Common knowledge

When we interpret Scripture, or any document from the past, it can be useful to have background information. That's because writers generally leave many things unsaid. They are usually writing to or for an audience that has a common frame of reference, so they don't engage in lots of exposition. Rather, the audience is expected to bring supplementary information to the text.

Problem is, what was common knowledge for readers at a particular place and time may not be common knowledge for a modern reader. So it can be useful to have background knowledge to help a modern reader fill in the gaps. 

That, however, raises the question of what counts as suitable background knowledge. For instance, when is a parallel truly parallel? Without attempting to be exhaustive, I'll briefly mention two controls that I use:

1. The ostensible background information needs to have a foothold in the a text. It is illicit to import an interpretative paradigm wholesale from outside the text. For instance, consider ufological interpretations of Ezekiel's theophanies. That "background" information belongs to a frame of reference that's extraneous to the world of the text. Based on watching Hollywood movies about flying saucers and extraterrestrials. 

2. The ostensible background information needs to have a foothold in reality. On the issue of comparative mythology, for instance, I don't use mythology as a starting-point. Rather, I go behind mythology to ask what experience gave rise to the mythology. How did ancient people experience the natural world? What are the natural properties of snakes, mountains, rivers, and "gardens" that underlie the symbolism? That provides a more reliable transcultural basis for extrapolating from one text to another text.  

To take a stock example, the four seasons are typically used as a metaphor for the human lifecycle. That's due to the relative universality of the seasons. Of course, if you live in equatorial Africa or Latin America, that may not be an accessible metaphor. 

Another example is imagery drawn from human social life to provide theological metaphors. But because these are analogies, they require some modification. For instance, the Bible sometimes depicts heaven as a palace. The Father is the aging king. His youthful Son is the Crown Prince. There's a throne room with angelic courtiers and sentinels.

In real life, the palace guard exists to protect the royal family from hostile intruders. But, of course, God doesn't need anyone to protect him, so the function is reversed: they protect unwary intruders from stumbling into God's presence! 

The anonymous Tempter

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

This may be a case of dramatic irony, where the audience senses something about a situation or a character (the Tempter) that another character (Eve) does not. The name of the Tempter instantly tipped off the audience that there may be something sinister about this character. "Snaky" characters have a reputation that precedes them. The connotations of the Hebrew designation are ominous. 

The question is whether Eve knew the name of the Tempter. To begin with, she wasn't around when Adam named the animals. Moreover, as some commentators note (e.g. Mathews, Sailhamer), the syntax is ambiguous as to whether the Tempter even is one of the garden animals. It could be rendered that he was "subtle as none other of the beasts"–which would place him in a class apart.

Eve never addresses the Tempter by name. It's the narrator who uses that designation. So the dialogue between Eve and the Tempter resembles a movie in which viewers watch a character strap on a shaheed belt, concealed under his jacket, leave his apartment, then board a crowded subway train. It could go off at any time. Passengers are oblivious to their imminent peril. 

By the same token, the narrator clues the audience into an alarming piece of information that Eve may lack. But while the audience is on the alert, Eve suspects nothing. 

Is the Quran one or many?

A friend asked me to comment on this post:

https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/01/22/jesus-was-a-unitarian-surprise-surprise/

1. A few preliminary comments. If you turn to Deut 6:4, it says: "Here, O Israel, the Trinity is false!"

Only it doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything directly about the Trinity. In context, it sets Yahweh in contrast to paganism. 

2. As for Mk 12:28-29, Jesus reaffirms the Shema. What a surprise. Was anyone expecting Jesus to repudiate the Shema? 

Here's some recently scholarship on Markan Christology:

Put succinctly then, Mark’s Jesus is the kyriotic Son inasmuch as he embodies the royal hopes surrounding a Davidic ruler and healer, who performs these same activities (and more) as a god-in-disguise. Functionally, Mark’s Jesus is characterized as though he were the embodiment of both Yahweh and his Davidic Messiah. This union of the divine and Davidic creates a characterization for audience members in which the Markan Jesus far surpasses anything known in Jewish cultural memory aside from Yahweh himself. The result is that, for sympathetic audience members, the Markan narrative creates its own scripts and forms its own cultural memory, in which Jesus is assimilated to both David and God as a divine and suffering messiah. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/01/michael-whitenton-hearing-kyriotic-sonship/

Looks far more promising for Trinitarians than unitarians. And that's just Mark's Gospel, which has the least developed Christology. 

3. A final preliminary point: why are Muslims in the combox giving Bart Ehrman high fives for his claim that Markan Christology is unitarian? 

Do Muslims think the Gospels are unitarian? If so, why do they reject the Gospels? Aren't the Incarnation and Trinity the primary stumbling blocks for Muslims? If they think the unitarian interpretation is correct, why don't they accept the Gospels? They can't have it both ways. 

4. Now I'd like to quote and comment on some remarks a Muslim made:

Abdullah
If you saw an orange and you kept saying it’s an apple, the whole world would not change their language and their norm understanding for things because of what you invented by your tongue. 

