NO, Yonathan Adler does NOT "over-egg it" on his magisterial new study of the origin of Jewish beliefs and praxis. (Said person is a good commenter on Aussie politics, though.)
Fortunately, several people set straight this poster's presumption that Pauline influences aren't in the gospels.
Also, in this piece? I'm more leery of Tom Dykstra than that, though nothing about Mark's Chapter 4 parables impinges on Jesus mythicism, I'll note. OTOH, per my link, one of Dykstra's pieces I criticized was him talking about sources in Mark. (And link rot says it's gone.)
And, linking to the Westar Institute's blog, and also to a decade-old book from its Acts Seminar? Interesting.
Also interesting? Several of the people on his blogroll haven't posted anything in years. One won't load and ergo is presumably defunct. (That said, I got the new Ehrman review from a site that is still posting fresh stuff.) Another blocked me for whatever reason, not human blocking, but internet-mechanical blocking; it said I was blocked. James McGrath? On the conservative side of critical scholarship indeed; I've tangled with him about the origins of the Eucharist and other things.
I don't think Davidson is a mythicist himself. I can't even say that he's a secularist. He is studious when he writes, and in much depth. I don't know that he's explained why.
This is not against the U.S. Religious Right, mainly Christian, but with a few Orthodox Jews along for the ride, and even, for political reasons, a few Muslims.
This is against the Religious Center and Left, as well as Right, of all religious traditions that believe in praying to a god(dess) to get him/her to change their minds.
Via Tales of Whoa, who says (rightfully) that even within the world of religiosity, with the Western dual-omni god, at least, this is one that doesn't make ANY sense, we have this in-depth research test.
It checks all the scientific boxes:
Remote
Random
Double-blinded.
People were asked to pray for COVID patients' recoveries. And it made no difference.
Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Summary details:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of intercessory prayer performed by a group of spiritual leaders on the health outcomes of hospitalized patients with Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection, specifically focusing on mortality and hospitalization rates. Design: This was a double-blinded, controlled, and randomized trial conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Interventions: Both groups continued to receive their usual medical care in accordance with HCor Hospital's institutional patient care protocol for COVID-19 patients. Intervention: Both groups received their regular medical care according to HCor's institutional patient care protocol for COVID-19 patients. The intervention group, in addition to standard treatment, received intercessory prayers performed by a group of spiritual leaders. Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included the need for mechanical ventilation during hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay. Results: A total of 199 participants were randomly assigned to the groups. The primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, occurred in 8 out of 100 (8.0 %) patients in the intercessory prayer group and 8 out of 99 (8.1 %) patients in the control group (HR 0.86 [0.32 to 2.31]; p = 0.76). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The study found no evidence of an effect of intercessory prayer on the primary outcome of mortality or on the secondary outcomes of hospitalization time, ICU time, and mechanical ventilation time.
A total of 199 patients is relatively robust, too, at least partially undercutting "small sample size" claims.
As for the theology, philosophy of religion and related?
This issue hits home hardest with the classical Western monotheisms, post-early Jewish contact with Greek philosophy. In other words, the "dual-omni" god, as I call him, both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
But, this critter doesn't even have to be omnibenevolent. Only the first omni is really in play, as long as omniscience is understood as a subset of omnipotence.
So, you have a deity who already knows what is going to happen because, and in addition to he (she, it) having already created things to happen and play out that way. And yet, you're praying for him to change his mind.
After all, the Torah records Moses himself as saying, in Numbers 23:19:
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.
There you go.
BUT?!
After the Great Flood, when Yahweh smells Noah's burnt offering, although Genesis 8:21 doesn't use the actual word, he is said to have "repented" of what he did. Of course, before that, in Genesis 6:6, he "repented" of having created human beings in the first place, and there, the Hebrew word is used.
Beyond that, in Genesis 8, Yahweh is just as much quasi-human as Zeus, as he "repents" precisely because he SMELLS Noah's burnt offering.
Fact is, of course, as this illustrates, there is no theology of the Bible, or of the Tanakh or New Testament. Nor even of individual books that have gone through multiple writing and editorial hands.
Of course, there is, in Isaiah, the passage, II Kings 20, when Hezekiah is told that his illness will kill him and he prays and gets 15 more years of life.
I guess believers in an omnipotent god could say this was his own plan all along and he just didn't make that clear. In other words, per Job as filtered through Paul in Romans, this is god's inscrutability and y'all on earth just need to shut up.
Well, as I have called it, that's the psychological division of the problem of evil, so you just opened a bigger can of worms. And, per what started us off? The more liberally religious, at least in Christianity, as well as the wingnuts, ultimately go there.
Or, also among the semi-liberal theologically, but something also used by religious fundamentalists there's C.S. Lewis, whose essay "Does Prayer Work" Tales of Whoa cites. Lewis says, in essence, that in a scientific test mode, this isn't real prayer. Gee, don't we have psi phenomena people claim exactly the same when telekinesis, etc., are subjected to scientific testing?
But, Lewis and the wingnuts are wrong anyway, as the study allowed for exactly that:
The intercessors consisted of Protestant religious leaders who were selected based on their faith, availability, and commitment to daily prayers for a specific period. They were volunteers from Protestant congregations across various cities and denominations. The theological knowledge of each intercessor could not be objectively evaluated, but their voluntary participation and shared belief in the efficacy of prayer for the sick were significant factors in their selection.
Your last door is closed.
I've called out Hudson before for his apparent belief that the biblical year of jubilee, or the seven-cycle culmination of sabbath years with an extra year to make 50, was actually real. The truth is that, as Edward Chancellor details in "The Price of Time," kings in the ancient Near East (anachronism, but still often used) would occasionally, upon their accession, have a debt jubilee, but only then, and only for certain types of debt. And, the reason they did them was not because of divine mandate but (derp!) to quell social unrest. It was a one-off of Rome's bread and circuses. No ancient kingdom or empire had anything like the biblical ideal, and the 7x7 numerological artifice should alone indicate this isn't real.
But, Hudson still thinks he's an academic biblical exegete, and his latest proffering (link is to Counterpunch, but it's also at Naked Capitalism, and problably Alternet, TruthOut or other places) is based on the current Israel-Gaza war. Many people, not just academically trained (if not in actual academia, like me) exegetes, but people in the general populace, know about I Samuel 15, where Yahweh orders Saul to commit a holocaust (I used that word specifically, not just "genocide," precisely because of the current situation) against Amalek, the Amalekite people. In fact, via the prophet or judge Samuel, Yahweh tells King Saul to kill not just all the people but even all their livestock.
Hudson, perhaps in part acting Jesuitically or Pharasaically (take your linguistic poison) on parsing the verbiage, claims it ain't so:
Netanyahu has evoked what he claims to be a Biblical excuse for Israeli genocide. But what he pretends to be a covenant in the tradition of Moses is a vicious demand by the judge and grey eminence Samuel telling Saul, the general whom he hopes to make king: “Now go and smite Amalek [an enemy of Israel], and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” (1 Samuel 15:3).
These were not the Lord’s own words, and Samuel was no Moses.
Really?
Let's quote the start of 1 Samuel 15, specifically, verses 1-3, not just verse 3:
And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
’Tis so indeed, Hudson.
