Pope Leo, immigration, sexual identification, and Protestantism

 This is a different take on a piece last Friday at my main blog.

If you're politically awake and not under a rock, you probably heard last week about the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, nearly unanimously (five noes, three abstentions) passing a sternly written policy statement about humane treatment of immigrants and explicitly rebuking ICE thuggery.

Per that piece, the statement was pushed by the new pope, Leo XIV, himself. Links at the Substack piece include the National Catholic Register as well as mainstream media.

Let us go to that NCR piece, skipping Hale's intermediary, in part for reasons at the bottom. Here's the nut graf:

"We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care," the bishops said. "We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We are grieved when we meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children to school and when we try to console family members who have already been separated from their loved ones."

And, read on as you desire. 

With that, off to the second half of the header.

What ARE "conservative cafeteria Catholics," you might ask?

Nothing other than the flip side of "liberal cafeteria Catholics."

You'll note there is no such thing in world as "cafeteria Catholic" without the political adjective qualifier. I have written extensively before about mainstream media getting this wrong.

That's because many of the people playing "gotcha" on liberal cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, etc. on abortion and birth control fail to follow the official Vatican line on the death penalty and are therefore ...

"Conservative cafeteria Catholics," period and end of story.

There are a few who walk the Catholic walk on both. 

At the national level, I am only aware of Bob Casey, recently voted out as one of two U.S. Senators from Pennsylvania, and Dan Kildee, Congressman from Flint. So was his uncle, Dale Kildee, whom I know personally.

I've called out hypocrisies of conservative cafeteria Catholics on the abortion issue before, too. 

This all said, let us not hold Christopher Hale up as some sort of saint. Beyond things like The Bulwark, bad enough, his "follows" on Substack include Bari Weiss's odious, genocide-supporting Free Press, a bunch of Obamiac / BlueAnon accounts, but not a single pro-Palestinian one. 

But, let us instead get to the rest of the header and the rest of that statement.

First, modern US Protestantism arguably divides into six main types.

The first is the conservative, usually fundamentalist, portion of old "mainline Protestant denominations. "Fundamentalist" is still appropriate, even if they're not all Calvinists following J. Gresham Machen's "Five Fundamentals." This includes the conservative wing of Lutheranism. (My sister and other family don't like this, but facts are facts. You have a Lutheran version of "five fundamentals." Indeed, none of the "Five Fundamentals" as first formulated take a position on either side of most of the TULIP acronym, or the standoffish Lutheran third side. In fact, these generally would be accepted by modern conservative evangelicals, while downplaying literal inerrancy, among other things, and having a differing stance on cultural and political involvement.) A lot of American biblical publishing houses have roots in this, even if they've at least partially moved beyond.

The second is the liberal half of these old mainline organization. We're talking United Methodist Church, Protestant Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, etc. 

The third would be neo-fundamentalists. I'm not sure that this fits in with Lutheranism, but with some modern Calvinists not only doubling down on some sort of Five Fundamentals but the TULIP? Yes, it's there. Some sort of wingnut searchers like Primitive Root Wiener loving Rod Dreher might fight here too.  There is bits of leakage into conservative evangelicalism at times, both on how strictly to hold to certain fundamentals and how much to not engage with the broader world, whether political world or general social world.

The fourth would be evangelicals. The main evangelical denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, of course. There are some lesser ones; the Disciples of Christ and other "Campbellite" types might fit here. Most megachurches would.

Fifth, if you will? Liberal evangelicals. The American Baptists might fit here, or might fit more in the liberal half of mainline Protestantism. (I would NOT put the SBC in category 1.) I hesitate because, although not called "evangelical," a root of Baptists in the US in general is being evangelical-like. Sojourners folks aren't that liberal.

Sixth would be holiness tradition folks like Church of the Nazarene, and Pentecostalism. These folks are, like the fourth, generally conservative on political and social beliefs, though not necessarily tightly overlapping with conservative evangelicals.

OK, now to the rest of that policy statement. It covers sex, gender, and health care issues. And, on this, like abortion and other reproductive choice issues (where many socially conservative Protestants are drifting toward Rome at least a bit), it's right-wing, if not necessarily far right.

Here's one part:

In their public session, the bishops also approved the revised text of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services by a vote of 206 in favor, 8 against and 7 abstaining. 

The revised directives, which are described as the "authoritative guidance" for U.S. Catholic health care institutions, now mandate that Catholic facilities not provide gender-affirming medical treatment to transgender patients.

And another:

In Part III of the revised directives, Catholic health care institutions are instructed not to perform any medical interventions "that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex." 

Catholic health care institutions are called upon to "employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria," while only using means "that respect the fundamental order of the human body."

That should be a good starter. And here's a summary:

The doctrinal note said gender-affirming medical treatments — which may include hormonal therapies and surgical procedures — are "injurious to the true flourishing of the human person," and said that Catholic health care services must not perform them. 

The note added that such interventions "do not respect the fundamental order of the human person as an intrinsic unity of body and soul, with a body that is sexually differentiated."

There you go. 

First, my background take.

First of all, sex is not gender, though gender roles, understandings, etc., in different cultures evolve out of sex.

Second, on what I'll call sexual identity affirming care, and add in gender-affirming care, while noting the two are different, I uphold Mayo Clinic guidelines for use of puberty blockers, and related issues that it may have spoken on. If "gender affirming care," used properly, means letting a biological male wear makeup or women's clothes? Have at it. But, it's clear the bishops are talking about sexual issues.

Related? Per this LONG piece of mine, which had poxes on four or five houses, since this is DEFINTELY a non-twosider issue? I totally oppose sexual reassignment surgery for minor children. Period and end of story. So do many within the transsexual and transgender world. For adults who are consensual and well-informed, fire away. But be WELL informed. There's literally pretty much no going back. (Yeah, reversal surgery can be done, but you have yet more complications, and they're certainly going to be psychological, not just physical.) 

Also, none of this is to say that either transsexual or transgendering people don’t have certain civil rights. They do. They may not always be the same, per at least one seemingly stereotypical but actual set of circumstances about things like women’s shelters, where I am OK with admitting fully transitioned male-to-female transsexuals, but not at all transgendered.

That said, per the non-joke "joke" about theoretically celibate Catholic priests making pronouncements for women? That goes double for talking about birth sex, when "ensoulment" can't deal with teratomas and other cases of reproduction going awry, nor can it deal with spontaneous abortion and ensoulment, or with related issues. That said, how do Baptists et al deal with the age of accountability and ensoulment?

Beyond serious philosophy mixing with snark? Catholic hospitals already ban things like tubal ligations because they prevent an "implantation." 

In short, the socially conservative religious (this includes non-"Western" monotheistic traditions) should shut up about anything and everything related to sex, pretty much. 

Did Leon Festinger commit some sort of research fraud?

"When Prophecy Fails" is a seminal publication in launching the whole idea of cognitive dissonance.

Now, there's new claims that Leon Festinger, who led research into the cult movement behind the book, committed multiple types of what is not just misframing but arguably research fraud. 

At The Debrief, Ryan Whalen writes about both these claims and some of the pushback. 

This, about two-thirds through, is arguably the nutgraf on all of that:

Fundamentally, Kelly’s work clearly illuminates many ethical breaches in When Prophecy Fails, and underscores the authors’ narrow focus on how groups respond to falsified predictions. However, not everyone feels that Kelly’s arguments completely upend the decades-old research, and it is important to note that Kelly’s paper offers a relatively narrow and specific refutation of the ideas in When Prophecy Fails and its claims regarding cognitive dissonance.

Maybe we should view this as similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect — it's partially refuted, but not totally, and we should narrow the scope of our claims and usage on both. 

After all, both ideas have often been used in a denotative, not connotative sense, with sneers and politicization. 

Bart Ehrman is retiring!

Interestingly, it is next month, in the middle of an academic year, and not next spring. Why?