In fact, by this kind of playing and tampering, we can make everything is acceptable even if you worshipped idols. Just invented an odd understanding, and new language to describe that absurdity, and you would be fine. 

I know some Christians out there wish to insist that the three Persons are not individual beings, but even with them, the question which was just asked can be posed. Could you share how you define the word “being”? 

For now, I’ll propose a very simple definition (which others, including Christians, are free to reject): a being is a thing which exists (i.e. here the word “being” is treated almost like an active participle of the verb to be). On such a definition, a cat could be a being, and various parts of that cat (e.g. its bones, its organs) could also be considered beings (though beings of a sort different from the being which comprises them). But even if one did hold to this definition, and concluded that a cat is a single being comprising multiple beings of another sort, that would not mean one cat is actually multiple cats. 

Analogously, do you consider yourself a being? Do you consider me a distinct being from you? If so, would that mean you are a polytheist? Or does the existence of multiple beings not automatically equate with the existence of multiple gods? 

But the whole matter is about your trinity. Muslims are asking why? If each person is a being who is full God by himself, then by definition why can’t we say that you worship three gods? 

Although your analogy is not right since I was arguing from christians’ perspective that they worship one being consists of three persons, yet are you saying that (each person) in the trinity is not god or it’s god?
As I know that you say each person is full God, so I’m asking what the real difference between you and polytheists except the terms that you use?!

He's responding to someone other than me. I might have phrased things differently than the person he's responding to. Still, this may be representative of how a reasonably intelligent Muslim attacks the coherence of the Trinity. So let's consider his objection.

Let's begin by formalizing his objection. It might go something like this: if B is identical to A, and C is identical to A, then B is identical to C (via A). That seems logically irrefutable. But what if that's deceptively simplistic? Identity is vexed issue in metaphysics. 

Let's take a comparison. I'm going to use some Muslim examples to illustrate a point. So let's assume for discussion purposes that Islam is true. I will be arguing from Muslim assumptions. 

Is the Quran one or many? Surely it can't be both. It must either be one or many. That's the same logic Muslims deploy against the Trinity.

Well, what is the Quran? Suppose I have a pile of objects on a table. I'm speaking to a Muslim. I show him a hardcopy of the Quran and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

I then show him a CD-ROM of the Quran and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

I then show him an audiobook of the Quran and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

I then show him an electronic Quran (on my e-reader) and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

I then show him a Braille Quran and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

I then quote the Quran in sign language and ask him what it is. I presume he'll say, "That's the Quran!"

So, is this one Quran or six Qurans? 

What about a lector who recites the Quran from a minaret. Isn't that the Quran? 

There's a sense in which these are all one and the same Quran. Yet there's another sense in which the spoken word is not the written word, an ebook is not a CD-Rom, which is not an audiobook, which is not a hardcopy. So here's a case where two or more things can be both identical and distinct. They can all be identical with the Quran even though they are not identical with each other. 

How is that possible? Well, we can say, in one respect, that the Quran is the message. The content. 

Yet the same information can be encoded in different media. So in that respect, it's possible for B to be identical with A, and C to be identical with A, even though B and C are not identical with each other.  

And we can carry the same principle back a few more steps. If Muhammad dictates a surah to a scribe, and the transcription is accurate, isn't that the Quran?

If Muhammad dictates the Quran from memory, and his memory is accurate, isn't his recollection of the Quran the Quran?

If Gabriel utters a surah to Muhammad, isn't Gabriel's utterance the Quran?

According to Sunni theology, there's an eternal Quran. An uncreated, heavenly exemplar. 

Yet that's distinct from, say, Muhammad's memory of the Quran. Muhammad's memory of what Gabriel said isn't eternal. Rather, that's a mental copy. A mental representation of what he heard. 

But let's take this back one step further: isn't there a distinction between the uncreated Quran and Allah's mind? 

Does Allah think in Classical Arabic? Is Allah's cognition inseparable from human words? Was Allah unable to think before the development of Classical Arabic? 

Or is the eternal Quran an Arabic translation that exists in Allah's mind? A translation, from thought into words, of Allah's nonverbal Quranic concepts? So how many Qurans are there? 

• Hard copy. Print media

• Braille 

• Ebook

• Audiobook

• CD-ROM

• Live recitation

• Sign language

• Transcription of Muhammad's dictation

• Muhammad's memory of Gabriel's revelations

• Gabriel's revelations

• The eternal Quran

• Allah's nonverbal concept of the Quran

Now, I'm not Muslim. I don't think Gabriel appeared to Muhammad. I was temporarily adopting a Muslim viewpoint for the sake of argument. 

In addition, my point is not that this presents a direct analogy from the Trinity. That's not how I'd model the Trinity.

It does, however, illustrate that there's nothing inherently contradictory or nonsensical about saying individuals can be both distinct in some respect, yet identical in some respect. And there's nothing terribly esoteric about that distinction. I just drew that distinction in relation to the Quran. 

