Oldest manuscript of Jesus' alleged infancy found

 Of course, the word "alleged" is nowhere in the CBS News story about the discovery of the oldest manuscript fragment of The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. (Without the "alleged" or similar up front, the story is kind of clickbait.) Official news release from Humboldt University in Berlin, which had the manuscript in its possession without knowing what it was, is here.

The two key takeways?

First, this manuscript was dated 4th-5th century; the previous oldest IGT manuscript is from the 11th century. This is only 13 lines, so not of much use in text criticism.

Second? It's in Greek. Authors say that confirms Greet as the language of the original.

Because of the date and language, it's also cited by the authors as confirming second-century authorship.

What that shows is that, beyond the Protoevangelion and the various Pseudo-Acts, that "wild" stories about Jesus were developing fairly early in the Christian tradition. The fragment at hand, for example, includes the story about bubbe Yeshu creating clay sparrows and clapping them into life.

A broader takeaway, which ties to desire for specific dating of composition of IGT? The pericope at hand would indicate that Christians, on "work on the Sabbath," thought this was an issue for mocking Jews; indeed, the entire Gospel seems to have Jewish-Christian separation as its main focus. Any early church fathers calling it Gnostic are almost certainly referring to the Gospel of Thomas.

A third takeaway, not specific to the IGT? There's probably still other manuscripts of biblical books, or at least of church fathers, still floating unidentified in the archives of universities and research institutions.

Catholic consecretation of perpetual virginity: patriarchy at work

 Well, this one's creepy.

You can live a public life, not become part of any order of nuns, but yet, get an official consecration as a perpetual virgin.

Second, it's clearly a perpetuation of patriarchy. No such vow or consecration is promoted for male perpetual virgins. I quote from the Consecrated Virgins organization website:

The consecrated virgin in a particular way images the Church as virgin-bride of Christ, and, because of this, it is assumed that a woman who aspires to Consecration has been living tranquilly a private resolve of perpetual virginity for the sake of Jesus Christ for several years. She has the gift of physical virginity to offer to Christ, as she has not knowingly and deliberately engaged in sexual relations at any time during her life. [It is important to note that women who may not have the gift of physical virginity to offer to Christ may still make some form of personal consecration to Christ or pursue another form of Consecrated Life, such as being a member of a religious institute or a secular institute, or living an eremetical life.] A woman who has engaged in sexual relations before Baptism, or a woman whose marriage has been annulled, is not eligible to receive the consecration of virgins. In cases in which the loss of physical virginity was not intended by the woman, for example in case of rape or involuntary incest, she remains eligible for the consecration of virgins.

Unless one believes in a gay Jesus and a male bride for him (is that you, Morton Smith?) then this is women only. Well, the language says women-only, but, it's a good opening to kick Rome for opposing gay marriage, and to kick Morton Smith for being Morton Smith while I'm here.

It also vaguely reminds me of the Catholic May Crowning ceremony, about which I wrote three years ago.

Lead likely did NOT cause Beethoven's deafness or more

That's contra friend (his latest leads me to scratch the "friend") Skeptophilia, who posts to that end, with link to a Smithsonian piece, that in turn riffs off a letter to the editor in Clinical Chemistry.

There's a LOT to unpack.

First, Beethoven's hair has been tested before. Contra what I infer the letter writers implying, this is nothing new.

Second, the lead acetate mentioned in the story? Goes back to Roman times. So does lead being in pottery glazes. So does lead-pipe plumbing. Was Caesar deaf? Cicero? Augustus? Seneca? I think not.

Third, the authors note they were able to sequence much of Beethoven's genome and that he had a genetic disposition toward liver disease and had hepatitis B at the time of his death.

You know what exacerbates liver disease? Alcohol, as in the alcohol that contained the lead acetate grape syrup Beethoven was drinking.

A History Channel piece goes further down that road, talking about this hair study, which was published in Current Biology:

Moreover, the researchers provided the first proof that Beethoven was infected with the hepatitis B virus, which inflames the liver and could have spread to him during childbirth, sexual intercourse, or surgery with contaminated instruments.

“If you have hepatitis B today, then your doctor is going to tell you not to drink a single glass of wine,” says Meredith, a co-author on the paper.

Yet, though most evidence suggests Beethoven was a moderate drinker for the era, “it’s safe to assume he was drinking practically daily,” says Tristan Begg, a biological anthropologist at the University of Cambridge in England and the paper’s lead author. In all likelihood, the researchers say some combination of alcohol consumption, hepatitis B, and his genetic predisposition to liver disease caused cirrhosis, from which he never recovered.

There you are.

If that's not enough?

