A Possible Debate...
An atheist wrote to me and said that you debate Bible-believers on the subject of "inerrancy," and I'd like to challenge you right now to a public debate--with someone else! His name is Vin Lewis, and he is founder and president of All Roads Ministry. You can contact him yourself (address deleted), or let me act as go-between to set up this debate. Please let me hear from you A.S.A.P., as I am anxious to see who wins! Thank you.
(Bob Holmes, 3200 North Vermont Street, Arlington, VA 2207.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter, dated January 24, 1996, was found when I recently reorganized my desk. The volume of regular mail I receive, in addition to e-mail and the editing and business responsibilities associated with publishing The Skeptical Review, sometimes results in mail getting lost under the paperwork on my desk. This happened with Mr. Holmes' letter, and I have already sent him my apologies.
I also notified him that I would be glad to debate biblical inerrancy with Mr. Lewis, and pay my own expenses to the debate, as I normally do. I predicted that Mr. Lewis would not agree to debate, but about a week after I mailed the letter, Mr. Lewis called to say that he is willing to debate. We have agreed to have the debate in Virginia, somewhere near Washington, D. C., and we are now negotiating propositions and format.
I never seem to find fault in your arguments, but I must admit all rules can be broken. On page 5, of the January/ February issue of The Skeptical Review, I find an oxymoron: "I do wish that Christian apologists could think a little more rationally...." Rationally is not an adjective that can be used with Christian!
Just about given up hope? I suppose if Christians can believe in a god, then I guess it's okay to hope to find a rational one.
As for Perman's "tomb" theory, of course, they buried their dead in tombs. The land is just a rock field, so any digging could be considered a tomb. It was probably just a cave. If all dead in that era were in tombs, wouldn't they be everywhere? After all there were millions of people living, and they all had to die.
The stated fact that the "legs [of Jesus] were broken" is typical of crucifixions. It made 'em die faster.
A personal thanks for your insightful reviews. Question? Do you tutor students? You don't want to take all that knowledge to the grave, do you? (Or is it a tomb?)
(Larry Laird, 7500 Creager Road, Waynesboro, Pa 17268-9748; e-mail sofrank@atheism.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I tutor no one except to the degree that this can be done through TSR. For one thing, I have no time for tutoring. (Why didn't someone tell me how much fun retirement would be?) I don't want to take my knowledge to the grave, but I don't have much choice.
I have recently learned about your publication through your web site. Oddly enough, I learned about it through Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason web site, www. str.org, a Christian apologetics organization. Whichever way, I am happy to have found your articles. I do have some reservations about some of your articles, however. My main reservation is that biblical errancy efforts seem somewhat like criticizing the clothes the emperor is no longer wearing. The issue isn't just whether this verse or that is flawed; I find scholarly textual analysis of the Bible is miles beyond this.
I was a thoroughly serious, studious Christian up to the age of 24, that is, until I started doing my undergraduate engineering studying on the third floor of the University Research Library at UCLA. I would procrastinate by picking up a book or two on Biblical analysis. Almost the entire floor is dedicated to research on the Bible as if it were some sort of archeological find.