Snake in the grass

i) One reason we need to be circumspect about using comparative mythology to decode Biblical symbolism is that the same items can have varied significance in world mythology. So there's the risk of sample selection bias. Of superimposing an alien gloss onto the text. 

ii) It's possible that the symbolic import of some natural elements is a cultural universal. But it's hard to make confident generalizations given the vast scope of the topic over time and place. The available evidence is unmanageably large, and even then, that's only scratching the surface. 

iii) Some natural elements, because they have different functions, inevitably give rise to different or divergent symbolic meanings. Take fire. That can be used for heating and cooking. Keeping predators at bay. Purifying ores (metallurgy). But, of course, it can also be destructive. 

Likewise, take water. Too much water may be fatal (drowning). Too little water may be fatal (dying of thirst–or dying of hunger from famine due to drought). 

Water is used for so  many different things. Washing, cooking, drinking, &c. 

That's why scholars disagree on the significance of baptism. It's often thought to represent cleansing. But some scholars think it represents amniotic fluid, while Meredith Kline thought it represents deliverance from death by drowning. 

iv) Fauna, flora, and landscape have symbolic significance in many different cultures. But, of course, different cultures often have different faun, flora, and landscapes. Had Gen 3 been revealed in a culture with different animals, the Tempter might have been named Fox rather than Snake–since the fox is a trickster animal in some folkloric traditions.

v) Moreover, the same natural elements can have variable symbolic significance. For instance, many different symbolic roles and properties are attributed to snakes. 

vi) To take another comparison, consider rivers. I suspect temperate rivers have a generally benign symbolism, but tropical rivers might well have an ambivalent or ominous connotations. For instance, the Nile has hippos and crocodiles. That makes the Nile river hazardous to humans. Likewise, many hidden dangers lurk in the Amazon river, viz., the Piranha, tiger fish, anaconda, electric eel, stingray, Bull shark, black caiman. 

vii) To take another comparison, some mythologies view fabled islands as heaven on earth (e.g. Dilmun, the Isles of the Blessed). Yet an island which appears to be a tropical paradise can be very menacing beneath the balmy surface. The sandy beach main contain deadly cone snails. The waters may contain sharks, stonefish, box jellyfish, &c. The scenic jungle may contain venomous snakes, giant pythons, or poisonous spiders. The island would have very different associations to a native than a passerby. 

vii) By the same token, mythological utopias like Dilmun and the Garden of the Hesperides are both "Edenic" or paradisiacal, yet these gardens for the gods, not humans. 

viii) Now I'd like to quote from a standard reference work to illustrate the diverse ways in which world mythology interprets "Edenic" motifs:

As the center of the world, linking heaven and earth and anchoring the cardinal directions, the mountain often functions as an axis mundi–the centerpost of the world…One of the most important such mountains is Mount Meru, or Sumeru, the mythical mountain that has "centered" the world of the majority of Asians–Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain. "Mountains," L. Jones, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion (Macmillan, 2nd ed., 2005), 9:6212a. 

Mountains are the source not only of nourishing waters but also of rains and lightning. Storm gods are often associated with mountains: Zeus, Rudra/Siva, Baal Hadad of Ugarit, Catiquilla of the Inca, and many more.  

Mountains, the source of the waters of life, are also seen as the abode of the dead…Among the Shoshoni of the Wyoming, for instance, the Teton Mountains were seen primarily as the dangerous place of the dead. The Comanche and Arapaho, who practiced hill burial, held similar beliefs. "Mountains," ibid., 9:6214b. 

Above all, the influence of the desert environment appeared in the way in which, in the West, the garden was seen as an oasis, in stark contrast to the barren wastes outside…Confusingly, there was another more puritanical tradition in which the roles were reversed, and the garden, with its luxury, was condemned as the scene of temptation, while the wilderness was celebrated as the true paradise. "Gardens: An Overview," Ibid. 5:3277a. 

In China and Japan, both the awesome mountains and the streams that issued from them were thought to be possessed by spirits, and they were considered to be alive like plants animals and human beings themselves…To the Buddhist, the garden furnished a lesson on time. The flowers opened and withered within a month. The seasons revolved. But stone decayed on a far longer time scale that turned the present into a moving infinity. The symbolism was as varied and extensible as the clouds that gathered around the mountain peaks. Ibid. 5:3277b.  

The garden contained both friendly and unfriendly spirits. But threatening spirits were not persecuted as they might have been in the West: they were either left undisturbed (for example, by not digging the ground too deeply) or frustrated (as in the case of the demons who traveled in straight lines, who were thwarted through the construction of zigzag bridges). Ibid, 5:3277b.   

Real-life peasants and laborers, on the other hand, with families to feed, know that in temperate latitudes the skills involved in planning and maintaining a subsistence garden are greater than those called for in a recreational or cosmic garden because most of the edible plants are annuals….Things are different in parts of the tropics where three crops may be harvested in a year and the division between extensive fields and intensive gardens breaks down. There, the subsistence garden may assume an idealized form. Ibid. 5:3278b.   

