I pay attention to James White only occasionally these days and I noticed something that's probably been happening forever that didn't pop out at me like it has been doing recently. James White may be the best example of someone that is projecting that I know of.
In his debate with Barker there was a lot about how atheists will do whatever it takes to discredit the Bible. They'll latch on to crazy views and adhere to bad scholarship to sustain their atheism and justify their God-hating ways.
This is true for me, says James White. When I explained to him that he was misrepresenting Dan Barker's claims (and I explained more fully here) he ultimately hung up on me and finished with words to the effect that some people just can't see, etc. Well, he's right about that, but isn't it him rather than me? Later he writes about how I throw consistency to the wind just so I can suppress knowledge of God.
Now there is a scholar in Europe that thinks Genesis 1:1 has been mistranslated all these years. Rather than saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" it should read "In the beginning God separated the heaven and the earth." So it's not a creation out of nothing but an ordering of pre-existing material. That's not too far from what I've long understood was an exegetical option (see under exegetical points here), but I'm not qualified to say who's right.
For James White this is "Stunningly Silly". Bunch of hubris. She lacks humility and balance.
Unlike James White?
James White is a young earth creationist. Why would anybody be a young earth creationist except because they are desperate to sustain their Christianity? How's the scholarship on that? Who's latching on to crazy arguments to sustain their beliefs? All of these scientists are wrong? When he rejects the scientific consensus, does that demonstrate hubris or lack of consistency?
James White is a Calvinist who believes Christ's atoning sacrifice paid only for the sins of the elect. 2 Peter 2:1 reads "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." Somehow that doesn't mean that Christ's atoning sacrifice paid for the sins of the reprobate. How is that possible you ask? In the end it doesn't matter. James White has a prior commitment to limited atonement. That's all you really need to know.
I John 2:1-2 reads "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world"
Well, that just means Christians all over the world, says James White in The Potter's Freedom. Really? Is that what he means with "world"? Because in the same chapter of the same book he uses the same word again. "15Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world."
James White spins away at these problems further in TPF. He skips 2 Pet 2:1, though you know he'd resolve it somehow. He approaches the text with the idea of "How can I man handle the bible to make it say what I need it to say to sustain my Calvinism, which is clearly taught at Romans 9."
My point is this. Is it really atheists that approach texts with pre-determined conclusions? Note my approach to the question of Genesis 1:1. I don't know. If it's true that it has been mistranslated over these years, then this is another strike against evangelical Christianity. So if all I cared about was suppressing knowledge of God and denying the truth of the Bible I suppose I'd start by assuming that this scholar is right. Why don't I do that? Because I have no prior commitment to either conclusion. So I am free to consider the question on the merits. James White's conclusion is already known before the evidence has even been evaluated. We don't need to see him exegete 2 Pet 2:1. We know where he will end up no matter what a text says about universal atonement.
Notice that the same was true regarding the point I brought up with Josephus. James White was obviously ignorant of the matter, but this makes no difference. He already knew there was nothing to it before even evaluating it. An open minded person would say "That's interesting. Never heard of it. I'll look into it and see what the evidence shows." Not James White. There's no need to look into it. He's got that prior commitment. And yet he would have us believe it is atheists that are blinded by their prior commitments. It's really quite the opposite.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
It's Columbus Day
You may have heard mamby pamby liberals criticize the memory of Columbus before. If you've ever wondered where they are getting this stuff go here, read, and learn.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Mike Licona Has Lost Me
First things first. Mike Licona seems like a nice enough guy, but he's obviously a bit of a nerd. I'm not knocking it. I have nerd tendencies. I'm an engineer. But his attempts at jokes are hard to listen to. I'm talking about his last debate with Ehrman. "Run Forrest!! Run!!" This is not funny, nor is his repeated use of this "There's a Jew an agnostic and a Christian...this is not a joke." He's getting polite laughter and nothing more.
OK, on to some substance. I like it when I hear a debate where the issue of the plausibility of a claim of resurrection comes up. Mike brought it up in his opening statement. He puts 3 facts on the table. They are 1-Jesus died by crucifixion, 2-the disciples had experiences where they thought they saw Jesus post mortem and 3-Paul likewise saw Jesus post mortem.
