Interacting with other bloggers: Mythology and Genesis

In keeping with my current intentions to interact with other bloggers more often, I'd like to continue a conversation started by Joe "Metacrock" over at his personal blog on the topic of mythology in the Bible.

We live in a world in which many people who are new to the Bible simply cannot get past the first page. Someone who picks up their first Bible and reads about a seven-day creation is likely to put down the book and not look back. Against this background, Joe aka Metacrock writes about the mythological view of the earlier parts of the Bible. I believe he does a good job of introducing the view and showing how the problem is generally understood by people who share his view. However, it would not successfully persuade people who did not already share the view. (This is not a criticism; I don't believe his linked post is meant to persuade that audience.)

I'm writing this post to see if it's possible to move the conversation forward. With that in mind, I've pulled a few quotes from Meta's post and organized them under different headings according to the way they're likely to be heard by people who do not share his view. The table below shows contrasting quotes from Meta's piece, emphasis added (and column headers added).

---

Why "myth" doesn't mean what you think	Why "myth" means exactly what you think
This is a difficult concept for most Christians to grasp, because most of us are taught that "myth" means a lie, that it's a dirty word, an insult, and that it is really debunking the Bible or rejecting it as God's word.	The point of the myth is the point the story is making--not the literal historical events of the story. So the point of mythologizing creation is not to transmit historical events but to make a point.
"Myth" does not mean lie; it does not mean something that is necessarily untrue. It is a literary genre—a way of telling a story.	The mythological elements are more common in the early books of the Bible. The material becomes more historical as we go along.

In the left column, there are some quotes in which Meta explains the problem as he sees it: to sum up, why "myth" doesn't mean what most people might think. In my experience, Meta's identification of the problem is mainstream for those who share his view: when it comes to Genesis' "page one" problem, any issue with the "myth" resolution is charged to faulty education about what "myth" means, which in turn causes many misinformed people to have difficulty in grasping the concept. We'll come back to that after a moment; we need a few more pieces on the table before that will be productive.

In the right column, there are some quotes in which Meta rolls out the solution from his point-of-view: as he explains why "myth" doesn't mean untrue, he consistently contrasts myth with "historical" as its rhetorical opposite. So the left column develops the theme "myth doesn't mean untrue", while the right column develops the theme "myth means non-historical". The word "myth" is not used simply to designate a literary genre or a way of telling a story, but to reclassify it as something that is designed "not to transmit historical events".

The most significant problem is unacknowledged: the other side of the discussion (argument, flame-war, call it what you will) sees "historical truth" as the category of truth that is in question. In that context, "non-historical" and "false" are functionally equivalent. So long as that point is left unaddressed, the discussion can go nowhere. As long as we stay there we're at an impasse, and what brought us to that point is likely to be seen as double-talk. Those in the historical-Genesis camp see whole "myth" line of argument as something of a bait-and-switch, where "truth" means something different at the end than it did at the start. In that context, calling it a difference in genre can come across as obfuscating the key point, and claiming that anyone who disagrees must not understand literary genres generally comes across as insulting and changing the subject, as well as a power play. At which point the flame war generally spirals, and the impasse remains. In the meantime, those underlying issues go unaddressed.

There is another unacknowledged problem that I mentioned before, and will return to now: in the "myth" resolution, the "myth" camp generally insists that the uneducated masses don't understand their point. The problem seems to me much the opposite: the other side of the debate understands exactly what the "myth" camp is saying, has said so repeatedly, and is tired of being insulted for it. The "myth" camp seems to think that the "historical" camp is holding out because they don't understand what's being said about "myth". In my experience they're holding out because they do understand. The "myth" resolution means ceding the historical reality of the parts in question. This is only half the perceived problem; the "myth" resolution also means the "myth" camp openly welcomes elements or narratives that they do not believe to be anchored in objective reality; it comes across as willingly adopting an element of make-believe into the faith of those who embrace "myth".

I typically see a certain red herring about this point in the conversation, so I'd like to mention it now. It's mistaken to assume that the "historical" camp consists entirely of the fundamentalist-literalist, ever-popular straw-man and scape-goat. The "historical" camp, like the "myth" camp, has people at different points along a spectrum, and includes people who believe some accounts may be historical in general outline, even with reservations about the accuracy on specific points. (For a case-in-point, see my previous post on the historicity of Abraham, re-posted here in 2006 and originally posted at Cadre Comments back in 2005.) Some people seem puzzled why there are those who follow Biblical archeology as if it's relevant; yet to many people it is relevant. I expect that most peoples' beliefs about history are informed by historical findings. So there are those who are interested in the question of whether Abraham's tomb actually contains the remains of a historical Abraham, or how goes the line of inquiry into whether the exodus was historical. The "myth" argument by definition has no loose ends and can never be proved or disproved, but that comes at a high price tag for whether there are human connections in the real world. I find myself wondering (speaking to Joe in particular here) whether Koester or others would make an argument that Abraham or the exodus were history-making, and what is the state of thinking on whether something non-historical can be history-making.

So within that spectrum of people who are interested in the history of it all, the "historical" camp sees a vast difference between believing a historical account in its general outline (allowing reservations on various details), and another thing to openly promote believing in a myth. The "historical" camp may see it more like this: to embrace believing in mythological material puts the whole premise of Christianity on questionable ground. It also risks Christianity's applicability to the non-mythical world. It's generally not the case that the "historical" camp doesn't understand what "myth" means or is somehow unaware of Genesis' "page one" problem; it's more of an awareness that the "myth" resolution is in some ways unsatisfying and problematic in its own right.

I believe it's important for Christians to keep moving the conversation forward rather than being stuck at an impasse. While for my own part I don't generally spend much time worrying about Genesis' "page one" problem, there are those who are deeply bothered by it. For my own part, I'm generally more bothered by the way we attack each other over it. But I'm hopeful for a quality conversation with Metacrock, and also would invite responses and thoughts from anyone who is mindful of the body of Christ.

How Marco Polo alerted me to a knowledge gap about Christian history

Awhile back I decided that, for any book I had seen quoted time and time again throughout the years, I was going to track down the original primary source and read it. And so one day I found myself starting through a translation of Marco Polo's travels.

It was a fascinating read in its own right. Sure, some places were more story-like, and other places were on the technical side. For example, he did insist on giving information about travel times and exchange rates and local currency and such for each new place he mentioned. He wasn't writing only for entertainment; he had in mind that someone might want to repeat his journey and would need that kind of information. His descriptions of Asian lions and of "unicorns" (tigers and rhinos, from the descriptions) were entertaining for different reasons. In general. Polo had a sharp eye for detail.

For each new place that he visited, there was another thing he mentioned: how many Christian churches he found in each place, and of what variety. That was my first introduction to the fact that, back in his day, there were already Christian churches in the major cities in India, China, and the various places along the way. Many of them were Nestorian churches. (The term "Nestorian" is out of favor with their surviving remnants, apparently, but I'll keep it here because Polo did.)

I'm sure I'd gotten the impression that the Nestorians represented a heresy that was refuted and abandoned, and that by the year 500 (give or take a few) they were no longer around. I'm sure I hadn't known that they had split off and become a separate group that continued through the centuries with a large following -- and by "large", I mean "possibly rivaling that of the church of Rome," according to some sources, in those earlier centuries. I'm sure I never heard that they had an independent church structure, had set up a primary See in Baghdad parallel to the Catholic church's primary See in Rome, and had their own bishops and missionaries and monasteries over a sizable territory. I'm fairly sure my impression of the history of the area around Baghdad pictured that region of the world going straight from some pre-monotheistic religion to the Muslim conquests (or rather, to Islam; at the time I wasn't aware of the key role of jihad in the early spread of Islam, either). I'm sure my mental image of the spread of Christianity didn't expect established churches in Marco Polo's day anywhere outside Europe except North Africa or the Asian parts of Russia. The idea that were Christians in the Mongol empire was certainly news to me. (If I remember right, they even sent a fireproof covering to help protect the burial cloth of Christ -- possibly meaning the shroud of Turin -- after they heard its survival had been threatened by a fire.)

