Three Pages into Three Thousand Years

Three pages into Three Thousand Years and I have an issue. A new low.

Advent is a good reminder to attempt to deepen the faith. So when I read great things about Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, I bought the used book and began to read with little expectations of finishing the 1,016 page book, but expecting to gain a better historical perspective in specific areas which interested me. The author, Diarmaid MacCulloch, was apparently a lapsed Anglican who was raised in the faith and treated his subject with respect.

Using my Mortimer Adler training, I began with the part of the book which most interested me, Chapter 3: A Crucified Messiah. Just three pages in I came across my first bomb:

Luke's birth narrative, the more elaborate [Matthew is the other] explains that Jesus's parents traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth because they had to comply with the residence terms of a Roman imperial census for tax purposes .... This does not ring true ... Roman authorities would not have held a census in a client kingdom of the empire such as Herod's, and in any case there is no record elsewhere of such an empire-wide census, which would certainly have left traces around the Mediterranean. The story seems to embody a confusion with a well-attested Roman imperial census which certainly did happen, but in 6 CE, far too late for the birth of Jesus [the birth is estimated between 7 and 4 BE], and long remembered as a traumatic event because it was the first real taste of what direct Roman rule meant for Judea. The suspicion therefore arises that someone writing a good deal later, rather hazy about the chronology of decades before, has been fairly cavalier with the story of Jesus's birth, for reasons other than retrieving events as they actually happened.

In a thousand page book, I expected to read a lot of hedging about conflicting accounts. But here MacCulloch calls Luke a liar [naturally using testosterone-deficient language, i.e. cavalier], with no attempt to reconcile the dates giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. What a prick.

In didn't take much research to discover that there are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy. The most complete explanation was provided by a blog post by J. Hampton Keathley, III titled, Acclamations of the Birth of Christ (Luke 2:1-20). Keathley summarizes the issue:

Critics have challenged Luke's statement because they claim Josephus, a Jewish historian, placed this [census] at least ten years later [6 CE] after Archelaus had been deposed and Quirenius had been sent as a Syrian magistrate in charge of this registration. Their point is Quirinius did not govern here until several years later.

Keathley then offers three possible solutions for the historical discrepancies:

1. There were two registrations. There is evidence that such registrations happened periodically about every 14 years and that Quirinius could have been twice in charge of these registrations. Luke shows us from Acts 5:37 that he was aware of the later registration or census of Quirinius, the one reported by Josephus. In other words, Luke shows us from Luke 2:1-2 and Acts 5:37 that there very well could have been two registrations conducted by Quirinius and this fits with archaeological findings as well as with Josephus’ account.
2. An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses. It’s not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there’s no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well.
3. Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria at this time and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us. An incomplete MS describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as if he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial “legate of Syria” for the “second time.” While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus’ birth and a few years later.

The complete explanation by J. Hampton Keathley, III is copied at end of the post.

Onward, Christian soldiers, page four beckons.

----------------------------------------------------
Acclamations of the Birth of Christ (Luke 2:1-20)
By: J. Hampton Keathley, III
http://bible.org/article/acclamations-birth-christ-luke-21-20#P69_15704

...

This brings us back to our passage where we want to observe another historical detail in the account of Christ’s birth—the census to be taken. Again, remember Galatians 4:4 which says, “but when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman …”

“That a decree went out … a census …” The word “census” here is apographo, which means “the taking of a census, registration, or enrollment.” The KJV has “taxed,” but the word actually referred to a census (though a taxing often followed based on the census or registration.) It was a registration for taxing purposes.

Critics have challenged this statement by Luke because they claim Josephus, a Jewish historian, placed this at least ten years later after Archelaus had been deposed and Quirenius had been sent as a Syrian magistrate in charge of this registration. Their point is Quirinius did not govern here until several years later.

Several years ago a writer for Life Magazine, Robert Coughlan used this along with some other things to claim the whole story of Jesus Christ was without historicity and should not be relied upon. But this assumes that we have all the information of this time and know more than Luke could have possibly known.

