2021-11-20T13:26:00-04:00

Last updated on: November 20, 2021 at 1:26 pm   By

ManuscriptEarliest

The verso of Rylands Library Papyrus P52 from the Gospel of John; its most probable date is 117-138 AD, making it one of the earliest NT manuscript fragments. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

The following are exchanges from the combox for my paper, God, Empiricism, & Atheist Demands for “Evidence”, with new material added presently. My opponents’ words will be in green and blue. They are either atheist or agnostic.

* * * * *

JGravelle:

The following is a list of accounts written about Yeshua by His contemporaries: – This concludes the list.

What we are left with then are the transcripts of oral accounts of re-re-re-translated stories generations removed from the purported events. I submit to you sir, that the courts would not consider those anecdotes evidentiary, particularly given the extraordinary nature of the claims they advance.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a judge that would even allow such material admitted at all, even as hearsay. Though if you held the trial deep enough in the South, you just might. ;)

I won’t be the first to point out that thousands of years from now, archaeologists may well unearth the remnants of a fallen New York City and a stash of Marvel comic books.

That would still hardly qualify Spiderman as a historical figure.

There is much more historical evidence about Jesus than about, say, Socrates and Plato (far more ancient and far better attested). So do you deny the existence of Socrates and Plato as well?

Socrates’ life was documented by three of his contemporaries: Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon. Again, Yeshua’s score remains zero.

Jesus’ life was documented by four of His contemporaries: Matthew, Peter (the source behind Mark), Luke, and John. Paul, who wrote most of the rest of the NT, encountered the risen Jesus.

Sheila C.: We have two things for Socrates that we don’t have for Jesus — first, contemporary accounts (written while Socrates was still alive), and second, critical accounts (plays written mocking Socrates by one of his critics). If Jesus had wanted to, he could easily have met this standard of evidence. We have contemporary writings from people living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ ministry. Oddly, they don’t mention any of the truly astounding things that would have been going on at the time. Not so much as a sentence. And we also don’t have a letter from Pontius Pilate, Herod, or Caiaphas saying, “This is what I think about this Jesus who’s been preaching. He definitely did the miracles attributed to him, but I think it’s by the power of the devil.” That would be GREAT historical evidence, but it isn’t available.

The Talmud refers to Jesus being a bastard, which is, of course, a skeptical take on the Virgin Birth. F. F. Bruce summarized how the Talmud described Jesus:

According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practiced magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said he had lot come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name.

It is clear that this is just such a portrayal of our Lord we might expect from those elements in the Pharisaic party which were opposed to Him. Some of the names by which He is called bear witness directly or indirectly to the Gospel record. The appellation Ha-Taluy (‘The Hanged One’) obviously refers to the manner of His death; another name given to Him, Ben-Pantera (‘Son of Pantera’), probably refers, not (as has sometimes been alleged) to a Roman soldier named Pantheras, but to the Christian belief in our Lord’s virgin birth, Pantera being corruption of the Greek parthenos (‘virgin’).’ This does not mean, of course, that all those who called Him by this name believed in His virgin birth.

And as for Plato, we have reams of writings he wrote himself. I’d love to read Jesus’ writings, but he wrote nothing himself.

It’s thought that the archetype of all the manuscripts of Aristophanes was written in the 4th or 5th c. AD. The best and earliest full manuscripts date from the 10th-11th c. AD. He died in c. 386 BC, so that is a spread of almost 1400 years. Xenophon manuscripts date at the very earliest from the 9th-10th c.: most several centuries after that. He died in c. 430 BC, making that a spread of over 1300 years, minimum.

The earliest (fragmented) manuscripts of Plato’s Dialogues date from the 2nd to 4th century AD. But the complete manuscripts date from about 900 AD. Plato died in 437 or 348 AD.

That’s quite a gap (some 1250 years). But no one doubts Plato’s or Socrates’ existence. Socrates, like Jesus, is not known to have written anything, either. Other people recorded his words (precisely as in the case of Jesus).  See a related paper, “Did Plato Exist?”

1200-1400 year gaps pose no problems for atheists! But the horrendous 60-70-year gap of the NT writings (i.e., when they were written) and a few more centuries at most for full manuscripts, cause a huge “problem” and make atheists doubt Jesus’ very existence, while never for a second doubting Socrates or Plato. It’s a massive double standard, and plain silly. But it makes about as much sense as anything else in atheism, I reckon . . . Dr. Richard M. Fales analyzes the massive differences in the comparative evidence:

Aristotle’s Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 B.C. The earliest copy of this work dates A.D. 1100, and there are only forty-nine extant manuscripts. The gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1,400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato’s Tetralogies, written 427–347 B.C. The earliest copy is A.D. 900—a gap of over 1,200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. The New Testament was written between A.D. 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest A.D. 125. This gives us a narrow gap of thirty-five to forty years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies.

With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2,000 years ago. Corroborating Writings. Critics also charge that there are no ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings confirming His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70–200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115–117), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after A.D. 73), and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (A.D. 120).

The great biblical scholar, F. F. Bruce, in his classic work, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, sums up what we know:

The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100. I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards. . . . 

At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in assessing the trustworthiness of ancient historical writings, one of the most important questions is: How soon after the events took place were they recorded? . . . 

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a ‘sacred book’ as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. . . . 

There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals. . . .

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

‘The interval then between the data of original. composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’

In a 2012 article about the earliest New Testament manuscripts, Daniel B. Wallace observed that “seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered — six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first.” He said that there were now 18 manuscripts from the second century and one from the first, containing 43% of the New Testament. The first century fragment from Mark is regarded as a “certain” first century manuscript by the experts. It predates the previous earliest fragment from Mark by 100-150 years. See also the article, “The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.”

The manuscript evidence and reliability and verification from archaeology of the NT all lead to the conclusion that we can be assured that we have the actual words of Jesus. Before we even get to the question of miracles, we have to deal with that.

This person, Jesus, existed, and said some pretty remarkable things. Foremost among these striking words was His claim to be God, which is so ubiquitous in many forms in the NT that it can’t possibly be denied or dismissed. The observer has to decide what to do with that. Then it becomes C. S. Lewis’ classic “trilemma”: the choices seem to boil down to “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.” Jesus seems far too good and compelling of a figure to be a lowly liar. He seems far too psychologically healthy and sane in every way to be a lunatic. That leaves Lord: He was Whom He claimed to be. If one reaches that point, then the possibility of miracles (if not arbitrarily ruled out beforehand) is much more plausible.

If indeed there is a God and if indeed He came down from heaven, then we would fully expect amazing things to happen, including miracles. And of course that is exactly what we get with Jesus. It all goes together. The Christian looks at all this and says in faith, “Yes; He is God! And God can easily do things like rise from the dead.” Etc. And that is the beginning — the very heart — of Christianity, in terms of a person’s allegiance to it. Jesus is always front and center, no matter how much atheists want to avoid Him, up to and including the ludicrous assertion that He didn’t exist at all.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
2017-05-17T16:24:53-04:00

Last updated on: May 17, 2017 at 4:24 pm   By

BlankScreen

How can an empirical spirit be directly empirically tested? It makes no sense. [public domain / Pixabay]

Brad Feaker:

I am an agnostic atheist. I leave open the possibility of evidence for a god, therefore I must be agnostic about such a beings existence.

But as for my belief? I could really care less about how you define your god. There is simply no reliable evidence for any of them, Catholic or Protestant.

So yes – I proportion my belief to the evidence. But I could be convinced to change my knowledge – should I ever be presented with concrete empirical evidence.

And again – this evidence should exist.

So I leave you with Delos McKown…

“The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”

Why do you assume that empirical evidence is the only kind of indication that God exists? If indeed God [the Father] is a spirit (as we Christians believe), how in the world is it that empiricism (the study of matter) is trotted out as the only possible way by which His existence can be proven or indicated?

That makes no sense. Empiricism is not the only form of knowledge, in any event, and it doesn’t directly apply to God as we believe Him to be, because He (the Father) is an immaterial spirit.

But Jesus, Who is also God, was quite material, and He performed (empirically verifiable) miracles (blind men began to see; lame began to walk), and rose from the dead, which was an observable thing (i.e., when He appeared afterwards and ate fish, and people touched Him). That was quite along the lines of what you demand; yet atheists simply dismiss it as a fairy tale.

So when we give you what you ask for, it’s immediately dismissed: which is itself an irrational attitude: closed to possible empirical evidence, simply because it was 2,000 years ago, and because it was miraculous; because you guys, in your infinite wisdom, arbitrarily and dogmatically declare that miracles are impossible from the outset (something which is extremely difficult to absolutely prove).

Let me switch that around a bit for you and get your reaction.

“But Zoroaster, Who is also God, was quite material, and He performed (empirically verifiable) miracles (blind men began to see; lame began to walk), and rose from the dead, which was an observable thing (i.e., when He appeared afterwards and ate fish, and people touched Him).”

Neither of these claims are empirically verifiable.

And as I stated above – even if God is spirit, if he intervenes in the physical world, that intervention should be empirically detectable.

One example would be the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Another would be an undisputable case of a miraculous healing (as the prime example we atheists use – an amputee re-growing a missing limb spontaneously).

Yet when we look for those interventions – we come up empty. If you have not read it – check out the STEP study done by Harvard.

They are verifiable by the same standards of evidence that are accepted in courtrooms as legitimate eyewitness testimony. Or do you reject THAT method for arriving at the truth of disputed historical events, too?

I don’t know the story of Zoroaster, but according to Wikipedia, there is little manuscript evidence to attest to it: “Almost all Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha is now lost, and of the attested texts—with only one exception—only fragments have survived. . . . no one before Pliny refers to literature by ‘Zoroaster'”.

That can scarcely be compared to the huge amount of manuscript evidence for the NT: better than any other ancient document, and the mountain of archaeological verification of its accuracy.

There are tons of books about this topic. Go read some.

I glanced at the article about Zoroaster, and I don’t see that he claimed to be God (in the theistic sense) or that it is claimed that he rose from the dead.

If the NT is shown to be trustworthy as to history, it can be trusted to accurately convey Jesus’ words, too. To deny that, given all the evidence we know of, is simply prejudice and dogmatically / irrationally partisan skeptical polemics.

Not long ago many scholars denied that King David existed at all. Not anymore. Inscriptions have been found; his palace has been discovered in Jerusalem (I visited it last October). A city from his time (c. 1000 BC) west of Jerusalem has been uncovered. I stood there and collected pottery from it, that sits in my closet eight feet away from me as I type. I found lots of pottery from 1000 BC!

Many of the Muslim Palestinians today want to pretend that there never was a Jewish Temple; never was a City of David. They’re wrong, and irrational. Their view comes from prejudice, just as atheist views do, when they ignore plenty of hard evidence for Jesus, David, and other biblical figures.

They once said that Moses and Abraham lived before there was any writing. That’s all been blown away by archaeology. The pool of Siloam, where Jesus healed the blind man, was discovered just ten or so years ago. I was there, too. The pool of Bethesda has shown attributes that the Bible gives it.

On and on and on. But it’s easy for atheists who don’t know anything about any of these details, to trot out some supposed analogy that (so we are told) “refutes” the evidence about Jesus and early Christianity.

There is plenty of documented evidence of observably (medically / scientifically) verifiable miraculous cures. Atheists simply ignore it. There are many books about this. Or you could check out the records at Lourdes, where Mary appeared. They have a long record of many hundreds of cures: all verified by medical science.

There are incorruptible saints. They exist. One can go see them. When various saints’ graves were opened up, their bodies had not corrupted. That’s either a true, verifiable fact or it is not, and all these people are a bunch of liars, and every incorrupt body is fake (mummified or something).

We can go wherever the evidence takes us (with a true, open-minded scientifically curious approach), but you can’t because you dogmatically rule out all possibility of the miraculous from the outset.

Yet you have to explain away each and every documented miraculous healing.

Nothing is ever sufficient to convince most skeptics because they are too dogmatic and prejudiced.

This is explained in the Bible itself, from Jesus:

Luke 16:30-31 (RSV) And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'”

And so it is today. Jesus did rise from the dead, but people refuse to believe it, because of their irrational prior hostile predispositions.

There are plenty of good books about the solid historical arguments backing up Jesus’ Resurrection, by Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, William Lane Craig, Frank Morison, and others.

Go read them if you are truly open to being convinced.

You can go after one purported miracle that may in fact not have been such. It doesn’t wipe out the hundreds of verified accounts. But it’s the game that atheists and other skeptics of miracles always play: the basic fallacy of “disprove one; justify skepticism towards all reports.”

That’s why I usually don’t bother even arguing these things, because it’s always the same.

You won’t be convinced in the near future. But I gave it a shot. Others are reading, too. That’s the beauty of public dialogues.

Remission of cancer? Happens more than people think. And to people besides Christians. Those ‘incorruptible’ bodies of saints? Ever been subjected to a scientific inquiry? How do we know they were not preserved by artificial means?

Nothing will convince you. As I said, I don’t spend much time on stuff like this. Those who are interested will go read books that delve into all this stuff. You’ve sealed yourself into a sealed box that no evidence can penetrate. You just sit in there and say “nope . . .nope . . . nope . . . ”

You’ve read every purported account of a miracle and explained all of ’em away as fairy tales, no evidence whatever, a pack of lies . . . Gotcha.

As to the incorruptibles, well we know that many saints were simply buried without being mummified. Many years later the bodies were dug up and found to be incorrupt. That ain’t natural. This was found to be the case 25 years after death, for Medgar Evers, the civil rights activist (and non-Catholic).

Our local Detroit saint-to-be, Ven. Fr. Solanus Casey, was found to be incorrupt 30 years after his death.

But you can always say that some snickering, cynical idiot snuck into the funeral home and did the mummification routine (in every case), so gullible Catholics would be duped into believing in a miracle when in fact it was a hoax.

You always have the ready answer. You’re a modern-day Doubting Thomas. Even he shut up after he met the risen Jesus and felt the wound in His side.

But were they ever the subject of a scientific inquiry? We have recovered quite a few naturally mummified bodies – some much older that your saints. Have they been examined or not? Or has the Church refused to allow a scientific examination? 

Maybe if Jesus could be convinced to show up in the modern age all this discussion would be moot. Yet he remains conspicuously absent :) And you already know about the similarities between the invisible and the non-existent!

Yes, I’m sure that in at least some cases when the bodies were exhumed (I suspect, much more than just a few), they were examined by a scientist or doctor. The Church is very meticulous in verification, and rightly very skeptical until such verification takes place.

If Jesus “showed up,” He would be doubted by people like you, just as He was when He rose from the dead back when. The Jews who didn’t believe simply went right to alternate theories (hoax, stolen body). None of those are plausible or hold any water under scrutiny.

But the mere presence of a miracle is not enough for some excessively skeptical minds to be convinced. They are capable of always “explaining it away” somehow.

When the Pharisees who opposed Jesus witnessed His miracles, even they couldn’t blithely dismiss them, so they started saying that He cast out demons by Beelzebub (i.e., a Satanic rather than divine miracle); to which Jesus said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

2021-11-22T15:57:06-04:00

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 3:57 pm   By

Allan Ramsay, David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher

David Hume (1711-1776): portrait (1754) by Allan Ramsay (1713-1784) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

He was not, according to his own words, or in the opinion of many Hume scholars:

The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind. (Treatise, 633n)

Wherever I see order, I infer from experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance . . . the same principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect from the Infinite Art and Contrivance which is displayed in the whole fabric of the universe. (Letters, 25-26)

[Found in Capaldi, see below]

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .

All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author. (Natural History of Religion, 1757, ed. H.E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)

Philo and Cleanthes, in the Dialogues accept the argument from design. Hume scholar Nicholas Capaldi states that:

All of the characters in the Dialogues speak for Hume, and the message of the Dialogues is that morality is independent of religion. (David Hume, Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1975, ch. 9, 188-97; Capaldi is an internationally-known Hume expert and founder of the Hume Society)

Capaldi states in the above section:

Hume believed in the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument. He accepted in one form the argument from design. God exists, but his properties are unknown and unknowable by us . . . In none of his writings does Hume say or imply that he does not accept the existence of God. On the contrary, Hume says in several places that he accepts the existence of God . . .

Guided by basic misunderstandings of Hume’s position on causality or at the very least the negative aspects of Hume’s skepticism, most readers assume that the central question is one concerning God’s existence.

Thus we have, e.g., Sir Isaiah Berlin of Oxford falsely assert:

In 1776 he died, as he had lived, an atheist . . . (The Age of Enlightenment: The 18th Century Philosophers, New York: Mentor, 1956, 163)

This shows that “experts” (this is from a very famous series on the history of philosophy) can often get things – in this case, straightforward factual matters – dead wrong by not examining closely enough a person’s thought, and by often extrapolating their own beliefs and premises onto the other person (long one of my own contentions in discourse). It’s also a function of the over-compartmentalization of knowledge, in my opinion.

Many atheists who write on Patheos (where my own blog is posted) fall prey to the same myth:

From: James Fieser: “Hume’s Concealed Attack on Religion and His Early Critics,” Journal of Philosophical Research, 1995, Vol. 20, pp. 83-101.

Fieser is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee (see his publications):

Given Hume’s notorious reputation as an enemy of religion, it is interesting that questions remain about Hume’s precise views on the subject. Capaldi argues that Hume accepted the design argument for God’s existence.(2) O’Higgins and Gaskin argue that Hume was a qualified deist.(3) For Noxon, Hume is an agnostic.(4) Mossner and Livingston argue that Hume advanced his own humanistic religion.(5) Kemp Smith and Williams argue that Hume’s religion consisted of merely holding open the possibility of an intelligent creator.(6) Most of this debate traces back to passages in the Natural History of Religion, and the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in which Hume seems to endorse the design argument.(7)

. . . we can never show with certainty that Hume was a strict atheist: we have no record of a direct denial by Hume of God’s existence, either anecdotally or in his philosophical writings.

FOOTNOTES

2. Nicholas Capaldi, “Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: God Without Ethics,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 1970, Vol. I, pp. 233-240.

3. For [James] O’Higgins, Hume accepted the rationality of the design argument, but remained skeptical about the entire enterprise of reasoning. Hume, then, reluctantly concedes to God’s existence, yet denies that God concerns himself with governing the world. See “Hume and the Deists: a Contrast in Religious Approaches,” Journal of Theological Studies, 1971, Vol. 23, pp. 479-501. In Hume’s Philosophy of Religion (Atlantic Highlands, 1988), J.C.A. Gaskin describes Hume’s attenuated deism as a weak probability that natural order results from an intelligence remotely analogous to our own. This unites with our subjective feeling that natural order springs from a designer, hence we assent to the existence of a designer (although this being has no moral claim on us).