So it was while reading Marco Polo that I became aware that my picture of the history of the world had huge gaps in it. It took me by surprise because I was not bad at history as taught in school; I reliably aced the course in high school and in college. The knowledge gap was not a matter of something I had been taught and forgotten; it was more a matter of things that were never taught. It took me by surprise even more because it would have had to involve significant gaps in the material covered not only at every stage of public school, not only at the university, but even in the Sunday school materials we had on church history. How do so many different curricula all skip the same things?

I think that reading Marco Polo was a milestone for me -- not just as a great read and part of a growing love for primary source materials. It was also a wake-up call for whether the information handed down through approved channels is really doing an acceptable job in giving us the information we need about the world in which we live.

In the next post I intend to talk about some more eye-opening primary sources that also touch on Christian history, before I get into more of the implications.

Blessing the Wine: An ancient Jewish tradition sheds light on Jesus' last supper

Many Christian churches still follow the ancient practice of blessing the wine for communion. We trace our practice back to what Jesus did when he celebrated his last supper:

And he took the cup, and gave thanks ... (Matthew 26:27)
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them (Mark 14:23)
And he took the cup, and gave thanks ... (Luke 22:17)

The gospels do not go into exact details on what was involved in blessing the wine. We can see that the blessing was a hands-on action that required taking the cup in hand and giving thanks, but we know little more than that directly from the Scriptures.

An ancient Jewish source, the Talmud, goes into details on what went into a Jewish blessing over wine. Some of the instructions seem obscure to us today, for instance: the one who blesses is wrapped, possibly in a robe.* Some of the instructions seem obvious, for instance: the cup is washed / rinsed. And some of the instructions have been passed along to this day:

'It is taken in both hands': R. Hinena b. Papa said: What is the Scriptural warrant for this? -- Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord. [Psalm 134:2] (Berachoth 51a)

'He raises it a handbreadth from the ground': R. Aha b. Hanina said: What Scriptural text have we for this? -- I will lift up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. [Psalm 116:13] (Berachoth 51b)

Compare those ancient Jewish instructions to some modern Christian instructions on how a priest is to bless the wine:

He returns to the middle of the altar, takes the chalice with both hands, raises it a little, and says quietly: Benedictus es, Domine (Blessed are you, Lord). (from p. 40, item 142)

There are other parts of blessing the wine mentioned in the Talmud as well: the one who blesses fixes his eyes on the cup, and after the wine is blessed, it is passed around to the members of the household. These are also familiar to many Christians from our own worship services.

This practice is not limited to Roman Catholics; steps just like these are followed by a variety of Christian groups around the world. Those words and gestures are following a pattern inherited from Judaism and passed down through the ages. They may well reflect Jesus' own actions that last night. While some parts of the practice may have dropped out -- such as being wrapped in a robe -- those parts that have survived are still clearly recognizable after roughly two thousand years.

As for the history of the liturgy -- the ancient form of worship celebrated in mainstream churches -- most parts of that liturgy have names in Latin, such as the Benedictus and the Nunc Dimittis. Just a few parts of the worship service are known even in Western churches by their Greek names. Greek was used earlier in the church than Latin, so it's likely that the parts that have kept their Greek names are among the most ancient parts: the Kyrie and the Eucharist.

---

* On the robe part, the Talmud mentions a disagreement on whether that was necessary. I also did not see any Scriptural warrant cited for the practice, unlike some of the others.

Of Hammurabi, Gilgamesh, and Abraham

I'd like to start by putting two ancient writings on the table before I explain why:

---

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.
(from the Code of Hammurabi, around 1800 B.C.)

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ... (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21)

The Code of Hammurabi predates Moses by centuries, by any chronology I've ever heard. I don't want to make too much of the similarities between the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the laws passed down in the Torah. I suspect the various peoples of that place and that era shared a sense of justice, and likewise shared a sense that these commands were handed down by God (or gods, as the case may be). If some would see this as proof positive that the Hebrew legal code was not, after all, handed to Moses in its entirety on Mount Sinai, that is not for me to argue.

One more thing before I get to my actual point.

---

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an early Babylonian record of a great flood. Even allowing an early date for the book of Genesis around the time worked out in chronologies for the exodus from Egypt, still the Epic of Gilgamesh is earlier. Even Answers in Genesis (a conservative Christian website, to say the least) acknowledges, "Comparing the flood stories in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, one is impressed with the numerous similarities between the two accounts." Many scholars believe that the Hebrew account is largely borrowed from the earlier Babylonian account. Others say that the two accounts both preserve the memory of the same event.

Again, my point is not whether Noah is a rework of Gilgamesh.

I'll get to the point now.

---

It's interesting, I think, that the Hebrew legal code may show a Babylonian influence. It is interesting again that the Hebrew account of the flood bears such a striking resemblance to the older Babylonian story.

Why is it that Babylon keeps coming up? At other places scholars research possible similarities to other cultures like the Greeks or Persians. The older stuff -- Babylonian.

It's possible that it's just coincidence; we can research similarities between the Hebrews and the Babylonians because the Babylonian records exist for us to make that comparison; the best records we have of those more ancient times are Babylonian. Possible -- but there's no particular reason the Hebrew writings should resemble them quite that closely unless there was some cultural influence.

It's possible that, if we did a proper study of all the ancient legal codes and all the ancient flood accounts, we might find that the Hebrew records resembled something else more than the Babylonian accounts. And that's a more serious possibility, though still a tall order to fill, given the close similarities.

But there is another possibility I'd like to mention. What if the Hebrews received part of their legal code, and part of their memories of the ancient world and the dawn of human history, from ancestors who came from Babylon? What if there was an early migration of a people from Babylon to the land that later became the homeland of the Hebrews?

They went forth from Ur of the Chaldeans, to go into the land of Canaan. (Genesis 11:31, speaking of the family of Abraham's migration from Babylon)

I would not by any stretch call this conclusive. I would want to spend a year poring over ancient legal codes and flood accounts before I used words as strong as "tentative" with something like this. But it is an intriguing possibility: the repeated similarities between Hebrew sacred writings and earlier Babylonian writings may provide an independent line of argument that the ancestors of the Hebrews spent some time in Babylon.

Jesus in the Roman tax/census archives

It was several years ago that Dr. P. made a reference to an interesting thing: early Christian writers appealed to the Roman tax and census archives when discussing the birth of Christ. As the type of person who likes to see the source, I tracked down the early references.

Justin Martyr, attempting to persuade the Roman government to stop persecuting Christians, refers the Romans to their own tax registers to verify Jesus’ birth. After mentioning the prophecy of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem he continues:

Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judæa.- Justin Martyr, First Apology XXXIV (circa 150-155 A.D.)

Tertullian, emphasizing Jesus’ true humanity and actual birth against the Gnostics, makes the same type of appeal to the Roman imperial archives.

His enrollment in the census of Augustus — that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome – Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:7 (circa 210 A.D.)

Often, early evidence supporting Christianity is written off as a forgery made by Christians. To be sure, we don't have the archives in hand to examine ourselves; Rome has been sacked since then. But the dates here are very early for a charge of Christians rewriting the history books. Christians weren’t in any sort of power at the time; their enemies held the upper hand in government and therefore would have controlled the archives. That is the very thing that makes Justin Martyr’s appeal so powerful: that he can appeal to his persecutors’ records in demonstrating a part of his case as to why the persecution against Christians is unjust.

