March 2016 – Page 3 – TrueFreeThinker

The Destroyed Bible – On How to Reconstruct the Bible, part 1

This parsed essay will consider the various sources that we have for the Bible via a circumlocution whereby we will consider how we could reconstruct the Bible were it ever destroyed.1

The essay is parsed thusly: Part 1: Old Testament / Tanakh / Torah Part 2: New Testament

Part 3: New Testament (concluded) and Early Church Fathers

Part 4: Extra-Biblical / Non-Biblical

I will ask ^{what would happen if all printed copies of the Bible were destroyed} and will assert that in such a case we would rely on the manuscripts. I will then ask what would happen if all manuscripts of the Bible were destroyed and will assert that in such a case we would rely on the writings of the early church leaders. I will further ask what would happen if all of the writings of the early church leaders were destroyed and will assert that in such a case we would rely on extra-biblical, or non-biblical sources.

But what if all extra-biblical sources were destroyed? We would rely upon God’s inspiration; but that is another story…

As we progress I will provide various details with regards to each question and assertion. Take your time and if you are getting bogged down in the details just focus on ascertaining the main points.

What I mean by “destroyed” is as follows: Let us begin by imagining that the internet is dead and gone as well as all other electronic devices and so there are no electronic versions of the Bible at all—no iBible, no eBibles (fine i and e bibles here, here, here, here, here and here). From here we further imagine that the millions upon millions of Bibles in print have somehow all (and in the original Greek “all” means “all”—that is a little apologist humor) have been destroyed.
What now? We would gather up the manuscripts and seek to reconstruct the Bible.

ebible2c20e-bible2c20ibible2c20electronic20bible2c20bible2c20manuscript2c20apologetics2c20early20church20fathers2c20new20testament2c20old20testament-3059560

Old Testament / Tanakh / Torah:
Let us begin by considering the ^{Old Testament for which we have over 10,000 manuscripts} which date between 250 BC to 1,100 AD. Some of these are:

Oriental 4445 Manuscript dating from 820-850 AD.

Codex Cairensis dating from 895 AD.

Aleppo Codex dating from 930 AD.

Codex Leningradensis (known as “L”) dating from 1008 AD.

Cairo Geniza (or, Geneza) Mss. dating from 929-1121 AD.

Dead Sea Scrolls some of which are:

Paleo Exodus (4Q22) from 250 BC.
Fragment of Samuel (4Q Samb) form 225 BC.
Leviticus Scroll (11Q1) form the late 2nd century BC.
Hosea Scroll (4Q166) form the late 1st century BC.
Isaiah Scroll (IQIsaa) from 100 BC.

The conclusion of Old Testament source studies is that when we consider the manuscript evidence and compare our modern version versus the oldest manuscripts we find that with the passage of over 1,000 years we find only minor changes and no change to the message.
For example, ^{we find an insignificant one word difference in Isaiah ch. 53’s circa 164 Hebrew words}. Moreover, there are thirteen changes altogether in the entire book of Isaiah which consists of 66 chapters.

The bottom line is that for the Old Testament we have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, better copied manuscripts, and more reliably recorded history than any other book of its time. If we cannot trust the Old Testament we likewise cannot trust ancient history which is reconstructed from vastly inferior sources. Following is some scholarly attestation of this fact:

Millar Burrows; professor of biblical literature (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 304),

It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration….Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.

Gleason Archer; biblical scholar, theologian, educator, and author (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 19),

[Isaiah] proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.

F.F. Bruce; biblical scholar, manuscript expert (MLDSS, pp. 61-69),

It may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question [of reliability of the OT text] in the affirmative with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948.

Nelson Glueck; Rabbi, academic, archaeologist and president of Hebrew Union College (Rivers in the Desert; A History of the Negev, p. 31),

As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

William F. Albright; archaeologist, biblical scholar, linguist, ceramics expert:
(Christian Century, Nov. 19, 1958),

The narratives of the patriarchs, of Moses and the exodus, of the conquest of Canaan, of the judges, the monarchy, exile and restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extents that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.

(Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 176),

There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament Tradition.

(Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963),

In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A. D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A. D.).

Jeffrey Sheler; a contributing editor of U.S. News & World Report (“Is the Bible True,” US News & World Report, October 25, 1999, p. 52),

In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments—corroborating key portions of the stories of…the life and times of Jesus.

Freedom of Atheist Expression at “Liverpool’s John Lennon airport prayer room”???

The Liverpool Daily Post reports “Atheist accused of leaving insulting religious images in Liverpool’s John Lennon airport prayer room” (March 3, 2010 AD)

A MILITANT atheist left allegedly insulting religious images in an airport prayer room in honour of his “hero”.
Harry Taylor is accused of placing a series of “grossly abusive and insulting” photographs and cartoons depicting Christian and Muslim figures in the multi-faith room at Liverpool’s John Lennon airport.

