text
stringlengths 0
1.03M
|
|---|
Mellody Hobson: Storm Insurance for Homes
July 8, 2005 By MELLODY HOBSON
Mellody Hobson More from Mellody »
Financial Expert
via With hurricane season under way, it might be a good time to revisit your homeowners insurance policy, regardless of where you live. The biggest myth associated with homeowners insurance is that you are automatically covered in the event a catastrophe strikes your home. This, however, is more fiction that fact.
According to This Old House, there are more than 900 U.S. insurance companies that offer standard policies covering your house and its contents. Recently, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law several storm-related bills that make it easier for consumers to understand what their policies cover in the event of a hurricane. However, many homeowners remain in the dark about what type of coverage they need to protect one their biggest investments -- their home.
Is there such thing as hurricane insurance?
Yes. You can endorse your homeowners policy to include hurricane coverage. In states like Florida, a policy holder may have to pay a separate deductible (usually less than $500) for hurricane-related damage.
Is it too late to get insurance for the coming storm?
Yes. Most insurance companies will not issue new homeowners coverage once an area has been placed under a hurricane watch or warning by the National Weather Service. Additionally, the moratorium remains in effect for 48 hours after the watch/warning has lifted. The same holds true for flood insurance issued through the National Flood Insurance Program. This type of coverage has a five-day waiting period.
What if multiple hurricanes hit -- are you covered?
Yes. You are covered in the case of multiple disasters. Typically, each occurrence will trigger a new deductible. Four major hurricanes hit Florida in 2004, resulting in more than 36,000 Florida homeowners having to pay more than one deductible, according to the Florida Insurance Council.
Are you automatically covered in the case of a natural disaster?
Besides asking your agent the obvious -- how much coverage you have and how the claim process is handled -- it is important to find out what is not included in your policy. More often than not, the most likely catastrophes are not covered under a standard policy.
For example, a standard policy does not cover a homeowner in case of a flood, and flooding is the most common type of natural disaster. And do not be fooled into thinking that if you do not live near a body of water, you are not at risk. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 25 percent of flood claims occur in the low-to-moderate risk areas. If you determine that you need flood insurance, you can obtain coverage from NFIP, which works with approximately 90 different insurance carriers to sell and administer policies.
Because these policies are offered by the government, prices are consistent from carrier to carrier, but they do vary depending on the proximity of your home to a flood plain as well as the amount of coverage you will need. For example, if your home is close to the ocean, flood insurance will cost between $1,000 and $3,000 annually. For more information about insurance carriers in your area, you can call 800-427-4661 or visit the FEMA Web site at www.fema.gov.
Will your insurance rates go up after a hurricane hits? |
Lives Cut Short Without Health Care Workers
By Carrie Halperin Sep 26, 2011 7:36pm
Angela Nguku a midwife and coordinator for AMREF takes the Million Moms Challenge.
If nothing changes, one billion people worldwide will live their lives without ever setting eyes on a health care professional. No doctors. No nurses. No midwives. No hospitals. No supplies.
Angela Nguku a midwife and coordinator for AMREF, an Kenya-based organization that promotes health care for all, is trying to solve the problem with an innovative new e-learning program that trains health care workers.
“In developing countries, in East Africa and Kenya, my country, we have very few doctors and midwives,” said Nguku, who also emphasized the need for nurses and community health workers. In Kenya, for example, one doctor serves every 30,000 people. The ratio in the U.S. 1 to 300.
Nguku’s work is motivated by her own experiences trying to help women in labor. As a midwife working in a Southern Sudan health facility with limited resources and not enough access to doctors and other highly trained medical professionals, she saw more than her fair share of tragedy.
“We didn’t have the lights to be able to operate,” she said, recalling one case of a patient she could not save.
“I had nothing I could be able to do,” Nguku said. With no doctor and no ambulance available to send the patient to a higher level hospital, the woman was dead by morning.
“She died of obstructed labor, she died with the fetus still in her womb,” Nguko said, in an interview with ABC News.
“That is what drives me to keep on speaking for the voiceless midwives and women out there in developing countries, to ask people across the globe to do something to help save those lives,” she said.
“I believe they can be saved.” |
Advertising for Peanuts
A consumer's guide to advertising, media and organic produce.
Sadly, not beckoned
I feel compelled to react to Littlejohn’s most recent post, in which he points a big arrow to Amy Krouse Rosenthal’s latest project to make a film comprised of “lovely things” submitted by everyone so inclined.I checked out the short film chronicling the event that inspired or kicked off this larger film project. At first, it did my hippie heart good, watching this charming story of an event that she caused last August in Millennium Park in Chicago. But that hippie heart of mine has always been sort of half-hearted. I just can’t reconcile it with the darker part of me that finds emptiness, folly and/or hubris in most human undertakings. That part of me promptly filed Ms. Rosenthal’s project in the same bin where I store so many silly sentiments that pop up in our culture. Make love, not war. Music can change the world. Stuff like that. It is refreshing, I suppose, and surprising, to come across such an innocent and optimistic enterprise. But, as a citizen of the ugly real world, I find my self backing away from the sentiment. Maybe it’s a guy thing. Maybe I am terminally cynical. Maybe I’m old. Maybe it’s because, as I now realize, “lovely” isn’t in my vocabulary. Whatever the reason, I just can’t bring myself to join this lovelyfest. My loss, no doubt. I wish the project and its originator well, but I must recuse myself.
The Beckoning of Lovely.
In advertising, we get to make a lot of stuff: videos, posters, websites, widgets, booklets, characters, sometimes even new inventions. Making stuff is my favorite part of advertising. I think it's most people's favorite part. But it's rare that we ever get to make something that one would describe as lovely. Clever, funny, smart, fresh, innovative, these are the words that most often describe what we do. And sure, advertising has its lovely moments (Cog, Balls, Halo). But when was that last time you made something truly Lovely?Amy Krouse Rosenthal is an Author, former "Ad Girl" and a skilled maker of stuff (you can see 17 things she made here.) Her latest project is a film called The Beckoning of Lovely. And she wants to use all the lovely things you've made to make it. Music, short films and videos, art, stories, lists, monologues, poems, sand castles, whatever it is you're making, if it's lovely, she wants it.So, ad friends, this your chance to make something lovely, anything, and then, like we do in the ad biz, share it with the world. But this time you'll be making and sharing something, for the sake of sharing. A lovely thought indeed.Watch how the Beckoning of Lovely project got started here.And when you're ready to submit your lovely thing, go to whoisamy.wordpress.com
Now that this silly waste of time has become well-established in political advertising, let’s take a moment to examine it.I guess its original intent was to help viewers distinguish between an official commercial from the candidate and a commercial from some group supporting that candidate, but not sanctioned or financed by him. Some of these wacky groups can get even more irresponsible in their messages than the candidates themselves, so this “claimer” has now become mandatory in order to be clear just where the misleading advertising is coming from.If politics were a “for-profit” endeavor, I assure you that they would have found a simpler, more efficient way to accomplish this task, rather than burning three-to-five precious seconds of a 30-second spot. For example, a simple seal of approval of some sort could appear in the corner, taking up no time.But, for now, those who make these commercials are stuck with this stupid declaration.SELF-CONGRATULATORY MOMENT:I was asked to work on a political spot last spring. I’d like to think I was the first person it occurred to, to embrace this mandatory, rather than just having the candidate say it as quickly as possible. But I probably wasn’t. But I’m laying claim to the idea anyway, until someone else disowns me of the honor. I figured, if the candidate has to speak the words, why not give the words more weight, more reason for being there. Make USE of the statement rather than treating it like evil legal copy (even though that’s what it is.)I thought it might be nice to hear from the candidate WHY he approved the message. And maybe in the process, underscore his message, thus wringing a little bit of value out of it.Otherwise, cynical viewers might tend to assume the worst. I know, when watching one of these spots, I often would complete the thought, in my own head, with something like this:“My name is Joe Blow and I approve this message because I think that it has a good chance of pushing some emotional button with lots of you bozos out there, even if I know perfectly well that it’s misleading, exaggerated or an outright lie.”So I wrote a script in which the candidate simply asserts, “I approve this message because it’s true.” I thought it would be refreshing to hear the candidate make such a bold claim. “Hey Marge, did you hear that? This guy is claiming that what he’s saying in his commercial is TRUE! Can he say that? Is that allowed?” This spot was produced and ran early last spring, prior to a local primary election. I hadn’t heard anyone else ever modify the mandatory in this way up to that point.Of course, six months later, most of the spots I’m seeing have the candidate expand on the thought, but, invariably, the reason they give for approving the spot doesn’t make sense. All they are doing is using this slot to re-iterate some political blah blah that they “stand for” i.e. “My name is Joe Blow and I approve this message because it’s time to move the country forward.”That doesn’t really qualify as a reason why he approved the message. In fact,it makes no sense. I’m just not sure if it doesn’t make sense because the candidate thinks the voting public is too stupid to realize that it makes no sense, or whether the candidate is, himself, too stupid to realize this. I lean toward the latter.
In advertising, it’s important to have a grasp of how and why language is used, so that we can use it appropriately and effectively with whichever audience we are having a conversation. To that end, it’s important to monitor the ever changing meanings of various words and phrases. Here’s an example I’ve noticed lately that may prove instructive.More and more often we are hearing people use the phrase, “begs the question.”The rise of the use of this phrase coincides with the frequency with which it is “misused.” To beg the question means, or used to mean, “to assume that which your argument is trying to prove.” This phrase has been commonly used in philosophical discourse and other contexts of scholarly argument.Today “beg the question” has come to mean, “raise the question.” Why? What is gained by replacing the phrase, ”raises the question” with the phrase “begs the question”? They denote precisely the same thing. Nothing is gained, in terms of communication effectiveness, by saying “begs the question” rather than “raises the question.” Yet, more and more, this substitution is being made, led largely by the news media. This development, and countless other similar developments in our constantly changing language, are almost universally mourned, if not reviled, by the self-appointed defenders of the English language, who I call “language zealots.” This raises the question, “Why?” The meanings of words and phrases are regularly modified by people using them to mean other than what they had previously meant, even if it doesn’t seem to add to our ability to communicate, and often, in fact, diminishes that ability. Often this change is motivated, ironically, by a person’s desire to sound smart or sophisticated or learned or whatever. I think that is motivation provides a partial explanation for why “raise the question” is becoming “beg the question.”What I think the zealots are missing is that, at least as regards modern American English, there is another, more fundamental and universal need or motivation. Many American English speakers have need or desire for novelty. We have a strong tendency to evolve, modify, distort, vary bits of language, simply for the sake of novelty. Why there exists this irrepressible need for novelty, at least in our culture, is a question for someone else to answer. My guess is that there is some kind of cultural ADD behind it. Whatever the reason, judging by the manner and rate at which English evolves, the need is clearly there.Is this need less “important” than the need for clarity, stability, richness in language? I would say the people have spoken and the answer is no.BegRecognizing and understanding this need for novelty in language is a useful insight because it provides us with one more lever, one more way to please, entertain, engage our audience. If we use this tool intentionally, rather than unconsciously, we can use it more effectively. |
A Tiny Ocean World With A Mighty Important Future
Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By editor Originally published on Sun September 30, 2012 6:11 pm
Plankton make up 98 percent of the biomass of ocean life and provide half of the oxygen on the planet. Scientists are working to figure out how climate change may be affecting these important microorganisms.
Tara Oceans
The 118-foot research schooner Tara made an around-the-world expedition over 21/2 years. Scientists aboard discovered up to a million new species of plankton. Now begins the work of determining how climate change might be affecting these microorganisms.
Tara Expeditions
As you take in your next breath of air, you can thank a form of microscopic marine life known as plankton. They are so small as to be invisible, but taken together, actually dwarf massive creatures like whales. Plankton make up 98 percent of the biomass of ocean life. "This invisible forest generates half of the oxygen generated on the planet," Chris Bowler, a marine biologist, tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered. And, as climate change alters the temperature and acidity of our waters, this mysterious ocean world may be in jeopardy. It's Bowler's mission to learn as much as possible about plankton — before the tiny creatures disappear. Bowler is the scientific coordinator of an around-the-world voyage named the Tara Oceans expedition. Aboard an 118-foot schooner, a team of marine scientists culled the world's waters for 21/2 years, studying plankton. "By understanding the plankton communities, which are associated with areas that are more or less polluted, or more or less acidic, we hope that we'll get a feel for what sort of organisms prefer which kinds of conditions," Bowler says. So as the oceans change in the future, he says, "we will be able to sort of see — predict which of these species are likely to go extinct, which ones are likely to migrate, which ones are likely to take their place." Though the main voyage has ended, the work has only just begun. The biggest catch so far? Discovering up to a million new species of microorganisms. "That's sort of a reflection of our ignorance of ocean life," Bowler says. "Particularly the microscopic world, which is difficult to study." The expedition brought home around 27,000 samples, "a snapshot of the state of the oceans at the beginning of the 21st century," Bowler says. "It's certainly going to be at least 10 years before I think we've gotten to the bottom of these samples," he says. By then, he says he hopes they will start to develop a picture of how the oceans might look after a hundred years or more of climate change. "It's going to be a continual discovery process, I think," he says.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit . Transcript GUY RAZ, HOST: As you take in your next breath of air, think of and thank the microscopic form of sea life known as plankton. These invisible creatures make up 98 percent of the biomass of ocean life, and the oxygen they generate is vital to life on the planet. Now, over the past two and a half years, a group of scientists set out to learn more about microorganisms in the ocean. Marine biologist Chris Bowler led that expedition, and to his surprise his team discovered up to a million new species. CHRIS BOWLER: I mean, that's sort of a reflection of ignorance of ocean life, really, particularly the microscopic world, which, you know, is difficult to study. The way that we were looking at our samples is using DNA-based methods. And these are incredibly powerful techniques now, which really permit you to really go very deep and explore a whole community of microorganisms. RAZ: Invisible life. BOWLER: Right. Sort of an invisible forest living out in the ocean, if you like. RAZ: But so crucial to - not just to the ocean's survival, our survival. BOWLER: Right. I mean, this invisible forest generates half of the oxygen generated on the planet. Every second breath that you breathe, you should thank the plankton for the oxygen you're breathing. Unbelievable. RAZ: I know you're still in the initial phase of that research, but so far, and during that two-and-a-half-year voyage, looking at these microorganisms, were you able to determine anything about climate change and about how it's affecting those microorganisms? BOWLER: If we want to look at the effects of climate change, we'd ideally want to sort of sit in the same place and follow changes with time, which is something that takes times to do. So by sort of understanding the plankton communities, which are associated with areas that are more or less polluted or more or less acidic, we hope that we'll get a feel for what sort of organisms prefer which kinds of conditions. And so as the oceans change in the future, as temperatures increase, and as they acidify, we will - we hope we will be able to sort of see - predict which of those species are likely to go extinct, which ones are likely to migrate, which ones are likely to take their place and so sort of get a feel for how the ocean's going to look in 100, in 500 years' time as a consequence to climate change. RAZ: How long before we'll have clearer answers? BOWLER: We brought home around 27,000 samples. So it's certainly going to be at least 10 years before, I think, we've gotten to the bottom of these samples and have a very, very clear baseline of information from which we can continue in future years. But it's going to be, you know, a continual discovery process, I think. RAZ: That's Chris Bowler. He's a marine biologist and the scientific coordinator of the Terra Oceans Expedition that found up to a million new species of life-giving microorganisms. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) RAZ: And you're listening to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. |
Young men who want to keep themselves satisfactorily stocked with sperm should make sure they're getting enough folic acid in their diets, UC Berkeley researchers have reported.
In a collaborative study with the USDA's Western Human Nutrition Research Center, a team of UC Berkeley scientists has found that eating plenty of fruits and vegetables not only keeps a man healthy, but may also help keep his sperm in top-notch shape.
Illustration/Kevin Leung
The finding, published this month in the journal Fertility and Sterility, suggests that low levels of folic acid-a vitamin found in many fruits and vegetables-is correlated with decreased sperm count and low sperm density.
In their study, a team of scientists, led by UC Berkeley assistant research scientist Lynn Wallock, analyzed the seminal fluids from 48 male volunteers.
Semen samples were taken from two groups of men-a set of 24 smokers and another group of 24 non-smokers.
Wallock, who conducted the study with the WHNRC's Robert Jacob, examined the semen specimen for two folic acid forms and found that men with lower levels of the vitamin in their seminal fluids tended to have a lower sperm count and lower sperm density as well.
"We looked for statistical associations," Wallock said. "We looked between a continuum of folic acid levels and semen quality measures."
The findings suggest that folic acid is necessary to ensure the quality for viability of a man's sperm.
Furthermore, the scientists suggest that the genetic quality of man's sperm may likely play a significant role in the health of his future children.
The scientists hypothesize that insufficient amounts of folic acid could compromise a man's ability to synthesize and repair its sperm DNA-an event that could explain the observed reduction in sperm levels.
Such an event, they suggest, could lead to a higher frequency of breaks in the chromosome, which may contribute to an increased risk of childhood cancer in a man's offspring.
"(Folic acid) could prove to be important for maintaining the integrity of the DNA in the sperm," said Wallock, who works in the laboratory of UC Berkeley Molecular and Cell Biology professor Bruce Ames, located at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute.
Folic acid, also known as folate, is a B vitamin present in a variety of foods, including orange juice and green, leafy vegetables. The vitamin is also present in many fortified grain products.
Deficiency of folic acid has been linked to such ailments as anemia and poor growth.
In addition, the vitamin's effects have been studied extensively in women, especially those who plan to become and who are pregnant.
The Centers for Disease Control estimates that two-thirds of women in the United States do not consume adequate amounts of folic acid.
In women, insufficient intake of folate has been found to correlate with a higher risk of having children with birth defects such as spina bifida-a neural tube disorder that occurs when the lower end of the neural tube fails to close and which leads to the improper development of the spinal cord and back bones.
Previous research has shown that it is important for a woman to have enough folic acid in her body both before and during pregnancy.
While most study has focused on the role of folate in women, this latest finding reports the importance of the folic acid in reproducing men, whose sperm contributes half of the DNA to a couple's offspring.
"It's something that people have not explored," Wallock said. "We were looking at seminal fluid, and that's a poorly examined research area."
Folic acid may be vital to proper sperm development because it is required for the production of DNA.
The vitamin comes in two forms-a methyl form and a non-methyl form, which was found to be correlated with lower sperm count and density.
During DNA synthesis, the non-methyl form of folate is essential to convert the nucleic base, uracil, into thymine-one of four nucleic bases that make up DNA.
In their work at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Ames and Wallock proposed in 1997 that an absence of folic acid leads to decreased thymine synthesis in the body's cells.
Inadequate amounts of thymine, they hypothesized, may lead to the subsequent incorporation of the wrong nucleic base, uracil, into DNA.
The more frequent need for a cell's DNA repair machinery to correct this mitake, could, in turn, contribute to greater risk of chromosome breaks, they said.
As a result, folic acid, Wallock said, may be important for ensuring the integrity of the DNA contained in sperm because of its role in synthesis and repair of sperm DNA.