But wait! Hudson gets better:
It was not the Lord offering that command to destroy Amalek, but a prophet anxious to place a king on the throne.
Really?
So, in essence, Hudson is calling Samuel a false prophet. And, lying
about the run-up to Saul being anointed on top of it.
That also ’taint so, as selected verses from 1 Samuel 9 and 10 tell us. We start with 9:15-16:
15 Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed to Samuel: 16 “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince[c] over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have seen[d] my people, because their cry has come to me.”
Then to chapter 10: 1-2:
Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, “Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince[a] over his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their surrounding enemies. And this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you to be prince[b] over his heritage.
Now, later in chapter 10, in what is surely another "hand," we have this, in 10:17-19:
17 Now Samuel called the people together to the Lord at Mizpah. 18 And he said to the people of Israel, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.’ 19 But today you have rejected your God, who saves you from all your calamities and your distresses, and you have said to him, ‘Set a king over us.’ Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your thousands.”
This is preceded by another "bookmark," the full chapter of 1 Samuel 8, also having Yahweh telling Samuel it's the people's fault, not his. But, opening verses there show this was partially Samuel's fault that the people wanted a king. We read in 8: 1-5:
When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah 5 and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
So, it seems clear there are two narratives. Chapter 9 and the first half of 10 have an enthusiastic embrace of a king, it seems, sandwiched between warnings. Proof of this? A bad transition from from the end of 8 to start of 9. 8:22 has:
And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”
Followed by 9:1-2:
There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth. 2 And he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man.
But it gets better. 9:15-16 says:
15 Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed to Samuel: 16 “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince[c] over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have seen[d] my people, because their cry has come to me.”
Note
the footnote there, that Saul here is not called "king." That's another
example we're dealing with two hands. Indeed, one thread appears to end
at 1 Samuel 12 with Samuel's death, with him missing entirely in chapters 13-14 before popping up again in chapter 15. Somewhat Joshua, but definitely,
Judges and the two books of Samuel of the Former Prophets, as shown in
various Greek versions and also at Qumran, have a torturous history.
I Samuel 13:1, Masoretic Text version:
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel
Is proof positive of this torturous history.
The positive thread starts Chapter 10, then, as noted above.
Clearly,
the previous narrative not only has Samuel being told by Yahweh to
anoint Saul, but it being presented as a good thing in Yahweh's eyes,
overall.
But, Hudson nowhere at all wrestles with how this evolved.
Also, contra Hudson, in neither of the two threads (setting aside the possibility there were originally more than two) does it say that Samuel wanted Saul to be king. That's Goalpost Shifting 101. Also, Saul is not mentioned as being a general when crowned. In I Samuel 9-10, he's simply a young man looking for lost donkeys.
The rest of Hudson's piece is more crapola.
He is clueless about just how torturous the text-developmental history of 1 and 2 Samuel in general were, first of all. Second, whether Saul was a real person or not, or even David, for that matter, later kings who perceived themselves as David's heirs needed to in some way justify what seemed to be a usurpation.
Next, Hudson gets on his debt hobbyhorse:
The Jewish Bible is remarkable in criticizing the kings who ruled Judah and Israel. It is in fact a long narrative of social revolution, in which religious leaders sought – often successfully – to check the power of a selfish and aggressive oligarchy that was denounced again and again for its greed in impoverishing the poor, taking their land and reducing them to debt bondage.
’Taint so, Michael.
First, there is no "theology of the Tanakh" any more than there is a "theology
of the New Testament." And, given the torturous history of 1 Samuel in
particular and all four of the Former Prophets/Deuteronomic history in
general, there's no unifying theology of the four books, or even the one
book. As for him citing Ezra in that piece? That was the same Ezra who commanded IMMEDIATE divorce of non-Jewish wives.
As I said on Twitter, Hudson needs to talk to a good modern exegete of the Tanakh, say an Idan Dershowitz, before writing any more dreck like this.
(Sidebar: If Hudson does want to go hunting for a background to the issue
of debt that stands on better ground than his attempt to base it on
biblical jubilee years? Per comments by David Graeber
in "Debt," it's the old hunter-gatherer world he needs to look at, and,
like the Inuit, preferably looking at a hunter-gatherer world with
limited interaction with the agriculturalist world. The fact that he
doesn't, along with this, reinforces my thought that he is in part
acting as an apologist for Judaism as seen through certain eyeballs, as a
"good" Jewish socialist Trot would do.)
As for his attempting to rescue Judaism from the Jews? He reminds me of Walter Kaufmann. Kaufmann had the exact same problem of pontificating about biblical Yahwism without talking to actual scholars.
Beyond that, I've called out politicizing biblical criticism many, many times on this site.
The biggie? Apparent politicization of biblical archaeology, namely in attempting to prove an early-age kingdom of Edom existed, and that in the name of modern Zionism, naturally.
More recently, on the r/AcademicBiblical subreddit, there was what I called "goysplaining," Gentiles (I presume) attacking a comment with a quote from Amy-Jill Levine saying there are things in the Talmud Jews DO need to be apologetic about. Elsewhere, there, commenters plumping for a historic King David, in the service of modern Zionism, too.
Beyond that, there's the whole question of Jewish identity, which I discussed in detail in my review of Shlomo Sands' book.
Appromimately a year ago, Dallas-Fort Worth's (actually Denton's) National Public Radio station, KERA, took over management of Dallas' classical music station, WRR, which remained under official ownership of the city of Dallas.
A number of changes happened. The biggest one was cutting the amount of syndicated programs on the playlist, either replacing them with straight individual music or less expensive syndication.
A number of changes were cosmetic. The website switched from a ".com" to a ".org." Advertisers became sponsors. An addition, in line with this and the NPR background, is quarterly pledge drives.
Some changes were totally for the good, such as getting rid of the Sunday church service broadcasts I charge were a violation of the First Amendment.
But, related to that, one thing hasn't changed at all, and that's the reason WRR will be unlistened to this December, as in years past.
That is the high-octane of Christmas music, whether classical chorale works by Bach, related works by various composers such as Glorias and Magnificats, or classical-styled versions of Christmas carols. Blech.
So, listen instead to a good old Saturnalia classic along with me instead:
You'll thank me later.
Or, try this suggestion for non-vocal Saturnalia meditation.
Again, you'll thank me later.
Update, Feb. 23, 2024: I will give them credit for one thing I don't think I've heard before — Chinese-themed classical music for Chinese New Year.
The best parts of the piece are two, in my opinion.
The first is, contra Gnu Atheists, this:
They’re the atheists, the agnostics, the “nothing in particular.” Many are “spiritual but not religious,” and some are neither or both. They span class, gender, age, race and ethnicity.
Reinforced by this from Pastor Ryan Burge, a religious scholar and, if you will, a scholar of the Nones with a book on them:
“All the media attention is on atheists and agnostics, when most nones are not atheist or agnostic,” Burge said.
Many embrace a range of spiritual beliefs — from God, prayer and heaven to karma, reincarnation, astrology or energy in crystals.
“They are definitely not as turned off to religion as atheists and agnostics are,” Burge said. “They practice their own type of spirituality, many of them.”