Anyway, his blog site is promoting a final lecture Dec. 7.

He claims it will be about "The Greatest Discovery in the History of Biblical Studies."

Now, if he's talking both Christian testaments plus the "intertestamental" period, it has to be the Dead Sea Scrolls, right? 

If it's New Testament only, and he goes that way, I'd say that, contra him and Jeff Kloha, no, it's Nag Hammadi.

In either case, Bart, if you're retiring, use the additional time to write better books than your last three or four. (I fear he won't, and shudder at the possibility of something even worse in the future.) 

Worst and most recent? His Armageddon book, when he went Marcionite on the Old Testament, then ignored some of the apocalyptic stuff he would have read at Wheaton, then ignored OT apocalyptic material that would have been in those Chick tracts, above all, "Gog and Magog." 

Just about as bad? His second most recent, his "JW" book as I call it, and yes, THOSE JWs, for claiming the New Testament does not talk about hellfire and eternal damnation. 

Third most recent and third worst? His history, theology, and comparative religions uninformed book on the causes for the rise of Christianity. 

My Goodreads review system

 

Since the much-self-heralded overhaul of the Yellow Satan-owned book review website a little over a year ago failed to give us partial-star review options, unlike places like Storygraph, where my account has pretty much gone dormant, and my regional library, both of which have nowhere near Yellow Satan's money, I finally figured I'd knock out a piece here about how I use partial stars.

I'll look at non-fiction first, as what middlebrow or whatever fiction I read has a different review system and is of less depth. I'll also add comments about particular types of non-fiction as needed.

Side note to begin: Lack of an index on a non-fiction book can cost you up to one full star. 

Second note: I, like Goodreads friend Marquise, have become a more critical reviewer as I've gotten older. Books from a decade or more ago would probably in many cases rank a half star or more lower today. 

5 full stars:

Rare. For history, the book must have a good thesis, be well presented if it's controversial, etc. For military or diplomatic history, good analysis needed. Good and legible maps needed if the book needs them. Good photos, on plate pages, preferably, as needed. NO factual errors. Political science/political history? Minus the maps angle, pretty much the same. Science? Good info, at a non-dumbed down public level. Charts, graphs etc., as parallel to maps in things like military history, are a must. Again, they should be legible as well as explanatory. Critical religious studies? On biblical criticism and exegesis, new thought is fine, but anything flunking Ockham's Razor or even approaching that is not. This is even more the case on archaeology, anthropology and other social sciences.

Within 5 stars, you may get on my "worth buying" shelf if you truly nail all of this.

4.75 stars:

No obvious failures. May have minor, trivial and totally non-essential errors, but usually, I won't allow that. Usually, this is because the book just falls short of the pinnacle, and, in a Major League Baseball reference, re the Hall of Fame, I don't believe in a "big hall."

4.5 stars:

History? Very solid, informative, but not quite compelling. A less than fully-compelling narrative may be part of why. Maybe you fell short on picking up ideas hinted as in your thesis. Biblical criticism: Somewhat the same. Ditto on social sciences. "Hard" sciences: Maybe, especially in biology and evolution, the narrative wasn't quite there. Physics? You probably didn't sell me on just how important the idea is.

4.25 stars:

In all nonfiction areas, you've got something good, but it's not that new, not that broad beyond what I already know, whether in terms of information, or ideas, or narrative, or value. Or, if newer, you didn't sell it well enough.

4 stars:

In history, military history and political science, you either definitely didn't move enough beyond what's already out there, or else you had either a poorly formed thesis or else a poorly defended one if new. You also, where not only warranted but called for, were inadequate on maps, charts, photos, etc. And, if you have an index, but it's partial or inadequate, and the book was very good otherwise, you'll be here. 

3.75 stars:

Same as above, but you also may have become tendentious. This is also the case in biblical criticism, social sciences, etc. And, if you have an index, but it's partial or inadequate, and the book was pretty good otherwise, you'll be here. 

3.5 stars:

On history and related, usually, you're not that much more than conventional or received wisdom, but tidbits and nuggets here and there make this of some value. In the hard sciences, as well as to a lesser extent in the social sciences and some humanities, like philosophy, you probably did not do good work explaining items that needed explanation. Related may be that your writing was too dense, or quasi-academic.

3.25 stars:

Not used that often, but similar to the above, only with more problems on writing, whether narrative style, poor explanation, or more. Serious lack of the peripherals, of charts, graphs, photos, maps, etc., may get you here. Total lack of an index, combined with other problems, will get you here or worse.

3 stars: 

Basically, you're average in my take on average, per all of the above.

2.75 stars: 

Probably used even less than 3.25. Per becoming a more critical reviewer with age, and per "ars longior, vita brevis," I'm less likely to waste quarter-star nuance on you.

2.5 stars:

History and related? If your book needs a thesis, it's probably poorly written and poorly defended as well. You're also surely missing some of the peripherals above. Biblical criticism? You're getting either too close to fundagelical territory, or if Christian New Testament criticism, too close to either that or Jesus mythicism. Sociology, anthropology and some political science? For this leftist who's a skeptical leftist, you may also be getting too far into identitarian-based ideas. Or, you may be getting too far into "-isms"; this can be true with philosophy and philosophy of history type books, too. On hard science books, you probably haven't done a good job of explaining concepts and such well to educated laypersons, or similar. This is going to be especially true in things like serious "pop" physics. If I need half a hand, at least, on quantum gravity, and a full hand on your sub-version, and you don't supply it, for example, you'll be here. Archaeology, anthropology? Poor explanation of relations between different peoples, cultures, etc. can also get you here.

2.25 stars:

Might use this a bit more than 2.75. Basically, it says your book is near the fairly bad territory, but not quite there. Or, that it is fairly bad for me, but some people may find moderate redeeming value. 

2 stars:

Your book is fairly bad for several of the reasons above. In history, you may be over your head, on a poor thesis which isn't new, along with bad narrative plus not being able to organize raw information into history.

1.75 stars:

Used rarely. Basically, your book is falling into really bad territory, but it's not quite totally there.

1.5 stars:

Your book is pretty much really bad. It has no truly redeeming qualities, even for people less informed than me. In the hard sciences, you're at least flirting with pseudoscience. Ditto in health and medicine. In history, you're over your head, or at least flirting with the edge of conspiracy theories. On political science, some types of history, and some social sciences, you're getting strongly into identitarianism, or other isms. I may like crushing you.

1.25 stars:

Very rare. Possibly a charity rating half the time.

1 star:

You're more into conspiracy theory, in history and political science, even if not a central part of your thesis. You're into quack levels of pseudoscience. You're into hard-core identitarianism. You're failing on trying to defend things. I probably like crushing you.

Less than 1 star:

I review-bombed your conspiracy theory book is the usual. Or you write a book that appears to be knowledgeable, but in reality has a self-undercutting pseudo-thesis that isn't what the book is actually about, like Sapolsky's "Determined."  If it's not a review-bomb review, I totally like thoroughly crushing you.

==

Middlebrow fiction?

Something like Tony Hillerman's murder mysteries, or Ursula LeGuin's fantasy?

I use a three-part rating, looking at plot, narrative and characters. I then average out the three, with weighting toward one of the three areas as necessary. 

Plot: The scale runs from plausible to implausible. On mystery-type books, don't be either a Captain Obvious, or on the other side, offer up bizarro twists.

Narrative: Don't give me stilted dialogue, or stilted narrative moving the plot along, either. And, if your book is part of a series by you, do a reasonable job at book-to-book consistency.

Characters: Are they plausible as individuals, on psyche, personhood related to job and other situations in the book, and interactions with other characters? If part of a series, do they grow from book to book? Is the growth and changes reasonable?

On the sum of the parts, how am I being entertained? 

==

Highbrow fiction?

If it's philosophical fiction, whether Plato, Hume, or Camus, you're getting a mix of the three-elements judging plus how I would judge your philosophy as philosophy.