Poor DNA repair mechanisms increase the risk of genetic damage and, subsequently, raise the risk of cancer in the offspring, scientists said.
Adequate amounts of the vitamin are very critical for women, particularly during the period before conception and during early fetal development.
Because sperm is manufactured constantly in males, folic acid is important during all stages of life.
"Men are making sperm all the time and their dietary habits could be important in maintaining the quality of the sperm," Wallock said.
To ensure adequate levels of folic acid consumption, scientists recommend that men and women eat well-balanced meals, full of green vegetables and fortified grains.
"Because I'm a nutritionist, I always recommend people improve their diets before a supplement," Wallock said. "(Folate) is commonly found in leafy greens, orange juice, legumes and fortified grain products. My first recommendation would be to eat five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables a day."
Supplements can also be taken for extra precaution to protect sperm quality and lower the risk of infertility, said Wallock, who is a nutritionist.
"A modest vitamin and mineral supplement is not a bad thing, but trying to improve the diet with food should always be a first choice," she said. "A vitamin containing the RDA of 400 micrograms per day wouldn't hurt."
Overconsumption of folate, however, will not cause men to produce excessively high amounts of sperm.
Although there are no directly dangerous consequences of folate overdose, making sure not to consume too much of the vitamin should be a precaution as well, Wallock said.
"You can overdo it," she said. "(Men) shouldn't go overboard on taking lots of folic acid. If people take too much, it could mask a vitamin B-12 deficiency."
Too much folate in the diet can cause a masking of the anemia associated with inadequate vitamin B-12 intake.
For the future, the scientists hope to conduct further research into the specific genetic damage that may occur due to a deficiency in folate.
"All we did in this study was count the sperm and make measurements," Wallock said. "We would like to look at the integrity of the DNA inside the sperm. Our future studies will be aimed at looking at the quality of the DNA and seeing if low folic acid negatively affects the quality of DNA." |
Location: Archon John Holt Collection
John Holt Collection, 1943-1991 | Boston Public Library Archival and Manuscript Finding Aid Database
Title: John Holt Collection, 1943-1991
Collection Identifier: MS 5085
Extent: 24.0 Cubic Feet Predominant Dates: 1965-1985
Arrangement Arranged into six series: Series 1: Correspondence Series 2: Published and Unpublished Writings Series 3: Personal Appearances and Publicity Series 4: Subject Files Series 5: Related Material Series 6: Audio-Visual Abstract This collection documents John Holt’s work as an education reformer, particularly his pioneering work in alternative education, homeschooling, and youth rights. Holt published several books on education, among them How Children Fail (1964) and How Children Learn (1967), as well as the newsletter Growing Without Schooling, and much of the collection relates to these publications. Also included are Holt’s published articles, book reviews, and reviews of Holt’s work. In addition to his writing, the collection documents Holt’s personal appearances throughout the United States and Europe. The collection contains correspondence, articles, newspaper clippings, newsletters, and audio cassettes. Creators Holt, John Caldwell, 1923-1985 Administrative/Biographical History John Caldwell Holt was born on April 14, 1923 in New York City to Henry and Elizabeth (Crocker) Holt. The oldest of three children, he was raised in New England and attended private schools. Holt graduated from Yale University and joined the United States Navy, serving on the USS Barbero (SS-317) during World War II. After the war, Holt joined the United World Federalists, an organization which advocated a single world government as a means of preventing nuclear war. Holt served as the executive director of the UWF’s New York branch until 1952. After leaving the UWF, Holt traveled in Europe for two years, moved to Colorado, and eventually settled in Boston, MA. Holt taught in private schools in Colorado and Massachusetts before renouncing the traditional education system and turning his focus to alternative education, home schooling, and youth rights. He published his first book, How Children Fail, in 1964, which was followed by How Children Learn in 1967. He went on to publish six other books on education, including What Do I Do Monday? (1970) and Instead of Education (1976), as well as Growing Without Schooling (1977-1985), the first American magazine about home schooling. In 1969, Holt founded a consulting firm for home schooling families, Holt Associates, Inc., of which he was president until his death. He was a visiting lecturer at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, and lectured both nationally and internationally. Holt was an amateur musician and wrote about his experiences as a self-taught cellist in Never Too Late: My Musical Life Story (1979). In addition to education and music, Holt had a strong interest in politics, pacifism, the environment, agriculture, and technology. Holt died on September 14, 1985 in Boston. Subjects (links to similar collections)
Alternative education.
Alternative schools.
Children's rights.
Domestic education.
Education, Compulsory.
Education -- Parent participation.
Education -- Philosophy.
Education -- United States.
Educational change.
Educational innovations.
Holt, John Caldwell, 1923-1985.
Home schooling.
Non-formal education. |
Circumcision significantly reduces HIV/AIDS risk
A pair of studies carried out in Kenya and Uganda have shown that men who are …
While the news warns people about the pending bird flu or possible Ebola epidemic, the world is currently in the midst of a true pandemic. Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) currently affects more than 38 million people worldwide, has killed an estimated 25 million others, and doesn't show any real signs of stopping. A new set of clinical trials have revealed something previously believed, but never proved: circumcised men contract HIV through heterosexual intercourse at a rate that is nearly half that of their uncircumcised counterparts. The clinical trials were carried out in Kenya and Uganda, with the results being announced last week by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also said that it was stopping the trials because it was unethical to subject the uncircumcised men to the additional risk.
This finding confirms an earlier hypothesis built around the fact that HIV spreads more slowly in areas of Africa where circumcision is a more common practice. AIDS/HIV experts around the world hailed the finding, as it adds another weapon in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2005 that the present data (at the time of publication, e.g., 1999 and 2005) was not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Clearly they did not have this new data, so the question remains: what makes circumcision an effective matter of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS? The researchers offered up two possibilities. First, the underside of the foreskin has a heavy concentration of Langerhan cells—one of the first lines of defense of the immune system—which will readily attach to the HIV virus. Second, the foreskin isn't a strong piece of tissue and can often suffer from small tears during intercourse which can allow a direct pathway into the blood stream for the virus to enter. This study was carried out with two separate groups of men: almost 3,000 in Kenya and nearly 5,000 in Uganda. The men were initially not infected with HIV, were given safe sex instructions, and then were regularly checked for infection. Among those in the study, the circumcised Kenyan men were found to have a reduction of 53 percent in contracting new cases of HIV, and the Ugandan men showed a similar result with a reduction of 48 percent. These numbers are in line with a South African trial carried out last year that reported a nearly 60 percent reduction in new HIV infections among men who were circumcised. read more... It is also clearly stated in the report and subsequent discussions that while circumcision can provide a reduction in risk, it is by no means a panacea or HIV/AIDS magic bullet. Circumcision brings its own risks, especially when done in remote villages that do not have access to sterile equipment—here the risk of infection is very real. Circumcision also only lowers the risk during heterosexual intercourse, not intravenous drug use or anal sex, which are two common infection vectors in the United States. This study brings with it the attention of two of the largest HIV/AIDS relief groups; both the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief will donate significant amounts of money to countries who request help to ensure safe, sterile circumcisions for those who would want them. However, Dr. Mark Dybul, executive director of Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has said that this is only one step in fighting HIV/AIDS. According to him (and common sense) "Prevention efforts must reinforce the A.B.C. approach — abstain, be faithful, and correct and consistent use of condoms."
While this is good news both for the global community at large and men in particular, it also contains good news for women as well. A similar study showed carried out in Uganda showed that women had a 30 percent reduced rate of contracting HIV from a circumcised partner, which while not the 50 percent reduction benefit that men get, is still significant. A separate circumcision study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were almost three times as likely to carry the human papillomavirus as were circumcised men who had a similar sexual history, a similar transmission mechanism is thought to be responsible. Though this will not stop the raging pandemic that we all face today, it does add another layer of security; another step one can take to help slow this deadly disease. Hopefully as drug researchers continue to develop new stop gaps, such as reverse transcriptase inhibitors, novel retrovirial medications, and along with safe sex practices—now including circumcision—are heeded by more and more people around the world this scourge on humanity can see its final days. Expand full story |
Deep Impact spacecraft eyes Comet ISONThe Comet ISON imaging campaign is expected to yield infrared data and light curves, which are used in defining the comet’s rotation rate, in addition to visible-light images.
By Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. | Published: Thursday, February 07, 2013
RELATED TOPICS: SOLAR SYSTEM | COMETS | COMET ISONThis image of Comet ISON (C/2012 S1) was taken by the Medium-Resolution Imager of NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft.NASA’s Deep Impact spacecraft has acquired its first images of Comet ISON (C/2012 S1). The spacecraft’s Medium-Resolution Imager took the images over a 36-hour period January 17–18, 2013, from a distance of 493 million miles (793 million kilometers). Many scientists anticipate a bright future for Comet ISON; the spaceborne conglomeration of dust and ice may put on quite a show as it passes through the inner solar system this fall.“This is the fourth comet on which we have performed science observations and the farthest point from Earth from which we’ve tried to transmit data on a comet,” said Tim Larson of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. “The distance limits our bandwidth, so it’s a little like communicating through a modem after being used to DSL. But we’re going to coordinate our science collection and playback so we maximize our return on this potentially spectacular comet.”Deep Impact has executed close flybys of two comets — Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 — and performed scientific observations on two more — Comet Garradd and now ISON. The Comet ISON imaging campaign is expected to yield infrared data and light curves, which are used in defining the comet’s rotation rate, in addition to visible-light images. A movie of Comet ISON was generated from initial data acquired during this campaign. Preliminary results indicate that, although the comet is still in the outer solar system, more than 474 million miles (763 million km) from the Sun, it is already active. As of January 18, the tail extending from ISON’s nucleus was already more than 40,000 miles (64,400km) long.Long-period comets like ISON are thought to arrive from the solar system’s Oort Cloud, a giant spherical cloud of icy bodies surrounding our solar system so far away that its outer edge is about a third of the way to the nearest star other than our Sun. Every once in a while, one of these loose conglomerations of ice, rock, dust, and organic compounds is disturbed out of its established orbit in the Oort Cloud by a passing star or the combined gravitational effects of the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. With these gravitational nudges, so begins a comet’s eons-long, arching plunge toward the inner solar system.Two Russian astronomers using the International Scientific Optical Network’s 16-inch (40 centimeters) telescope near Kislovodsk discovered Comet ISON on September 21, 2012. NASA’s Near-Earth Object Program Office, based at JPL, has plotted its orbit and determined that the comet is more than likely making its first-ever sweep through the inner solar system. Having not come this way before means the comet’s pristine surface has a higher probability of being laden with volatile material just waiting for some of the Sun’s energy to heat it up and help it escape. With the exodus of these clean ices could come a boatload of dust, held in check since the beginnings of our solar system. This released gas and dust is what is seen on Earth as comprising a comet’s atmosphere — coma — and tail.Comet ISON will not be a threat to Earth, getting no closer to Earth than about 40 million miles (64 million km) December 26, 2013. But stargazers will have an opportunity to view the comet’s head and tail before and after its closest approach to the Sun if the comet doesn’t fade early or break up before reaching our star. |
A Remarkable Contributor #1
Tracing of the inscription on an Ancient Egyptian earthenware funerary cone dated at 350 BCE. The inscription, written in heiroglyphs, reads 'For the priest of Amen, Lord of Karnak, Shepmeth, the son of Hekebe'.
Funerary cones were set into the space above the entrance to a tomb. They were inscribed with the name of the deceased so that he or she retained their identity in the afterlife. |
Bile Acid Sequestrant Drugs
Many Nutrients
- Supplementation Likely Helpful
The bile acid sequestrant drugs are among the earliest class of medications used to lower cholesterol. They are seldom prescribed today because of their many side effects.
Medications in the bile acid sequestrant family include cholestyramine resin (Locholest, Prevalite, Questran, Questran Light) and colestipol hydrochloride (Colestid) among others.
Bile acid sequestrants have been reported to impair the absorption of numerous nutrients, including
It appears, however, that only folate supplementation may be needed by individuals on long-term therapy with bile acid sequestrants. Although the bile acid sequestrant used in the studies interfered with the absorption of the other nutrients, their levels remained in the normal range. Just to be safe, though, making sure to get enough vitamin E and vitamin A (in the form of beta-carotene) would make sense. |
Karl Deisseroth, M.D., Ph.D.Brain & Behavior Research Foundation Scientific Council Member Karl Deisseroth, M.D., Ph.D., of Stanford University, has conducted a series of experiments to more precisely tease out neural circuits inside the amygdala under the thesis that knowing more about them could lead to better therapeutic solutions for excessive fear and anxiety. Most existing anti-anxiety drugs are only partly effective, and some have significant side effects. Dr. Deisseroth used a cutting-edge method he invented with the help of his 2005 NARSAD Young Investigator Grant called optogenetics in his study.In developing optogenetics, Dr. Deisseroth discovered a way of using beams of colored light to activate specific types of nerve cells in the brains of living mice. This remarkable technology is based on a genetic “trick”: breeding strains of mice whose nerve cells are photosensitive. When light of a particular wavelength is carried along a thin fiber optic wire into such an animal’s brain – something that can be done painlessly and does not restrict the animal from moving about freely – scientists can switch individual neurons and specific neural pathways ‘on’ and ‘off’ at will.In a newly published paper, Dr. Deisseroth’s team describes using optogenetics to target a specific circuit in the mouse’s amygdala – which is quite similar to its human counterpart. For many years scientists have understood that the amygdala is important in the processing of certain kinds of emotional responses, among them fear. Itis also commonly assumed that something in the amygdala is amiss in people who suffer from anxiety disorders. But what, exactly, and how can this be most effectively addressed?While the amygdala has usually been associated with the ‘fear’ response, Dr. Deisseroth’s team showed that stimulation of a specifically targeted circuit actually made the mice rather bold – in other words, the very opposite of anxious. “The effect was instantaneous and could be seen as soon as the light was switched on,” Dr. Deisseroth says. Conversely, when the team used a different wavelength of light to inhibit the same amygdala circuit, the mice instantly began to manifest anxious behaviors.It has been estimated by the National Institute of Mental Health that more than 1 in 4 Americans (28%) will suffer a clinically important anxiety-related condition over the course of their life- time. Therefore, finding a specific amygdala circuit that can be stimulated to reduce anxiety is important: it could affect the development of improved treatments.Dr. Deisseroth says the study underlines the importance of tracing and understanding the functional dynamics of specific pathways within brain structures, in the continuing effort to find out the specific causation of psychiatric illness. |
Year One A.P. (After Peace) Researched by John Whelan, Chief Researcher for the Ottawa Beatles Site
Special thanks to the National Archives of Canada for allowing the Ottawa Beatle Site permission to e-publish the Duncan Cameron photos below. All photographs listed on this web page are on file at the National Archives of Canada. Please read the copyright notice at the bottom of page regarding the photos. John Lennon and Yoko Ono meet with
Canada's Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in Ottawa
A report from Timothy Porteous, Prime Minister Trudeau's Executive Assistant who was present during the meeting between John, Yoko and the Right-Honourable Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
The meeting on December 23, 1969 between John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and me would not have happened without the late Jim Davey, and I dedicate this mini-memoir to him. Jim, who had been one of Trudeau�s earliest supporters, was a policy advisor in the Prime Minister�s Office. He had seven teenage children and was an enthusiastic fan of John Lennon and the Beatles. It was Jim who proposed to the Prime Minister�s senior staff that we arrange a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Lennons. In 1969 the Cold War had divided the world into two nuclear-armed rival camps competing for global dominance. Each believed the other was planning to destroy it. In this volatile situation John Lennon apparently decided that the celebrity he had earned as a songwriter and performer could make him an effective advocate for peace. In the spirit of the decade, peace was to be achieved by the relaxation of tensions between individuals, leaders and nations. Since Trudeau�s childhood music and the other arts had been part of his life. His mother founded a club called Les Amis de l�Art and often invited artists to their home. Trudeau�s taste in music was eclectic. I remember him enjoying concerts by Lighthouse, Ian and Sylvia and the Modern Jazz Quartet. He also enjoyed the company of musicians. Among his friends were Leonard Cohen, Barbra Streisand, Liona Boyd, Jena-Pierre Rampal and Guy Beart. Trudeau had been concerned about the Cold War long before he became a Member of Parliament and then Prime Minister. He had been a vocal and consistent proponent of nuclear disarmament for Canada and the other nuclear states. Before joining the Liberal party in 1965 he had been critical of Lester Pearson�s decision to accept nuclear warheads on Canadian missiles. As Prime Minister, he made every effort to improve relations between the nuclear powers, culminating in 1983-84 in a round of visits to major heads of government with a comprehensive set of proposals to end the Cold War. For the Prime Minister�s staff the principal objective of the meetings was not the discussion of music or world peace. It was to be a classic example of the political photo-op. There is a theory among political organizers that if a politician is photographed in the company of a popular celebrity, some of the popularity may rub off on the politician and result in additional votes in future elections. Nobody knows whether this theory works in practice. In 1972 Trudeau came within two seats of losing an election to Robert Stanfield, a politician who had never been photographed with John Lennon or Yoko Ono. But then perhaps there were enough voting John Lennon fans in two of the seats to make the difference. Who knows? Jim Davey�s proposal was approved by the senior staff (of whom I was one) and, with the Prime Minister�s agreement; a meeting was scheduled to consist of 15 minutes of conversation and 15 minutes of photography. Rock stars and Prime Ministers have crowded schedules, often booked months or years in advance. For the Prime Minister Christmas week is more relaxed than usual since the Members of Parliament have gone home to their constituencies and there are no meetings of Parliament or the cabinet. So the meeting with the Lennons was arranged for the morning of December 23. (It is also a slow news period, increasing the chances that the resulting photos would be widely and prominently published.) Since the Prime Minister was sworn in on April 20, 1968, I had served as Special Assistant in charge of speeches and public statements. I had met Trudeau in 1957 and traveled with him in West Africa, the South Pacific and all the provinces and territories of Canada. He was aware of my interests in song writing, theatre and music. As I had not been involved in making the arrangements for the meeting, I was surprised but delighted when he invited me to be the fourth participant. Timothy Porteous (in the dark suit) having a fun moment with the Right-Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada.
As I remember it, the meeting started almost on time but it lasted well beyond the scheduled fifteen minutes. This is an indication that Trudeau was enjoying himself since a Prime Minister can end a meeting whenever he wants. (When I became Executive Assistant in 1970, one of my functions was to "interrupt" meetings that were running overtime, a frequent occurrence.) The time passed very quickly. In an interview Yoko Ono acknowledged that Lennon was nervous, but to me he seemed quite at home. He was utterly charming, highly articulate, an amusing raconteur and, as you would expect, very entertaining. He spoke with a delightful �scouse� accent, which you could cut with a knife and spread on your crumpet. Trudeau, unusually for a politician, was a man of few words, but what he said was always interesting and to the point. Yoko Ono, spoke very little and, when she did, it was to support her husband. My own role was to keep the conversation going in case of awkward pauses, but, since we were all on the same wavelength, it wasn�t difficult to do. After 33 years it is not possible to recall the details of our conversation. As is usually the case when strangers meet, there was an exchange of personal information. It is likely that we talked about In His Own Write as it was Lennon�s best-known non-musical, solo creation. I may have mentioned the book to Trudeau, although I doubt if he was familiar with its contents.