That goes on to mention a "higher power," New Agey type beliefs, etc. Or the Twelve-Step movement (although the piece ignores that, in re First Amendment, courts have ruled than AA and NA are religious, and that, if you want to go to an AA meeting as a proclaimed atheist, you'll get a fight).
The piece doesn't go into this much, but for me, the issue of why Gnus try to claim all these people has two channels. I think some "person on the street" type Gnus believe all these people are either atheists or potential atheists just waiting to be deconverted. But, that's being charitable. I know that Gnu thought leaders have long known the reality, and just like Freedom From Religion Foundation wrongly claiming Abe Lincoln was an atheist, it's all about a movement. Claim famous people that aren't true, or else claim movement numbers that aren't true.
In other words, hypocrisy.
Speaking of? That is one of two things that have led most Nones to reject organized religion, the story notes. The other? Money-grubbing. (Gnus aren't total strangers to that one, either.)
That said, the Nones are real, and Christians, especially thought leaders, ignore them at their own religious peril. Burge knows:
“This is not just some academic exercise for me,” said Burge, who pastors a dwindling American Baptist church in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. It’s “what I’ve seen every single Sunday of my life the last 16 years.”
Catholics? Declining as fast as old mainline Protestants. Fundagelicals may not be declining as fast, but they are, too. Look at the Southern Baptist Convention. Independent megachurches are just stealing from denominations like them.
And, it's not just a big-city deal. Mount Vernon is a small town, and the piece ends with noting that Nones are growing in even smaller places.
His Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor from Illinois, the Revvvvvvv. (Rush Limbaugh voice, political wingnuts) Stephen C. Lee, one of Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis' "Dirty 19" indictees, and the smallest fish in the overall tank NOT to cop a plea, is back in the news in this New York Time profile of his recent activities.
Making the reasonable assumption that he's guilty (he's clearly guilty of stalking the election worker, at a minimum), I'm sure LCMS President Matthew Harrison wishes he would indeed cop a plea.
That said, knowing the LCMS and its standoffishness within the world of conservative mainline Protestantism, what probably cheeses Harrison — and even more, the people in positions of theological big stole swinging to his right — even more than that is him appearing at some EEEEvangelical church in metro Chicago. If Lee prayed before or with people there as part of an official religious event, that could give Matty the excuse to crack down on him without the hard right being able to lay a theological or church-political glove on him without hypocrisy. I don't know if that happened, but the congregation DID "bless Lee," the story said. Matty's got a theological case IF he wants to pursue it.
Ditto, if he gave appearance of being an LCMS pastor in his 2021 endorsement of Trumpian Congresscritter candidate Jim Marder. That said, Matty's probably too weaselshit to pursue that angle if Lee did indeed do this. (Although I may be wrong. That said, it would be weaselshit to pursue this angle ahead of the angle of him politicizing his call, which he has clearly done, whether found legally guilty of the charges against him or not — and also, whether found civilly liable in the lawsuit against him or not.)
As for Lee, or more precisely, his legal beagle David Shestokas, who apparently didn't let the Times interview his client? First, the claim that he was wanting to counsel Ruby Freeman, as "pastoral activities," in the face of the hassling she'd already been facing is so laughable it's not even high-grade bullshit, it's back shelf bullshit.
As for this claim that this wasn't coordinated with any of the other Devils Who Went Down to Georgia (I see what I did, late, unlamented wingnut Charlie Daniels), how would he know to seek out Harrison Floyd, leader of Black Voices for Trump, if he wasn't at a minimum "connected"? (Willis' office trying to prove coordination, not just connection, might be tougher.) A reporter asked just that question, and Shetokas gave a non-answer.
Finally, I don't know what Lee's White ethnic background is, but within Whites, German-Americans broke harder for Trump than any other White ethnic group. Yes, more than Scotch-Irish of Southern stereotype.
Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Public Health Threat by Derek Beres
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
Ultimately, a mini-memoir rather than a sweeping observation, and simply wrong on all New Age conspiracy thinking coming from wingnuts.
Not bad but not new, other than the new name, the priority of which is disputed by a musician whose Twitter account reflects to a T ideas in this book — wingnuttery, conspiracy thinking, and appropriation of American Indian imagery.
Back to the “not new.” As I told two of the three authors on Twitter, this is to fair degree a narrow version of something I wrote about several years ago, how conspiracy theories are the new Gnosticism. Writing before Trump and COVID, the only thing I didn’t cover is a riff on Naomi Klein’s “Disaster Capitalism” to cover the money behind the new Gnosticism. The folks even mention “hermetic” near the end, but don’t tie things together to the degree they could.
Otherwise, the merger of New Ageism and right-wing authoritarianism is not a surprise, even if the book kind of presents it that way. Authoritarian gurus have been here in the US for 50 years. And, given the quasi-libertarian angle of much New Ageism, it shouldn’t be a surprise this authoritarianism is often winger. Quite possibly majority winger. But by no means only so.
Next? The authors dismiss with a rhetorical trope the number of left-wing conspiracy thinkers. Having been a Green Party voter for years, on things like 5G and antivaxxerism, I think they’re very much wrong. Of course, I also see a narrowness to their focus by this point in the book.
(The "spoiler" isn't so much that, as I've given the big picture, with the conclusion below, as it it the more extensive "receipts" supporting the conclusion.)
(view spoiler)
Kudos to the three for discussing their personal histories early on. But that’s the entire basis of the book — their personal histories, not a broad overview of New Ageism.
And, in fact, the skeptical self suspects, reading between lines, that they're gaslighting themselves on the claim that modern New Ageism is all wingnut. The one explicit "Jungian" reference, plus two "archetype" references I saw (and could have missed others, the amount I grokked, skimmed and outrightly skipped in the last half of the book) makes me think they're all earnest, left-of-center, and at least open to Jungianism. None strikes me as a Skeptics™"scientific skeptic," let alone a broader philosophical one. You will find "critical thinking" referenced in the conclusion, but neither variety of skepticism is mentioned anywhere.
I do note in the spoiler the short chapters come off as podcast episodic in length. And, speaking of that, I don't have much more need to listen to their podcast than I need to listen to the video of "History for Atheists" Tim O'Neill.
View all my reviews
An area Catholic high school had an alumna "cheer-off" for homecoming recently. Groups of classes across decades performed at halftime to various dance tunes.
One group had "Everybody Dance Now" chosen by the organizer.
THAT "Everybody Dance Now."
To refresh you on the lyrics:
And I'm here to combine
Beats and lyrics to make your shake your pants
Take a chance, come on and dance
Guys grab a girl, don't wait, make her twirl
It's your world and I'm just a squirrel
Tryna get a nut to move your butt
There you go.
Duck Duck Go even had a suggestion for "Everybody Dance Now clean lyrics" when I was searching.
OK, now it's possible the school used clean lyrics. It's highly unlikely they went without, but that, like clean lyrics, would itself be a bit of "red-facedness." Or it's possible they played the original straight up.
This person asking how Matthew and Luke could "invent" the birth stories. Not a fundagelical, though. Dutch, not German, apparently. Belongs to a Dutch sub, "gekte," which is "madness" in English.