4. James Noxon argues that no one of the characters speaks consistently for Hume, and this expresses Hume’s view about the limits of human understanding. For Noxon, this suggests that Hume was agnostic. “Hume’s Agnosticism,” in Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. V.C. Chappell (New York, 1966), and “In defence of ‘Hume’s Agnosticism,'” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 1976, Vol. 14, pp. 469-473.

5. Ernest C. Mossner argues that Hume denied all supernatural and conventional religion, but advanced a “religion of man” insofar as he optimistically believed that the enlightened determine the fate of humanity and are the measure of all things. See “The Religion of David Hume,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 1978, Vol. 39, pp. 653-663. Donald Livingston argues that Hume offers a “philosophical theism” which is an historically determined natural belief, yet one which eschews the writings and rituals of the theistic tradition. See “Hume’s Conception of True Religion,” in Hume’s Philosophy of Religion (Winston-Salem, 1986), pp. 33-73. Even if Mossner and Livingston have captured Hume’s views, it is difficult to see how this could qualify as a religion by 18th century standards, and it is hard to believe that Hume would want to classify it as such.

6. Norman Kemp Smith argues that religion for Hume consists exclusively in an intellectual assent to the proposition “God exists.” He concludes, though, that religion for Hume ought not to have any influence on human conduct (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, p. 24). Kemp Smith bases his view on the conclusions to the “Natural History” and Dialogues, and Hume’s 1743 letter to William Mure. B.A.O. Williams argues that Hume did not reject the possibility of a creator with something like human intelligence; see “Hume on Religion,” in David Hume: A Symposium, e.d. D.F. Pears, London, 1963, pp. 77-88.

7. Although the “Natural History” is antagonistic to revealed and popular religious belief, in no less than nine passages Hume seems to defend the design argument. Although the Dialogues is antagonistic to natural religion, Cleanthes, the defender of natural religion, wins the debate, and Philo, the religious skeptic, eventually concedes that “the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence.” Thus, at face value, both the “Natural History” and the Dialogues support the belief in God through the design argument, yet destroy all other aspects of religious belief.

In another article, “Hume’s Solution to the Necessitarian Problem of Evil,” Fieser states:

Although it is popular now in Hume scholarship to interpret Hume as a type of theist, I believe that we should resist this approach, principally because Hume’s contemporaries did not interpret him this way.

In the Oxford University Press publication, Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Third Edition, Edited by John Perry and Michael Bratman (both of Stanford), 1998, we find these remarks about Hume, in a section entitled “Hume’s Religious Orientation”:

If we take Philo’s pronouncements in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1776) as a guide, the mature Hume was a theist, albeit of a vague and weak-kneed sort. He seems to have been convinced by the argument from design of the proposition “That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence”‘ (227). But he was also convinced that the argument does not permit this undefined intelligence to be given further shape or specificity, and certainly not the specificity that would be needed to support any inference “that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance.” Hume’s inconsequential theism was combined with an abhorrence of organized religion, which Hume saw as composed of superstitions that have had almost uniformly baneful effects for mankind.

In lecture notes from the Philosophy Dept. at the University of Durham (author not given), “Lecture 7: Interpreting the Dialogues,” we find the following analysis (completely reproduced):

THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION

Two closely related textual questions can be raised with regard to theDialogues. Firstly, who speaks for Hume (and when)? Secondly, how do the Dialogues fit into Hume’s other published discussions of religion, and what do they tell us about the reasonableness or otherwise of religious belief? One source of evidence in answering both questions is to see who comes out as the ‘winner’ in theDialogues; another is to compare the claims of Philo, Cleanthes and Demea with Hume’s own philosophy.

WHO SPEAKS FOR HUME?

Commentators have taken different lines here. Let us weigh up the textual evidence for each of the main characters:

Demea puts forward relatively weak arguments, except when joining Philo in his criticism of Cleanthes. His main positive argument is thea priori demonstration of God’s existence set out in Part IX, which is swiftly demolished by Cleanthes. Cleanthes’ argument-that noparticular existence is necessary-strongly resembles a point made by Hume elsewhere, that no matter of fact is demonstrable a priori (see the Enquiry, Sections IV Part 1, and Section XII Part 3). Hume has Cleanthes quoting Samuel Clarke as the source of the kind of reasoning employed by Demea, which indicates that Demea’s argument is modelled on Clarke’s (although Demea is certainly not Clarke). The serious choice for Hume’s mouthpiece must either be Philo or Cleanthes.

Cleanthes puts forward the central argument of the Dialogues, and his views are proclaimed to approach nearest to the truth by Pamphilus in the last paragraph (note, however, that Pamphilus is Cleanthes’ pupil). Also, Cleanthes is the mouthpiece for Humean criticisms of Demea’s a priori argument (see above). Other commentators point out that although Philo consistently criticises Cleanthes’ argument, he never replies to Cleanthes’ basic point that the presence of order in the world causes the presence of a designer to ‘flow in upon you with the force like that of a sensation’ (Part III, para. 7). On these grounds, Noxon, for instance, argues that while the views of none of the interlocutors entirely represents Hume’s views, Hume intended Cleanthes to do so most closely.

Philo is the most common choice for Hume’s mouthpiece: Ayer (Hume, p.93) on the grounds that Philo says the most, Kemp Smith on the grounds that Philo’s criticisms of the design argument closely resemble Hume’s discussion in Section XI of the Enquiry, and elsewhere. Against this, we have Philo’s concession in Part XII that “A purpose, an intention, a design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker” (Part XII, para.2). Philo also suggests that his sceptical stance was adopted only for the sake of argument, and that he felt safe to do so only because on the subject of religion, he is never likely to ‘corrupt the principles of any man of common sense’ (Part XII, para.2). Noxon argues that Hume would not have the character representing his own views recant them in so flippant a way. Kemp Smith, however, put Philo’s admission-along with Hume’s own ritual profession of faith-down to Hume’s regard for the conventions of his time (there is evidence for this in Hume’s correspondence). Noxon replies that Hume was often happy to flout other conventions of his time, and in any case planned the Dialoguesfor posthumous publication. However, that Hume was sympathetic to Philo’s position is supported by his correspondence (see his letter of 10 March 1751).

WHAT SHOULD WE CONCLUDE FROM THE DIALOGUES?

It is unlikely that Hume’s intention was to convince readers to believe in the non-existence (or the existence) of God. Rather, Hume perhaps intended the Dialogues to invite us to reflect on the relation between our belief (either way) and: (i) any relevant evidence we have; (ii) our behaviour. Looking at the arguments presented in theDialogues (and elsewhere), it is evident (from the drubbing received by the design argument) that Hume contends that we don’t know(from the design argument) very much at all about the nature of God. We certainly should not conclude that the Designer with whom the ‘remote analogy’ of the design argument presents us can be identified with the God of any organised religion: given the available evidence, we cannot know that this Designer is omnipotent, or benevolent, for instance. Putting this together with Hume’s other arguments concerning religion: (i) his rejection of the argument a priori; and (ii) his rejection of miracles as a source of evidence for the truth of any revealed religion, we have a powerful critique of the role of reason in supporting religious belief, and a call for caution inacting on any such belief. Hume does, however, leave open the possibility that God might directly cause individual believers to have faith (see Noxon).

However, given Philo’s (and Hume’s) frequent protestations of the obviousness of God’s existence, perhaps we could (with Noxon and Penelhum) draw a parallel with Hume’s position on (for instance) induction (in the Enquiry, Sections IV and V). Reason cannot furnish us with a justification for believing: (i) that there is an external world that is independent of our perception; (ii) that past regularities of our experience will continue to hold in future; and (iii) that the senses are (usually) reliable sources of information about the world around us. However, Hume argues that only excessive (philosophical) scepticism could lead a reasonable enquirer to doubt these beliefs, for they are beliefs which underpin ordinary life, without which it would be impossible to act in the world. The parallel suggests that refusing to believe in God merely because this belief is not grounded in reason would be inconsistent (this is Penelhum’s ‘parity’ argument): belief in God just as naturally suggests itself to the human mind as belief in the external world. This interpretation is disputed by Gaskin. Firstly, belief in God is not in fact universal, and the mechanisms that produce belief in an external world and the other natural beliefs are quite different from the processes that produce belief in God (as investigated by Hume in the Natural History of Religion), for the latter belief is the product of fear of the unknown, and it may be absent in those who inhabit ‘civilised’ societies. Secondly (and crucially), belief in God is not a prerequisite for rational action in the world (see Gaskin chapters 6 and 7).

What we can conclude, however, is that it is quite wrong for religious beliefs to have the effects on behaviour, morals and politics that, according to Hume in the Natural History, they typically do have. ‘True religion’, for Hume, is plain philosophical assent, rather than self-denial or religious activism.

READING

J. Gaskin Hume’s Philosophy of Religion (Chs. 6, 7 and 12)

J. Gaskin ‘Hume on Religion’ in D.F. Norton (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hume

N. Kemp Smith Introduction to the Kemp Smith edition of theDialogues

G. Nathan ‘Hume’s Immanent God’ in V. Chappell (ed.) Hume

J. Noxon ‘Hume’s Agnosticism’ in V. Chappell (ed.) Hume

T. Penelhum God and Skepticism Chapters 2, 5 and 6

Mark G. Spencer, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, The University of Western Ontario, writes in his paper, “The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: Hume’s Response to the Dogmatic and Intolerant,” The Western Journal of Graduate Research 2000, Vol. 9 (1), 1-19:

Sorting through this ever-expanding mountain of commentary reveals that scholars have tended to read the Dialogues in two basic ways. The Dialogues is read either with the presupposition that Hume intended primarily to make a philosophical point about religion (2), or alternatively, it is read with the aim of showing that Hume’s intentions therein were primarily literary. (3)This distinct interpretive divide, moreover, is often commented on explicitly in the literature where it has become an entrenched characteristic. (4)

Proponents of both readings, however, have been of a single mind in their concern to ask one (seemingly) fundamental question: who in the Dialogues speaks for Hume? (5) In answer, most interpreters argue that Hume is represented by one of the characters in theDialogues. Many of Hume’s contemporaries and near contemporaries, for example, thought that Hume spoke through Cleanthes. As Dugald Stewart put it, “[i]t must always be remembered that Cleanthes is the hero of the Dialogues, and is to be considered as speaking Mr. Hume’s real opinions” (1854: I, 605). (6)

In 1935, Hume scholar Norman Kemp Smith challenged this “standard interpretation” of the time, arguing instead that “Philo, from start to finish, represents Hume”(1959: 47). Kemp Smith has often restated his interpretation which has remained influential, with many scholars following his lead but adding their own variations. (7) Others, however, have thought that Philo’s scepticism is different from Hume’s (Noxon, 1964). For others still, Hume is represented by Pamphilus, the Dialogues‘ narrator (Hendel, 1963). More recently, the trend is to argue that none of the characters wholly represents Hume — either because Hume is thought to be speaking wherever something intelligent is said (8), or because Hume meant the dialoguers to be “philosophical types” (Pakaluk, 1984), or because the Dialogues themselves are thought to speak for Hume (9), or finally, because the characters are thought to be part of Hume’s more basic concern with “the structures of consciousness” (Smitten, 1991; see also White, 1988).

FOOTNOTES

5 See almost any of the secondary literature. Basu (1978) sums up the concern of much of the literature in his title: “Who is the Real Hume in the Dialogues?”. The ubiquitous issue is also stated clearly by Noxon (1964: 248): “Who speaks for Hume? Unless this question can be answered, Hume’s last philosophical testament provides us with no clue to his own religious convictions”; and Mossner (1977: 4): “Who, then, represents Hume in the Dialogues?”

6 Many of Hume’s contemporaries also thought Hume spoke through Philo.

7 Mossner (1977): “Hume is Philo and Philo alone”(4), “Philo and Philo alone is Hume’s spokesman”(12); Penelhum (1979: 270): “I must state at the outset that I agree with those scholars, from Kemp Smith on, who identify Hume with Philo”; Wadia (1987: 211): “Incidentally, I will assume throughout the sequel that Kemp Smith’s identification of Hume with Philo is essentially correct”. See also Coleman (1989: 179): “I will support the traditional thesis that Philo represents Hume’s views on religious belief”. Some have also tried to identify the other speakers in the Dialogues. Mossner (1936) argued that Philo is Hume’s voice, Cleanthes represents Joseph Butler, and Demea is best thought of as Samuel Clarke.

8 Bricke (1975: 17): “one must assume that, no matter who the speaker, those arguments which are presented in the most persuasive and compelling way, those arguments which seem most cogent, are probably to be ascribed to Hume”. See also Gaskin (1978): “I shall take it that Hume in the Dialogues is any speaker who appears to be making a good philosophical point”.

9 Livingston (1984 :44): “No character may be taken to represent Hume’s views”. See also Yandell (1990: 37): “None of the actual participants in the Dialogues– Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea – always represents Hume. All of them sometimes represent him”. Tweyman (1993: 174) disagrees: “That the Dialogues is filled with dramatic and literary elements is beyond question. However, that these elements can be so construed as to reveal that, in addition to Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo, there is a fourth main speaker, Hume, is extremely doubtful”.

REFERENCES (selective)

Andre, Shane, 1993. Was Hume an Atheist?, Hume Studies 19: 141-166.

Austin, W. 1985. Philo’s Reversal. Philosophical Topics 13: 103-112.

Basu, D. K. 1978. Who is the Real Hume in the Dialogues? Indian Philosophical Quarterly 6: 21-28. Bricke, J. 1975. On the Interpretation of Hume’s Dialogues. Religious Studies 11: 1-18.

Clarke, B. L. 1980. The Argument from Design. American Journal of Theological Philosophy 1: 98-108.

Coleman, D. P. 1989. Interpreting Hume’s Dialogues. Religious Studies 25: 179-190.

Gaskin, J. C. 1993b. Hume on Religion. In D.F. Norton, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Hume: 313-344. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gaskin, J. C. 1978. Hume’s Philosophy of Religion. London: MacMillan.

Hendel, C. 1963. Studies in the Philosophy of David Hume (1st ed. 1925). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kemp Smith, N. 1947. The Argument of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In N. Kemp Smith, ed., David Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1st ed. 1935). New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Livingston, D. 1984. Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mossner, E. C. 1936. The Enigma of Hume. Mind 14: 335-349.

Mossner, E. C. 1977. Hume and the Legacy of the Dialogues. In G. P. Morice, ed. David Hume: Bicentenary Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mossner, E. C. 1954. The Life of David Hume. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Noxon, J. 1964. Hume’s Agnosticism. Philosophical Review 73: 248-261.

Pakaluk, M. 1984. Philosophical Types in Hume’s Dialogues. In V. Hope, ed. Philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, 116-132. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Penelhum, T. 1979. Hume’s Skepticism and the Dialogues. In D.F. Norton, N. Capaldi, and W.L. Robison, eds. McGill Hume Studies: 253-278. San Diego, California: Austin Hill Press.

Smitten, J. R. 1991. Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion as Social Discourse, in J. Dwyer and R. B. Sher, eds., Sociability and Society in Eighteenth-Century Scotland, 39-56. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, published in association with the Eighteenth-Century Scottish Studies Society.

Stewart, D. 1854. The Collected Works of Dugald Stewart. In W. Hamlton, ed. 1854-1860. Edinburgh: T. Constable and Co.

Tweyman, S. 1987. Hume’s Dialogues on Evil. Hume Studies 13: 74-85.

Tweyman, S. 1993. Hurlbutt, Hume, Newton and the Design Argument. Hume Studies 19: 167-176. Tweyman, S. 1986.Scepticism and Belief in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The Hague.

Wadia, P. S. 1987. Commentary on Professor Tweyman’s `Hume on Evil’. Hume Studies 13: 104-112.

Wadia, P. S. 1979. Philo Confounded. In. D.F. Norton, N. Capaldi, and W.L. Robison, eds. McGill Hume Studies: 279-290. San Diego, California: Austin Hill Press.

Wadia, P. S. 1978. Professor Pike on Part III of Hume’s Dialogues.Religious Studies 14: 325-342. White, R. 1988. Hume’s Dialogues and the Comedy of Religion. Hume Studies 14: 390-407.

Yandell, K. E. 1990. Hume’s ‘Inexplicable Mystery’: His Views on Religion. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

2017-05-18T16:41:01-04:00

Last updated on: May 18, 2017 at 4:41 pm   By
* * * With Extensive Documentation From Luther’s Own Words * * *
LutherStatue
Statue of Martin Luther [public domain / Pixabay]
[originally uploaded on 13 November 2002 and revised on 15 May 2003 and 18 June 2006]
All words below are Luther’s except for bibliographical information and sources, or otherwise indicated. All emphases (in the color red) are my own.
* * * * *

We hear much incessant moaning and groaning amongst Protestant apologists about the excessive, intolerably autocratic authority of the papacy, yet papal proclamations are not even in the same universe as several from the Founder of Protestantism. Protestants ignore or minimize and dismiss the de facto infallibility of the early Protestant leaders. A guy like Martin Luther didn’t need trifles as insignificant as the decree of an ecumenical council to justify his pretensions. He simply assumed his self-anointing and proceeded on, undaunted by precedent at all, if it went against his “judgment,” which, of course, also was “God’s” and not his own. Luther’s “certain” claims are in fact (however he or his followers may characterize it) far more “infallibilist” than any Catholic claims, and less based on precedent. This is a common theme in Luther, not a rarity or one-time event:

 

Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called
(July 1522)


From: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955. This work from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I (edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann); pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Page numbers from Luther’s Works will be indicated in brackets ( [ ] ). Footnotes are omitted, but I have a photocopy in my possession.

[247] Jesus

Martin Luther, ecclesiastic in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops (I offer) my service and self-understanding in Christ.