Historical fiction? Less emphasis on the three-elements judging, but not nonexistent by any means, and plausible history. I'm not expecting maps here, but if an Alison Weir, etc., photos/paintings of photos, of course. And, within your historical fiction, like history, some sort of thesis, defended.

Alt-history? If it's a novel, at a minimum, be better than Harry Turtledove. If it's an alt-history essay like in the "What If?" series of books, no more than one major twist, please, and otherwise, meet the canons of history writing.

Other "highbrow"? A Thomas Mann to cite someone I've read from within the 20th century? Beyond the three-elements judging, have you moved me? Have you made me think? Have you enlarged me? Middlebrow fiction might be about entertainment; highbrow, for me, is about these things.

==

Finally, a couple of other additional notes.

First, I will call out egregiously bad reviewers, either as a class, or individuals, in some cases. That's above all in political science, modern political history and related, where I suspect low-star reviewers as individuals or a class are doing so for narrowly political reasons.

Second, I've called out much further, in a blog post, an oft-wrong history reviewer who has willfully developed a cult around himself. Don't make yourself into another History Nerd/History Toddler. 

'Karma' 2.0 — a secular spin on Edward Arlington Robinson

Ennui was in the air, and one lament

From me, one of a few confusing flaws

In divers of self-images. Because

The world round me would not march to my bent,

Was I to answer for my discontent?

I pondered, and the reason for it was 

A purveyor of a religious cause

Warning the world that it must repent.

 

Accepting a wonted disgust at this

I magnified a fancy that I wished

His own evil led to an end so grim.

Then, my eye rove, found solace if not bliss

And, from the pavement before me, I fished …

A dime for myself who was dead to men.

 

====

 

“Karma,” by Edward Arlington Robinson

 

Christmas was in the air and all was well

With him, but for a few confusing flaws

In divers of God's images. Because

A friend of his would neither buy nor sell,

Was he to answer for the axe that fell?

He pondered; and the reason for it was,

Partly, a slowly freezing Santa Claus

Upon the corner, with his beard and bell.

 

Acknowledging an improvident surprise,

He magnified a fancy that he wished

The friend whom he had wrecked were here again.

Not sure of that, he found a compromise;

And from the fulness of his heart he fished

A dime for Jesus who had died for men.

Top posts for the third quarter of 2025

As usual on this quarterly roundup, these top posts may not all have been FROM the previous quarter, just the most commonly read. I'll note the "evergreen" ones.

No. 10 is from the early salad days, indeed, 2007, "A birthday poem for 'Pharayngula' aka P.Z. Myers." That was of course before I realized he was a Gnu Atheist. 

No. 9 is from 2023, and I think I know why "Fascism in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod" is trending again. It's due to LCMS President Matthew Harrison's anointing of Charlie Kirk. 

No. 8 is even older than No. 10, from 2006. My "More philosophical reflections from my national parks vacation" was a riff on "Dover Beach." 

No. 7? My piece from 2023, "Standing Josiah and Deuteronomy on their heads" may be trending from some Reddit link. (I love how people claim it's too convoluted. In my opinion, they either don't want to read it through, just can't understand how the "Josiah" and "Deuteronomy" parts overlap, and/or don't get the research behind either half of it.) 

No. 6, "Thoughts from Olympus," is from the same vacation as No. 8. 

No. 5 is an oldie but a goodie. "More proof the Buddha was no Buddha" is from 2007. 

No. 4, "A Lutheran college myth bites the dust," is about the truth of the song "Lean on Me" and is from 2020. 

No. 3, "The great ahistoricity of Acts and radical thoughts on Paul's demise," from 2020, is trending because I posted it on r/AskHistorians at Reddit and then had the Nazi moderators pull it down. They later banned me, which I discussed at my main site.

No. 2 is "Genesis 6 Retold," which I shared in various spots recently. It's an extended haiku riff on the myth and legend behind the flood story.

No. 1, "Ezra, meet Snopes" is from way back in 2005, not too long after I started this site, and discusses some thoughts behind the idea of Ezra as editor of the Torah and its four main documentary strains. 

Novels, nostalgia and need

I grew up in Gallup, New Mexico, self-proclaimed "Indian Capital of the World."

Years and years ago, I read many, though not all, of murder mystery author Tony Hillerman's Chee and Leaphorn novels, about two Navajo Tribal Police officers, (I also read two non-Big Rez murder mysteries of his.)

Hillerman has long come off as sympathetic to Navajos in particular, and American Indians of the Southwest in general, as people. Going beyond oater dime novelist Louis L'Amour, who said more than once if he wrote about a place, "it was there," with Hillerman, not only was the place there, but so were the sociology and culture.

Well, recently, for various reasons, I started reading some of Hillerman again. But, after "Sacred Clowns," I may have hit a wall. An edited version of my Goodreads review will explain why.

Sacred Clowns by Tony Hillerman
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

On my "formula" for mid-level fiction reviews?
Characters 4.25-4.5
Plot 4.5
Dialogue 4-4.25

I'll take that to 4.5 or so overall but, round down due to an error.

Nope, it's "dropped" to 3 stars due to other issues listed at bottom. Some are specific to this book; others, the majority, apply to the Hillerman "canon" in general. I'm going to get to that after a condensed version of the first part.

On characters, Jim Chee as acting sergeant shows a first round of character development within the Chee-Leaphorn books, accepting enough of Lt. Joe Leaphorn's experience-developed wisdom to actually follow some rules. He also finds out that he may not be enough of a traditionalist to satisfy old-time hataałii (usually rendered by Hillerman as "shaman" or similar) to become one himself, complexifying his look at Janet Pete as too much of a "city Indian." One book later than Coyote Waits and two earlier than First Eagle, when you look at the series, you can see this "character plot line" developing. In addition to their hot-and-cold at times, the ethical playoff late in this story is good. As with widower Leaphorn's quasi?-romantic relationship with Prof. Bourebonette, this is Hillerman writing a generally internally consistent set of stories.
...

St. Bonaventure in Thoreau? It was there when I was growing up in Gallup eons ago. Not sure if it's the same church building today or not. Back then, it had a wood-plank floor that doubled as a roller skating rink, including being rented out; my church's youth group went out there more than once. I don't know if Gallup didn't have a roller rink then, or it was too big to rent to small groups, or what. (Or so I thought it was there. Teh Google lists skating in Gallup itself and not in Thoreau today, but Google Maps with "roller skating Thoreau NM" pointed to the Thoreau Community Center. Maybe skating moved there, or maybe that was the original church building.)

This all is why Hillerman is not dime-novelist Louis L'Amour, who used to brag that if a place was listed in one of his novels, it's there. With Hillerman, the people and culture are there, too.

But now, the problems start, beginning with smaller ones and working to bigger. 

First, he mentions an Iyanbito and Iyanbito Chapter House south of Gallup [pg 121, hardcover], and the only one I am familiar with is the one to the east. Besides, the Red Rock Chapter House is to Gallup's south. See for yourself. I have driven past Iyanbito many, many times. It has an exit on I-40. This is why I double-taked.

Sorry, Tony, but you don't explain why you "moved" Iyanbito if deliberate. And, a basic error otherwise? On the border on ratings, that gets you bumped down on the Navajo authenticity issue. That said, in this Smithsonian piece he admits to "shuffling around" places to meet his needs, but? There was no need for this. Nor for calling the Zuni Drive-In the Gallup Drive-In. Was it going to sue? It closed in 1982, anyway, so it couldn't. (I saw "Star Wars" there as a kid.)

There's an issue or two in other Hillerman novels that generally hold him at four stars, not five. For instance, he talks about "the Tuba City type of Navajo," a description both sociological, in terms of demeanor, and physiologically, in terms of build, as if genes work that deterministically and there's no outbreeding into that small area. And, of course, none of that is true.

Now, to a bigger issue, expressed in this novel, and I think one or two others.

