withallyourmind.net

The latest issue of Salvo magazine is excellent. It examines the influence of the media on modern society. Bobby Maddex discusses how the film industry and the making of films impacts Christians and how Christians should be impacting the film industry. Maddex provides Hollywood screenwriter and devout Catholic Barbara Nicolosi’s criteria for an excellent film: It must be technically sound and provide a moral message. Nicolosi blogs at Church of the Masses. Maddex lists ten movies that he thinks makes the cut:

1. The Addiction (1995)
2. Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (2001)
3. Lilies of the Field (1963)
4. Tender Mercies (1983)
5. Andrei Rublev (1969)
6. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
7. Babette’s Feast (1987)
8. Sophie Scholl (2005)
9. The Ice Storm (1997)
10. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

On the other hand, Maddex also provides a list of movies which are the truly dangerous films - technical masterpieces which exhibit deceitful and depraved worldviews. Nicolosi considers them bad art because they fail to match the message with the means. These films can be very persuasive and harmful. Here’s a few dangerous films:

1. The Graduate (1967)
2. Pleasantville (1998)
3. The Big Chill (1983)
4. The Hours (2002)
5. American Beauty (1999)
6. Vera Drake (2004)
7. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
8. Boys Don’t Cry (1999)
9. Happiness (1998)
10. Thelma and Louise (1991)

The article is quite instructive and will enable one to be more discerning in evaluating modern cinema. I’d recommend reading the entire article.

We don’t really talk much about politics on this website. It’s not that we necessarily avoid it. We have discussed the subject on occasion and probably will a lot more at some point in the future. With the presidential election season heating up, I thought I’d share the direction in which I’m leaning. There’s a long way to go, but I like Fred Thompson. If you’re interested in the principles which motivate Thompsons political opinions you might be interested in this video and accompanying text in which he discusses federalism. Here’s an excerpt from the text:

The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.

The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

I found this amusing quote about CS Lewis from Touchstone Magazine’s Blog “Mere Comments,” which I recommend and have just added to the blogroll.

The December 2006 issue of Harper’s magazine includes an excerpt from a January 28, 1951, letter by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, to Wallace Notestein, Sterling Professor of English History at Yale, on the subject of C.S. Lewis.

Trevor-Roper wrote:

Do you know C.S. Lewis? In case you don’t, let me offer a brief character-sketch. Envisage (if you can) a man who combines the face and figure of a hog-reever or earth-stopper with the mind and thought of a Desert Father of the fifth century, preoccupied with meditations of inelegant theological obscenity; a powerful mind warped by erudite philistinism, blackened by systematic bigotry, and directed by a positive detestation of such profane frivolities as art, literature, and, of course, poetry; a purple-faced bachelor and misogynist, living alone in rooms of inconceivable hideousness, secretly consuming vast quantities of his favorite dish, beefsteak-and-kidney pudding; periodically trembling at the mere apprehension of a feminine footfall; and all the while distilling his morbid and illiberal thoughts into volumes of best-selling prurient religiosity and such reactionary nihilism as is indicated by the gleeful title, The Abolition of Man.

Meow comments, to be sure. But I think, if Lewis ever knew of this, he must have at least relished the comparison to the Desert Fathers, perhaps over a secret dish of beefsteak-and-kidney pudding.

This is the final post in a series examining the so-called contradiction between Mark 2 and 1 Samuel 21 concerning who was high priest when David entered the temple and ate the holy bread. In my last post, I proposed a straightforward, reasonable reconciliation of the two passages.

Dan Wallace, whose excellent work I’ve referred to throughout this series, reaches the same conclusion in his examination of Mark 2. He makes the case that the reading, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” is the preferred reading. Regarding Mark’s temporal use of the preposition, he states he “almost surely does” employ it in this way in this passage. Although, we find few other examples in Mark of this usage, we find it in several other places in the New Testament. I’ve already mentioned Archer’s comparison of this passage with Acts 11:28 and Hebrews 1:2. Wallace argues for its frequent use elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, Luke 4:27 contains the phrase “in the time of Elisha”, and Luke 3:2, “in the time of the high priest, Annas and Caiaphas.” The last reference seems to be a more powerful argument that “in the time of” is preferred over “when” since there is no evidence that these two men were functioning as high priests simultaneously.