Although I might be regarded as a fool by you, dear lords, because of the haughty title I call myself, an ecclesiastic by the grace of God, you should know that I am not at all surprised by this. You curse, slander, condemn, persecute, and possibly even burn me as a heretic for the sake of a high and noble cause. In this you act as you please, according to the pleasure of your idol. As a result of God’s disfavor you have the virtue that you do not want to listen. Neither do you want to give an answer. Instead, like the hardened Jews you blasphemously and stubbornly want to condemn me without a hearing, without investigating the cause, without overcoming me. You are not even ashamed of letting a man defy you so frequently with such good reason. Very well then, since it is a question of lowering the horns and acting with brute force, I too have to lower my horns and risk my head for my Lord. In order to get things started, I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain [248] that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God’s help, and shall despise your disgrace. Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers, you will annihilate neither my name nor my teaching. For you too will have to die at last and put an end to murder.

Now that I am deprived of my titles through papal and imperial disfavor and my bestial character is washed away with so many bulls that I need never be called either Doctor of Holy Scripture or some kind of papal creature, I am almost as shocked as an ass who has lost its bag. For these masks were my greatest shame before God. I too was once in error (which I learned from your crowd at great price and with great effort), a liar, a cheater, a seducer, and a blasphemer against God’s pure teaching, as you are now. But the Father of all mercy did not look at my vice, blasphemy, and my very sinful, evil life; instead, out of the infinite richness of his grace, he permitted me to know his Son, Jesus Christ, and to teach to others, until we were certain of his truth. However, I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter [249] teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching(as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Finally, dear lords, let this be the conclusion: If I live you shall have no peace from me, and if you kill me you shall have ten times less peace, for I shall be, as Hosea says, a bear on the road and a lion in the street [Hos. 13:8]. No matter how you handle me, you shall not have your will until your iron head and stiff neck are broken with either grace or disgrace. If you do not improve as I would like to see you do, then it is agreed that you threaten with hostility and I do not care. May God grant that you know yourselves. Amen.

Preface

So that some well-meaning hearts do not get the impression that I go too far when I attack the great lords or that I might create rebellion and unrest, as the tyrants themselves interpret it – I must first present defense and explanation with scriptural proof that it is not only right but also
necessary to reprove the high officials.

The pope, to be sure, in his canon law forbade punishing the prelates. These dear squires and painted bishops count on it. They do not study, they know nothing, they are not engaged in any bishop’s work, and they enjoy peaceful, quiet, and good days. Yet they act as though they were bishops while in reality they are nothing but carnival masks and dummies who ruin the whole world in the name of bishop. But let us hear what God says about it . . .

[252] . . . Thus we should punish bishops and spiritual dominion harder and more severely than worldly dominion for two reasons: first, because this spiritual dominion does not derive from God, for God does not know these masked people and St. Nicholas bishops, because they neither teach nor perform any episcopal duties. Nor did they derive from men. They have imposed themselves on others and placed themselves into this rule against God and men, as is the custom of tyrants who rule only out of God’s wrath. Worldly dominion derives from God’s gracious order to suppress the evil and protect the godly, Romans 13[:4] . Second, worldly rule, even though it commits violence and injustice, hurts only the body and property. But spiritual dominion, whenever it is unholy and does not support God’s word, is like a wolf and murderer of the soul, and it is just as though the devil himself were ruling there. That is why one should beware as much of the bishop who does not teach God’s word as of the devil himself. For wherever God’s word is missing, there we certainly find only the devil’s teaching and the murder of souls. For without God’s word the soul can neither live nor be delivered from the devil.

But if they say that one should beware of rebelling against spiritual authority, I answer: Should God’s word be dispensed with and the whole world perish? Is it right that all souls should be [253] killed eternally so that the temporal show of these masks is left in peace? It would be better to kill all bishops and to annihilate all religious foundations and monasteries than to let a single soul perish, not to mention losing all souls for the sake of these useless dummies and idols. What good are they, except to live in lust from the sweat and labor of others and to impede the word of God? They are afraid of physical rebellion and do not care about spiritual destruction. Are they not intelligent, honest people! If they accepted God’s word and sought the life of the soul, God would be with them, since he is a God of peace. Then there would be no fear of rebellion. But if they refuse to hear God’s word and rather rage and rave with banning, burning, killing, and all evil, what could be better for them than to encounter a strong rebellion which exterminates them from the world? One could only laugh if it did happen, as the divine wisdom says, Proverbs 1[:25-27], “You have hated my punishment and misused my teaching; therefore I will laugh at your calamity and I will mock you when disaster strikes you.”

Not God’s word but stubborn disobedience [to God’s word] creates rebellion. Whoever rebels against it shall get his due reward. Whoever accepts God’s word does not start unrest, although he is no longer afraid of the masks and does not worship the dummies . . .

[262] . . . Moses shows, first of all, that all this refers to the miserable plague of human teaching which God inflicts on the world today through pope and bishops. When he commanded, Deuteronomy 4[:2] , that they should neither add to his commandments nor take anything from them but instead obey them, he continued immediately and said, “For your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal-peor, and how he destroyed all those who worshiped it,” etc. [Deut. 4:3]. Why should Moses make such an example of Baal-Peor – that they should neither add nor take anything from God’s commandments – if he did not want to show that this idol is human teaching? Human teaching always takes away from God’s commandments and adds its own commandments – just as the pope has now taken away all of God’s commandments and substituted his own. As one can hear, the papists teach that it is not necessary to love God with all one’s heart, and so the first commandment is taken away. Again, that faith is not necessary for justification and that works save, and so the second and third commandments are struck down. Again, they teach children to be disobedient to their parents, just as they themselves are, as was said above, and so the fourth commandment is struck down. Again, they teach that it is not necessary to love one’s enemy, and so they teach one to hold on to one’s wrath, contrary to the fifth commandment. Again, he has many ways to break up marriages and to make them, and so the sixth commandment is taken away. Again, they teach one how to attain and keep ill-gotten goods, usury, and interest, contrary to the seventh commandment. Again, all their teaching is false witness, which is contrary to the eighth commandment. Thus under the pope there are no divine commandments any longer; they have all been taken away. On the other hand, he adds some on how one can serve God and do good works through tonsures, cowls, orders, fasting, begging, eating milk, eggs, meat, butter, singing, organs, censing, bell-ringing, celebrating, buying indulgences, and [263] the like, all of which God does not know. That is why his teaching is the true Baal-Peor . . .

[268] . . . It is enough for the time being to have these two apostles, Peter and Paul, on our side. They show us the papists with their un-Christian and pernicious spiritual nature and teaching. [They [269] also show us] that with all their pretensions they are accursed children and should be avoided. We shall save what Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets say about it until the pope, the bishops, and their followers get angry at this booklet and blow the fire
into a full flame . . .

[273] . . . Tell me, pope, from where do you have the power to claim ill-gotten goods? God himself, the creator of everything, will neither accept nor approve this. And you, God’s greatest slanderer, want to be more than God. You assume a higher power than God himself. You teach the people to destroy God’s commandment and to engage in theft, robbery, usury, and all unnatural works . . .

[278] . . . Doctor Luther’s Bull and Reformation

All those who work toward this end and who risk body, property, and honor that the bishoprics may be destroyed and the episcopal government rooted out are God’s dear children and true Christians. They keep God’s commandment and fight against the devil’s order. Or, if they cannot do this, at least they condemn and avoid such a government. On the other hand,all those who obey the government of the bishops and subject themselves to it in willing obedience are the devil’s own servants and fight against God’s order and law.

I shall prove this thoroughly and surely as follows: St. Paul said to Titus that he should appoint a married and blameless bishop in every town [Titus 1:5-7]. That is undoubtedly God’s order, will, and opinion. Our papal bishops fight against this; they removed the bishops from every town and made themselves bishops over many towns. But St. Paul stands here – indeed, the Holy Spirit stands here firmly and strongly – saying that every town should have a bishop and that they must all be equals. St. Paul speaks of every town and considers all bishops to be equal. Well, come on, you masks! Be cheerful and brave! Here you stand against St. Paul, against the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit stands against you. What will you say now? Or have you become dumb? Here you have your verdict: all the world must destroy you and your government. Whoever stands on your side falls under God’s disfavor; whoever destroys you stands in God’s favor.

By no means do I want such destruction and extinction to be understood in the sense of using the fist and the sword, for they are not worthy of such punishment – and nothing is achieved in this [279] way. Rather, as Daniel 8[:25] teaches, “by no human hand” shall the Antichrist be destroyed. Everyone should speak, teach, and stand against him with God’s word until he is put to shame and collapses, completely alone and even despising himself. This is true Christian destruction and every effort should be made to this end . . .

If someone said to me at this point, “Previously you have rejected the pope; will you now also reject bishops and the spiritual estate? Is everything to be turned around?” my answer would be: [280] Judge for yourself and decide whether I turn things around by preferring divine word and order, or whether they turn things around by preferring their order and destroying God’s. Tell me, which is right: for them to turn God’s order around, or for me to turn their blasphemous devil’s order around? Do not look at the work itself but at the basis and reason for the work. Nobody should look at that which opposes God’s word, nor should one care what the consequences may or may not be. Instead, one should look at God’s word alone and not worry – even if angels were involved – about who will get hurt, what will happen, or what the result
will be . . .

[283] . . . Since it is clear, then, from these three passages that the bishops are not only masks and idols but also an accursed people before God – rising up against God’s order to destroy the gospel and ruin souls – every Christian should help with his body and property to put an end to their tyranny. One should cheerfully do everything possible against them, just as though they were the devil himself. One should trample obedience to them just as though it were obedience to the devil; and one should see to it that one or more devout married men become pastors or bishops in every town. Moreover, those who are pastors now should recant such obedience, because with their promises of chastity they were obedient to the devil and not to God. They should do so in the same way someone recants his allegiance to the devil. They should marry in defiance of the devil and for the sake of hurting these “bishop gods,” so that the divine order instituted by St. Paul against these accursed masks might be re-established. Let this be Dr. Luther’s bull which grants God’s grace as a reward to all who heed it and obey it. Amen . . .

Against Henry VIII, King of England 
(1522)


Through me Christ has commenced His revelations concerning the abominations in the holy place.

I am certain that I have my dogmas from heaven,

. . . but the devil tries to deceive me through Henry.

God blinds the devil, that his mendacity is made manifest through me.

(From: Martin Luther: His Life and Work, Hartmann Grisar, Adapted from the 2nd German ed. by Frank J. Eble, edited by Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1950 [orig. 1930], 261 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, pp. 180 sqq., 227 sq. Opp. Lat. Var., pp. 385 sqq., and Werke, Erlangen ed., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 343 sqq.)

Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me; hence I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 4, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 256 f.)

My doctrines will stand, and the Pope will fall.

(From: Henry O’Connor, Luther’s Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884, 19-20)

Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.

(From: Henry O’Connor, Luther’s Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884, 15)

Elsewhere, in the same year, Luther wrote:

Each man must believe solely because it is the word of God and because he feels within that it is true, even though an angel from heaven and all the world should preach against it.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 4, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 90; Von Menschen leren tzu meyden, 1522)

St. Thomas More wrote Response to Luther in 1523, in reaction to Luther’s tract against Henry VIII. He makes some very interesting arguments against Luther’s new principle of sola Scriptura:

. . . if as you consistently affirm, all extrascriptural matter is to be maintained only freely and none of it held fast by faith, what is the meaning of this Apostolic admonition: “Stand and hold fast the traditions which you have learned through our word and letter”? [2 Thess 2:15] The preservation of both word and letter is equally charged by the Apostle. Extrascriptural matter was thus handed down, and on a binding, not a take-it-or-leave-it basis! What do you say to that, Luther? And to this: “Many things were done which are not written in this book,” a passage of the Evangelist’s? [John 20:30] These things which you have remarked as absent from the other scriptural books also, and of which John says that the whole world cannot contain them – aren’t they to be regarded as miracles at least? Wouldn’t you also find that an ignorance of many of them would jeopardize faith? . . .

What force has this pronouncement of Christ’s: “The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, when He comes, will guide you into all truth”? [John 16:13] He doesn’t say that the Spirit will “write” to you or whisper in your ear, but he will lead you, will form oyu interiorly, and with His breath will show your hearts the way to all truth. Was it the Apostles, here addressed by Christ, to whom the way was to be shown? Were they alone told, “I am with you to the consummation of the world”? [Matt 28:20] Who can question the direction of this message to the Church? Will not the Holy Spirit show her the way to all truth? Was she not told, “Go, preach the Gospel to every creature”? [Matt 28:19] Did they read the Gospel or preach it? And did Christ cast the new law in bronze or strike it on stone tablets, commanding that everything else be considered valueless and caast out?

Can God’s own word as set down by the Apostle leave Luther untouched, “I will put my laws in their hearts; I shall inscribe them on their minds”? [Heb 8:10, 10:16] He makes no mention of stone or wood, for as the old law was stamped by Him upon external stone, so will the new be inscribed with His own finger in the book of the heart; that which existed so briefly upon the hardest material will be made to last forever on the softest. So it has pleased God to show His power. Though the old stone tablets were quickly shattered, the new remain. The word of God will remain forever uneffaced in the heart of man. The heart, the Church of Christ, will forever contain the true Gospel of Christ, written there before any of the Evangelical books. However ingenious the apparent scriptural evidence heretics may bring against the true faith, God has engraved His law in such a way that it is impervious to their guile. The strength of this spring has preserved the faith of Christ against assaults upon both His mother and Himself from their respective enemies, Helvidius and Arius . . . it is certain that Christ would not disappoint His Church on the essentials of her faith.

But if you continue dully to insist upon the written as the only valid form of transmission, and doggedly persist in ignoring the scriptural evidence from the king’s book, at least clear up the enigma posed by these facts: the Father is never, at any place in all of Scripture, called “uncreated,” the Son is never called “consubstantial,” and the Holy Spirit never clearly described as “proceeding from the Father and Son.” . . . Would you have, then, each individual man, freely and without spiritual hazard, decide for himself whether or not to believe in the Father as uncreated, the Son as consubstantial, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both?

(From: The Essential Thomas More, selected and edited by James J. Greene and John P. Dolan, in modern translation, New York: New American Library, Mentor-Omega, 1967, 115-117)

An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull
(1521)

. . . They accuse me of setting myself up all alone to be everybody’s teacher. I answer, I have not set myself up, but have preferred at all times to creep into a corner. It is they who have drawn me out by wile and force, that they might win glory and honor at my expense. Now that the game is going against them, they think me guilty of vainglory. And even if it were true that I had set myself up all alone, that would be no excuse for their conduct. Who knows but that God has called me and raised me up? They ought to fear lest they despise God in me.

Do we not read in the Old Testament that God commonly raised up only one prophet at a time?Moses was alone in the Exodus, Elijah was alone in King Ahab’s day, Elisha, after him, was alone, Isaiah was alone in Jerusalem, Hosea alone in Israel, Jeremiah alone in Judaea, Ezekiel alone in Babylon, and so forth. Even though they had many disciples, called “children of the prophets,” God never allowed more than one man alone to preach and rebuke the people.

Moreover, God never once made prophets out of the high-priests or others of lofty station; but usually He raised up lowly and despised persons, even at last the shepherd Amos. King David was an exception, but even he came up from lowly rank. Therefore the saints have always had to preach against those in high places – kings, princes, priests, doctors – to rebuke them, to risk their own lives, and sometimes to lose them . . .

I say not that I am a prophet, but I do say that the more they despise me and esteem themselves, the more reason they have to fear that I may be a prophet . . . If I am not a prophet, yet for my own self I am certain that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I have the Scriptures on my side, and they have only their own doctrine. This gives me courage, so that the more they despise and persecute me, the less I fear them. There were many asses in the world in the days of Balaam, but God spake by none of them save only by Balaam’s ass . . .

The lie has always had the majority, the truth the minority on its side. Nay, if it were only a few insignificant men who were attacking me, I should know that what I wrote and taught was not yet of God. St Paul raised much disturbance with his doctrine, as we read in Acts; but that did not prove the falsity of his doctrine. Truth has always caused an uproar; false teachers have always said, “Peace, peace,” as Isaiah and Jeremiah tell us.

(From: Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. and the Castle Press, 1930; rep. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982 , Volume 3, 12-14,17; translated by C.M. Jacobs)

Reply to the Answer of the Leipzig Goat 
(1521)

. . . My great and joyful courage hurts you to your very heart. But in spite of you and Eck, the pope and your whole crew, yea, in spite of the devil too, I am, and please God, will remain in a constant, fearless, proud state of mind, defying and despising you all as fools and blind men and malignant liars. I would, indeed, that your hate-filled eyes could see my joyful spirit day by day, although the mere hearing about it causes you grief enough. All your envy, pain, rage, and whatever evil thing you may do shall help you not one whit. You call me proud because I will not humble myself before such furious, bloodthirsty tyrants and do not accept your lies and your poison. In the same way, even Christ and John were accused by the Jews of having a devil.

But if I knew that my teaching brought injury to one simple-minded man — which cannot be, sinceit is the Gospel itself – I would rather suffer ten deaths than allow such a teaching to spread or go unrecanted . . .

I have said repeatedly: Assail my person if you will, and in any way you will; I do not claim to be an angel. But I will allow no one to assail my teaching with impunity, since I know that it is not mine, but God’s. For on this depends my neighbor’s salvation and my own, to God’s praise and honor.

(From: Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. and the Castle Press, 1930; rep. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982 , Volume 3, 293-294; translated by A. Steimle)

Other Similar “Infallibilist Remarks”

All who shun us and attack us secretly have departed from the faith . . . Just like Zwingli . . . It pains me that Zwingli and his followers take offence at my saying that‘what I write must be true.’

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 4, 309)

Heresiarchs [referring to fellow Protestants] . . . remain obdurate in their own conceit. They allow none to find fault with them and brook no opposition. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 6, 282 / Werke, Weimar ed., 19, 609 ff.)

Those are heretics and apostates [referring to fellow Protestants] who follow their own ideas rather than the common tradition of Christendom, who . . . out of pure wantonness, invent new ways and methods.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 6, 282-283 / Werke, Weimar ed., 7, 394)

We must needs decry the fanatics as damned . . . They actually dare to pick holes in our doctrine; ah, the scoundrelly rabble do a great injury to our Evangel.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 6, 289 / Werke, Erlangen ed., 1868, 61, 8 ff.)

Not only the spiritual but also the secular power must yield to the Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 6, 245)

Men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.

(From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 6, 262 / Werke, Erlangen ed., vol. 3, 39 / Letter to Georg Spalatin in 1527)

2017-05-19T13:31:19-04:00

Last updated on: May 19, 2017 at 1:31 pm   By

Dialogue3

Image by “geralt”. [public domain / Pixabay]

JD Eveland is an agnostic with whom I have had several great exchanges, free of the nonsense and foolishness that so often (sadly) occurs when Christians and agnostics or atheists interact. If all goes well, we will continue having many more dialogues. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

This seemed to be a possible point to raise a question about the derivation of a pretty complex body of belief from a fairly simple starting point.