How do we deal with this apparent historical discrepancy? There is evidence that such registrations happened periodically about every 14 years and that Quirinius could have been twice in charge of these registrations. Luke shows us from Acts 5:37 that he was aware of the later registration or census of Quirinius, the one reported by Josephus. In other words, Luke shows us from Luke 2:1-2 and Acts 5:37 that there very well could have been two registrations conducted by Quirinius and this fits with archaeological findings as well as with Josephus’ account.

There is also another solution proposed by some archaeologists. In discussing the problem of this census with John McRay, a well known archaeologist, Lee Strobel describes part of the conversation with McRay who said in the interview, “An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod.”4

Being somewhat confused by this reply, he asked, “What does this mean?” McRay replied:

It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses. It’s not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there’s no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well.5

Walter Liefeld in The Expositors Bible Commentary points out another possible solution.

Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria at this time and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us (cf. E.M. Blaiklock, “Quirinius,” ZPEB, 5:56). An incomplete MS describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as if he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial “legate of Syria” for the “second time.” While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus’ birth and a few years later (cf. F.F. Bruce, “Quirinius,” NBD, p. 9).6

Regardless of the view one takes to solve this seeming discrepancy, over and over again archaeology has demonstrated the trustworthiness of the Bible on one supposed discrepancy after another. Luke was a painstakingly accurate historian who carefully investigated everything from the beginning regarding the life of Christ (Luke 1:1-4). In all fairness, we must assume that Luke knew something that we do not and wait for the evidence to come in. Earlier, when Strobel questioned McRay about Luke as a historian, McRay replied:

The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian, … He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.”7

In view of these facts, we need to give Luke, who lived then, the benefit of the doubt and wait for more evidence to surface.
----------------------------------------------

Read more!

When Bad BCS Football Happens To Good People

Among the unfortunate by-products spawned by the justified firing of Randy Shannon is that fans actually suffering from Mad COW [Coaching Obsessed Whiners] disease will now go undetected for a longer period of time. Far from a victim-less disease, these volume-rich, content-poor purveyors of sports ignorance in Miami have actually been emboldened. The horror. In their heart of hearts, COWers think ... no, they KNOW ... that Kurtz should have switched to a pro set once Marlow was dispatched.

See the type of people who have been calling for Shannon's firing have been doing so since 09/08/07. So God help us, these maggots of misinformation have actually been proven to be prescient for once. Sadly, various clinical experiments have confirmed that Mad COWers don't -- not unlike some of the college football programs they obsess over -- regroup, they reload.

What can uninfected fans do? To paraphrase Jerry McGuire, we can help them by helping ourselves. Identifying the COWers is the first step. Fortunately this will be easy. Any mention of the word Heat, even from a meteorological perspective, will elicit a Dionysian spewing of invectives towards a Mr. Spoelstra [the Filipino-American NBA head coach, not the folk and blues guitarist].

If you are a liberal and feel a need to confirm the obvious before 'Baker-acting' the poor bastard, go ahead and ask a follow-up question. See some sample questions below. Warning - questioner should be prepared to respond with a Zombieland [Rule #2 double tap] lack of emotion should the specimen have a violent reaction:

• Did the U wait too long to fire Shannon?
• Could Jimmy Johnson [pronounced as one word] have done a better job?
• Name any player [ever] Butch Davis could not have recruited? Trick question, does not exist.

Here's what I think about the firing. UM players who have gotten to know Shannon will never forget that their besieged coach acted with class throughout his time here. That he didn't seem to turn on them or throw others under the bus for the failures in his program. They will remember that the guy they most respected in the game, was dismissed with three years left on a guaranteed contract.

So among the lessons Shannon's players could draw from their experience is to use your skills in the game to eventually get paid and never confuse the people who casually state that "it's all about the U" with someone who has lived it by example. There are people who we have to deal with in life and people we respect. They are not mutually exclusive by rule, but overlap only if we are fortunate. If they learn that, that's a pretty good education. Maybe not the type of education they discussed when being recruited, but no less useful. Godspeed with that guaranteed contract Randy Shannon.