Even an old ScientificAmerican story mentions a mix of alcohol and viral hepatitis on his death. (Beethoven also appeared to have had late-life pancreatitis, often associated with alcohol abuse.) From that 2023 hair study, again. In addition, Ars Technica notes Beethoven contracted typhus in 1796.

As for the deafness?

Beethoven had no genetic predisposition there. And, lead poisoning can be a factor. But, again, see above. And, some types of typhus can be a cause.

Not the first time Skeptophilia has run with something without being on the firmest of foundations. Why, this time, other than the "tears" on his piece meaning this has more pathos than Beethoven's drinking problem and wherever he got Hep B from, I don't know.

As for the letter he cites? When this was all over the news a year ago saying that lead probably was NOT the issue. It seems you have a couple of people hitting "publish" on the publish-or-perish button.

Now, how did Beethoven get Hep B? On causes, I doubt he was sharing dirty needles, and it surely wasn't from birth. That leaves him most likely visiting an infected prostitute. Boo hoo on that one, Skeptophilia.

Not a shock that Catholic churches are reversing the clock

Nor are most of the results.

The AP story on this trend nails the reason why in the second paragraph: Catholic churches are "aging out" on more regular attendees in many places. Often, people who are somewhat more culturally or socially conservative in general want more of that as they get older.

I suspect a related factor is the dead weight of decades of the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI still having influence on American Catholic seminaries.

“There really aren’t very many liberals in the seminaries anymore,” said a young, recently ordained Midwestern priest. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the turmoil that engulfed his parish after he began pressing for more orthodox services. “They wouldn’t feel comfortable.”

As for what those seminaries are turning out? A lot of hot young buck priests appear to be even more "egg breakers" than their 1960s predecessors. 

The overall influence of JPII, as in at the 1993 Catholic World Youth Day in Denver, is mentioned.

As for Francis the Talking Pope, here's what he thinks:

The U.S. church has “a very strong reactionary attitude,” he told a group of Jesuits last year. “Being backward-looking is useless.”

How much he can do about it? Different story.

So is the fact that many more progressive Catholics, as they see their particular congregations taken over, are running further away.

And, why wouldn't you, when you're getting, in some places, not just the return of the Tridentine mass, but this:

It ranges from Catholics who want more incense, to Latin Mass adherents who have brought back ancient prayers that mention “the perfidious Jew.” There are right-wing survivalists, celebrity exorcists, environmentalists and a handful of quasi-socialists.

"Environmentalists" and "a handful of quasi-socialists" aren't really new, so don't know what they're doing there.

A side benefit of this could be more people pushing back against six Supreme Court justices' Catholicism potentially intruding into their rulings.

A focus of the piece, re younger Catholics, is Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. (Note: A few HS grads from my little newspaper burg have gone there.). And holy shit, it sounds like a half-Baylor school:

(A)t Benedictine, Catholic teaching on contraception can slip into lessons on Plato, and no one is surprised if you volunteer for 3 a.m. prayers. Pornography, pre-marital sex and sunbathing in swimsuits are forbidden.

No sunbathing in swimsuits. And, what does Plato have to do with contraception? The Good, the True and the Beautiful being sex for procreation only?

Or, re half-Baylor, per the picture? Something I have commented about before?

That looks like a Catholic version of "quiverful" theology in the developing.

Speaking of? These conservative Catholics in the pulpit, like the Rev. Scott Emerson, are getting political just like the six in black:

Protection is needed, he said in a 2023 service, from “the spiritual corruption of worldly vices.” He has warned against critics – “the atheists, journalists, politicians, the fallen-away Catholics” – he said were undermining the church.

MAGAts in the pulpit! And, that's not joking. The attack in journalists is scary. And, "politicians" surely doesn't mean all of them, you know?

That said, the departing are voting with their wallets. As for Emerson saying "the church has buried every one of its undertakers," really? Been to Western Europe recently?

And, I suspect that priests like Emerson will also be unapologetic about any stones that sitll get turned over in the church's sexual abuse scandals.

From my recent experience at being inside Catholic churches, I can say anecdotally that about 7-10 percent of women under the age of 50 wear some sort of head covering. A few within that, it may be an actual veil. A number of teenaged girls are among this. How much overt or covert prodding is involved with them, I don't know.

No, Yahweh was not originally an Omride deity

Strawmanning, in this piece claiming that Yahweh was originally the family/tribal god of the Omride dynasty of Israel and moved southward to Judah from there.

And, stupidity in commenting, especially by the OP, from the r/academicbiblical post where I saw it .