Specifically, suppose one were to agree that there might well be some overall transcendent spirit pervading the universe. Assume that it possesses properties that would appear to us as indistinguishable from omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience (reserving the possibility that they might simply be sufficiently advanced technology. We can call this entity “God” or “gods” as shorthand. As an admitted agnostic, I can admit this into my understanding. It’s an abstraction of some value and explanatory utility, though not demonstrable by standard human empirical methods.

But here’s the question: by what chain of logic does one get from this starting point – one accepted by large numbers of people throughout history, and the basis for thousands of varieties of religious practice – to the minutiae of, say, Catholic practice? How does one even get from this starting point to the Bible (which is actually many different books loosely linked by a general idea) as a reliable source for moral guidance? In short, how does this starting point lead unequivocally to anything regarding moral conduct among human beings?

I’m not intending a confrontation here. I do respect your thoughts and ideas. I’m just trying to see what your chain of thought is, and how you bridge what seem to me to be impossibly wide chasms from one assumption or conclusion to another. Thanks!

I’m glad you’re still around! I was looking forward to more interaction.

I would say the answer to your question is that knowing this stuff requires revelation. The particulars of the Christian faith and Catholicism in particular come from that. This gives them an objective quality that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. We can say that “x is wrong” because this revelation told us so. We believe part of God’s omnipotence is the ability to share and reveal His thoughts with us in the written medium, through inspired writers. Then, of course, the question is: “how do we know that the Bible is that revelation?” We know from:

1) Its historical accuracy, proven again and again from archaeology and historiography.

2) Fulfilled prophecy, that verifies the supernatural origin of Scripture.

3) The Person of Jesus Christ, Who came to earth, performed miracles in order to substantiate that He was God. He in turn confirmed the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. His disciples and apostles — many of whom were eyewitnesses of His miracles and post-Resurrection appearances — wrote down the New Testament.

4) Internal experiential / spiritual witness of the sublimity and profundity of biblical words. God profoundly changed my life. And this is true of many millions of people. The content and message of Christianity has transformed my life and has brought peace and joy and fulfillment.

5) Christians disagree on doctrines because Protestantism has a different system of authority, called sola Scriptura, or “Bible Alone” (as the only infallible guide in Christianity). Catholics think that the Church and apostolic tradition are also infallible, and that both help interpret Scripture. I just posted an article about this Protestant conundrum a few minutes ago. I have written two entire books that critique sola Scriptura: the Protestant rule of faith [one / two]. The first was published by Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization.

Now, of course the agnostic or skeptic or atheist disagrees with these things all down the line, usually thinks they are ridiculous and ludicrous, etc. Each one has to be defended to the nth degree, in the eyes of folks who think empiricism is the only valid form of knowledge or epistemology. Even if they weren’t that skeptical, I agree that each one needs to be defended on its own. And there are many books and articles that do that.

I understand that. I’m willing to do some of that with atheists, but only to a point, because in my experience, people who ask these sorts of questions are never satisfied with Christian apologetic (or philosophical) answers. If one is actually resolved to their satisfaction, they simply come up with a dozen more. It never ends. It’s an ultimately futile effort, though there are atheists and agnostics who become Christians. There are several at the Patheos Catholic Channel.

Atheists / agnostics (i.e., the ones who relentlessly question) say that their questions are due to their being rational and appropriately cautious. We say it is (in these instances) due to hyper-rationality and false premises and an excessively skeptical approach that they don’t apply to other areas of knowledge.

I don’t have any problem with a moderate amount of questions, as long as there are no double standards (Christians have to absolutely prove everything they believe [according to all-important / be-all and end-all empiricism] or be considered gullible fools, while atheists need not explain any of the difficult questions on their side).

But you asked me how we logically progress from one thing to the other, and I have explained how we do that (whether you accept the particulars or not).

Thanks! Although we obviously have substantial areas of disagreement, I enjoy the opportunity for systematic discussion about these Christian issues with someone who is willing to do more than simply try to yell at me a little louder. I respect your intellect, even though we come to different kinds of conclusions.

I’m glad to see your discussion of the importance of revelation in the formation of your system. That pretty much tallies with my own assessment. We tend to disagree on your points (1), (2), and (3), although I do agree that there’s not a lot of point in our trying to trade evidence back and forth, since our criteria for accepting evidence as valid are significantly different. I’m not purely an empiricist. I also accept the general validity of the propositions derived from heuristics – that is, experience that works. An example of such a proposition would be, “The sun will rise tomorrow morning.” I have no way of establishing this proposition other than by the experience that it has risen for some 25,550 days that I’ve been around to witness it. I should note that this proposition is not in fact sustained scientifically, since the idea that the sun “rises” is contradicted by current astronomical paradigms. That doesn’t make it a less useful proposition for our daily lives.

I wouldn’t doubt your point (4), although I might also suggest that similar experiences have led others to different formulations of Christianity that are significantly less socially benign than yours – e.g., the Inquisition, Dominion theology, Kim Davis. There is no guarantee that internal experiential witness will generate peace and joy and fulfillment. It’s also true that internal experiential witness has led many to entirely different formulations of spirituality – Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I suppose that you could argue that these are not truly internal experiential witnessings, but you’d need to establish clear criteria for distinguishing among such experiences other than whether or not they lead to your particular set of conclusions.

On point (5), I look forward to reading your article. I certainly won’t prejudge your conclusions, although I hope that your bases for preferring the Catholic option are clear. It’s always seemed to me that apostolic traditions offer a fertile ground for drawing just about any set of conclusions you wish to, through picking and choosing your sources and authorities. In that sense, “sola scriptura” offers a more definitive basis, although the Bible itself is rife with alternative interpretations and the opportunity for picking and choosing – for example, determining just which part of the Levitical injunctions remain required and which are superseded.

Clearly, our internal experiential/spiritual witness has produced differing conclusions for each of us. I’ve been exploring that witness in varying degrees for most of my seventy-two years without ever coming close to Christian conclusions, let alone Catholic conclusions. Obviously, you have no way of verifying my witness, any more than I have of verifying yours. From your perspective, there’s obviously something defective in my witness, since I haven’t come to your conclusions. From my perspective, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that the conclusions that your witness has generated for you are valid for you, and enrich your life. What concerns me is that I’m not sure that your perspective grants a similar validity to mine. The record of the Catholic Church in particular in terms of using the secular arm to enforce religious doctrines on the population generally is well known, although less stringent today than in previous times when the church disposed of more political power. My perspective does require me to resist intellectual coercion as well as behavioral coercion justified by no more than religious doctrine.

At any rate, thanks for listening. Perhaps at some point we can come to agreement on at least some propositions that are equally true for both of us.

I respect your intellect and spirit of congenial dialogue as well.

I don’t have time to get more deeply into the above discussion at the moment, but I did neglect to mention apostolic succession as another way by which Catholics come to believe in the particular things we do.

My past in evangelicalism showed itself a bit there. :-) They put the Bible front and center always. We actually do, too, but never separated from Church and Tradition (“three-legged stool”).

Catholics believe that the doctrines and dogmas of the Church have been passed down from the beginning, from Jesus, through the original disciples and apostles, onto the Church Fathers and onward through history, protected by the Holy Spirit.

These doctrines can greatly develop, but this means they are consistent in essence all along (like an acorn to an oak tree). Development is distinct from doctrinal evolution, in which one doctrine could actually change totally into another one that is contradictory to its own origin. Evolution of dogma has been condemned by the Church, whereas development is orthodox and has been sanctioned.

Development of doctrine, as brilliantly explicated by John Henry Newman is the biggest thing that persuaded me of Catholicism, back in 1990, after 13 years of (fairly happy and contended) evangelicalism.

Newman also wrote a superb treatment of religious epistemology, called Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. It is not unlike Plantinga and Polanyi in many respects. It can be read online.

Clearly, we do come from significantly different traditions. my family have been Unitarian-Universalists for at least four generations. Coming up in that tradition, it’s hard to consider going elsewhere. When I was a kid, a series of Army chaplains’ daughters tried to convert me, mostly because I kept winning the prize for memorizing Bible verses at summer Bible camps. I did have a period of some years when I listened to Christian radio extensively, trying to fold my brain around it. The closest I did come to non-UU was the time when I had an Episcopalian as a domestic partner, and I attended church with him for some years. I like UU hymns way better.

I’ve never been able to get closer to evangelicalism than the kind of stupified fascination usually accorded to train wrecks. Please note that I’m intending this as a pretty literal description of my reaction, not as any kind of insult. It requires modes of thinking that I simply can’t fold my brain around. If it didn’t keep impinging on my life, I wouldn’t worry about it, but it does.

UU is about as far from my associations as can be imagined, too! At least if we stick to theistic traditions . . .

The closest I came to it was when I was a practical agnostic with a high interest in the occult, from 1967-1977. I was also very liberal by the late 70s, though only in a surfacey sense; not having really closely studied it, let alone study any alternative.

But I was liberal. I had taken in all the playbook rhetoric from the media and entertainment industries and Detroit public schools and Wayne State University in Detroit (sociology major and minor in psychology), by osmosis.

We certainly are all highly influenced by what and whom we choose to hang out around. We both recognize that. And that’s good. I readily concede that I have a bias towards Christianity and towards Catholicism within Christianity.

What I deny is that what I believe is unreasonable or that I have myself come to it by denying or minimizing reason (as far as it goes).

2019-08-13T19:58:38-04:00

Last updated on: August 13, 2019 at 7:58 pm   By

Original title: “’Bethany Beyond the Jordan’: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus’ Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan”

BaptismJesus2

The probable baptism site in Jordan. Excavations since 1996 have  already  uncovered more than 20 churches, caves, and baptismal pools dating from the Roman and Byzantine periods. The area known as Wadi Kharrar is believed to be the biblical Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan, where John the Baptist lived. It’s also associated with the ascension of the Prophet Elijah into heaven. Photograph by Jan Smith, 19 May 2010. [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

 (8-11-14)

***

[this is the “archaeological / historical / Bible commentary” portion of one of the chapters from my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage]

* * * * *

John 1:19-21, 28-32 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” [20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” [21] And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.” . . . [28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! [30] This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ [31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” [32] And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.” [KJV has “Bethabara” at 1:28]
*
John 3:23, 26 John also was baptizing at Ae’non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. . . . [26] And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”
*
John 10:40 He went away again across the Jordan [from Jerusalem: 10:23] to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained.
*
Matthew 19:1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;
*
Mark 10:1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, . . .
*
Judges 7:24-25 And Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of E’phraim, saying, “Come down against the Mid’ianites and seize the waters against them, as far as Beth-bar’ah, and also the Jordan.” So all the men of E’phraim were called out, and they seized the waters as far as Beth-bar’ah, and also the Jordan. [25] And they took the two princes of Mid’ian, Oreb and Zeeb; they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they killed at the wine press of Zeeb, as they pursued Mid’ian; and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan.
*
The phrase “beyond the Jordan” also appears 36 additional times in the Old Testament (Judith 1:9 is the lone deuterocanonical reference), but depending on context, it can refer to land on either side of the river. When the texts refer to land east of it, it’s referred to variously as “the plains of Moab” (Num 22:1; Josh 13:32), “land of Moab” (Dt 1:5), the land of the Amorites (Dt 4:46-47), which was “to the east beyond the Jordan” (Dt 4:47), the region of two Amorite kings defeated by the Jews: Sihon and Og (Josh 2:10), who lived in Ashtaroth (Josh 9:10), which is east of the Jordan River.
*
It was also the land of “half of the tribe of Manas’seh the Reubenites and the Gadites” which was “beyond the Jordan eastward” (Josh 13:8; cf. 14:3; 18:7; 1 Chr 12:37). This region was, moreover, called Gilead (Jud 7:25 above; 10:8; 2 Ki 10:33; 1 Chr 6:78; Ezek 47:18).
*
Elijah the prophet drank from “the brook Cherith, that is east of the Jordan” 1 Ki 17:3, 5), close to the area where he is believed to have been taken up to heaven.
*
As for “Bethany beyond the Jordan itself”: the place where the Bible says John the Baptist baptized (and baptized Jesus), it is also known as Bethabara. Thus, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:
*
(“house of the ford”): . . . the place where John baptized (Joh 1:28). . . . It is distinguished from the Bethany of Lazarus and his sisters as being “beyond the Jordan.” The reading “Bethabara” became current owing to the advocacy of Origen. . . . Bethabara has also been identified with Bethbarah, which, however, was probably not on the Jordan but among the streams flowing into it (Jg 7:24).1
*
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary basically agrees with this analysis:
*
An unknown location “beyond the Jordan” where John the Baptist preached and baptized (John 1:28; 3:26). Unable to find such a place on the other side of the Jordan (viewed from Jerusalem), Origen proposed to read “Bethabara” (cf. KJV at John 1:28), located about 6 km. (4 mi.) north of the Dead Sea . . . Because the apostle distinguishes between this Bethany and the village of Mary and Martha . . . John may have baptized east of the Jordan near Jericho.2
*
Archaeologist Jack Finegan, writing in 1946, stated:
*
Church tradition long has identified the site of Bethabara where Jesus was baptized with the ford called Mahadet Hajleh where the main roads from Judea to southern Perea and from Jerusalem to Beth Haram cross the Jordan. This identification is not certain but some such location is probable.3
*
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives an indication of the state of the question over a hundred years ago:
*
This reading [Bethabara at John 1:28] was approved by Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, and Chrysostom. Origen, in his commentary on this place of St. John’s Gospel, declares as follows:
*
We are not ignorant that in nearly all codices Bethany is the reading. But we were persuaded that not Bethany, but Bethabara should be read, when we came to the places that we might observe the footprints of the Lord, of His disciples, and of the prophets. For, as the Evangelist relates, Bethany the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, is distant from Jerusalem fifteen furlongs, while the Jordan is distant one hundred and eighty furlongs. Neither is there a place along the Jordan which has anything in common with the name Bethany. But some say that among the mounds by the Jordan Bethabara is pointed out, where history relates that John baptized.
*
Archaeological research has failed to identify either Bethany or Bethabara beyond the Jordan; the conjectures range from the ruins on the bank of the Jordan opposite Mahadet Hadschle less than two miles north of the mouth of the Jordan, even to Mahadet ‘Abara, a ford of the Jordan near Bethshean. All things considered, the most probable opinion is that there was a Bethany fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and another across the Jordan. . . . Bethany across the Jordan has shared the fate of many other Biblical sites which have disappeared from the earth.4
*
Stephen Langfur and Micah Key, in their article, “Where Was Jesus Baptized?,”5 note that the Jordan (like most rivers) has changed course quite a bit through the centuries, citing a monk in 1485 who said that it had changed “by a mile.” It’s also true that many dams have altered its size and/or course. The first historical evidence from a pilgrim is documented:
*
[T]he Itinerarium Burdigalense. . . [is] the anonymous report of a journey from Bordeaux in France to the Holy Land in 333 AD. The pilgrim mentions going five Roman miles upstream from the Dead Sea to the baptismal site of Jesus. He also mentions “a place by the river, a little hill upon the further bank, from which Elijah was caught up into heaven.” This would be Tel el-Kharrar, or the Hill of Elijah, which 2 Kings 2:11 sets on the east bank.
*
A pilgrim named Theodosius, visiting between 515 and 530, wrote:
*
At the place where my Lord was baptized is a marble column, and on top of it has been set an iron cross. There also is the Church of Saint John Baptist, which was constructed by the Emperor Anastasius. It stands on great vaults which are high enough for when the Jordan is in flood.
*
One Arculf, writing around 680, also refers to a church on vaults:
*
The holy, venerable spot at which the Lord was baptized by John is permanently covered by the water of the River Jordan. Arculf, who reached the place, and swam across the river both ways, says that a tall wooden cross has been set up on the holy place…The position of this cross where, as we have said, the Lord was baptized, is on the near side of the river bed. A strong man using a sling can throw a stone from there to the far bank on the Arabian side. From this cross a stone causeway supported on arches stretches to the bank, and people approaching the cross go down a ramp and return up by it to reach the bank. Right at the river’s edge stands a small rectangular church which was built, so it is said, at the place where the Lord’s clothes were placed when he was baptized. The fact that it is supported on four stone vaults, makes it usable, since the water, which comes in from all sides, is underneath it. It has a tiled roof. This remarkable church is supported, as we have said, by arches and vaults, and stands in the lower part of the valley through which the Jordan flows. But in the upper part there is a great monastery for monks, which has been built on the brow of a small hill nearby, overlooking the church. There is also a church built there in honour of Saint John Baptist which, together with the monastery, is enclosed in a single masonry wall.
*
Both of these accounts suggest a site on the western bank, but because the river shifts so much, this doesn’t factor in as much as other circumstantial evidence of churches, marble structures, etc. The authors note:
*
On today’s east bank, near the river, stand the ruins of a church dating from the late Byzantine period. It was built near the remains of two earlier churches, the earliest of which was set on vaults. This was probably the church that was seen by the pilgrims Theodosius and Arculf.
*
J. Carl Laney’s 1977 doctoral dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary, entitled, “Selective Geographical Problems in the Life of Christ,” has a section called, “The Identification of Bethany Beyond the Jordan.” It’s available online.6 He writes:
*
“Bethany” in John 1:28 is qualified by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” which serves to distinguish it from the Bethany near Jerusalem (Matt. 4:15, 25; Mk. 3: 8; 10:1; Jn. 3:26). A strong evidence for John’s ministry being in Transjordan is the fact that he was imprisoned by Herod Antipas and eventually put to death in the Perean fortress of Machaerus. [author’s footnote: Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 116-19] Since the documentary evidence suggests very strongly that John the Baptist’s main center of ministry was Perea, it would be quite natural to find the place of his early baptizing ministry in that region.
*
Laney observed that archaeology hadn’t found anything across the Jordan (“very little survey data”) in this area to verify a baptismal site. The archaeological evidence is dramatically different now, as we shall see. He also stated (and I agree):
*
There is clearly a need for archaeological survey in the southern Jordan Valley with a view to locating ancient Jordan River ford communities. However, since the Jordan is a meandering river and frequently changes its channel during flood times, such an ancient ford community as Bethany may not be found on the present banks of the Jordan. It is possible that Bethany beyond the Jordan has been destroyed and completely silted over by the annual flooding of the Jordan River.
*
In conclusion, he observed that Church tradition has consistently placed the site at the ford of Hajlah. Church historian Eusebius (265-340) identified it as Bethabara across the Jordan. After briefly surveying this, he concludes:
*
Reliable tradition does appear to associate Bethany with the Hajlah ford on the Jordan east of Jericho. . . . Archaeological evidence that could confirm the identification of a specific site is lacking. Most of the ceramics found in and around the Wadi el -Kharrar date from Byzantine times. There are no signs of habitation from the time of Christ. While this is a problem, it must be remembered that the Jordan has not only changed its course, but has flooded many times. It would be unlikely for the remains of a small hamlet on the east bank of the Jordan to have survived so many centuries since the time of Christ. It is possible that the ruins of Bethany beyond the Jordan will never be found, but an abundance of evidence indicates that cartographers should place it east of the Jordan River near the Hajlah ford in the vicinity of Wadi el-Kharrar.
*
For more in-depth information regarding the Jordanian baptismal site, we need to now consult Dr. Mohammad Waheeb (b. 1962). He holds a Ph.D. in archaeology from Ankara University, and has been working in the Department of Antiquities of Jordan since 1992. Dr. Waheeb has published more than 50 articles in various archaeological journals and international magazines. 7  
*

He provides further information of historical pilgrim accounts in a website devoted to the baptismal site:8

From the anonymous life of Constantine, St. Helena in the holy places 260-340 AD mentioned “then she reached the River Jordan in which our Christ and God was baptized for our salvation, and when she had crossed the Jordan and found the cave in which the fore runner used to live, she caused a church to be made in the name of John the Baptist”. Facing the cave is a raised place at which St. Elias was caught up to heaven, and there she decreed that there should be an impressive sanctuary in the name of prophet Elias.
*
Jermo around (404 AD) clearly refers to the same place, and connects it with the spot were Elijah went over Jordan on dry ground.
*
. . . Antoninus Martyr (560-570 AD) mentioned: “On that side of Jordan is the fountain where John used to baptize. . . .”
*

Piacenza (570 AD) said: “We arrived at place where the Lord was baptized. This is the place where Elijah was taken up. In that place is the little hill of Hermon. In that part of the Jordan is the spring where St. John used to baptize, . . .”