Read more!

Faith: Best Defense is a Good Heart

Recently I watched Bill Maher's 2008 comedy/documentary film, Religulous, a play on the words religion and ridiculous. As the title suggests, the the film is not subtle about its intent or treatment of the believers it mocks [think Borat Gone God]. Although I am a believer, I found the film useful in that it catalogs the typical attacks on people of faith. Given Maher's well know adversarial views towards faith, it was surprising to see someone like Francis Collins put himself in a position of having to trust the line of questioning and editing by those hostile to his beliefs.

It was unsurprising to see many every day people -- believers unprepared to defend those beliefs in coherent sound bites, let alone after editing for comedic effect -- made to look foolish as they struggled to explain their beliefs under mostly playful taunting by Maher. It reminded me of the Grouch Marx line about not wanting to be part of any club which would have me as a member. To paraphrase, the last people you want defending the faith on film are those who don't see how a Borat-like interview might make them look bad.

There was one pleasant surprise. I heard an obvious inconsistency in Maher's attacks. When told that the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament, but rather fulfills it, Maher's reaction was that he was unimpressed given that the New Testament writers had the advantage of tailoring their work to fit Old Testament narratives they were familiar with. The problem with that assertion was that Maher immediately then proceeded to make an issue of how the virgin birth is only mentioned in two Gospels [Matthew & Luke] as a reason to doubt its accuracy. So in the first example, the Bible's consistency is seen as contrived and in the second example, a lack of consistency is evidence of its unreliability.

Predictably, this Sunday's ethernet homily by Fr Vallee sheds wisdom on how to think about and possibly defend the Good News:

The Gospel tonight presents us with a frightening and apocalyptic vision. Does it not strike you that passages like these have an oddly surreal and dreamlike character to them? There is a priest I once knew, not a terribly intelligent or well-educated priest, who insisted on interpreting these passages literally, as if Jesus were coming down to our parking lot any second now in a fiery chariot so that he could beat up the bad people and carry the good people to heaven. This interpretation is not only idiotic, it is heretical. All the way back to Augustine, the basic sense of Scripture has been understood as allegorical, not literal.

The key to understanding passages like this passage is to understand its dream-like quality. God speaks through human instruments and He speaks human words, in a human way. ... The Apocalyptic passages from Luke are very much like Christian opera. They present us with beautiful and dramatic symbols which help us to understand what it means to be Christian in a sinful world. But they do not predict the end of the world, as if God were some sort of divine fortune teller.

To have faith is to learn to dream the dreams of God. The Gospel gives us a vision or a symbol of what life can be. To believe is to learn to live within that symbol and dream the dreams of God....

If you cannot grasp the beauty of that image with your heart, you will never understand what it means with your head. The apocalyptic passages of Luke, like the startling visions of John in Revelation, are not descriptions of how the world will end; they are extraordinary and operatic symbols that tell us what in means to be a Christian here and now in a world full of disgrace -- and even more full of grace.

The email address to request to be put on Vallee's email distribution list is Cioran262@aol.com. To see the entire homily click on 'read more.' Search for other Fr Vallee homilies in this blog by entering 'Vallee' in the search box in the upper left hand corner or look for Fr Vallee in the Labels.

----------------------------------------------------
Fr Vallee Homily on Luke Prophecy -- November 14 2010

I. Apocalypse
In today’s Gospel we are given a strange and scary vision of the end. We will be getting a lot of this as Luke’s Jesus approaches Jerusalem. Fire on the earth, wars, famines and plagues are predicted. Seems like some things never change! Remember before 2000, all of our computers were going to blow up at the same time. The comet was going to bring about the Apocalypse. Right until the present day, if the Tea Party people are to be believed, we are on the verge of socio-economic and moral meltdown. Jesus could not be more clear: “Yes, times are tough they always have been and always will be. But if you walk by faith and not by fear, not a hair on your head will be harmed.” There is always a good reason to panic and a better reason to have faith, which is why I was not a member of the moral majority and cannot join the Tea Party.