Dilmun [is] a place that is pure, clean, and bright, a land of the living who do not know sickness, violence, or aging…a garden with fruit trees, edible plants, and green meadows. Dilmun is a garden of the gods, not for humans, although one learns that Ziusundra, the Sumerian Noah, as exceptionally admitted to the divine paradise. "Paradise," ibid. 10:6981b. 

Crossing the river at the time of death, as part of the journey to another world, is a common part of the symbolic passage that people have seen as part of one's journey after death. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero encounters a boatman who ferries him across the waters of death, as he seeks the source of immortality. The river Styx of Greek mythology is a well-known as the chief river of Hades. 
The dry riverbed of Sainokawara is said to be the destination of dead children. In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is referred to as the "far shore". "Rivers," Ibid. 11:7862b-63a.  

To Hindus, the Ganges is the archetype of all sacred waters; she is a goddess, Mother Ganga, representative of the life-giving maternal waters of the ancient Vedic hymns…According  to Hindu belief, the Ganges purifies all she touches…Pilgrims go to these places to bathe in the Ganges, to drink her water, to worship the river, and to chant her holy name. Especially in Banaras, many come to cremate their kin, to deposit the ash of the dead in the river, or to perform religious rites for their ancestors. Some come to spend their last days on the banks for the river, to die there and thus to "cross over" the ocean of birth and death….All who come to the Ganges come in the firm belief that bathing in this river, even the mere sight of Mother Ganga, will cleanse them of their sins… "Ganges River," ibid. 5:3274. 

Clearly, it's unreliable to assume that ancient Near Eastern mythology encodes culturally universal intuitions regarding the emblematic significance of a river, mountain, or garden paradise. We can't just default to that frame of reference as the presumptive background material for decoding the symbolism of Eden. 

The celestial bureacracy

I'll comment on this:

http://bnonn.com/are-cherubs-just-palace-guardians/

To draw a division between administrative and defensive functions is not only logically unwarranted, but positively contradicted by the nature of those functions in an ancient Near Eastern context…Even if the former point were not the case, the Bible never sets out an “angelic taxonomy” where cherubs are placed into the single category of palace guards.

i) We can only work with the information at our disposal. The Bible doesn't have a whole lot to say about cherubim/seraphim. I wouldn't call it an argument from silence or ignorance to draw conclusions from the available evidence. Surely that's preferable to beliefs that aren't supported by the evidence.

ii) Moreover, isn't the divine council theory require a taxonomy of distinct angelic roles?

In the divine council in Israelite religion, Yahweh was the supreme authority over a divine bureaucracy that included a second tier of lesser elohim ("sons of God") and a third tier of malakim ('angels'). 

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/HeiserIVPDC.pdf 

The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors. 

http://bnonn.com/what-is-the-kingdom-of-god-2/

Now, however, Bnonn is blending what he previously distinguished. In the quoted paragraph, he differentiates the administrative role of the top-tier angels from the defensive or revelatory role of lower-tier angels. So it looks like the original argument is undergoing ad hoc adjustments when challenged. But in that case, the distinctive assignments in the celestial bureaucracy or hierarchy seem to be arbitrary or interchangeable. 

As for the "counterevidence":

i) Keep in mind that all these representations are anthropomorphic. It's not as if God is literally a white-haired man in royal vestments in a throne room surrounded by sentinels and courtiers. God projects that imagery into the minds of seers. So the question is the significance of the symbolism. I think the point is that God is holy, so that creatures ordinarily need to be shielded from direct contact or the Beatific Vision. The cherumbim/seraphim function as "hazard" signs. If you trespass on sacred space, it's like walking into a radioactive chamber. 

That's a common theme in Scripture. It's not that God needs to be protected. Rather, creatures ordinarily need to be protected from God's incinerating holiness. I never suggested that their role is to protect God from trespassers, but to protect trespassers from God. 

It's a graphic, anthropomorphic way to drive home a point about the relationship between sinners and God. And that's underscored by the literary device of even making the seraphim shield their eyes. In effect, the seraphim need to wear visors. Unfiltered vision of Yahweh is fatal. This is all rather picturesque.

ii) We need to distinguish between cherubic statuary and actual angels or visions thereof.

iii) Some OT theophanies take the form of a portable throne. A mobile, miniature throne-room. In that respect, cherubim/seraphim reprise their role as the outer vanguard to screen unwary eyes from seeing Yahweh directly. That's symbolism. 

iv) I never suggested that angels are distinct from cherubim/seraphim. Rather, "angel" is a generic designation, whereas "cherub" or "seraph" is a specific designation. A special case or distinctive role for some angels. 

Moreover, Heiser and Bnonn are the ones who propose an angelic hierarchy in which top-tier angels have different bureaucratic roles than second-tier angels, and vice versa. 

v) As for Rev 4, that's different from, say, Isa 6, because the saints in heaven are holy in a way that Isaiah (or Moses, Exod 33) is not. They don't need the lead shielding to avoid a fatal dose of divine radiance. 

The depictions are flexible because this is picturesque imagery that varies according to the context. It's not that angels naturally have wings or tetramorphic bodies. 