Well, what is the problem? It is a “multi-faith room” and the atheist is expressing his particular and malicious “faith.” It was, after all, at an airport named for the man who wrote the atheists anthem “Imagine” which calls for everyone to convert to atheism in order to “live as one.”
On the other hand, some atheists—some—need to set aside their all consuming anthropocentrism and realize that it is not all about them.

edsk60801mbjohnlennonsign1

Am I way off in my “what is the problem?” statement and reference to John Lennon? This is what Harry Taylor stated,

…he told Liverpool crown court he was just practising his own religion of “reason and rationality” in the hope of converting people to atheism. Taylor added: “The airport is named after one of my heroes and his view on religion was pretty much the same as mine. “I thought it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in his airport.”

Taylor, who also claimed the controversial images were “satire” and would not offend anyone, even recited the lyrics from Lennon’s track Imagine.

His “satire” that “would not offend” and expressed his chosen “faith” and hero worship consisted of your typical adolescent references to sexuality, priest pedophilia, excrement this, Pope that, etc. This, by the way, coming from a 59 year old.

John Lennon, the hero of the story, stated (March 4, 1966 AD interview with Maureen Cleave for the London Evening Standard),

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.

He is only one of a long, long line of people from very powerful world rulers to mom’s basement bloggers who have expressed likewise sentiments.

As for Harry Taylor,

He admitted being strongly anti-religious, but said people’s faith would have to be “very weak” for them to be offended.

Great point! And he, for one, would be exhibiting “very weak” atheism as anti-religion where he to be offended at being called to task for his childish shenanigans.
The point is: he will be utterly abusive towards you and if you react to his abuse then he will put you down for being weak—this is psychologically fascinating as it is tantamount to the characteristics of someone engaging in domestic abuse.

This is yet another case of what the atheist, Allahpundit, referred to by stating:

…wherever there’s an opportunity to antagonize an innocent believer, we’ll be there…

In case you’ve ever wondered why, even in a post-9/11 world, atheists rank below Muslims in terms of traits the public dislikes in a politician, wonder no longer.

See the posts “Porn For Bibles” and How “Atheists Devise Creative New Way to Alienate People” and “Atheist Activist” – driving a wedge between decent people and road side memorials for more along this line.

“Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis” and “A Darwinian basis for citizen ethics”

Roger Hicks wrote A Darwinian basis for citizen ethics which is a commentary on Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis published by The Guardian which takes the form of a “pamphlet with contributions by ‘prominent thinkers exploring key questions about ethics today.’”

He did a great job of exampling the circular logic of attempting to apply Darwinism where Darwinism does not belong.

Roger Hicks wrote:

I agree entirely with them that ETHICS is fundamental to solving the problems of modern society – on which, not just our well-being, but our very survival depends. However, useful ethics cannot exist in the vacuum of idealised, romaticised, theologized, or purely opportunistic values and assumptions, which characterise the Guardian’s assemblage of “prominent thinkers”, but must be rooted in the Darwinian nature and demands of the individuals and groups to which they apply.

Now, being firmly ensconced in a Darwinian worldview he naturally (pun intended) expects, nay, demands that we adhere to his worldview. This is tantamount to the atheist anthem which John Lennon sang in Imagine, “I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will live as one”—just give up your views, agree with our and, as they say in common parlance, “It’s all good!”

But why Darwinism?

Why Darwinian? Because man is a product of Darwinian evolution and thus essentially Darwinian in nature. Any ethics not based on this reality lacks sound and sustainable foundations.Before continuing, let me clarify what I mean by “Darwinian”, because the word has been terribly misused and abused – to the extent that there are now powerful taboos against using it in any social or political context, because of its association with a ruthless struggle for survival and advantage over others, which is incompatible with a just and harmonious social and political order, social Darwinists having used it to justify social and racial inequalities, and the Nazis their ideology of a master race with the right to subjugate or exterminate what they deemed to be inferior races.

The main point that I wanted to draw out is very well elucidate by the very next sentence,

There is certainly a brutal and ruthless side to our Darwinian nature, but our capacity to love, reason and empathise with others are also its products.

Thus, the bottom line point is that according to presuming Darwinian theory; whatever has happened was Darwinian and so whatever has happened was Darwinian.
This is why Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role and why when Richard Dawkins stated “You could say that, yeah” when this was stated, “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six” (see, Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com).

Presuming a Darwinian history there is absolutely nothing that can be brought in as evidence against it since all things, even objections, are subsumed into Darwinism. For example Darwinism is “brutal and ruthless” and also enjoins “love, reason and empathise.”

I say “enjoins” because Dan Barker stated, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” (and apparently, what is good is that “abortion is a blessing” and concluding that Jesus was “a moral monster”).

