According to Spong, anti-Semitism can only be blamed on Jews -- since THEY created it in some elaborate plan, some grand hoax.” He has since retreated to “planting the seeds” and an oxymoronic “accidental hoax.” At least he is moving in the right direction.
vinny says:
He [Bill] has since retreated to “planting the seeds” and an oxymoronic “accidental hoax.” At least he is moving in the right direction.
Thank goodness for small favors. Bill- do you regard Piltdown Man a "grand hoax" or an "accidental hoax"? Stephan J. Gould floated the suspicion that the young Teilhard de Chardin had a hand in the hoax, accidentally or grandly. What do you think? Just curious.
Hello Zilch,
I just wanted to say quickly that I appreciate your comments. I think you have said what I was trying to saying, only more concisely and perhaps more clearly. At any rate, it was well stated.
I also want to make it clear that I've nothing against Mr. Gnade as a person. I just find him extremely frustrating. When he comes up with an idea, such as his evolution in Genesis "proof," he just will not let go of it, or give any concessions at all; he won't even acknowledge that he might be wrong. When he latches onto a notion, he becomes the ultimate pit bull.
I am willing to concede something to him though, albeit, I think, a minor thing. When he accused me of creating a strawman in the final paragraph of one of my posts, he was in a sense correct, as it was never stated by him that Darwin's theory could be found in the Bible. That's true. The purpose of that last paragraph was to mock the ridiculous false dilemma he challenged me with:The only options you have before you is to either accept that Genesis teaches exactly what I said it taught -- evolution, that living things CHANGE over time -- or you have to create some sort of argument that suggests what I've quoted was added to Genesis sometime AFTER 1859. It will be interesting to see which option you choose. And so I responded, using the same closing sentence, as anyone can see. It's a minor point, and it was he who emphasized in CAPITOL letters the year 1859. But it's not very relevant in the end, only because he never came close to even establishing that mere evolution of any kind is described in the Bible. If he had done so, I would of course have acknowledged it, and not held him to any requirement of showing natural selection can be found there as well.
I think his confusion arises because he believes that to discover "change" is to discover evolution, as if the two words were synonyms. Of course they are not. Otherwise we would have to say that Jesus "changed" water into wine by evolution, instead of instantly by willing it so. This also seems to be the Genesis view, as God curses the ground after the Fall, creating things like thorns and presumably all the other more unpleasant aspects of the natural world. Like Jesus and the wine, it seems to happen because God wills it. By Bill's standard, even the young earth creationists could be called evolutionists, as they agree that there is change within their biblical "kinds." But it would hardly be worth while to do adopt this definition, for then only confusion would abound. When you destroy language through this kind of ambiguity, you undermine the ability to think clearly, for language is the key tool of our thought process. From some of Mr. Gnade's seemingly muddled thoughts, you could almost suppose that is his goal, although I hope that is not the case.
Mr. Gnade, if you are reading this, I want you to know, most sincerely, that I truly wish you well.
Regards,
Sean
Sean- thanks for your kind words. If my recent comments have been concise, it's largely because you, and Vinny as well, have already said what needs saying.
Bill- I hasten to second what Sean just said: I too wish you well. You seem like a kind and intelligent person, and I'm sure we would have a great time chewing the fat over a beer or two. So please don't take offense at anything I say: I too am frustrated by what seem to me to be elaborate tapestries conjured out of the whole cloth in order to bind Scripture with Reality. So- nichts zu Ungut (no hard feelings).
Btw- I'm curious, as you might expect, about your name. As I'm sure you know, "Gnade" means "mercy" or "grace" in German, but it is not normally a family name. Is it perhaps your nom de blog?
cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch
Although most scholars agree that the authors of all the Gospels were Hellenized Jews, it should be remembered that they were writing for both Jewish-heritage and Gentile congregants & living in a world controlled by Gentile, Roman authorities. As such, it was politically expedient as well as evangelically sound to minimize Roman culpability in the crucifixion story.
The writers' sources for the Jesus tradition were not only Jewish; they were also Gentile, & much of Jesus' biography is actually a reworking of stories from other Mediterranean cultures.
I have examined ALL of the sayings in the Gospels that are attributed to Jesus, & while a majority of them can be traced to Jewish traditions, a large minority come from Greek philosophy and mystery religions & from other Mediterranean heroes. I haven't been able to find anything in the sayings that somebody else didn't say first. It is a misapprehension to say that we in the U.S. are receivers of a "Judeo-Christian" ethic. It is really a "Mediterranean" ethic, as much of the New Testament (& some of the Old as well) depends directly upon Greek, Roman, Egyptian & Persian ideals.