Most of the conversation dealt with the world situation and Lennon�s campaign for peace. Although Lennon and Trudeau adopted very different approaches to dealing with the problems of the Cold War, they were in agreement on its fundamental nature. In addition, to threatening the future of the planet and its inhabitants, the conflict was irrational. Neither side could achieve a victory without suffering unacceptable damage to its own population and territory. Somehow a climate of mutual trust had to be created in which disarmament and peaceful diplomatic relations could begin. As the photographs indicate, our conversation ended with expressions of friendship and mutual respect. Lennon said, �If all politicians were like Mr. Trudeau, there would be peace.� Trudeau said, �I must say that Give Peace a Chance has always seemed to me to be sensible advice.� Had he lived, Lennon would undoubtedly have supported Trudeau�s peace initiative of 1983-84. As far as I remember, Lennon did not give Trudeau a symbolic acorn at their meeting. I do not know if he sent one to Trudeau at some other time. I was not involved in arranging the meeting with John Munro but I expect it was organized by the Prime Minister�s office, possibly at Munro�s request. Munro was the Member of Parliament for a Hamilton constituency and the Minister of Health and Welfare. The LeDain Commission, which was considering the legalization of marijuana, reported to him. Lennon�s views on the effects of drug use would have been of interest to Munro - and there were lots of John Lennon fans in Hamilton. |
Global Context (Central Asia): The Great Game
January 24, 2009 by Bruce Ashford
This series of posts deals with the global context in its historical, social, cultural, political, economic, demographic, and religious dimensions in particular. We will provide book notices, book reviews, and brief essays on these topics. We hope that you will find this series helpful as you live and bear witness in a complex and increasingly hyper-connected world.
The Great Game, by Peter Hopkirk, is the single most valuable book one can read in order to gain an understanding of Central Asia. Hopkirk, formerly a reporter for The Times of London, pieces together research ranging from public news stories to private journals and intelligence files in order to chronicle Russia and Britain’s battle for supremacy in Central Asia. (Note: Central Asia, as a regional designation, generally includes Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and the other “stans.”)
The title of the book refers to the “game” played between Tsarist Russia and Victorian England for control of the region. The term was coined by Captain Arthur Connolly of East India Company, who was beheaded in Bukhara as a spy in 1842. In Hopkirk’s masterful retelling of the story, we see the great game played out over more than a century and at the cost of thousands of Central Asians, in spite of their innocence.
In the first nine chapters, “The Beginnings,” Hopkirk sets the stage by tracing the historical context from the 13th century onwards. Chapters Ten through Twenty-Two chronicle the “Middle Years” of the game. He tells the story of countless British and Russian soldiers making their way into Central Asia, often in disguise, to gain information and seeking to form alliances. In general, Russia has the upper hand, making its way slowly toward England’s crown jewel, India.
In Chapters Twenty Three through Thirty Seven, “The Climactic Years,” we learn of Russia’s full frontal advance into Central Asia. Early in the 19th century, the two empires were separated by 2,000 miles, but a century later, the gap had narrowed to only 20 miles. England was paranoid about losing its grip on India and Russia decided to play on those fears, advancing toward India for its own benefit. The irony, as Hopkirk tells it, is two-fold: (1) Russia never really cared about India, and (2) a Russian invasion of India was highly unlikely anyway. It was separated from Russia not only by deserts and mountains, but also by treacherous tribes and local politics.
Who lost the great game? The real losers were the hapless Central Asians caught between two imperial powers who cared not one whit for them. Although the Central Asians were not always peaceful themselves, even those who were peaceful often lost their lives. Their rulers were given a black-and-white choice between two empires, but those empires cared nothing for these “pawn” people groups.
Christians seeking to live and work in a Central Asian context will be wise to take note that Western “Christian” nations have been among the chief culprits in the bloodshed and exploitations of the past century. The phrase “Jesus is Lord” does not conjure up thoughts of a God of love and of life. Rather, for them, it evokes memories of strife and bloodshed. Among the Tatars, for example, who were conquered by Ivan the Terrible, to call a person “baptized” is to call them the one of the strongest curse words in their contemporary vocabulary. It is for this reason, therefore, that believers who wear the name “Christian” will need to work hard, through word and through deed, to fill that word with new meaning.
One should also note that, throughout the book, Hopkirk never mentions a Central Asian woman playing a role in The Great Game. Those Central Asian women who are mentioned are the ones being taken advantage of by Westerners to plunder their cities. The overall impression gained from the book (and confirmed by present experience in some cultures within Central Asia) is that a woman is inferior to a man in her very essence. In Afghanistan, it is not hard to find men who will brag that their wife or daughter has never left their house. That is correct: many women never leave the home; they are not allowed to shop, to drive, or to socialize outside of the home. It is for this reason that women in this region are the “unreached of the unreached.”
Finally, it is evident throughout the book that Westerners have viewed, and treated, Central Asians as inferior people. Although this is evident throughout the centuries, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the West had come up with a sophisticated “scientific” apparatus for explaining exactly why and how they were inferior. Darwin’s biological evolution found its counterpart in the idea of cultural evolution.
This is seen, for example, in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, where Russia and England failed to see the Central Asians as equal to themselves. It is also seen, for example, in Hopkirk’s account of a British officer’s words: “Ultimately the British name will be blessed with the proud distinction…of having civilized the Turcoman race, which has for centuries been the scourge of Central Asia.” The Brits of Connolly’s generation believed that they were to take the message of salvation and Western civility to these people; since British rule was founded in the Christian faith, it was the best way to help the barbarians to become more civilized.
Hopkirk accomplished what he set out to do. He is a Brit and as such does lean a bit in favor of the Brits, but he does not do a bad job of being objective and calling out the bad guys, whoever they were. I recommend this book for those who are interested in doing serious reading about Central Asia.
Difficulty: Intermediate Advanced |
4 Intelligent Design and Common Ancestry, Part 2
Given that human and chimpanzees have 99.4% identical coding sequences, it should be easy to appreciate humans and chimpanzees, in the vast majority of cases, use the same codons in the same order even when alternatives exist.
(16 entries) In this series, James Kidder provides an intriguing study on transitional fossils and the evolutionary history of modern humans. He begins by discussing the fossil record, explaining how new forms are classified. He then explains the physically distinguishing trait of humankind—bipedalism. From the discovery of Ardipithecus, the earliest known hominin, to the australopithecines, the most prolific hominin, Kidder focuses on the discovery, the anatomy, and the interpretation of these ancestral remains. September 20, 2013
36 Evolution and Immunity: Same Story?
The evidence suggests that God has chosen to work through a random process, one which involves the routine creation and destruction of millions of cells that never get used. This is the ordinary means by which God maintains our health. The miracles of healing recorded in the Bible are miraculous precisely because they don’t occur by this normal, natural process.
43 Humanity as and in Creation
Christian theology asserts that humans are spiritual creatures, a unity of body and spirit or “soul,” integrated, not reducible downwards to mere matter or upwards to mere spirit.
(5 entries) In this series, we reexamine the claim made by Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe to have found a limit to “Darwinian” evolution in light of recent results from the laboratory of Richard Lenski. September 6, 2012
16 Death and Rebirth: The Role of Extinction in Evolution
When they imagine evolution, many Christians picture novelty: new species arising over time, or speciation events. But as the most recent Southern Baptist Voices exchange makes clear, many Christians also focus on the role of death in evolution—something that can be a stumbling block. |
Nodaway County, Missouri
Nodaway County, MissouriNodaway County CourthouseLocation in the state of MissouriMissouri's location in the U.S.FoundedFebruary 14, 1845Named forThe Nodaway RiverSeatMaryvilleLargest cityMaryvilleArea • Total877.75 sq mi (2,273 km2) • Land876.62 sq mi (2,270 km2) • Water1.13 sq mi (3 km2), 0.13%Population • (2010)23,370 • Density27/sq mi (10.3/km²)Time zoneCentral: UTC-6/-5Websitewww.nodawaycountymo.com
Jump to: navigation, searchNodaway County, MissouriNodaway County CourthouseLocation in the state of MissouriMissouri's location in the U.S.FoundedFebruary 14, 1845Named forThe Nodaway RiverSeatMaryvilleLargest cityMaryvilleArea • Total877.75 sq mi (2,273 km2) • Land876.62 sq mi (2,270 km2) • Water1.13 sq mi (3 km2), 0.13%Population • (2010)23,370 • Density27/sq mi (10.3/km²)Time zoneCentral: UTC-6/-5Websitewww.nodawaycountymo.comNodaway County is a county located in Northwest Missouri in the United States. As of the 2010 census, the population was 23,370.[1] Its county seat is Maryville.[2] The county was organized February 14, 1845, and is named for the Nodaway River. It is the largest in area of the counties added to Missouri in the 1836 Platte Purchase, and the fourth-largest county in Missouri.Contents1 History1.1 Etymology2 Crime in Nodaway County3 Points of interest4 Media5 Demographics6 Transportation7 Geography7.1 Adjacent counties7.2 Major highways7.3 Cities and towns7.3.1 Places with more than 10,000 inhabitants7.3.2 Places with less than 1,000 inhabitants8 Notable politicians9 Notable farms and farmers10 Other notable natives11 Education11.1 Public Schools11.2 Private Schools11.3 Post Secondary Education12 Politics12.1 Local12.2 State12.3 Federal12.4 Missouri Presidential Preference Primary (2008)13 See also14 References15 External linksHistory[edit] Administration Building at Northwest Missouri State University Nodaway County Courthouse is on the National Register of Historic PlacesMozingo Lake Golf CourseThe county has a rich agricultural history, including the home of trainers Ben Jones and Jimmy Jones, whose horses won six Kentucky Derby races and two Triple Crowns.The grounds of Northwest Missouri State University contain the official Missouri State Arboretum and were a re-creation of the landscape of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. ESPN has carried the university's participation in five national championship football games, three of which they won.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas studied to become a priest at Conception Seminary College, before giving it up for law. The Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration convent in neighboring Clyde has 550 relics of saints, the largest collection in the nation.Located in Tornado Alley, many tornadoes have struck the county, including an F4 tornado on April 10, 1979, which obliterated the town of Braddyville, Iowa across the county line. Tornadoes have damaged two of the county's largest buildings, the Administration Building on the campus of Northwest Missouri State University and Conception Abbey. The 1881 Hopkins tornado is one of the first recorded F5 tornadoes.Several sensational murders have drawn attention to the county, including a profile by CBS's 60 Minutes, as well as in movies.Early life in the county was chronicled by writer Homer Croy, a Nodaway County native, in many books, articles, films and Broadway shows in the 1920s and 1930s.Etymology[edit]Main article: Nodaway RiverThe origin of the name "Nodaway" has been attributed to a Pottawatomie name for "placid," a Dakota Sioux name for "crossed without canoe" and various tribes names for "snake."Crime in Nodaway County[edit]Nodaway County was on the frontier in its earliest days and has a long history of violence.The first execution in Nodaway County occurred in the county seat of Maryville on July 22, 1881. Two brothers, Albert P. and Charles E. Talbott, were hanged after being convicted of murdering their own father, Dr. Perry H. Talbott. Dr. Talbott, a local physician, newspaper editor, and state legislator, died on September 18, 1880 at his home northwest of Arkoe, a town he co-founded. He was found shot in his home and died of his injuries that evening, blaming his political enemies with his dying breath. Nevertheless, his sons were charged with the crime. Despite their instance of innocence, the jury found them guilty and the judge sentenced them to death. Their tombstone in the family cemetery is a vertical column with two hands clasped in friendship. The inscription reads: "We Died Innocent."[3][4]On December 9, 1884, Omaha Charley, whose real name was Charles F. Stevens, was the victim of a lynch mob. Six days earlier, he had shot Hubert Kremey in Hilgert's Saloon in Maryville. Charley had been arrested, but others decided to take matters into their own hands. About 50 masked men marched at the jail and demanded Omaha Charley. The county sheriff, James Anderson, complied. The mob then hanged Omaha Charley from the East Fourth Street Bridge.[5]One of the most notorious murders in Nodaway County was committed by Hezekiah "Hez" Rasco, a farmer's son, who was hanged on March 26, 1912 for the murder of Oda Hubbell. Rasco and Hubbell took part in an all-night poker game in a boxcar at the Barnard Depot. Hubbell returned to his family on the morning of November 20, 1910. The next day, Hubbell and his family were all found dead. Hubbell had been killed with a shotgun and his body dragged into the house. Mrs. Hubbell was beaten to death with the shotgun butt. After killing the children, the murderer set fire to the Hubbell home, which almost incinerated the children's corpses. Little more than half of the torso of Hubbell was found after a passing neighbor had extinguished the blaze. Hez Rasco was arrested and charged with the murder of Hubbell, his wife, and their children Welton, 4, and Jessie, 6. Rasco was tried and convicted of Oda Hubbell's murder. Rasco maintained his innocence to his death.[4]Raymond Gunn, an African American, was arrested for the murder and attempted rape of a young white schoolteacher. He confessed his guilt. On January 12, 1931, a mob in Maryville took Gunn from the jail and marched him to the scene of the crime. They tied him to the school roof and set fire to the building, burning Gunn to death.[6]On the night of October 10, 1972, Benedict “Benny” Kemper, 15 years old, cut the telephone line to the Marion Merrigan family’s house that was situated west of Conception, Missouri, sneaked into the basement and waited for the family to go to sleep. Once asleep, Kemper went upstairs and went from bedroom to bedroom murdering four members of the family: Marion, the father; Kathleen, the mother; William, his classmate and their son; and Helen Ann, their youngest daughter, using a .22 bolt action rifle. The lone surviving family member, Sue Merrigan Dorrel, was a student at Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri at the time. She is an aunt of current Northwest Missouri State University football coach Adam Dorrel.[7] In 1973, Kemper was sentenced to four consecutive 45-year sentences for murder and an additional six years for an attempted jail escape.[8]On the night of August 4, 1973, Teresa "Tessie" Hilt, a student at Northwest Missouri State University was strangled and stabbed to death in her off-campus apartment in Maryville and found the next day in her blood-soaked bed by friends. This crime has never been solved and is still considered an open/cold case by the Maryville Department of Public Safety.[9][10][11][12][13]On July 10, 1981, several unknown people killed Ken McElroy,[14] in the middle of Skidmore, Missouri in what is one of the county's best-kept secrets. An abusive man suspected of many crimes but never convicted, McElroy was shot in his truck in Skidmore's main street, in full view of a crowd. The different caliber bullets showed there had been several people involved. However, when questioned by the county sheriff, everyone insisted they had ducked under the pool table in the local bar and saw nothing. Sheriff Danny Estes remarked, "That must have been the biggest damn pool table in the world." A local and Federal Law Enforcement Task Force was set up to investigate the crime but they could not find anyone willing to step forward to discuss the crime. The book and movie |
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Important Allies in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy
April 23, 2012 • 1 comment • By Timothy Harrison, PhD, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Listen:Javascript and flash are required to play this audio file. Download MP3 Universities and colleges play an important role in the nation’s response to HIV/AIDS—educating young people; preparing the next generations of health care providers, researchers, teachers, and public health professionals; conducting research that helps us improve our response; and even educating their faculty, staff and communities about HIV/AIDS. In fact, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy points specifically to education institutions as vital partners in reaching the Strategy’s goals. A number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are engaged in significant efforts to educate students and promote HIV awareness across their campuses. These efforts are particularly important given that African Americans face a very severe and disproportionate burden of HIV disease in the United States. Despite representing only 14% of the US population in 2009, African Americans accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections in that year, according to the CDC. Alarmingly, CDC also reports that more new HIV infections occurred among 13–29 year-old black gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (MSM) than any other age and racial group of MSM; further, new HIV infections among young black MSM are trending up, increasing by 48% from 2006–2009. Of the total number of new HIV infections in U.S. women in 2009, 57% occurred in blacks, and the rate of new HIV infections among black women in 2009 was 15 times that of white women. These realities make the HIV prevention efforts of the nation’s HBCUs all the more important.
Morehouse College Takes on HIV and Hosts White House Conference
Earlier this year, Morehouse College, an all-male historically black institution in Atlanta, Georgia, commemorated National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (NBHAAD) with a number of activities held on campus on February 7, 2012. These included HIV testing for students, participation in the Greater Than AIDS “Deciding Moments ” photo initiative, and a candlelight vigil. The day also featured a panel of students, Morehouse alumni, representatives of local AIDS service organizations, and community members who engaged in a lively discussion regarding masculinity, sexuality, homophobia, and HIV risk. Students from two nearby HBCUs, Clark-Atlanta University and Spellman College, also participated in the discussion demonstrating their support and solidarity in HIV prevention.
HIV awareness efforts are not, however, only a once a year activity at Morehouse. Among the organizers of the campus-wide NBHAAD activities was Health Educators of Morehouse (HEM), which engages fellow students on HIV/AIDS awareness year round through the facilitation of panels and the delivery of condoms to students on campus. HEM has also successfully advocated for increased availability of HIV and STI testing on campus. Also, last Thursday, April 18, 2012, Morehouse was the site of the White House LGBT Conference on HIV/AIDS . Hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the White House Office of National AIDS Policy in partnership with Morehouse School of Medicine, the one-day conference provided advocates, community leaders, and members of the public an opportunity to engage in conversation with representatives of the Obama Administration on issues related to the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT) and associated HIV/AIDS-related health disparities.
Four other HBCUs have been participating in a multi-year effort to assess and strengthen their campus-wide HIV prevention activities as participants in the Minority-Serving Institutions’ (MSI) HIV/AIDS Prevention Sustainability Demonstration. Initiated by the Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy (OHAIDP) with funds from the Secretary’s Minority AIDS Initiative Fund, the demonstration project is working to advance new strategies to increase HIV prevention activities for minority youth (ages 18-25). Through the initiative, the four HBCUs—Jackson State University, Southern University at Baton Rouge, Fort Valley State University, North Carolina Central University—along with two Tribal Colleges and a Hispanic Serving Institution receive technical assistance designed to increase their capacity to address HIV prevention and sexual health needs of minority college and university students and foster new partnerships to promote these health activities. Each of the MSIs has developed and is now working to implement a program focused on increasing awareness and knowledge of risk factors and prevention methods for HIV/AIDS transmission; reducing high-risk behaviors; and increasing access to counseling, testing, and referral services.
Among the many activities underway at the HBCUs, Southern University has created a “HIV 101” module for an introductory health course mandated for all incoming freshman students. At Ft. Valley, they are adapting two of the DEBIs —evidence-based behavioral interventions that have showed positive behavioral (e.g., use of condoms; reduction in number of partners) and/or health outcomes—Nia for male students and SISTA workshops for female students. Jackson State is also tailoring another DEBI, Popular Opinion Leaders , for the young men on campus while also recruiting and training new peer health educators. North Carolina Central is engaged in a social marketing campaign that delivers HIV prevention information to students via multiple channels including a webpage, Twitter, and print materials as well as adapting SISTA for its female students.