I fear Bart Ehrman too rashly accepted the advice a professor that, “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” Maybe, he did. But unless one approaches the text with a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, there is no good reason to join Ehrman in opening the floodgates of doubt, propelling him forward to the…

… radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book, with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.

In conclusion, the problem of Abiathar and Ahimelech in Mark 2 is easily resolved with a highly plausible explanation. It certainly provides no threat to the doctrine of inerrancy. The only reason to argue that this passage contains an error is to limit one’s options by frontloading one’s presuppositions, such as the belief that the Bible is a human book full of errors.

Part 5 of a series on the so-called contradiction of Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6. We’ve examined several possible solutions to the problem, some of which require abandoning innerancy.

Fortunately, one need not abandon inerrancy to resolve the problem of Mark 2:26. Wallace’s last option, that we are wrong in our interpretation of the text is a viable one. The text, Epi Abiathar archiereos, seems to be the proper reading based on textual criticism. If this is the case, following the advice of Pope Leo XIII, we should ask if the translator has properly given the meaning of the text, or if we do not understand the text. Since Ehrman did not actually provide his “convoluted” answer to the problem of Mark 2:26, I can’t evaluate the reasonability of his answer. However, I see nothing convoluted about simply understanding the text to mean “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” as opposed to “when Abiathar was high priest.” This is a perfectly acceptable reading. Gleason Archer shows that epi with the genitive (as in epi Abiathar archiereos) simply means “in the time of.” This same construction is found in Acts 11:28, translated “in the time of Claudius” and Hebrews 1:2, “in the time of the last of these days.”

That the incident described by Jesus in Mark occurred during the time of Abiathar is not questioned. The passage does not state that it was Abiathar who was the actual priest with whom David interacted. As described in 1 Samuel, the priest with whom David spoke was Ahimelech. Not long after this incident, King Saul had Ahimelech and the entire community of priests at Nob murdered. Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son escaped and was later appointed high priest by David. Even though Abiathar was not the high priest at the time of the incident, there is nothing unusual about the reference to Abiathar, the high priest in Mark 2, even though his appointment did not occur until after this incident. To further illustrate this point, there is nothing strained about the phrase, “when President Bush was a boy,” although, of course, he was not president as a child. In the incident spoken of by Jesus, Abiathar was not only alive when this event transpired, he was also present, soon becoming high priest in his father’s stead. Understood in this straightforward manner, there is nothing contrary to historical fact in the words of Christ in Mark 2. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe argue for a similar understanding of this passage.

Next, I will conclude this series with a few brief remarks.

This is post number 4 in a short series examining one alleged contradiction of scripture. The “contradiction” in question is the one which which propelled Bart Ehrman down the path of agnosticism, the contradiction of Mark 2:21 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Who was high priest at the time when David entered the temple and ate the holy bread, Abiathar or Ahimelech? In the last post, I examined the first of five possibile solutions offered by Dan Wallace - the text as we have it is incorrect and should read otherwise. We concluded that the text is most likely what was originally written. Now to other options. Perhaps Jesus, Peter, or Mark made a mistake or were intentionally Midrashic.

Perhaps, then, Jesus was mistaken or he was intentionally midrashic (i.e., he intentionally embellished the story to make a point). Some have argued that since Jesus’ humanity was no different than ours, except that he did not sin, and since Jesus doubtless made mistakes as a child, even in the area of knowledge, it is possible he simply erred by virtue of his humanity. This approach does not necessarily deny his deity, since, it is argued, this was not sin, only a case of mistaken identity.