Darwinism is all and in all, “Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past”—Richard Dawkins.

Darwinism is a catch all term and unchallengeable as agreeing with it serves a Darwinian purpose and disagreeing with it serves a Darwinian purpose.

Thus, we must follow Darwinism up until we do not like (as per modern day first world country “ethics” de jour) and then we must rebel against Darwinism as rebellion against our Darwinian nature is also Darwinian.

It is no wonder that Philip S. Skell, “the father of carbene chemistry,” member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University noted:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.1

Also, Benjamin Wiker seconds that observation by noting the following in his consideration of “Game Theory”,

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

Lastly, note the Darwinian altar call as Roger Hicks preaches his pseudo-gospel, “…Darwinian ethics, which might yet save us…”

Christopher Hitchens’ Homosexual Flings

I would relegate this to the who cares files except that it may shed light upon the fact that Christopher Hitchens is obsessed with sex, see Too Sexy for My Theology? On the New Atheist Obsession with Sex. He is particularly obsessed with any hint of sexual morality (except when he is yelling at priests that they are pedophiles).

Which two ministers of Margaret Thatcher’s government had gay relations with the writer Christopher Hitchens while at Oxford? Since Hitchens’s extraordinary claim emerged this week, the louche figure, now 60, who has been married twice, has fended off all requests for further information.

After all – even for a clever polemicist who takes his work very seriously – such a tantalising, if frivolous kiss-and-tell is bound to sell extra copies of his memoir Hitch-22 when it is published in the summer…

although he has always enjoyed a reputation as a womaniser, at Oxford Hitchens was known to be bisexual.
According to one contemporary: ‘He had a reputation for being AC/DC and, although a Trot [a Trotskyite], he was fancied by quite a few gay Tories and moved in those circles.’…

Hitchens was very conscious of the fact that he was attractive to both men and women. As one close figure recalls: ‘He flirted with both, but with men he could be rather teasing. It wasn’t very nice.’…
In his book, Hitchens…dismisses the homosexual episodes as a ‘mildly enjoyable relapse’ into something that began when he was at school. Of his time at Oxford, he writes: ‘Every now and then, even though I was by then fixed on the pursuit of young women, a mild and mildly enjoyable relapse would occur…

Milligan’s [Oxford Union president, Stephen Milligan] death…introduced a wider public to the dangers of self-bondage and auto-erotic asphyxiation…

there was always sex – ‘lots of sex’, says a contemporary – facilitated by the young Hitchens’s languorous charms with which he was able to attract desirable women…

Says the friend: ‘After being introduced [to John Sparrow], I heard Christopher ask: “Warden, are you as other men?” John was rather taken aback by this sly dig at his sexuality. It was clear he was just playing a rather cruel and unedifying game.’ Robert Jackson…considers the anecdote about Hitchens and Sparrow ‘to be ‘typical of Christopher’s rather flirtatious, pert style’….

Jackson…says of Hitchens: ‘He was clearly bisexual at that time and was very keen on Martin Amis, but I believe only slept with his sister. He was very charming.
‘I always thought that Hitchens was someone who, like a lot of people when they are handsome in youth, spent a lot of time looking in the mirror and admiring himself. That is the vein through which he drew nourishment through his life.’…’Christopher was an attractive, sexy youth and he made what he could of it in a rather exploitative way…’…

David Heathcoat-Amory…[is said to be] convinced Hitchens made the claims up to attract attention to his book.’…

friends from Oxford days also remember Hitchens’s affection for another man – his flatmate James Fenton, the author and later Professor of Poetry at Oxford. ‘I thought he was in love with Fenton, who was openly gay,’ recalls a close contemporary…

Hitchens, an atheist, married his first wife, Greek Cypriot Eleni Meleagrou, by whom he has two children, in a Greek Orthodox church and his second, American Carol Blue, in a New York synagogue. Which brings us back to why Hitchens would throw into his memoirs the titbit that he had slept with two former ministers.

Yes, it may have been to publicise the book. But one old friend believes there is another explanation. ‘It was more than likely a pre-emptive move. Christopher knew if he didn’t mention it, someone else would.’1

Now, if others also take the who cares approach, particularly atheists, I will remind you to keep that approach in mind when, God forbid, a Christian or “Christian” is exposed as having committed some sexual indiscretion.

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 1 of 2

Considering that his book “Misquoting Jesus” explored the issue of variant readings in New Testament manuscripts it may be surprising to some that Bart Ehrman’s book itself contains millions and millions of variants.

Following are some examples of the variants:

On p. 13 reference is made to “Timothy LeHaye and Philip Jenkins” as the authors of the Left Behind series of novels. However, the authors of the series are Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Thus, error 1. Tim has never published as “Timothy,” error 2. his last name is not LeHaye but LaHaye and error 3. Jenkins’s first name is not Philip but Jerry.