These are just some examples of how HBCUs are responding to HIV/AIDS. What’s happening in your community to educate young people about HIV/AIDS? If you are at an HBCU, how is it addressing HIV? If you are in the community, how are you encouraging and assisting local colleges and universities in their efforts to educate students? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below. |
Guest blogger Ruth Carper, Ph.D., Asst. Research Scientist, Center for Human Development, University of California, San Diego
Adults with autism and their families may be interested to know that the scientific community is turning more attention toward understanding the full life course of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). While a great deal of research is directed toward understanding the causes of the disorder and developing interventions for young children, we still know relatively little about how the disorder is expressed in adults and how autism changes as individuals on the spectrum get older. This year one of the Invited Educational Symposia at IMFAR was dedicated to this topic, and entitled: Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Challenges for Epidemiological and Outcome Research.
The first two speakers Traolach “Terry” Brugha, M.D., and Fiona Scott, Ph.D. come from the UK where they have recently collaborated on studies of adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Dr. Brugha and his colleagues conducted a large epidemiological survey to assess the prevalence of ASD among adults living in the general community (published earlier this month in Archives of General Psychiatry, 2011; v. 68(5): pp. 459-466). The rates of ASD diagnosis have been rising rapidly in the last many years and it is generally accepted that at least part of this increase is due to increased awareness of the disorder among pediatricians, educators, and other child specialists, and to improvements in detection and diagnosis especially in individuals who do not have comorbid intellectual disability. However, it is important to remember that this also implies that there may be a large number of adults who could meet the criteria for an autism diagnosis but who have never been diagnosed with a disorder on the spectrum. To address this, Dr. Brugha and his colleagues contacted adults at more than 13,000 residential addresses in a door-to-door Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey in England. Using a stratified random sampling approach, 7,461 individuals participated in first phase interviews which included screening for a variety of psychiatric diagnoses. Individuals who met certain criteria on a 20 item screening questionnaire for autism spectrum disorders were selected to participate in more in-depth assessments including the ADOS (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule) and ADI (Autism Diagnostic Inventory). After all testing was completed, 19 individuals were determined to have previously undiagnosed autism spectrum disorders which the authors estimated represents of a rate of 9.8 per 1,000 in the general UK population. Importantly, they did not find evidence of any significant differences in rates across age. That is, it appeared that the oldest individuals were just as likely to have a previously undiagnosed ASD as the youngest.
The next speaker was Dr. Fiona Scott of the University of Cambridge, who is also part of the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey in England. Dr. Scott focused on the particular challenges of accurately diagnosing ASD in higher functioning adults who did not have pre-existing diagnoses. ASD is a developmental disorder and accurate diagnosis requires knowledge of the individual’s social, communicative, and behavioral development during early childhood. The APMS study focused on a higher functioning population that may not have sought services during childhood and particularly wanted to include adults of all ages. Accurate diagnosis is particularly challenging in this population because it is often difficult or impossible to acquire accurate information about the early developmental period. Community-living adults in their 50s, 60s, or 70s may not have living parents who can describe their early development and if they do, these parents are being asked to recall subtle behavioral changes from many decades before. Accurate diagnosis may be further hindered by our limited knowledge of the life course of behaviors. The behaviors and abilities of individuals with ASD change as they get older, as part of normal maturation, as a result of the interventions and training that they partake in, and in response to the challenges that they face in daily life. For example, Dr. Scott pointed out the possibility of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as depression that may arise later in life and may make diagnosis less clear. This could be particularly problematic for previously undiagnosed populations such as those in the APMS study who would not have received outside support for dealing with social challenges.
Other diagnostic challenges include gender differences in ASD. The APMS study found a 9:1 ratio between males and females in the rates of ASD whereas most studies of children find ratios closer to 4:1. This may mean that the screening tools that were used need to be modified for use in women or it may be an artifact of the community-dwelling population that was examined. Women with ASD are often more severely affected cognitively than males and require more behavioral support, but individuals living in institutional housing were excluded from the APMS study.
The only member of the panel who was not from the UK was Marsha Seltzer, Ph.D. of the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Seltzer has been following more than 400 children and adults with ASD, and their families, for about 12 years. She is evaluating people who ranged in age between 10 and 52 years when they first entered the study and her research group continues to follow them. Dr. Seltzer reported several interesting findings from their series of studies. On average, individuals in her study showed improvement in social reciprocity and reductions in problematic repetitive behaviors and stereotyped interests across the first 6 years of the study. About 30% also showed significant improvements on the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised which measure self-care and community living skills as well as cognitive and motor abilities. These improvements could be a result of the supports and interventions that the individuals receive in the community or could simply be the natural life-course of the disorder. However, Dr. Seltzer also reported a study that raises the question of whether even greater improvement might be possible if better support structures were provided. In a study that looked selectively at younger adult subjects who were exiting high school they found that, although repetitive behaviors decreased with time, the rate of improvement was much higher while students were still in school, but slowed substantially (or even regressed) after leaving school.
The final speaker was Patricia Howlin, Ph.D. of King’s College in London who provided a broader perspective of the natural life course of ASD across the life span. She reviewed outcome studies from 1967 to the present. These studies tend to classify individual outcomes as “good”, “fair”, “poor” or similar categories based on the level of independence achieved. For example, those who live in institutions are given poorer ratings than those who live by themselves and those who have part-time jobs rate better than those in sheltered employment or day programs. Over the years there appears to have been a slight decline in rates of “good” outcomes compared to “fair” or “poor” outcomes in such studies, but Dr. Howlin pointed out the subjectivity of these ratings and the difficulty of interpreting the effects of service changes such as the move from housing in large institutions to small group homes. Studies have also found that as much as 16% of adults with ASD develop additional psychiatric diagnoses such as depression and obsessive compulsive disorder which may be triggered by life stressors (citing Hutton et al., 2008). But those with good community support may have better outcomes (citing Farley et al., 2009).
The symposium on Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders presented some important findings on the topic and also pointed out some of the unique challenges to this area of research. Identifying and recruiting this population is not a trivial task but one which must be addressed. Efforts to improve available tools in this area are moving us forward and it is clear not only from this symposium but from other presentations given at the IMFAR meeting — on diagnostic tools targeted at verbal and non-verbal adults, interventions for adults, and changing health status — that this area of research will continue to grow.
Bravo, Michele! and bless you for speaking OUT! i too only got a Dx in my 50′s (a very humiliating process that began in a room-full of interns as i had to listen to “why” i couldn’t possibly be autistic since i put words together so well). But i kept fighting to be labeled truthfully as at least PDD-NOS, tho the last doc conceded i was “almost defnitely Asperger’s” but didn’t have any documentation to prove it. Fast-forward 14 years and i’m now well into my 70th year and have long/longingly wished/prayed that my unique perspective be USE-full to guide the ones who develop treatments (“answers”) for our tribemates (we who are the “mysteries”!) and maybe something approaching a cure (a “coming together” of the Autism puzzle) since as things are,we need to get a handle on what makes us too different to ever be comfortable with/for “them” ~ the ones who design and shape the whole planet to their liking! My experience also is that they are just not interested. It seems like they NEED to condescend to help us rather than considering us their peers! Is it a sign of nobles oblige, maybe? If so, i sure hope they get over it rather quickly so i can be of service in this enterprise during my not-too-much-longer liftetime! (: i do love your parting volley, actually the whole last paragraph! Most of all, the hope in your words: If not, we may work as a team without you to get at the answers, and create a better wheel for our own little community.” Where do i/we sign up? asap!?! with a REALly great-full heart for your courage and hoping to enCOURAGE you! in His loving Strength and strengthening Love, Gollyanne AKA Jesus’n’val = Him and/in me |
« Mind Over Matter: My Workout Music
Healthy Mind, Healthy Body: Fight Depression to Fight Illness» 08/13/2012 at 10:00 PM The Link Between Painful Sex and Chronic Pain Syndromes
by The Dr. Oz Show
Tweet Is your vagina depressed? Charlotte from the HBO show Sex and the City thought so after her gynecologist had prescribed her an antidepressant for a diagnosis of vulvodynia – a debilitating pain syndrome that afflicts the genital region in nearly 6 million women. Now, new research from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor links vulvodynia with other complex pain syndromes including musculoskeletal pain (fibromyalgia), irritable bowel syndrome, and bladder pain (interstitial cystitis). The researchers, led by Dr. Barbara Reed, found that women with vulvodynia were up to three times more likely to develop one or more of these other debilitating conditions.
The sexy HBO sitcom comically put vulvodynia in the national spotlight back in 2001. More recently, a discussion on The Dr. Oz Show with Dr. Jennifer Ashton informed the nation of its debilitating nature. Vulvodynia is a poorly understood pain syndrome that affects the vulva, which surrounds the opening of the vagina. The pain can be constant or only occur during intercourse. Patients have likened the pain to an “acid-burning sensation” or “sharp knife-like stabbing” in their genitals. At the doctor’s office, it can be diagnosed with a simple “Q-tip test,” which assesses the severity of the genital pain.
No one knows the exact cause of vulvodynia. It is only diagnosed when other infectious, dermatologic or cancerous causes of pain have been ruled out. Many have linked the pain to prior physical or psychological trauma. Research also suggests a possible genetic predisposition. Despite our unfamiliarity with the condition’s cause, 16% of women will experience vulvodynia at some point during their lives.
The connection between vulvodynia and other similarly complex pain disorders may be explained by the diseases’ common mechanisms. All four conditions are linked to disturbances in the nervous system. Disturbances in pain fibers (also known as nocireceptors) can lead to overstimulation and more frequent transmission of pain to the brain. Fibromyalgia, the most complex and misunderstood of the pain syndromes, involves body-wide aches and pains that afflict the joints, muscles, tendons and soft tissues – all likely due to faulty nocireceptor transmission.
The researchers also found that women with already existing fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, or interstitial cystitis had a higher risk of developing vulvodynia in the future. The connection between vulvodynia and the other chronic pain syndromes spanned women of all ages and ethnicities. The researchers also couldn’t connect the severity of vaginal pain with the other chronic pain conditions. Even those with mild cases of vulvar pain had the same risks of developing other disorders as those with more severe vulvodynia.
According to the Institute of Medicine, 116 million persons in the United States suffer from chronic pain conditions that are still poorly understood and severely underdiagnosed. Unfortunately, many patients are misdiagnosed or told that the pain is only in their head. The sheer number of afflicted people substantiates the need for further research.
If you’re concerned that you may be experiencing symptoms of vulvodynia, fortunately, many treatment options exist, which include relaxation techniques, lifestyle modifications and medications. Talk with your doctor about choosing the best treatment for you.
Dr. Oz BlogDr. Oz opens up about his life, today's medicine, and what's on his mind. Know Before You GoMust-know tips to help you get the most out of your next medical visit.
A Beautiful YouYou are beautiful – inside and out.
In the NewsBreaking medical news – and what it means for you. |
Tag Archives: NASA
(Asteroid 2003 QQ) 47
By Llisa | Published: August 24, 2011
From NASA – September 3, 2003 Asteroid 2003 QQ47′s Potential Earth Impact in 2014 Ruled Out “Newly discovered asteroid 2003 QQ47 has received considerable media attention over the last few days because it had a small chance of colliding with the Earth in the year 2014 and was rated a “1″ on the Torino impact [...]
(M) 59 (& M60)
M59 & M60, which are also known as Messier 59 and Messier 60, are two of four galaxies observed in the Virgo cluster. Billions (10+12) of stars are in both elliptical galaxies – which are estimated to be about 55 – 60 million light years away (10+23) while the asteroids observed are in our solar [...] |
Who needs the Trinity? A Review of Fred Sanders, “The Deep Things of God”
by Randal Rauser
Fred Sanders. The Deep Things of God. How the Trinity changes everything. Crossway, 2010. 256 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4355-1316-9.
"Dear heavenly Father, we thank you for dying for us."
I winced. The church elder meant well of course. He certainly didn't mean to endorse patripassianism. He was just aiming to provide an offeratory prayer in a sleepy suburban evangelical congregation. But that didn't change the fact that he had committed a blunder so serious that in an earlier age he would have been pulled in front of the bishop Monday morning. God the Father did not die for us. As unfortunate as that may be, the most tragic part of the story is that nobody in the sanctuary seemed to notice the indiscretion. Nor is this an anomalous case. I have heard countless similar prayers offered at many different evangelical churches. The trinitarian faith, once fiercely defended as the core defining doctrine of Christian identity, seems to have faded into the background like the worn and forgotten hymnals that now sit unused in countless pews.
Enter Fred Sanders, an erudite evangelical theologian and professor at Biola's Torrey Institute. Having established his academic trinitarian credentials with a well reviewed academic monograph on the Trinity (The Image of the Immanent Trinity, Peter Lang, 2004), Sanders has now penned a much more accessible book on the Trinity for a general audience. And that audience will not be disappointed. The Deep Things of God is a bold exposition of trinitarian faith for evangelicals (though everyone else is invited to listen in too). Why evangelicals in particular? Sanders has a bold claim:
"Deep down it is evangelical Christians who most clearly witness to the fact that the personal salvation we experience is reconciliation with God the Father, carried out through God the Son, in the power of God the Holy Spirit. As a result, evangelical Christians have been in reality the most thoroughly Trinitarian Christians in the history of the church." (9, emphasis added)
Really? Evangelical Christians are the biggest Trinitarians? And how's that s'pposed to work? According to Sanders the gospel is above all a trinitarian gospel, a fact which makes evangelicals as those Christians who have a unique emphasis upon the gospel the most thoroughly trinitarian of all Christians. To be sure, Sanders is not denying that other traditions have their own unique insights and contributions into the nature of the faith. But evangelicals have much to bring to the discussion of understanding the Trinity.
Conspectus
Sanders starts off in the introduction with a critique of evangelicalism which reveals both his incisive and objective assessment as well as his warmth for the evangelical tradition and confidence in the resources it brings to bear. However, Sanders is well aware of evangelical ambivalence and confusion about the Trinity as with the elder's offeratory prayer. He observes that evangelicals have often manifested a "coldness toward the Trinity" (11) coupled with shallowness, "ten miles wide and half an inch deep." (12) Thus evangelicals presently only have part of the evangel:
The Deep Things of God begins with two chapters of introductory matters. Sanders starts in chapter 1 with a discussion of the trinitarian theology of Nicky Cruz. Yes, that Nicky Cruz, the author of Run Baby Run, a book that every genuine evangelical of 1970s vintage had on their shelf wedged in between The Late, Great Planet Earth and Joni (Joni Eareckson's autobiography). Apparently Cruz's literary career didn't stop within Run Baby Run for Sanders informs us that he wrote another book called The Magnificent Three, a book which was on, of all things, the Trinity. Sanders draws this lesson from a quick summary of Cruz's book: "His radical Trinitarianism did not come from an advanced theology lesson; it came from thw gospel and then led him to an advanced theology lesson." (33) In other words, the Trinity is first an experience and only after becomes a matter of theological reflection. That's a good lesson. But I picked up a couple other lessons: first, Nicky Cruz is smarter than I remember; second, Fred Sanders is delightfully (and intentionally) eclectic in his choice of interlocutors. From there Sanders moves to a brief historical survey of evangelical opinion on the doctrine, concluding that "from Bunyan to [Amanda] Smith and down to the present, the doctrine has shrunk to a set of propositions that are to be held in the mind as verbalisms, remote from any possible direct experience or relevance." (43) The antitode is to familiarze ourselves with "the deep, Trinitarian roots of our own history as evangelicals." (44) And that task is precisely the goal of The Deep Things of God.
The second chapter, titled "Within the Happy Land of the Trinity," lays the essential foundation for any and all practical reflection in the concrete reality of God as triune. As Sanders says, in a much appreciated distancing from the prevalent pragmatism in much recent theology, "the Trinity isn't ultimately for anything, any more than God is for the purpose of anything." (61, emphasis added) This is an especially important point for those Christians who are driven by the spirit of pragmatism. (And that spirit is alive and well, I assure you, as evidenced in the number of times I get asked as a professor the question "How can I use ______ doctrine in ministry?") Sanders emphasizes that God is essentially trinitarian (that is, he is Trinity apart from the economy of revelation), and so before the doctrine is a revelation of God for us it is a revelation of God in himself: "Balanced evangelical Trinitarianism does not just throw itself into the river of good news and swim away downstream; it also acknowledges the fountain from which that river flows." (69) In response to the incipient pragmatism that simply prefers to go with the flow, Sanders points out that even the most practical facts of salvation inevitably push us back to who God is. For example, we begin with the practical fact "I am saved by Jesus." But that forces us to ask "How did Jesus bring about this salvation?" And that in turn leads us to ask "Who must Jesus be, if he is capable of saving in this way?" And that in turn leads us to ask: "Who must God be, if that is true of Jesus?" In other words, a faith that is serious about the practical facts like "I am saved by Jesus" inevitably takes a reflective journey back to the question of who God is in his essential nature. And so we are brought back to the fact that "God is not just the Trinity when he chooses to go out to do things, but that he is Trinity 'at home,' as it were, in the happy land of the Trinity." (83) The essential triunity of God means that God is, in himself, community. And this supports a concept of divine aseity over-against popular kenotic and process views where God creates and/or redeems out of need. As Sanders writes: "The tri-personal love of God is not a love that needs any completion. Consequently, we should avoid presenting the gospel in a way that suggests God is begging us to come back home so he can finally be happy again...." (95-6)
The next three chapters explore the relationship between the Trinity and the doctrine of salvation.
Chapter 3 introduces the trinitarian action of salvation in history as Sanders continues his practice of engaging with a broad range of voices from the evangelical tradition from Charles Spurgeon to J.C. Ryle to Henry Scougal. Incidentally, you might be wondering: why does Sanders always engage evangelicals? The point is an intentional one: Sanders does not mean to deny the value of the contributions of Augustine and Aquinas to trinitarian thinking. Nonetheless, his focus is to acquaint evangelicals with the richness of their tradition and in this goal he succeeds in spades.
The discussion of chapter 3 leads naturally into the following chapter which explores the notion that the gospel "has had this threefold shape impressed on it by the triune God." (127) In other words, Sanders explores how the revelation of God the Father sending the Son and Spirit into the economy reflects back on the triune being of God. In this way, chapter 4 links the soteriological discussion of chapter 3 to the theology of chapter 2. It culiminates in the soteriological concept of adoption into the Trinity with a fascinating discussion of the famous series of essays published as The Fundamentals (from which the term "fundamentalist" derives). This is especially interesting since The Fundamentals has often been lampooned by critics for lacking trinitarian depth. In an engagement with an essay from the work by Charles Erdman, Sanders demonstrates hows how this is not the case.