What I found is that for more than 70 years, biblical scholars have been amassing a growing consensus on a core set of theories on the evolution and development of the biblical texts that are all but incontrovertible. In very general terms, I derive from this consensus the following set of near-facts: (1) The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John simply cannot be reconciled in their details of the storyline of Jesus's ministry. (2) As for the synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke agree in order of events only when the events are also contained in Mark. These agreements reflect textual agreement rather than thematic agreement, which indicates they copied the text of a document [Matthew and Luke copied Mark or its precursor document] rather than gathering independent facts and accounts. In fact, scholars seem to agree that the copying was of a written document not the copying of an oral tradition. (3) To the extent the rest of Matthew and Luke agree in subject matter [albeit out of order], the agreements again reflect the copying of another single written document, termed Quelle or Q, which was identified in 1838 by Christian Weisse. Today, Q is well accepted by biblical scholars. (4) The rest of Matthew and Luke disagree irreconcilably. Mostly, this is the nativity and the resurrection, I believe. The strong implication is that the synoptic gospels contain agreement only because Matthew and Luke copied two existing texts, Mark and Q. Apart from this large-scale copying, at least one of the copying authors (Matthew and/or Luke) didn't know the first thing about Jesus's life and times. (5) In the midst of all this literary copying, the amount of literary license that the authors of Matthew and Luke granted themselves, altering the meaning of Jesus's words and deeds, should by itself be sufficient reason to doubt every verse of the Bible. (6) Mark is a set of short stories which themselves may contain some degree of accurate oral tradition, but the connective tissue between each story, the overall storyline of Jesus's ministry, was shown to be the author's own creation as early as Karl Ludwig Schmidt in 1919. (7) Q is an interesting document, parts of which can be pieced together from Matthew and Luke. It appears to have had its own evolution, but the earliest version of Q may well have been accurate, even nearly contemporaneous, reflections of Jesus's sayings. (8) The gospel of John also contains facts and subtleties that indicate that its earliest version may have contained reliable and accurate information of Jesus's life; at least it enjoys more corroboration than Mark. In John, however, Jesus talks just like the author writes when the author is writing in his own voice. Much has been written on this point. It is possible, however, that the author was a close follower of Jesus and so aligned in thought with Jesus that he sounds like Jesus. There is evidence that Johnlike cosmic discourse was alive and well in the Essene sect, which was centered near the desert region where John the Baptist and Jesus were claimed to have begun. (9) The Acts of the Apostles is a classic deification of the apostles and Paul. This was a common occurrence in literature about nonbiblical figures throughout the Roman empire in that era. Few scholars address Acts as much more than whole-cloth fiction. Unlike the Acts story, Paul never mentioned any blinding revelation from Jesus when he was desperately trying to justify his authority in Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and elsewhere. Also, his description of his compromise with the Jerusalem "pillars" pales in comparison with his near coronation found in Acts. (10) The authentic Pauline letters [1 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians., Philemon, Galatians and Romans] are probably the most reliable documents in the New Testament. They show a quickly evolving mind. Some of his earliest thoughts were very scary, e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4-5; others were just screwy, e.g., Galatians 3-4. Generally, however, it appears Paul never knew the first thing about Jesus's teachings, nor did he get along with hardly anyone who knew Jesus. In fact, Paul reduces Jesus's entire life and ministry to simply the idea that he was sinless, was crucified, and was resurrected for our sins. Paul's letters include some later editorial insertions, such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. (11) Several books attributed to Paul sound nothing like him, such as Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. (12) Second Peter includes nearly all of Jude, which is an entirely unnoteworthy book of its own. (13) Revelation is the rantings of a madman.
There is certainly much more that can said about any one of these points, and other points not included above. I would just turn the attention of anyone interested in these points to authors like Burton L. Mack, John Dominic Crossan, and Paula Fredriksen, whom I find most accessible to most of us. Alternatively, the reader could go to the nearest university research library. However, in such libraries, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that seriously analyzes simple questions of errancy.
(Kelly Cunningham, 1610 Granville Avenue, Apt. 1, Los Angeles, CA 90025; e-mail acandkc@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The points that Kelly Cunningham raised are too numerous to discuss individually, but they are all problems that biblical scholars have long recognized. Many major seminaries now teach their students this realistic view of the Bible, and the traditional biblical inerrancy doctrine survives primarily in fundamentalist Bible colleges. It is interesting to note that Mr. Cunningham was a Christian until he took the time to research the Bible seriously. In the process of his research, he saw things that are incompatible with the inspired, inerrant view of the Bible. This is a familiar story.
Please remove my name from the mailing list.
(George Faull, Summit Theological Seminary, 198 Airport Road, Peru, IN 46970.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Faull's name was removed. He was added to the list at the request of a subscriber to whom he had given religious literature. Apparently, he doesn't believe in reciprocity, so Summit Theological Seminary may not be one of the enlightened institutions that teach a scholarly view of the Bible.
I have enjoyed reading The Skeptical Review since 1994. Your articles are timely, informative, and satisfy my need for a clear and logical systematic refutation of the claims of the Bible and of its believers. Please find enclosed a money order to cover the cost of resubscribing for another year.