Interfaith marriage

What's the Biblical position on interfaith marriage? Here are some classic prooftexts on the subject:

3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (Deut 7:3) 

For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father (1 Kgs 11:4). 

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39). 

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14).

The danger of interfaith marriage is twofold: (i) Divided loyalties between a Christian's devotion to God and his devotion his spouse, and (ii) sending mixed signals to their kids. 

To some degree, Deut 7:3 might reflect defunct Mosaic purity codes. The need to separate what is ritually pure from what is ritually impure. But even if that is timebound, the prohibition includes a timeless psychological principle. And the cautionary tale of Solomon illustrates that psychological principle. 

It isn't clear that 2 Cor 6:14 has specific reference to marriage. In context, it could be referring to participation in the public and private idolatrous religiosity of pagan Corinthians. And that would be a challenge for Christians. However, in one or two ways it might still be germane to the question of interfaith marriage:

i) It might reflect a general principle about forbidden attachments or emotional entanglements.

ii) Interfaith marriage might be analogous to participation in pagan rites. 

But even assuming that 2 Cor 6:14 either refers to interfaith marriage, or is applicable to interfaith marriage, who are the "unbelievers"? In the context of Roman Corinth, they'd be practicing pagans. 

The "in the Lord" phrase in 1 Cor 7:39 is a bit ambiguous. But in the context of Roman Corinth, that probably stands in contrast to a pagan spouse. 

How does that correspond to the situation of contemporary Christians. In some cases, the correspondence is direct. Paganism is not a dead religion. Take folk Hindus and folk Buddhists. You also have "Wiccans". 

So, in general, 1 Cor 7:39 and 2 Cor 6:14 prohibit marriage between a Christian and a pagan. That's fairly clearcut, although many Hindus and Buddhists are merely cultural Hindus and Buddhists. Nominal pagans (as it were). 

Besides direct comparisons, analogous cases include marriage between a Christian and a Muslim or a Christian and an atheist. Even though those aren't pagan, they are hostile to the Christian faith. I mean the religion or ideology, not necessarily the individual. But that can be dicey to untangle. 

Then you have the question of marriage between a Christian and a Jew. That's a borderline case. Paul's strictures don't directly address that issue. It's clearly not equivalent to paganism. But is it analogous to paganism? That has to be heavily qualified. Traditional Judaism is antithetical to paganism. But many Jews are hostile to Christianity. Yet Paul himself was both Jewish and Christian. In principle, these are complementary rather than contradictory. 

Of course, modern Judaism ranges all along a broad political, ethical, and theological spectrum. So that's further consideration. 

Another complication is that in Paul's discussion, there are actually two opposing dangers. On the one hand there's the danger of getting married to someone who's morally and religiously unsuitable. On the other hand, there's the danger of remaining single, for that raises the risk of succumbing to sexual temptation–especially for younger men and women. So the danger isn't one-sided. Interfaith marriage is hazardous, but celibacy is hazardous.  

Indeed, one reason Paul discusses the issue of single Christians is because the available pool of eligible Christians would be so shallow in the overwhelmingly heathen culture of mid-1C Corinth. So that creates a dilemma. He himself admits that celibacy is inadvisable in most cases.

Although there are many situations in which interfaith marriage is prohibited or imprudent (see above), it isn't always that straightforward inasmuch as there are situations in which we need to balance two competing principles. That's when borderline cases may come into play.

Biblical success

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/biblical-success

Alternative facts

I haven't followed the story closely, but apparently Trump made exaggerated predictions or claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. 

I haven't followed the story in detail because I avoid stories like that. I don't need to get embroiled in microscopic debates. I don't need to take sides on every controversy du jour. 

It's a mistake for conservatives to get into the habit of defending Trump's statements. Trump is loose with the truth. That's a given. I expect him to make factually indefensible statements. That's a vice he shares in common with Hillary. 

It's hardly surprising that the turnout was lower for Trump than Obama. DC is 50% black and 75% Democrat, so naturally there'd be higher turnout for the inauguration of a black president, or a Democrat president, not to mention both in one person. That's the obvious response to make, rather than making demonstrably false claims or foolhardily predictions. Aerial photography is hard to dispute. 

But this is all a distraction. Now that he's president, it really doesn't matter so much what he says, but what he does. That's what we need to keep our eye on. Conservatives should resist getting caught up in the melodrama between Trump and the media. Focus on what Trump is doing, and Congress is doing. That's where the real action is. 

"A sure norm for teaching the faith"

According to the late John-Paul II:

In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work. 

The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work, attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to produce a better text.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

So that's a thoroughly vetted text. But it turns out that it wasn't all that reliable after all: 

The Catechism says succinctly: "Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one's neighbor" (no. 2508). Despite this simple statement, there is a long historical debate about the actual meaning of the term.

Catholic moral theologian Germain Grisez has observed: "Although most Catholic theologians have considered the prohibition of lying a moral absolute, there is a lesser but significant school of thought holding that lying sometimes can be justified, particularly when it is a question of lying to an enemy, who has no right to the truth, in order to protect the innocent from harm" ("The Way of the Lord Jesus,"vol. 2, Franciscan Press, 1993).