I have attended many evangelical churches which were, for all intents and purposes, christomonist. Prayers are prayed to Jesus in Jesus name and praise is primarily directed to Jesus. If the Father makes an appearance it is often garbled as the Father who died for us (see above) while the Spirit is often incautiously referred to with the impersonal "it". Chapter 5 discusses this problem and how to avoid it. Sanders laments the notion that "Jesus becomes my heavenly Father, Jesus lives in my heart, Jesus died to save me from the wrath of Jesus, so I could be with Jesus forever." (171) He counters this christomonist tendency forcefully by arguing that we can be Christ-centered without being "Father-forgetful" or "Spirit-ignoring". Indeed, that is the only way to be truly Christ-centered.
The final two chapters discuss a trinitarian understanding of scripture (chapter 6) and of prayer (chapter 7). While I found these both to be engaging chapters, I especially appreciaed the discussion in chapter 7 as I am convined that there is no place in the daily life of a Christian where a healthy trinitarianism can make a more significant ongoing impact than in one's prayer life. As I said above, many churches are functionally christomonist, directing prayers to Jesus in Jesus' name. That is simply inadequate for "If the Spirit unites us to the Son and reconciles us to the Father, we have an invitation to pray accordingly: to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit." (212) As Sanders puts it in an evocative metaphor, praying in this way is "praying with the grain instead of against it." (212)
I heartily commend The Deep Things of God. Fred Sanders is among the brightest and most articulate of the younger generation of evangelical theologians. He has a great, wry sense of humor and is eminently capable at turning memorable phrases. He also knows the evangelical tradition intimately and maintains that rare balance of being an astute critic while retaining a sympathetic, pastoral touch. There is never any doubt that he loves the evangelical tradition and wants to renew it from the inside out. His book also ably achieves its central goal of demonstrating the essential importance and practical relevance of this central doctrine as well as the impressive resources of the evangelical tradition (with interlocutors ranging from Susanna Wesley to Francis Schaeffer) in reclaiming it. And if you think that is all just fluff, then you should know that I have adopted The Deep Things of God as a textbook for one of the seminary classes I teach in systematic theology. And if that's not high praise, what is?
Now that I've piled on some accolades let me note that the only books I review without criticism are my own. So I have to lodge some objections here. To conclude this review I'll note three problems with the book: first, its conflation of two different senses of the word "Trinity"; second, the fact that it fails to live up to its own subtitle; and third, its tolerance for obscure theological formulations. Let's consider each of these points.
Okay, first off, in what sense is the book guilty of a conflation of terms? Consider for a moment another word: "evolution." This word can refer either to the theory of evolution or to the actual processes operative in nature that the theory purports to describe. Sometimes the actual referent of the word will be ambiguous (as in "I think evolution is elegant"). But it is important to be clear where possible on how the term is being used. And the reason for that should be obvious: there is a HUGE difference between evolution (the theory) and evolution (the natural process the theory describes).
"Trinity" functions like "evolution" in that the word can refer to the doctrine of the Trinity or the God that is triune. More fully we can define these two, very different senses, as follows:
Trinity (the doctrine): a theoretical framework for understanding biblical revelation and Christian experience according to which God is essentially and eternally three distinct and equally divine persons.
Trinity (the divine being): God, a being that is essentially and eternally three distinct and equally divine persons.
I hope it is obvious why we ought not conflate these two senses. But if it is not obvious perhaps I can bring out the problem by noting some rather glaring differences.
Trinity (the doctrine) is a set of propositional claims which aim to describe God accurately as understood within Christian revelation. The doctrine is mutable (it has changed over time) and contingent (it might not have existed).
Trinity (the divine being) is an agent who is immutable and exists necessarily.
I take it it should be obvious why we ought to avoid, where possible, the conflation of a theological doctrine (i.e. a set of propositional claims) with an agent (divine or otherwise), for they are completely different kinds of things.
Perhaps you're skeptical. Does it really matter? Aren't I being too nitpicky? Don't we have the degree of precision necessary to carry on a conversation, even if sometimes the referent of Trinity is ambiguous? While I understand the force of that response (there is always ambiguity in language) to attempt to suggest that the conflation has no significance would be mistaken. Consider one simple example. Should I use the impersonal pronoun when refering to the Trinity? Clearly I should if I am referring to the doctrine of the Trinity. Picture the dazed seminarian walking out of one of Dr. Sanders' classes who mutters: "I don't understand the Trinity. It doesn't make sense." Within that context the person is attempting to understand the doctrine (with a final exam looming) and it is appropriate to refer to a doctrine with an impersonal pronoun. To borrow from Martin Buber, a doctrine is an "it" rather than a "thou".
But now picture that same seminarian planning a missions trip with his youth group to Nigeria. At the eleventh hour their visas are denied and the trip falls through. Again he mutters, "I don't understand the Trinity. It doesn't make sense." In this case he's referring not to a doctrine but to the divine being the doctrine purports to describe. Given that fact, is it appropriate to refer to that being with an impersonal pronoun? It would seem not. After all, if any entity is a thou rather than an it, then God surely is. And you refer to Thous with personal pronouns. But this raises an interesting puzzle. Which personal pronoun should the seminarian use when referring to Trinity the divine being? Should he use the male singular "he"? Or the plural "they"? To be honest, neither one seems quite appropriate. (And that difficulty handily illustrates some of the inherent tensions in the doctrine of the Trinity.) But one thing is clear: it is no good masking those inherent tensions by referring to the Trinity as "it" because we've conflated these two very distinct senses.
This finally brings me back to the book. There are many places where Sanders conflates these two different senses. Consider a section which runs from page 61 to 62. Sanders begins by referring to Trinity as doctrine: "the Trinity makes all the difference in the world for practical things such as salvation, spirituality, prayer, Bible study, and church life. The doctrine of the Trinity is a practical doctrine...." (61) Skipping down a few sentences we find Sanders still referring to the doctrine: "the Trinity isn't ultimately for anything, any more than God is for the purpose of anything. Just as you wouldn't ask what purpose God serves or what function he fulfills, it makes no sense to ask what the point of the Trinity is or what purpose the Trinity serves." (61-2) Again, the referent seems to be clear: Sanders is talking about Trinity the doctrine.
But then something perplexing happens, for in the very next sentence Sanders writes: "The Trinity isn't for anything beyond itself, because the Trinity is God." (62) Thus we see that in this final sentence, an identity claim, Sanders switches to referring to the Trinity as divine being. This is really unfortunate. And here I'm going to put on the hat of an analytic philosopher even though that might make me seem churlish. But clarity on these issues really is important. Consider:
(1) By the transitivity of identity if A and B are identical then anything true of A is true of B.
(2) The Trinity is identical to a set of propositions.
(3) The Trinity is identical to a divine agent.
(4) Therefore, a set of propositions is identical to a divine agent.
Obviously Sanders doesn't believe that God is a set of propositions. But then the elder whose prayer opened this review didn't really mean to say that God the Father is God the Son. But good intentions don't excuse bad confusions. Not only is Sanders the theologian guilty of a conflation of trinitarian concepts, but Sanders' conflation is, if anything, more egregious than that at the opening of this review. While the elder conflated two different persons, Sanders conflated a divine being with a set of propositional claims. Coming within a book challenging evangelicals on their weak trinitarian thinking that lapse is, to say the least, disappointing.
This brings me to my second complaint which centers on the lofty claim of the book's subtitle, "How the Trinity changes everything." (Incidentally, the subtitle is referring to the doctrine of the Trinity.) Let me preface this complaint with a recognition that book editors often sacrifice precision in book titles on the altar of marketability. I think here of the egregious hyperbole in the subtitle to Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great, that is, "how religion poisons everything." I understand how that subtitle could catch the eye of the weary traveller scanning titles at the airport bookshop, but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
I have a similar reaction to Sanders' subtitle. Understanding the concept of God within a trinitarian framework doesn't change everything. This is clearly evident in the fact that Christian theologians have shared with other western monotheists (Muslim; Jewish) a significant degree of overlap in their understanding of the divine nature. (For example, compare Aquinas and Maimonides on the divine nature and attributes.) The fact that Christians believe God is triune doesn't change our shared confession with other monotheists that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, or that he exists a se, created and sustains the world, governs it with providential intention and so on. To be sure, there are many places where a Christian conception of God as Trinity will lead to a divergence from other monotheistic theoretical frameworks. But to say that the Trinity changes everything is nothing if not gross overstatement.
I can sense the eye roll. If I recognize that editors have a penchant for marketable titles over accurate ones, then why am I even bothering to complain? Why don't I just accept the subtitle as marketing? I'm complaining because I find some of the examples where Sanders does argue for the Trinity's relevance to be unsuccessful. Consider Sanders' treatment of the doctrine of assurance which concerns the question of how people can know they are saved. The debates over assurance are perennial and have often broken down along Calvinist/Arminian lines. Calvinists often argue that Arminians cannot know they will ultimately be saved because they cannot know that they will ultimately persevere in faith since they could freely apostasize tomorrow. As John Wesley warned, a man may be "a child of God today, and a child of the devil tomorrow." The Arminian retorts that while on the Calvinist view the elect will persevere in the faith, the very question is whether any particular person is, in fact, one of the elect. After all, many people have thought they were elect who later fell away thereby revealing, on Calvinist strictures, that they were never saved to begin with.
In other words, the debate over assurance is the debate over whether any particular individual can know the "assurance claim":
Assurance claim (AC): I will ultimately end up reconciled with God in a redeemed, glorified state.
The Calvinist claims the Arminian has a defeater to this claim:
Calvinist defeater to Arminian knowledge of AC: many people who choose to follow God later choose not to follow God and there is no reason to believe that you might not be one of those people.
The Arminian replies by pointing out a defeater to the Calvinist:
Arminian defeater to Calvinist knowledge of AC: many people who believe they are of the elect will later be shown never to have been one of the elect.
In each case the defeater seems to decimate claims to assurance. In a replay of the cold war, Calvinists and Arminians have achieved mutally assurred assurance destruction.
In the midst of these smoldering debates Sanders makes a bold claim: "I will show that assurance has a home in the Trinitarian salvation we have been exploring." (188) Sanders argues that "the movement of thought required for describing assurance is not the movement of focusing but the expansive and inclusive sweep of reciting the many blessings of salvation." (190) Sanders goes on to explain how the believer should focus on God acting in history as Father, Son and Spirit to reconcile people (190-92).
Unfortunately, Sanders' claim that we need to focus on God as Trinity does not deal with the Arminian and Calvinist defeaters to assurance. The Arminian can reflect on God as Father, Son and Spirit as much as he likes and still worry that he might be a child of the devil tomorrow. And a Calvinist can reflect on God as Father, Son and Spirit as much as she likes and still worry that the hidden decree might have reprobated her from eternity. The Trinity, it would seem, doesn't change everything. At the very least, it certainly doesn't change the parameters of the debate over assurance.
(For another example, in his chapter on prayer and the Trinity Sanders observes: "I do not know how unitarian theists pray or how they think the all-determining God can leave open a space in his eternal counsels to take their wills into account." (223) Claims such as this are a double-edged sword since Jewish monotheists never seemed to have a problem praying to God understood as a non-trinitarian monadic deity. Nor did the writers of the Old Testament.)
This leads me to the third and final complaint which relates to the fact that Sanders has a higher tolerance for obscure theological formulations than do I. Well there's actually more to the complaint than that. To be frank, I think Sanders accepts certain theological formulations which are incoherent. I'll note one example of the problem.
Sanders agrees with Augustine that the Holy Spirit should be viewed as the love shared between the Father and Son. He starts by quoting C.S. Lewis: "The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable." Sanders then unpacks this claim:
"Love between humans is not like that; when I invite a couple to my house for dinner, I set two extra plates on teh table; one for him and one for her. I do not set a third plate on the table for their mutual love, because their mutual love is not itself a person. The Father and the Son are more real and more personal than us, however, and in some ineffable way, the Western church affirms, the love between them is itself a full, distinct, subsistent person." (233)
This Augustinian view of the Spirit as the love of the Father and Son has long been criticized for depersonalizing the Spirit (a critique which has grown in recent years to something of a crescendo). While I am very sympathetic with that critique, I think it misses the mark. The problem isn't simply that Augustinians depersonalize the Spirit, since they readily affirm three persons in the Godhead. Rather, the problem is that they provide no clue as to what it is supposed to mean for a person to be a relation which is precisely what they are claiming when they say the Holy Spirit is the Father and Son's love. (And here is where I share the retort of a new atheist: a thousand years or more of people confessing something which is incoherent doesn't suddely make it coherent. )
Consider the passage again. Sanders starts off with the problem: the love between two human persons is not itself a person (let alone a human person). So why would the love between two divine persons be itself a person (let alone a divine person)? This is as close as Sanders comes to providing an explanation: "The Father and the Son are more real and more personal than us...." That's the explanation. Sanders thus seems to be invoking a principle like this:
Agent Relation Principle (ARP): When agents of a sufficient degree of reality and personality are in loving relation with one another, that love relation itself becomes an additional person of the same kind as the first two persons.
In the case of the Father and Son, since they've always existed in this kind of relation, the Spirit has always existed as a third token of the same kind. In other words, this principle does not commit us to binitarianism at any point in the divine life. (I am speaking as if God is sempiternal. Of course, if God is atemporal there never is a threat of binitarianism to begin with.)
Now I have two problems with ARP. The first problem concerns what it is supposed to mean. That is, what does it mean to be more real and more personal such that a third token of the same kind would be generated? I honestly don't even understand what the nature of this claim is. The second problem is why anybody would think ARP is true. For example in the future the elect will be fully conformed to the image of God in Christ (Rom. 8:29) At that point it is plausible to think we will be more real and personal than we are now (while admitting I'm still not quite sure what more real and more personal means). But will that make it more likely that when two of these glorified, resurrected human beings love one another that that love will constitute a third person? Of course not. And the problem is surely not simply that we will still not be quite real and personal enough. The problem, rather, is that the claim represents an elementary confusion. Persons are not subsistent love relations.
Ultimately it would seem the weight of Sanders' Augustinian claim is borne by his very next affirmation that this generation occurs "in some ineffable way...." Here I'll simply note two points. First, the line between "ineffable" and "incoherent" is perilously thin, and second, even if we tend to err on the side of ineffability where it comes to divine revelation, no such courtesy need be extended to human formulations of divine revelation. In other words, I find no reason to extend this Augustinian formulation the charity that Sanders gives it. I must conclude that Augustinian pneumatology is incoherent and unhelpful and it does no heavy lifting in Sanders' book.
It is an unfortunate fact that in a review like this there is an asymmetry between compliments and critique. You see, it doesn't take many words to say you agree with something. But justified disagreement takes time to explain and defend. It is for that reason that a review that is generally positive can end up looking generally negative. But please don't be beholden to the tyrrany of word counts. And if it helps, redress the imbalance by rereading my opening laudatory remarks. This is a good book with some forgivable flaws.
I am not sure whether book reviews are supposed to have an appendix but this one does. Here I'd like to note one additional point in closing.
I cannot help but note that in addition to being an accomplished theologian, Fred Sanders is also an accomplished cartoonist. Unfortunately his series of "Dr. Doctrine's Christian Comix" has been out of print for a few years now but I managed to find a copy of one of them at the Regent College bookstore in Vancouver a couple years ago and it was very well done, a wonderful, engaging and eccentric amalgam of Millard Erickson meets Stan Lee. I can't wait for the day when all of Dr. Doctrine's Christian Comics" are published in a single omnibus. |
Am I a science journalist?
By Ed Yong | June 28, 2011 6:00 am I’ve just spoken at the opening plenary of the second day of the World Conference of Science Journalists at Doha, Qatar. It’s a panel called “Am I a science journalist?”with myself, my fellow Discover blogger Chris Mooney, Mo Costandi, Homayoun Kheyri, and Cristine Russell.
Here’s the description of the panel:
In the evolving world of science communication, how do we define a science journalist? This panel will discuss whether the venerable word “journalist” can or should be applied to some, all, or none of the new generation of science bloggers and educators who are remaking the field.
And this is what I said:
I want to talk about polar bears. Polar bears are famously in trouble because the ice of their Arctic home is melting. One of the consequences of this is that grizzly bears are encroaching into polar bear territory. These are two very similar species that tend to avoid each other, but they’re now being shoved into close contact. And they’re breeding – they’re creating hybrids called grolar bears.
I empathise with the grolar bear.
I’ve been writing a science blog called Not Exactly Rocket Science for 5 years. I’ve also been freelancing for magazines and newspapers for most of that time. I have variously called myself a science blogger, a science writer and a science journalist, and I know people who would disagree with the last of those. In five years, I have seen this “debate” about bloggers and journalists rear its head again and again. Do bloggers “count” as journalists? Are blogs journalism? And I’ve come to realise that this debate is exactly like the film Titanic: it is tedious, it goes on forever, everyone’s a caricature and they’re stuck on a massive sinking ship.
I am not kidding when I say that it goes on forever. I thought we were done with it years ago. But here’s BBC journalist Andrew Marr from last year: “Most bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother’s basements and ranting.” Of course, one cannot expect a columnist to let facts and reality get in the way of cheap rhetoric but indulge me for a moment, while I consider my reality.
When I write for my blog, I do so in exactly the same way as I would for a mainstream organisation. I ask whether stories are worth telling. I interview and quote people. I write in plain English. I provide context. I fact-check… a lot. I do not use press releases, much less copy them. I don’t even own pajamas.
My point, and it has been said many times before, is that blogs are simply software. They are a channel, a medium, a container for all sorts of things including journalism. Meanwhile, journalism is a craft. It is about involving accuracy, the collection of information, the telling of stories, that can be practiced anywhere by anyone with the right set of skills. It is not a newspaper. It is not a job title.
Now, I’m not saying that anyone who starts writing or talking is automatically a journalist – there is more to it than that. But I am saying that anyone can be. I have no training in science journalism and I never did an internship. All I have is what I call my Masters from the University of Pissing About on the Internet. I almost stumbled into this profession, and there are many others taking the same weird amateur route.
They’re not doing internships, they’re not beholden to a legacy institution. They’re just doing their own thing. Robert Krulwich in a recent commencement speech likened this approach to sneaking into Troy. Rather than besieging the city, or waiting to be thrown a key, you build a horse. You get on with it. You write because you love it. You report because it is something that you are compelled to do. You do it in your own terms – you decide which tools you want to use, what writing style you want to use. You build a community of “horizontal loyalty” with those around you and you buoy each other up.
And I think that all of this makes it one of the most exciting times to be a science journalist. It means a more diverse array of science journalism. The new approach doesn’t replace the old (that’s a straw man) but it does complement and enhance it. I call it to the Cambrian explosion of science journalism. I actually think that most people in this field get this and are excited by it.
But it fascinates me that some people react to this influx of amateur writers by drawing up defensive cordons. I have been told that it only counts as journalism if it’s investigative, or if it’s something that people don’t want you to write, or if it’s edited, or if you’re paid to do it, or if you use quotes, or if you wear a fedora with a Press pass ticking out of it. It’s a bizarre taxonomic game.
To an extent, I get why it’s played. I think people are rightly worried about their industry. As I said at the start: massive sinking ship. People see a profession in trouble, they want to save and protect it. They see these random interlopers trying to claim a stake and they think that it somehow devalues this noble thing that they’re trying to defend. I certainly agree that good journalism in all its forms is a necessary thing that is worth defending. But no one has ever saved something by playing with definitions. You protect journalism by trumpeting its values, criticising people who do it poorly and supporting those who do it well, regardless of the medium they happen to use. You won’t buoy up journalism through taxonomy.