The start of the strawmanning? How many critical scholars think Yahweh “was already the national deity in the tenth century”? I don’t. Since the name of “Abijah,” if properly translaterated into English, is “Abijam,” or אבים in Hebrew, and son Asa is אסא In Hebrew, the kingdom of Judah has no Yahweh-theophoric kings in the 10th century. 

That said, depending on how carefully one parses, Ahaz, Manessah and Amon also are not. Makes one wonder how Hezekiah got there, and, given the later corruption of the Judahite line that means Josiah likely isn’t Josiah, either, that perhaps Hezekiah isn’t Hezekiah.  It is not until Josiah that we get an uninterrupted set of Yahweh-theophoric kings.

Tis true that the last two Omride kings, brothers Ahaziah and Athaliah, are Y-theophoric, as is sister Athaliah. But? Jehoshaphat in the south preceded not only them but their father Ahab.

That said, all of this, plus the fact that Ahaziah of Judah’s reign dating, like Hezekiah’s and others, are “unstable” is an additional issue.

From there on, setting aside for now the issue of ruling names, Frevel lists seven “pillars” of reconstruction of Israelite / Judahite religion. And, really? Have half of these been held by most critical scholars in the past 30 years?

I outrightly reject 3. I’ve not heard 4 listed as a major tenet of Yahwism before. I definitely reject 5, and also see 4. I reject 6 and because of that, I reject 7. I know I am nowhere near alone, either. Frevel comes off as pushing at an open door while carrying a big mug of smug. Unfortunately, other than point 1, that Yahweh was not indigenous to Canaan, which I totally support, Frevel bases the rest of his argument on the open door of points 5-7.

Next, in talking about Yahweh coming from the south, he mentions Judges 5:4-5 and other passages, but ignores Judges 1. (That said, in English alone, Judges 1 shows how muddied the Former Prophets are. If Jerusalem was captured (then?) put to fire and sword, as in Judges 1:8, why wasn’t it held? Or, if it weren’t because tribal nomads like Mongols and Turkmen didn’t want to live in that city, why was it allowed to refortify itself so much?

Then, re Numbers 10 and Jethro? Why WOULDN’T the author, or editor, of the P passage make Jethro a Yahwist only via Moses? Next, the one paragraph, or less than that, of rejecting the Arab-Midiante etymology is bad enough without giving credence of any sort to the actual biblical proposal. Frankly, that’s a big fail right there. If you’re going to buy the biblical form of the etymology, you lost me, especially knowing that the Yawhist is a producer of epically mangled puns.

The biggest fail would be that there’s no explanation of why Ahab gave his children Y-theophoric names. In his first mention of Ahab, he says this:

All of them bear theophoric Yahwistic names for the first time in the history of Israel: Ahaziah, Joram, Athaliah. This corroborates that YHWH was the patron God of the Omrides. This is not only a new phenomenon in the biblical reflection of the Northern dynasty (Sanders 2015, 79). The father of Baasha, Ahijah (1 Kgs 15:27), and Abijah, the son of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:1), are special cases which cannot be discussed in this paper. In Judah Jehoshaphat is the first king to carry a Yahwistic name.

While ignoring that Jehoshaphat ruled first. It also ignores that Jehoram of Judah was likely older than Ahaziah of Israel. Of course, that sets aside the issue of either corruption of or distortion of king lists and that we should perhaps speak of only one Ahaziah and one Jehoram, but that’s a different matter entirely. After all, 2 Kings runs two different narratives about Jehoram of Israel, almost as diverse as 1 Samuel running two different narratives about whether or not Yahweh supported or opposed kingship for Israel.

Finally? As my grokking patience has worn out. Tracing the Samaritans back to this time might be a mug’s game. I think there’s nothing even semi-firm pre-Persian Empire.

RIP Dan Dennett follow up

I posted my own RIP three weeks ago, with links to much previous blogging about Dennett, as well as links to Massimo Pigliucci's and John Horgan's takes on him.

Last week, via Firefox, I saw Dan Falk's take on Nautilus, and it needs some refutation on its "10 brilliant insights."

1. The mind is a user illusion. True to fair degree. But, the user is itself an illusion. One of these areas where Dennett didn't go as far as he could have.

2. Free will is an fantasy, but a welcome one. Not so totally. Per Daniel Wegner, I see subconscious varieties of something like free will existing. As for the idea that our legal system would fall part without traditionalist ideas of free will? "Fall apart" might be too harsh, but, more importantly, contra Dennett's larger implications, maybe it NEEDS reformation.

Beyond that, Dennett's comment there and elsewhere that we need free will sounds like the reverse side of Robert Sapolsky saying "I love determinism but I refuse to draw logical conclusions from that."