==
A fundagelical, r/nomenmeum, thought he had a "gotcha"
on Daniel's critical date of composition vs. the date of the
Septuagint. The idiot had to very publicly pull in his horns after being
told that composition date was for the Torah only. (He tried another
Daniel dating "gotcha" just a week or two earlier.
We start with a recent study by Paul Davidson, author of the "Is that in the Bible?" website.
Namely, he ties them to seeming problems in 2 Kings with the regnal dates and heritage of Josiah. This is his Problem 2.
Davidson first notes, as do many lay and academic biblical scholars, that the total of Judahite regnal years vs the actual time span based on external calendrical anchors leaves a surplus. In Davidson's calculations, it's 8 years.
Second, Josiah is made king "by act of the people." And, other than the populace pushing Samuel to give them their first king (but even then, it was Samuel's act after consulting with Yahweh), nothing else like that is in the Bible.
Image: Josiah receiving the book of the law, something that, as we shall see below, almost certainly never happened.
It gets worse, with Josiah's own birth and progeny.
Furthermore, math dictates that Josiah was conceived when his father was only 15. Again, not a biological impossibility, but still quite unlikely.2 The problem is even worse for Josiah’s two oldest sons, who are conceived when Josiah is 13 and 15 years old! (Jehoiakim is 25 when he takes the throne in the same year as Josiah’s death. Josiah died at age 39, meaning Jehoiakim was born when Josiah was 14. By biological necessity, he would have been conceived 10 months earlier.)
There is also significant confusion about who Josiah’s sons were. According to 1 Chronicles 3:15, he had a son Johanan who was born even earlier than Jehoiakim (!), while Jehoahaz (his second-born in 2 Kings) is nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, 1 Esdras 1:32 (v. 34 in some versions) refers to Josiah’s second-born son as Jeconiah, and Jeremiah 22:11 gives his name as Shallum, which is the name of Josiah’s fourth-born son according to Chronicles.
Oy vey indeed!
Problem 3 is the Tower of Hananel.
His solution is the "censored king of Judah," building on previous scholarship.
In 2005, the late Orientalist historian Giovanni Garbini made the remarkable proposition that Judah was briefly ruled by an otherwise unknown Ammonite king named Hananel during the mid-600s BCE, and it was he who built the eponymous Tower of Hananel.
Innnteresting. Garbini goes on to propose that King Amon (note the similarity to Ammon) was that foreign king, eventually booted in a coup, and replaced by Josiah.
Davidson says that still leaves unanswered for certain details of Josiah's death, but it's a good idea.
OK?
I take off from there, courtesy Idan Dershowitz, an up-and-coming Tanakh scholar.
Years before, I had read, and reviewed, "The Lost Book of Moses," about Moses Wilhelm Shapira's 1880s reception of a possibly antique Hebrew scroll, referred to as the Shapira Scroll, covered with bits of bitumen and other things. If this had happened after 1947, or enough after 1947 for the Dead Sea Scrolls to have their antiquity and authenticity established and accepted, Shapira's find would have been glommed onto by scholars. Instead, he was accused of forgery, allegedly proven by cursory examination, and a few years later, committed suicide. Being a converted Jew from eastern Europe probably didn't help him.
But, hold on, says Dershowitz, who in a monograph called "The Valediction of Moses" (PDF) says that Shapira probably found either a direct or indirect predecessor of the canonical Deuteronomy, one that includes only the narrative, not the "book of the law" of modern Deuteronomy 12-26. (Wiki's piece on the scroll references Dershowitz; on Shapira itself, it does not.)
Hold on to that thought.
Relevant to Davidson, Dershowitz notes that "V," as he calls this scroll in shorthand (having done a strong attempt at reconstructing the now-lost original from Shapira's notes) has a different version of the battle with Sihon than canonical Deuteronomy 2. (To tie back to the top of this piece, Deuteronomy's version of the battle with Og king of Bashan, no Balaam, is in the next chapter.) In it, Yahweh has Moses provoke Sihon into war; in V, it's a straight-on attack by Israel. Note: Dershowitz says "Elohim"; in canonical Deuteronomy, it's "Yahweh." This is not "stickyness" over the divine name by Dershowitz, as he uses the consonants YHWH of the Tetragrammaton himself; rather, in passages that are directly parallel, Shapira doesn't have Yahweh. The bigger issue is that Yahweh, not Elohim, is who is the actor throughout canonical Deuteronomy.
As I see it, there are four possibilities, off the top of my head:
How likely are each of these?
I'll dismiss 3 right away. Writing out the name is not a problem on Torah scrolls, and besides, a forger wouldn't have scruples.
No. 2? I don't know enough about Shapira's religiosity to offer any "Bayesian probability." Take that, Mark Carrier. I don't think that's highly likely, though, especially given further background, in the following paragraph.
So 1 vs. 4 is where we're at. Without explaining why V uses Elohim, Dershowitz does say that, in canonical Deuteronomy, the insertion of the law code would have meant rewriting Deuteronomy 2 into current form so that Moses doesn't violate the laws of war in Deuteronomy 20. Otherwise, on the name, he says that "V" shows no use of P or P-like material.
How likely is Dershowitz's claim, by the way? At academia-lite, Biblical Archaeology Review, Jonathan Klawans, without calling Shapira the forger, says it's possible he was, and if not, somebody else, indicates that "V" is too Christianizing, and thus can't be authentic. BAR's founder, lawyer and James Ossuary grifter Hershel Shanks, stated this more firmly, jumping with both feet 20 years ago, long before Dershowitz. (Being a converted Jew probably didn't help Shapira again.)
Dershowitz goes on from the Sihon pericope to note that the incipit V has of Dt. 1, far shorter than canonical Deuteronomy, reflects a reconstructed proto-Deuteronomy broached by other scholars, but not in today's version until decades after Shapira got the scrolls and not at all until a few years later.
Next, he directly addresses Klawans' and Shanks' complaints about V's version of the Decalogue, the Divarim. He notes that there are several places with "intertexts" of the Commandments that parallel at least in part V's version. The closest is Leviticus 19, and it totally blows up the objections.
So, as a working hypothesis, let us assume Dershowitz is correct.
This ties back to Davidson.
Under this theory, the narrative sections, Deuteronomy 1-11 and 27-32, are the original, and the priestly-like law code of Dt. 12-26, a later, and intrusive, insertion. (It interrupts the Ebal and Gerizim narrative.)
For traditional critical scholarship, per this piece,* this means that Dt 12-26 almost certainly could not have been "the book of the law" magically uncovered soon after "an act of the people" put Josiah on the throne. Under the Dershowitz timeline, Dt 12-26 is certainly exilic and possibly to probably post-exilic. (He promises a future book on Dt's composition.)
He wraps up with comparing V and canonical Dt on the Ebal-Gerizim narrative and finds a few interesting differences.
This does leave one item up in the air. And, that is, why does Shapira's proto-Dt. end with Deuteronomy 11 and not the second half of the narrative material, the Former Prophets material if you will. I hope it's something he tackles in his promised book on Deuteronomy.
