How many books belong in the bible?

I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.

I had this discussion recently on an atheist blog. It started out with a commenter, a guy with a one-song repertoire. All over the relevant subblogosphere he is very proud to drop this nugget:

Is it wrong to goad the local Christian fundamentalists into proving that they are really believers via Jesus' litmus test: Drinking deadly poison and surviving (Mark 16:18)?

Now on at least two other occasions I have pointed out to him that many people believe that the so-called Marcan Appendix (Mark 16:9-20) from which he is taking his slam-dunk criticism is likely a redaction.

The responses were predictable, and along the lines of how convenient that such an inconvenient passage turns out to be an addition. The implication being that it is just as good as any other scripture, and we have no basis for excluding it. It does not matter that a great deal of legitimate scholarship has gone into justifying the suspicion on the basis of the facts that the passage bears no connection to what precedes it, contains more unique vocabulary that one would expect from statistics, uses a different style, and, most importantly, isn't found in the earliest extant manuscripts. According to this logic, Christians never noticed that the passage implies that believers can drink poison with no ill effects—not until millennia later when someone was finally born clever enough to call upon us to demonstrate our faith by drinking Draino and so we slink away muttering “redaction.”

To this I pointed out that there are a few other likely redactions in scripture, including the potential proof text for the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8 (in the KJV). Also, the beloved story of the women caught in adultery in John 8. These passages, which we could certainly use to our advantage, have been identified as suspect. Why? Well according to the logic I recently encountered on the atheist site, the only possible reason that I can see is that we are Machiavellian enough to sacrifice some “good” passages so that we have credibility when we boot unfortunate text, such as the Marcan Appendix.

Not to mention:

And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:37, NASB)

This passage is left out of some translations, because, again, it is absent from the earliest manuscripts. I commented, sarcastically, that

So you can see why we are embarrassed and arbitrarily leave it out, and without merit attribute its absence to some unnamed scholars,--it is so damaging to Christian theology and it leaves us at the mercy of our critics. We just had to dump it, before [people] used it against us.

The argument shifted to a general consensus that it was absurd to claim that scripture was inerrant, and simultaneously claim that bibles contain errors. I suppose I can see from the viewpoint of an atheist it appears that we want to have our cake and eat it too. But the truth is that there is trivially no contradiction here. The chain of events is manifestly logical:

1) The original manuscripts as penned by the apostles (or their secretary, as you will, e.g. Luke for Paul or Mark for Peter) are assumed to be inspired.

2) Others (such as Clement) wrote perfectly fine books that can be used for our advantage, but as they lacked apostolic authority they cannot lay claim to inspiration.

3) These books have been fallibly transcribed and fallibly translated.

4) Misguided scribes have had opportunity to make redactions.

5) Men, having to decide which of these books should be in the canon, could not agree on some of them. The Catholic Church argues that they were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants, who profess Sola Scriptura, have no basis other than hope/faith to assert that no mistakes were made.

Point 5 opens up a whole new can of worms, one which I’ve discussed here, and one which not only left the atheists feeling as if they were firing at a moving target, but one which not all Protestants have considered. That is:

The table of contents of your bible was not inspired.

You may believe, as a Protestant, that the 27 books of the New Testament are exactly the 27 books that belong there, but you have to admit that for at least that one little instance you are abandoning the reformers cry of Sola Scriptura and adopting the Catholic position of sacred tradition. You are arguing that the Holy Spirit guided the process of canon selection—which is not an outrageous thing to believe—but in doing so you are making exactly the same argument that the Catholic church makes for, say, her Marion doctrines.

Apart from adopting a form of sacred tradition, you must say what may be hard to say: It is possible that there is an error not just in certain passages, but in the canon itself. It is possible that, say, Jude does not belong in the canon. Jude being one of the books about which there was debate—the entire list of debated books being Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (they made it in) as well as 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache (they didn’t make it).