That is his take on the American Indian Movement . Yes, many people within Navajo leadership didn't like it. That's because it challenged their authority, just as on the Sioux reservations. Calling its leadership, like Dennis Banks and Russell Means, "city Indians," comes off as a bit, or more, condescending. And, it's a lie. Banks was born on a reservation in Minnesota. Means was born on a reservation in South Dakota. Both Bellencourts were born on reservations. Banks was forcefully removed to a BIA boarding school at age 5. Means' parents moved to San Francisco at age 3 to escape poverty; the Bellencourt family moved to Minneapolis when older brother Vernon was 16.

This comes off sounding like my dad. (I remember when AIM came to Gallup.) I've outgrown that, Tony. This review goes down to three stars, and I read you more skeptically on "flavor of the Southwest" in the future.

For a truly nuanced and insightful book on AIM, especially in the Siouxan heartland of its operations, read "The Unquiet Grave."

And, I realized I have now been "triggered," or if I accept that something like free will exists (I do, if you emphasize the "something like" and that it is not necessarily totally conscious), I have self-triggered.

First, the quasi-sneer about "city Indian" (also Blizzard, the "city Indian" Cheyenne from Chicago BIA agent in this novel) surely affects Hillerman's authorial stance toward Janet Pete throughout the entire series of his novels. He doesn't totally throw her under the bus when he has the final break-up between her and Chee, but he does entirely write her out of future books. Did his attitude toward "city Indians" in general harden as he grew older?

Related? As I think more skeptically, while Hillerman may not totally paint a romantic Rousselian noble savage view of reservation Navajo life, the toes of one of his two feet, at minimum, are in that swamp. And I use that word deliberately. In reality, not only is the poverty worse than he portrays, but bits of it are to some degree self-inflicted. Navajos overgrazed the land badly enough a century ago that, for this reason as well as price controls, Navajo sheep, like Iowa hogs, were "culled" as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in the 1930s. There's some degree of overgrazing again. Beyond that, as disagreements between chapters over Bears Ears have shown, there's not a "unified Navajo stance" on many things. In either case, on the land, as he has Chee drive by the pivot irrigation lands of what is today Navajo Agricultural Products Inc, and contrast them with a bit of ruefulness to the buttes and mesas, he overlooks the sheepherding.

In other words, to mash up Colbert and a cliche? "Truth is truthier than fiction."

Another issue? I think Hillerman has a generally bilagaana take on frybread, which is a flash point among many modern American Indians of many tribes. That's also not specific to this book, but, I never recall Chee, as an "authentic" Navajo, in any of my past Hillerman reading, saying it's not authentic Navajo food.

One other issue. One of Hillerman's novels is entirely on the Zuni reservation. Others have Hopi connections. But? Even though the Ute Mountain Ute reservation is directly north of the New Mexico portion of the Big Rez, I'm unaware of any Ute characters in any of his novels. Also not mentioned, IIRC? The Paiutes who actually live on the Utah strip portion of the Big Rez. (Indeed, some of these Paiutes have Navajo surnames like Begay or Yazzie.)

One OTHER other issue. Why, given Leaphorn's strident antipathy to alcohol, after his wife's death, does Hillerman name his new female interest Bourebonette? Yes, the initial "e" hides it, but really? Something like "bourbon"? Am I the first to notice this?

Anyway, beyond being self-triggered, I realized my nostalgia leading me to re-read Hillerman wasn't as much nostalgia as escapism — not the escapism of reading fiction, but real escapism, the desire to move out of Tex-ass, with the New Mexico of my childhood years a reasonable option financially — should I get a pre-retirement job there — among today's US Southwest and Western states. 

Expanding beyond my main blog, this probably isn't that likely. The sewer of U.S. job hunting sites gets worse and worse all the time. And, I'm not well-enough off to say that post-retirement moving will be easy.

Update: "The Wailing Wind" is even worse, especially given that Hillerman undermines his own schtick about painting a genuine Sitz im Leben about Navajos, Navajoland and things related.

View all my reviews

Still looking for ways to improve the blogroll

Looking at a couple of recent additions, as I delve in:

== 

I can't remember where I saw "The Amateur Exegete," but I thought he looked promising at first.

He looks less and less so now.

He has a critical approach to scholarship, but it's on the conservative side of that. To use a "name" on the New Testament side? He's James McGrath level, probably.

His Aug. 24 roundup? (He hosts some sort of critical religious thinking blog roundup, or hosts it for himself) Believing in the historicity of Moses? At least he presents the modern critical conventional POV.

His Aug. 17 roundup? Worse, with the last entry, who he admitted in comment exchange is a personal friend:

Blogger καταπέτασμα writes about the Matthean narrative’s guarded tomb and argues that the story seems to suggest Pilate was aiming to kill a resurrected Jesus if push came to shove.

I clicked through, and while it's bad, it's arguably NOT the worse that guy has written.

That said, the roundups do give me a few connections. That's where I saw the idiotic new Testimonium Flavianum book, including a free PDF. 

A Sept. 11 post? He linked to the odious Tim O'Neill with No. 16 in his series of "Great Myths." I told this dude that O'Neill's greatest myth was his self promoted myth denying papal antisemitism. So far, he hasn't responded.

His Sept. 21 roundup? Links to reviews of multiple evangelical bible commentaries etc. This is NOT a blog carnival; it's a personal roundup, like the ones above.

His Oct. 12 roundup? He's not convinced of the non-existence, the non-historicity, of Abraham. 

I had thought he was an atheist, but reading his "about" more carefully, he's a None. He says his goal is to promote better biblical understanding. And he's not doing it, not IMO.

So that I don't forget about free books, I may move him to my links list but delete him from the blogroll feed. 

==

Through a Bible Darkly is good, from what I can see — but posts so rarely.

==

Markus Vincent is here to see how much he discusses other issues besides his "heterodox" take on Marcion vs Luke. 

==

Thoughts on Papyrus is a lot more into fiction than I am and may move to the links list. 

==

Atheology has been removed, period. As I read through it more, the author has much more of his own confusion than he claims "philosophers" have. 

==

I have added ResoluteReader, who seems a lot more of what I'm looking for. Reads more nonfiction than Papyrus, and the same broad vein as I do. Well, sort of. He is some sort of Marxist, which this leftist definitely is not. For example, I would never try to situate environmentalism within even a semi-Marxist framework.

==

I have added Peter Kirby's site. He is known, if not by name, to many as the creator and maintainer of Early Christian Writings. 

Funerals and obits: The quick and the dead

Per the header, and per the old saying about funerals being for the living, not the dead, the same is true, maybe even true in spades, for obituaries.

(Note: Throughout this, I intend to use the word “dead” as much as possible. “Departed” or similar will be used as necessary for linguistic variance. The words “passed” or “passed on,” except for this reference quote, will be avoided like the plague. I “love” how much they’re used in obits, especially by theoretically rock-solid conservative Christians. Last I checked, Paul said: “For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.” No “passed on” nor a Hellenestic world equivalent euphemism.)

As a newspaper editor, I first learned that professionally several years ago when, at the site I was at then, two different family members submitted different obits for the same recently dead loved one.

I can’t remember if both were created by a funeral home, one by a funeral home and the other personally written, or if both were family written. The newspaper wound up accepting both, then our publisher checked in with the home office of our small chain about long-term policy.

I have since then experienced that both professionally and personally with the same obit.

A couple of years after I got to my current site, I got my owner to agree to charge for the extra length on “overlength” obits. In other words, a basic length obir would still be free, but, if you wanted to go more than 850 or so words, which is one-quarter of a newspaper page, you’d pay for anything over that length, with the extra, in terms of newspaper column inches, being billed at the same rate as a display ad.

Well, a 97-year-old, who had worked at this newspaper for 70-plus years, including four part-time years overlapping with me, primarily in the small print shop we still run, died recently. And, his one granddaughter, who had written about 1,500 words two years ago for his wife, which we let pass, turned in 3,300 or so.