He then considers different explanations for these facts. One explanation would be hallucinations, but this seems implausible. The reason is that you can't share a hallucination with someone else. The authors of Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception couldn't find much on shared hallucinations. Also licensed critical psychologist Gary Sipsey (sp?) says he looked at the professional literature for about 2 decades and couldn't find anything on it.
So next Mike compares this explanation to the resurrection hypothesis. There's nothing in the literature that says people rise from the dead, however it's not implausible like hallucinations because there's nothing that says resurrection can't occur. God could raise someone from the dead. So resurrection is more plausible than hallucinations, which find themselves in a negative position.
Somebody please explain to me how this makes any sense at all. Hallucinations are implausible because a couple of people say they couldn't find anything on it. But there's nothing on resurrections, yet they're not implausible. Is this not transparent double standards? If nothing in the literature makes hallucinations implausible, why doesn't it make resurrections implausible?
Well, God could make it happen, says Mike. God can make anything happen. God can make group hallucinations happen. God can make the Lions win. Nothing is implausible if "God can make it happen" is somehow relevant to the discussion.
The apologist says "Sure, Jesus rising from the dead naturally is implausible, but not Jesus rising supernaturally." Then my running 100m in 8 seconds is not implausible, because God could have intervened to make it happen. God could intervene to have you fly in a space ship, levitate, or leap across the Grand Canyon while simultaneously throwing 1000 stones at 1000 targets placed along the perimeter and hitting bullseye for each.
Face facts, Christians. The resurrection hypothesis is implausible. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't necessarily means it's not knowable (in theory). But it's implausible. If you want to deny it then deny the nose on your face as well.
OK, on to some substance. I like it when I hear a debate where the issue of the plausibility of a claim of resurrection comes up. Mike brought it up in his opening statement. He puts 3 facts on the table. They are 1-Jesus died by crucifixion, 2-the disciples had experiences where they thought they saw Jesus post mortem and 3-Paul likewise saw Jesus post mortem.
He then considers different explanations for these facts. One explanation would be hallucinations, but this seems implausible. The reason is that you can't share a hallucination with someone else. The authors of Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception couldn't find much on shared hallucinations. Also licensed critical psychologist Gary Sipsey (sp?) says he looked at the professional literature for about 2 decades and couldn't find anything on it.
So next Mike compares this explanation to the resurrection hypothesis. There's nothing in the literature that says people rise from the dead, however it's not implausible like hallucinations because there's nothing that says resurrection can't occur. God could raise someone from the dead. So resurrection is more plausible than hallucinations, which find themselves in a negative position.
Somebody please explain to me how this makes any sense at all. Hallucinations are implausible because a couple of people say they couldn't find anything on it. But there's nothing on resurrections, yet they're not implausible. Is this not transparent double standards? If nothing in the literature makes hallucinations implausible, why doesn't it make resurrections implausible?
Well, God could make it happen, says Mike. God can make anything happen. God can make group hallucinations happen. God can make the Lions win. Nothing is implausible if "God can make it happen" is somehow relevant to the discussion.
The apologist says "Sure, Jesus rising from the dead naturally is implausible, but not Jesus rising supernaturally." Then my running 100m in 8 seconds is not implausible, because God could have intervened to make it happen. God could intervene to have you fly in a space ship, levitate, or leap across the Grand Canyon while simultaneously throwing 1000 stones at 1000 targets placed along the perimeter and hitting bullseye for each.
Face facts, Christians. The resurrection hypothesis is implausible. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't necessarily means it's not knowable (in theory). But it's implausible. If you want to deny it then deny the nose on your face as well.
Sell the Vatican, Feed the World
This is brilliant. And funny. Here's a great line:
"You preach to live humbly, and I totally agree. So now maybe it's time for you to move out of your house that is a city."
"You preach to live humbly, and I totally agree. So now maybe it's time for you to move out of your house that is a city."
Friday, October 9, 2009
More On My Discussion with James White
Atheists have an advantage. You see, having no morals they are free to lie and cheat and steal. Or break the rules of a debate with their atheistic ethics. There's no reason not to for an atheist. What does it matter? If it gives him an advantage, go for it (see about the 5:25 mark and following). In contrast Christians like James White have "transcendent moral values" that limit the scope of their behavior.