Could Jesus have embellished the story to make a point? Supporting this theory of Midrashic embellishment, there are several features in the Mark passage which are absent from the 1 Samuel passage. Some evangelicals, however, might find this suggestion more troublesome than the explanation. Against this proposal, if Mark 2 is a midrashic embellishment, one wonders why Matthew, the most Jewish of all the Gospels (and therefore perhaps the most likely to embellish), omitted “when Abiathar was high priest.”

Could Mark’s source, probably Peter, have made a mistake or have been intentionally Midrashic. Wallace argues that if Peter was Mark’s source and was mistaken, he probably would have given this sermon on many occasions and surely would have been corrected on his historical faux pas. Regarding midrashic embellishment, the same problems apply here as in the case for Christ’s embellishment.

Another option is that Mark, not Peter, made the error in reporting what his source said or that he was intentionally Midrashic. This is the view which is most popular among non-evangelical scholars, many simply assuming that this is the case. It is unlikely that he was intentionally Midrashic, given his audience. Additionally, if either Mark or his source erred, it seems inerrancy must be surrendered.

Next, I will examine the last proposed solution to the problem of Mark 2:26.

This is the third post in a series examining the apparent contradiction found between Mark 2:21 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6.

Now, to return to the problem of Mark 2, which opened the floodgates of doubt for Bart Ehrman. First of all, it is important to note that there is no contradiction present here. Mark 2 and I Samuel 21 do not make contradictory claims. They both make different statements, and there may be an error present, but there is nothing contradictory in the differing accounts (i.e., they do not say that one thing both is and is not in the same sense at the same time). It might be helpful to re-read the preceding passages to see that this is the case. Next, is there a way to harmonize the two passages? Or, should one just admit that there is an error and find some place to place the blame?

Dan Wallace, in a presentation to the Evangelical Theological Society on this problem, lists several contenders for a solution (including the error hypothesis):
1. The text is wrong and needs to be amended.
2. Jesus is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
3. Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
4. Mark is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
5. Our interpretation is wrong and needs to be altered.

Wallace is correct, I think, in asserting that our presuppositions will influence which of these options we choose. For the Christian who believes in inerrancy many of the above will be rejected from the beginning. Wallace argues, however, that it would be unfortunate to allow our presuppositions to keep us from submitting each possibility to solid historical investigation. By doing so, we may gain much knowledge.

The phrase in question is found in Mark 2:26, “Epi Abiathar archiereos,” which is translated in some versions as “when Abiathar was high priest” and in others as “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” What is the probability that option 1 above, that is, the text as we have it is incorrect and should be changed, is the correct option. There are two basic textual alterations to be found in the ancient manuscripts. The first is the omission of the phrase entirely, almost completely a Western reading, according to Wallace. This would be in keeping with the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, which do not contain the reference to Abiathar at all. The second is the insertion of an article before archiereos which would reinforce the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest”, suggesting a more general time frame. Wallace concludes that Mark 2:26 with the phrase, “Epi Abiathar archiereos” is the favored reading. He reasons that the Western reading which omitted the phrase is possibly evidence that there was concern about protecting the reputation of Christ when citing scripture. He also argues that there is no good reason for the scribes to have either intentionally or accidentally omitted the article, therefore the reading as we have it is clearly superior.

Next, I’ll look at the other options for solving the problem of this “contradiction.”

Yesterday, I started a brief series discussing the supposed contradiction between Mark 2 and I Samuel 21. Stephen seems to claim Abiathar was the high priest in the story while the Old Testament states it was Ahimelech. This “contradiction” was the “turning point” in Bart Ehrman’s decline from evangelicalism into agnosticism.

Ehrman recounts his explanation requiring the development of a “long and complicated argument” which was a “bit convoluted.” At the end of his paper, to his great surprise, Professor Story wrote something which changed his life. Ehrman tells the story:

He wrote: ‘Maybe Mark just made a mistake.’ I started thinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I had had to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork… I finally concluded, ‘Hmm… maybe Mark did make a mistake.’

This set the falling dominoes in motion. Once Ehrman considered the possibility that the Bible contained mistakes, he began to see other biblical difficulties as simply mistakes. Eventually, he became willing to see that even “bigger issues” were impacted by mistakes. The floodgates were opened and were not to be closed. Ehrman made the…

… radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book, with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.