For a start, it’s just impossible. There may have been a time when it was straightforward to say that person is a journalist and this person is not. But this is not that time. Here we have random amateurs committing acts of journalism without any training. We have seasoned journalists striking it out on their own in bloggy environments. We have people who are part-time journalists who make a living through a variety of means. I know people who are paid as journalists and do little beyond what a good RSS feed could accomplish. I also know people who would take it as a mortal insult if you called them a journalist but who write pieces that are indistinguishable from high-quality journalism. It’s a very odd situation.
And here’s a scary truth – a lot of these amateurs, the ones doing their own thing, are really knowledgeable. Your beat? That’s their field – they know it inside out. And an even scarier thing – some of them can write. Really well. Scientists aren’t meant to do that! Hey, at least no one’s reading them – wait, whaddayou mean people are reading them? That’s the end times!
And oddly, some of the people who are doing this are getting hired. I gave a similar talk two years ago and I said at the time that it would be great to see more bridges between mainstream and hobbyist writers. And there are. I blog at Discover. Wired has its own blogging stable, as does PLoS and the Guardian. Scientific American hired Bora Zivkovic – in his own words a “rabble-rousing blogger” – to head their online communities.
So are these people all journalists? Here, I find it helpful to think of modern journalism in terms of mental disorders. The field of mental health is moving away from sharply defined diagnoses to spectrums of behaviours. In a similar way, there is a spectrum of journalistic values, norms and techniques, which are present to different extents in different people or even individual pieces of work.
I know I fall somewhere on that spectrum. Am I a journalist? Honestly, I care less about the answer than I once did. I am not being blase – I care very deeply about journalism, but there are few things more boring than journalists arguing over what counts as journalism. We live in a world full of stories, about amazing people doing amazing things and terrible people doing terrible things. I will use every medium I can to tell those stories. I will try to tell them accurately so people aren’t misled. I will try to tell them well so people will listen. If people want to argue about what to call that, that’s fine for them.
I would rather just do it.
I love this, this is EXACTLY why Sarah & I started our blog – and we are growing & learning with it. It’s not an easy hobby, but it is definitely something we love – and I am so glad you’re giving science blogging such a good name.
Onward!!
June 28, 2011 at 9:17 am Emmy Great post, Ed – I agree with many points here. I think it’s like someone declaring themselves a musician; one person might say, “I sing in my hometown Country-Western band”. Another might say, “I play cello for the Boston Symphony Orchestra”. To me, they are both musicians. But without the added information, the question is meaningless; because no one is ever going to agree on a solid definition of what a real musician is.
I would also say that there’s a certain amount of devotion one has to make to one’s craft before they’ve earned the title of a professional (or non-hobbyist). Some number of months or years should be put in, and some desire to move toward a better world of both journalism and science, and a willingness to reevaluate one’s own work. Neither science nor information is static, and journalists should strive to reflect that.
June 28, 2011 at 10:43 am The Intersection Nice post, Ed. I am so bored with this question, as well. I don’t read science stories because the author is or is not a journalist. I read to get the science. In fact, reading “journalism” often drives me toward blogs where individuals go more in depth, are often more knowledgeable and more entertaining.
If this is the Cambrian explosion of journalism, should we expect, at some point, to see a selective pressure weeding out those writers? I actually hope not. The diversity of science writers out there is a perfect fit for this era of individualism. Of course, this can also be considered a pitfall for those of us who appreciate science writing as a means of affecting science policy.
However, for those who read science to celebrate the shear wonder of science, this is truly a wondrous time.
Thanks for putting yourself out there. We need many more of you.
June 28, 2011 at 10:49 am Jacob Berkowitz Ed,
Bravo! The best commentary on the topic I’ve ever read. It used to be that many science journalists stumbled into it pre-Internet- it’s just that the only storytelling to stumble into was called journalism. The bigger issues are how do we actually tell meaningful stories that help the world/us understand ourselves and make money doing it.
Write-on!
June 28, 2011 at 10:54 am Michael McBurney Great article. Boundaries are indeed shifting. I currently work for a vitamin manufacturer which sells B2B to the food, supplement, infant formula and pharmaceutical industries. In my career, I have been a Department Head, Professor at 2 institutions, adjunct/visiting professor at 3 institutions and worked in the food industry. I am an active volunteer in several professional (Am Soc Nutr, Inst Food Technologists), trade (Council for Responsible Nutrition, International Life Sciences Institute, International Food Information Council) and NGOs.
I blog regularly, trying to provide perspective to ‘latest research finding nutrient X does/does not do Y to disease/condition Z’. Does this make me a journalist? Not likely because my blogging isn’t nearly as good as Ed’s. Still, it is fun to help disseminate nutrition science and provide perspective to help readers understand the totality of the science. We need this because societies cannot afford to have people missing essential nutrients. As a society, we need to embrace strategies to improve nutrition and health.
My priority is to educate and increase understanding about vitamins. Can someone working in industry blog without bias? Yes. As much as can anyone. Everyone is conflicted. Most scientists, as well as universities, publishers and companies are trying to build brands. We all have vested interests – in our research programs/output, in our reputations, in our careers.
Transparency is different than conflict of interest. So TalkingNutrition.dsm.com is named (branded) so everyone will know who pays my salary. But this blog does not sell or advertise DSM-branded ingredients. It’s intent is to help increase awareness of the essentiality of vitamins and other micronutrients. To create a ‘rising tide’ of nutrition knowledge. Welcome to the diffuse boundaries of science communications.
June 28, 2011 at 11:23 am Ed Yong @David – Re: PIOs, I think the intent factor is very important here, but obviously there are degrees as I posit in my bit about spectrum disorders. It’s also worth noting that the degrees on the spectrum get larger the more resources you have. Many of the delegates from developing countries apparently didn’t understand these developed-world distinctions. When you have only a handful of people fulfilling all these roles, the lines between them vanish.
@Emmy – I agree with the point about devotion, although perhaps consistency (or upward trend) in quality is more important than just time alone.
@Jamie – Undoubtedly, you’ll get selection pressures and some blogs, like some professional journalists, aren’t that good. But I use the Cambrian metaphor because what happened there was a large number of niches opened up and new forms emerged. Selection will happen, but there’ll be all sorts of ways of adapting. I don’t think we have to fear for a loss of diversity in science writing.
June 28, 2011 at 11:26 am Pascal Lapointe I am a science journalist, and what I find sad about this debate is that I don’t know ANY SERIOUS SCIENCE JOURNALIST who deny that you, Ed Yong, are doing a work which is as good and even better as any good journalist. The ones journalists who continue do deny that bloggers are doing serious work are dinosaurs of the journalism, or outside observers, maybe like the ones who decided it would be a good idea to ask this question at the conference.
So what I find especially sad is that we continue to quote those dinosaurs, and give the impression that a majority of the journalistic profession is like them. A little bit like the “debate” about climate change, uh? Two equal sides, isn’t it?
**Serious** journalists and **serious** bloggers should talk each other more about the future of science writing, rather than wasting all this time about who is and who is not a journalist. Because in the meantime, things are changing: there are people like this American blogger pretending to be a Syrian lesbian bloggers, and there are deniers of climate change pretending to be science bloggers. And let’s not forget that unfortunately, for the majority of citizens, there are no differences between those bloggers and what you and I are calling a **serious** or “quality” or “believable” blogger.
So: that should be the goal of all future discussions. **Serious** journalists could help **serious** bloggers on that.
June 28, 2011 at 11:30 am Ginny Hughes For the record, there’s nothing wrong with writing in pajamas. June 28, 2011 at 11:56 am KatiePhD The “just do it” attitude is spot on. I keep trying to encourage my fellow grad students to figure out what they want to do (if it’s not post-doccing) and do it. If they want to leave academia and teach high school, go volunteer as a teacher in your “spare” time. If you want to write, write. Just because you want to do something doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get paid to do it (which I think puts some people off taking the “just do it” path) but as you said, experience is extremely valuable, and that degree in Pissing Around on the Internet is probably more valuable and useful than a lot of accredited certifications out there. Really great post, thanks!
June 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm Melissa Fu Fantastic post. I am curious to hear your thoughts about science journalism/communication re the fires in New Mexico and the southwest USA at the moment. The coverage is a mixture of bloggers, tweeters, local newspeople, international and national journalists, commenting experts, and so on. Similarly, the coverage of the tsunami in Japan and the Fukushima power plant – there is so much out there. How much credence do we put in the international papers, because they are **serious journalists** and how much weight do we give the authority of locals who are blogging and tweeting about a place and a situation they’ve lived and known for decades? What role does science communication play in helping people to sift through essential information, speculations, technical science, and genuine fears and panic? Links to pictures of the Las Conchas fire from the ISS: . June 29, 2011 at 2:36 am Davide Castelvecchi I agree with much of what you say in your post, but I disagree on a few points:
1) I work at a magazine whose bread and butter is experts writing about their fields, and yet I think experts are _neither_ in a better nor in a worse position to do so than non-experts: the best way to cover something is to have many people write about it, with many different points of view — including experts, professional journalists, and anyone else who has something interesting to contribute: that is one reason why the web, and blogs in particular, have a positive, liberating, democratizing role to play;
2) I think it _is_ still worth talking about what journalism is and, yes, defining it, if nothing else as one of the (admittedly abstract) endpoints of the “spectrum”: precisely because boundaries are being blurred, it’s important to educate people on what journalists do and what their professional standards are;
3) I disagree that the business of news is sinking like the Titanic: the business model of a lot of media, especially daily newspapers, is in trouble, but I think that the business of news as a whole has more vitality than ever, thanks in part to blogs;
4) you seem to suggest that it would be bad to “use press releases” — do you mean that one should not read them at all? certainly one shouldn’t rely exclusively on press releases in his or her reporting but they are one of the main ways of finding story ideas and a crucial channel for organizations to communicate to the outside world.
June 29, 2011 at 3:27 am Prime Finally something wrote about this boring and useless debate on what constitutes “journalism”. I’m tired of fellow journos defending that what they do is journalism and not blogging, that bloggers are nothing more than diarists. At the same time utterly bored with (some not all) bloggers who write really stupid stuff and keep on harping that what they do is journalism too and should get a press card/invited to press events/be accorded the same privilege as journalists, etc.
I’m a business journalist (I have a press card, employed by a media company), but to me journalism is just another job – an occupation, not some high and mighty title that can be bestowed on the chosen few. (To be honest, I’d rather focus on my travel blogging, or ehem, travel journalism – whatever! – but I need to pay the bills)
To me there’s just good and bad writing/reporting. Whether that piece is published in a blog or a newspaper is irrelevant.
June 29, 2011 at 6:33 am Melvin I prefer bloggers… There are too many journalists who just copy and paste press releases.
June 29, 2011 at 10:31 am PGB I am a former award-winning journalist who now blogs. I have expertise in my subject matter that journalists do not have – they would interview me if they were doing a story on my subject matter. Few newspapers cultivate “beat” reporters anymore – journalists with real expertise developed over the years. Also, I am focusing on a tiny aspect of a big universe. I am eliminating the middle-person and going directly to the reader. The mainstream press often cannot or will not go into the depth that a blogger can go into. Blogs are an invaluable source of information. And, blogs are as credible as the author, just as newspapers are as credible as the publisher. I don’t put much faith in the newspaper tabloids that herald space invaders. So anyone in the media who discounts all blogs is ignorant. Why engage in a debate with an ignoramus?
June 29, 2011 at 11:30 am Peter J. Wolf Ed, this is brilliant.
I’ve only been blogging () for about 15 months, and about a very specific topic (feral cats), so I’m hesitant to generalize too much. At the same time, I’m sure my experience is not unique.
You suggest that scientists aren’t meant to write. From what I can tell, many of them (again, at least the ones working in “my world”) aren’t meant to do science, either. The ones who use means to describe heavily skewed distributions, for example. Or those who routinely make broad generalizations (sold to the media as Truth) based on tiny sample sizes of local populations.
Even peer-reviewed journals are plagued with willful ignorance and glaring bias.
Challenge these scientists from the “outside,” and the common reaction is to point out one’s lack of credentials. They have the appropriate letter after their names; they are the experts. (In fact, it’s a rare occasion when I get a response. I can’t tell you how many letters to “corresponding authors” I’ve sent, never to receive a reply.)
At times, I wonder why these people are involved in science at all, given their apparent disdain for rigorous discourse (which, in any event, is largely incompatible with the kind coziness I’ve observed).
The journalism I most admire is investigative. Sadly, there’s far too little science writing/journalism in this same spirit. (As Melvin suggested, repackaged press releases are all too common.)
There’s a quote from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis I cite—perhaps too frequently—on my blog: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
I think blogging offers the opportunity (increasingly rare in a “market” that seems to place relatively little value on journalism) for writers to direct some much-needed sunlight into the dark corners of the world—including the scientific community.
Peter J. Wolf
P.S. How does one indicate a Masters from the University of Pissing About on the Internet in one’s signature?
June 29, 2011 at 2:19 pm Emmy @Peter – Yours is the first feral cat blog I’ve seen (aside from ACA’s site). Nice, I look forward to reading it. I’m a former vet nurse and cat behaviorist (now Biologist). I don’t know which science blogs you’ve been reading, but no real scientist presents something as “The Truth”. It’s usually the media that do so. A good science post will:
1. Present *exactly* how the study was conducted. This can be brief or detailed, but it should never be embellished with commentary or emotion from the blogger.
2. The blogger says whatever they feel like saying about the study (hopefully in an entertaining manner)
3. The blogger then provides a link to the study, emphasizing that their post is just their personal view of the study; and that the reader *must* look at the methods, results, etc before jumping to further conclusions about the study, which is normally based on dry data and statistics.
Yes, there surely are bad studies; but sweeping generalizations tell us nothing. If we want to criticize a study, we must be specific about what methods were done incorrrectly.
June 29, 2011 at 2:45 pm Peter J. Wolf @Emmy—I should clarify: mostly what I read are the studies themselves. That, and plenty of related media coverage. What I present most often on my blog, then, is (1) a critical look at a particular study (e.g., its methods, limitations, etc.—the specifics you refer to in your comment), and (2) a critical look at how the study is described in the media.
You’re right about Truth—that’s the media’s turf (politicians, too, I suppose). But all too often, I’ve seen members of the scientific community—armed with “facts”—go out of their way to reinforce the media’s (mis)perception on a given topic. And I’ve little patience for scientists lending their support to a witch-hunt.
Which brings up another topic—one closer to Ed’s original post: Where does the line between journalism and advocacy/activism? One needs to be very wary of the we-report-you-decide model. |
> 19th Century, Emigration, Kentucky, Religion, Slavery > John Rogers papers, 1850-1863. John Rogers papers, 1850-1863.
Creator: Rogers, John, 1800-1867. Collection number: 2659
Abstract: Records of John Rogers, a minister of the Disciples of Christ who lived near Carlisle in Nicholas County, Ky., and preached in Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana. The books are an autobiography covering the years 1800-1833 (written in 1859-1863) incorporating parts of diaries and theological writings, and daily diaries of ministerial activities for 1850-1851 and 1859. Issues discussed in the autobiography include his call to the ministry, his education, a journey through Missouri in 1825, a journey through Virginia in 1827, the question of dancing, the views of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) and Barton Warren Stone (1772- 1844) and the union of their followers, the work of the American Colonization Society in Kentucky and public sentiment in the 1830s concerning slavery, and ministerial efforts in southern Kentucky.
Collection Highlights: Chapter 13 contains a discussion of the American Colonization Society and its work in Kentucky, and contains notes on public sentiment about slavery (1830) and quotes from Roger’s sermons and from other Colonization spokesmen. |
What Darwin and evangelicals had in common: hatred of slavery
Charles Darwin | evangelicals | evolution | human rights | Margaret Sanger | Planned Parenthood | slavery | southern baptist convention Back in January we reported on a new book which argued that a hatred of slavery did much to form Charles Darwin’s views on natural selection as he sought to prove that blacks and whites had a common ancestor and were not separate species or products of “separate creations” as many of the 19th century defenders of white supremacy maintained.
I did a blog at the time to draw attention to my colleague Mike Collett-White’s story on “Darwin’s Sacred Cause” by Adrian Desmond and James Moore and said that it had piqued my curiosity enough that I might be tempted to read it. I have done just that and think it raises a couple of issues that will be of interest to readers of this blog.
(Photo: A portrait of Charles Darwin is displayed as part of an exhibition in Darwin’s former home Down House, Kent, England, 12/02/2009, REUTERS/Stringer, UK)
For starters, much of the credit for the anti-slavery movement has been taken by evangelicals and other Christians such as the Quakers, who were indeed often the driving force behind it. There was much excitement in U.S. evangelical circles two years ago about the release of the movie “Amazing Grace” about British anti-slavery pioneer William Wilberforce who was an ardent evangelical. Much ink has been spilled on this topic, notably in 2005 by Adam Hochschild in his superb book “Bury the Chains: The British Struggle to Abolish Slavery.”
But no one would mistake the father of modern biological science for an evangelical. Most of his biographers agree (based on overwhelming evidence) that Darwin gradually lost his own faith. Another leading abolitionist in Darwin’s day was his cigar-smoking dining companion Harriet Martineau, who was also a self-proclaimed atheist. Darwin’s own family — which had its share of religious sceptics, notably his father, as well as devout believers– was also heavily involved in the anti-slavery movement. |
Email Bill threatens to de-fund public energy research in Minnesota
Kindle In times of tight government budgets, there's a temptation to lawmakers to leave the expensive job of scientific research to corporations. I understand that urge. I can sympathize with it. But I also think that it's perilously wrong-headed.
Privately-funded science—that is, usually, science done by corporations—is important. And it can't all be written off as inherently biased, either. The trouble, though, is that corporations have special concerns that influence what scientific research they undertake, and how they do it. In general, today, what they focus on is short-term stuff. They improve existing products. They figure out how to make nifty technology work in the real world.
What they don't do is long-term, big-picture science. This is the stuff that shapes our futures—and the futures of private corporations. If we abandon public funding for science, then we put all of that at risk.
Case in point: Since 2003, Minnesota has funded research on energy through the University of Minnesota's Initiative for Renewable Energy & the Environment (IREE). The scientists involved with this program do low-profile, but extremely important work, developing technologies (and methods for using those technologies) that affect every level of our energy systems. Right now, they're involved in everything from developing portable systems that turn farm waste into biofuel, to figuring out better ways to help houses use less energy. They're even collecting the complicated economic and physics data that will help us better understand the full environmental impacts of different fuels, batteries, and other energy sources and technologies. In the course of writing Before the Lights Go Out, my new book about the future of energy, I interviewed several of these scientists and learned a lot about the research they do. Some of their ideas won't pan out. Others will shape our energy future. But you don't know which is which until you put in the research effort—and this isn't the kind of research that private companies are willing to do.