A lot of people liked and loved Alvin. Was it universal? At least about a certain baseline level of affection? No.

Frankly, an obit that long comes off as ostentatious, at least to me. And, they knew we’d run it.

There’s a corporate chain in the county seat, and an enhanced shopper there. Both charge from the get-go on all obits, and I’m sure the family didn’t pay for a full-length one at either place.

It’s an adjunct to other observations I have made about small town life.

One is that “The smaller the bone, the more two dogs fight over it."

The other is that income inequality, and a parallel, which I shall call social inequality, can be more pronounced in small towns than in big cities. The rich guy who owns an oil drilling company may live only a few blocks away from a trailer park.

And by small town, I’m talking not under 15,000, but under 5,000. I realize this is alien territory to the great majority of Americans.

And, in towns this size, when someone appears that beloved, those who don’t think so aren’t so comfortable with saying so. 

This ties in with the theme of this site in that psychology is in some ways an offshoot of philosophy, and that would include social psychology. (Contra Walter Kaufman and whatever the man himself might have said, David Hume, not Friedrich Nietzsche, was the world’s first psychologist, at least in some ways.)

Even more, per my “per the living,” it ties directly to a main theme here in being about secularism and metaphysical naturalism. When a person is dead, they no longer exist, so funerals and obituaries have to be “for” the living. They are “about” the dead, but that’s it. Ditto for celebrations of life, whatever the metaphysical beliefs the deceased held, and their family and friends still hold.

And, with that and critical revision, my reference to the Apostles' Creed and the old King James Version-style English of "the quick and the dead." 

Did Josephus really, REALLY write the Testimonium Flavianum?

Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ by T. C. Schmidt
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If Schmidt's purpose was to convince people like me of his thesis, it actually backfired.

Could Josephus have written the Testimonium Flavianum himself, including the very Christian-looking ending?

Absolutely, technically and logically. That said, a unicorn could produce baby unicorns by farting fairy dust, too, but I'm not holding my breath over that likelihood either.

So, Josephus himself wrote the Testimonium Flavianum in the Antiquities? That’s the contention of T.C. Schmidt in his new book.

I’m not buying it, and wasn’t buying it by 40 pages into the book, due to tendentious translation, dubious text-critical claims and a variety of special pleadings.

First, as a reminder, from book 18 of the Antiquities, here is that Testimonium Flavianum, per the translation by Schmidt. That part, the end of that sentence, itself needed emphasis:

“And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. [My note: Why “truisms”? EVERY other translation I’ve seen, it’s “truths.” Is this designed to buttress Schmidt’s claims of the “slightly negative” aspect?] And he brought over many from among the Jews and many from among the Greeks. He was [thought to be {My note: Schmidt will claim these are “missing words.”}] the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men among us, those who at first were devoted to him did not cease to be so, for on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.”

Schmidt claims that’s backed up by stylistic analysis, and he also claims that the testimony is not nearly as favorable as claimed. I'll challenge that as part of this review.

He also cites Josephus’ own claim to have known people in the trials of the apostles and even that of Jesus, by 51-52 CE. Really?

First of all, Caiaphas died in 46. So the high priest who reportedly condemned Jesus would not have been directly known to him.

Secondly, even at 51/52, Josephus is just 14 or so.

Second main point contra that is that Josephus was a braggart and self-turd polisher. Skipping way ahead in the book, we have:

“What follows is a sketch of six leading families with whom Josephus was familiar and whose members were also likely party to the execution of Jesus. These include the royal family of the Herodians, the rabbinic family of Hillel, and the high priestly families of Camith, Boethus, Phiabi, and especially Ananus I.”

From here, Schmidt goes on to make other statements, that, on the New Testament side, where connected with Herod Agrippa II, treat the last one-quarter of Acts with a hugely unwarranted degree of historicity. Also vis-a-vis Agrippa, Schmidt makes all sorts of reading between the lines and special pleadings on pages 163ff. He also assumes Jesus was “big enough” historically to have members of the House of Herod who would NOT have included Antipas or Agrippa I (both dying when Josephus was a tot) to remember him to Josephus.

Third, Acts is ahistorical enough even in its first half that we should probably largely ignore the “trials of the apostles.” See this piece of mine for a look at Acts' ahistoricity in general, focused on the last one-quarter of the book. Indeed, a 3-star reviewer here notes a relative lack of critical approach to the historicity of both Acts and the Mishnah. It’s been eons since I read the Mishnah myself, but, per the block quote above, it seems like special pleadings in this portion of the book as well. In addition, to move in the NT from Acts back to the gospels, taking every portrayal of Jesus “versus” the Pharisees at face value is also problematic.

Also related? He assumes that Jesus’ revolt, or whatever we should call it, occurred at Passover, and assumes within that that he Synoptics are right against John on what day the Passover was. (In one of his appendixes, Schmidt offers the “solution” [scare quotes!] that John was talking about the whole feast of Passover week with Unleavened Bread. Sure he was. Why haven't more biblical scholars said this, and written in depth about it?)

After this? Schmidt delves into that font of historicity, the Toledoth Yeshu, thoroughly and critically reviewed here, to claim that Ananus II, the guy who reportedly had some James, who may have been either a literal or non-literal brother of Jesus, put to death, was at Jesus’ trial. (Snark aside, the earliest elements of the Toledoth date from the second century CE. It's unlikely, though, that any first-century material is behind it. See Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9.

Fourth? Schmidt’s claim that the Testimonium is neutral to negative? Only if you accept his one interpolation, that “He was [thought to be] the Christ.” Per Wiki, Schmidt claims these are “missing words” not an interpolation. Really? So, they magically fell out of copies of the Antiquities before its current citation? More on that, re Jerome apparently being the first to have “appeared to be,” here .

He also ignores the possibility that translators inserted these words because they thought “Josephus” looked too blatantly Christian otherwise.

That in turn means we have intellectual dishonesty, as I see it.

He goes on to claim that both Jacob of Edessa and Jerome in translation reflect what he postulates as the original indeed being so:

“Chapter 2 canvasses various western and eastern versions of the TF—in Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian—while consulting several manuscripts and correcting past transcriptions. Most significantly, a certain Syriac text shows that the most suspicious statement in the extant version of the TF, ‘he was the Christ’, instead likely read ‘he was thought to be the Christ’. This reading is found in an important Syriac translation of the TF which new evidence suggests should be traced back to Jacob of Edessa (c.708 ce), a noted translator of Greek works and one of the most educated men of his day. Jacob’s translation is crucially matched by another famous translator, St. Jerome (c.420 ce), who rendered the phrase almost synonymously into Latin as ‘he was believed to be the Christ’. This correspondence indicates that both translators had before themselves a much more ancient Greek text, a text which I argue contained the original wording of Josephus. Such a reading also explains, once again, why Origen and others asserted that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. And, furthermore, it agrees with Josephan style, thereby giving the reading a ring of verisimilitude. Be that as it may, many Christian readers still do not seem to have read the altered phrase ‘he was the Christ’ (ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν) as a confession of faith. Instead, they simply assumed that Josephus was identifying Jesus with the alternative name of ‘Christ’, much like how many ancient non-Christian writers were quite willing to call Jesus the name of ‘Christ’, without thinking that such signaled faith in him.”

Sounds like half a dozen types of special pleading.

It also, by this point, sounds like systematic theology apologetics rather than exegesis. And, there's more to bolster that idea below, in my update.

Let us also remember that even Jerome is translating 300-plus years later than Josephus, and that he is on the far side of Eusebius, whom I see as a veil of sorts on all things Josephus related to Christian history.

