New Year, old mysteries

A New Year has come, and is now 10 days old, and yet we don't seem much closer to answering the old Big Questions that we had millennia ago - what is Life? Is there a God? what is matter? Is the Universe eternal and infinite or finite and ephemeral?

I just read Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods" (Natura Rerum Deo... I think) and it's surprisingly modern in its arguments and counter-arguments. The Epicurean character argues all the previous views of gods are incoherent, that the idea is innate and thus beyond argument, and only Epicurus's uninvolved Eternal Gods, essentially human exemplars, are worthy of adoration. The Stoic character makes all the Creationist/IDist style arguments from the natural order, trashes the Epicureans anthropomorphism, and raves on about how well prophecy has worked for the Romans in the past. The sceptic argues against the gods most effectively by pointing to the apparent lack of morality/Justice being upheld in the events of human affairs, yet he believes in religion and continues to uphold the gods even without a rational reason for believing them to be real.

So similar do all these arguments sound, and I have heard them spouted by Christians of all stripes in all manner of permutations.

The Epicurean Gods are like static ideals, known in our subjectivity as innate concepts. Sound familiar? That's the theology where 'God' is some kind of eternal part of the human collective soul, like Jung's archetypes. Impersonal, but anthropomorphic, yet somehow able to be "examples" for human conduct.

The Stoic God/gods are meddlers in human affairs, but somehow involved in all cosmic processes as an indwelling omnipresent "fire" in all things. They control the world, yet somehow the world - especially humanity - is free to do rotten things inconsistent with the divine ideal.

The sceptic, last of all, thinks religion/morality is a good thing and gods are the only way of keeping that vital part of social order going. It's good for the hoi polloi to be superstitious and see the hands of the gods in every little blessing and setback, but intelligent people know that's nonsense.

So where do you fall in the spectrum? Or is there another view?

The difference between Bible and God's Word

You speak, O Lord God, Who inspired and enlightened all the prophets;
for You alone, without them, can instruct me perfectly, whereas they, without You, can do nothing.
They, indeed, utter fine words, but they cannot impart the spirit.
They do indeed speak beautifully, but if You remain silent they cannot inflame the heart.
They deliver the message; You lay bare the sense.
They place before us mysteries, but You unlock their meaning.
They proclaim commandments; You help us to keep them.
They point out the way; You give strength for the journey.
They work only outwardly; You instruct and enlighten our hearts.
They water on the outside; You give the increase.

They cry out words; You give understanding to the hearer.
Let not Moses speak to me, therefore, but You, the Lord my God, everlasting truth, speak lest I die and prove barren if I am merely given outward advice and am not inflamed within

The Imitation, Book III chap. 2

DoubleThink as Faith

Being able to be happy with inconsistencies is part and parcel of religion -

• Jesus saying "Call no one Father" and Catholics calling Benedict XVI "Papa".
• We swear on Bibles in court, when the Bible says "Don't swear by anything."
• Sabbatarians and their endless mental gymnastics to avoid Paul's clear words against them.
• Annihilationists trying to call the appearance of Samuel to Saul a demonic manifestation, or arguing Enoch, Elijah and Moses really aren't resurrected in Heaven because of a verse in "Hebrews".
• Christadelphians who believe in literal fulfillments of Ezekiel's Temple visions in Ch 40-48, yet their happy belief in a non-literal Devil and demons.
• Jesus as "the Mighty God" but not the "Almighty God" in the various Russellite off-shoots.
• Any Sabbatarian Judaiser who uses flush toilets and doesn't go dig a hole a thousand paces outside the camp. Or doesn't immediately wash after sex. etc etc...
• The special ropes Orthodox Jews wrap around a suburb to make sure they're not working by leaving the "house" on a Sabbath.
• Any Believer who thinks the Unseen God must be shaped like a human because we've seen Jesus.

Etc etc etc... ad nauseum

Heretical Readings #1

Currently I am reading Geza Vermes "The Resurrection", Marcus Borg "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time", Finkelstein & Silberman "David and Solomon", and Bart Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus".