Why believe the gospels?

The portrait shown here is my great-grandmother, one of my mother's grandmothers. I met her a few times when I was very young. I'll explain in just a moment what she has to do with the question of whether to believe the gospels.

The usual approaches, when it comes to the gospels, tend towards the more polarized views. Some hold a view that roughly claims the gospels were dictated by the Father, received by the Indwelling Holy Spirit in the various authors, written word-for-word as inspired, and are therefore inerrant. The opposing view is roughly that the signs of editing in the documents, and the presence of supernatural elements, means that they are largely untrustworthy about what happened: that they are legendary, products of pious imagination that do not correspond to reality.

On both sides, I'm not comfortable with the assumptions. I don't buy the assumption that the authors of the gospels considered themselves to be writing something word-for-word as received spiritually channeled direct from heaven; they seemed to think they were writing down things that the people who knew Jesus had said about him, or in the case of the Gospel of John, what they claimed to have seen themselves. I don't buy the assumption that editing equals tampering; some of my own longer posts on this blog show telltale signs of editing, and it's simply because I didn't write them all in one sitting. I also don't buy the assumption that supernatural always automatically must be legendary, though it has to be considered among the possibilities. The origin of legend is that it is passed along by people far removed from the source; the stories take on a life of their own in the hands of people who don't know the facts.

The earliest of the gospels, going by current consensus, was the Gospel of Mark. I've given my reasons before why I think it was written before the fall of Jerusalem -- that is, within 40 years of the events recorded. Some people would put it a few years later: say, 45 years after the events recorded. To compare that to today, as we are in the year 2009, that would be like writing now about the 1960's. I don't really remember the 1960's personally, but I've heard about key events from people who remember them. My mother can still tell me about hearing MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech, broadcast the day it was first given. She can still tell me what she was doing and where she was when she heard that JFK had been shot. Other people who remember the 1960's remember the moon landing or the Cuban missile crisis. And for such important events as these, a number of facts are remembered with crystal clarity even many years after the events, etched on the memories of those who lived them.

The latest of the gospels, going by current consensus and also by ancient records, was the Gospel of John. The usual date assigned to it is somewhere in the 90's A.D. Interestingly, the ancient records mention that John lived into the reign of the emperor Trajan, who took the throne in 98 A.D. I've mentioned before how the ancient records dating back to the 100's A.D. account for the appendix to the Gospel of John, and how in light of that I do not consider the editing there to be tampering at all. But what about writing sometime in the 90's A.D about events of the year 30 A.D.? That may be roughly 60 or 65 years. To compare that to today, as we are in the year 2009, that would be like writing now about 1944 -- about World War II. I have heard from both my parents what they remembered of World War II, though their memories are limited. When my grandparents were alive, I heard some of their stories about World War II. To the end of his days my grandfather could still tell me where he was, and what he was doing, when he heard that Pearl Harbor had been attacked. The "day that will live in infamy" was in 1941; this year we will mark the 68th anniversary of it. There are people around -- people who are old by now -- who still remember that day. The Gospel of John was written when the authors were old, at about the same distance from the life of Jesus as we are from the events of World War II.

I have heard many stories about my great-grandmother, the one in the picture. Some of them date back to the 1910's, about how she met my great-grandfather; those stories are at a longer distance in time from her life than any of the canonical gospels are from the life of Jesus. I have heard stories of her son my grandfather's escapades in college, from the 1930's. I have heard stories of my grandmother, her daughter-in-law, from the 1930's. These stories are over 70 years old now, a distance in time from then to now that is probably longer than from any of the canonical gospels are from the life of Jesus, though possibly comparable to the Gospel of John at its later possible dates. And as for the stories I've heard about the 1960's -- comparable in distance to the Gospel of Mark from the life of Jesus -- I have heard the same events from so many different people it would never occur to me to doubt their reality even if they had never made it into the history books.

I take the gospels in the same way: not as channeled from God nor as so far removed from the sources to be legendary. I take it as what people remembered, as best they could, either directly themselves -- as per the claims of the Gospel of John -- or as they had heard from people who knew directly, as in the case of the Gospel of Mark. Some people would like to argue "inspiration" for the gospels; but that could mean all kinds of things. How I take it is that the gospels were written by people who were, historically, in a position to know what they were talking about, and to talk to people who still remembered. I know that doesn't make me an "inerrantist" in the traditional sense of the word. But it does mean this: that I take the events recorded in the gospels as being just as real as the things I have heard from people I know about things of comparable distances in the past.

Did Luke and Mark meet in person?

Those interested in the Synoptic Puzzle have looked closely at any number of clues as to the relationships between the gospels. Luke is widely assumed to have had a copy of Mark's gospel, and Luke himself says plainly that he started with a knowledge of previous sources (Luke 1:1-2).

Luke and Mark together?
Paul's second letter to Timothy, probably written around 66-67 A.D., contains an intriguing passage for those interested in the Synoptic Puzzle. Paul writes to Timothy:

Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments. (2 Tim 4:11-13)

So here we have Mark, author of one of the gospels, invited to go see Paul who is accompanied by Luke, author of another of the gospels. Paul sent for some materials from what may have been his personal library, said materials to arrive with Timothy and Mark when they came to see Paul and Luke. Now there is a meeting I'd like to have attended. What were on the scrolls and especially the parchments? Aside from Paul's documents, what about everyone else's? Had Mark started writing his gospel yet? Had Luke started taking notes for his gospel yet?

Another of Paul's letters, the letter to Philemon, seems to have been written some years before and speaks of both Mark and Luke being with him:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-workers. (Philemon vv 23-24, emphasis added)

Based on this, it seems that Mark and Luke had already met more than briefly, and were both staying in the same city keeping the same companions at that time. Mark and Luke both appear together again in the "greetings" list of Colossians, written about the same time as Philemon (see Colossians 4:10, 4:14).

Luke and Paul
There are other points of interest as well. 2 Timothy was written near the end of Paul's life, as he is in a dungeon in Rome for his final imprisonment before his execution. By this time, Paul has long been in the habit of using his prison time to write; what has his companion Luke been doing? On that same subject, note Luke's comments on a previous trip Paul made to Rome to stand trial:

When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him. (Acts 28:16).

For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 28:30-31, these words forming the close of the book of Acts)

Since the book of Acts followed Paul for so long but does not mention Paul's final imprisonment, is it possible that Luke had finished the book of Acts before that final imprisonment occurred? Had Luke used his spare time during Paul's previous imprisonment to work on his books? Or did Luke not mention Paul's final imprisonment because it was still in progress as he concluded the book of Acts?

These are intriguing possibilities suggested by the texts, but by no means proven by them.

Mark and Peter
In Peter's first letter, we see Mark listed among his companions:

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:13)

It's traditional to note at this point that Mark as Peter's "son" has been taken to mean spiritual son, and there are other such uses in early Christian literature, including in the canon of Scripture. "Babylon" was understood by the early church as a reference to Rome, with its similarities to Babylon in the role of oppressing God's people. If the early church's understanding of the letter written to them was correct, then here again we see Mark in Rome, though it is not certain whether Mark was still there from having visited Paul and Luke, or whether this refers to an earlier stay in Rome. (It can hardly have been a later stay in Rome, as Peter and Paul had both been killed within a few years after the time 2 Timothy was written.)

Mark as a companion of Peter is significant in that the early church saw Mark as recording the reports about Jesus that he had heard from Peter. Peter was apparently familiar with Mark and his family; Luke records that when Peter escaped from prison, he went to the home of Mark's mother, where he was familiar enough that he was known by his voice through the door (Acts 12:12-14). Mark had returned to Jerusalem after briefly traveling with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13), though we do not know with certainty whether or how much time he spent with Peter at that point. We do know that Peter was still at least sometimes in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7), where he is recorded as speaking at a meeting also attended by Mark's cousin Barnabas (Acts 15:12), with Barnabas just freshly returned from the journey they had originally begun together.