So says James White with regards to his debate with Dan Barker. Among several examples of Dan's wickedness is his use of Justin Martyr. Here is what Dan said during the debate:
Now it's not just modern scholars, but even early Christians. In the 2nd century there was a christian apologist who had been a pagan believer who converted to Christianity: Justin Martyr. And he was arguing with the pagans about we should all convert to Christianity, you know why? Because it's no different. Look what he says: When we say also that the Word, who is the firstborn of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you pagans believe regarding those whom you esteem to be the sons of Jupiter. Like Mercury Jesus is the logos. Like Perseus he was born of a virgin. Like Aesculapius Jesus healed the sick. If early Christians claimed that the Jesus story was nothing different from paganism who am I to disagree?
I think this is a fair point. James White thinks it's a pretty egregious example of wicked atheistic ethics. How so? Go again to his youtube clip to see. Supposedly Dan is taking Justin Martyr out of context and misrepresenting him. He starts by quoting chapters 3 and 6 of Justin's First Apology wherein he shows that in those chapters Justin is talking about how though Christian beliefs are similar to some pagan beliefs Christians are persecuted but pagan's aren't, so that's not fair. Further Justin believes pagan gods aren't real. He says "we could stop right here" as if he's already demonstrated his point. Dan is misrepresenting Justin Martyr.
But Dan is quoting chapter 21. How is it that the fact that Justin makes a different point in chapters 3 and 6 this somehow overturns his other point in chapter 21? Can a person make only a single point in a multi-chapter book, so White is free to impose the intention of chapter 3 on chapter 21? This is proof of the case already?
In chapter 9 Justin says other gods aren't real. In chapter 13 he says that our beliefs are true. In chapter 20 he says that he offers proof that his beliefs are true, so why are Christians being persecuted? Fair enough. White then says "Is he in any way shape or form saying....oh we just got this or we just derived this from over here and we grabbed this from over here? No."
But where did Dan say that Justin is admitting that Christian beliefs were derived from pagan stories? Nowhere. So who is James arguing with?
He then quotes chapter 21, which is where Justin starts to make his case for why Christianity is believable. Here he basically says that you shouldn't reject Christianity due to something like a virgin birth claim. After all you pagans already accept such things. Or in other words Christianity is believable despite what might on the surface appear to be an outlandish claim. You already believe things that are no different. Our claims are likewise believable. That's exactly what Dan said Justin Martyr had claimed and it's exactly what Justin Martyr did claim. But for some reason James still wants to assume that Dan is arguing that Justin believes Christian stories are derived from pagan stories.
At about the 21 minute mark again James says "It's not saying we pulled these from the same things" as if that was what Dan claimed. At about 22:15 "Notice he didn't say 'we borrowed this.'" Who claims otherwise, James? After Justin asserts that Christianity is alone true White says "So much for getting it from them" (24:25) and later (24:45) "Anyone who quotes Justin and does not deal with this is simply dishonest. Just dishonest!! That's the only way to describe it....If you try to make it sound like Justin was doing something he wasn't doing you're lying. It's dishonesty." Really? Who is it that is making someone say what they didn't say? Who says Justin believes they "got it from them", James? Read what Dan said and I've transcribed. Nowhere does Dan say that Justin admits Christian stories were borrowed from pagan stories.
James White offered the same misrepresentation in my call with him multiple times. When he did it at the 22:30 mark I corrected him. He quickly shifted away from the point about the derivation from pagan sources to something else, and soon after that he was hanging up on me like he had done to his prior caller.
Now, what would be easy to do is to just start going off about Christian dishonesty and how Christians are all ready to lie for the kingdom and misrepresent things, whereas we atheists have moral standards that don't come from a genocidal, misogynistic, slave promoting book. But then that would not be very gracious, and we all know how big Calvinists are on grace. We atheists will show some, though the Calvinist doesn't always return the favor. In my view James White probably just made a mistake and imposed a view on Dan that Dan didn't actually say. These things happen.
As to Dan's breaking of the rules, I have a suggestion for James White that might help prevent such things. As I said when I spoke to him I think he spends way too much time asserting the correctness of his view rather than arguing for it. This is "parralelomania." This was rejected 50 years ago. It's absurd, awful, embarrassing, etc. I say why not just make arguments and show that his claims are embarrassing. It's far more persuasive to let the audience draw the conclusion than to emphatically assert the conclusion.