. . . Willibalad (721-727 AD) said: “They next went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist. . . . Here is now a church raised upon stone columns and under the church it is now dry land where our Lord was baptized. . . .”

. . . The Russian pilgrim Abbot Danial (1106-1107) said: “On the other side of Jordan near the bathing place there is sort of forest of little trees like the willow. And not far from the river a couple of bow-shots to the east is place where prophet Elias was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire and (p.29) here too is the cave of St. John the Baptist”.

. . . John Phocas (1135 AD) mentioned: “Beyond the Jordan opposite to the place of our Lord’s baptism, is much brushwood, in the midst of which, at the distance of about one stadium, is the grotto of John the Baptist which is very small, and not capable of containing a well-built man standing up right, and opposite this, in the depth of the desert is another grotto, in which the prophet Elias dwelt when he was carried off by the fiery chariot.”

Dr. Waheeb summarizes what excavations have uncovered:
*

The Bible recounts that Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan River and walked across it with his anointed successor the Prophet Elisha, then ascended to heaven in a whirlwind on a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:5-14). The small hill from which Elijah ascended to heaven has been known for centuries as Elijah’s Hill, and forms the core of the settlement at Bethany in Jordan.

The ongoing survey and excavations at Bethany in Jordan have uncovered a 1st Century AD settlement with plastered pools and water systems that were used almost certainly for baptism, and a 5th – 6th Century AD late Byzantine settlement with churches, a monastery, and other structures probably catering to religious pilgrims.

. . . The current work verifies the location of John’s settlement Bethany in this area, including many built structures, monastic complexes, churches, caves, a spring, water systems, and other facilities from the Roman and Byzantine periods. The survey has documented an ancient sacred pilgrimage route that linked Jerusalem, the Jordan River, Bethany in Jordan, and Mt. Nebo. Several ancient Byzantine period churches and other structures have been identified between the river and Bethany, and are being excavated. Some of them commemorate Jesus’ baptism, and others represent monasteries or ascetic monks’ quarters.

. . . An active spring and some sculpted caves at Bethany are also mentioned by numerous ancient writers and pilgrims, most of whom associated John’s baptism activities with Bethany and Elijah’s Hill.9

More scholarly presentations of his findings appeared in Dr. Waheeb’s article, “The Discovery of Elijah’s Hill and John’s Site of the Baptism, East of the Jordan River from the Description of Pilgrims and Travellers”:
*

The six-day war of 1967 resulted in this area of the river Jordan becoming a fortified zone and thus off limits to civilians. With the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994, the area was once again opened up for explorations.

Field excavations were started during the summer of 1996 and revealed the presence of several architectural remains, as follow:

. . . The byzantine monastery called Rhetorius monastery (fifth- sixth centuries) that was uncovered is located on Saint Elijah’s hill at the western edge of Wadi al-Kharrar. It connects with the place where Jesus was baptized, a distance of ca. 1.5km to the west. It is on the pilgrimage route from Jerusalem to mount Nebo through Bethany beyond the Jordan.

The name of the monastery comes from an inscription found in the apse of its northern church.10

The article goes on to detail other findings: a prayer hall, various water systems, a rectangular church or chapel, a group of individual hermit cells (called a Laura), a pilgrim’s station, a large pool (capacity of 300!), caves in the surrounding cliffs. Lastly, the John the Baptist church has yielded a wealth of archaeological finds:
*
Some 300m east and 70m north of the present course of the Jordan river, archaeologists and architects have uncovered the remains of memorial churches in an area they are calling the “John the Baptist church area”. Remnants of structures within this area are: a pillared hall (the first church); the lower basilica (the second church); a basilica (the third church); a room south of the basilica (mosaic pavement); staircase; four piers; a chapel (the fourth church); and later structures (later Islamic structures).
*
All were built on the spot where believers located John’s baptism of Jesus. Over the centuries, this series of churches was destroyed, at least in part, by floods and/or earthquakes; but they were rebuilt because believers wished to have a memorial at the place where they were convinced the baptism of Jesus took place . . .
*
The structures date between the fifth and 12th centuries. Had they been constructed in a less precarious location, some would probably have survived.
*
. . . In conclusion, the biblical texts, early pilgrims’ reports, the Madaba mosaic map, and recent archeological work all agree in locating the place of the activities of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus east of the Jordan River at Bethany beyond the Jordan, near Elijah’s Hill.
*
The evangelical Protestant flagship magazine Christianity Today took note of these discoveries in an article dated 1 June 2001:
*
[I]n 1996, minefields along the Jordan River were cleared, which led to the discovery of the area’s most historic find-ruins of early Christian churches, prayer halls, and pools in an area that Jordan claims is the home of John the Baptist and the site of Jesus’ baptism.
*
Israel, of course, has a competing claim on the other side of the river. But Jordanian archaeologist Mohammed Waheeb, 39, a Muslim with a mastery of the Bible and a warm, crinkly-eyed smile, passionately presents his case. “We base our conclusions on three types of evidence,” he says. “The biblical record, the journals of early pilgrims, and the archaeological evidence.”
*
The site at Wadi Kharrar, just a good stone’s throw from the trickle that remains of the Jordan River now that dams have been built upstream, fits all three types of evidence: . . .
*
Even authorities in Israel acknowledge that Waheeb has a case. “Unfortunately for Israeli tourism, the Book of John specifically says that Jesus was baptized east of the Jordan,” says Yadin Roman, editor in chief of Eretz magazine, Israel’s equivalent of National Geographic. He told the Associated Press: “They have a very plausible claim that during the Byzantine era that site was accepted as the site where Jesus was baptized.”11
*
A similar article12 appeared in Baptist Standard. BBC News also followed suit.13
*
Another big clue in locating the site of Jesus’ baptism is the extraordinary Madaba Map: a mosaic on the floor of a church in Madaba, Jordan, that originally contained an estimated two million individual pieces, and still contains over a million. It’s the oldest cartographic depiction of the Holy Land, and is dated at between 542 and 570. The mosaic was rediscovered in 1884 during the construction of a Greek Orthodox church.14
*
The map is so accurate that it was a major source in discovering the location of Askalon, the Nea Church in Jerusalem, and a previously unknown road through the center of ancient Jerusalem. It’s a bit confusing, however, with regard to Jesus’ baptism, because arguably it offers support for both the Jordanian site and the competing one in Israel on the west side of the Jordan. According to one travel site:
*
Both baptism locations appear on the map: western bank as Bethabara (House of the Ford, or of the Crossing); Eastern Bank as Aenon or Sapsaphas (Place of the Willows). Also, many scholars say the Jordan River has changed course many times over the centuries, so the precise spot where Jesus was baptized is difficult to locate.15
*
Franciscan archaeologist Michele Piccirillo wrote about this question:
*
According to the Gospel, John the Baptist was preaching and baptising “in Bethany beyond the Jordan” (Jn 1:19-34). The place was located and visited by the Christian pilgrims two miles from the east bank of the river at the beginning of the Wadi Kharrar in the territory of Livias – al-Rameh. The place was known as Sapsas or Sapsaphas (‘the place of Willows’), as is written in the Madaba Map, which identifies it with Ainon.16
 *
He cited the pilgrim John Moschus in the seventh century, who referred to “the place which is called Sapsas near the Jordan.” Dr. Waheeb adds:
*
The Madaba Map situates “Aenon where now is Sapsaphas” in the Wãdi al-Kharrãr, directly opposite the present baptism place on the east bank of the River Jordan. The name Sapsaphas is derived from the Semitic word for willow (Arabic safsaf). The symbol underneath the name on the map shows an enclosed spring and something shaped like a conch.17
*
Further exciting inquiry about the cave of John the Baptist is supported by ongoing excavations near the Jordanian baptismal site. Dr. Waheeb writes about this in one of his professional papers:

John the Baptist’s cave was probably located at the bottom of the mount of Elijah. Most likely he would not have lived at the top, the place from where his model had ascended to heaven, but more modestly at the bottom, in its shadow. Tradition may well imply the truth in saying he lived at the foot of the hill. There is a mixture of gravel and sand there and it could accommodate a natural cave or one made by a hermit. There are springs everywhere, hence the name “Aenon Bethany” for “Beth Ainon” (“house of a spring”) could have got into the Bible manuscripts at an early date. The original form of the name may have been lost forever in the destruction which afflicted the area and the Byzantine monks might arbitrarily have named the place Aenon.

What supports our hypothesis is that the gospels stress that the Baptist wanted to act in the spirit of Elijah. For this reason he even imitated his dress; he probably felt himself obliged to live in this area. Finally, the area of the caves and the side of Wãdi al-Kharrãr have little shelter and they are subject to continuous change. An exception to this is Elijah’s Hill, as observed by many pilgrims and visitors. There the ground is more unchanging, as demonstrated by the ruins having not completely disappeared despite much destruction inflicted by time and man. Byzantine traditions place at Elijah’s Hill a cave and a church to honour St John the Baptist. Up to now only five caves have been discovered that could be taken into consideration, three on the hill and two near the river. It is reasonable to assume that the three caves discovered on Elijah’s Hill were carved during the early Roman period (the first century AD), as indicated by recovered pottery sherds and coins. These caves were known to the monks and believers who dwelt in the area in the second and third centuries AD. When the Byzantines officially adopted this location in the fourth century AD, a campaign was organised to develop the whole site, including the hill and the surrounding area down to the Jordan River, along the valley that was depicted on the Madaba Mosaic Map and called “Aenon where now is Sapsaphas” (in the fifth to sixth centuries AD).

The systematic excavations on the western side of Elijah’s Hill under the direction of the author in 1998 revealed the presence of Byzantine artifacts and architectural remains which indicate the importance of the caves and the great purpose they served. It seems clear that a church was built around the cave on the west side of Elijah’s Hill and with reference to the documentary sources, the most likely account is that of John Moschus, who recounted that he had been told by local monks that a monk, John, from a monastery near Jerusalem visited Sapsaphas (in about 500 AD, according to Wilkinson) and converted the cave into a church. The cave was identified by the hermits living around it at that time as the place where St John the Baptist had lived. Whether the church was built at the cave merely to provide a place for the monks to venerate St John the Baptist, or whether the aim was to set up a place of pilgrimage in competition with the monastery and church built by the emperor Anastasius at the Jordan River, is still debatable.18

The Bible supports the general location of the traditional “Elijah’s hill”. We know that Elijah and Elisha crossed the river near Jericho and went east of the river, before Elijah was taken up to heaven:
*
2 Kings 2:4, 7-11 Eli’jah said to him, “Eli’sha, tarry here, I pray you; for the LORD has sent me to Jericho.” But he said, “As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.” So they came to Jericho. . . .[7] Fifty men of the sons of the prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them, as they both were standing by the Jordan. [8] Then Eli’jah took his mantle, and rolled it up, and struck the water, and the water was parted to the one side and to the other, till the two of them could go over on dry ground. [9] When they had crossed, Eli’jah said to Eli’sha, “Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.” And Eli’sha said, “I pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” [10] And he said, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so.” [11] And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
*
Dr. Waheeb observed:
*

There appears to be little doubt that the Wadi al-Kharrar ca n be associated with the Prophet Elijah’s ascension to heaven. It was at the eastern end of the wadi that believers placed his departure from earth by means of “a chariot and horses of fire” as he “ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.” The location fits well with the biblical narratives relating the crossing of the nearby Jordan by Joshua and the parting of the waters by both Elijah and his successor Elisha. This could also be the location of Wadi Cherith, to which Elijah fled form Ahab, and where he was fed by ravens in the morning and the evening.

John the Baptist and his connection to Elijah fit equally we ll in the region of Wadi al-Kharrar. Believers saw the promise of Elijah’s return fulfilled in the coming of John. It was here, at “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” that John lived during the time of his ministry. Disciples, who were associated with his baptizing and preaching activities, would have been his companions. The place was convenient as it was close to Bethabara, “the house of the crossing”, one of the places where travelers would have crossed the Jordan on their way east or west.

It was to “Bethany beyond the Jordan” that Jesus came to be baptized by John. Believers, as archeological investigations have shown, commemorated the place of Jesus’ baptism by a series of churches and a monastery that, according to the “Piacenza pilgrim”, contained two guest houses. Moreover, following John’s death, Jesus retired to this area when the religious authorities in Jerusalem began to put pressure on him.19

I shall conclude by taking note of the New Testament motif of John the Baptist as a figure representing the spirit and essence of the prophet Elijah (Elijah being his prototype: a common theme in the Bible, just as King David was a type of proto-Messiah, etc.):
*
Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
*
Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Eli’jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. [6] And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”
*
Matthew 3:1-3 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, [2] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [3] For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (cf. Lk 3:4)
*
Mark 1:2-4 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;[3] the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight –” [4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
*
Luke 1:15-17 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.[16] And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, [17] and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli’jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.
*
John 1:22-23 They said to him then, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” [23] He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
*
Matthew 11:13-14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; [14] and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli’jah who is to come.
*
Mark 9:11-13 And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Eli’jah must come?” [12] And he said to them, “Eli’jah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? [13] But I tell you that Eli’jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”
*
Archaeology and the historical accounts of pilgrims and documentation of churches built at spots believed to be connected with Elijah and John the Baptist, have all confirmed the connection between the two men. We’ve seen how the convergence of evidence suggests the site of Jesus’ baptism and place where John habitually baptized and lived.
*

Assuming that the location of Elijah’s hill is correct and that one or more of the caves there may possibly be where John lived, and all the baptism evidences, we see that John associated himself with Elijah, right down to the detail of proximity to the place where Elijah went up into heaven. We also know from the evidence of Josephus, that John was beheaded in the same region, not far south of the baptismal location.