Personally of these books the one that would break my heart, should it be found to have been included in error, is Hebrews—but we must admit that Hebrews was admitted in spite of the fact that it does not really meet the requirement that it is indisputably of apostolic origin, or endorsed by an apostle. (Revelation—is this awful to say?—I could do without—I can’t really use a book that is impenetrable to any advantage.)

Now if, to continue picking on Jude, Jude does not belong in the canon, does that mean Jude is somehow a bad book? Absolutely not—it would just mean Jude is a useful commentary rather than inspired scripture.

And how bad would it be if all the books in question were admitted or omitted in error? It would be of no substantive consequence. The gospel message is accurately contained, presented, and preserved in the books for which there was no debate, those books whose apostolic seal of approval is certain.

My friends on the atheist blog, who argue mostly against crude fundamentalist caricatures, do not like this at all—somewhat counter intuitively.

I think the reason is this: the Catholic dogmatic position (that the canon was, infallibly, delivered to the Church) is reasonable—that is to say it is self consistent. What they would like is for the Protestant position to be inconsistent.

I see this all the time. Most commonly I see it this way: the atheists think the YECs are dumb as door nails. But they also argue that YECs are, at one and only one instance, exegetical savants. The one instance is Genesis One. Here they say that the in-all-other-instances mocked and ridiculed YECs have the only possible correct interpretation of Genesis. (And the often unspoken but always understood next point is that since science so soundly disproves that interpretation, the whole bible is therefore nonsense.) That is, they use the YECs as, in their minds, useful idiots to make it easy to dismiss the bible.

Same thing here, but slightly more subtle. They hated my arguments that the canon might be wrong. Why? Because from Sola Scriptura alone it is the only logical conclusion—and the last thing they want us to be is logical. They would rather hear irrational arguments, because that would fit their stereotype of conservative Protestants.

Access is through the Son

In John 14:6, Jesus famously utters "No one comes to the Father except through me." This verse, I believe, is often misinterpreted. Christians tend to substitute a narrow, normative human lesson in place of the larger spiritual truth.

The "small" interpretation of this verse is this: only Christians are saved, and perhaps, as a corollary, God only listens to the prayers of Christians.

Now at a certain level this is an indisputable conclusion of what Jesus plainly says: No one has access to the father, with the implication being that the Father is favorably disposed toward no man, except and unless Christ intervenes.

We must, however, be careful about how we define "Christian." For practical purposes we define it in the normative sense: one who makes a credible profession of faith, and then follows that up with a life that bears fruit. All such people we are to judge as Christians. And others, which would include some who claim the title, (e.g. Fred Phelps) we are to judge as non-Christians (c.f. Matt. 7.)

This definition is imperfect, we all would admit. However, it is the only one available to us, and the bible instructs us to use it—but we must acknowledge that it will result in both false positives and false negatives.

This imperfect definition of Christian cannot be what our perfect Lord is talking about in John 14:6. He cannot be saying: nobody comes to the Father except those who make a credible profession and who appear to bear fruit.

No, Jesus is dealing with a set of people about whom there is no ambiguity. There is a precise set of people who have access (in the favorable sense) to the Father, and each and every one of them has access by the Son.

Who are these people? In general there would, all scripture seems to indicate, be a considerable though imperfect overlap with the visible church.

But in reality, this group of people is not limited to those with credible professions of faith who appear to bear fruit, but rather to those who are made presentable before God by the righteousness of Christ. All such people are Christians, and all Christians are such people.

Making a credible profession and bearing fruit is surely recommended. Without it you can have no confidence. However, it is neither necessary (though it is normative) nor sufficient.

What you must do to have the access to the Father described in John 14:6 is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And we have but a limited, imperfect way in which we are to judge those who meet this requirement, and as such we cannot put God in a box.

The great truth of Calvinism is that God has mercy upon whom it pleases God to have mercy. This is readily accepted in the case of dead infants, where even the stoutest Arminian becomes a dogmatic Calvinist. (Well, to be fair, some avoid Calvinism by invoking a non-existent age-of-accountability with which to transport all dead babies to heaven, without pondering that such a doctrine transforms abortion from murder to mercy killing.)