Here again are events I'd like to have attended. Did they meet with Mark? What kind of welcome would Mark have given his returning cousin? How much of the Jerusalem church would have attended the welcome? Would we have seen Peter, James, John, Mark, Paul, and Barnabas in the same room? It's not unlikely, but no one would have bothered to record a simple occasion like that. Again, we have intriguing possibilities and even a certain probability to some of the meetings, but no definite record. Other questions come to mind: How much time had Mark spent with Peter? Why does Mark alone have the special distinction of Peter referring to him as his "son"? And as for Peter's letter from "Babylon" -- were Peter and Mark ever in Rome at the same time as Paul and Luke?

Speculation?
I nearly titled this section "Conclusion" out of habit, but little of what we have seen rises to the level of conclusions. From 2 Timothy, we do not even know with certainty that Mark and Luke met again, only that if Luke stayed and Mark came as requested, then they certainly would have met. From Paul's letter to Philemon, we do know that Mark and Luke had at one point been "fellow workers" together. This post contains much more speculation than most of the things I write, and that because of the subject matter: we do not definitely know the answers to some of these things.

My ultimate point in writing it is this: there is a lot of existing scholarship about the authorship, history, and relationships of the canonical gospels; almost all of it is speculation. Most people have then agreed in principle that speculation over detail is allowed in an area of scholarship where that type of detail is scarce. However, if speculation is allowed, then it bears noticing that it is easy enough to take concrete details from our existing documents and reconstruct the certainty that Mark and Luke had known each other and been together as fellow workers, that this may have happened on more than one occasion, and that there is no particular reason to suppose a large gap between the date of Mark and the date of Luke since the two knew each other. If we continue from Paul's execution we are likely enough to find Mark and Luke both in Rome just before the fall of Jerusalem, which corresponds fairly well with many of the theories about the dates of authorship of their gospels.

An ancient memory of the Exodus?

The Talmud records an interesting folk history about the Exodus from Egypt:

All those years that the Israelites were in the wilderness, those two chests, one of the dead and the other of the Shechinah, proceeded side by side, and passersby used to ask: ‘What is the nature of those two chests?’ They received the reply: ‘One is of the dead and the other of the Shechinah’. ‘But is it, then, the way of the dead to proceed with the Shechinah?’ They were told, ‘This one [Joseph] fulfilled all that was written in the other’. (Talmud - Mas. Sotah 13a-b)

I know there has been much question about the historicity of the exodus from Egypt, and I know that this is hardly conclusive, being a folk history from many centuries later. But it is an interesting piece of folk history in being so specific about those details of the journey.

Scoring the books of the canon: Eusebius' History

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post continues with a review of the canon as discussed by Eusebius in his History of the Church. This work dates from the 300's A.D., placing it in the 300-399 A.D. range for the purposes of this evaluation system and giving a weight of 1.0 to the list as seen in the calculations of the right column of the table.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Mark	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Luke	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Acts	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Romans	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Galatians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Ephesians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philippians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Colossians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Titus	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philemon	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Hebrews	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
James	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
1 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Jude	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
1 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 John	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
3 John	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
Revelation	Mixed/neutral	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Acts of Paul	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Acts of Peter	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Apocalpyse of Peter	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Letter to the Alexandrines	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Letter to the Laodiceans	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Teachings of the Apostles	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

How old is the lectionary?

Many Christian groups have put together lectionaries, orderly sequences of reading the Scriptures throughout the year. The practice of reading Scriptures during a worship service dates back to Biblical times, and there are various references in the Talmud to appointed lectionary-style readings. But the reference which points back furthest in history is not a record of the events in the days when the Talmud was written, but a part of the Talmud claimed to be an oral history passed along from ancient times -- even back to the days of Moses.

And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord. (Lev 23:44) It is part of their observance that the section relating to each one of them should be read in its season.

Our Rabbis taught: Moses laid down a rule for the Israelites that they should enquire and give expositions concerning the subject of the day — the laws of Passover on Passover, the laws of Pentecost on Pentecost, and the laws of Tabernacles on Tabernacles. (Megilah 32a)

If this oral history is accurate, then the principle of having a lectionary -- and some of the readings used in that lectionary, still used today -- are over three thousand years old. Those of us who belong to traditional churches may pause and consider the depth of our roots. Whenever I see a reference to Christian history as if it started two thousand years ago, I cringe inside. Christ was a long-expected branch of an ancient tree; we are more than two thousand years old.

Internal evidence and the authorship of the Gospel of John

Outside of conservative camps, very few are willing to place historical weight on the Gospel of John. Several lines of argument have been proposed against its historicity. It is intriguing that the beloved disciple is never named; I believe this has already been discussed thoroughly and do not intend to discuss the “beloved disciple” angle here. Beyond that point of interest, it is also argued that the differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels tell against the Gospel of John, and that the existence of the appendix in Chapter 21 makes a devastating argument against a single-author/unrevised view of the book’s authorship. Both of these points will be reviewed along with writings from the early church that address the authorship of the fourth gospel.

John v. the Synoptics
The argument against historical value from the differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics run roughly along these lines:

1. The traditional or orthodox Christian view is that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, and that the Synoptic Gospels were either written by eyewitnesses or based on eyewitness testimony.
2. There are marked differences in style, purpose, and content between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.
3. Therefore if the Synoptic Gospels have historical value, the Gospel of John does not.
4. Also therefore, the Gospel of John was probably not written by an eyewitness.

This argument assumes that the gospels should all contain roughly the same material and that they are validated by covering the same material as each other. A review of Matthew, Mark, and Luke shows that they cover much of the same material; if an expectation of a further gospel – or what constitutes a valid and reliable gospel – is based on the similarity of these three, then we would expect a fourth gospel to repeat the same parables, sayings, and miracles as the previous three. A review of the Gospel of John shows that it does not. Why the difference?

An early record is preserved by Eusebius in his History of the Church, in which he referenced Clement of Alexandria’s work Outlines. This work contained notes on many early Christian writings both inside and outside the canon. Eusebius summarizes Clement’s comments on the Gospels:

Clement has found room for a tradition of the primitive authorities of the Church regarding the order of the Gospels. (Skipping discussion of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and other writings; it only bears mentioning for present purposes that the Synoptic Gospels were recorded as having been written before John.) Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irresistibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel. (History of the Church 6.14, based on Clement of Alexandria who lived circa 150A.D. – 215A.D.).

Here an early church document specifically addresses the differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. John was familiar with the Synoptic Gospels and was of the view that those facts already covered by the Synoptics did not need to be covered again. With this in mind, he purposed to record mainly those things which had not been previously recorded. This addresses the objection that the Synoptics and the Gospel of John can be pitted against each other as if they reasonably could have been expected to recount the same material in the same way. It addresses the view that their differences are an unexpected phenomenon which tells against the reliability of the latter. On the contrary, it shows that the Gospel of John’s character is meant to be supplementary, not because of any disagreement with the previous books, but on account of their incompleteness in what they do not address. It shows that the fourth gospel did not consider that the life and teachings of Christ were adequately addressed by the previously-written books. In fact, the text indicates in two places that even this additional information did not exhaust the material that could be written about Christ (at 20:30 and 21:35). In this way, the authors twice made known their intention to add to our knowledge of Christ, not to content themselves with repeating things that had already been recorded.