Fifth, how does he deal with Origen? He claims that Origin found it “risky to use.” See my note above on Schmidt’s translation. With Origin, and later, he also says that the “incredible deeds” could be seen as negative, open to the claim that Jesus was performing magic. But, that’s only if you accept Schmidt’s interpolation, which as noted above negates his whole claim. And, contra Schmidt, this will be referred to as “interpolation” and not “missing words” throughout this review. I don’t believe in magic ponies. Beyond that, Josephus uses the same words for Elisha’s miracles.

And, even if true, would this be THAT risky?

With that, let’s dig into the book further. Yes, it's getting crushed further.

When we get into how Origin understood what Josephus thought of Jesus, we face issues similar, in a reverse way, to Tacitus (and the likely interpolation of the Fire of Rome) and Suetonius. Even on the Jesus “who was called Christ” as brother of James, this is simply “Ha-Moshiach” and not a Christian title. Nor does Josephus say that everybody proclaimed him as the Messiah. It should also be noted that, because the term in Greek wouldn’t be understood by most Greeks and definitely not by Greek-speaking Romans that, while Josephus will talk about Vespasian fulfilling Messianic prophecies, he never applies this term to him. He may have had other reasons for not doing that, too. One may have been Josephan religious scruples. The other may have been, having toasted Vespasian and with Domitian now on the throne, talk of “Christ” was no bueno.

From here on out, like Schmidt, I will use TF to save time and space. He says Origen surely knew some version of the TF. If we accept that some portion of it is original, but was later interpolated? That’s not a problem for that theory and Origin offers no support for Schmidt.

He wraps up his first section with this, about the TF’s reception in Greek Christianity, namely, why weren’t the parts about the resurrection, testimony of the prophets, miracles, played up more?

“In the present book I suggest a solution to this puzzling reception history. I argue that those statements in the TF which sound so extravagantly suspicious to our modern ears seemed quite different to most ancient and medieval writers who read them as not only ambiguous, but as also quite similar to other non-Christian reports about Jesus. This explains why so many never bothered to make use of the spectacular details in the TF; for to them, the TF did not have anything spectacular about it. Instead, the TF merely presented a neutral, ambiguous, or even vaguely negative account about Jesus that was of little benefit for their purposes. Yet, that very ambiguity allowed a minority of writers—most of whom only summarized or even manipulated its content —to interpret the TF in a way that promoted various Christian claims about Jesus.”

This too sounds like special pleading.

I remain unconvinced, wholly unconvinced. The “believed to be,” to riff on Schmidt, may have been original, and removed by whomever surely interpolated the last one-third:

“He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

The idea that Josephus wrote that himself is laughable. And, the “tribe of Christians,” if Acts is right about Christian self-naming, and when it might have happened, if Acts has an early second century dating, also puts this as post-Josephan.

Early Christian Writings — piece by Peter Kirby — still has the best roundup of evidence, above all based on it interrupting narrative flow, for the whole thing to be an interpolation. It also has a good refutation of some of Schmidt’s stylistic claims, above all the “principal men” issue, and other things mentioned above.

Per ECW? Perhaps the original version of Josephus had calamities or similar attached to his Jesus story, if he was the original author, and that what we have today is more than a partial editorial interpolation, but rather, to invent a word, even more an editorial exterpolation. On this idea, Josephus would have called Jesus a messianic pretender, like others. The calamities, per other events in Chapter 18 (same link as above), so this wasn’t originally interrupting the flow of that book, might have been inflicted by Antipas rather than Pilate, albeit with some pushing by Pilate. Per Luke, yes, Antipas maybe would have seen Jesus as John the Baptizer redivivus — as a Zealot.

Also per the link, on Section 3, the Jesus passage, note how short it currently is, as well as missing any "calamities." 

Under my theory, Josephus would eventually have written something like this:

Some time after this, there arose in Galilee a man named Jesus. He was acclaimed a wise man by his growing followers. Many cited the wondrous deeds he performed, and as proof of his wisdom, though others said he performed these things by sorcery or magic.

Some of his followers eventually talked about his as the Messiah. Perhaps in reaction to this, he went to Jerusalem during one of the festivals. The procurator Pilate, as well as Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee, who had already had experience with John, feared that he might start a tumult and even proclaim himself the Messiah.

They both interrogated him, then Pilate checked with the priesthood to make sure there would be no troubles if he were executed. Assured of their cooperation, he crucified this Jesus.

After the festival was done, Antipas searched throughout the Galilee and the Decapolis, knowing of past uprisings in this area, and brought many punishments down on the chief cities and villages of his followers.

Obviously, that would have been editorially mutilated by a combination of interpolation and extirpolation.

One big problem with this theory, though?

Celsus.

We already know Origin doesn’t reference the TF as stands as a tool against Celsus. Had the original been a highly negative narrative like this, Celsus, not Origen, would have cited it and Origin would have moved heaven and earth to refute it or try to.

My conclusion? While I don’t believe in a literal version of Bayes Theorum, because I don’t believe you can in general put precise percentage numbers on belief system probabilities, I’ll play along on the idea on this.

Before reading Schmidt’s book, I would have offered 3 percent for Josephus substantially writing the TF (MINUS the ending; if you make me include that, I’m at 1 percent); 67/69 percent that Josephus wrote some core kernel but it has moderate to extensive editorial interpolation; and 30 percent that most to all the passage is an interpolation.

Schmidt actually lost me. I’m now at 2/0 percent on Josephus writing substantially all, 58/60 percent on option THREE, and 40 percent on option TWO, flip-flopping those. That comes after pondering the “negative Josephus later exterpolated” idea and rejecting it. And, going directly against his alleged elimination of him, I’ll finger Eusebius as the most likely interpolator. (Richard Carrier seems to agree.) He was well-read in both secular and Christian history within the Empire, was at the right hand of Constantine, and had motive.

As for comments about Josephan style and the author’s stylistic analysis emphasis and claims? We’re not talking about 300 lines of text or even 300 words. The TF as received, without the “believed to be” conjecture? Just 84 words in Greek. Someone as well-read as Eusebius could have done a reasonable imitation no problem. In fact, it's arguable that 84 words is too short to do a stylometric analysis.

Let's compare it to something else that I thought of after posting to Goodreads.

That's the likely interpolation in Tacitus about the Fire of Rome and Neronian persecution of Christians for it. That interpolation, for those of us who accept it as such, contra Chris(sy) on r/AcademicBiblical and others, was likely by Sulpicius Severus. Even though it's more than half again as long as the TF, I've never seen arguments against this being an interpolation lead off with Severus (or whomever else) failing to do a halfway adequate imitation of Tacitus' style.

I'll move on briefly to other items.

First, if the TF is an interpolation en toto (I won’t follow Schmidt on the “forgery” word) then the James “the brother of Jesus” in Antiquities Book 20 is an insertion, or “gloss” as a better term, for obvious reasons. Eusebius again is most likely, especially given some questions about "where he saw" the TF within the Antiquities, if he isn't the interpolator himself. And, I disagree with Schmidt here, claiming this passage as authentic is an ambiguous to negative portrayal of Jesus, just like he does with the TF. Early Christian Writings, and other sites, address this in more detail. As for the use of “brother”? Paul repeatedly uses it in a non-literalistic sense.

More on that?

Alice Whealey, cited widely by the author? Her claim that the shorter passage on James and Jesus in Antiquities Book 20 cannot be an interpolation because Jesus having a brother had been rejected by Christians in general in the second century is laughable. (Wheatley is also where Schmidt gets his “Missing Words” idea from. Indeed, she believes that they were dropped only after Jerome, and that he saw them in Eusebius’ quote — and that Jerome didn’t read the manuscripts directly.) See this site for more. Whealey also is a historian and not a biblical scholar or related. The "brother" is refuted indirectly on one grounds, above. Other grounds for the Whealey-Schmidt claims are some version of argument from silence.

Speaking of, it seems much of Schmidt's argument really isn't original but is lifted from Whealey in many ways. (Per my update below, I have no idea if Wheatley is some sort of "traditionalist" Christianity apologist, but it wouldn't surprise me. That said, per other Carrier material, she may not be.)