I brought this up because I have been reading a few posts about whether theistic evolutionists can be Christians and whether or not evolution is compatible with Christianity. For example, here is one.

I hope the preceding discussion will help make clear the answer I am about to give:

Of course one can believe in evolution and be a Christian.

And of course evolution is "compatible" with Christianity. If it is true, then obviously so. If it is not, then it still is because Christianity makes no demand that we get all things right. Again, I am speaking in the absolute sense: he for whom Christ intercedes, he is a Christian, period.

Favorable access to the Father, through the Son, is the precise definition of Christianity. The single defining doctrine of Christianity is not he who believes the right things is a Christian (certainly a good sign) but he who is justified by Christ's righteousness, which is made manifest in faith, is a Christian. This is the absolute, bullet-proof sense.

That is truly the definitive doctrine of Christianity: if you approach God with Christ's righteousness you will be justified, regardless of your theology, and if you approach God with your own righteousness, you'll be cast out regardless of your theology.

There is no doctrine of justification by saying the right things. There is no doctrine of justification by behaving the right way. There is no doctrine of justification by having the correct view of the beginning times, middle times, or end times. There is not even a doctrine of justification by having the correct doctrine of justification.

Of course people who believe in evolution can be Christians. Of course YECs and OECs can be Christians. Or are you prepared to tell God: no, trust me, that person cannot be justified, even through the intervention of your Son, don't even try, it's no use.

The problem, of course, is that we have no way of seeing this absolute definition of a Christian. We are stuck with the normative definition: if you say and especially do, more or less, that which is expected. For me saying the right thing has always meant affirming the historic creeds. My litmus test is this: anyone who affirms the Nicene creed and who behaves, in some vague sense, like a Christian--him I will accept as a Christian. That makes my circle pretty big--but then again I'm one of those optimistic, starry-eyed postmillennials.

A little XML

<pot>
<kettle color = "0x000000">

Dembski criticizes Dawkins for profiting from the evolution-wars-industrial complex.

</kettle>
</pot>

Best Advice. Ever.

Mary, mother of God, in John 2:5. Speaking to the servants, regarding Jesus, she said:

Do whatever he tells you.

Point, game, set, match.

Ken Miller on Campus

Ken Miller is coming to CNU. He'll be speaking on and about:

March 18:

Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown University, presents “God, Darwin, & Design: Thoughts about America's Continuing Problem with Evolution.” Evidence supporting the theory of evolution is pervasive in all fields of biology, and allows modern science to place the origin of the human species into its proper scientific context. But evolution remains controversial, especially in the United States, and is widely seen as embracing a worldview that many Americans find objectionable, even reprehensible. Conflicts over the teaching of evolution have become commonplace in many American communities, leading to public battles fought out in local and state elections, and even in federal court. Professor Miller will address the aspects of evolution that seem to provoke such responses, and will suggest that the science of Darwinian evolution can be understood in an entirely different way that might well lead to a reduction in the apparent conflicts between science and religion in our society.

I'm not sure about the time--I have written the professor who organizes these talks asking for that small detail.

---

UPDATE: The talk is 7pm, March 18, in the Ferguson Theatre and Music Hall on the campus of Christopher Newport University

Just so you know...

A successful recent alumnus from our department.

And a sample of his work:



More here.

Good stuff! But you already know that--if you are even remotely hip.

One Page, Two Compartments

This is an extremely interesting interview with a Christian scientist, Don Page. I'm not sure that I can find anything in the lengthy interview with which I disagree, and for a contrarian such as I, that is not common.

Speaking of scientists who happen to be Christian, a thread on Ed Brayton's blog degenerated into the usual nonsense about "compartmentalization." It all started when one person stated flat-out:

And no, I am sorry, but I can not accept that one can be a "real" scientist AND be religious.