The reason this could also help with rule breaking is that this behavior is also rude. When you say a belief is absurd, embarrassing, etc you automatically imply that anyone that adheres to it (like your opponent) has some sort of character flaw. Maybe he's stupid or too wicked to admit truth. That's rude and creates a hostile environment, which might incline someone to do something like break a rule. Sticking to arguments is win/win. More persuasive. Less rude. Try that. That's what Dan did. That's why he was so effective.
James White is a young earth Christian as far as I can tell. Suppose he debated the topic and his opponent spent a lot of time saying stuff like "No reputable scientist believes this sort of thing, this is absurd, embarrassing, etc." That may actually be his opponents view, but to say that is rude and ineffective on a young earth Christian. Show that the view is absurd by argument and let the young earther draw his own conclusions. That's more persuasive in my view and it makes the whole discussion more pleasant.
So says James White with regards to his debate with Dan Barker. Among several examples of Dan's wickedness is his use of Justin Martyr. Here is what Dan said during the debate:
Now it's not just modern scholars, but even early Christians. In the 2nd century there was a christian apologist who had been a pagan believer who converted to Christianity: Justin Martyr. And he was arguing with the pagans about we should all convert to Christianity, you know why? Because it's no different. Look what he says: When we say also that the Word, who is the firstborn of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you pagans believe regarding those whom you esteem to be the sons of Jupiter. Like Mercury Jesus is the logos. Like Perseus he was born of a virgin. Like Aesculapius Jesus healed the sick. If early Christians claimed that the Jesus story was nothing different from paganism who am I to disagree?
I think this is a fair point. James White thinks it's a pretty egregious example of wicked atheistic ethics. How so? Go again to his youtube clip to see. Supposedly Dan is taking Justin Martyr out of context and misrepresenting him. He starts by quoting chapters 3 and 6 of Justin's First Apology wherein he shows that in those chapters Justin is talking about how though Christian beliefs are similar to some pagan beliefs Christians are persecuted but pagan's aren't, so that's not fair. Further Justin believes pagan gods aren't real. He says "we could stop right here" as if he's already demonstrated his point. Dan is misrepresenting Justin Martyr.
But Dan is quoting chapter 21. How is it that the fact that Justin makes a different point in chapters 3 and 6 this somehow overturns his other point in chapter 21? Can a person make only a single point in a multi-chapter book, so White is free to impose the intention of chapter 3 on chapter 21? This is proof of the case already?
In chapter 9 Justin says other gods aren't real. In chapter 13 he says that our beliefs are true. In chapter 20 he says that he offers proof that his beliefs are true, so why are Christians being persecuted? Fair enough. White then says "Is he in any way shape or form saying....oh we just got this or we just derived this from over here and we grabbed this from over here? No."
But where did Dan say that Justin is admitting that Christian beliefs were derived from pagan stories? Nowhere. So who is James arguing with?
He then quotes chapter 21, which is where Justin starts to make his case for why Christianity is believable. Here he basically says that you shouldn't reject Christianity due to something like a virgin birth claim. After all you pagans already accept such things. Or in other words Christianity is believable despite what might on the surface appear to be an outlandish claim. You already believe things that are no different. Our claims are likewise believable. That's exactly what Dan said Justin Martyr had claimed and it's exactly what Justin Martyr did claim. But for some reason James still wants to assume that Dan is arguing that Justin believes Christian stories are derived from pagan stories.
At about the 21 minute mark again James says "It's not saying we pulled these from the same things" as if that was what Dan claimed. At about 22:15 "Notice he didn't say 'we borrowed this.'" Who claims otherwise, James? After Justin asserts that Christianity is alone true White says "So much for getting it from them" (24:25) and later (24:45) "Anyone who quotes Justin and does not deal with this is simply dishonest. Just dishonest!! That's the only way to describe it....If you try to make it sound like Justin was doing something he wasn't doing you're lying. It's dishonesty." Really? Who is it that is making someone say what they didn't say? Who says Justin believes they "got it from them", James? Read what Dan said and I've transcribed. Nowhere does Dan say that Justin admits Christian stories were borrowed from pagan stories.