If I am "addicted" (as some will say) to Farrell Till's "Review," it is because of the good effect it has had on my life over these past few years. The more of Till's philosophy I adopt, that much more is my behavior positively modified. I can attribute much of my success at becoming more unfettered in the mind and less demanding on my physical body to Farrell Till's contribution. For this, I wish to thank him publicly in this column, i.e., "The Mailbag."
I was a Bible-believer of the Jehovah's Witness type from 1987 to 1992. In 1992, I came to the realization that my leaders were liars and that I had to tell my "brothers and sisters" that this was so. I started writing letters to them to warn them of the lies being told by the governing body, only to find myself excommunicated two weeks into my campaign.
From 1992 to 1994, I searched for the "true truth" of the Bible. For a while there, I thought I had found it in the Fundamentalist Protestant Baptist Christian Church, but then I met Farrell Till in his devastatingly logical publication, The Skeptical Review. Now I know what that "true truth" of the Bible really is: It is not to be trusted.
(Rob Savarie, 206-518 Morris Street, Sudbury, ON, Canada P3B 1C1)
EDITOR'S NOTE: A familiar Christian claim is that happiness can be found only "in Jesus," but as long-time subscribers know, we have published many letters from former Christians who consistently tell us that escaping from the fetters of religious superstition brought them a satisfaction and happiness that they had never found in Christianity. Mr. Savarie's letter is just one of the latest.
Thank you for the complimentary subscription to The Skeptical Review.. I have enjoyed receiving it and look forward to the well written articles that you include in each issue. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $12 for a two-year renewal of this subscription.
A short bit about me. I am a Christian, a preacher, and someone who does take the Bible to be the Word of God. For the past year, I have been challenged by your newsletter and forced to take a close look at the truths that I have held for so long with so little thought. As I have looked at these truths, I have become stronger and better equipped for the preaching of the Word. I have you and your newsletter to thank for part of that growth. That is why I am renewing my subscription; so the Lord can continue to use it to cause growth in my ministry and spiritual walk.
Thank you for the work that you do in preparing such an excellent newsletter, and for your own challenging articles. Best wishes to you and to your family. Rest assured and rejoice that you are being used of God.
A good friend of mine resides in Canton, Illinois. He is named (deleted). Just curious if perhaps you know him.
(Richard L. Johnson, 1820 Highland Avenue, Burlington, IA 52601-4528)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I appreciate Mr. Johnson's letter, and all I ask of him is that he continue to read TSR and give the articles in it a fair hearing. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but if he will give the articles an unbiased appraisal, I think he will eventually change his opinion of how God is using me. As Rob Savarie did immediately above, too many people have testified to the help that TSR has given them in throwing off the fetters of religious superstition for me to believe that God is "using me" to help his cause.
I did not know Mr. Johnson's friend, but I would be glad to talk to him if Mr. Johnson wants to make the arrangements. As a matter of fact, I live only about 90 miles from Burlington, Iowa, so if Mr. Johnson would ever like to talk personally about his beliefs, biblical inerrancy, my views, etc., I would be glad to go to Burlington for private discussions.
Greetings from Texas. I've thoroughly enjoyed your most insightful publication, and now I would like very much to take this opportunity to request a subscription for a lady friend of mine who is presently on the downside of throwing off her Christian belief. I think she will read your publication with great interest, and, finally having been thoroughly convinced, will discard her Christian beliefs once and for all. This is just the kind of information she needs. I've noted her address below (deleted).
Thank you for your time and assistance here, as it is genuinely appreciated. I know she'll look forward to hearing from you.
(Steve Armistead, #465704 Stiles, Route 4, Box 1500, Beaumont, TX 77705)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Hmmm, perhaps God can use me here to restore this lady's faith. I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson, but I just couldn't resist.
In your reply to Mr. Boonsaayer (November/December 1996), you said, "I have never been to Tokyo, Japan, but I believe there is a Tokyo, Japan." Since we are visiting here, I just wanted to send you a postcard to let you know I checked and there is indeed a Tokyo, Japan. Keep up the good work.