The Appendix
Scholars consider the last chapter of the Gospel of John to be an appendix, a later addition. The beginning of the appendix in Chapter 21 is marked by the fact that the previous chapter contains what seems intended as the conclusion to the book: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31). These words bring the previous twenty chapters to a fitting close and would have suitably ended the book. Notably similar thoughts are employed as the final words of the book (John 21:25), adding strength to the claim that John 20:30-31 was the original ending. The material in between is then considered an appendix, having a different writing style and content than the rest. It also includes the statement “We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24), which can hardly have come from a single author or from the same writing session as the rest of the material. Instead, it indicates that the previous material had been reviewed by those writing the appendix. Based on the appendix, some modern scholarship has suggested that the book was written by a community of authors rather than a single individual. Scholars also noted that the Gospel of John was written decades after the events described and that it shows other signs of early editing in the received text besides the appendix. On the basis of these arguments, traditional authorship is disowned and historical value is denied.

The argument against historical value from the appendix and other signs of editing runs roughly along these lines:

1. The traditional or orthodox Christian view is that the Gospel of John was written by John.
2. Because of the inclusion of the appendix, a single author/unrevised view is untenable. Because of signs of editing at an unknown date by an unknown person, the historical value cannot be trusted.
3. Therefore the traditional or orthodox view is untenable and the historical value is denied.

This argument assumes that the view of the ancient church was that John was the single author of the Gospel of John. However, that is a very simplified version of the early church’s view on the subject. Here is an early written record of how the Gospel of John came to be written:

When his fellow-disciples and bishops encouraged him, John said, “Fast along with me three days from today, and whatever may be revealed to each, let us relate it one to another.” The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John in his own name should write down everything and that they should all revise it. (from the Muratorian Canon, likely dates ranging from 170 A.D. – 200 A.D based on internal evidence)

Here the history of the church specifically addresses the community of authors: it was John and his fellow disciples, of whom Andrew is also named, being another of Jesus’ twelve hand-selected apostles and Simon Peter’s brother. It shows that the review and editing that occurred were not performed by a later group without the knowledge or consent of the author, but that the community nature of writing this gospel was part of the intent of the original author. It also shows that the editors were not distant in time and knowledge, but were likewise acquainted first-hand with the events in question, so that the editors’ comment “We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24) comes from those with direct knowledge of the events and who were independent witnesses of the things recorded. This gives the Gospel of John the character of something both written by a witness and verified by other witnesses: the appendix provides a second attestation to the truth of the contents. Rather than being historically weaker than the Synoptics which have each other for corroboration, the Gospel of John is uniquely situated in that more than one person with direct knowledge was involved in writing and editing the text. In referring to the original author as a witness and adding that they know his testimony is true, they make reference to the legal system of their day and meet the standard that a thing should be accepted on the testimony of two or three witnesses. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke are three witnesses for many events recorded amongst them, historically, the Gospel of John is the only one of the Gospels which can stand alone in meeting the standards of evidence of its day for “two or three witnesses” based on the nature of the appendix: it is the confirmation of other people with direct knowledge.

---

Planned soon: addressing the arguments against the reliability of the Gospel of John based on its theological perspective.

Patristic Studies: Debugging Christian History

Sometimes my children are working through a problem in math and find, by looking at their final answer, that they must have gone wrong at some point. The approach I have taught them is a time-tested approach: go back to the beginning and start over. Rework the problem forward step by step. Show all your work. See if you can spot the mistake.

I think this is why there is such a renewed interest in patristic studies in the church. We can look at where we are, and it is very plain to most of us that Christian theology and fellowship have gone very wrong in some ways. So we go back to the beginning and trace forward.

It is very tempting in patristics studies to look at the details, attempting to locate what is the problem. We can trace through doctrines, views of Christ, views of Scripture, views of church authority, views of the sacraments, and any other difference that plagues us we can review in all its history. But patristics is a vast field, and our current differences in Christian belief are a vast field. So pursuits like that -- as informative as they are -- have so far been unfruitful.

Sometimes, when tracing through a problem, we think we realize how a mistake occurred -- we spot a mistake in method. I very nearly wrote this post on Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium as a case study in how problems of church doctrine were solved in the middle of the patristic age. The idea is that once a method could be established and agreed upon, then it was a matter of tracing forward from the earliest days of the church using that method, and we could then determine exactly when and in what way we made a wrong turn in method. We could apply the right method and see what results should have followed. Still, the very matter of method -- of how problems should be solved -- has become part of the field of disagreement.

Sometimes, when there is so much disagreement all around, the first thing to do is to determine when a problem occurred. I think this is our first necessary step because it is often possible to recognize when a mistake occurred even before we identify what the mistake entailed or how it was made. For example, in my own field of programming, when a certain type of problem occurs and resists a quick analysis, the thing to do is debug the program: trace through step by step looking for tell-tale signs not of what the problem is or how it came to be, but of when the problem begins. Finding exactly when the problem begins is then the biggest clue in identifying the exact nature of the problem and setting things right.

In order to spot a problem, we need a flag to say when a misstep has occurred. If we take "one, holy, catholic (all-encompassing) and apostolic church" as our benchmark for spotting a problem with the church, then we look for when the church stopped being one, holy, catholic (all-encompassing) and apostolic; the problem must have occurred before then.

Tracing through step by step, I think we're on safe ground to say that the apostolic church was still one, holy, and catholic (all-encompassing) at the end of the apostolic age, roughly 100 A.D. Likewise, the church still met those criteria in 200 A.D. and 300 A.D. By the time we get to 400 A.D. I'm not quite sure. Inching forward from 300 A.D., we get to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and find the apostolic churches are still in fellowship. At the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. the apostolic churches are still in fellowship, but it is strained. The Bishop of Rome did not attend the Council of Constantinople and some of the decrees of that council were, to say the least, involved in later controversies. By the time we get to 451 A.D. the apostolic churches have split into at least three separate groups which still exist and have never reconciled. So I would, just in broad terms, place the date when serious mistakes were made no earlier than 325 A.D. and no later than 451 A.D.

But, given that there were such early splits, can't we set aside those and concentrate only on the more recent ones? Aren't the more recent ones the most relevant? What about the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church, often dated to 1054 A.D.? What about the Protestant Reformation, beginning in 1517 A.D.? Why focus on such early splits?

Again, it is tempting to trace the roots of the disagreements in those later splits back to the earlier disagreements between 325 A.D. and 451 A.D.; the roots are certainly there. But that would be a misstep for my present purposes; it is not necessary for later disagreements to be the same ones as those earlier disagreements in order for those earlier disagreements to be relevant, even for those earlier disagreements to be critical. No, the more pressing point here is that these later disagreements cannot possibly be resolved without first having resolved the earlier disagreements on more basic things. It is possible, in working a long and complex math problem, for there to be more than one mistake. But when there are two or more mistakes, fixing only the latest one does not fix the entire result. In fact, much work fixing a late mistake may well be wasted effort if there is an earlier problem underlying it.

So I would invite everyone reading along, and all those who would direct their studies towards the eventual reunification of the church, to rework the problem with me. The study of patristics is, in that sense, the record of the church "showing its work" as it worked out the meaning of the amazing things that happened among us.

The Gospels in the 100's A.D.: Alternate Christianities and Irenaeus

In many places there is a general assumption that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen late in church history, hundreds of years after the fact, from a pack of equally strong contenders; that the "alternate" gospels enjoyed a similar history and following; that either politics or theological bias was the deciding factor in which versions of Jesus' life would reach us. The history of the canon of Scripture simply does not support such a view. The "lost gospels" so often trumpeted by pop scholars were simply never in the running; in fact, historically, from the earliest days among churches founded by the apostles no gospel writing was ever in the running other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I will not attempt to cover all the available material from the 100's A.D., but to review some of the better-known writings that show the special consideration in which the four canonical gospels were already held in that century. In this post I will briefly review the very early non-apostolic groups and Irenaeus' early attempts to show how we can know the genuine teachings received from the apostles.