James White offered the same misrepresentation in my call with him multiple times. When he did it at the 22:30 mark I corrected him. He quickly shifted away from the point about the derivation from pagan sources to something else, and soon after that he was hanging up on me like he had done to his prior caller.
Now, what would be easy to do is to just start going off about Christian dishonesty and how Christians are all ready to lie for the kingdom and misrepresent things, whereas we atheists have moral standards that don't come from a genocidal, misogynistic, slave promoting book. But then that would not be very gracious, and we all know how big Calvinists are on grace. We atheists will show some, though the Calvinist doesn't always return the favor. In my view James White probably just made a mistake and imposed a view on Dan that Dan didn't actually say. These things happen.
As to Dan's breaking of the rules, I have a suggestion for James White that might help prevent such things. As I said when I spoke to him I think he spends way too much time asserting the correctness of his view rather than arguing for it. This is "parralelomania." This was rejected 50 years ago. It's absurd, awful, embarrassing, etc. I say why not just make arguments and show that his claims are embarrassing. It's far more persuasive to let the audience draw the conclusion than to emphatically assert the conclusion.
The reason this could also help with rule breaking is that this behavior is also rude. When you say a belief is absurd, embarrassing, etc you automatically imply that anyone that adheres to it (like your opponent) has some sort of character flaw. Maybe he's stupid or too wicked to admit truth. That's rude and creates a hostile environment, which might incline someone to do something like break a rule. Sticking to arguments is win/win. More persuasive. Less rude. Try that. That's what Dan did. That's why he was so effective.
James White is a young earth Christian as far as I can tell. Suppose he debated the topic and his opponent spent a lot of time saying stuff like "No reputable scientist believes this sort of thing, this is absurd, embarrassing, etc." That may actually be his opponents view, but to say that is rude and ineffective on a young earth Christian. Show that the view is absurd by argument and let the young earther draw his own conclusions. That's more persuasive in my view and it makes the whole discussion more pleasant.
The Obama Record on Peace
To Obama's credit I think even he is a little embarrassed to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He hasn't really had much of a chance to do anything and he knows that.
But I want to provide a brief overview of some of the things I've documented about his record. If this is peace, what would anti-peace look like?
During the early part of his presidency, Obama was fighting tooth and nail to retain Bush's torture prisons in Afghanistan. See here.
Like Bush he's fighting for indefinite detention of prisoners without charge. See here.
His supposed promises to pull troops out of Iraq are now gone. He's basically on the Bush timetable. See here.
Still tapping our phones. See here.
His bombing campaigns in Pakistan are absolutely outrageous, driving 2.4 million people into refugee camps. See here.
The number of boots on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan are up when you consider that Obama is adding mercenaries via Blackwater (or Xe if you prefer). Here is a must watch discussion with Bill Moyers on this topic.
In Israel we're seeing outrageous war crimes perpetuated against civilians in Gaza, including the dumping of chemical weapons on these people, which Israel has admitted. Obama responds by pressuring the Palestinian Authority to keep quiet about it and did nothing to slow that onslaught back around the turn of the year.
He's also giving Israel the go-ahead to expand settlement construction, an outrageous violation of international law and obstacle to peace.
Columbia probably has the worst human rights record in the Western Hemisphere. No matter. Obama still supports their right wing thug dictator.
I seem to recall that OBL had said that he doesn't want a Democrat to win the White House because he believes that Democrats are just as much a war mongering party but somehow trick people into thinking they are peaceful. So the world goes to sleep as they rampage everywhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to track that quote down, but if OBL did say it I'd have to say he's right.
But I want to provide a brief overview of some of the things I've documented about his record. If this is peace, what would anti-peace look like?
During the early part of his presidency, Obama was fighting tooth and nail to retain Bush's torture prisons in Afghanistan. See here.
Like Bush he's fighting for indefinite detention of prisoners without charge. See here.
His supposed promises to pull troops out of Iraq are now gone. He's basically on the Bush timetable. See here.
Still tapping our phones. See here.
His bombing campaigns in Pakistan are absolutely outrageous, driving 2.4 million people into refugee camps. See here.
The number of boots on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan are up when you consider that Obama is adding mercenaries via Blackwater (or Xe if you prefer). Here is a must watch discussion with Bill Moyers on this topic.