(Bob Oliver, 607 North 38th Street, Nixa, MO 65714)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The postcard showed scenes from Tokyo on one side, with the scenes identified on the back. Now if only someone could produce evidence just as convincing that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised Lazarus from the dead, and then rose from the dead himself, I could close down my operations here and do something else with the rest of my life.
Thank you for your comments to my first letter in the January/February issue. Yes, I was referring to your note at the end of Mike Ulm's letter on page 13 of the May/June 1996 issue: "I personally don't know a single person who was once a committed atheist but is now a Christian." I offered you several names of famous atheists later converted to Christianity (Charles Foucault, Jacques Maritain and wife, Andre Frossard, Vittorio Messori, Max Jacob, Evelyn Waugh). A few days later, I wrote to you again with two more cases: Joseph Joubert, a philosopher, disciple and collaborator of Diderot and a self-confessed atheist before his conversion, and Henri Gheon, who changed from a Nietzschean atheism to Catholicism. Maybe, I added, there are more atheists who converted to Christianity, such as Louis Veuillot or Huysman.
With this information, I only intend to explain to you that conversion is not such a strange phenomenon as your note could invite to think. As far as I know, these conversions did not happen on the deathbed. Recently, I learned about Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, who has performed more than 60,000 abortions. After being an atheist for the largest part of his life, he has become a Catholic in December 1996. The news appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.
In my letter, I did write that "Voltaire was never an atheist, in spite of what many people think," so it is I who am most puzzled to read that I cited him as an example of an atheist who converted to theism. I only said that "Voltaire asked for pardon to God and to the Church...." If I referred to Voltaire, it was because you mentioned him as an example of the atheists or freethinkers about whom tales are told, "even though people present at the times of death denied that any such changes occurred." Instead of your attempts to find faults in my reasoning, I would have preferred learning about those witnesses who, according to your note, denied Voltaire's repentance. But, quite surprisingly, it is you who complain because I did not document my assertion. Well, I invite you to read Voltaire: A Biography by Haydn Mason, Granada Publishing, Ltd., London, 1981. His sources are Voltaire et la Societe au XVIII Siecle (Voltaire and Society of the 18th Century) by Desnoiresterres, Paris, 1867-76, La Religion de Voltaire, by R. Pomeau, Reflections at the Death Bed of Voltaire: The Art of Dying in Eighteenth Century France, Oxford, 1975.
I already knew the reason why so many atheists and freethinkers admire Tom Paine, his opposition to organized religions mainly, but I keep on astonished, as I told you, because Paine, your Patron Saint, was also against atheism, and his book Age of Reason aimed, as he said and I repeat now, "to keep France from Atheism." As to Voltaire, after having read Systeme de la Nature, by d'Holback, [he] decided that he had to fight in two fronts: "against l'Infame [the infamous] and against atheism, as the threat of the latter is a danger so great as that coming from the first one" ("l'infame" could be the Catholic Church or organized religions in general; critics are not sure). Is there any atheist who can explain to me why they pay no attention to what their "patron saint" or their admired Voltaire wrote about them?
It was yourself who wrote that "by the very nature of their temperaments, fundamentalists have to believe that they are right" and that "because I was once a fundamentalist myself and understand the way they think, especially their need to be right...." No, I am not suggesting that Dan Barker or you would not feel the need to be right. In fact, with your words, you are confirming my opinion that some people (fundamentalists) need affirming faith categorically while others (atheists and freethinkers) need denying it so categorically as they. In other words, if I am right, belief or unbelief would be a matter of temperament rather than of reasoning.
Many thanks again for your comments, but please note that my first family name is Casao, not Ibanez.
(Antonio Casao, Apartado 882, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Whew, where should I begin? Well, I will first apologize for incorrectly assuming that Mr. Casao's surname was Ibanez, but I trust that he will understand that the English system puts the person's surname last. Next, I think a comment on one of Mr. Casao's final remarks is in order. He contends that fundamentalists by temperament have a need to be right and that atheists feel a need to "deny"; however, it seems to me that if anyone feels a compelling need to be right, it would be Mr. Casao, because Mike Ulm asked me if I knew of any atheists who had converted to Christianity, and I said that I personally knew of no "committed atheists" who had converted. Mr. Casao may believe what he wants to, but that is a true statement. I personally know of no committed atheists who have converted to Christianity. I know of some Christians who claim that they were once atheists. In fact, it has become rather fashionable for Christians to make this claim, but of all the Christians who have told me that they were once atheists, not a single one of them had prior histories of having shown dedication and commitment to atheism.