==
* Piece at this link is cited only for illustrative purposes. I think Russell Gmirkin's idea that the Greek LXX and Hebrew Torah in the current form were written simultaneously in Alexandria, with a core of history behind Aristeas' letter, is laughable. It's based on a strawmanning version of the documentary hypothesis, first, and second, even if Gmirkin IS right on that, his solution is not one. A whole series at Vridar devoted to Gmirkin leaves me no more convinced. Some of his ideas are easily dealt with.
Why is their no attestation earlier in Greek sources of the Torah? No Jewish diaspora, for starters. And, as a JTS review of his book notes, he simply ignores apparent references in Isaiah and elsewhere to the Torah. Weirdly, per this savaging Amazon review, Gmirkin at the same time, via Manetho etc., seems to believe there was a literal Exodus. Another 1-star review suggests an earlier translation into Greek of an earlier extant Torah addresses many of Gnirkin's claims.
And, this may expand into a separate post.
And, thoughts and claims like what Robert Sapolsky is apparently putting into a new book show why, scientism-peddling scientists aside, science still needs philosophy.
I've long said "mu" to the issue of "free will VERSUS determinism," and have gone beyond even that with the wonderful insights of the late psychologist Daniel Wegner, on "The Illusion of Conscious Will."
Just because conscious will is an illusion doesn't mean that determinism is the only counter-answer. That's why I said mu so many times years ago, and also why, per Idries Shah (a philosopher!) this is clearly an issue with more than two sides.
And, specifically, what Sapolsky is talking about is what I've called psychological constraint. It's no more deterministic than our genes are, and an evolutionary biologist knows our genes aren't determinist. Yes, bad childhoods on average, per sociological survey, means that the average person with a bad childhood is more likely to become an addict or whatever. It doesn't at all mean they're predestined for that. It also ignores, as I discuss here, just what words like "agency" and "intentionality" mean.
I have read Sapolsky's most recent book before "Determined," "Behave," and noted that it exhibited muddied and muddled thinking, and I have no doubt this is more of the same, and not worth reading. In fact, on that linked review of "Behave," I said then that Sapolsky needed some philosophy. I also said he was getting close to scientism in general and ev psych in particular. I wouldn't be surprised if "Determined" is yet more that way.
To put it another way? As I said long ago on my main blog, "determinism is often simplistic."
Or, and as Sapolsky demonstrates in this Nautilus interview, determinism is often nothing more than a tautology for methodological naturalism, or more, philosophical naturalism or monism (monism in a non-duopoly, materialist-only sense, and not suggesting anything like Leibniz's monads). This alone, contra a Sapolsky or a Stephen Hawking, shows why philosophy is not dead and why scientists need to stop saying that and stop believing that.
It is interesting that, in that piece, both Sapolsky and neuroscience professor, and free willian, Kevin Mitchell, refer to the Libet experiments. See my most recent thoughts on them here. Mitchell also appears to have not read Wegner. And, shock me that Sabine Hossenfelder, who has plenty of "incoherence" herself, attacks free will as being incoherent. Yet more reason to be glad I deblogrolled her on my main site.
Finally, I reject Sapolsky's idea that determinism is something that, essentially, we need to believe in even if it isn't true, for political science and human sociology reasons.
And thus, I continue to say mu on free will vs. determinism.
This is an even more extended version of a Goodreads book review than normal. That’s because, in this case, while I overall still think the novel is a five-star on literary style, there are “issues” behind it.
My original review doesn't have plot spoilers, so you may need to hit the Wiki page for "A Canticle for Leibowitz" to understand why, beyond saluting it as good novelistic writing, I started having a variety of concerns about the author, Walter M. Miller Jr., stacking the deck on the background, or "framing," of the novel.
And, I concluded by moving beyond those initial concerns to some degree of disquiet.
A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr.
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
A damned good book, or so I said in my initial review.
Almost as dystopian as Cormac McCarthy (until the final twists), but without his gratuitous violence in general and gratuitous bloodshed in particular. Possibly deeper in some ways, philosophically. And, per the Wiki pieces on this and Miller personally, reflecting his WWII service as being one of the US bombers that destroyed (probably, though not certainly, unnecessarily) Monte Cassino.
Plot and characters are both good. As are recurring themes. The wordplay in the second part (Fiat Lux), while not on the level of an Umberto Eco, hints in that direction. (I wonder if the name of Leibowitz was in fact such a play.) The "twists" that will later develop can usually be seen in a general way, but not specifically, until you're right there. (A good example of that is Ms. Grales' "second head" Rachel eventually becoming a new Virgin, which I recognized he was getting at right when we got there.)
My only complaint, or bit of perplexion, or something? And, that is that "Lazarus" (a character in both parts 1 and 2, and early in part 3, under various names in the three parts) doesn't make a final appearance somewhere near the end of Part 3. It could be that Miller couldn't figure out how to work him and Rachel both in at the end. (Personally, I would have loved to have seen him as a stowaway on the spaceship.) Or maybe it's a statement by Miller.
And, per Miller's word play, and one last aside on Lazarus? In Part 2, with the two Hebrew phrases, especially the specific way the second riffs on the Shema? I don't know whether Miller intended it or not, but he likely did, with the specific Hebrew word substituted in the Shema riff? Lazarus is also someone else (besides possibly Leibowitz), and that someone else also from the Christian New Testament.
==
A note for friends: If you're not religious in general, and haven't been, you may not even grasp at the meaning of the Latin, and if you don't know Hebrew at all? (The first of the two phrases is translated, the second not.) Have Google Translate ready as needed.
View all my reviews
==
Now, the critique of the backstory.
The biggie is that, if not outrightly stacking the deck, Miller clearly comes down on the side of religion vs. science, and makes it a two-sided battle of religion versus science. The term scientism may not been around in 1959, but that’s arguably what he’s critiquing. (And, by the time I finished this up, if not “stacking the deck,” I’m ready to say he’s putting one, at least, of his two thumbs on the scale.)
First of all, in Part 1, we don’t know enough (in the novel) about the actual Leibowitz to say what exactly he did with nuclear programs. But, that’s minor.
If we’re going to attack science, or even scientism, let us remember that absolutist religion has given us crusades, pogroms and holocausts. Plural. As in, in 1 Samuel, Yahweh telling Saul to commit a holocaust on the Amelekite people and even their livestock. And, it’s not just “western” religions. Think of Buddhism’s 969 Movement in Burma. Or the RSS and Hindutva thought in India.
Second, the miracle of Rachel the teratoma or whatever we shall call her arising from Mrs. Grales? Yet, Miller doesn’t have New Rome trying to move a colony of the Order of Leibowitz from Earth to Alpha Centauri by miracle. Nope, it’s a rocket launch — rockets like those that kicked off both nuclear Armageddons. And, for that matter, there’s no miraculous intervention in either Armageddon.
As for the Tua Voluntas Part 3 “showdown” between Abbot Zerchi and Doctor Cors over the issue of euthanasia? First of all, every religion will soften at the edges, at some point, on some major moral issue. Look at actual Catholicism today vs. times past on suicide. Or it will row its absolutist oar, if deemed necessary, when science challenges. Look at the actual church on abortion and reproduction.
And, in part two, giving the secular scholar Thon Taddeo the last name, auf Deutsch, of "plodding priest" only increases the deck-stacking.