It may very well be that this connection and knowledge of both the prophecy of Malachi and the traditional spot of Elijah’s departure, led people to think that John was Elijah returned (John 1:21). Descriptions even of the dress that the two men wore are strikingly similar:

2 Kings 1:8 They answered him, “He wore a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about his loins.” And he said, “It is Eli’jah the Tishbite.”
*
Matthew 3:4 Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (cf. Mk 1:6)
*
The great Bible scholar Alfred Edersheim writes of the parallels between Elijah and John:
*
At last that solemn silence was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry as startling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed, the two messengers and their times bore singular likeness. It was to a society secure, prosperous, and luxurious, yet in imminent danger of perishing from hidden, festering disease; and to a religious community which presented the appearance of hopeless perversion, and yet contained the germs of a possible regeneration, that both Elijah and John the Baptist came. Both suddenly appeared to threaten terrible judgment, but also to open unthought-of possibilities of good. And, as if to deepen still more the impression of this contrast, both appeared in a manner unexpected, and even antithetic to the habits of their contemporaries. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of Judea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead; John bore the same strange ascetic appearance as his predecessor; the message of John was the counterpart of that of Elijah; his baptism that of Elijah’s novel rite on Mount Carmel [1 Ki 18:33: “Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering, and on the wood.”]. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, with all of memory and hope which it awakened, even the more minute details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that of John. Yet history never repeats itself. It fulfils in its development that of which it gave indication at its commencement. Thus, the history of John the Baptist was the fulfilment of that of Elijah in ‘the fulness of time.’20
*
John the Baptist came in the “spirit” of Elijah (Luke 1:17), just as Elisha had asked for a double portion of the spirit of his predecessor Elijah (2 Ki 2:9). Thus, John’s denial that he was Elijah (Jn 1:21), was meant to deny that he was literally a reincarnation of him, because this was the mistaken interpretation of Elijah’s return that many Jews held.
*
Catholic Bible scholar Michael Barber made a great point in this regard:
*
Jesus’ miracle reminds of 2 Kgs 4:42-44. There Elisha multiplied 20 barely loaves and fed a hundred men, even having some left over. So let me say two things about this.
*
Elisha was the successor of one of the greatest Old Testament prophets, Elijah. . . . Elisha calls Elijah his “father” (2 Kgs 2:12). We can say two things about this. First, Jesus is compared to Elisha–the spiritual successor of Elijah. Jesus is a prophet like Elijah. In fact, when Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do men say that I am?”, they respond by telling him that many people think he is Elijah redivivus (Matt 16:14).
*
Second, since Matthew tells us that John the Baptist was a kind of “Elijah” (Matt 17:10-13), we might be able to say something else here. Jesus is to John the Baptist what Elisha was to Elijah. Indeed, the similarity between Jesus and John was not lost on the people. We might point out that in Matthew 16 another opinion being floated around was that Jesus was John the Baptist redivivus (Matt 16:14). Now saying that Jesus was the Elisha to John’s Elijah might seem a little off the mark at first–wasn’t Elijah the greatest prophet? In Jewish tradition that may be true, however, if you read the book of 2 Kings carefully you’ll discover that Elisha actually performed an even greater number of miracles than Elijah–in fact, they were also oftentimes much more impressive. Perhaps here then we can see Elijah as a type of John the Baptist and Elisha, who came after him and performed even greater miracles, as a type of Christ. 21
*
Catholic philosopher and apologist Dr. Taylor Marshall made another wonderful observation in the comments:
*
With respect to the Elijah/Elisha and John/Jesus “succession” of prophethood – it is worth noting that in both cases the former “transferred his power” to the latter at the Jordan River. Elijah handed over the baton to Elisha at the Jordan. John handed over the baton to Christ at the Jordan. In a certain sense, Moses also handed over power to Joshua before cross the latter crossed the Jordan.
*
These sorts of analogies and parallels and “types and shadows” abound in Holy Scripture: making it such a joy to delve into its boundless treasures, to discover new things. We see now not only the Elijah / John the Baptist analogy, but also Elijah + Elisha / John the Baptist + Jesus Christ analogy. And they all come together in this spot on the Jordan River, which is also close to the place where Joshua crossed over into Israel, and where Elijah and Elisha parted the waters of the Jordan to cross it.
*
Footnotes
 
1 Edited by James Orr, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956; originally 1929; “Bethabara”: Vol. 1, 442: http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/B/bethabara.html
2 Edited by Allen C. Myers; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987; based on Bijbelse Encyclopedie; edited by F. W. Grosheide, Kampen: J. H. Kok, revised edition of 1975; “Bethany”; 139.
3 Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, Princeton University Press, 224.
4 New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907; “Bethany Beyond the Jordan”, Vol. II, written by A. E. Breen: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm
5 On the “NET” website (Near East Tourist Agency): http://www.netours.com/content/view/255/30/ 
10 Asian Social Science, Vol. 8, No. 8, July 2012, 200-212: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/18526/12289
11 “Visiting the Other Side,” by Marshall Shelley: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/juneweb-only/6-4-57.0.html?paging=off
12 “Archaeological evidence shifting views on site of Jesus’ baptism,” Elaine Ruth Fletcher of the Religion News Service, 8 March 2000; http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/3_8/pages/site.html
13 “Jordan promotes ‘baptism site’”; Barbara Plett, 8 January 2000; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/595071.stm
14 See Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madaba_Map
15 “Was Jesus Baptized in Israel or Jordan?” (Faith Travel Focus): http://www.faithtravelfocus.com/was-jesus-baptized-in-israel-or-jordan/
16 “Ainon Sapsaphas and Bethabara” (The Madaba Mosaic Map); written in 1999: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/articles/PiccirilloSapsaphas.html
17 “The Hermit Caves in Bethany Beyond the Jordan (Baptism Site)”; Mohammad Waheeb, Fadi Bala’awi, and Yahya Al-Shawabkeh, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 48 (2011), 177-198; citation from p. 186; https://eis.hu.edu.jo/deanshipfiles/pub105912077.pdf. Many fascinating details about current excavations in the area are recounted in this article.
18 Ibid., pp. 187-188.
19 “The Discovery of Elijah’s Hill . . .,” ibid., pp. 210-211 (see footnote 10).
20 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883), Book II, Chapter 11: http://www.studylight.org/history/index.cgi?did=ad&aid;=1&kid;=8&bid;=2&cid;=11

21 “The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matt 14:15-21)” (The Sacred Page), 6 June 2007: http://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/06/this-sunday-we-read-account-of-miracle.html

* * * * *

2019-08-13T19:55:06-04:00

Last updated on: August 13, 2019 at 7:55 pm   By
PeterHouse
Octagonal remains of the Byzantine church built over St. Peter’s house at Capernaum (Seetheholyland.net) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]
*
(9-23-14)
 *
[portion of a chapter in my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage]
***
It remains an indisputable fact of history, that Catholics from their earliest existence in the apostolic age, have commemorated important, holy sites in biblical and Catholic history: often by building churches or at least shrines of some sort where they happened. We know this is true, among many other reasons, because Catholics are frequently blasted for the supposed “idolatry” that (we are told) occurs I such places: whether it is a holy location or the relics of a saint.
*
Thus, archaeology (knowing this full well) often begins with the premise that the early Christians remembered where important events having to do with their religion took place. This was perhaps most notably true in the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as we saw in another chapter. Archaeologists and historians largely agree that it encompasses the likely locations of Jesus’ crucifixion and His tomb.
*
The authenticity of this holiest of Christian churches is accepted because the earliest churches built on the spot were based on the collective memory of the local tradition of Christians. These things don’t proceed merely by happenstance or a good “guess.” They’re based on legitimate memories and traditions passed down.
*
Many analogies to every day life easily bring this point home. For example, a family might revere a house or some property where its ancestors had lived for hundreds of years. They generally don’t forget where it was unless many hundreds of years pass.
*
Americans know exactly where George Washington was born, or where Benjamin Franklin worked as an apprentice in a print shop in Philadelphia (I’ve been there). Those two things are at least 280 years ago. We know where the American nation began: Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 (I’ve been there, too). That’s more than 400 years ago, but has not been forgotten at all. Why would it be? It’s clear that very significant places will usually be remembered and documented.
*
It’s not difficult to remember particulars over many generations. This applies to Christians and their own history, just as it does to anyone else. One person, after all, can live for a period encompassing parts of three generations. My 89-year-old mother can remember things from the late 1920s, which is now over 85 years ago, or more than two biblical generations.
*
In other instances, it should also be noted, some things seem to be lost to history, as I have argued elsewhere in this book was the cases with the location of Jesus’ baptism and the Via Dolorosa. Yet the exceptions don’t disprove the rule (the latter was a late tradition to begin with, and so more speculation was in play). Because some things were forgotten or lost track of in the mists of history doesn’t mean that all things are.

*

In the case of what many believe to be St. Peter’s house in Capernaum, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the argument is very straightforward: an ancient church was built over what was formerly a house. The simplest explanation is that the house must have had some great significance in Christian history. St. Peter’s house fits that bill, and is the most reasonable explanation (though it remains unable to be proved – like nearly all things in archaeology – beyond any doubt whatsoever).

*
To acknowledge this doesn’t even require a personal Catholic belief. It’s just history, and how things were done by Christians, and even a secular archaeologist has no trouble accepting it.
*
The Bible History Daily website, from the Biblical Archaeology Society, provides a basic overview of the evidence involved here, in its article (3-29-11), “The House of Peter: The Home of Jesus in Capernaum?”:
*
It was here during the infancy of early Christianity that he began his ministry in the town synagogue (Mark 1:21), recruited his first disciples (Mark 1:16–20) and became renowned for his power to heal the sick and infirm (Mark 3:1–5).
*
. . . Where was the house of Peter, which the Bible suggests was the home of Jesus in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14–16)?
*
Italian excavators working in Capernaum may have actually uncovered the remnants of the humble house of Peter that Jesus called home while in Capernaum. . . .
*
Buried beneath the remains of an octagonal Byzantine martyrium church, excavators found the ruins of a rather mundane dwelling dating to the first century B.C.
*
Octagonal martyria were built to commemorate an important site, such as the original house of Peter that once stood here. The inner sanctum of the octagonal building was built directly above the remains of the very room of the first-century house that had formed the central hall of the earlier church.
*
. . . Were it not for its association with Jesus and Peter, why else would a run-of-the-mill first-century house in Capernaum have become a focal point of Christian worship and identity for centuries to come?
 *
W. von Menden began the excavation of the remains of the octagonal church from 1906 to 1915. The Franciscan Gaudenzio Orfali continued this work from 1921 to 1925. Franciscan Fathers Virgilio Corbo and Stanislao Loffreda again excavated the area from 1968 to 1985.
*
This is the house where Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-34), cured the paralytic lowered down from above (Mk 2:1-4), as well as many others near the door (Mk 1:33), and preached to the crowds (Mt 12:46-50). It has immense significance in Christian history. In the nearby synagogue He taught many times, including his magnificent eucharistic discourse recorded in John 6 (see Jn 6:59). Historical attestation of a church being built over Peter’s house also exists. The Spanish nun Egeria, wrote around 381 to 395:
*
And in Capernaum, what is more, the house of the prince of the apostles [Peter] has been transformed into a church, with its original walls still standing. Here the Lord healed the paralytic. There is also the synagogue where the Lord healed the man possessed by demons . . .
*
An unnamed pilgrim, writing around 560-570 noted the Byzantine basilica: “And so we came on to Capernaum to the house of Saint Peter, which is now a basilica.”
*
Raymond E. Marley, writing in the Jerusalem Christian Review in 1998 1, observed:
*
An open area between the street and the doorway, leading to the courtyard, makes the building unique among others found in the vicinity. This open area would have allowed space for a large number of people to “gather at the door” of Peter’s home to hear Jesus’ preaching. (Mark 1:33; 2:1-3)
*
. . . Inside the building, numerous coins, pottery and oil-lamps dating to the first century were discovered, along with artifacts which included several fish hooks.
*
Archaeologists also unearthed evidence of memorials built by later Christian generations around Peter’s home.
*
“Christians who lived in Capernaum during the second, third and fourth centuries highly venerated this site and showed great care not to destroy the house, but rather to add additional structures to it,” said Italian scholar, Virgilio Corbo, who excavated at the site.
*
Jesus regarded Capernaum as His home (Mt 9:1; Mk 2:1; 3:19; 10:10), and He likely lived in St. Peter’s house. He performed many miracles in the town (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:34), and there He chose his first four disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John); later also enlisting the tax-collector Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). This is also where He healed the centurion’s servant (Lk 7:1-10). His mother Mary visited (Mk 3:31). He explained His parables in greater depth to the disciples in Peter’s house (Mk 7:17). Here He embraced the little child and taught about humility and servanthood (Mk 9:33-37).
*
James H. Charlesworth, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, writing in the book he edited, Jesus and Archaeology 2, concluded about this matter:
 *
Archaeological evidence is almost always hotly debated. What, then, is clear? The “house church” in Capernaum that is celebrated as Peter’s house may well be the house in which Jesus taught. It is certainly not a “synagogue,” but it seems to be Peter’s house. Thus, I fully agree with J. Murphy-O’Connor, who is unusually well informed of data related to Jesus and archaeology and astutely critical; notice his judgment: “The most reasonable assumption is the one attested by the Byzantine pilgrims, namely, that it was the house of Peter in which Jesus may have lodged (Mt 5:20). Certainly nothing in the excavations contradicts this identification. 3
*
John J. Rousseau reiterates my original point above:
*
Ancient peoples tended to build new sanctuaries over preexisting ones, even if they were dedicated to a different god. In this case, the Byzantine octagonal church was built exactly over the ancient large room. 4
*
And more specifically, on the same page:
*
Artifacts discovered there (Herodian coins and lamps, fish hooks) show that the house was occupied as early as the first century B.C.E. and that people involved in fishing lived in or around the house.
*
. . . The excavators’ conclusions are widely accepted today.
 *
FOOTNOTES
*
1 “Is It the Home of Peter?: Miraculous Discoveries in the ‘City of Miracles’,” Vol. 9, Internet edition, Issue 1.
2 Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006, p. 50.
3 The Holy Land, 4th ed. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 220.
4 Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995); co-authored with Rami Arav, p. 40 (“Capernaum”).
* * * * *
2017-05-19T16:14:50-04:00

Last updated on: May 19, 2017 at 4:14 pm   By

Fear

Fear not! Gird up your loins! The Church has survived many onslaughts. It will not be any different now. [public domain / Pixabay]

Catholics who are excessively worried about the family synod coming up (there are many of them): thinking that it very well might change the morals of the Church that have been passed-down from the apostles, must not believe in the indefectibility of the Church (which is one of the dogmas of the Catholic faith). In effect, they deny that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church. It’s tough to have faith at all, with all that baggage. In fact, Fr. John A. Hardon (my mentor) used to say that if someone denied any of the dogmas of the Catholic faith, he lost the supernatural virtue of faith.

Apparently, these good folks will have to see that the synod will not change anything in Catholic teaching that has always been there. Once that happens, perhaps their faith can be strengthened and they can overcome their doubts about the ongoing indefectibility of the Church (and also her infallibility).

Remember, “everyone” was “sure” the Church was gonna relax the prohibition of contraception in 1968, too. What actually happened? We all know . . .

Synods in and of themselves, are not infallible in the first place. They can rise to the level of ordinary magisterial teaching, but only in conjunction with the pope; with his express sanction. Even the ordinary magisterium only applies to teachings that are reaffirmed: that are very well-entrenched in tradition.

I would contend that the teachings on marriage and divorce could not possibly change, even according to how Catholic ecclesiology and authority work, before we ever get to considerations of indefectibility and the supernatural protection of the Holy Spirit. It would be similar to, for example, the Congress changing some part of the US Constitution at the drop of a hat. They simply can’t do that. There is nothing to worry about here!

The synod does not consist solely of German and Dutch dissidents (and all the other usual suspects: invariably from Western Europe and  North America: where all this sort of nonsense usually originates). The Church is a lot bigger than that.

Most sectors of the Church are not existentially burdened with the things that liberals and modernists concern themselves with (how to change the Church into their own image). They don’t get it. But they’re not the whole Church. Folks need to stop thinking that they are, just because they make a lot of noise.

The dissident so-called “progressives” tried to hijack Vatican II and foist upon millions of Catholics the notion that the Catholic Church had magically transformed itself into the internal and perpetual chaos that is Anglicanism. Consequently, millions lost faith or became compromised in serious ways. But the Catholic faith had not fundamentally changed at all.

The dissenters couldn’t even pretend that Humanae Vitae in 1968 and the affirmation of the age-old prohibition of contraception was a “victory”, and so consequently they almost split off. The possibility of wholesale schism of millions was very real in those days. “Progressives” do not take losses lightly. They do “sour grapes” to the nth degree: make it almost an art form!

Our faith and trust is in God, not in some fancy that Catholics will all be perfect saints at all times.

There have always been sinners and corruption in the Church, yet true doctrine has (quite remarkably) been passed-down all these years.

No one need take my word alone for that. Just read 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Jesus’ warnings to the seven churches of Revelation.

Even the writers of the New Testament were great sinners. Paul murdered Christians, Peter denied Christ three times and was a hypocrite to such an extent that Paul rebuked him (an incident itself captured in Scripture). All the disciples save one fled from Jesus when He was tried and crucified.

Doubting Thomas continued to doubt, despite all the miracles he had seen Jesus perform. Finally he threw in the towel and ceased his ludicrous doubting (at least temporarily), when Jesus appeared after His resurrection,  just for him, and told him to touch the wound in His side.

But I highly suspect that he continued to doubt other things after that. Some folks are — by constitution or temperament —  worriers; anxious types, and will keep worrying no matter what. But they don’t have to spread their worries and fears and anxieties to everyone else. They can at least keep these things to themselves.

There is nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes 1:9 teaches. Those who think things are uniquely bad now,  must not have read much Church history.

G. K. Chesterton said that the faith has gone to the dogs five times, and in every case the dogs died.

2017-05-19T16:47:32-04:00

Last updated on: May 19, 2017 at 4:47 pm   By
OutsiderLoftus
Book by H. P. Lovecraft, 1939 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***
(9-30-07)

***

John Loftus is a former pastor and the webmaster of the Debunking Christianity blog. This reply is at his request. I give him points for originality, if little else. John’s words will be in blue.

* * * * *

John provided a general post that linked to other individual ones (I won’t give all the URL’s; the previous link gives those). In later ones, he merely repeats many of his arguments, so I need not cite everything. I will be meeting the basic arguments head on.

Here’s the short version of my argument. It begins with these four propositions:

1) Religious diversity around the globe is a fact—many religions can be found in distinct geographical locations in the world.

Sure.

2) There are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religion is true.

To some extent this is correct; however, at least for the western religions, there are several tests from various fields of study (natural science, archaeology, textual analysis, historiography, philosophical arguments, etc.) that can be brought to bear. Those from these traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) hold lots of tenets along those lines in common, and so can compare the relative strength of their religious claims.

Eastern religion is another story, and the presuppositions and conception of God is so different that it is difficult to test or examine rationally by these same standards.

3) Religious apologists all claim they are correct and they reject all other distinctive religious beliefs but their own.

We all believe what we believe (religious or no) and believing one thing precludes believing simultaneously in another that contradicts it. Most religious people will readily admit, however, that many beliefs in other religions are similar or identical to their own. All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C.S. Lewis’s book The Abolition of Man.

4) All religions seek to answer life’s most important questions in a believing communal social environment where the adherent is encouraged to believe and discouraged to doubt.

Sure. This is done in varying degrees of plausibility and rationality, but as a generality it is true.

These four facts form the basis of the argument. Okay so far? I think these facts are undeniable.

#2 is questionable to a significant extent, as argued. #3 must be seriously qualified.

So if you want a deductive argument expressing this inductive argument of mine, here it is:

p -> q:

If 1-4 is true, then it’s probable that people adopt their religion based upon “when and where they were born.”

They often (even more often than not) do do that; no argument there.

p:

1-4.

.: q:

Therefore, it’s probable that people adopt their religion based upon “when and where they were born.”

Based upon 1-4, it’s highly probable religious adherents will not investigate their faith dispassionately.

That’s exactly right. That is a major reason why I do apologetics. Religion needs to be held with a great deal more rationality and self-conscious analysis for the epistemological basis and various types of evidences for one’s own belief.

They will use reason to solidify and support religious beliefs arrived at prior to rationally examining them. And because there isn’t a mutually agreed upon scientific test to determine the truth of any religion, therefore social/political and geographical factors heavily influence what religion one adopts.

Again, this is undeniably true (except for the “testing” part). Of course it proves nothing whatsoever about the strength of relative truth claims, so I don’t see that it has much value except as a rather self-evident bit of sociological observation.