Perhaps Mr. Casao just didn't understand what I meant by "committed atheists." When I refer to committed atheists, I mean atheists who have studied the major arguments for the existence of God and the many refutations that have been published and use this knowledge to try to educate others to the fallacies in theistic thinking. Since I don't even know the backgrounds of the converted atheists that Mr. Casao has listed in his letters, I have no way of knowing if they were ever committed atheists in the sense that I use the term. Of all the Christians who have said to me that they were once atheists, I had never heard of any of them. Since I have done extensive reading in freethought and atheistic literature, I'm sure that I would have encountered their names if they had been committed atheists before their conversions. It seems to me that Mr. Casao is trying to make an issue where none exists. I was asked if I knew of any committed atheists who have converted to atheism, and I said that I didn't. And that was the truth.
Once again, Mr. Casao expresses wonderment at the respect that freethinkers and atheists have for Thomas Paine, whom he refers to as our "patron saint." He pointed out that Paine said that he wrote Age of Reason to try "to keep France from atheism." I taught American literature for 30 years at a nearby college, and sections from Age of Reason were were always studied during the unit on literature from the Revolutionary War period, so I certainly am familiar with Paine's position on atheism. Despite what he thought about atheism, however, Paine said relatively little in the book to oppose atheism. Primarily, it was an attack on the ridiculous belief that the Bible is "God's word," and Paine demolished this cherished belief with compelling arguments that Christians have yet to respond to satisfactorily. Since freethinkers and atheists in America recognize that fundamentalist Christianity, which champions belief in biblical inerrancy, poses real threats to our personal freedoms, that is one of the main reasons why we admire Thomas Paine. That admiration, however, doesn't require us to accept everything that Paine said. If Mr. Casao wants to think that we have made Paine our patron saint, he is certainly entitled to that belief. As for me, if I may take liberties with one of Paine's better known statements in Age of Reason, I will simply say that I don't believe in patron saints. My own mind is my own patron saint. If Paine and Voltaire thought that atheism was a philosophy harmful to society, the freedom of my mind entitles me to disagree with them. Why would Mr. Casao think that this needs explanation?
No doubt about it, you are from Missouri! I remember a fair amount of Truman's presidency, and he indeed said a lot of quotable things. He and Bess were marvelously colorful... and gutsy. Henry Clay, who kept running for president, and losing, is generally credited with saying, "I'd rather be right than president." This has routinely been perceived as sour grapes on his part.
We are in 100% agreement. I can't imagine why anyone would put religious or philosophical beliefs above the desire to be right, but obviously many people do. Oh, yes, I would guess upwards of 90%, because of the power and wealth involved, would prefer to be president rather than be right. A Clinton joke would be appropriate here, but I'll refrain.
I don't know about all these so-called atheists who became deathbed Christians. One must share your skepticism, but the skeptic I think would be most thought of by you personally would be T. S. Eliot, the great one. Surely he was minimally an agnostic. Super poem, "The Hippopotamus"! But eventually he went over to the church he so criticized. A fellow Missourian, I simply do not recall you or any of your readers mentioning him. He has a big fan here, for over 40 years.
(Robert J. Zani, Michael Unit, 12-F-18, Route 1, Box 4500, Tennessee Colony, TX 75886.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I checked in two volumes of famous quotations, and Mr. Zani is right. Henry Clay, a senator who ran for president three times and lost, was the one who said, "I'd rather be right than president." He said it in a senate speech in 1850. Although Mr. Zani probably said in jest that I must be from Missouri, I am in fact from Missouri. I was born in the boot heel and lived there until I left for college in Tennessee when I was 18. I am so Missourian, in fact, that I actually know how to pronounce the name of the state, which is miz-ZOUR-uh rather than miz-ZOUR-ee, which is used only by outsiders and a few Northern Missourians who have fallen under the influence of Yankee phonetics. At any rate, I was wrong, and Mr. Zani was right. The quotation should have been attributed to Henry Clay. I had always heard that Truman had said it, an error that probably resulted from Missourians who attributed too much to their native son. The important thing anyway is the thought in the statement, and I can't at all understand people who would put more importance on popularity, public opinion, and religious tradition rather than truth (being right).