Brief Notes on Non-Apostolic Christian Groups
Given that much interest is currently being paid to the views of Christians who were considered heretical and why they were considered heretical, it is worth taking a brief look at the writings these groups were using.

Interestingly, when reviewing the literature for and against alternate Christian groups that far back, their own writings and those who rebutted them recorded that they also typically used one or another of the same four gospels we now consider canonical. The Marcionites favored a version of Luke with many passages edited out for their particular theological reasons. The Gnostics favored the gospel according to John.

Irenaeus makes early mention (possibly the earliest mention) of a non-apostolic gospel called the Gospel of Truth, a writing which he disowned based on its late date and non-apostolic origins. He comments both that "they put forth their own compositions" in contrast with those received from the apostles, and "Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity as to entitle their comparatively recent writing 'the Gospel of Truth'." (Against Heresies 3.11) Irenaeus also argues that this gospel "agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles", which is something of an overstatement despite the plain differences in focus and style. After a copy of the Gospel of Truth was recovered from Nag Hammadi and was available for direct examination, it seems to have the character of a devotional commentary on the apostolic Scriptures, done in a semi-mystical strain with Gnostic tendencies. From the standpoint of a historian looking at the life of Christ, the Gospel of Truth does not bear any direct witness to Christ, mentioning only what is already recorded in the received apostolic writings, and in ways which make clear it is referring to the earlier apostolic writings as the original source material. The Gospel of Truth likely dates to around 150 A.D.

Irenaeus on the Four Gospels
But what about the churches that were apostolic, that had been founded by the inner circle of Christ's own followers?

Irenaeus is one of the better-known Christian writers of the 100's A.D., an early leader in giving criteria for distinguishing true teaching from false. In this, he relied heavily on the witness of the apostles as passed on to his own day. He had in his time met Polycarp, bishop of the church in Smyrna who had personally known some of Christ's own apostles, including the apostle John. Irenaeus placed confidence in this recent and direct personal knowledge as a reliable chain of transmission, a guarantee that the teachings he had received in this church were authentic to what the apostles themselves had handed down. His comments on the gospels received by the apostolic churches are deservedly well-known:

Matthew published among the Hebrews a gospel in writing also in their own speech, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. After their death Mark in his turn, Peter's disciple and interpreter, delivered to us in writing the contents of Peter's preaching. Luke also, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, the one who leaned back on his bosom, gave forth his gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Having briefly mentioned the origins of the four gospels and their apostolic origins (Matthew, Mark from Peter, Luke from Paul, and John), he later continues to explain how there are no other gospels recognized in the church except these four:

As there are four quarters of the world in whihc we live, and four universal winds, and as the church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and ground of the church, and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immorality from every quarter and kindling human life anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to mankind, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit. (He again names the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.) ... For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. ... these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11)

---

To be continued with more writings from the 100's A.D. ...

Newsflash: Jesus Never Married, Never Had Children

These are the times when very basic history needs to be reviewed. Most people are aware that the Bible never mentions Jesus being married or having children, but some have imagined that this was a mere omission and look for answers on his life elsewhere. Very well then, what do we find outside of Scripture?

They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married nor had any possession in this world ... Further, they do not know the reason why the Lord did not marry. In the first place he had his own bride, the Church; and in the next place he was no ordinary man that he should also be in need of some helpmeet after the flesh. Nor was it necessary for him to beget children since he abides eternally and was born the only Son of God. -- Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book III, 6.49. (circa 190 A.D.)

The First Christmas: Historical Background

Dr. Pursiful has been running a satisfyingly in-depth series on the historical background of Jesus' birth such as the censuses, star of Bethlehem, when Zechariah's rotation would have come up to serve in the Temple, and so forth. Stop by and give him a read. Well worth the time.

Is Abraham Historical?

This is an old post back from the days when I used to post over at CADRE Comments. In light of a recent discussion over at Thinklings, I thought I'd dust it off again.

---

It’s an ongoing question in Christian circles how far back Genesis is to be taken as historical. Here I will briefly cover some points that weigh on the historicity of Abraham in particular.

First, there's the Hebrew account of Abraham from the Bible. Where the Hebrew accounts bear on Hebrew history, most of the record have been kept by the Hebrews (understandably enough). But the Hebrew records do also record things of interest to other surrounding nations, particularly Arabia. Some of these points are as follows:

• Abraham was son of Terah (son of Nahor, son of Serug, etc., Genesis 11);
  
• His firstborn son Ishmael was by his Egyptian maidservant Hagar (Genesis 16).
  
• While Ishmael was still very young; Abraham’s wife Sarai mistreated Hagar and she fled into the wilderness. Hagar was distressed; God (or an angel of God) showed her water. (Similar accounts in Genesis 16 while Hagar was pregnant with Ishmael and Genesis 21 after Ishmael was weaned have led people to speculate whether these are the same account recorded twice, or two different instances of seeking water in the wilderness.)
  
• When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael buried him beside Isaac’s mother Sarah (Genesis 25).
  
• Ishmael had 12 sons: Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jedur, Naphish, and Kedemah (Genesis 25).

Different camps of scholars give different dates for the Torah, but it is written at soonest several centuries after the events recorded for Abraham’s life. Is there anything to corroborate the Torah’s record? On this point the Arab traditions bear mentioning. According to the Arab traditions:

• Ibrahim was the son of Tarih (son of Nahur, son of Sarugh, etc.)
  
• Ibrahim’s son Ismail was born of a woman named Hagar, who was an Egyptian.
  
• Mecca was founded at the place where Ismail drank water shown to him by an angel of God when he was a small child accompanied by his mother. (This well is considered sacred to this day and is visited by Muslim pilgrims to Mecca.)
  
• Ismail had 12 sons: Nabit, Qaydhar, Adhbul, Mabsha, Misma, Mashi, Dimma, Adhr, Tayma, Yatur, Nabish, and Qaydhuma. The Arab tribes trace their descent from these sons of Ismail.
  
• Ismail was buried beside his mother Hagar in what is now Mecca.
  
• The Arabs recognize the same site in Israel as do the Hebrews as the final resting place of Ibrahim/Abraham.

Arab culture has historically depended heavily on oral tradition. The earliest written record for which I have an English translation is far after the date of the events: Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, from after the days of Mohammed. It preserves traditions of early Arab history and of the genealogy of Mohammed and of Arab tribes. It must be mentioned that this book was written millennia after Abraham; it claims, for this part of the record, to be reporting ancient traditions. The date gap should not be dismissed without consideration. Is there any reason to accept either record as authentic?

The foremost reason to accept the accounts would be the fact that they agree so largely with each other, especially when there is little reason to expect that these peoples would agree on anything unless they knew it to be true.

If someone were to argue that the Arabs borrowed from the Hebrews, it would mean that the genealogy-conscious Arab society forgot or replaced their own ancestry with an adopted Hebrew version of their ancestry. As unlikely as that seems, it would also raise the question of why they would have ancient burial sites of Ismail and Hagar in Mecca if they had not had their own traditions about Ismail and Hagar, and why they would “borrow” or even recognize the Hebrew records that Hagar was not buried with Abraham, which is less than flattering to their own culture. More historical dating and older records may become available as translation efforts continue, but for now it seems unlikely that the Arabs copied the Hebrews.

On the other hand, if someone were to argue that the Hebrews borrowed from the Arabs, the same types of issues can be raised as to why a genealogy-conscious culture would adopt someone else’s version of their ancestry. It also becomes difficult to explain why the Arabs recognize the tomb of Abraham and Sarah in the ancient homeland land of the Hebrews, as opposed to locating it in Arabia next to the burial places of Hagar and Ishmael. This is difficult to explain unless we consider the most obvious solution: that the tomb is authentic.