These two ways of thinking are reflected in the editorial process of the Catechism, which was revised for the book's second edition. The earlier edition (1994) stated that to lie is "to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has a right to know the truth" (no. 2483, emphasis added). This definition, reflecting what Grisez calls the "lesser but significant school of thought," stems from the teaching of the 17th-century Protestant writer Hugo Grotius.

After the publication of the Catechism, many Catholic scholars wrote to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) about this paragraph. They asked for rectification of the text, which had abandoned centuries of Catholic teaching by accepting the position of Grotius. Fortunately, the paragraph was revised; the 1997 edition eliminates the words "who has a right to know the truth" (see also no. 2484).

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/495/A-Legitimate-Way-to-Lie.aspx

So, despite the fact that the project was overseen by the Prefect for the Faith (Cardinal Ratzinger), despite the fact that it went through ten drafts, despite the fact that Pope John-Paul pronounced it to be a "sure norm" for teaching the faith, the original paragraph on the morality of lying had to be rewritten after the Catechism was published. And not due to a typographical blunder, but because it promoted an unethical position on lying. Yet this is supposed to be the church that has a divine teaching office. The church that God protects from ethical or theological error in its official teaching. 

O Little Town of Bethlehem

One pop atheist slam against Christianity is our fixation on a "Bronze Age" religion. Now, this is thoughtless trope that's copied from one atheist to the next. It is true, however, that this objection singles out something distinctive about the Judeo-Christian faith. It is rooted in the past. Rooted in historical events. Events that have an address as well as a date.

For Christians who observe the church calendar, it's striking to consider how modern-day Christians worldwide sing Christmas carols about Bethlehem. Western Christians, in what has been for centuries the power center of the world, turn their attention to a hamlet on the periphery of the Roman Empire. Even by 1C standards, Bethlehem was the antipode of Rome, capital of the then-greatest empire of the known world. 

If it weren't for Christianity, everyone would fixate the political, military, and economic power centers of the world. Big Western cities. Entertainment capitals. Pro sports. It's all about the winners.  

Unbelievers are obsessed with the present. Who has power. Who has status. Who's on top. Who's is currently the richest man in the world? Who is currently the most successful movie star or rock star? Who is currently the most successful quarterback, or basketball star, or soccer team? 

It's all about now. Unbelievers disdain the past. Disdain the backwaters of the world. 

The Christian frame of reference is entirely different from the humanist frame of reference. Even for Christians residing in the power centers of the world, that's not our polestar. That's not the standard of comparison by which we measure what's important.  

Of course, Christians think about the future, too. But it's a future that's rooted in the past. And it's a future set in the hereafter or the world to come. 

Two-kingdom fascism

Darryl Hart is a leader of the 2-Kingdoms position. Here are some comments he left on a very long thread: 

D. G. Hart says:
Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do. Christians don’t get a pass from civil law just because they follow a higher law. 

The question wasn’t whether Nero should light up his gardens with Christians. It was whether Nero executed Christians. 

That is what God ordained the magistrate to do, right? Just because a believer has a special relationship with God doesn’t let the believer disobey the magistrate’s laws. Christianity is not a license for civil disobedience. 

If a law is unjust or if we must obey God rather than men, then we suffer the consequences of disobedience. That’s what the apostles did. They didn’t form political action committees to overturn Roman laws.
Paul doesn’t mention justice. He doesn’t mention God’s law. He doesn’t qualify the magistrate’s authority. They are God’s ministers – period. 

So you disobey God’s word. You refuse to do what Paul says. Submit to the unjust emperor. 

I am saying that I follow what Paul said in Rom 13. God wants his people to submit to those in authority, those whom he has established. 

If I break the civil law, I should be punished. God gave us authorities to uphold the law and maintain order and peace. It’s disorderly and unpeaceful if you think you can pick and choose which laws to obey because you have Jesus in your heart. 

https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/

i) That's the reductio ad absurd of 2K. Hart's fascist interpretation of Rom 13 represents a moral inversion of Rom 13. 

ii) As I've pointed out in the past, it's naive to suppose that in Rom 13, Paul is stating everything he thought about the issue at hand. Paul is writing to Christians in the capital of the Roman Empire. What if his letter was intercepted by the Roman authorities? For the sake of Roman Christians, he has to be guarded in what he says. That doesn't mean he says things he doesn't believe, but it does mean he probably leaves some things unsaid. 

iii) In addition, that's more than sheer speculation. He was a firm believer in the OT. He surely didn't believe Ahab, Jezebel, and Athaliah had a civic duty to punish Jews who refused to worship Baal. And he certainly didn't believe Jews had a civic duty to submit to the idolatrous edicts of Ahab, Jezebel, or Athaliah. Likewise, Paul would surely endorse the civil disobedience of the Jewish midwives (Exod 1). So there are unstated caveats in Rom 13.

iv) Hart acts as though the divine institution of government means God has delegated absolute, autonomous authority to the state, so that rulers are entitled to do whatever they see fit. Hart has an amoral conception of civil authority, by separating law from justice. 