Tomorrow, Minnesota state legislators in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee will vote on a bill called SF 2181. If it passes, the bill will de-fund the Initiative for Renewable Energy & the Environment. Instead, all state money for energy research will go to Xcel Energy, our local electric utility. There's nothing wrong with Xcel. In fact, they've got a pretty good track record of investing in alternative energy generation and infrastructure changes that will make it easier to build a sustainable energy future. But they aren't going to do the kind of research that IREE does. And they aren't going to research energy issues that don't affect their business—electricity.
Our energy problems are bigger than that. Our research into potential solutions needs to be broader than Xcel should be expected to cover. And it needs to be more forward thinking, and financially risky, than Xcel can reasonably be expected to undertake. There's nothing wrong with funding research at Xcel. But there is something wrong with de-funding research at the University of Minnesota.
If you live in Minnesota, I urge you to contact the members of the Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee TODAY. The vote is tomorrow, Thursday March 8. Let them know that public science is important work that can't be replaced by private science. In fact, we need both kinds of science happening, if we're going to meet the challenges of the future. A list of committee members—and their phone numbers—is after the jump.
Senator Julie Rosen, Chair, 651.296.5713
Senator Mike Jungbauer, Vice Chair, 651.296.3733
Senator Doug Magnus, 651.296.5650
Senator David Brown, 651.296.8075
Senator Dan Sparks, 651.296.9248
Senator Scott Dibble, 651.296.4191
Senator Mary Jo McGuire, 651.296.5537
Senator Jim Metzen, 651.296.4370
Senator Michelle Benson, 651.296.3219
Senator John Howe, 651.296.4264
Senator Ray Vandeveer, 651.296.4351
Senator Jeff Hayden, 651.296.4261
Senator Amy Koch, 651.296.5981
Reply MRKiscaden says: March 8, 2012 at 6:53 am The University of Minnesota is government funded. The U of MN is primarily a research institution that grudgingly teaches students as a condition of its state funding.
Nothing would make me happier than to see the U of MN stop chasing research dollars and go back to its original mission: Teaching students.
De-funding a single project does not mean the complete elimination of government funding.
Reply Snig says: March 8, 2012 at 7:09 am In research institutions, graduate students, postdocs and advanced undergrads learn to do science by actually doing science. This is how this country makes scientists. You can’t make research scientists without research. It’s not a single project that’s being subsumed by a corporation, it’s a cluster of important projects that may have important ramifications for the entire energy grid of the planet. There’s no good reason to make a present of that to one company. |
Hans Christian Andersen: The Life of a Storyteller
Jackie Wullschlager
BookPage® Review by Elizabeth Davis
We often identify authors by their most famous works and investigate no further. But a writer's output is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. Readers interested in delving into the life experiences that shape an author will delight in Jackie Wullschlager's Hans Christian Andersen: The Life of a Storyteller, a scholarly, detailed biography of one of the world's most renowned writers. Born in Odense, Denmark, on April 2, 1805, in a small cottage in the poorest part of the village, Andersen spent his life trying to escape his humble origins. He once described his uneducated parents as "full of love" but "ignorant of life and of the world." His rise to fame removed him physically from Odense and placed him in the homes and palaces of the noblemen and royalty with whom he wished to identify, but the psychological scars of his true heritage created an identity crisis that remained throughout his life.
According to Wullschlager, Andersen's fairy tales equal self-portraits. The triumphant Ugly Duckling, the loyal Little Mermaid, the steadfast Tin Soldier the stories of these characters show Andersen's own ability to empathize with pain, sorrow and rejection.
Andersen's life was significantly influenced by his travels, the patronage of royalty and wealthy friends and his association with other 19th century artists. Wullschlager includes fascinating stories, rich with historical detail, of his relationship with such notables as Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Franz Listz and the Grimm brothers. The first to write fairy tales for adults as well as for children, Andersen composed narratives that compel readers to confront their innermost thoughts and fears. Soul-searching satires of humankind's foibles and absurdities are woven into the fabric of his tales tales that, according to Wullschlager, reveal Andersen's own inner conflict: a battle between achieving acceptance and success and rebelling against conventional constraints. Exploring the circumstances that contributed to the literary genius of Hans Christian Andersen and tracing those influences throughout his prolific works, Wullschlager has created a fascinating psychological profile of the legendary author. |
Analyzing Climate Change on Carbon Rich Peat Bogs->
by eldavojohn
eldavojohn (898314) writes "A new report (PDF) from Climate Central shows that climate change has been affecting some states more than others for the past 100 years. As you can see from a video released by NASA, things have become most problematic since the 70s. Among the states most affected is Minnesota, where moose populations are estimated to have dropped 50% in the past six years. Now the U.S. Department of Energy is spending $50 million on a massive project at the Marcell Experimental Forest to build controlled sections of 36 feet wide and 32 feet tall transparent chambers over peatland ecosystems. Although peat bogs only account for 3% of Earth's surface, they contain over 30% of carbon stored in soil. They aim to manipulate these enclosures to see the effects of warming up to 15 degrees, searching for a tipping point and also observing what new ecosystems might arise. The project hopes to draw attention and analysis from hundreds of scientists and researchers around the globe."Link to Original Source |
What is the nature of eternal security?
2 @JonEricson made a statement in this answer that is fascinating to me:
In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus.
This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated. Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security?
Some possible viewpoints that I see are:
Salvation is eternal in its very nature. This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation
Salvation is not eternal in nature, but is eternal in practice because of God's keeping power. In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so. This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the cause, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God.
What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?
While there are probably an infinite number of aspects in regards to eternal security, I would like to discuss it from a stance of imputed righteousness.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)
If we look at this verse as a condemning statement we would all fall under one or more of these classifications that will not inherit the kingdom of God. (our sinful nature implies that we all have idolatrous hearts) I think that is the reason why this passage is often preached as a sermon on making changes in your life and doing works. But, the pivotal point of these verses is that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This leads me to the main point that I am trying to make. When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior we inherit his righteousness and are consider justified in eyes of God. It is a common misconception that God "forgets" our sins when we accept Jesus as our savior. If that were true then God would not be omniscient. Instead God chooses to not remember our sins. In the same sense that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Instead, our sins are paid for with Jesus's righteousness, and the only way to obtain righteousness is through Jesus. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
So, logically we can say that we are eternally secure because:
1. The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We have imputed righteousness at the time of salvation.
Matt Dykes
Thanks @MattDykes, great argument for the first viewpoint.
Welcome to Christianity.SE, and great first answer.
also to note, "remember" is very different from "recall", one relates to application of a thought or memory, and the other regards the actual memory itself
What you are considering in this question is the nature of salvation. Eternal security is an outgrowth of the larger Doctrines of Grace.
The subject is huge. In short, though, Eternal Security, as believed by people who hold to the Doctrines of Grace (Canons of Dort), believe that it is a property of salvation. To use your language above, it is by the nature of salvation.
Briefly, why? Read John 6, John 10, and Romans 9. When you do you will see God monergistically working. Faith is a gift that changes the nature of the person so that they repent of their sins. I personally love Romans 8:7-8, "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God... it cannot please Him." [paraphrased].
Books that represent the Doctrine of Grace accurately are The God Who Justifies or The Potter's Freedom by James White.
The trouble with the Doctrines of Grace is that there is subtlety to representing them accurately, particularly in how the nature men affects their actions. The books are highly worth it and rather recent.
Thanks for the book references - with regard to the scripture references, John 10 seems more to support the second viewpoint, doesn't it? It seems to suggest that we are kept saved by God's keeping power.
In Protestant faith is one's old self dying on the cross with Jesus symbolic, or the actual assumption of a new Eternal life? |
Post office will issue Enrico Fermi postage stamp during day of celebration Sept. 29
By Steve Koppes
Enrico Fermi
The U.S. Postal
Service will honor Chicago physicist Enrico Fermi by issuing a new 34-cent
stamp in his honor on Saturday, Sept. 29, the centennial of his birth. The
Postal Service and the University will commemorate the new stamp during a
dedication ceremony from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 29, at Ida Noyes
Hall, 1212 E. 59th St.
Following the
ceremony, from 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the Universitys Enrico Fermi
Institute will sponsor a special symposium titled Fermi
Remembered. Speaking at the symposium will be scientists who were
students and colleagues of Fermi when he was a professor at the University from
1946 until his death in 1954. Speakers will include Nobel laureates Jack
Steinberger (S.B., 42, Ph.D., 48) and Murray Gell-Mann, a physics
faculty member at the University from 1951 to 1954.
Both events are free
and open to the public.
Fermi covered a lot
of scientific ground in his 53 years on this Earth, applying his fertile mind
to such wide-ranging scientific queries as those that questioned the
fundamental characteristics of the atom and the potential for extraterrestrial
intelligence. But he also produced the first controlled, nuclear chain reaction
and conducted pioneering research on the most powerful subatomic particle
accelerator of its day.
significant about Fermi is if you look through his career, he never just did
the same thing. He kept moving on to new scientific challenges, said |
Issue Date: March 2012 Best Doctors 2012: Beat MakerHeart arrhythmias don't stand a chance against University Hospitals' Dr. Mauricio Arruda. Jennifer Keirn If not for the steady beeps of heart monitors, it would be easy to forget that Dr. Mauricio Arruda is at the controls of a complex heart procedure rather than a video game. From a room lined with six computer screens — a sort of mission control for this surgery — Arruda watches the procedure through a wall of plate glass, controlling the equipment with four joysticks. It is part of an operation known as radio-frequency catheter ablation. It's a treatment for heart arrhythmias, a condition in which the heartbeat becomes irregular and inhibits the heart's efficiency. It's a common condition from which some patients don't even experience symptoms. But for others, arrhythmias can cause stroke or sudden cardiac death. Prevalence of an irregular heartbeat isn't known, but the most common variety, atrial fibrillation or A-fib, affects 2.2 million Americans every year.
"We used to get the [defibrillator] paddles and plug them into the catheter and give them a shock," Arruda says of the technology that was first developed in the mid-1980s. "It helped a lot of people, but it caused a lot of side effects too."
Using the latest technology, Arruda created the Electrophysiology and Atrial Fibrillation Center at University Hospitals in 2008. The center performs an average of 300 procedures a year, says Arruda.
Before stepping up to the machine, Arruda feeds a catheter, which travels through the femoral artery in the patient's groin, all the way into the heart. The catheter looks like a long piece of spaghetti with a squirming worm at its tip, one that will respond to Arruda's remote-controlled instructions to explore the heart and pinpoint the cause of the arrhythmia. Once the catheter arrives in the heart, Arruda must wait. Only during irregular heartbeats can he determine the arrhythmia's source. Once Arruda locates it, he can put the catheter to work isolating and ablating the dysfunctional portions that are causing the arrhythmia. For now, the culprit is hiding behind a steady heartbeat. At times Arruda and his team have waited as long as six hours for an arrhythmia to begin. "But that's very rare," he says. While they wait, the mood of the operating room is light. Arruda and his fellow, Dr. Peter Mikolajczak, engage in friendly conversation with the two RNs and one radiology technician in the room. Everyone is wearing their own lead suit to protect themselves against the X-rays used in the procedure, looking as though they are ready to head into combat together.
A mix of pop tunes plays in the background. Today it's Rihanna, Taio Cruz and Shakira, but some days it's Brazilian music in honor of Arruda's homeland. Arruda grew up in a small town called Porto Ferreira, with a population just more than 50,000, in Brazil's Sao Paulo state. His father sold furniture, appliances and electronics and taught himself to repair electronics with young Mauricio by his side.
> Gallery
Dr. Mauricio Arruda As a student at Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Campinas in Brazil, Arruda became fascinated with arrhythmias, and spent his early career studying under the pioneers of radio-frequency catheter ablation at the University of Oklahoma, University of Chicago and Loyola University. He came to Cleveland in 2005 to take a position with the Cleveland Clinic's cardiovascular department, until the opportunity to build his own center at University Hospitals came along in 2008.
He sees the irony in the fact that his childhood knack for electronics has brought him to leadership of UH's electrophysiology practice, where he finds himself just as much behind a computer as he does at the patient's bedside. |
Booze, Energy Drinks, Casual Sex Combo Common in College: Study Researcher suspects caffeinated cocktails play a role in campus 'hook-up culture' Please note: This article was published more than one year ago. The facts and conclusions presented may have since changed and may no longer be accurate. And "More information" links may no longer work. Questions about personal health should always be referred to a physician or other health care professional.
MONDAY, July 30, 2012 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. college students who drink caffeinated energy drinks mixed with alcohol are more likely to have casual sex, which is often risky sex, a new study finds.
Drinks such as Red Bull & vodka, and Jagerbombs (energy drinks combined with a shot of Jagermeister), rank among the best-selling mixed drinks in bars and clubs serving college-age adults, according to background information in the report.
The study, published online in the Journal of Caffeine Research, included about 650 students at a large public university. Their ages ranged from 18 to 40, but more than 60 percent of them were younger than 21.
The University at Buffalo researchers found that more than 29 percent of the sexually active participants said they had consumed alcohol mixed with energy drinks in the previous month.
During their most recent sexual encounter, about 45 percent of the participants had a casual partner, 25 percent were drunk, and 44 percent said they did not use a condom. Those who reported drinking alcohol mixed with energy drinks were more likely to have casual sex and/or to be drunk during their most recent sexual encounter.
However, students who drank alcohol mixed with energy drinks were no less likely than nondrinkers to have used a condom during their most recent sexual encounter.
The findings suggest that alcohol/energy drink mixes may play a role in the "hook-up culture" that exists on many college campuses, according to study author Kathleen E. Miller, a senior research scientist at the University at Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions, in Buffalo, N.Y.
She noted that having casual sex or sex while intoxicated can lead to problems such as unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual assault and depression. Previous research has linked energy drinks with dangerous behaviors such as impaired driving, binge drinking and fighting.
"Mixing energy drinks with alcohol can lead to unintentional overdrinking, because the caffeine makes it harder to assess your own level of intoxication," Miller said in a university news release.
She noted that energy drinks mixed with alcohol "have stronger priming effects than alcohol alone. In other words, they increase the craving for another drink, so that you end up drinking more overall."
The research doesn't prove that drinking energy drinks with alcohol causes drunkenness and promiscuity, Miller said. But she hopes the findings lead to safety legislation or educational campaigns. More information |
First photo of Crater Lake, Peter Britt 1874. Courtesy of NPS.
Crater Lake National Park has a fascinating history. Created by the explosion of Mt. Mazama 7,700 years ago, Crater Lake has long inspired reverence and wonder. The Klamaths kept the lake undiscovered by white explorers until 1853, and William Gladstone Steel devoted over thirty years to establishing the Park. In 1902, President Roosevelt signed legislation making Crater Lake America's 6th National Park.
Read the extensive National Parks Service Historic Resource Study of Crater Lake National Park.
A sagebrush bark sandal found buried beneath ash from the eruption of Mt. Mazama. Fort Rock, Oregon.
TRIBAL HISTORY
The Klamath Tribes, which include the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin band of the Snake, knew Crater Lake as gii-was, meaning "a sacred place." The Cow Creek Umpquas also knew and respected Crater Lake.
Native Americans experienced the collapse of Mount Mazama about 7,700 years ago, and have many stories about the creation of Crater Lake and its many features. The National Park Service has collected many of their stories.
We encourage you to learn more about the Klamath Tribes and the Cow Creek Umpquas.
GEOLOGIC HISTORY
Crater Lake sits atop Mount Mazama, a Quaternary volcano that is part of the Western Cascade Range. Mazama began to form a half million years ago. 42,000 years ago it stood at its tallest height at 12,000 feet.
Mazama had its most destructive eruption about 7,700 years ago, spewing 12 cubic miles of rhyolite magma in the form of tephra as far north as Alberta, Canada, as far east as Wyoming and as far south as Nevada and northern California. Pyroclastic flows and lahars descended down around the volcano and a thick layer of tuff formed on the landscape and can still be seen today.
As a result of the eruption, Mazama lost enough material that the weight of the peak of the volcano could not be supported and it collapsed upon itself, creating a caldera.
Mazama continued to have smaller eruptions, which sealed the caldera floor and created a cinder cone within the caldera which is know called Wizard Island.
Formation of the Lake
Over 700 to 1500 years, rain and snow melt gradually filled the caldera, forming Crater Lake. Today, there is a balance between evaporation and precipitation and the water level in the lake usually fluctuates less than three feet year to year.
Human Activity
In terms of geologic time, Crater Lake is very young. It is believed that humans likely witnessed the explosion. In fact, a sandal was found buried in the ash from the eruption. Click here to learn more about the geologic features of Crater Lake National Park in our Science and Discovery section.
In addition to the natural wonders, the human structures of Crater Lake National Park have much to offer. The architecture of the buildings and the landscaping offer glimpses into the history of the National Parks Service. There are two Historic Districts in the Park are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The significant areas include landscape architecture created from 1916 to 1942 and architecture from 1909 to 1942.
The Emergency Conservation Work Act
The majority of the buildings at Crater Lake are the result of the mid-1930s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration programs. The Emergency Conservation Work Act, commonly known for the CCC, was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to employ U.S. citizens during the depression as part of the New Deal. In every state, workers planted trees, built roads and trails, strung telephone lines, and constructed buildings. Within Crater Lake National Park, the CCC constructed buildings, built campgrounds, landscaped and improved the Rim Drive.
Crater Lake buildings are significant examples of “rustic style”, also known as “NPS rustic”, architecture:
"The majority of the headquarters buildings, employees quarters, and service buildings display a unity of structural treatment, exemplified by massive boulder masonry, stained timbers, steep roof pitch, dormer windows, and rough-sawn or vertical board-and-batten siding." (Linda W. Greene, Crater Lake Historic Resource Study, NPS, 1984)
This style developed from the mid 1920’s to the early 1940’s. The style features natural materials that are intended to blend into and not detract from the natural surroundings. This style was popular with National Parks Service sites.
Historically Significant Buildings
Munson Valley Historic District
Employees Stone Houses
Garage and wood shed
Meat House
Mess Hall/Bunkhouse
Naturalist's House
Ranger Dormitory
Sign Shop [former public comfort station]
Superintendent's House
Transformer House
Rim Village Historic District
Comfort Stations #68 and #72
Crater Lake Lodge
Sinnott Memorial Lookout and Museum
Click here to learn more about the National Register and other historically significant buildings in Oregon.
The Trust depends on your tax-deductible donations to help students, teachers, and visitors to share in the excitement of this great natural wonder. |
by Kuki - CruiseMates Cruise Director | Friday, 05 Mar. 2010
Comparing the costs of a Phoenix vacation against a Caribbean cruise, it's no contest.
I don't recommend that anyone limit themselves to cruise vacations. It's a big world with a lot to see and do, and sometimes venturing out for more in-depth explorations of destinations has advantages. During land vacations, you have time to get more immersed in the places you're visiting, and to meet the people who live there.
There are clear advantages to both land and cruise vacations. But rather than argue about them, let's take a look at the simple mathematics -- the cost!