In reality, per Walter Kaufmann, there is no such thing as absolute justice and morals must bend on that, despite Miller sympathetically having Zerchi punch Cors. And, the dying Zerchi thinking that “the battle” was not with pain, but with the fear of pain? His Wiki page notes that Miller committed suicide shortly after the death of his wife, and he reportedly suffered from depression for many years before that, and PTSD over the Monte Cassino bombing. (He had converted to Catholicism after the war, per his own Wiki page.)
There’s also datedness and/or Eurocentric issues. Why not have a “New Lhasa” with Tibetan Buddhism paralleling Catholic Christianity? The primary reason is obvious. "Canticle" is ultimately a paean to the eternal verities of Mother Church.
I will confess that I did not pick up on the Wanderer being “the wandering Jew.” (Wiki's link on the book indicates it is.) The Leibowitz name … “body joke” … may be a pun on that. One wonders, per the Wiki page, if Miller was influenced by Lew Wallace’s “The Prince of India,” where he is the protagonist. That said, that's "interesting" in itself and hold on to that thought.
Page 169, as numbered in the paperback I read, is interesting, with two phrases in Hebrew, but Miller only offering a translation of the first in the book. The second? A riff on the Shema, where I first thought a deliberately corrupted form of Adonai was being substituted for Yahweh, but not true. "Day" (די is Hebrew) for "enough," "sufficient" or "sufficiency," not a shortened Adonai. "Hear, O Israel, sufficiency is our god" ("qoph" used for "he," but Google Translate rendered it as "our god" still, and perhaps it is in modern Hebrew), and sufficiency alone."
A Buddhist riff, or a riff on what Paul was supposedly told, that "my grace is sufficient for you" when he asked for the thorn in the flesh to be removed? After all, the first phrase IS Tents Repaired Here and what did Paul do?
I'm pretty sure it's not a Buddhist riff. In that case, Paul, like Lazarus, is the wandering Jew? But why? I have no idea on Lazarus, but, with Paul, maybe it's to subordinate him to first pope Peter? Even though Peter was also a Jew? The "wandering Jew" reportedly taunted Jesus. This would fit pre-repentance Saul before he became Paul. But Lazarus never taunted him in the first place.
All the other wordplay was easy enough to follow. But, the Paul and Lazarus angles are why I didn't think "Wandering Jew." With Leibowitz himself in Part 1, either the real, or the Wandering Jew, he could be seen as redeeming himself and annuling the curse of wandering by joining the Cistercians, etc. But Paul redeemed himself by repentance on the Damascus Road. And, Lazarus, again, never mocked. But, Miller portrays him as Christ's non-Christian follower, or words to that effect.
That said, there's one big issue here. "The Wandering Jew" is of itself not necessarily anti-Semitic per se; but with some modern writers like George Sylvester Vierick taking it that way, and with Miller writing after World War II but in the shadow of it, it's a literary trope that needs to be handled carefully. And, tying it to Leibowitz as a nuclear physicist sure treads closely to Hitler's "Jewish science" motif.
And, with that, I have my answer to the end of the novel, even if it wasn't Miller's answer. Blastoff is to a new Eden, at least potentially, and Ahasuerus can't be allowed to contaminate it.
As with my main blog, where I do a monthly top 10, not all of these are from the last three months. I'll note there they are not. And most, in fact, are not.
No 10 is from 2021, about Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President Matt Harrison's underhanded closure of Concordia University Portland.
No. 9 is from recently, though: it's about a high-grift tour of the US of the fraudulent, bogus, bullshit "James Ossuary." Actually, the tour is only here in Tex-ass right now.
No. 8? My 2019 review of Lyndal Roper's Luther bio. (It is near Reformation Day, where conservative Lutherans turn into pumpkins if they see a shadow of Luther legend refuted.)
Speaking of? At No. 7, my 2017 roundup of Luther legend.
If an underhanded closure of a university wasn't enough, at No. 6 Matty Harrison earlier this year had to worry about one of his ministers being among Fani Willis' Dirty 19.
At No. 5? I take down "The Smart Fool," one of the overly self-inflated commenters at the r/AcademicBiblical subreddit.
At No. 4? An oldie but a goodie from 2020, getting new traction because I posted it for Democratic tribalists on r/politics. That's about St. Anthony of Fauci's various Platonic noble, then more ignoble, lies about COVID.
No. 3? Even older, but, it's never too late to keep kicking and saying good-bye to Tim O'Neill, the papal apologist of History for Atheists.
No. 2? From this quarter, more wrongness at r/AcademicBiblical, namely "The Woman Taken in Adultery" pericope of John 7:53-8:11.
Drumroll .....
And No. 1? Anal-retentive backdoor liars at r/religion.
Ye gads.
First? For you Bart Ehrman geeks out there? Just stop reading him and stop geeking on him. Period. He's forfeited the
right to even be grokked by anybody with a serious interest in biblical
criticism, per his latest book. (I didn't even know he had one, and now I
don't care, and I also wonder how much of this is "him" and how much is
grad students doing the ground level work.)
Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says about the End by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 1 of 5 stars
Per a review I just read (so sue me for not reading this book yet, and likely not at all), this sounds almost as bad as his previous "Jehovah's Witnesses" book and as bad as his book before that on early Christian origins, which had whopper-level untruths/misframings/oversights in both history and comparative religion.
This one, per that review and another 1-star reviewer here? The New Testament "god of love" vs Tanakh "god of wrath"?
1. At worst, comes off as anti-Judaism, and leaving the door open to larger anti-Semitism.
2. At second-worst, given Bart's academic background, comes off as Marcionite.
3.
At third-worst, ignores plenty of NT "god of wrath" pericopes. You
know, like the Matthew 25 that Bart tried to explain away in his JW
book.
(That said, contra to a 2-star reviewer and what I'm
inferring Bart says about the Beast, while Nero was not the Antichrist,
he in all likelihood WAS the Beast, especially if the core of Revelation
has a pre-Christian origin. See here for more. Oh, while I'm here? There was NO persecution of Christians by Nero after the Great Fire. See here and here for more.
View all my reviews
That would be ...
BobbyBobbie, now blocked.
He, she or it, as of the new mods (before or after I was banned I'm not sure) claims that the rule on "cite your academic sources" was made applicable to lower-level comments more than a year ago. News to me. The poster says, "delete it then," and BobbyBobbie the mod says: "That's the neat part; I already did." A junior Naugrith and another Nazi.
And, on AskAChristian, about justifying her morals, after accusing an agnostic or atheist of circular reasoning, this circular reasoning of his, hers or its:
How do I justify their existence? I thought it would have been pretty obvious: they are expressions of God's will and binding upon all moral creatures as the inheritors of a system, not the creator of it.
Whether or not this creates any supposed dilemma is besides the point. The mere existence of them is supported by theism, and imo unable to be grounded under atheism.
got a rebuke and a block (along with an accusation of being more a Nazi than Naugrith, calling her a 1930s partisan of a Central European state). It's also "interesting" that the atheist to whom she was responding, their comment is now deleted. Such TOLERANCE!