Is any of that conclusive? “Conclusive” is too strong a word for many peoples’ inclinations, especially with the translation work that remains to be done and the time gaps involved in the records. But the history of the people involved, the available records and traditions and historical sites, and the fact that two enemy cultures both agree so closely, all make more sense if the history is genuine.

Islam, Christianity, and a moral morass that must be slogged through promptly

I will wrap up my current Mohammed series here. The main temptation to continue the Mohammed series is that many of the important things about Mohammed are completely unknown to most Christians. I had considered one more post about the history of Mohammed. But so many ancient accounts were, in my mind, candidates in the sense that people should be aware of them, and there was no compelling reason to choose one and exclude the others. I decided instead to simply show you the list of things I had considered relating. The following items are taken from these well-regarded Islamic sources:

---

I.I. = Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, page numbers listed according to A. Guillaume's translation as The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, Third impression 1970.
Q = Qur'an, surah and verse listed
Hadith and Tafsir references are listed longhand

---

• Mohammed orders the assassination of Asma, daughter of Marwan, who was then killed in her house at night. Mohammed praises her killer. (I.I. pp. 675-676)
• After some of the Aus tribe had assassinated Ka`b on Mohammed's orders, the rival Khazraj tribe wanted to have equal claim of service to Islam and so named Sallam in the Khaybar as another enemy of God. Asking and obtaining Mohammed's permission to assassinate him, they killed him in his bed at night. (I.I. pp. 482-483)
• Mohammed orders the execution of two slave girls who had sung satirical songs about him¹ (I.I. p. 551)
• Mohammed orders the execution of a man who had said (before Mohammed's rise to military power) that the Qur'an was full of fables of the ancients (I.I. pp. 136, 162-163, 360)
• Mohammed claims beautiful girls from among the conquered women as his own property (I.I. p, 466, p. 490, pp. 516-517)
• Mohammed's male followers lust after their female captives but wonder if using them would diminish the ransom; they take their proposed solution (coitus interruptus) to Mohammed. Mohammed comments on how God's will for a conception affects the effectiveness of contraception.² Sahih Muslim collection of hadiths: Book 8 #3371, which is in chapter 22
• Mohammed establishes the principle that captured women do not have the right to refuse sexual relations to their Muslim captors and it is legally and morally permissible to use them as the conquerors please (Q. 4:24, see also I.I. pp. 516-517)
• Mohammed is poisoned by a woman he had enslaved after having her husband, father and uncle killed; noted as a contributing cause to his death (I.I. p. 516)
• Mohammed's profits from the ransom of hostages taken by the Muslims (I.I. p. 309, pp. 311-314))
• Mohammed's profits from plunder in raids and conquests (I.I. p. 321, p. 360, p. 438, p.466)
• Mohammed orders his followers to burn down a hospital/shelter. Although the people who instituted the hospital/shelter had invited Mohammed to pray there, they were considered schismatic. (I.I. p. 609)
• Mohammed is defeated in battle and is himself injured³ (I.I. p. 380)
• Mohammed vows by God to bring slaughter on the Meccans (I.I. p. 131)
• Mohammed, attracted to his adopted son's wife, his attraction is known. This led to his adopted son divorcing his wife so that Mohammed could marry her.⁴ (Q. 33:36-37, and the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn's comments on Q. 33:36 and 33:37; I have also seen Zamakshari's comments on Q. 33:37 cited but have not been obtained access to Zamakshari in English)
• Mohammed orders the massacre of all men of a particular Jewish tribe, and the enslavement of their women and children (I.I. pp. 465-466)
• Mohammed's night journey to heaven and his wife Aesha's comment that he remained physically in place all night, that it was not a literal physical journey (I.I. pp. 183-184)
• Mohammed orders the execution of someone who had formerly been his scribe but had left Islam (I.I. p. 550)
• Mohammed and the so-called "Satanic verses"⁵ (I.I. pp. 165-167, see also notes there)
• Mohammed's plans for the conquest of Syria (I.I. p. 652)
• Mohammed's instructions to his followers regarding the conquest of Egypt (I.I. p. 4)

Is This Fair to Mohammed?
It is a fitting and pressing question whether these examples are a just representation of Mohammed's life. But before even attempting an answer, the question has an assumption that deserves notice: it assumes that the examples above include many examples of wrongdoing, things that are morally repugnant. Already we have a problem. According to Islam, none of the examples above include any wrongdoing by Mohammed or anything morally repugnant; they are holy examples that, under the right circumstances, can and should be repeated. I have written before that our "cultural diversity" has so far amounted to hoping that everyone is alike, and has not yet come to grips with the fact that different people have different ideas of right and wrong.

So again, is this fair to Mohammed? While I seek to make people aware of some very deep-seated differences between Christianity and Islam, the examples above are inevitably those which show the differences. Here are other examples that could have been chosen:

• Mohammed abolishes the practice of female infanticide
• Mohammed turns Arabian tribes from worship of rocks, stones, and idols
• Mohammed insists on chastity amongst his unmarried followers
• Mohammed insists on faithfulness within marriage
• Mohammed unites warring Arab tribes under one banner and one brotherhood with a common culture, a common cause, and a common goal
• Some sections of Mohammed's Qur'an are considered poetic masterpieces in Arabic
• Mohammed's system of laws bring first "rule of law" to even the most savage of the Arab tribes
• Mohammed prohibits the prostitution of female slaves
• Mohammed gives Arabia something it had scarcely had before: pride

Now the question remains: what is a fair assessment of Mohammed? I will mention that, when the life of Mohammed is summed up by the ancient Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq (author of the main ancient biography), his summary of Mohammed's life counts Mohammed's battles and raids and how often Mohammed himself joined in the attack. While that is not an assessment of his life, it was considered an acceptable way to summarize it.

I will also mention that a just assessment of Mohammed cannot have me, or you, or some other bit player as the final arbiter. I would submit that for Christians, the answer is to turn to Jesus' teachings and apply them here as best we can, as should be our practice in all things. If someone accepts Jesus as the word of God, then Mohammed must seem no prophet at all; Jesus' actions and teachings call many of Mohammed's actions and teachings evil, and Jesus' teachings on love of God, neighbor, and even enemies show Mohammed for a false prophet, as Jesus prophesied would come after him. After Jesus' powerful miracles to heal the sick and raise the dead, and even return to life himself, Mohammed's career of raiding and plunder cannot seem holy.

For Muslims, they allege that they accept Jesus as a prophet, and if it is so then they should check Mohammed's teachings against Jesus and see whether it is possible that Mohammed is really a prophet. Many things which Muslims have been taught about Christianity are not true; following Christ would never lead someone to be a polytheist.

Haven't Christians Done Wrong Things?
Anyone who is paying attention can tell you that Christians have done wrong things, so that should hardly be a question. It is, at best, a reminder: we have at times turned aside from following Christ and have been false to our religion.

But many use the argument that Christians have done bad things in order to silence Christians about the evil coming from Islam. But being silent about evil would be betraying our faith again. Our faults should teach us compassion for the evildoer, and humility about ourselves, and an appreciation of the deceitfulness of sin -- but it should never teach us to turn a blind eye to sin.

The objection that Christians have done wrong things too is also sometimes meant as something like this: if morality is a game of moral one-upmanship, then you've already lost. Well, bless you if that is your thought, Jesus has taken care of that for me. But just entertain this thought for a moment: what if morality has other purposes besides our nauseating games of moral one-upmanship? What if morality is for protecting the innocent and strengthening the good? What if morality is really about what is right and good? It may be true that if morality is a game of one-upmanship then we may as well stop now; but if morality is defending the good from attacks against it, then we ought to put aside our convenient moral confusion and get started.