Others backed away, admitting that Christians could be good scientists, but they had to "compartmentalize." This is a description of a mental handicap, not shared by "real" scientists, that permits people of faith to be scientists from 9 to 5, and irrational beings other times, especially on Sunday.

But this is meaningless. No scientist is a scientist 24/7. Mr. Spock is a fictional character. I'm willing to bet that Richard Dawkins has had some irrational arguments with his spouse (If he has or had one. I don't know.) If not, then he would be the first married man in history to avoid succumbing to occasional matrimonial irrationality.

I made a challenge in the comments on Ed's post which I'll repeat here:

Challenge to the non-appeasers and non-framers, let the reader understand:

I'll give you ten abstracts (and links to the full papers) from published, peer-reviewed literature. Five from papers written by scientists I know to be believers, and five from scientists I know to be atheists. If you can't be a "real" scientist and religious, you should be able to tell me which papers are not "real" science. I'll take you at your word that you don't use Google to determine the answers. Want to try?

No one accepted the challenge. For good reason; you couldn't win without cheating.

Sometimes (and it was later in the comments) being a scientist and a Christian is described as cognitive dissonance. It's not. Cognitive dissonance is when I simultaneously hold two believes that I recognize as being in opposition or in tension. It is not holding to two beliefs that someone else thinks are in tension.

This argument will never end. It is strange, because there are many examples such as Don Page. They can't be dismissed, so "compartmentalization" is invented as to make some feel they won this argument, when in fact they have lost, and lost decisively. Given that it is demonstrably true that many people of faith produce first class science, those arguing about compartmentalization are arguing irrationally and are guilty of, you guessed it, compartmentalizing.

Profiling

I like my boards (please don't read that as "broads") the same way I like my coffee: black. That is, I prefer blackboards to whiteboards. I don't know for sure, but I reckon I'd rather have some chalk dust in my lungs that those nasty polymers used for dry erase makers.

My new office at the university appears to be one of the few that has not been upgraded from a blackboard to a whiteboard. They can do it when they pry the Crayola anti-dust chalk from my cold, dead fingers.

A win for the Gipper

Sorry for the lack of activity, but the semester is about to begin and I have all sorts of paperwork/preparations to complete. It turns out I won't teach Modern Physics, as earlier reported, but Introduction to Theoretical Physics, which is more commonly called "Mathematical Physics." Good stuff. Soon my notes will be on line, if anyone wants to audit.

Anyhoo--for those who haven't seen it yet, this article is wicked cool:

First Temple seal found in Jerusalem

Christians, for the most part, have grasped that we have nothing to fear from archeology. Now if they would only extend that logic to science. But with the YECs and ID, Inc. constantly telling us that science is part of a vast atheistic conspiracy, I fear "tilting at windmills" is the correct metaphor describing the small fraternity to which I belong.

Speaking of ID, Inc., they are sending conflicting signals regarding the movie Expelled. On the one hand, they promise that it will be history making. On the other, they are paying schools to organize field trips to see it.

It will see it, for sure. My expectations are very low--the American Christian Victimhood Syndrome is a disease I am trying to avoid.

Overheard at a meeting of the Persecuted Club in heaven, some time in the distant future:

Hello, my name is Stephen. I was stoned to death, and am the first Christian martyr.

Hello, I am a Sudanese Christian. I was hacked to death with machete for refusing to renounce my faith.

Hello, I am an American Christian. I was forced to move my website from a university server to a private server.

Oy Vey, I guess I am really, really old

It's a losing battle, but I try to stay hip. I have a facebook account. I absolutely love the "my bad" apology because of the humorous and in a strange way refreshingly honest manner it is used without even the pretense of an ounce of remorse. Oops I didn’t see your cat in the middle of the road. My bad. TTYL.

But I appear to have reached my limit. I cannot embrace the lolcat phenomenon. It's not cute. It's not clever. It's not funny. It's just plain dumb.