One six-word sentence altered a man’s life forever. Surely one’s view concerning the alleged errors, discrepancies, and contradictions in Scripture significantly impacts one’s theology. Is the apparent “mistake” by Mark truly a mistake? Must one appeal to “convoluted” reasoning to salvage the Bible from the scrapheap of error-ridden documents?

I don’t think so and I disagree with the conclusion reached by Ehrman. On the other hand one should not bury his head in the sand and ignore or deny that there is a difficulty present. Pope Leo XIII encouraged his hearers to use Augustine as the model to follow when one encounters a difficulty in Scripture:

If in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage or that I myself do not understand.

I will show that Mark 2 should not lead one to abandon one’s view of inerrancy, but that an explanation is available that is relatively straightforward and acceptable to a reasonable seeker.

First of all, let me make a few general remarks regarding the manner in which a Christian (or, non-Christian, for that matter) should approach a proposed contradiction in the Bible. In the first place, one should presume internal consistency when reading any historical document, including the Bible, until proven contradictory. This approach has been accepted throughout literary history, as it is today except by those who model themselves after the “hermeneutics of suspicion” of Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche.

Additionally, one should not be required to identify the exact solution to an apparent contradiction in order to nullify the charge of error. Any possible answer will suffice. One need only show the possibility of harmonization to answer the critic.

Finally, one must have a clear understanding of the meaning of the term “contradiction”. The law of contradiction might be best stated as, “A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same sense.” For example, it would not be a contradiction if one received the following two answers to the question, “Who ate Sue’s chocolate pie?” “I ate Sue’s chocolate pie,” and, “John ate Sue’s chocolate pie.” Perhaps both John and I ate the pie in question. It would be a contradiction to claim that I ate Sue’s pie and that I did not eat Sue’s pie, if those statements are speaking of the same time and in the same sense. So, many claims of contradictions in the Bible turn out to be no contradictions at all.

Next, I turn to the specific “contradiction” at hand.

It’s been a busy, busy week! I’ve been a little slow in bogging for the past few days, but today I’m starting a brief series discussing a “contradiction” found in Scripture. There are many supposed “contradictions” contained in scripture that critics are quick to point out as evidence the Bible is error-filled and untrustworthy.

Some time earlier this year, I reviewed Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus(type “misleading readers” in the search option on this page and you will find all 9 posts in the series). Bart Ehrman begins the book by recounting his life story in order that the reader might know how it was that he came to the conclusions to which he now holds. It was at Princeton Theological Seminary that Ehrman’s already wavering commitment to the Bible as the inerrant word of God came under serious assault. Ehrman describes the turning point in this assault as occurring in his second semester at Princeton during a course on the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark. His professor, Cullen Story, assigned a term paper on a difficult passage in Mark of the student’s own choosing. Ehrman chose Mark 2:23-28:

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” (ESV)

The problem with this passage is that it conflicts with the account of the same story given in 1 Samuel 21:1-6:

Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, ‘Let no one know anything of the matter about which I send you, and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread— if the young men have kept themselves from women.” And David answered the priest, “Truly women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition. The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?” So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the LORD, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

It appears that Mark made a mistake. Who was the high priest in the story? Was it Abiathar? Or was it Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech? Mark 2:23-28 is one of those passages which is often presented as proof that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions, therefore it cannot be considered the inerrant and infallible word of God. I’ll take a closer look at this claim in my next few posts.

Christian apologist and theologian Alister McGrath of Oxford has been writing about Richard Dawkins and his views of science and Christianity for years, including his most recent book, written with his wife, that is a direct response to Dawkins’ The God Illusion. When Dawkins filmed his documentary called ‘The Root of All Evil?’ last year, he ended up interviewing McGrath for a segment. Unfortunately (from what I hear - I haven’t seen the documentary), the interview never made it into the final cut. However, by going here, you can watch the whole unedited video online. I’m sure it is interesting.

(HT Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society)