II. Philosopher
When I am not here at St. MT/Kevin’s, I teach in a seminary. I have one of the strangest of all jobs: I am a philosopher. It is my job to ask annoying and unanswerable questions, which doesn’t make me a lot of fun at parties. Anyway, here goes with the annoying questions: What do these strange and scary words from the St Luke’s Gospel mean? Do they literally predict a Second Coming or is there some deeper meaning?

III. The Gospel
The Gospel tonight presents us with a frightening and apocalyptic vision. Does it not strike you that passages like these have an oddly surreal and dreamlike character to them? There is a priest I once knew, not a terribly intelligent or well-educated priest, who insisted on interpreting these passages literally, as if Jesus were coming down to our parking lot any second now in a fiery chariot so that he could beat up the bad people and carry the good people to heaven. This interpretation is not only idiotic, it is heretical. All the way back to Augustine, the basic sense of Scripture has been understood as allegorical, not literal.

IV. The Key
The key to understanding passages like this passage is to understand its dream-like quality. God speaks through human instruments and He speaks human words, in a human way. Imagine if you went to the opera and saw Hansel and Gretel. In order to understand the opera, you must understand the literary form of the fable. If you do not, then you will completely misunderstand the work and think that there really are old witches who cook and eat lost children in the forest. My priest friend has made the same mistake with the words of Scripture. The Apocalyptic passages from Luke are very much like Christian opera. They present us with beautiful and dramatic symbols which help us to understand what it means to be Christian in a sinful world. But they do not predict the end of the world, as if God were some sort of divine fortune teller.

V. To believe is to dream the dreams of God
To have faith is to learn to dream the dreams of God. The Gospel gives us a vision or a symbol of what life can be. To believe is to learn to live within that symbol and dream the dreams of God. Our Lord Jesus is daily becoming present in our lives. He comes with all the power and glory of heaven made manifest on earth. His is the King of kings and Lord of Lords and we are washed clean in his blood. Most importantly, if we walk by faith, not fear, not a hair on our heads will be harmed.

If you cannot grasp the beauty of that image with your heart, you will never understand what it means with your head. The apocalyptic passages of Luke, like the startling visions of John in Revelation, are not descriptions of how the world will end; they are extraordinary and operatic symbols that tell us what in means to be a Christian here and now in a world full of disgrace -- and even more full of grace.
----------------------------------------------

Read more!

Delayed Response to Presidential Query

In Miami on Tax Day, April 15th 2010, President Obama had some fun at the expense of his critics. From an ABC News website:

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, President Obama touted his administration’s tax cuts and said that the recent tea party rallies across the nation have “amused” him.

“You would think they should be saying thank you,” the president said to applause.

Members of the audience shouted, “Thank you.”

An exuberant Obama appeared at a fundraiser for the DNC at the Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami. The event raised $2.5 million for the party.

Clearly lacking a sense of humor, 202 days [or 17,366,400 seconds, not that I was counting, just sayin ...] later, the unamused responded. A recap from the WSJ:

Lost amid the GOP’s takeover of the House was a series of wins in much smaller races that could collectively have a broader impact on whether the party controls Congress for the next decade: Republicans won control of 17 statehouse chambers on Tuesday; Democrats didn’t win a majority in a single state-level chamber currently controlled by Republicans.

The statehouse sweep gives Republicans a much stronger hand in drawing new congressional districts beginning next year.

As a result of the once-a-decade Census, some states lose some representation in Congress — and others gain seats — based on their populations. After the most recent Census, states such as Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania are expected to lose one of their seats in the U.S. House, while Texas, North Carolina, Florida and others will gain seats.

In all, Republicans captured majorities in 17 state-level chambers previously controlled by Democrats, including in the key states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. Republicans also blocked Democrats from taking any of their statehouses, including Texas, which was a top Democratic priority.

Wow, Obama was right after all. Thank you sir.

Read more!