The Gospels, as Spong has said elsewhere, are literary constructs. The Gospel writers weren't recording history & they weren't pretending to do so. To paraphrase New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan, "The Gospel writers really believed in Jesus and they kept making up new things about him to prove it."
We should appreciate the Gospels for their literary value -- they are all wonderful works of literature -- but we should not give any more credence to them than we do to "Gone with the Wind" or "Oliver Twist."
Christians who take the Gospels literally are delusional, and Christian clerics who fill them with delusions should be scourged. Once members of the priesthood starts telling the truth about the faith -- as Bishop Spong does -- Christians will be free to lead happier, saner & more fulfilling lives.
As an aside, the start of my analysis of Bishop Spong's actual data and argumentation (such as it is) from this chapter, can be found here at the Cadre Journal.
JRP
The next part of the commentary is up, analyzing Bishop Spong's first appeal to Q-material.
JRP
Today's commentary now up, analyzing how J'Spong positively argues from what St. Paul doesn't say about Iscariot.
JRP
Today's commentary now up, analyzing how Bishop Spong uses the references to the twelve thrones promise found in GosMatt but not in GosLuke.
JRP
Today's commentary has been posted, with an initial look at legendary accretion theory.
And now for today's comment, tracking Iscariot textual data from GosMark and GosMatt.
JRP
Today's comment tracks Iscariot data across GosLuke, Acts and GosJohn, with an assessment of the question of progressing development across the texts.
JRP
Today's comment takes a look at how Bishop Spong assesses the Iscariot data from the Gospels, as evidence for his theory of Iscariot becoming more sinister through a process of intentional legendary embellishment.
JRP
Today's entry discusses the arrest at midnight.
JRP
An introduction to Round Five today, where Bishop Spong tries to connect the name "Judas" to an "anti-Semite" conspiracy among the Gospel authors.
JRP
Today, a check of textual characteristics for the extent to which the proper name "Judah" (and other proper-name cognates) is used in the Gospels and New Testament to heap shame and rejection on "the whole Jewish nation."
JRP
Today, an assessment of whether there was some process progressively exculpating Pilate from guilt, and whether Bishop Spong himself really thinks (elsewhere in his writing) that Christians would have had to invent a terminal rejection of Jesus by orthodox Jewish religious authorities. (Also, to what extent it makes sense that, if so, they would think it important to invent a fictional 'Judas Iscariot' to represent this rejection in the Gospels.)
JRP
Finishing up the analysis today (unless I do an epilogue entry later), with a check of how well the dispersion and usage of the term "the Jews" fits Bishop Spong's theory about the development of Judas Iscariot as a fictional character.
JRP
Jason, I must confess that I have not been reading all of your posts on this. Quite frankly you and Layman have made a mountain out of a mole hill when compared to my book as a whole. I even doubt you have a copy. So instead of attacking any main arguments of mine you twitter about with non-consequential things. I have been too busy finishing up my second book to even pay attention to you.
If, however, you wish instead to attack something major in my book then I will pay attention. Up until now all I've seen is nitpicking, plain and simple.
Awww... was I nitpicking on Bishop Spong's poor defenseless non-consequential little mole hill of an argument?
Well, I was bored doing other things and needed a break.
{{If, however, you wish instead to attack something major in my book then I will pay attention.}}
Well, see, I have a problem distinguishing what you consider "major" and what you don't. You thought the ref to Bishop Spong in your book, that Layman did some actual research on, was major enough to mention as one reason why you didn't believe in the resurrection--until Layman did some actual research on it, and showed that the reference was pauce and unresearched. After which you declared that you weren't even interested in checking for yourself whether the details were accurate or not--but that even if Bishop Spong had pooched his claim in the apparent source material for your own claim (not that you admitted to relying on and rephrasing his claim), he was still someone you trusted to have good reasoning and research. After which you dared us to read this chapter and try to claim otherwise.
So, since I needed a break from a rather boring other project; and Spong's chapter was only 2500 words long; and was rather a goofy sounding theory from the outset (i.e. at least it was topically interesting, compared to my boring stat project), I looked into it. I'm the kind of person who writes 25000 words of notes and analyses on a 2500 word chapter (especially when it's as packed full of claims as this one), which is the main reason why I rarely if ever review whole books.
Now I'm being told I needn't have bothered; that the material was non-consequential and frankly a mole hill from the outset. i.e., something no one should have been paying much attention to in the first place.