On p. 110 error 4. “Timothy” is used as LaHaye’s last name.

In the index Timothy’s name is error 5. again spelled as “LeHaye.”

On p. 110 Hal Lindsey’s name is error 6. misspelled as “Hal Lindsay.”

On p. 70 Desiderius Erasmus is error 7. misspelled as “Desiderus Erasmus.”

On pp. 48, 90 scriptio continua is error 8. misspelled as “scriptuo continua.”

On p. 91 parablepsis is errors 9. and 10. written as “periblepsis” twice.

On p. 192 error 11. the citation should refer to Acts 17:30 and not to Acts 17:27.

On pp. 12 and 110 errors 12. and 13. LaHaye’s name is spelled as “LaHay” and Hal Lindsey’s name is again misspelled.

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog further notes:
error 14. “Despite the comments on p. 91 the normal nomen sacrum for πνευμα is not πμα but πνα.” Also,

error 15. “Codex Sinaiticus does not support the presence of ‘and he was taken up into heaven’ (Luke 24:51) despite the rather confused assertion on p. 169 that it does.”

Lastly, note that while it is said that a book should not be judged by its cover error 16. the book’s cover has upside down Hebrew on it. In fact, why is Hebrew on the cover of a book that analyses Greek manuscripts?

Now, if you are paying attention—or are you like me and simply cannot afford to pay attention? :o)—you may be thinking 1) that is only 16 errors, 2) they are mostly merely misspellings, 3) they do not affect the contents of the text and certainly do not affect any major point which the book seeks to make.
As for 2) and 3); thank you for noticing as this is precisely, word for word, how many of us feel about Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament manuscripts.

As for 1) how do 16 equal my assertion of there being millions and millions of variants? Well, let us learn some methodology, the sort that allows Ehrman claim, “Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

I do not know how many copies Misquoting Jesus has sold but it is reported that “Within the first three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold.”

The way it works is as simple as it is deceptive: you multiply the 16 variants by how many times they have been reproduced. As the 16 have been reproduced 100,000 (in three months alone) you multiply these and so the total of variants in Misquoting Jesus equals: 1,600,000.

And that, boys and girls, is how Bart Ehrman manages to make sensational claims that gain him notoriety and quite a few shekels.

Let us move beyond Bart Ehrman’s books and delve into his persona and a little more about his modus operandi. Reference to his persona is not intended as an ad hominem but an attempt to either dispel or augment the Ehrmanian myth.

The mythos is that Bart Ehrman was the consummate conservative Christian who merely followed the evidence were it lead, uncovered variants in the New Testament manuscripts and made an unemotional scholarly decision to denounce Christianity and encourage others to do likewise.

Yet, “he and his family were casual in their faith” he was “an uncertain teenager” who “felt an emptiness settle over him” and eventually had a “bona fide born-again experience” when he became a Christian.1

It was the mid-1980s, the Ethiopian famine was in full swing. Starving infants, mass death. Ehrman came to believe that not only was there no evidence of Jesus being divine, but neither was there a God paying attention. “I just began to lose it,” Ehrman says now, in a conversation that stretches from late afternoon into the evening.

“It wasn’t for lack of trying. But I just couldn’t believe there was a God in charge of this mess . . . It was so emotionally charged. This whole business of ‘the Bible is your life, and anyone who doesn’t believe it is going to roast in hell.’”

He now tells his captive college audience,

You shouldn’t think something just because you believe it. You need reasons. That applies to religion. That applies to politics . . . just because your parents believe something isn’t good enough.

To begin with let us consider the Ethiopian famine with the view that there is no God; what to do? The key question (which I have already asked with regards to Charles Templeton and The Misanthropic Principle) is: what did Bart Ehrman do about it? Did he travel there in order to help? Did he donate goods? Did he donate money? Did he even attend a Live Aid concert? Did he donate one second of time or one single penny? In other words; since God, for all practical purposes, does not exist humans are the only ones who can help other humans and so what did Templeton and Ehrman do? I certainly do not know but I imagine that a good guess would be nothing. Nothing except giving in to emotional reasons for rejecting God—“I just began to lose it…It was so emotionally charged.” Also, note that “I just couldn’t believe” is what Richard Dawkins would rightly label an “argument from personal incredulity” as what we can or cannot believe is of no relevance to what actually is.

Moreover, note that “roast in hell” and “just because your parents believe something isn’t good enough” are atheist talking points. For one “roast in hell” is emotive and misleading and the other comment is generic and certainly does not apply to me, for example. In fact, when atheists boast of majority atheists in countries such as Sweden you can simply state, “just because their parents do not believe something isn’t good enough; they are atheists because they were born in an atheist country.”