Sixth, The Amateur Exegete, where I found the link, included a video interview of Schmidt by the often odious Tim O’Neill of “History for Atheists.” I'm not watching the video any more than I would listen to his podcast, contra his pleadings years ago. I suspect O’Neill likes the book because it’s contrarian and anti-mythicist if nothing else. (Regular readers here know that I am not a mythicist, nor am I a Gnu Atheist. But, O'Neill is still odious.)

If my guess is correct, then he’s fallen to general Gnu Atheist level.  Yes, Schmidt has. Just as, contra atheists in general and Gnus in particular, I don’t have to be a mythicist to be an atheist, so, too, do I not have to accept these claims about the TF to be an anti-mythicist.

Update: A potentially quasi-fundagelical institute, The Institute for Christian Reflection, founded and funded by some anonymous Daddy Warbucks, is behind funding Schmidt's book. That "about" link says:

Every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old. (Matthew 13:52) At the Institute for Christian Reflection we believe that faithful scholars should be as scribes trained for the kingdom of heaven, articulating the old truths of Scripture, while bringing forth new discoveries from them.

Such an endeavor takes much patience, the field has been well tilled, but there are still many treasures left undiscovered and unpublished—and the Institute aims to bring them to light. To this end we develop media to train believers in ageless Gospel wisdom while also sponsoring faithful scholars who are making fresh discoveries.

OK now.

Well, not OK now yet. Their "ongoing projects" page adds more:

They include new evidence regarding the extraordinary spread of ancient Christianity in East Asia, a new discovery of perhaps the earliest Christian artifact, new testimony concerning the famous darkness of the crucifixion, among others. These, we trust, will prove to be of outstanding value.

Clearly an apologetics site, and a fundagelical one if it's trying to prove the actuality of biblical signs and wonders that are really only literary devices, and thus this book is not trustworthy for that reason, which is reflected by the author.  

And, with that, I'll label the text criticism, the idea that Josephus's original had those two allegedly now-missing words, and some of the translation, as mendacious.

== 

Update 1, Nov. 17: Via doing a more academic version of this on Goodreads, David Allen, University College Cork, has responded with thoughts on where Josephus might have "slotted" a story about Jesus (he agrees with me and many others), the Syriac version of TF as necessity to reconstruct the Greek, and Eusebius' role on the TF. He says:

The harder earlier reading of ‘certain man’ is supported by a Greek variant in one of the Greek manuscripts of Eusebius – Codex A of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 that has the word tis (‘certain’). In Codex A of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 1.11.7 quotes the TF and has tis after Iēsous referring to ‘a certain Jesus.’ This tis is the same reading as the Slavonic. ‘The Slavonic Josephus offers a trace of the same pronoun: the phrase muzi nekij retroverted into Greek would correspond to anēr tis (certain man).” 6 The Armenian translation of Eusebius’ Church History also has this variant ‘certain’. 7 Having this phrase also in the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History makes it a certainty that this was the original reading. This shows a “certain man” instead of Jesus was copied out of Eusebius.

From there, this:

The interpolation of the TF into Slavonic version of Josephus War also does not name Jesus in the passage but refers to him as “there appeared a certain man” (Slavonic War II.IX.3(b)). This was very common for Josephus not to name minor figures such as Sign Prophets and other messianic figures.

Interesting. 

Re Allen's discussions of the Slavonic, John Meier, via Early Christian Writings, says:

The clearly unauthentic text is a long interpolation found only in the Old Russian (popularly known as the "Slavonic") version of The Jewish War, surviving in Russian and Rumanian manuscripts. This pasage is a wildly garbled condensation of various Gospel events, seasoned with the sort of bizarre legendary expansions found in apocryphal gospels and acts of the 2d and 3d centuries. Despite the spirited and ingenious attempts of Robert Eisler to defend the authenticity of much of the Jesus material in the Slavonic Jewish War, almost all critics today discount this theory. In more recent decades, G. A. Williamson stood in a hopeless minority when he tried to maintain the authenticity of this and similar interpolations, which obviously come from a Christian hand (though not necessarily an orthodox one).

That's about the translation in general, not the TF, but it's written to refute a Steve Mason, who claims it would be "unparalleled scribal audacity" to interpolate this out of whole cloth. Mason himself is a skeptic about the TF being fully Josephan, though; in a review of Wheatley's book, he is almost as skeptical about finding anything of value in the Slavonic as Meier quoted above.

Allen then plumps for Josephus having written at least the core of the TF:

Schmidt makes a very convincing case that much of the TF that we see as positive would in fact been negative. He does this by examining the reception of the TF by those quoting it or alluding to it. Schmidt had noticed that the TF did not make much of an impression on many church fathers who did not make much use of the most incredible positive Christian statements. It is us modern scholars that are reading the TF with Christian’s eyes but when Josephus wrote it, it was much more in keeping with being read negatively. A phrase Schmidt has convinced me that was original to the TF penned by Josephus is παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, (paradoksōn ergōn poiētēs)- ‘doer of strange works’. Geza Vermes argued in 2009 that the expression "surprising feats" (paradoksōn ergōn) (example used in Ant. 12.63) is repeatedly used by Josephus in his works to describe many miracles associated with the Old Testament (such as the burning bush and the miracles of Moses and Elisha). 18 So the word in itself is not negative (just like many words in English), but in context it can be negative.

His overall theory is in this suggested reconstruction:

There arose about this time a certain man, a sophist and agitator. He was a doer of strange works. [For they said he was a prophet and the Temple would be destroyed and restored in three days.] Many of the Judaeans, and also many of the Galilean element, he led to himself in a tumult; he was desirous of Kingship: Many were roused, thinking that thereby the tribe could free themselves from Roman hands. [So Pilate sent forces, footmen to slew them and seize a number of them along with the certain imposter.] And when at the indictment of the first men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to a cross. Yet this tribe has until now not disappeared.

Interesting. 

But, I disagree, especially with him claiming a different version of the last two sentences were still original. In my opinion, Josephus, writing just a few decades later, would not have talked about "that tribe" still being around today. This also assumes, per what I say above about Acts' phrase, that Christians were really separated from Jews at Josephus' time and that Josephus knew this. Not likely, even if not called "Christians" by an allegedly original and authentic TF core.

He may have moved my probabilities 2-3 percentage points in that direction, with my elimination of the last sentences, but no more. 

So, Allen is pushing too hard. Had he offered his reconstruction, ending either with the conjectural Pilate sentence or else the one before, OK. As is, no dice. Period. 

He still fails to explain why, since he labels Jesus a "signs prophet," there's no "calamities" as there are elsewhere in Chapter 20 of Antiquities, only his conjectural ones which are still far shorter than the other "signs prophets" material here, and shorter than what I offer up as a just-possible alternative. The major failure is that Allen has the "calamities" befall only Jesus not his followers. 

I mean, my conjectured version is far shorter than the 1,000-plus words in English Josephus has about Theudas, and the 1,100 plus about the Samaritan dispute. 

And, will all that, I smell a Part two/addendum breaking out all of this update plus some additions. 

Update 2: Via Peter Kirby, creator of Early Christian Writings, I now learn that the John the Baptizer passage in Josephus faces new scrutiny too! Kirby thinks it's authentic and I agree.

== 

Finally, rather than just quote-tweet him? Since he quote-tweets Rusty Doubit, aka Russ Douthat, calling out Adam Gopnik for claiming the TF is a forgery, I directly responded to them.

Update 3, Nov. 17: Douthat's stupidity on matters religious knows no bounds, per his new book.

 

View all my reviews

LCMS prez Matthew Harrison headfakes, then dives back into full wingnuttery.

Harrison, the president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the US's largest fundamentalist (you are) religious body, is trying to thread his theological and denominational camel's body through the eye of the Charlie Kirk needle with his official statement on Kirk's killing.