In Israel we're seeing outrageous war crimes perpetuated against civilians in Gaza, including the dumping of chemical weapons on these people, which Israel has admitted. Obama responds by pressuring the Palestinian Authority to keep quiet about it and did nothing to slow that onslaught back around the turn of the year.
He's also giving Israel the go-ahead to expand settlement construction, an outrageous violation of international law and obstacle to peace.
Columbia probably has the worst human rights record in the Western Hemisphere. No matter. Obama still supports their right wing thug dictator.
I seem to recall that OBL had said that he doesn't want a Democrat to win the White House because he believes that Democrats are just as much a war mongering party but somehow trick people into thinking they are peaceful. So the world goes to sleep as they rampage everywhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to track that quote down, but if OBL did say it I'd have to say he's right.
Luke Screws Up Josephus' Chronology
I spoke with James White yesterday on his Dividing Line program. Mainly we talked about the recent White/Barker debate, which I thought White lost by a nose. In the course of my discussion the reliability of the book of Acts came up, and I mentioned an apparent error in the book of Acts. In this post I want to further explain what I'm talking about.
In Acts chapter 5 we're told that the high priest Gamaliel told the Jews not to worry about this new Jesus movement. If it was of God there would be no way to stop it anyway, whereas if it wasn't it would collapse under it's own weight, like movements of the past have. Here's the text, with important points in bold:
"Men of Israel, be cautious in deciding what to do with these men. Some time ago, Theudas came forward, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. But he was killed and his whole following was broken up and disappeared. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census; he induced some people to revolt under his leadership, but he too perished and his whole following was scattered." (NEB, Acts 5:36-8)
What's interesting about this is that Josephus at Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 5 actually mentions these same two insurrectionists. In his telling he first mentions Theudas then subsequently talks about Judas of Galilee. But what Josephus does is he mentions them in reverse chronological order. He mentions Theudas first, then sort of by way of reflection talks about Judas of Galilee. Someone reading Josephus hastily might understand him in a mistaken fashion and switch the chronology. Looking above to Acts we can see that this is exactly what Luke has done. Here's the text from Josephus:
1. Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.
What we're seeing in Acts is exactly what we would expect to see from someone that was borrowing from Josephus. We've got the same insurrectionists that are mentioned in a single chapter. We've got a reversed chronology error like we might expect someone to do based upon Josephus' somewhat confusing way of telling the story. This makes really good sense as an error on the part of Luke.
Of course it's possible Luke is right and Josephus is wrong. It's possible that there is no dependence. If this were the only point of contact between Josephus and the book of Acts I could see the point of the claim that the dependence claim is not all that solid. But in fact there are additional points of contact.
In Acts chapter 5 we're told that the high priest Gamaliel told the Jews not to worry about this new Jesus movement. If it was of God there would be no way to stop it anyway, whereas if it wasn't it would collapse under it's own weight, like movements of the past have. Here's the text, with important points in bold:
"Men of Israel, be cautious in deciding what to do with these men. Some time ago, Theudas came forward, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. But he was killed and his whole following was broken up and disappeared. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census; he induced some people to revolt under his leadership, but he too perished and his whole following was scattered." (NEB, Acts 5:36-8)
What's interesting about this is that Josephus at Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 5 actually mentions these same two insurrectionists. In his telling he first mentions Theudas then subsequently talks about Judas of Galilee. But what Josephus does is he mentions them in reverse chronological order. He mentions Theudas first, then sort of by way of reflection talks about Judas of Galilee. Someone reading Josephus hastily might understand him in a mistaken fashion and switch the chronology. Looking above to Acts we can see that this is exactly what Luke has done. Here's the text from Josephus:
1. Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.
What we're seeing in Acts is exactly what we would expect to see from someone that was borrowing from Josephus. We've got the same insurrectionists that are mentioned in a single chapter. We've got a reversed chronology error like we might expect someone to do based upon Josephus' somewhat confusing way of telling the story. This makes really good sense as an error on the part of Luke.
Of course it's possible Luke is right and Josephus is wrong. It's possible that there is no dependence. If this were the only point of contact between Josephus and the book of Acts I could see the point of the claim that the dependence claim is not all that solid. But in fact there are additional points of contact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)