Well, now Bart Ehrman is a “happy agnostic” as he happily drives his BMW convertible, happily lives in “a lovely house in the countryside” where he happily lives with his second wife as he happily enjoys “an ever-growing career.” Such are the perks of besmirching Christianity within the safety, comfort, freedom and prosperity of living in a country premised upon Judeo-Christian principles.
And yet, “That emptiness he felt as a teenager is still there” but not to worry as “he fills it with family, friends, work and the finer things in life.” As for the afterlife; another atheist talking point, “I think you just cease to exist, like the mosquito you swatted yesterday.” Hope? Nope!

Now let us consider Ehrman as teacher/activist,

He’s often on CNN, the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, a scholar amused by “taking something really complicated and getting a sound bite out of it.”

This is very telling as one of the major criticisms of his books is that he does not present his case or his field of research in a manner which is methodological enough. This is why his scholarship based conclusions are not new or surprising to anyone who has studied that field but his controversial and emotive conclusions are so very appealing to those who are desperately seeking excuses for rejecting God.

Moreover, when I watch CNN, the Discovery Channel and National Geographic on such issues I always think to myself, “I know who the top guys are in the field who are on the other side of Ehrman; why are they never interviewed? Why is it always an indifferent (or left leaning) college professor? Why Ehrman and the [anti] Jesus Seminar but no conservatives?”

Pandorum’s Pandora’s Box

I recently watched a pretty wild sci-fi/horror movie titled “Pandorum.”

The premise is basically that we have blown up the Earth and all that is left of humanity is aboard a space ship on a long journey to an Earth-like/habitable planet—the basic atheist vision of the future, I suppose (whether we blow up the Earth of the Sun explodes).

In any regard, Pandorum is, at least, psychologically interesting in that the various characters exhibit various characteristics from the altruistic to the utterly selfish.

I have not been able to find a transcript of too many quotes but one of the interesting dialogues comes about via Leland, who is trapped on the apparently doomed spaceship which has become inhabited by creepy-crawlers who basically want to devour everyone in sight.

Upon encountering other humans—as they were all in cryogenic sleep due to long distance space travel and were due to wake up in shifts—Leland first offers hospitality but then gasses them. When they wake up they are hanging upside down and Leland is preparing to cannibalize them:

Bower: What are you doing? Leland: Nothing personal, guys. It’s just “survival of the fittest”… Or maybe it’s the brightest [mumbles] if you know what I’m saying. Bower: You gassed us! Leland: Oh yes! And I’m sorry, but I’m a little too old and too tired for the honorable way of hunting game. Nadia: You better make sure I’m dead… [speaks in German] Leland: [stabs her] Manh: [yelling in Vietnamese] Bower: You don’t have to do this. We’re on our way to save the ship.

Leland: Don’t sweat it. I wouldn’t have survived this long if I had a heart.

Thus, the Darwinian survival of the fittest/brightest busts open Pandora’s Box out of which comes betrayal and self-survival at all costs.

In fact, one of the main characters, the villain really, states, “God? You think God survived? He’s dead just like the rest of humanity.” Yet, the context is clearly that since the Earth is gone, humanity is gone and so there is no one left to dictate morality, no society to conjure an arbitrary social contract. Thus, he is free to express his every desire.

Some atheist attempt to argue from the cosmic insignificance of humanity to moral behavior but this is a non sequitur as one could just as easily, if not even easier still, argue from the cosmic insignificance of humanity to immoral behavior—as some reason, “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1st Corinthians 15:32). Carpe despero.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of further, atheism at the movies, interest may be: The Collateral Worldview

Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 1

Hereinafter, we will consider occurrences at the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD.
The forum’s topic was the reliability of New Testament manuscripts as pointers to the original text.

The lectures and discussions primarily featured Dan Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) with contributions by Michael Holmes (Bethel University), Dale Martin (Yale University), David Parker (Birmingham University) and William Warren (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary).

I will be gleaning from the reports of the forum written by Ed Komoszewski from the theology blog Parchment and Pen; part 1 and part 2.

Let us begin by one of the most interesting and telling exchanges which, interestingly enough, took place during the Q&A between Joe Schmo and Bart Ehrman (Gentiles understand that “John Schmo” is the Jewish equivalent of “John Doe,” right?):

a questioner asked Ehrman about his text-critical method, noting that Ehrman seemed to always find the least orthodox readings and argue that they were the original readings. What Ehrman said was, frankly, unbelievable. He basically said that he would find the reading that he liked, and then find the evidence to support it! This sure sounded as though he was starting from his conclusions rather than beginning with a question.

Not surprisingly, some folks audibly gasped at this response.