But in Paul's understanding, the duty of the civil magistrate is to punish wrongdoers, not simply lawbreakers. The civil magistrate isn't merely or primarily a law enforcer, but an agent of justice. As such, he has no duty to act unjustly. Indeed, he has a duty to act justly and refrain from injustice. 

v) Hart says "Paul doesn’t mention justice. He doesn’t qualify the magistrate’s authority. They are God’s ministers – period."

How could Hart miss that? Perhaps Hart is committing the word-concept fallacy. Does he imagine that if Paul doesn't use the word "justice," then the idea can't be present? Yet Paul says the role of the magistrate is to reward or facilitate those who do good and punish those who do wrong. What is that if not the essence of justice? 

vi) Paul doesn't say or imply that Christians have a duty to submit to rulers in virtue of their sheer, unconditional authority. To the contrary, Paul specifically qualifies the legitimate mandate of civil authority. 

vii) In addition, as one commentator notes:

The authority is a servant of God, but it has the purpose of serving its constituents in the accomplishment of their good actions (Rom 13:4)…The authority is a servant for the constituent so that the person can accomplish what is good. This reconceptualizes authority…[It]  has the just purposes not of perpetuating its own power and authority but of serving its constituents by enabling them to do what is good. S. Porter The Letter to the Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 246.

The fact that God ordained government is not a blank check for any specific exercise of power. Hart's inference is like saying God ordained sex, therefore any kind of sexual activity is divinely sanctioned. In Hart's Looking Glass world, God ordained the magistrate to execute those who are doing God's will, as if God is acting at cross-purposes with himself. 

vii) Does Hart think Christians have a divine obligation to commit evil if the state commands what God forbids? He makes statements to that effect. Does he think 1C Christians had a divinely-imposed duty to submit to emperor worship? 

viii) Perhaps Hart would concede that there are situations where Christians have a higher obligation to break the law. If so, Hart seems to be saying the magistrate has a duty to punish Christians for breaking a law which Christians have a duty to break. 

To take a concrete example, Hart either thinks German Christians had a duty not to protect their Jewish neighbors, or if they had a duty to protect their Jewish neighbors, Nazi authorities had a duty to punish Christians who sheltered Jews. 

ix) Of course we need to be prepared to face the consequences of civil disobedience. But that's beside the point. That hardly means the state has a right or duty to punish civil disobedience when the state commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands. 

Does Hart think the state is supposed to punish people in situations where people are supposed to defy the state? How coherent is that? 

Born of water and the Spirit

I consider "water" in Jn 3:5 to be a metaphor for the Spirit's agency in regeneration. 

1. Ironically, the Catholic interpretation contradicts Catholic theology. If Jn 3:5 refers to water baptism, then the rite of baptism is a sine qua non of salvation. Yet at least since Trent (i.e. "baptism of desire"), Catholic theology denies that you must be baptized to be saved. Indeed, modern Catholic theology leaves the door open for the salvation of non-Christians or even atheists. 

The problem here is that the traditional Catholic interpretation predates reversals in Catholic theology that contravene the traditional interpretation. 

2. As many scholars note, John's Gospel deemphasizes the sacraments. 

3. The Catholic interpretation is anachronistic. Jesus upbraids Nicodemus for failing to understand something which he ought to be able to grasp. If, however, Jesus is alluding to the Christian rite of baptism, that's not something Nicodemus could be expected to know.

For some interpreters that's not a problem because they think the speeches and dialogues in John's Gospel are fictitious. They favor the baptismal interpretation of Jn 3:5 because they think the narrator fabricated a backstory to retroactively validate a later Christian rite. 

So the baptismal interpretation sacrifices the historicity of the account. The same problem afflicts the eucharistic interpretation of Jn 6. 

4. A recurring motif in John's Gospel is the spectacle of listeners who misunderstand Jesus because they mistake his figurative usage for literal usage. That should warn us against assuming that Jn 3:5 is literal.

5. John's Gospel makes abundant use of theological metaphors, viz. light/darkness, sheep/shepherd/sheepgate/wolf, wheat, vine, sleep, birth, bridegroom, lamb, thief. 

It would therefore be surprising if Jesus is speaking literally in Jn 3:5. In that event we'd expect a broad clue that he's speaking literally rather than figuratively. 

6. That's especially the case if, according to the baptismal interpretation, the rite of baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. For if no one can be saved apart from baptism, we'd expect Jesus or the narrator to dispel any ambiguity regarding such a momentous issue.

7. The OT uses aquatic metaphors. An oft-cited parallel is Ezk 36:25-27. Likewise, the "outpouring" of the Spirit (Isa 44:3; Ezk 39:29; Joel 2:28) is an aquatic metaphor linked to the Spirit. 

Another possibility is that Jn 3:5 evokes the water-from-the-rock motif. That would be consistent with the way in which Exodus narratives are often a subtext in John's Gospel. 