Actually, even more, it sounds like the type of comment about religion that would be on the lips of a stereotypical 19th century Anglican divine, that we need it to enforce morality, even if none of it is true.

And, Dennett himself didn't really believe this.

After all, his first big book hit was "Brainstorms." Dan didn't repudiate free will in that book.No. 2 was "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting." He certainly didn't repudiate free will there, as shown by the subtitle alone. It's been long ago, and I don't have reviews posted on either, but I know this. In fact, he doubled down on that 20 years later in "Freedom Evolves," and that one IS a review. 

In short, on this one, Dan Falk is either repeating a lie by Dennett, badly misunderstanding him, some combo of those, or worse.

3. Consciousness on parallel tracks? First, what Dennett described running on parallel tracks, or perhaps more accurately, what Falk thinks Dennett is calling "consciousness," is not. It's subselves of subconsciousness. And, is it "brilliant"? Only if one thinks it's new. Falk obviously either hasn't read or doesn't remember his Hume. Hume's only lack was not to talk about multiple streams running at the same time. That said, maybe Dennett isn't so totally right on that. His idea was ultimately a Darwinist one, and I've already rejected his algorithmic claims about "dangerous acid." As in ...

4. The power of Darwinism? Dennett's extolling of the power of algorithms and Darwinian universal acid is all tosh and tommyrot. Period.

5. No miracles allowed? True? Yes. But? Not brilliant and not Dennett's.

6. Cultural evolution can mimic biological evolution. "Can," but Dennett's own fine print hedges — and undercuts Point 3. (Oh, Dennett was wrong about memes, too, and Susan Blackmore has repudiated most of her early thought and comments on them. Fanbois don't like to hear that.)

7. Religion doesn't need to be abolished, merely fixed. The reality of Dennett on religion elsewhere, per Horgan, undercuts this. And, of course, I think Dennett, like Dawkins, did think that Islam did indeed need to be abolished.

8. Behavior is predictable? Not as much as Dennett claimed, per his fine print. But, to the degree that a  "light cone" (not a narrow ray) of behavior is predictable, not totally brilliant and not totally new.

9. The truth really does matter. Uttered in part by Dennett against things like "woke" versions of the sciences, and true there, on the hard sciences. Not so true on the social sciences, but bespoke by Dennett from his hoity-toity, OSS-dad, New England past.

10. Reality is more magic than miracles. Unequivocally true.

Sigh on Marcion being before Luke

The idea that Marcion wrote his Evangelion before Luke, and that Luke is dependent on him rather than vice versa gets trotted out again at r/AcademicBiblical. Some of the arguments, in this comment, are lame. The biggie is the idea that we can accurately reconstruct the Evangelion.  (Sidebar: I don't know what the OP means by "aLuke," but the would-be kewl kids throw around new acronyms that they picked up on YouTube or something.)

Re the Evangelion link about Marcion's gospel from Wiki, we have nothing firsthand, if you reject that P69 is verses from it. Among things telling against this being Marcionite is that other early versions of Luke omit 22:43-44, not just it. MUCH more about the dispute here, including a hot take on Clivaz claiming it's Marcion. The piece goes on to discuss that P75 also doesn't contain it, as well as the first revising hand of Sinaiticus, ℵ2a. Weirdly, the author does NOT discuss Vaticanus also omitting. That said, P69 is the only one to omit v42 as well, but per the "here" link, we shouldn't overread that.

Related? The Lukan dependency on Josephus. I think it likely there is some general dependency, but citing the fact that both Luke and Josephus' War have a dedication, and to a "most excellent" patron is thin.

Pytine/Poutine's follow-up to himself is thinner yet. There's good reason why Marcion might have trimmed Josephan references from an extant copy of Luke, starting with Josephus being Jewish. And, of course, trimming the genealogy fits that totally.

He does allow for some version of the Semler hypothesis (Marcion and Luke using common material) being correct, then attacks that by claiming that's "vague" as a hypothesis.

I forgot that I had previously written about Poutine being an idiot on other things, but in connection with the Marcionite "hypothesis." (Those are scare quotes.)

Per all of this, again, we don't have any manuscript directly from Marcion's gospel, per what I said above. And, given that we thus have to reconstruct given comments from Marcionite opponents who were under no obligation to reproduce his gospel word for word, this is a mug's game.

==

Although not mentioned there, this idea, in some circles, has connections with the Dutch Radical School's claim that Marcion fabricated the Pauline Epistles, discussed by me here. 

And, this leads me to one final thought, which I will probably express here again in the future. A fair amount of the people at r/AcademicBiblical seem ready to latch on to new ideas like shiny baubles, without giving them an actually critical look.