In my essay Bart Ehrman, Interrupted – on the Bible and Christianity I noted that Ehrman does not reject the Bible, its God and Christianity due to the Bible problem but based on his emotions—as he, himself admits very openly. Now we see how his emotionally driven rebellion against God is the very premise upon which he builds his scholarship.

Interestingly:

[Dale] Martin, who is one of Ehrman’s good friends (a point whose significance will soon be seen), was the only non-textual critic on the panel. He gave perhaps the liveliest lecture of the bunch. Although he was supposed to argue on behalf of Ehrman, he essentially ripped him for not having a theology of scripture, for leaving the faith with insufficient evidence to do so, and for ignoring interpretation and tradition too much. He especially picked on Ehrman’s spiritual journey.

Ehrman responded first with the words, “Dale and I used to be friends”! He asked Martin why he thought it was appropriate to bring up Ehrman’s personal spiritual journey. Martin simply replied, “You made it public. You put it in your books.” Indeed, Martin pointed out the fact that Ehrman chose to make his own spiritual journey the first chapter in two of his popular books, and thus set the tone for the whole of each book with his opening gambit. Ehrman’s spiritual journey was in print, in the very same books where he makes his most radical pontifications.

Thus, again we find that his emotions drive his scholarship. Furthermore:

Wallace then began addressing their disagreements, but he did so in a surprising way: he put up extensive quotations from Ehrman’s own writings and showed that what Ehrman said to professional colleagues was quite different than what he said to laypersons. In other words, Wallace showed that Ehrman disagreed with Ehrman!

The implication was clear: Ehrman is too certain in scholarly circles and too skeptical in popular circles. He presents himself as an extreme modernist in one place and an extreme postmodernist in the other.

Another window into his scholarship was his flatly fallacious response to Wallace:

Ehrman then critiqued Wallace’s lecture as simply a message meant to comfort Christians into not doubting their Bibles, even saying that Wallace had provided no evidence for his position. (This is a debater’s standard technique: instead of wrestling with the arguments that his opponent brings up, he simply says that the opponent never said anything worth saying. But in this instance, I can only conclude that Ehrman was blowing smoke.)

One issue that seems to have come up repeatedly is Ehrman’s argument that:

we don’t have “the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals.” (I counted six generations of copies before we get to our current manuscripts. Though I doubt that Ehrman was intentional in his repetition, this provides a taste of his rhetorical strategy.)….

[Wallace] noted, for example, that Ehrman had listed six generations of copies before we get any manuscripts, which is more than Ehrman implies in any of his printed work. Wallace then commented, “I suppose if a story is worth telling, it’s worth embellishing!”….

Ehrman’s oft-repeated line that we don’t even have copies of copies of copies was challenged by Wallace. He said that such rhetoric comes dangerously close to saying that New Testament copying was like the telephone game. He then proceeded to show six ways in which the telephone game is not at all like New Testament copying practices. I think it’s fair to say that this evidence alone should have retired Ehrman’s non-nuanced quip, but Ehrman continued saying it for the duration of the conference!

Just as Bart Ehrman fins the reading that he liked and then find the evidence to support it people who argue against the reliability of oral traditions find the evidence to support it by appealing to childish games such as telephone the point of which is to fail—that is what makes it fun.

Jesus did not just speak to one person who repeated it to one person, etc. Sometimes He spoke to one person, sometimes to a small group and sometimes thousands. Neither did one person write the New Testament. The New Testament is twenty-seven books written by some eight people (seven Jews, one Greek Doctor) and it draws from the accounts of many eyewitnesses.

10001-8944667

20001-6299005

Dr. Craig Blomberg, whilst being interviewed by Lee Strobel, explains why the game of telephone is not a good analogy for how oral traditions are passed on:

“When you’re carefully memorizing something and taking care not to pass it along until you’re sure you’ve got it right, you’re doing something very different from playing the game of telephone. In telephone half the fun is that the person may not have got it right or even heard it right the first time, and they cannot ask the person to repeat it.
Then you immediately pass it along, also in whispered tones that make it more likely the next person will goof something up even more. So yes, by the time it has circulated through a room of thirty people, the results can be hilarious.” “Then why,” I asked, “Isn’t that a good analogy for passing along ancient oral traditions?”…“If you really want to develop that analogy in light of the checks and balances of the first-century community, you’d have to say that every third person, out loud in a very clear voice, would have to ask the first person; ‘Do I still have it right?’ and change it if he didn’t. The community would constantly be monitoring what was said and intervening to make corrections along the way. That would preserve the integrity of the message,” he said. “And the result would be very different from that of the childish game of telephone.”1

Thus, the presupposition is not only that those people were ignorant and illiterate but not even smart enough to figure out how to reliably pass on information. And these were people who, sans written record keeping, carried around in the heads vast amounts of information. This was the era of memorizing entire genealogies, the scriptures, etc.