This conclusion is the strongest in those communally shared religions where doubt places the adherent in danger of hell, as well as the fear of losing the friendship of the religious community he or she is involved in.

Or places folks in danger of their lives if they dare dissent (or at least losing many freedoms, and their personal reputation), as in many Muslim countries, or Communist nations.

This conclusion leads to the presumption of skepticism when investigating any religious faith, including one’s own religious faith; for it’s probable that the adherents merely adopted their faith based upon “when and where they were born.”

I believe everyone should study to know why they believe what they believe. On the other hand, I deny that there is no religious knowledge or evidence other than these hard proofs from scientific inquiry. There are also highly complex internal or instinctive or subjective or experiential factors that have been analyzed at great length by philosophers like William Alston (see Alvin Plantinga (“properly basic belief”). Those are huge discussions, but not to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present line of inquiry.

John Loftus, in a second post, presents a typically presuppositionalist, Van Til-like excerpt from Paul Manata (who frequents Steve Hays’ Triablogue site). But before looking at how he disagrees with it, it should be known that most non-Calvinist Christians also disagree with this outlook concerning the relationship of faith and reason, and unbelievers and believers. In other ways, there is common ground with what is called “evidentialist” apologetics (my preferred brand). Alvin Plantinga shows one way of achieving a semi-synthesis.

I’ve written papers specifically denying (based on the biblical data) that atheists must be evil and immoral, and affirming that any individual atheist can possibly be saved in the end. I’ve also strongly denied the notion that any atheist who says he was a former Christian must be lying, since it is considered impossible. That is biblical hogwash.

Does this description of the thinking of an unbeliever confirm or deny what I have been saying, that Christianity must devaluate philosophy in favor of believing in historical knowledge of a “special revelation” in the Bible?

It confirms it but only in a very limited way, since this presents the viewpoint of only a small minority of Christians: strict Calvinists (mostly fundamentalists). Not even all Calvinists would take this strict of a view. Loftus makes a mistake very common in the atheist / agnostic / skeptical literature: confusing just one small sector of Christianity with the whole. It’s essentially a straw man because it is even less than a “half-truth” if we go by numbers of (thinking, informed) Christians proportion-wise who think like this.

And if a Christian must place reason below his faith, then how can he properly evaluate his faith in the first place, since the presumption of faith we start out with, will most likely be the presumption of faith we end with?

A Christian doesn’t have to. The Bible doesn’t teach this in the first place. The largest and most continuous Christian tradition (Catholicism) would flatly deny it. So do the majority of Protestants and Protestant apologists.

Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by, what John Hick calls, the “accidents of history” (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that the Christian will ever truly evaluate his or her faith?

Many (and probably most) Christians never do that; I agree. Again, there is a reason why I have devoted myself to apologetics. If even an atheist thinks Christians should reason more about their faith, then it is obvious that the work of apologetics is crucial.

I would say, though, that there is a version of this “become whatever your surroundings dictate” argument that can be turned around as a critique of atheism. Many atheists — though usually not born in that worldview — nevertheless have decided to immerse themselves in atheist / skeptical literature and surround themselves with others of like mind. And so they become confirmed in their beliefs. We are what we eat. In other words, one can voluntarily decide to shut off other modes and ways of thinking in order to “convince” themselves of a particular viewpoint. That is almost the same mentality as adopting a religion simply because “everyone else” in a culture does so, or because of an accident of birth. People can create an “accident of one-way reading” too.

My position, in contrast, is for people to read the best advocates of any given debate and see them interact with each other. That’s why I do so many dialogues. John Loftus could write these papers, and they may seem to be wonderfully plausible, until someone like me comes around to point out the fallacies in them and to challenge some of the alleged facts. Read both sides. Exercise your critical faculties. Don’t just read only Christians or only atheists. Look for debates where both sides know their stuff and have the confidence to defend themselves and the courage and honesty to change their opinions if they have been shown that truth and fact demand it.

How is it possible to rationally evaluate the Christian faith when the Christian can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place–presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the “accidents of history.”

This is basically what the presuppositionalists do, but that is rejected by the majority of Christian thinkers today and throughout history. John’s critique applies only to them and to fideists and pietists who deliberately underemphasize or reject reason. it certainly does not apply to all of Christianity. The irony is that he makes a critique of something where I as a Christian and an apologist can largely agree with him. We disagree mainly on whether the critique affects Christianity as a whole or only one small — mistaken — school within it.

So let me propose something I call The Outsider Test: If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim right now, say it isn’t so? That is a cold hard fact. Dare you deny it? Since this is so, or at least 99% so, then the proper method to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Yes, it’s true. Most people believe in religious matters what they were born into. But of course, many change their minds later on. And we must also take into account variations within religions. In my case, for example, one could say “sure, you’re a Christian because most Americans claim to be so.” True enough on one level, but it is false insofar as it would presuppose that I am a Christian only because of this factor and no others.

In fact, I have made up my mind as an individual and often changed my opinions. I was born into a liberal Methodist family. I never resonated with that much, and stopped going to the Methodist church when I was ten. I then became a “secularist” or “practical atheist” for about eight years. That went against my background because both parents and all four grandparents were Methodists. I then converted to evangelical Christianity at age 18. There wasn’t much of that in my larger family, either. And at length I converted to Catholicism at age 32. There were virtually no Catholics in my extended family. So I was making decisions on my own regardless of what folks around me believed (particularly in my Catholic conversion). Therefore, this whole analysis doesn’t really apply to me, if we examine it closely and take it a step deeper and out of the broadest generalities.

Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating. If your faith stands up under muster, then you can have your faith.

That is essentially what I am doing in my numerous posted debates (more than 450 as of this writing; perhaps nearly 500 by now. I stopped counting). I interact with people who don’t agree with me, all the time., And so I am exposed to their premises and worldviews and in a good place to judge if it is superior to my own. Obviously I haven’t been dissuaded of Catholic Christianity yet. And I can demonstrate to anyone why, by directing them to my debates with atheists and Protestants (i.e., anyone non-Catholic).

If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when we have this extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.

I agree that every Christian should have a reasonable faith, that can withstand rational and skeptical examination. I do this myself and I write so that others can share in the same confidence and blessing that I receive as I do apologetics and interact with other people of different beliefs.

What we believe does not depend entirely on where we are born. It also depends on when we were born, and what beliefs and conditions were there when we grew up. What would you believe if you were born during the Middle Ages, or during the Ancient superstitious days before the rise of modern science, Frontier days in America, pre-civil war days in the South, and even pre-depression era days, WWII days, Vietnam protest days, the greed decade of the 80’s, and the microchip and cell phone revolution now? Is human reason that malleable? I think so.

None of this means there isn’t any truth, moral or otherwise. But this is known as the Dependency Thesis, whereby what we believe depends upon these factors world-wide. Yep, that’s right, world-wide. And while it doesn’t prove anything about truth itself, it should give us all pause to consider the factors of where and when we were born, and whether or not we properly are evaluating our faith.

All true, again. And I agree that “it doesn’t prove anything about truth itself”. I have long accepted the sociological basis of much actual belief, on account of my reading of social analysts such as Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and Michael Polanyi. See also psychiatrist Paul Vitz’s analysis of the familial background of many famous atheist figures. This also is a result of my degree in sociology and minor in psychology.

There are so very many things we believe because of when and where we were born that an argument is made by moral relativists based on it, which is known to ethicists as the “Dependency Thesis (DT)” According to the DT our morals are causally dependent on our cultural context. Even if the relativists are wrong in the very end, they make an extremely powerful case which should give the over-confident Christian a reason for a very long pause, if nothing else.

I don’t see why. Every person is responsible for his own intellectual advancement. The trouble is that public education is so rotten today that young minds aren’t formulated in ways that would further this end. They are spoon-fed secularist propaganda bleached of any Christian influence whatsoever, and then given a massive sophisticated dose of anti-Christianity in college (so that many students lose their faith because they are so overwhelmed and unprepared), as if this were a fair, intelligent way of going about things. They are what they eat too.

That’s why secularists are so intent on removing any vestige of Christianity from education, because they prevail only by people being ignorant of alternatives and being presented one side only. I was a thoroughly secularist pro-choice, pro-feminist, political and sexual liberal coming out of high school. I would have repeated the party line impeccably (in marvelously blissful ignorance). But when I started reading some materials with a different perspective during my college years and shortly afterwards (Christian, politically conservative, pro-life), then my opinions changed because I had a rational basis to compare one view with another, rather than ape propagandistic slogans learned by rote repetition (which is much of liberal, secularist education these days).

The Christian believes God is a rational God and that we should love God with all of their minds. The Christian is not afraid to examine his or her beliefs by the test of reason because he or she believes in a God of reason. A small minority of Christians even believe Logic and reason presuppose the Christian God.

So what’s the problem here? Why aren’t Christians posting by the droves and saying, “Fine, I have no problem with The Outsider Test?” Why not?

Because they are insufficiently acquainted with historic Christianity, biblical Christianity, and historic apologetics. They are fair game to eventually lose their faith, or else possess such a weak, mangled, ineffective faith that they make no practical difference to anyone around them, as potential “witnesses” of the truth of Christianity.

An outsider would be someone who was only interested in which religious or nonreligious view is correct, and assumed from the start that none of them were true–none of them!

But there are no absolutely clean slates. This is where I would disagree, based on the analyses of people like Plantinga, Alston, and Polanyi (the latter almost singlehandedly dismantled logical positivism).

An outsider is a mere seeker who has no prior presuppositions about any faith, or no faith at all. To be an outsider would also mean we would have nothing at stake in the outcome of our investigations, and hence no fear of hell while investigating it all. These threats could hinder a clear-headed investigation.

I deny the premise, and so am skeptical of this scenario; however, I do believe in being as objective and fair as we possibly can be, even given our inevitable biases and belief-system that cannot be erased merely by playing the game of philosophy and supposed extreme, dispassionate detachment.

What exactly is wrong with this? While I know it may be impossible to do, since we all have presuppositions, what’s wrong with striving for this as a goal that can only be approximated?

I agree, if qualified like this. Good.

If Christianity wins hands down in the marketplace of ideas, like so many seem to indicate, then why not mentally adopt this test? Christians shouldn’t have any problems doing this, right?

Amen! I try to do it by my debates, such as the present one. I think Christianity wins in any such encounter. It’s always been my experience.

The outsider test would mean that there would be no more quoting the Bible to defend how Jesus’ death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian must now try to rationally explain it. No more quoting the Bible to defend how it’s possible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over, by merely quoting from the Bible. The Christian must now try to make sense of this claim, coming as it does from an ancient superstitious people who didn’t have trouble believing this could happen (Acts 14:11, 28:6), etc, etc. Why? Because you cannot start out by first believing the Bible, nor can you trust the people closest to you who are Christians to know the truth. You would want evidence and reasons for these things. And you’d initially be skeptical of believing in any of the miracles in the Bible just as you would be skeptical of any claims of the miraculous in today’s world.

This is a description of apologetics, pure and simple. Thanks for confirming the value of what I have devoted my life to.

. . . we would do well to question the social conditions of how we came to adopt a particular religious belief in the first place, that is, who or what influenced us, and what were the actual reasons for adopting that belief in its earliest stages.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If you’ve read my Conversion/deconversion story, I had no initial reasons for adopting the Christian faith, except that everyone I had ever met believed. The reason I adopted it in the first place was because of social conditions–no one I knew doubted it and I concluded at the age of 18 that therefore it must be true.

My story was precisely the opposite. I was so utterly ignorant of Christian theology at age 18 that I didn’t even know that Christians believed Jesus was God in the flesh. I arrived at all my Christian beliefs by my own deliberate study. I had gotten secularism crammed down my throat in Detroit public schools and Wayne State University in Detroit. I had to “even the score” a bit by my own study of the theistic intellectual tradition. That was a bit tough to do in a fair way, given, for example, that there wasn’t a single theist in the philosophy department at Wayne when I was there and took five courses or so.

. . . . there are no empirical tests to finally decide between religious viewpoints.

This is simply not true. There are a number of evidential or empirical tests that Christianity and other religions can be subjected to. The argument from biblical prophecy offers a chance to test by real, concrete historical events whether the predictions were accurate or not. A study of Jesus’ Resurrection, that involved a dead body and a rock tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, provides hard facts that have to be dealt with and explained somehow. The cosmological and teleological theistic arguments offer hard scientific facts and details that are rationally explained as suggesting a God. All miraculous claims can be examined.

In the Catholic tradition, there are many eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead (St. Augustine, for example, attested to this). There are all sorts of miracles. For example: the incorrupt bodies of saints. If you can take a dead person out of their grave twenty, fifty years or more after their death, and the body has not decayed, and it is because they were a saintly person, then that is hard empirical evidence that confirms Christian, Catholic teaching. You have the mystery of the stigmata, that could be seen in, e.g., St. Padre Pio, who died in 1968. There is archaeological evidence confirming the claims of the Bible. Etc., etc.

Skeptics thumb their nose at all of this but it is not nearly so simple. There are unexplained phenomena here that have to be accounted for. We have our interpretation, but the atheist puts his head in the sand and claims that it’s all impossible because of their prior axiomatic beliefs that all miracles are impossible because they “go against science ” (itself a blatant fallacy). Hence John writes: “Christians believe God did miracles in the ancient past (but we see no evidence he does so today, which is our only sure test for whether or not they happened in the past).” And that is considered “open-minded” and intelligent.

A believer in one specific religion has already rejected all other religions, so when he rejects the one he was brought up with he becomes an agnostic or atheist many times, like me.

We need not reject all other religions in toto; just aspects of them that we believe to be untrue. For example, Confucius taught excellent personal ethics. A Christian would disagree with very little there. We have no objection to Jews following the 613 commandments of Mosaic Law or keeping kosher. Buddhists are often pro-life, and teach about personal asceticism something not unlike Catholic monasticism. Muslims still have kids, are against abortion and premarital sex and pornography. All great stuff.

You quoted Paul, for instance. Why should I believe what an ancient superstitious person believed and said?

Here is the classic atheist condescension and double standard. We’re supposed to sit like eager baby birds receiving regurgitated worms from their mother’s beak, in hearing atheists lecture us about the Bible and how stupid and contradictory it is, and how dumb our interpretations are. John cited the Bible and beliefs stated in the Bible all over his main post. But the Christian is not allowed to cite the Bible in his replies (???!!!).

Thus John waxes indignantly: “Deal with the argument. The Bible means nothing to me.” Well, how the hell is a Christian gonna be able to respond to an argument of biblical skepticism and alleged contradictions by not citing the very Bible that was critiqued? It’s irrelevant whether John accepts it or not or puts it on the level of Mein Kampf or Aesop’s Fables. It’s our view that is being critiqued and so we have the task of defending the Bible. And in order to do that one must cite it! Good grief . . .

The condescension towards the Apostle Paul, who was one of the most educated and philosophically nuanced men in the ancient world, and a brilliant writer is, of course, completely out of line and ridiculous; a quintessential example of atheist chronological snobbery.

For the outsider test to fail the test of the Bible you must first establish the trustworthiness of the Bible to tell us the truth. I’m proposing a test to see if the Bible should be trusted in the first place. How do YOU propose we test it? Could you please explain to me why you might use double-standards when testing it against other religious books?

That’s super-easy: we test it like any other source of history: through historiographical scholarship and archaeology. The Bible has been tested again and again in this fashion and has proven itself accurate, insofar as it reports historical, geographical, biographical details, etc.

Wholly apart from religious faith, then, we can establish that it is a remarkably accurate document that can be trusted to accurately report things. That’s the bare minimum. Once supernatural events are being discussed, the argument must be made on an entirely different plane: legal-historical evidences, philosophy, etc. But the Bible is not untrustworthy on the basis of inaccuracy of things that can be empirically verified.

That’s enough for now. If John wants to engage in further dialogue, minus the acrimony that has plagued our previous several attempts, I’d be happy to. Many areas here can be unpacked and elaborated upon in great depth.

[Loftus has never replied, these past almost eight years]

2017-05-20T14:28:56-04:00

Last updated on: May 20, 2017 at 2:28 pm   By
EucharistJesus
Christ with the Eucharist, late 16th century, by Joan de Joanes (1510-1579) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
This article was the cover story in Patrick Madrid’s Envoy Magazine, Jan/Feb 2000 issue. Here it is presented in my own original version (before editing).
[originally uploaded on 26 June 2000]
*****

I held aloft with both my hands the golden chalice, gazing upwards at it, performing one of the central liturgical rituals of the Mass, in which the consecration of the wine takes place. My attitude, however, was not one of reverence or solemnity. I possessed neither the eyes of faith, nor the traditional Christian understanding of the Blessed Eucharist. I was not standing at an altar, let alone in a church. My friend and frequent evangelistic partner, nearby, was neither kneeling, nor bowing his head, nor crossing himself. He was chuckling, and I myself had a mocking, sarcastic scowl, as I wore a makeshift priestly robe, looking as ridiculous as the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz, in his “king’s robe.”

For I was not a priest, or ordained clergyman of any sort. I was a non-denominational evangelical Protestant lay missionary, and my former Catholic friend and I were making light of the gestures and rituals of a priest as he performs the Mass. This was in the late 1980s, several years away from my own surprising conversion to Catholicism, in 1990. I still have the shameful photograph of this mock liturgy – taken by my friend. It remains an absurd testament to my former rather dim comprehension of liturgy and sacramentalism – as well as a certain adolescent silliness when it came to Things Catholic, just as we oftentimes see in many anti-Catholic “ministries” and individuals today.

The interesting thing to ponder in retrospect is the question of how I – a serious evangelical Christian, who had a well above average knowledge of, and appreciation for, Church history – could have had such an insufficient understanding of the Holy Eucharist: the central focus of Christian worship for 1500 years up to the advent of Protestantism? How is it that I could somehow manage to regard liturgy itself as a stale, boring, non-essential “extra” which was by no means necessary to Christian communal fellowship?

Despite this (which makes it fascinating to think about now), I actually had a fairly high respect – relatively speaking – for the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, or Holy Eucharist. My belief was somewhat akin to John Calvin’s “mystical presence,” which was a “step higher” than the purely symbolic view which many Protestants today hold. Nor did I for a moment believe that what was taking place at the Last Supper was merely empty ritual, or its re-creation a bare “remembrance.” Furthermore, I wasn’t “anti-Catholic” in the sense that I would ever have denied that the Catholic Church was Christian, or that it had commendably preserved the Bible and what I then called “central Christian doctrine” throughout all the centuries prior to the 16th.