Some things that Jesus said come to mind at a time like this:

He who is without sin cast the first stone.

In the account of the adultress, would the right response be, "I am sinful therefore I cannot execute you" or "I am sinful therefore I cannot say adultery is wrong"? We cannot refuse to call wrong "wrong" and evil "evil".

First remove the log from your own eye, then you can remove the speck from your brother's eye.

We should always check ourselves first, and re-check ourselves again. But that does not mean that we are not allowed to notice anything besides ourselves. One benfit of straightening out our own house, so to speak, is that we are in a better position to help other people. Taking the log out of our eye first does not nullify our obligation to help others, it just makes us more credible and more helpful.

Do not judge, lest you be judged, for with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.

Though it may not be a precise fit to the circumstances, we are inevitably reminded of this verse and ought to give it fair consideration even if the context is not a perfect fit. We Christians do not have a problem criticizing our own past when it contains unholy things; I do not see why we cannot condemn the same thing in other people which we condemn in ourselves. We are not asking for a double-standard, one for ourselves and one for someone else. We are not asking that the world ignore the wrong that has been done in the name of Christianity. It is on that basis that we can plainly condemn the wrong done in the name of Christianity that we can also, without hypocrisy, ask that the world plainly condemn the wrong that has been done in the name if Islam.

A Solution?
When viewing atrocities or objectionable histories on the Christian and Muslim record books throughout time, there is a difference that we are at risk of missing: whether those things are considered to be right or wrong, native to the religion or alien to it. Mohammed himself was the one who brought violence to Islam, and as the founder he cannot correctly be accused of hijacking the religion; it would have to be someone else's in order for him to hijack it. If someone were to argue that, on the Christian side, the worst evildoers ever to disgrace God's message by distorting it for their own purposes are no different than Mohammed, that may be logically valid but it is not an impressive defense of Mohammed.

The solution, in Muslim minds, is to use their favored tool (warfare) and conquer the Christians. But military conquest is not the purpose for which Jesus sent out his followers. Jesus sent us to teach repentance and forgiveness in his name, and to keep to all that he taught and make all nations his disciples. The solution, to a Christian, is to bring the Muslims to a true knowledge of God, and of right and wrong, so that they can see the evil which is being called good in Islam, have the log taken out of their eye, repent and believe the truth -- and know the love of God, who calls out to them as their Father. The solution is for us to become evangelists again, and complete the Great Commission.

---

1 - There is a distinction to be made between assassinations and executions. Since Mohammed had seized control of the city at this point and become the de facto government, it seems more reasonable to reckon these among the executions than among the assassinations.
2 - By modern standards this would count as rape, though under Islamic law it does not count as rape because captured women and female slaves do not have the legal right of refusal.
3 - By Jewish/Christian standards, this would imply that Mohammed was not a prophet because the real prophets knew whether or not God was on their side and would not go up against an enemy when God was not with them. Mohammed explained this in terms of God's testing.
4 - Interestingly, his adopted son Zayd had been one of Mohammed's slaves. While Mohammed kept slaves up to the day of his death, he had freed Zayd and adopted him as a son. By Christian standards, of course, desiring another man's wife is sinful, needing repentance.
5 - The "Satanic verses" are not about the Rushdie book of the same name. It dates back to a much-disputed event in the life of Mohammed. According to the earliest records, a short part of the Qur'an was "revealed" but was quickly replaced. The replaced verses had permitted limited idolatry to continue. It was alleged that Satan had dictated that part and Mohammed had not realized that his source of revelation for those veses was Satan. This episode of the Satanic verses is removed from later manuscripts of the biographies of Mohammed, though the early textual evidence supports its authenticity and there are other early witnesses to this.

Mohammed and the assassination of Ka`b b. Al-Ashraf

This account of the assassination of an early "enemy of God" is taken from the early orthodox Muslim biography of Mohammed, the Sirat Rasul Allah. Translation by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 3rd printing 1970 as The Life of Muhammad.

Ka`b b. Al-Ashraf [skipping Ka`b's Jewish tribal affiliations], when he heard the news [of the polytheists killed by Mohammed's troops at a recent battle] said, "Is it true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention (i.e. Zayd and `Abdullah b. Rawaha). These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people 'twere better to be dead than alive." [translator's note: literally, the inside of the earth is better than the outside]

When the enemy of God [by which they mean the Jewish man Ka`b who objected to his polytheist friends being killed by Muslims] became certain that the news was true he left town and went to Mecca ... [skipping details on where he stayed, and his poem of lament for the dead in which he praises their generosity and help to the homeless, plus other poems by other people, and Ka'b's follow-up poem on the increasing hostility and dangerousness of those who had converted to Islam].

Then [wake up, this is considered quite an insult by the Muslims] Ka`b returned to Medina and composed amatory verses about Ummu'l-Fad'l al-Harith. [It's longish, it's in the footnotes if you want to see it.]<sup>1</sup> Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle [by which they mean Mohammed] said -- according to what `Abdullah b. al-Mughith b. Abu Burda told me -- "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l Ashraf?" [that means K`ab, who is son of Al-Ashraf] Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. `Abdu'l-Asshal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He [Mohammed] said, "Do so if you can." So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent on you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He [Mohammed] answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in this matter."

[The rest of the account relates how they succeeded in killing Ka`b by deceit and treachery.]

---

1 - Ka`b's poem about the woman in question, the only "amatory verses of an insulting nature" which are recorded in the account:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu'l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the peddlar of bottles
Henna and hair dye
What lies 'twist ankle and elbow is in motion
When she tries to stand and does not
Like Umm Hakim when she was with us
The link between us firm and not to be cut.
She is one of the B. `Amir who bewitches the heart
And if she wished she could cure my sickness.
The glory of women and of a people is their father,
A people held in honor true to their oath.
Never did I see the sun rise at night till I saw her
Display herself to us in the darkness of the night.

Mohammed and the Treasure of the Nadir Tribe

This account of the treasure of the Nadir tribe is taken from the early orthodox Muslim biography of Mohammed, the Sirat Rasul Allah. Translation by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 3rd printing 1970 as The Life of Muhammad.

Kinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle [by which they mean Muhammad] who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came [alternate reading: was brought] to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle [by which they mean Muhammad] said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle [by which they mean Muhammad] gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

I expect probably two more examples along these lines (variety of topics) before I actually get around to any commenting. The examples are necessary before the commenting because many Westerners are not aware of much history besides European and American history. Some of the key events in the histories of other cultures are completely unknown to many of us.

From the early Muslim biography of Mohammed: Muhayyisa and Huwayyisa

This account of the brothers Muhayyisa and Huwayyisa is taken from the early orthodox Muslim biography of Mohammed, the Sirat Rasul Allah. Offensive content warning (for peace-loving people). Translation by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 3rd printing 1970 as The Life of Muhammad.

The apostle [by which they mean Muhammad] said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas`ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayissa was not a Muslim at that time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayissa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.' He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa's acceptance of Islam. The other replied, 'By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?' He said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.' He exclaimed, 'By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!' and he became a Muslim.

Children of the West, play the PC game at your own risk -- but play with your eyes open. I could continue this vein a post a day for months from official and ancient Muslim sources until everyone were tired and sickened by it; there are more godly and more edifying things to discuss so I might do a few more though not many. But please friends, it's time everyone did their homework on Islam. Our job as Christians is to teach the truth about God: that God is love and that he has reconciled the world to himself in Christ. If we forget this and look for peace outside of Christ, we should ask ourselves if Faust ever actually got a receipt.