Well, okay. No disagreement from me!--just about anyone could have told you that from the beginning. {g}
(For sake of full disclosure, though, I recommend you make an adjustment to your introduction to your transcription of this chapter of his book, in order to alert your readers you think his argument here is a non-consequential molehill not worth anyone's time to read or think about in detail. Since someone might get the wrong impression from your current initial remarks.)
Back to my other projects, then... {wave!}
JRP
Jason, you would know such a thing was non-consequential and trivial if you read my book. I don't care if you do, but if you did you would know what is important and what isn't.
As I said, I'm busy right now.
Loftus,
Just how many "non-consequential and trivial" arguments do you use to lead off sections in your book? Could you highlight them in your "second" book" so I can know which parts are irrelevant to your case?
That would be a big help.
You mean highlight them as in "see spot run"? Naw.
a) Major arguments of a book are major arguments.
b) Supportive arguments of a book are supportive arguments.
c) Trivial or non-consequential arguments of a book are trivial or non-consequential arguments.
Sheesh. You guys are willingly stupid.
Tell us this for the record Layman. Do you think the brouhaha you raised over Spong is a, b, or c?
I might just plaster your answer all over to embarrass you for people who have actually red my book, okay?
I was just curious how many trivial, inconsequential arguments you included in your book, especially to lead off sections with.
Plaster away.
Layman, just for the record could you please state what my main/major argument is? Surely you can read well enough to understand what it is!? What is it?
If you cannot tell me then that's YOUR problem. You see, until you attack my main argument your efforts do nothing except poison the well against my book. Since you cannot deal with THAT argument all you can do is swipe at my heels by your nitpicking.
Nitpick away, as I said, if it makes you feel better. ;-) But that's ALL you're doing so far.
JL (to Layman and maybe to me, JRP, after we criticised an excerpt from J'Spong in passing here): {{You ought to engage [Bishop Spong's] views and see for yourself. He is a great communicator and a scholar in his own right. But if you don't think so then you must admit he more than adequately dispenses the results of good scholarship.
Here's an except from one of his books. [i.e. the chapter reproduced by John above in the original post] It's well reasoned and reflects good scholarship. I defy you to say otherwise, even if you will no doubt disagree. I defend his arguments in the comments of that post.}}
JL: (in the introduction to the chapter from The Sins of Scripture which he has fully transcribed for the original post above) {{Some Christians think John Shelby Spong isn't worth reading, but if William Lane Craig can debate him then he's worthy to read... [Bishop Spong] presents the results of scholarship on the issues that divide us very well. I recommend his writings. See for yourselves.}}
JL: (occasionally remarking on the competency of Bishop Spong for this particular chapter, here in the comments for this post) {{What I posted is a good example of him bringing scholarship to popular audiences. This was the example I highlighted. Deal with it, okay? [...] He does a good job of [biblical exegesis] and his views do represent the views of the scholars for the most part... But again Spong represents good, solid scholarship in every area I have seen from him, [presumably including this chapter which John bothered to transcribe] and I have read the scholars to know. [John's own emphasis] ... They would introduce [a previous commenter] to a world of good liberal scholarship on a popular level... he fits the bill [of popularly representing good scholarship] admirably. ... I posted something here I believe is based upon good scholarship and good detective work. Sure you'll disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it as unworthy of your time. ... I need not repeat myself in what I said earlier about Spong, but once again I affirm everything I said. ... Once again I affirm everything I said about Spong. ... Just like Spong I too am suspicious of Judas Iscariot the betrayer in the New Testament. And I once again affirm Spong is a very good popularizer of liberal and critical scholarship.... While [the preceding commenter] will disagree with them all, YOU CANNOT SAY THEY ARE NOT SCHOLARS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES INVOLVED. [John’s all-caps] And Spong's argument is much the same as theirs. ... From that excerpt it is obvious he knows something about scholarship and he offers good reasons for being skeptical about Judas. [John’s emphasis of the whole sentence] ... [A preceding commenter will] at least see that Spong stands within the consensus of the scholarly community, even if you disagree with us all [no longer restricting to just the liberal scholarship community, of whom Robert Price and JD Crossan are at the far edge by the way] ... You don't have to agree in order to say we have a good argument [concerning the fictionalizing of Judas Iscariot as a key tactic in the “rise of anti-Semitism”], or that Spong represents good critical scholarship on a popular level. ... I haven’t got the time to retrace our steps here, but my initial point was that Spong is a good popularizer of scholarly thought... I’m suspicious [that “the visionary Mark”] created Judas Iscariot. This represents critical Biblical scholarship, and Spong is a good popularizer of this scholarship. ... I'm leaving this discussion unless something of relevance to my original point re-surfaces.}}
