2009-04-07

Piper makes an annual visit to a mainline protestant church, and it is eerie. Most of the  religious language means something totally different to their minds from Piper’s. “There is a keeping of the language and a demythologizing of the original meaning.” “What made my visit heart-wrenching was that the children's choir sang these words—trust me, I am copying them from the bulletin—"Birds and trees, people and plants, dolphin and whale all lives are equal. . . . Sister Rain, Brother Stone bring us back to our true home."” My Annual Visit to a Mainline Protestant Church

A man kills all his children and himself because his wife left him for another man. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_on_re_us/children_slain

Harris paraphrases Scripture passages related to conduct in speech, substituting blog, Facebook, and Twitter actions in place of speech. Scripture for E-Mail, Blogs, Twitter and Facebook

Hays has a satirical paraphrase of Acts 15 using the Roman Catholic Church as a template. It is a rather glaring example of how far removed the RCC institution really is from the apostolic practices, counter to their claims. The Acts of the Apostolates

Hays writes that Ehrman panders to a sympathetic audience, knowing the average reader doesn’t have access to the commentaries and materials that refute his claims. Hays addresses some alleged contradictions: i) To the idea that Luke says they went back to Nazareth almost immediately while Matthew says they were still living in Bethlehem for perhaps a year; the latter is false (Matthew doesn’t say that) and the flight to Egypt occurred some time after the return to Nazareth. ii) Ehrman makes the obtuse statement regarding the records of temple cleansings that, either only one happened, and therefore it is a contradiction, or two happened, and it’s not a true retelling because each only told one – as if selective history is false! Both situations are defensible. Both accounts may be accurate, albeit, partial descriptions of what happened. Moreover, since we don’t know everything, it may be that we cannot fully harmonize [without speculation, anyway]. Ehrman also makes another confusion: It’s “possible for two different accounts of the same event to be irreconcilable at the narrative level, but reconcilable at the historical level.” iii) As for the cockcrow, Mark, following Peter, preserves the account in its fullest and most detailed form (as Peter himself would have remembered and repeated it), but that the double cockcrow was omitted as an unnecessary additional detail in the other accounts. It’s highly unlikely a cock would crow just once. iv) As for whether the women saw angels or men, Ehrman is apparently too dense to understand that the two words can refer to the same entity, as defined by the context. v) Ehrman argues that harmonizing produces a Gospel ‘unlike any others that is the right Gospel’, but doesn’t seem to get that harmonization is asking how they are related, which requires going beyond one account, and it’s an exercise generated by his demand. vi) Ehrman thinks that Jesus saying in John 16 “none of you asks me” when Peter had is problematic. Hays quotes a scholar arguing for the present tense as opposed to past tense [better is probably that they had not really cared for the answer but their own pain is his leaving]. vii) Ehrman thinks that ancestors are contradictory [see our treatment here, http://byconstantpractice.blogspot.com]. Hays points out that ancestors can be traced multiple ways in tight-knit communities (e.g. if parents are distant cousins). Hays also points to solutions for the 14 counting of Matthew, including Nolland’s: “The third fourteen takes us from Jechoniah to Jesus, and are achieved by counting both Jechoniah and Jesus. The genealogist probably does not consider this to be double counting because in counting Jechoniah in the second fourteen, he really had in mind Jehoiakim [in Septuagintal usage the grandson of Josiah is called either ‘Jechoniah’ or ‘Jehoiakim,’ in the latter sense using the same name as for the father]; this leaves Jechoniah actually to be counted in his own right in the third fourteen,” viii) Ehrman always assumes that Scripture must be wrong, he makes no effort to understand it. ix) Ehrman doesn’t understand the in Mark “immediately” is just stylistic, a connective conjunction appearing 40 times, and “doesn’t generally carry any special temporal significance.” x) Ehrman uses Tacitus and Josephus to judge the Scriptures, assuming the former are correct and therefore employing a double standard, since the same critiques he applies to the NT (bias, apparent inconsistencies, hearsay) apply to the former and are his basis for rejecting the NT! There is evidence of widespread reform under Augustus that would require censuses, perhaps over decades. xi) Luke is fond of hyperbole, and it’s only wrong if he intended strict accuracy. xii) Ehrman doesn’t get that a speaker (particular those speeches in Acts) can summarize an event. It doesn’t have to be enumerated in specific detail (e.g. Judas/priests buying a field). xiii) Ehrman has issue with how many animals Jesus rode on the triumphal entry, but it’s likely the cloth was draped over both so they’re a single conceptual unit. xiv) Mt 27:9 is a mosaic of quotes from the OT, some which do come from Jeremiah. “Ehrman may be a competent textual critic, but when he strays from his field of expertise, he comes across a nothing more than big-name hack.” The hidden contradictions of Ehrman