I'm also planning a detailed post on Colin Humphreys "The Miracles of Exodus", which is an excellent read and a compelling defense of the Exodus account in the Torah. Okay, so that's a tendentious comment, but I'm very impressed with the case that Humphreys makes for the basic historicity of most (all?) of the Exodus account - at least the bits that are not obviously interpolations of Temple Priest-work... the Ark, the Tent, the gold-work etc etc., which read like 10th Century Levitical instruction manuals from Solomon's (or Hezekiah's) era.

But, for now, I'm just making a few passing comments. Firstly, Geza Vermes' book takes apart the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, and looks critically at the understanding of the Resurrection evident in the Christian Bible and late Second Temple Judaism. Does he successfully destroy the Resurrection as a historical event? His preferred view is that the Resurrection is Jesus Risen to Life in the hearts of his believers - not in a non-spiritual ideological way, but as the Holy Spirit. A very personal Resurrection evidenced by a personal experience of the Living Jesus, however that might be experienced. I've read similar things in Crossan, Borg and Peter Carnley's books before. I'm sympathetic with a point Crossan made, in debate with Tom Wright, that a Resurrection in the far past, without an experience of Jesus in the present, isn't what drove the Disciples and their followers. They faced death because Jesus was alive for them in the here-and-now.

But... if we "feel" Jesus is alive Now, then what about Then? And what does a Resurrection mean without an Empty Tomb? However Vermes book re-emphasised for me just how very odd our accounts are in the Gospels - none cover the event itself, so it has no witnesses. It can't ever be history without some solid testimony - instead it will be a whole bunch of often contradictory "vision" accounts, just like St.Paul's list versus the different Gospels. Let's look at those...

Mark: Jesus isn't seen, just an Empty Tomb and some words from Angels, who say "You'll see Him in Galilee as He said..."

Matthew: the women do see Jesus, after some angels, but the disciples have to wait until a (dubious) mountain top experience

Luke: different people see Jesus, at different places, but none far from Jerusalem (what happened to Galilee?)

John: all over... Mary sees him as a Gardener, Peter and the Beloved (Lazarus?) see his burial cloths, and the disciples see him in a locked room, twice! Then in Galilee, as a post-script.

...question is: how did Mark really end? Before the last page was lost, and some well meaning scribes wrote a few different endings? James McGrath makes the interesting suggestion that we have the ending redacted onto "John" as chapter 21 - the Galilee fishing trip and Jesus pericope. This makes sense to me, especially since that's where "The Gospel of Peter" is heading before it too loses the last few pages (but don't ask me if I think Crossan's "Cross Gospel" is legit.)

With all that disagreement, plus a different list of "visions"/"appearances" in 1 Corinthians, is it any wonder that critical scholars get uptight about the whole thing? There's whole parking-lots of room to fit reasonable doubt into. But perhaps we do have a Witness to the event itself - the Shroud/s...

Bart Ehrman's book is a big challenge to anyone who has succumbed to the temptation of Bibliolatry and believes in "100% Inerrancy" - there's no such thing as an untouched Biblical text. Every version we have of the Christian Bible has been scholarly restored from flawed exemplars, and Ehrman makes a strong case that many popular verses about Jesus or by Paul are interpolations by over-zealous scribes. One surprise was just how flimsy the Pauline nature of several contentious "proof-texts", about women and their roles in Church, really are. I had heard such, but Ehrman demonstrates there's sufficient doubt to throw the whole lump Greco-Roman misogyny out of Christian discourse.

More later

Jacob's Dilemma

Jacob (aka James) succeeded Jesus as head of his followers after Jesus ascended to the Father - so the various extra-Biblical accounts tell us. You wouldn't know from "Acts", but Luke wasn't writing about Jacob. His focus was Peter and Paul, Jacob being incidental to the story he was telling. But my focus here is the letter Jacob wrote to the faithful, quite possibly the earliest surviving finished piece in the whole Christian Scriptures. He exhorts the faithful as follows (James 5:10,11)...

10Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Job's tale presents an interesting dilemma for Jacob's view of God (James 1:12-18)...