Foregoing a long elucidation; note that with relation to Matthew 24:36 Ehrman claims purposeful corruption. When he was asked why the conspirators had done such a poor job—since the assertion is that they removed the words “nor the Son” but left “alone” with reference to the Father’s knowledge—:

Ehrman’s argument that this passage is clearly an orthodox corruption either shows that the scribes were rather inept since they didn’t cover up the Father’s exclusive knowledge or else they changed their mood once they got into the corruption and had second guesses about deleting the “alone.” He [Wallace] concluded by saying that too often Ehrman’s views were only possible, but that Ehrman had turned possibility into probability and, at times, probability into certainty.

Do you see how this works, for Bart Ehrman? He can simply imagine entire scenarios, motivations, regrets, etc. out of pure thin air.
Further Ehrmanian conspiracy theories come in the form that of fact that:

Ehrman [supposes] an early, controlled text in which the earlier manuscripts were destroyed. Wallace noted that, You can’t have wild copying by untrained scribes and a proto-orthodox conspiracy simultaneously producing the same variants. Conspiracy implies control and wild copying is anything but controlled.” As far as I was concerned, this was the silver bullet that ripped a hole through Ehrman’s entire thesis.” Further, Wallace noted, the lack of controls that Ehrman argued for were only true of the Western text-type, not the Alexandrian.

We will begin the next segment with a consideration of a favored textual variant of Ehrman’s.

Tiger Woods and Atheist Umbrage?…I am Still Waiting

FYI: this was originally posted on March 15, 2010 AD on Atheism is Dead (one of True Freethinker’s predecessors) but did not get carried over when we did the original merge.

God forbid that a Christian or a “Christian” commits an immoral act; atheists are all over it and come down on them harder than an elephant in musth. Set aside for a moment how they define “immoral” or that this may be fair enough.

The immorality of a Christian or a “Christian” is made to speak volumes about the utter bankruptcy of Judeo-Christian morality in general.

Enter Tiger Woods, the guy who became a gazillionaire by hitting a ball with a stick (I do not care if he is the very best in the history of the world at hitting a ball with a stick; he hits a ball with a stick).

Tiger Woods is a Buddhist and has recently affirmed his Buddhism (see The Brit Hume, Tiger Woods Affair).

I am still waiting for atheists internet-wide, TV-wide, radio-wide, lectern-wide, book-wide, etc.-wide using Tiger Woods and his womanizing, adulterous ways to besmirch Buddhism.

tiger20woods2c20buddhism2c20atheism-8688381

Many atheists fancy themselves equal opportunity faith-bashers but the scales are quite obviously tipped to the point of being broken on the side of besmirchments of Christianity first, Judaism second and miscellaneous a very, very, very, very distant third.

So, will any atheist play fair and besmirch Buddhism due to the doings of Tiger Woods?
Will any atheist start forum discussions on the issue, or start a blog titled “Deconstructing Buddhism” or any such thing?

Anyone?

DOGMATHEISM : The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor on the Solstice and God’s Un-Evidenced Non-Existence

Whilst sitting in for Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham had occasion to interview The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-founder (along with Dan Barker) Annie Laurie Gaylor.1

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an organization established in the USA which is a country that was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression.

Let us glean from the interview:

INGRAHAM: …Joining us now from Madison, Wisconsin, of course is Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which bought the ads. Annie Laurie, how are you doing? Merry Christmas, by the way.

ANNIE LAURIE GAYLOR: Well, merry winter solstice…it’s the winter solstice…It is the natural holiday. The reason for the season….And the real reason for the season is the winter solstice. And people in the northern hemisphere celebrated this time of year from millennia with evergreens and festivals and gift exchanges because they’re recognizing the real new year, natural holiday, the beginning of the new year.

There is no such thing as a “natural holiday” as nature enjoins no such thing upon us. What there is, such as in this case, is neo-Pagan atheism which promulgates awe, reverence and perhaps worship of nature as a replacement of God (see Atheism as nature worship or neo-paganism).

Note that, for example, the Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor did not seem to mind an actually Pagan inspired holiday being celebrated by the President of the USA, Barak Obama, in the White House (see here). She stated, “We should be able to get along with the separation of church and state” but what about separation of Paganism and state? Also, note that she is confusing the US Constitution’s “Establishment Clause” against a state religion which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion” with Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he references “a wall of separation between Church and State.” Jefferson, deist or not, attended Christian church services in the Capitol Building. Ironically, The Freedom From Religion Foundation would have called for his impeachment for doing so.

Apparently, they understand Jefferson better than Jefferson understood Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence states that we have inalienable rights that have been given to us by “our Creator…nature’s God.”

Christians do not give presents because of Northern hemispheric concerns but because God gave (John 3:16), the wise men gave (Matthew 2:11), St. Nicolas gave, people need things given to them, etc.