Derek Thomas has an observation regarding commentaries that I can somewhat confirm – “excellent in exegetical insights, historical background, linguistic analysis, philological studies etc.” but they contain largely the same information, and can be quite repetitive. He says that there seems to be “a lack of appreciation of the value of exegesis and analysis from a perspective of systematic theology.” To understand the part one must understand its relation to the whole – and biblical theology seems averse to this question. Commenting on Commentaries (Derek Thomas)

Canada is the best prepared nation in the world, coming out looking the best in the economic crisis. Her banks have had no bailouts. Moreover, “Canadians are so sensible they even have the sense not to brag, in case things turn out badly for them after all.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/03/the_best_prepared_awar.html

Harris provides this Luther quote: "Some pastors and preachers are lazy and no good. They do not pray; they do not read; they do not search the Scripture... The call is: watch, study, attend to reading. In truth you cannot read too much in Scriptures; and what you read you cannot read too carefully, and what you read carefully you cannot understand too well, and what you understand well you cannot teach too well, and what you teach well you cannot live too well... the devil... the world...and our flesh are raging and raving against us. Therefore, dear sirs and brothers, pastors and preachers, pray, read, study, be diligent... This evil, shameful time is not the season for being lazy, for sleeping and snoring" --Quoted in John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 101.” You Cannot Read Too Much in Scripture

Phillips comments (in the comment of a rather odd video on what to do with unleavened bread) on the formality of religion to so many, cautioning us to never miss the reality for the form, and notes that the OT rituals, time after time, were meant to bring to memory the works of God. Unlike Blackaby’s lead-block view of Scripture, “God's characteristic way of working is to act miraculously, provide an inerrant prophetic interpretation, then bid believers to keep the truth of the event alive — not to expect performances daily at 9, 12, 3, 6, and 9.” Often people, like Roman Catholics, are just religious enough to keep them damned. Unleavened bread points back to the Exodus, and pointing forward to the vastly greater miracle of deliverance by the true Bread of Life – Jesus Christ. A cross-cultural moment- what to do with Matzoh-

Here’s a great, short answer to “I believe Jesus was a moral example and a great sage and teacher.” Jesus was a Good Teacher dodge (NEXT! #9)

“Saving the phenomena” is a principle in philosophy where explanations must account for how things seem to our experience. The conclusions we draw from our experience can be debated, but the very event of that experience must not be sacrificed or ignored for the sake of theoretical interest. Your conclusions may contradict common sense and other conclusions, but throw them away if they contradict experience. Philosophy Word of the Day – Saving the Phenomena

Commenting on teleological arguments, this post says, “William Paley’s form of the argument can be construed as an argument to the best explanation: In light of the apparent design we see in nature, design – rather than chance and/or necessity – appears to be the better explanation.” Basically, some things are design-like, design-like properties are not producible by unguided natural means, so some things in nature are the product of intentional design. This cites the fine-tuning argument, the “irreducibly complex” bacterial flagellum, and Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, which concludes that we no reason, on naturalism, to trust the deliverances of our own rationality, since our minds are adapted to survival, not perceiving truth. Philosophy Word of the Day – Teleological Arguments, Part 2

Here’s some comments on certain tools for comparing biblical manuscripts. Comparing GNT Texts (and Manuscripts)