I agree that T. S. Eliot was a great poet, who did indeed convert to Anglicanism (as well as renounce his American citizenship). Although I taught American literature for many years, I always skipped Eliot in the anthology, because he went to Europe when he was 22 and eventually became more British than American. Anthologies of British literature also claim him as one of their own.
I struggled out of fundamentalism about 15 years ago, and I just started searching the internet for ex-fundamentalist information and was very happy to find your journal. Please enter a subscription for me.
(Rochelle Berner, 77 Moore Street, New Hyde Park, NY 11040.)
My name is Jason Wilson, and I have been reading on the subject of is the Bible the infallible word of God. I have seen much or your material on the internet. I would like your free one-year subscription to The Skeptical Review if possible. I would also like to know how to get any debate tapes people from The Skeptical Review have participated in. I would have e-mailed, but I have the internet only at school. I would also like to ask a personal question. Is it possible the U. S. Government pays money (secretly) to missionary groups to stop the spread of rival ideologies?
(Jason Wilson, 607 West Main, Iron Mountain, MI 49801.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Letters like these are a delight to receive, and they lend support to a prediction I have made several times in TSR, which is that the information age ushered in by the internet will dramatically change the face of religion worldwide. In he past, the religious establishment could control public access to undesirable information by simply not mentioning it in pulpits or Bible classes and by exerting influence to keep such materials off the shelves of public libraries. Obviously this is no longer possible, because anyone with an on-line computer can execute key-word searches to browse the internet and find information on a wide range of subjects. Churches and other religious organizations also make extensive use of the internet, but they must do it in a forum that requires them to compete with informed opponents. No longer can they just preach and teach one-sided views and expect their audiences never to encounter dissenting views. In the long run, the owners of religious pages on the internet will find themselves fighting windmills, because the silly, superstitious stuff that once found gullible audiences will be unable to compete with reason and logic that are being helped along by advancements in science and technology.
Jason Wilson's letter made me realize just how rapidly the information age is advancing. When I was in school, computers didn't even exist, and students looking for diversion from classroom studies had to be content to read comic books hidden in their geography books. Now students can browse the internet.
I have no knowledge of government support to missionary organizations, but, of course, there is an organized effort under way to secure government support for religion in different ways, especially the plan to fund religious schools through voucher programs.
Because of the time that was involved in filling orders for video tapes, I stopped publishing the notice of debates that were available. Since the backlog of orders has almost been filled, I am running the notice again on the backside of this issue.
It was absolutely wonderful meeting with you during our visit to Illinois. We are so grateful for the input you have given us in our efforts to overcome our 30 years of fundamentalist indoctrination.
We have spent most of our lives like the characters in The Wizard of Oz--believing in the omniscient, inerrant word of God--told never to look behind the curtain in fear of Satan jumping out and grabbing us. Now we realize the persons pulling God's strings were mere humans. Thank you for helping us to "get" a brain, a heart, and courage. The freedom we feel is overwhelming.
Thank you for the back issues. We are enclosing a check to cover the next 2 years' subscription.
(Denny and Kristina Clark, P. O. Box 13, Evanston, WY 82931.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Clarks are professional musicians who stopped by while they were on a gig in Central Illinois. They came with a friend who subscribes to TSR and lives only 25 miles from my home. I believe he was the one who put them in contact with TSR. While they were in my home, they mentioned several times how refreshing it has been to escape from the grips of the Southern Baptist beliefs that they were reared in.
As a former literature teacher, I appreciated the Wizard-of-Oz
imagery in their letter. It very appropriately expresses the way
religion works to stifle the intellectuality of its adherents.