Next, Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor discuss the various Freedom From Religion Foundation Billboards:

INGRAHAM: Now these ads are meant to do what?…

GAYLOR: It’s meant to say something true that there isn’t a God…heathens greetings is one of our other billboards and reasons greetings. And I think it’s fun.

I would imagine that it is fun for her and Dan Barker to continue positively affirming God’s non-existence without providing any evidence whatsoever; fun, easy and quite lucrative. On this note the conversation continued thusly:

INGRAHAM: …it’s a free country, so you can spend out your money and take out any kinds of ads like this. And you know, I actually am personally not bothered by it, but what I think is interesting is that there seems to be an orthodoxy and even a religious dogma among atheists, just as strong as that among, you know, devout Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, but you all call it winter solsticism or atheism or whatever the trendy way of referring to it is now.

GAYLOR: Well.

INGRAHAM: But you guys are just as dogmatic as the people you say people are crazy because they think this, you know, this little baby was born in a manger.

GAYLOR: There is nothing dogmatic about the winter solstice. It’s reality. It’s the shortest and darkest day of the year.

INGRAHAM: I mean, dogma about the fact that there is no God. You’re obviously dogmatic that, are you not? Or are you up in the air about that?

GAYLOR: Well, I think that there — you can certainly say that the God of the bible cannot be proved to be true. If there is no proof for something, we should not believe it. And more people have been killed in the name of religion for something that cannot be proved than for any other reason. And I think that many people might be pleased to know there is no God. There’s no person watching over you ready to end you to hell.

Annie Laurie Gaylor displaying an
icon with a bust of Charles Darwin

Note that just because one day is shorter than the rest is no reason to celebrate. They seem to do so in order to express belligerence against Christianity. This is because 1) you do not see them, for example, placing bus ads and billboards in USA Muslim communities, nor oversees in Muslim countries, that read “Yes, Hussein…there is no Allah” or some such thing and 2) their ads do not simply express pro-Solstice sentiments but anti-theism, anti-Christian sentiments. The Solstice is, for them, an excuse for expressing prejudice while most of us are expressing gratitude and love.

The issue is her atheistic orthodoxy, her dogmatheism, as Laura Ingraham emphasizes that she is referring to Annie Laurie Gaylor’s un-evidenced positive affirmation of God’s non-existence. The key question to ask her would be, “You state that there is no proof for the existence of God, or even specifically the God of the Bible. Considering that you claim that God’s existence ‘cannot be proved to be true’ what would you consider evidence, or proof, of God’s existence?” You see, her dogmatheism goes beyond merely positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence, it goes on to positively affirming that evidence or proof of God’s existence is actually impossible. Note also that having not even bothered attempting to justify her dogmatheism she resorts to a favorite atheist talking point in referencing hell. This is an emotive trick which allows her, or so she thinks, to side step justifying her assertions and instead drops an emotionally charged grenade.

Since there are arguments in favor of God’s existence the fact that she offers none for God’s non-existence means that she is merely being dogmatic as even a poor argument beats out no argument.

Do not be fooled by this trick for various reasons including that there is a hell of atheism which is just as terrifying, if not more so. Apparently, employing “hell” is a one word response to anything Christian related as the interview proceeded thusly:

GAYLOR: I’m a…third generation free thinker. I was brought up free from religion.

She “was brought up free from religion”? Wow, I had no idea that she and I have that much in common.

GAYLOR: My parents did not believe in indoctrination. I do not believe that small children should be indoctrinated in abstractions that they cannot have any real way to determine whether it’s true or not….
I think children should be allowed to grow up and make these decisions for themselves.

INGRAHAM: So a 6-year-old child should make decisions for himself?

GAYLOR: I think that a lot of children grow up in great fear, for example, of hell. And I think that is child abuse…there is no hell…I think this is a primitive notion. And it’s very harmful to small children to have ideas that are that fearful inculcated in them by their parents and their churches.

As I have variously evidenced and have experienced in my personal upbringing that the concept of parents who believe that children should be allowed to grow up and make these decisions for themselves whilst not inserting their own ideas and guiding them towards a preferred direction along the way is a sham.

Lastly, I found this brief exchange interesting,

GAYLOR: If there are being people magnanimous in the name of religion, terrific. But many times, it is religion that gets the credit and taxpayers that get the bill. As you know, Catholic charities get a huge amount of infusion of federal money from taxpayers.

INGRAHAM: Planned Parenthood does, too. But you won’t have a problem with that.

Dead silence was perhaps the best answer that Annie Laurie Gaylor could offer at this point; particularly since her partner in prejudice, Dan Barker, believes that “abortion is a blessing” and has expressed inhumane sentiments about healthy, beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies in the womb (see here).