I had originally titled this post that he had backed off slightly from being a full wingnut, but a follow-up piece in an official publication of the denomination shows that's not true. I'll get to that below. 

It says it's about 15 years in the president's seat. Most of it backs off his previous nuttery and actually talks about assisting immigrants.

That said, besides the Charlie Kirk paeans that ignore his racism, etc., let's unpack something else.

That's Harrison officially stating that on one thing, he's unchanged, and that he's a Samuel Huntington type cultural Christianist. This:

I think it’s vital to retain Western Christian influenced culture and its wonderful blessings. But we Lutherans do not exist to “Christianize the state.” Our Augsburg Confession says the state and church are not to be “mixed.” I worry, frankly, about Muslim immigration and the orthodox Muslim denial of the two kingdoms. But some evangelicals have the same dogma! A great many of the decisions of the nature of state and law, are left to sanctified individual choice and action, biblically informed.

Is the proof. 

First, you DO want to "Christianize the state," just more indirectly.

Second, not all Muslims are "orthodox" Muslims.  

Third? Most of what does make Merikkka in particular, and the West in general, actually, non-snarkily good, has nothing to do with Christian, or Christian-influenced culture. Locke, Hume, Montaigne, Voltaire and others who influenced the American constitutional structure, the American political science structure and related, weren't "Christian-influenced." Locke was probably a U/unitarian or Deist. Hume was a secularist, non-theist, atheist, etc. Montaigne may have been a Catholic, but his essays on the tripartate division of government were in no way influenced by that. Voltaire was a deist. 

On other non-Charlie Kirk stuff, he references the wingnuts squared to his right, who think that officially breathing the air of other Christians in official Christian events is akin to heresy:

As I pulled into the gas station this a.m., I turned on the radio. There were interviews with children whose fathers were firemen, killed in 9/11. Oh my, I thought. Another anniversary of that horrid day. I remember it all too well. Within a week I was at ground zero. The LCMS provided a million dollars for the victims’ center in Manhattan. The controversy in the LCMS which ensued nearly broke my heart. Thank God we’ve moved beyond it and our approach to such situations constructed in the wake, has very largely kept us out of further internal controversy.

Have fun with that. 

Beyond that, he, in talking about Kirk's death:

Yesterday was the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk. A confessing Christian murdered for political speech. I beheld the news in shock, bouncing between the reports of sorrow and vitriol, putting the worst possible construction on sound bites. ... A few on our far edges say untoward things about race, failing to take into account the beautiful message of the N.T. that “God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10) And that repeatedly in the N.T. we see lists of early Christians which include multiple ethnicities from around the Mediterranean world. There is no N.T. argument against the freedom to marry among ethnicities, much less any such distinctions in the church. Jesus said, “Go therefore to all ETHNAE.”

Ignores Kirk's own racism.

Maybe he doesn't know that much about Kirk in general. Maybe fear of the even further right wingnuts pushed him to say something. Maybe he's just a lying hypocrite.  

Hence my "backs off slightly."

He's still a hypocrite, perhaps a lying hypocrite, and hoisting himself by his own petard. 

Sadly, this is in my own family of semi-origin. A cousin, a former LCMS parochial school teacher, ran Kirk up the flagpole and saluted him. I'm not going to bother to quote her, but without naming her by name, I called out on Fuckbook, in a general way, Lutheran family and friends for glorifying Kirk, a "racist wingnut." I also told them to read Matthew 7:3-5 if they thought this secularist needed praying for. Per Jesus himself, elsewhere? "A word to the wise." 

==

The wise don't include Harrison, who, since I first started writing this, in the Reporter, the official LCMS newspaper, runs Kirk up the flagpole and salutes him. Time for a takedown.

This:

Pundits have crafted lists of Mr. Kirk’s statements, which allegedly justify his murder. But no speech of any human being justifies his or her murder.

Is a lie. Actual pundits have listed Kirk's wingnuttery, but without attempting to justify his murder. I said that if he had named named, it could have been slanderous. Even without that, I told him to look at Matthew 7:3-5 and tell himself the Sixth Commandment rather than shouting it at others.

This:

Marxism, which is pervasive on many university campuses, praises anarchy and violence because violence is the means to throw the status quo into chaos and overthrow allegedly repressive regimes. As an atheistic paradigm of human social existence, Marxism views all law and ethics as utilitarian, indeed merely a human construct — including sexual identity itself, which has always been (Rom. 1) and is again, with an intensity never seen before, the frontier of “freedom” from Divine design. Hermann Sasse, the friend of the LCMS and great Lutheran who lived through the Hitler years in Germany, was the first publicly to reject the Aryan Paragraph of the Nazi party platform. He blew the whistle on real fascism and racism.

Is a mix of stereotyping, strawmanning, handwaving and dogwhistling. The "real fascism and racism" is an attempt to pretend that Kirk wasn't that.

This:

Charlie Kirk was such a Christian. I am such a Christian. And I know thousands more. ... “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:43–45) Charlie’s debate videos are a marvelous example of this.

Is whitewashing. And gaslighting. And other things.

Harrison likes to blather about the Sixth Commandment, all while ignoring the Eighth Commandment, in all of this, too. 

==

Harrison also ignores Romans 8 about submitting unto the governing authorities!

Harrison claims not to meddle in church-state issues and to respect the Lutheran doctrine of the "two kingdoms."

BUT? He officially glorifies in Charlie Kirk an official 2020 election denier. And, AFAIK, while he may have disciplined (or may not have disciplined) a semi-retired Illinois LCMS pastor for participating in an interdenominational event, he has done NOTHING (AFAIK) about said pastor trying to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results.

Romans 13, along with the Eighth Commandment, Matthew Harrison.

Biblical criticism roundup tidbits

' James McGrath gets called out for getting Judeophobia backward, and it's kind of hilarious, too. It's the biblical criticism version of librul identitarianism, applied wrongly. This is part of a book where the authors in general are apparently of McGrathian mindset. The bottom line, per this review, is:

Opposite the one-dimensional depiction of Judaism as positive and innocent stands a corre-spondingly one-dimensional depiction of Christianity as negative and malicious.

Oops.

That said, the review is itself spoiled to some degree by this at the end:

I confess that in this time of rising antisemitism, I have misgivings about reg-istering so dim an assessment of a volume with patently good intentionsZ

And, I say "spoiled" on the assumption the author is conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism. Schwartz is indeed Jewish, with a master's from JTS, and also one blog post on the Times of Israel AND, interestingly, with a wife who is a female Orthodox rabbi. Now, goys can do the same conflation, but Schwartz also condemned Pope Francis for his post-Oct. 7 comments. I'm reasonably comfortable in labeling him a conflationist.

==

A book that appears to do better on looking at early Christian writings beyond the New Testament, though it's purview would likely include the original Simon Magus story in Acts, challenges the "magic=heresy" idea.

==

Pilate putting a guard on Jesus' tomb, as recorded by Matthew, might have a kernel of historicity? Thanks for the laugh. Just because the Gospel of Peter may be behind it doesn't increase its chances of historicity. This guy is some sort of quasi-fundagelical.

The latest questionability from r/AcademicBiblical

First, touting this historical Jesus conference hosted by Bart Ehrman. We know Bart's gotten Jesus wrong on the claim he preached JW annihilation instead of hellfire, and other things. Other keynoters? James Tabor is a whack job with his Jesus family dynasty nuttery. Dale Allison is on the conservative side of New Testament critical scholarship. Paula Fredriksen, outside of biblical scholarship, has at least a degree of odiousness, and possible Zionist background as a Jewish convert, in past comments about Palestinians in general and Palestinian Christians "running away" in particular.

==

"Are Catholics really the first Christians" is a theological question, not an exegetical one, and should have been removed by mods. 

==

Early church fathers were NOT contemporaneous with Jesus' followers, contra this goob question. OP gets plenty of other pushback, but not on the most key thing. SMH.