8. Furthermore, the association with OT theological metaphors would dovetail with Christ chiding Nicodemus, since he ought to be familiar with that OT background information. 

9. Following Keener, I think water=Spirit is a hendiadys, in which "Spirit" is epexegetical of "water". 

Moreover, that has a parallel in Jn 7:38-39, where the life-giving work of the Spirit is likened to a spring or stream.

10. That's my preferred interpretation. My fallback interpretation is "water" as amniotic fluid. For a defense of that interpretation, cf. Richard Bauckham, Gospel of Glory (Baker, 2015), chap. 5. 

Shall we gather at the river?

I'll comment on an interesting post by Bnonn:

http://bnonn.com/what-is-the-kingdom-of-god-3/

I believe that to a great extent, Bnonn is channeling Michael Heiser in this series. Bnonn makes some interesting connections with the Book of Job.

Regarding the identity of the Temper in Gen 3, I agree with Bnonn, but I'd like to anticipate an objection. The OT sometimes uses "folk etymologies" or puns. 

Some people might object that "folk etymologies" are incorrect, but that misses the point. It's like saying a pun is incorrect. But the function is to trigger associations. That communicates. The meaning we attribute to word is arbitrary, in the sense that words mean whatever the linguistic community assigns to certain phonemes. The objective is successful communication. 

Now I'd like to comment on Bnonn's position that the Garden of Eden was the meeting place for the divine council. He offers the following corroborative evidence:

1. A garden. Most obviously, the divine council was thought to meet in a garden—which is what Adam was created in.
2. Rivers. In Genesis 2, we learn that Eden was the source of four rivers. If you recall the codewords I listed in the previous installment, this was another common motif for divine council meeting places; in Ugarit, for example, El’s divine council met in a lush garden at the source of two rivers.
3. A holy mountain. This garden meeting-place was also held to be on a holy mountain; and the Bible explicitly names Eden as such [Ezk 28:13-17).

Here I'm afraid I must demur. 

1. Although I think OT scholars like Heiser and John Walton can be useful, I disagree with their liberal use of comparative mythology. I favor realistic interpretations of OT historical narratives. 

2. Apropos (1), what exactly is the divine council? Michael Heiser says: 

The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos. 

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/

Unfortunately, that's ambiguous. Is the heavenly host synonymous with angels?

In a previous installment, Bnonn says:

The Old Testament seems to distinguish angels—mere messengers—from the sons of God—the royal family; and in doing so it follows Ugarit, which had two tiers of gods: the sons of El, who ruled certain districts and provinces, and a larger group of lesser gods who acted as messengers and warriors.

So this suggests that the divine council consists of aristocratic angels. 

i) In a pagan context, the "sons of God" would the literal offspring of high gods and goddesses. Divine princes. 

Now, that might be tolerable as mythopoetic picture language, but it can't be more than that in OT monotheism. 

ii) Apropos (i), why would God have a terrestrial meeting place with angels? It's understandable that God appears to Adam and Eve on terra firma. That's because Adam and Eve are earthlings. But surely God doesn't need a physical meeting place to communicate with angels. In the case of Ugaritic mythology, that might well be taken literally, just like Greek mythology locates the dwelling place of most high gods in a palace on the summit of Mt. Olympus. But surely that's not a realistic interpretation of OT historical narration. At best, that would be using human social metaphors which depict God as a king with his retinue of princes and courtiers. 

iii) It's possible that Ezekiel's mountainous depiction of Eden is figurative. That may trade on the Mt. Zion motif. 

However, it's possible or even probable that Eden was actually located in the high country. For one thing, there's a natural link between rivers and mountains inasmuch as mountains are a major source of rivers. The melting snowpack produces mountain streams which swell into rivers. Moreover, Eden is located somewhere in Mesopotamia. Possibly the highlands of Armenia. 

But in that event, Eden isn't associated with a mountain because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on physical logistics. Mountains and rivers naturally go together. 

iv) Apropos (iii), that, in turn, dovetails with a river and a garden. It's logical that man's ancestral home would be a garden with fruit-trees. That's supplies a natural human foodstuff. Likewise, the garden provides grazing land for livestock (and possibly game animals). So, once again, Eden isn't associated with a garden because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, it's based on provision for human subsistence. 

v) Apropos (iii-iv), that pans into the riverine locale. Humans typically settle near bodies of water–a spring, well, lake, river, ocean. Rivers are especially valuable because humans can do so many things with a river:

• Irrigation for farming

• Fruit trees and garden plots along the moist river banks

• Fishing

• Waste disposal

• Transportation

• Bathing water

• Cooking water

• Drinking water (for humans)

• Watering hole for livestock and game animals

• Driftwood 

So, once more, Eden isn't associated with a river (or rivers)  because that's the location of a divine council. Rather, that's for the benefit of human inhabitants. The implicit rationale is very practical, very down-to-earth. Providing for the physical needs of human creatures. That's of no earthly use to a divine council. Angels don't need a mountain retreat or garden resort to hang out with God. Angels don't need bodies of water to survive and thrive. If you push that, it pushes you into a mythological conception.