JL (same thread, here above, complaining about a commenter’s tactics): {{You are obtuse! Any point I answer of yours [a previous commenter’s] you just move on and say that it is irrelevant (you've done this several times here)... This is gerrymandering at its best! When answered on a point [the commenter] move[s] on to another one by claiming the first point is “irrelevant.”}}
JL (after JRP concludes his in-depth analysis of Bishop Spong’s theory as presented in the chapter transcribed above by JL--where JRP concluded that, in effect, Bishop Spong’s theory was non-consequential, not good scholarship, not well reasoned and frankly not even worth reading): “You have made a mountain out of a molehill... Instead of attacking any main arguments of mine, you twitter about with non-consequential things... nitpicking, plain and simple... You would know such a thing [as Bishop Spong’s argument] was non-consequential and trivial if you read my book. ... Sheesh. You guys are willingly stupid. Do you think the brouhaha you raised over Spong is [over a major argument, a supportive argument, or (c), a “trivial or non-consequential argument”]? I might just plaster your answer all over to embarass you for people who have actually read my book, okay?}}
JRP
Mm-hm. For the record, my stated opinion, including in this thread, was that Bishop Spong’s argument is (though not in exactly in this phrase) a non-consequential argument. Which (consequently {g}) isn’t worth anyone’s time to be reading after all.
I also made a point of very specifically (though parenthetically) stating here, after I had posted my first entry, “In fairness, this analysis should not be confused with a criticism of John Loftus' book per se. Unless of course he makes use of this speculative theory in his book, which I don't know that he does; and I can't imagine it being any significant part of his own rationale, even if so.”
I certainly haven’t ever said any different since then.
At the risk of sounding obvious: I wasn’t criticising your book, John. I was criticising Bishop Spong’s argument--in “nitpicking” details that, for the most part, really ought to be familiar to anyone across the ideological spectrum who has spent even a moderate amount of time studying the issues.
To be fair, there would be some merit in replying (as you did to others in this thread) that it’s a brief chapter which cannot be expected to address all possible criticisms of it. This defense only goes so far, however; and it doesn’t defend at all against outright logical lapses or against incorrect representation of the textual data.
Also, to be fair, your commenters up until I joined the fray had barely given any direct criticism of Bishop Spong’s actual argument in this chapter at all.
But I think it’s interesting that first you dare readers to disagree about his theory being well-reasoned and good scholarship; then while dealing with a very very very very limited amount of critical scope on his argument you complain about people who disavow their own arguments as “irrelevant” when challenged on them, as being obtuse gerrymanderers etc.; and then, when “something relevant to your original point” (about this chapter being a great example of Bishop Spong’s reasoning and talent and scholarship competency) does in fact “resurface” (to say the least)...
...then the excuse for non-engagement isn’t only that you’re awfully busy elsewhere (which would certainly be fair enough and entirely respectable), but also that, in effect, the topic is irrelevant.
To which reply I’m perfectly happy to say again: Well, okay. No disagreement from me!--just about anyone could have told you that from the beginning. {g}
i.e., back when you were lauding this chapter, which you bothered to transcribe in its fullness, as being a fine example of Bishop Spong’s competency as a scholar writing for a popular audience.
Shall I make some guesses, based on what you’ve written extensively above in relation to rejection of this theory, on how you would have written off my rejection of the theory, had I just said some variant of ‘his argument is trash’ and gone on my way?
Incidentally, I don’t think rebutting this argument is symmetrically threatening to atheism or even many kinds of historical disbelief. In that regard, I would also consider the results of my efforts ‘inconsequential’. But my “problem with Spong” is not that I wonder to myself “how someone like him can continue to believe even though he debunks the foundations of [most Christians] evangelical faith”. Nor variations on that theme. My problem is that this chapter is pretty well representative of the quality of his reasoning and scholarship (and the scholarship and rationales he tends to promote).
Which again is far from consequential to me--this was a fun way to burn some hours and exercise the noggin (as well as illustrate some principles of textual, historical, formal and source criticism). But I could see it being consequential to someone who thought Bishop Spong’s argument was an example of good scholarship and reasoning.
(Or maybe not even then. Opinions apparently differ. {g})
JRP
As far as I can tell, John, your "main" argument is: buy my book, read my blog, give me money, affirm me!
Layman, you are a joke, nipping at my heels. I have plenty of Christians willing to discuss these things with integrity and honesty. You are unwilling. I'll try my best to ignore you from now on.
Post a Comment