Interesting stuff by Birger Pearson, link originally seen via r/AcademicBiblical, in one of the occasional truly good things there.
First, per why the link was posted there? I'd never closely read 1 Thessalonians 2 before, but yeah, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 is CLEARLY an interpolation. Most likely, referencing the Jewish Revolt and its defeat. Was it inserted by the author of 2 Thessalonians, or someone different? (The preview has it as the last section of pages. Within that chapter from his book, a page here and there is dropped, as are the last few pages, but there's plenty still to look at. Sadly, I don't know if he offers any more specific thoughts on just how long after the Revolt it was inserted, or why.
Second, early on? Pearson's just wrong on claiming Baptism and the Eucharist have Jewish roots. I haven't thought a lot about Baptism, but it could be influenced by both Qumran, and non-Qumran, Judaism alike, but also the Greek mysteries. The Eucharist, though? Nope. Greek guild dinners honoring their patron gods, the one and only good thing I learned from a Jesus Seminar book. Beyond that, Pearson ignores the apparent Gnosticizing background of Paul's creation (sic) of the Eucharist, something he also likely wouldn't have gotten from Judaism at this time.
Next page after that? Claiming Zoroaster is the "historical founder" of Zoroastrianism? The man no more actually existed, in all likelihood, than did Moses, given a 500-year range in his florovit for those who claim he was historical. The date of writing of the Avestas and other things is HUGELY debated.
After that? Pearson has a fairly high view of the historicity of Acts in general, and on the origins of "Christian" and "Christianity," way too high on the last one-quarter of Acts.
His claims about Mark 7 wrongly mix Jesus' response to the Pharisees (about hand-washing) and his later response to the disciples, which transitions to clean and unclean foods, or so it seems.
He is totally right, though, about a callout of the Jesus Seminar's Scholars Press translation of the four canonical Gospels plus Thomas. In addition to what he says, I said at the time that it was wooden as hell.
Anyway, because the preview drops enough pages within chapters, and because of the amount of stuff Pearson gets wrong, I didn't bookmark it in my browser.
Commenters on this post need to learn something about Stith Thompson's famous (in its academic realm, at least) Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, or at least the basic gist of its ideas, along with the ATU, mentioned at the same Wiki link. If they did, they wouldn't post such stupidities, even if they're not fundagelical. Either that, or they need to have lived somewhere in the United States, or abroad, where they've had close contact with indigenous peoples.
==
Actually at AskBibleScholars, but someone bitching about the "Stockholm school" of biblical criticism when they surely mean the Copenhagen school of Old Testament/Tanakh criticism.
==
No we don't know that P52 is from the current Gospel of John, contra this thread (as well as contra the Wiki link earlier in the sentence), whether you date it fundagelical early, or with a later date. Could be from the Egerton Gospel or similar. Could be, given John's long evolutionary history to its final form, from a pre-final version of John, and thus not "canonical John."
==
Someone wanting to date Luke circa 70-80 CE, followed by ex-Mormon referencing an old comment where he adopts Alan Garrow's "Didache as Q" idea? The same Garrow who claims the Didache is even older than I Thessalonians, or that he can precisely date Revelation based on Vesuvius destroying Pompeii? I laugh.
==
Both Hot_Basis and Extispicy (surprisingly) are wrong here about the derivation of YHWH. I stand by the Theological Wordbook of the OT and others that derive it from the old Midiniate HWY, "to storm, blow or thunder," and tie that to the "Midianite hypothesis," with YHWH being a Midianite Zeus sitting atop an old volcano similar to Olympus.
==
Another poster writing a systematic theology question in violation of rules, this one about the stereotypical OT god of hate vs NT god of love (a stereotype perpetuated by Bart Ehrman in his most recent dreck), and not being taken down, as of the time of writing. And, I don't just blame lazy mods, I blame posters. The rule about not invoking theological beliefs is clearly stated on the right-hand rail of the homepage.
==
Nope, "House of David" does not imply a historical David. A second commenter in support is also wrong. This no more implies a historical David than mentions of "house of Atreus" in Greek myth (or if there's an old stele, herm or whatever that has "House of Atreus" on it) imply an actual Atreus. Also, and further ignored by everybody in comments on the whole post? Israeli archaeologists plumping for a historical David with a big kingdom are often doing so in the service of Zionism.
==
And, I find out why SmartFool believes this shit. He's a conservative evangelical apologist, per this comment citing favorably Dale Allison. And ugh, he's also now a moderator. That means that site sucks more canal water.
==
A junior Naugrith and another Nazi, r/BobbieBobby. And, by their feed, a general idiot on religious issues, as well as a massive Nazi on comment-deletion at Academic Biblical.
==
Oh: Since this is just one sub, or two if I count AskBibleScholars, on Reddit, versus the Gnu Atheist nutters at OnlySky on a separate website, I'll probably keep doing this!
Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope by Sarah Bakewell
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
After three-starring (perhaps high?) Bakewell's "Existentialist Cafe" book, I thought I would give her another shot. This is an extended review of what's on Goodreads.
This also is a three two-star, and it also has some of the same issues as that, the biggest being falling between the stools of something in a more formal style and depth versus something more casual. With that comes the issue of not writing something long enough for a more formal book, and a circumscribed scope as well.
The second is once again privileging Sartre over Camus, and, related to that, somewhat whitewashing Sartre by omission on his biggest sin.
We'll get more to whitewashing in a minute, because, he's whitewashed less than somebody else.
A small, but not THAT small issue? It’s limited to the “west” only. Yes, Rumi is a half century older than Petrarch, but you certainly could work him in. You could definitely add much more from non-Western thinkers of newer times.
Big problem? Minimizing. Like Le Bon David’s racism. Maybe she learned that from Julian Baggini?
I had seen a few nagging things throughout earlier chapters, but stuff that probably wouldn’t add up to more than a half-star. Then, I saw the Hume minimizing at the end of the “perpetual miracles” chapter and oops! Hume was not alone, of course; plenty of Enlightenment leading lights, whether humanists or not, were racists. Look at Locke, even if not generally called a "humanist." (Perhaps Bakewell figured he was too much to whitewash.) Look at the Reformation. Luther’s early adversary Eck, considered a religious humanist, was even more an anti-Semite than Luther. I then thought of Rumi.
She does address it in the next chapter. But, only in brief and lumped with others. The real question is whether these people should be considered humanist in the first place, and no, that’s not “presentism,” not since Hume was called out at the time — and she mentions it! She also doesn’t wrestle with the issue of the Enlightenment developing modern ideas of “race” in general, and at least some of them — Hume included — articulating the idea of polygenesis. She also doesn't discuss Hume's ethnic, or ethnonationalist, stereotyping of Italians and others. I cover ALL of this in detail.
One Chinese and one Cambodian get mention in passing in the post WWII era. Manabendra Roy does get a half a page. That’s it. The non-West is presented as only a backdoor. Within the West, Sartre of post-WWII is presented as countering Heidegger. No Camus at all. (She very much privileged Sartre over Camus in Existentialist Café as well.) Nor any mention of Sartre’s ongoing toadying for Stalin. The Sartre error is compounded here re humanism, not existentialism, because she explicitly calls Communism anti-humanist.