To understand how such an odd state of affairs could happen at all requires one to delve a bit into past Church history, especially the course of Protestant doctrinal history. My friend and I – as is characteristic of so many non-Catholics – thought, in the final analysis, that the Eucharist was an accretion, an optional part of the Church service, because we were simply being good evangelical low-church Protestants (albeit without much reflection on this particular point). Most Protestant denominations have elevated the sermon to the primary position and climax of the Sunday service. Everything builds up to it. For many attendees (including, formerly, myself – very much so), the sermon was the thing to look forward to, and the drawing card (especially if one’s particular pastor was especially skilled at oratory and homiletics). It was the means by which one got “fired up,” exhorted, and charged to go out and make a difference in the world, as a Christian disciple (things which aren’t bad, in and of themselves).

Don’t get me wrong. I still appreciate a good sermon (including many non-Catholic ones), and I wish more stirring preaching could be had in the Catholic Church. I passionately love, for example, Cardinal Newman’s collected sermons (most from his Anglican period), which contain far more “spiritual meat” for reflection than any Protestant sermonizing I am aware of. But much of Protestantism has transformed church almost exclusively into a prolonged liturgy of the Word – that is, the first half of the Catholic Mass -, with usually far less actual Bible reading, and a sermon many times longer than the average ten-minute Catholic homily. I speak mainly of low-church evangelicalism, but it is not too far-fetched to apply this observation to Protestantism as a whole.

Groups like the Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans retain the weekly Eucharist as the central aspect of their worship service, but other denominations, such as Presbyterians, Baptists, pentecostals, and the many non-denominational groups, tend to have Communion once a month. Most Mennonites observe Holy Communion only twice a year; Quakers and the Salvation Army – amazingly enough – not at all. The latter two groups don’t practice any sacraments, or “ordinances” or “rites,” including even baptism.

Behind this sort of thinking lies an antipathy to sacramentalism itself, in which it is held that matter can convey grace. Accordingly, Protestants who place less emphasis on the Eucharist tend to also regard baptism as basically a symbolic ritual also, without the regenerating power which Catholics believe it inherently possesses. And we must ask ourselves why this is; how vast portions of Christianity can today deny what was accepted without question by virtually all Christians right up to the time of Martin Luther (who also retained the doctrine of the Real Presence in slightly-diluted form, and baptismal regeneration as well)?

The first Christian leader of any consequence and lasting historical importance and influence to deny the Real Presence was Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531), the Swiss Protestant “Reformer.” He dissented from not only received Catholic doctrine, but also from the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which gained him Martin Luther’s considerable hostility and inveterate opposition (the Founder of Protestantism regarded him as “damned” and “out of the Church” for precisely this reason). We shall briefly examine some of the rationale Zwingli gives for adopting this novel, radical position, which set the tone for all subsequent Protestant symbolic viewpoints:

A sacrament is the sign of a holy thing. When I say: The sacrament of the Lord’s body, I am simply referring to that bread which is the symbol of the body of Christ who was put to death for our sakes. The papists all know perfectly well that the word sacrament means a sign and nothing more, for this is the sense in which it has always been used by Christian doctors . . . the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be the body itself.

(On the Lord’s Supper, 1526, translated by G. W. Bromiley; in Zwingli and Bullinger, edited, with introductions and notes, by G. W. Bromiley, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, 176-238; this excerpt from p. 188)

First of all, it is simply untrue that Christian doctors “always” denied the “reality” aspect of the sacraments, particularly concerning the Eucharist. This matter is so well-documented as to seriously bring into question Zwingli’s credibility as a student of Christian doctrinal history. Literally hundreds of counter-examples could be brought forth, but suffice it to say that the evidence for the Real Presence in the Eucharist in the Church Fathers is among the most compelling of any of the doctrines or dogmas which Protestants now dispute. As proof of this, I shall cite just one standard Protestant reference work, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Second edition, edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1983, 475-476: “Eucharist”):

That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood . . . From the fourth century, the language about the transformation of the elements began to become general . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages.

Secondly, “sign” and “reality” need not be opposed to each other. Later in his essay Zwingli attempts to enlist St. Augustine as espousing his views, by exploiting this false dichotomy. But Augustine accepted the Real Presence as well as a conception of the Eucharist in which it is also a “sign” (just as the Catholic Church does today). In popular terms, this argument doesn’t fly! The Bible itself confirms this. For example, Jesus refers to the “sign of Jonah,” comparing Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish to His own burial (Mt 12:38-40). In other words, both events, although described as “signs,” were literally real events. Jesus also uses the same terminology in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is, of course, believed by all Christians to be a literal, not a symbolic occurrence.

J.N.D. Kelly, a highly-respected Protestant scholar of early Church doctrine and development, writing about patristic views in the fourth and fifth centuries, concurs:

It must not be supposed, of course, that this ‘symbolical’ language implied that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to, or tokens of, absent realities. Rather were they accepted as signs of realities which were somehow actually present though apprehended by faith alone.

(Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, 1978, San Francisco: Harper Collins, 442)

About St. Augustine in particular, Kelly concludes:

. . . There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism . . . One could multiply texts . . . which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors.

(Ibid., 446-447)

Likewise, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church makes the same point about allusions to “symbolism” with regard to the general teaching of the Church Fathers:

Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts.

(Ibid., 475)

Zwingli gets down to brass tacks in the following blast against Catholic eucharistic doctrine, and it is here where I believe we begin to clearly see the philosophical and skeptical roots of his false belief:

The manna which came down from heaven was of the same size and shape as coriander seed, but its taste was quite different. Here the case is otherwise, for what we see and what we taste are exactly the same, bread and wine. And how can we say that it is flesh when we do not perceive it to be such? If the body were there miraculously, the bread would not be bread, but we should perceive it to be flesh. Since, however, we see and perceive bread, it is evident that we are ascribing to God a miracle which he himself neither wills nor approves: for he does not work miracles which cannot be perceived.

(in Bromiley, ibid., 196)

I answer Zwingli as follows:

The Eucharist was intended by God as a different kind of miracle from the outset, requiring more profound faith, as opposed to the “proof” of tangible, empirical miracles. But in this it was certainly not unique among Christian doctrines and traditional beliefs – many fully shared by our Protestant brethren. The Virgin Birth, for example, cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort. Likewise, in the Atonement of Jesus the world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross. The Christian, on the other hand, sees there the great miracle of Redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind – an unspeakably sublime miracle, yet who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it? In fact, the disciples (with the possible exception of St. John, the only one present) didn’t even know what was happening at the time.

Baptism, according to most Christians, imparts real grace of some sort to those who receive it. But this is rarely evident or tangible, especially in infants. Lastly, the Incarnation itself was not able to be perceived as an outward miracle, though it might be considered the most incredible miracle ever. Jesus appeared as a man like any other man. He ate, drank, slept, had to wash, experienced emotion, suffered, etc. He performed miracles and foretold the future, and ultimately raised Himself from the dead, and ascended into heaven in full view, but the Incarnation – strictly viewed in and of itself -, was not visible or manifest in the tangible, concrete way to which Herr Zwingli seems to foolishly think God would or must restrict Himself.

To summarize, Jesus looked, felt, and sounded like a man; no one but those possessing faith would know (from simply observing Him) that He was also God, an uncreated Person who had made everything upon which He stood, who was the Sovereign and Judge of every man with whom He came in contact (and also of those He never met). Therefore, Zwingli’s argument proves too much and must be rejected. If the Eucharist is abolished by this supposed “biblical reasoning,” then the Incarnation (and by implication, the Trinity) must be discarded along with it.

Besides all that, did not Jesus habitually call us on to a more sublime faith? For instance, in Matthew 12:38-39, Jesus had one of His frequent run-ins with the Pharisees, who requested of Him:

Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’

(cf. Matthew 16:1-4, Luke 11:29-30, John 2:18-22; NRSV)

Note that He does implicitly appeal to the sign of His Resurrection, but look how He regards the seeking of signs! (see also Mark 8:11-12). In fact, in the eucharistic passage of John 6 our Lord Jesus seems to emphasize the same point by the thrust of His dialogue. He mentions “signs” in 6:26 in reference to the feeding of the five thousand the previous day, but then when they ask Him for a “sign” (6:30), He spurs them on to the more profound faith required with regard to the eucharistic miracle.

Furthermore, we have the example of Doubting Thomas (John 20:24-29). Jesus appeared to Thomas, after His Resurrection, apparently for the express purpose of demonstrating graphically to him that He was raised from the dead. But then what does He say?:

Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.

Signs, wonders, and miracles (that is, in the empirical, outward sense which Zwingli demands for the Eucharist) do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:

. . . If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

(Luke 16:31)

For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles……For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

(1 Corinthians 1:22-23,25)

Likewise, when He was explaining the Eucharist, Jesus said:

Does this offend you?. . . among you there are some who do not believe . . .

(John 6:61,64)

This is why Jesus merely reiterated His teaching in John 6 in ever-more forceful terms, rather than explain it in a different way, or reveal the meaning of the alleged symbolic language, as many Protestants would have it. He repeated it because He knew that the problem was flat-out unbelief, not lack of comprehension. The Eucharist is no less “foolish” than Christ crucified. People will disbelieve both because they are difficult to grasp with the natural mind, whereas the mind of faith can see and believe them. Romano Guardini, the great Catholic writer, stated about John 6:

Should they have understood? Hardly. It is inconceivable that at any time anyone could have grasped intellectually the meaning of these words. But they should have believed. They should have clung to Christ blindly, wherever he led them . . . and simply said: we do not understand; show us what you mean. Instead they judge, and
everything closes to them.

(The Lord, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954, 206)

Jesus could walk through walls after His Resurrection (John 20:26), and even a mere man, Philip, could be “caught away” and transported to another place by God (Acts 8:39-40). So Zwingli, and Protestants who follow his reasoning, think God “couldn’t” or “wouldn’t” have performed the miracle of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation (which means, literally, “change of substance”)? I don’t find this line of thought convincing in the least, and no one should rashly attempt to “tie” God’s hands by such arguments of alleged implausibility. The fact remains that God clearly can perform any miracle He so chooses.

Many Christian beliefs require a great deal of faith, even relatively “blind” faith. Protestants manage to believe in a number of such doctrines (such as the Trinity, God’s eternal existence, omnipotence, angels, the power of prayer, instantaneous justification, the Second Coming, etc.). Why should the Real Presence be singled out for excessive skepticism and unchecked rationalism? I contend that it is due to a preconceived bias against both sacramentalism and matter as a conveyor of grace, which hearkens back to the heresies of Docetism and even Gnosticism, which looked down upon matter, and regarded spirit as inherently superior to matter (following Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism).

The ancient heresy of Docetism held that the sufferings of Christ were apparent rather than real. It is thought by many (based on St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies, 3,11,1, and Eusebius: Church History, 3,28,6) that St. John wrote his Gospel with his Gnostic/Docetic opponent, one Cerinthus (fl. 100 A.D.), in mind, thus accounting for his strong emphasis on Jesus’ “flesh” and “blood” – as in John 6. Many Protestants believe that the Eucharist is apparent and not real. But the Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation of Christ, just as the Church is (most obviously seen in Paul’s title of the “Body of Christ”). A denial of the Real Presence might, therefore, be regarded as an anti-incarnational strain of thought.

The prior Catholic assumption of sacramentalism (which lies behind the Real Presence) has a sound biblical basis. The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! All created matter was “good” in God’s opinion from the start (Genesis 1:25). Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn’t deny the goodness of matter per se, but then – that being the case – their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling.

This pervasive anti-eucharistic bias smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim belief that the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist. For them God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. “Coulda woulda shoulda” theology is not biblical theology. Every Christian exercises faith in things which are very difficult to grasp with the natural mind, because they are revealed to be true by God in the Bible. I have attempted to show why I think Protestants inconsistently require a higher criterion of “proof” where the Holy Eucharist is concerned.

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the “Body” of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:22-3, 5:30). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was “persecuted” by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5). Baptism confers regeneration: Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21 (cf. Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-4), 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5. Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Matthew 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (John 9:5 ff., Mark 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (John 9:7). Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (James 5:14). Then there is the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6), and for healing (Mark 6:5, Luke 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21) – which is – incidentally – a biblical proof text for relics.

No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, “pagan” spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in what continues to appear as bread and wine, once consecrated. If Protestants wish to argue against the Real Presence, they must do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones.

The classic biblical texts which Catholics utilize in support of their position are John 6:47-66, Luke 22:19-20 (cf. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24), 1 Corinthians 10:16, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30. Zwingli attacks each of these in turn, but with invalid and insubstantial reasoning such as that seen above, spawned from the same false premises and unbiblical philosophical assumptions. I shall now briefly explain why I believe that the standard Protestant objections (following Zwingli) to all these proof texts fail.

As for John 6 and Jesus repeatedly commanding the hearers to “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” it is known that such metaphors were synonymous with doing someone grievous injury, in the Jewish mind at that time (see, e.g., Job 19:22, Psalms 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3, Revelation 16:6). Therefore, it isn’t plausible to assert that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, according to the standard Protestant hermeneutic of interpreting Scripture in light of the contemporary usages and customs and idioms. We Catholics are often accused of reading our own prior beliefs into the biblical texts, – of special pleading, as it were. With regard to the present question, I submit that non-sacramental Protestants are the ones committing that error.

When His hearers didn’t understand what He was saying, the Lord always explained it more fully (e.g., Matthew 19:24-26, John 11:11-14, 8:32-34; cf. 4:31-34, 8:21-23). But when they refused to accept some teaching, He merely repeated it with more emphasis (e.g., Matthew 9:2-7, John 8:56-58). By analogy, then, we conclude that John 6 was an instance of willful rejection (see John 6:63-65; cf. Matthew 13:10-23). Only here in the New Testament do we see followers of Christ abandoning Him for theological reasons (John 6:66). Surely, if their exodus was due to a simple misunderstanding, Jesus would have rectified their miscomprehension. But He did no such thing. Quite the contrary; He continually repeated the same teaching, using even stronger terms (as indicated by different terms in the Greek New Testament). All of this squares with the Catholic interpretation, and is inconsistent with a symbolic exegesis.

Furthermore, Protestants often (ironically) interpret John 6:63 literally, when in fact it was intended metaphorically:

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (RSV)

Protestants claim that this establishes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the whole discourse. What they fail to realize is that when the words “flesh” and “spirit” are opposed to each other in the New Testament, it is always a figurative use, in the sense of sinful human nature (“flesh”) contrasted with humanity enriched by God’s grace (“spirit”). This can be clearly seen in passages such as Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Galatians 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26, and 1 Peter 3:18, 4:6. In other words, Jesus is saying that His words can only be received by men endowed with supernatural grace. Those who interpret them in a wooden, carnal way (equating His teaching here with a sort of gross cannibalism) are way off the mark.

Likewise, in the Last Supper passages (Luke 22:19-20; cf. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24), nothing in the actual text supports a metaphorical interpretation. When the word “is” is meant to be figurative, it is readily apparent (Matthew 13:38, John 10:7, 15:1, 1 Corinthians 10:4), whereas here it is not. The Last Supper was the Jewish feast of Passover, which involved a sacrificial lamb. The disciples could hardly have missed the significance of what Jesus was saying. Before and after this passage, He spoke of His imminent suffering (Luke 22:15-16,18,21-22). John the Baptist had already referred to Him as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29).

The two Pauline eucharistic passages (1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-30) are also on their face intended quite literally. How can one be guilty of profaning the “body and blood of the Lord” by engaging in a merely symbolic act (1 Corinthians 11:27)? Furthermore, the whole thrust of the contextual passage of 1 Corinthians 10: 14-22 is to contrast Christian eucharistic sacrifice with pagan sacrifice. St. Paul writes in 10:18:

Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

He had just stated two verses earlier,

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

As the Jewish sacrifices were literal and not symbolic, so is the Christian Sacrifice of the Mass – this is the entire thrust of Paul’s argument. Following this line of analogical thought, Paul contrasts the pagan “sacrifice” to the Christian one (10:19-20), and the pagan “table of demons” to the “table [i.e., altar] of the Lord” (10:21). It is inescapable. The Catholic literal interpretation requires no twisting of the text into preconceived notions (which is called “eisegesis”).

In conclusion, let’s take a moment to look at the actual nature of what occurs in the miracle of transubstantiation. The fully-developed Catholic doctrine drew upon the Aristotelian philosophical categories of “substance” and “accidents” (even though the kernels of the notion of a more undefined Real Presence – and even of transformation – were there all along in Christian Tradition). “Accidental” change occurs when non-essential outward properties are changed in some fashion. For example, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and vapor (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. “Substantial” change, on the other hand, produces something entirely different. One example would be the metabolism of food, which literally becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes brought about by digestion. In our everyday, natural experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transformation of accidents, or properties.

But the Eucharist is a supernatural transformation, in which substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is what requires faith, and what causes many to stumble, because it is a miracle of a very sophisticated nature, not amenable to empirical or scientific “proof.” But in a sense, it is no more difficult to believe than the changing of water to ice, in which the accidents change, while the substance (molecular structure) doesn’t. The Eucharist merely involves the opposite scenario: the substance changes while the accidents don’t. Can anyone reasonably contend that one process is any more intrinsically implausible than the other, where an omnipotent God – particularly One who took on human flesh and became Man – is concerned?

Jesus, after His Resurrection, could walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can the Real Presence be regarded as impossible or implausible by many Protestants, who accept numerous other supernatural and mysterious events in Christian theology? We have seen the strong biblical indications of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and also the equally compelling historical record of the Church for 1500 years, prior to Protestantism. We have even delved into some philosophical background and influences, and related theological ones, such as the Incarnation and sacramentalism. All of these point to the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Blessed  John Henry Cardinal Newman, a truly towering intellect, whom few would accuse of being unreasonable, gullible, or philosophically naive, put it this way, and with this I shall conclude:

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant – but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot, indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, ‘ Why should it not be? What’s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all.’

(Apologia pro vita Sua, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956; originally 1864; 318: part 7: “General Answer to Mr. Kingsley”)

 

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
National Lottery Day: Is Gambling a Sin?
Heartland or Mesoamerica?
Accepting the Easy Task
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #5: “Apocrypha” 5: Fathers
Saying Farewell to a Longtime Friend? (I Hope...
Review: "Superman" Soars with Heroism, Humor, and Compassion
view all Family blogs