12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

As Job's tale begins God indulges in a bet with Satan to see if Job really is a true, faithful servant of God, or is just in it for the blessings. Job is reduced to scratching at horrible sores on his body after all his property, servants and children are stripped from him - and he perseveres. Not unreasonably he wants some answers from God about the disaster that has struck him down, and eventually God answers (from out of a storm cloud) with a bunch of counter-questions.

So what's the problem? As the quote above tells us, God tempts no one according to Jacob, but Job found the reality to be somewhat different. Of course we've no idea how the writer of "Job" knew anything about the comings-and-goings of Satan in the Heavenly Realm, and the whole dialogue from Job assumes God has brought about Job's suffering.

In philosophical terms we're talking about the problem of evil - if God is good, as Jacob affirms, then why do the righteous suffer, like Job? Why do evil people succeed and the righteous fail? Jacob tells us...

17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Thus God is unchanging and unchanged in His goodness. What might this mean? Here's another Bible verse that might help (Matthew 5:43-48)...

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Thus God is "impartially good" and that's how we should be, to be 'perfect' like Him. Unchanging in our goodness like God's unchanging radiance, as Jacob would put it. So how does the Jacobean theodicy explain the puzzle? I think another parable might give us a clue (Matthew 13:24-30)...

24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Thus the Apocalyptic End Time is when God will set things right, when the evil will be separated from the good, else the good might be lost too. Jacob emphasised a number of times that the Judge was near, that all should be mindful of the judgement at hand. Of course 2,000 years on that hope is a bit harder to sustain. Job's perseverance has a bit more relevance to Jacob's solution than Jacob ever imagined.

God's a Jerk said the Gnostic

God is a strange word with strange associations especially if you're an ancient Greek Pagan who's used to a full Pantheon. When the Greeks encountered Judaism they were attracted by the monotheism, but had trouble giving up a multitude of lesser gods. And in the wake of the Jewish Wars - which killed a lot of Greek 'civilians' living near the Jews - the god of the Jews didn't seem like a good candidate for the Supreme Good.

So what did they do? Marcion was a Christian who decided that the god of the Jews was an evil, vengeful sort who had nothing to do with Jesus' mission of sacrifice and salvation. So Marcion split the Judeo-Christian God in two - the god of the Jews and Jesus' Father. This happened on top of the last Jewish War (132-135 CE) when Judaism was being actively suppressed by the Empire, so it made sense to a lot of other Gentile Christians that the Apostles of the Jews had gotten Jesus' message wrong, and only Paul the Apostle of Jesus' Father gave us the true Gospel.

Thus at least one brand of Gnosticism was born. Marcionism was so popular it was the dominant form of Christianity for a while. Not long after Marcion another Christian, Valentinus, decided that Marcion had gone too far in rejecting the Hebrew God - instead of being evil the Archon (Ruler) was merely mistaken, and was the legitimate Ruler of less advanced Christians. Those in the know (gnosis meant knowledge) could transcend the Archon and get to know their true Origin, the Invisible Father. Valentinus didn't want to break with the Church, merely provide a means of lifting it to a higher level.

A whole bunch of similar movements sprang up, both in Jewish, Christian and possibly Pagan circles. They disagreed with the Orthodox Church (represented by a few very wordy bishops), but they also disagreed with each other. The complexity of their theories about the structure of the invisible world multiplied as often as a new teacher arose and imagined a whole new take on the Pantheon/Pleroma.

I think they lost out for a number of reasons. One might have been complexity - you had to remember a lot of weird code words and concepts to get into the Gnostic In-Crowd. Another was that they founded their churches on individual egos - a Teacher revealed new ideas about the True Gospel, but then the Teacher died and there was no mechanism for preserving the original charisma that made the group around him.

The Orthodox survived because the Gospel was 'eternal' and the Church didn't need charisma to work - just mysterious ritual, communal meals and lots of story-telling to the bread-and-butter believers. They were better at teaching just the Gospel - the simple kind - and not spinning new fairy-tales about the doings of the Invisible World. Plus this life, and this world, was seen as originally good - everyday things mattered to the Orthodox God, while the Gnostic God could only be found through navel-gazing.