Frankly, I think, based on the two books together, her view of Sartre is outrightly hagiographic.
Here in the US? Though Zora Neale Huston is on the cover, she gets a throwaway mention and that’s that. On Frederick Douglass, there's no mention of him being not so humanistic about American Indians, as well as stereotyping Germans and Irish. (This says nothing of Hume's ethnic stereotypes on top of his racism.)
Also missing, as far as this not being in-depth? Until mention of the Humanist Manifesto, there's really not a lot of "meta"-level discussion of what humanism was considered as being, at times, other than an antiquarian belle lettres for the early Renaissance humanists. Nor
And gets on my newly created "meh" shelf. And, I recommend against reading her further. I'm not going out to hunt her Montaigne bio. I've read enough of his individual essays, I know the basics of his life, and I fear she probably has mucked things up if a more in-depth bio. And, I just don't get what critics see in her.
Vita brevis, ars longior. You had two bites at my reading apple; I don't have time for a third.
View all my reviews
It's a piece that is otherwise generally good, but nothing really new — it's about the closure of ever more "mainline" houses of religious worship in the face of the rise of the Nones, etc.
But, it then goes to a Gallup Poll that claims as late as just before COVID, just over one-third of Americans went to religious service weekly and it was still 40 percent in the early years of this century.
Tosh, as I told the story's author on Twitter. Time and motion studies have shown that self-reporting of church attendance (and perhaps the same for synagogues, mosques, temples, etc.) is somewhat to highly inflated. And, it's sad that these statistics still get trotted out, especially in the context of this story, and what individual congregations, parishes, minyim etc. face — whether or not to try to renovate a religious building, whether or not to move, whether or not to shut down.
The actual number? Yes, 2020 was the first year of COVID, but it was down to 20 percent then. Even "every week" PLUS "almost every week" was just 30 percent, according to Statistia, and THAT may be high. It was down at about 25 percent at the turn of the century, and some evangelical orgs admit that, and THAT link is from 2007. But, this from 2018 concurs.
Having accurate information might help inform such decisions. (Or it might not; motivated reasoning is still real.)
The Gallup piece then gets worse with a section, a little over halfway down, about worship converting from in-person to virtual. That, too can be fudged. (Unless the congregation takes a roll call via Zoom!)
Nowhere near the first time Gallup's had idiotic polling about religiosity.
The header's central word, "canards," is not too harsh. Henry Graber had done more than a modicum of other research for the story, but then just accepted Gallup's words as gospel truth, literal pun intended.
Beyond the issue of whether individual groups of worshipers should shut down or not, such misreporting overstates the influence of churches on American life and culture, and allows religious right churches to run with that.
I grieved for
The closure that would never happen,
Even though closure is a myth
I grieved for
The childhood fear and anger
Of him, and about him
That I could never more fully express to him,
Never more get him to understand,
Never again try to make him understand.
I grieved for
The fact that he never would abandon
The myth of control
Over his family, his fatherhood
And the narratives he had spun to himself
About all of this.
I grieved for
The fact that he had walled himself up
Over the bits of my childhood fear and anger
That I had told him about,
As he built that wall of control higher
Against the perceived Mongol invaders,
Or whatever he thought of these challenges.
I grieved for
Any form of an “us”
That growing or changing, could have continued.
But
I grieved for
Me
Most of all
Because I still hadn’t gotten past that fear enough.
Real friends,
Friends for life,
Whether in families or not
Let their friends grow
In ways that are good for them,
And, offer suggestions first,
Stronger comments second,
And maybe rebukes next,
When they see friends growing in unhealthy ways.
— As inspired by Kieran Setiya
The Smart Fool, mentioned in these pages before, is once again not smart. He cites this essay
by Paul Foster in favor of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians.
Problems? Sure. First, Nero redivivus was first mentioned in the reign
of Diocletion, not Trajan. Also given that the alleged Neronic persecution of
Christians didn't happen, it can't be that early, for this person to be
Nero. Rather, it does seem to be a prima facie evidence of trying to
explain away a delay in the parousia after the destruction of the
temple. Indeed, one wonders if the author had perhaps a passing
familiarity with the "little apocalypse" in Mark. Reading the whole of 2 Thessalonians 2,
we have little idea who "the restrainer" is supposed to be, even less
than the man of lawlessness, who is discussed by me in depth here. To me, it seems pretty clear that the time
period before "the restrainer" is removed is NOT supposed to be brief. Beyond that, contra Foster, I noted that the man of lawlessness seems to at least pretend to arise from among the faithful. He is NOT, at a minimum, The Beast of Revelation, and writing anything that even leaves open the possibility that he is such, is bad exegesis.
2 Thessalonians 3, even more, seems to warn against expecting an imminent parousia. The readers are warned not to be idle, but "sober," although this doesn't use that exact word. The mindset in this sense halfway, or more, approaches the Pastorals.
The first part of 2 Thessalonians 2, before the man of lawlessness is introduced, warns again about expecting an imminent eschaton.
And, while 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn't say "it's tomorrow," the end of the chapter is laden with immanence, even, like John 21, referring to those still alive. Chapter 5 continues that.
Foster concludes with this in defense of 2 Thessalonians' authenticity in the face of all that:
The issue matters because if the authenticity of 2Thessalonians is estab-lished, then it allows a larger and richer range of material that provides insight into the apostle’s thought. Many of the debates surrounding the nature of Paul’s thought in Romans as being coherent, consistent, or otherwise, may be elucidated through the perspectives provided in 2Thessalonians in relation to eschatology. These developments reveal Paul to be capable of maturation in his theological conceptions, adaptable and responsive to pressing pastoral situations, and simul-taneously a robust defender of his core theological convictions.I don't buy that. Some degree of immanence seems clear in not only 1 Thessalonians, but the other six authentic Pauline epistles, enough that Foster has much more explanatory burden left on WHY 2 Thessalonians is different if authentic.
A year and a month ago, on vacation, I saw a lightning-split tree trunk, a ponderosa, with what appeared to be a bud of new growth in the stump portion of the trunk still rooted. (The rest of the trunk had been totally split off; it wasn't a partial split.)
As a good secularist with a graduate divinity degree, I was inspired to offer thoughts based on the most famous logion in the Gospel of Thomas. Those thoughts, with photos of the trunk, are here, in one of my most popular blog posts here of the last year and beyond.
This year, I saw a similar trunk, but no growth at either end. (It appeared felled, not lightning-split.)
So, I started ruminating more explicitly secular and anti-metaphysical thought, which eventually came into poetic shape, as follows:
Split the log;
There I am not.
There is no secret, ancient, esoteric wisdom,
Nor any adepts to teach it.
There is no karmic destiny
To control your life, nor to be controlled in return.
There are no prayers or chants,
Poses or breaths,
Meditations or medications
To draw you closer to the Creator, the Revealer, the Healer
Or even the Destroyer.
Fools!
There is no Me!
No God, Brahman, Atman or Great Spirit;
No heaven or hell.
No rounds of reincarnation and no eternal recurrence.
“That thou art” is real, non-metaphysical and non-dualist.
Only you yourself, an embodied consciousness.
Split yourself and find the truth.