I recently returned from a "land cruise" to Phoenix, so I thought it might be worthwhile to compare the prices of our "land cruise" to the costs of a sea cruise.
In many ways it's comparing apples to oranges, but we're going to find as many similarities as we can, in order to make the comparisons somewhat equal.
Accommodations Costs At this time of year (January - March), a cruise in a standard balcony cabin on one of the "average" Caribbean itineraries can cost from $800 to $1,200 per person per cabin; to average it out, we'll say the cost of accommodation and food on the cruise for two people is around $2,000.
We spent a significant amount of time online researching hotel prices in Phoenix/Scottsdale, in an effort to find accommodations similar in category and ambience to those on a cruise ship. We looked at Hampton Inns, La Quinta Inns, and similar properties, which came in at a range of $239 - $279 a day plus taxes, but ultimately we chose an Embassy Suites Hotel, which also included a full hot breakfast each day and a complimentary happy hour each evening. The cost was $298; with taxes it came to $310 per night; so the total cost for seven days for two people was $2,170.
Admittedly we could have booked a room at a Holiday Inn and saved $700. But a cruise ship cabin is not a Holiday Inn, and therefore not a fair comparison. Plus, part of that $700 savings would have disappeared with the need to pay for breakfast each day, about $20 a day for two
making the actual savings closer to $ $540. So, even with lower level accommodations, the total for two for seven days, including breakfast, would have been $1,630.
(Some readers might say we could have saved money by going somewhere other than a tourist area like Scottsdale during the high season there. OK
I admit I could have probably booked a room in Anchorage, Alaska for $60 per night, but I imagine the frozen daiquiris there would be the real thing. You could also fairly easily find balcony cruises during off season for closer to $700.)
During winter, the Caribbean islands would certainly be considered peak-season tourist destinations, as is Scottsdale. So the destinations choices are comparable.
Transportation costs In Scottsdale, public transportation is a barely available bus service, private taxis, or automobile rentals. We rented a car for the week at a cost of $194; add in the cost of gasoline for a total transportation expense of $279.
On land, meal costs vary considerably depending on the restaurants one chooses. During our trip, all the restaurants we ate in were lower- to mid-priced. We never ate in a restaurant that would equate to any of the ships' alternative (i.e., surcharge) restaurants. And since breakfast was included in the hotel costs, we only ate lunch and dinner out. Lunches were either deli or family-style restaurants (with one must-do visit through the drive-thru window at the In and Out Burger). Dinners, again in middle-of-the-road restaurants, ran from $22 to $35 dollars per person.
Our total food budget for the week turned out to be $635. Tips on land ran very similar to, or slightly higher than, the $10 per person per day we'd spend on a cruise ship.
Bottom Line Numbers
For accommodations, local transportation and food, our week in Scottsdale, Arizona cost the two of us $3,084.
For basically the same accommodation, transportation and food, a cruise would have cost the two of us $2,000. So it ended up costing us a full 50% more for our land vacation, and we haven't even discussed any entertainment costs.
On a ship, there is no charge for entertainment. Every evening there are free shows in the ship's main theater, sometimes featuring fairly well-known headliners. There are also several lounges offering a variety of musical acts, as well as passenger-involved games, etc. Many ships also have movie theatres, and some newer ships show movies on giant-screen TVs at poolside.
On land, even finding evening entertainment requires searching, and time and effort. During our stay in Scottsdale there were several concerts and plays available that we chose not to get tickets for. Had we decided to go, tickets ranged from $60 to $ 250 per couple. Going to just three events during the week could have easily added $450 to our expenses.
Adding in even some minimal entertainment costs could easily drive the cost of our land vacation to 75 percent higher than the cost of a cruise.
Tours, Excursions, and Extra Expenses During visits to various ports of call on a cruise, excursions and tours can add quite a few dollars to the cost of the vacation. The same can be said on land.
We took a day to drive up to Sedona, Arizona (a lovely town and area, by the way). We just strolled and shopped and explored the area. However, the area is known for its Pink Jeep Tours. The cost for the two-hour tour is $72 per person (up to $98 for a four-hour tour) -- not dissimilar to the costs of ship's tours.
Now, while this Sedona tour is similar to a shore excursion, I have not had a chance to include the savings a cruise provides in travel costs from one destination another. Our Phoenix vacation was just that; a single destination, but a one week cruise takes you to several destinations as the ship sails at night. A truly fair comparison would have us arriving in Phoenix, magically awakening the next day in Sedona, the next day at the Grand Canyon, a day just enjoying our hotel's casino, free entertainment, pool, etc. Add in an "overnight" in Las Vegas, another hotel day and finally ending up back in Phoenix, and you get the idea of one of the hidden value's of a cruise over almost any land-based vacation -- "no added cost" travel to new destination during the vacation.
Though Mrs. Kuki and I do not consume many alcoholic beverages, the costs for those who do are not much different at sea than in most bars on land. Maybe on land, if you search, you can find some bars offering cheap alcohol, but they're probably going to be nothing more than places to drink, without the ambience and entertainment you'll find on a ship.
And during the entire Arizona trip we never found one place offering free ice cream, free 24-hour pizza or free room service.
Alternatives There are certainly other alternatives for vacations. They run the gamut of all-inclusive resorts, to camping trips, to escorted bus tours, to stays in luxury hotels and resorts. But to discuss every option would require me to write books on the subject, and I don't have the time because I'm busy lining up my next favorite vacation
my next cruise. After a week's land vacation, always digging into my pocket for money, having to decide where to eat, and spending time trying to get reservations, I know for certain that my next cruise vacation is going to offer me better value for my dollars than my last land vacation.
And I didn't even discuss how much I spent on my golf games, or how much Mrs. Kuki spent shopping -- which allowed me the time to play golf. |
Where Religion, Philosophy and Demographics Meet
Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.
Choosing Hell
Quite some time back, Pontifications ran a post about the theory of "fundamental option", which is seems is the theological term for the idea that one's salvation is based upon a fundamental choice that one makes either for or against God.This image for the determination of one's salvation has a certain utility in that is simple and evocative. C. S. Lewis uses it in The Last Battle, where all of Narnia's creatures face Aslan and swerve either to his right (with loving expressions) or to his left (with hate in their eyes). And yet, like any image or illustration, applying it absolutely leads to distortion. The 'encounter God and choose' image helps to emphasize that God's judgment is not some arbitrary judgment imposed upon us. It also helps to explain how someone externally appearing to have sinned many times might be saved, while someone who to all appearances led a virtuous life, yet held pride in his heart, might reject God and be condemned. And yet, taken as an absolute of 'salvation by choice alone' the theory of 'fundamental option' becomes just as much a heresy as 'salvation by faith alone'.John Paul II said as much in Veritas Splendor:To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behavior means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect and the determinations which express it does not do justice to the rational finality immanent in manÂs acting and in each of his deliberate decisions.It is keeping this integrity between the human agent's identity, will and action that is the difficult balance for most of us, I think. Our culture is tends to think of each choice as a totally free activity. Thus, the idea of experiencing for an instant the clarity of the Beatific Vision and in that instant choosing for or against God seems like an isolated decision point, unencumbered by past decisions. Indeed, some use this view to support the claim that perhaps all will be saved, because no one (when truly seeing God for what He is) would reject Him.And yet, classic Christian moral theology does not support this view of total personal freedom. Virtue is often described as 'the habit of doing good' while attachment to sin is that moral habit which, once one has sinned, makes it hard to make the right choice in the future. Thus, the first time you lie in order to get out of a difficult situation, you struggle to make it come out convincingly and fear for days that your lie will be found out. But with each transgression the lie comes more naturally, until it becomes nearly impossible to tell the truth in a difficult situation -- the convenient lie comes out without even thinking.It is because we are changed as moral agents by our past choices that ourfundamentall choice for or against God at the particularjudgmentt cannot be divorced from the moral decisions we have made throughout our lives. Each time we sin or resist sin, make it harder of easier to make that decision at the moment of personaljudgmentt.Perhaps, as in so many other things, the analogy of marriage is useful. One can, as a moral agent, choose at any given point in one's marriage to do something that is good for or bad for one's spouse. And yet, a given man with a given history can make it harder or easier to treat his wife well by building a history of good or bad behavior. While, in theory, a man who has lied and mistreated and been unfaithful to his wife can still, at any given decision point, choose to treat her well, he has vastly decreased both his ability to treat his wife well, and also his knowledge of what his wife truly wants, and thus his ability to treat her well even if he wants to.
Scott Carson tips us all off to the amazing expose performed for us by NPR. It seems that people are only just now realizing that there is evidence that has been sitting around in plain sight nearly two millennia that women were on a totally equal footing with men during the first three centuries of the Church's existence. The Vatican is still trying to keep the lid on this, but forward-looking Catholics know that this silence won't last forever. People are just so much smarter and nicer than they were in 1800 or 1500 or 1200 or 800 or indeed any time since the early, feminist-friendly age of the Church.Don't doubt your senses, ladies and gentlemen. NPR has provided us with photographic evidence. For instance, in this shocking photo which the Vatican doesn't want you to see, but which FutureChurch discovered on their recent pilgrimage, you can see "A mosaic of women who became saints after risking their lives to collect the relics of martyrs, St. Praxedes church, Rome."Well, I bet you sheep reared on the lies of the male dominated church weren't ready for that one.And how about this even stereotype defying image of "A mosaic in St. Praxedes church, Rome. Theodora is on the left with a square halo, indicating she was alive when the mosaic was made." I mean, that pretty much says it right there, doesn't it. Take that, you attack dogs of male domination.Sure, there's the little mis-step of Theodora being a creature of the sixth century rather than the third, when the alleged Golden Age was, but that doesn't discourage this happy pilgrim:"We would just like to talk to our leaders," said Sister Christine Schenk, co-leader of the pilgrimage, "and tell them of our experience--how we can begin to re-institute that wonderful balanced leadership we had in the first three centuries of both women and men leading the communities."And luckily, although the male dominated Church was working so hard to squelch the memory of women like Theodora that she's lovingly depicted in mosaics throughout the West and East, we have sources like the Secret History which shed light on her real character -- surely something every feminist could love.
Time for more Giovanni Guareschi, from the book My Home, Sweet Home.The Thousand Lire Story I went down to the center of town to make some purchases, and in the end found myself without cigarettes and with a single thousand lire note in my wallet. I went into a tobacconist's, asked for a package of Swiss cigarettes, and laid the thousand lire note on the counter. The tobacconist looked at it with interest. "What is it?" he asked. "A thousand lire note," I replied. The tobacconist called to his wife, who was reading a newspaper at the other end of the counter. "Maria, look at this!" The woman turned her head and without bothering to come nearer glanced at the note. "Ah," she said, "it's back in the center of town again." The tobacconist asked if I lived at Porta Volta. "Lambrate," I said. "Then it's moved around," he remarked. "It hasn't been here in about a month. We all know it." I looked at the note again and caught my breath. It was the falsest thousand lire note in the world, so shamelessly counterfeit as to inspire the liveliest disgust. There ought to be a certain amount of care, professional pride, taken in the production even of counterfeit thousand lire notes. But the note I had in front of me was no more than a free and arbitrary interpretation of a real thousand-lire note. I handed back the cigarettes and picked up the offending note. "Too bad!" cried the tobacconist. "But in this life you've ,got to learn to take the knocks philosophically." I started off for the parking lot but of course had to give up the idea of reclaiming my car-or of taking a taxi, or even a bus. I arrived home on foot, in an unenviable state of mind. "Everything go all right?" Margherita asked me. "Fine," I replied, ashamed to admit I'd accepted the counterfeit thousand-lire note. "Oh, good!" Margherita cried. "You were able to get rid of that awful counterfeit note I put in your wallet." I am not speaking here to children, I'm speaking to grown men, to old hands at matrimony. They'll understand: they know that the ladies play these little tricks. I maintained my composure. I took the note from my pocket and handed it to Margherita. "If you're simple-minded enough to accept such a horror," I said, "you ought to be honest enough to face up to it. Take that thousand-lire note and burn it. Furthermore, it's a crime to circulate counterfeit bills. Look, it's down right here, on the note itself, in this little box. Read it." "Whoever gave it to me," she said, "ought to take it back." "Who gave it to you, Margherita?" "I don't know. I shop all over the neighborhood, anybody might have given it to me." She went out and was back after a couple of hours, so she must have worked fast. To quarrel with the bakery, the grocery, the drug store, the fruit shop, the butcher, the dry goods store, and the tobacco shop takes a bit of time. However, when Margherita returned she still had the counterfeit thousand-lire note. The concierge, in matters of this nature, is invaluable. Margherita called her and handed the whole thing over to her. "If you can get rid of it," Margherita said, "we split." Two days passed; and then the concierge came back and handed Margherita a perfectly good five-hundred-lire note. "I had to take it out of the neighborhood," the concierge explained. "Everybody here knows that bill by heart. Now let it go where it will." Then one day the concierge came running up. "It's come back!" she cried. "An old woman tried to pass it to the grocer!" In the following days, the wretched thing was seen by the druggist, the butcher, the fruit seller, and the stationer, and the general apprehension increased. Then it wasn't mentioned any more-quite simply because Margherita had it in her purse. When we found it, we looked at it in horror-which I cut short: I took the infamous note and was about to feed it to the stove. But Margherita grabbed it from me. "It's a matter of principle," she said. "I took it, I have to get rid of it." The days that followed were sad ones for all the family. Margherita ventured into far-distant neighborhoods and returned every night dead tired. At last she had to give up. She called the concierge and once more entrusted the note to her, under the same conditions as before. The neighborhood resumed its state of siege, for the concierge went into action at once, unleashing all the housemaids who came to see her. Then there was peace. She reappeared after a week and handed to Margherita a glorious five-hundred-lire note. "I got away with it," she said. "But I had to go all the way to Baggio. Now that it's out in the suburbs, we can all relax." Margherita, who has her own conception of arithmetic, was particularly content that evening. "Giovannino," she said, "we're even now. I got five hundred lire the first time, and five hundred lire the second time. A thousand lire went out and a thousand lire came back." I made no objection to this statement but I went to bed in a guilty frame of mind. At one in the morning, Margherita woke with a start. "Giovannino!" she cried. "If I get that counterfeit bill back and make the same deal with the concierge, I'll make a profit of five hundred lire." "Don't think about it," I said. Four weeks passed. Then one evening I heard a shriek and I ran to the kitchen. There was Margherita, staring wide-eyed into a cabinet drawer. Inside it was the counterfeit thousand-lire note. This time I didn't hesitate. I picked up the note and took it over to the gas stove. Margherita made no objection. But before the bill touched the flame, the gas went out. At this, a terrible moan came from Margherita, and she sank into a chair. Of course it was chance. A reasonable man would laugh and light a match and touch it to the bill. But I did not. I put the thousand lire note back in the drawer. Every once in a while Margherita and I would peek in, and there it was always, evil and obstinate, and so false you could tell it even with the drawer shut. One day I told the story to a friend of mine who works in a bank, and he said he'd like to see the note. We took it to him. Margherita shuddered as she saw the ease with which he handled the bill, and felt it, and held it to the light. "There are defects in the printing," he said finally, "but the bill is not counterfeit." He put it with some others and gave us two five hundred lire notes. In the street, Margherita paused and said: "Giovannino, I got five hundred lire from the concierge the first time, and I got five hundred the second time, and just now we got a thousand. That makes two thousand lire. We've made a thousand lire clear! Is it possible?" "Anything is possible," I said, `but if you ask me, we have paid the wages of sin."
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article today about marketing cleaning supplies in Italy. (I'd link to it, but you have to subscribe to their online edition to access it.) Here are some stats:* Italian women spend an average of 21 hours a week on household chores (other than cooking). American woman, by comparison, spend only a fifth that much time cleaning.* Italian women wash kitchen and bathroom floors at least four times a week. American women wash them once a week. (I'm way behind by either standard.)* Italian women iron nearly all their wash, even down to socks and underwear. Sheesh!* 80% of Italians iron all their laundry* 31% have dishwashers* 1% have dryersPerhaps if you don't have a dryer you have less clothing to take care of, so then you have more time to do all that ironing? I wonder if the sport of extreme ironing has taken off there in Italy.Now, my house isn't filthy, but I really don't put in that much time cleaning -- I don't enjoy it much, to tell the truth. I guess that all told, I hit the four-hour average for American women, but I never think to dust, vacuuming is sporadic (especially upstairs because I have to lug my heavy vacuum up when I want to clean), and the kitchen floor is mopped infrequently. The laundry gets done (with the benefit of a dryer, I might add) but even if it gets folded it's not always put away. Some of this is due to my disinclination for the tasks, but a lot of it also has to do with the fact that whenever I dedicate myself to some job, I invariably hear crashes or squeals and find a disaster in progress.My kids are climbers -- I find myself saying, "Get down! Get down!" so often I sound like a scratched disco record. But maybe climbing is the way the high shelves are going to get dusted, at least for now.The other piece of note in the Journal is a review of a book called "To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing our Inner Housewife". It's written by Caitlin Flanagan, a woman who stays at home -- not exactly stays at home with her kids, because she has a nanny, a maid, and a gardener -- and writes for the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker about the Mommy Wars and the aftermath of feminism. The review assures us that she is indeed a charming, talented writer. Good for her. Less good is her own mothering style, which involves calling the nanny when things get sticky:"Paloma, Patrick is throwing up!" I would tell her, and she would literally run to his room, clean the sheets, change his pajamas, spread a clean towel on his pillow feed him ice chips, sing to him. I would stand in the doorway, concerned, making funny faces at Patrick to cheer him up -- the way my father did when I was sick and my mother was taking care of me.Well, all right. I may only clean my house four hours a week, but when anyone in my house is sick, I'm there. And I don't think that a working mother who, after putting in a full day's work, picking up the kids, getting dinner, and packing everyone off to bed, has just put up her aching feet and sat down with Ms. Flanagan's book would feel at all charmed by an elegant turn of phrase here or a witty epigram there from a woman who won't even take care of her sick child in the middle of the night. I don't have to learn to love my inner housewife because being a housewife is simply what I do -- it's my full-time job, thank you very much. I may not be the world's most proficient cleaning lady, but when it comes to taking care of my family when they need me, I wrote the book. Posted by
My grandmother used to warn me every so often about the third columnist priests that the communists snuck into the seminaries during the '20s. They were responsible, she was sure, for many of the problems in the Church, and any day now they might try to take over the whole thing.It's not that I doubted that communists might have tried to infiltrate seminaries during the '20s, or that (assuming that happened) that wouldn't have done real harm. But the thing that struck me in hearing this in the '90s was: That was seventy years ago. If they snuck in during the '20s, they're dead or retired.It's certainly not seventy years yet since the silliness of the '60s and '70s, but it's getting to have been quite a while. We were visiting with friends for brunch on Easter Sunday, and as we were talking about the occasional flare-ups of bad Easter liturgy, I was reminded of The Egg Sermon.The Egg Sermon is a not-so-fond memory of my days as an altar boy (circa 1988 to 1995). Just after I became an altar boy, we got a new associate pastor in our parish, Fr. Tom. Fr. Tom was what seemed in the mid to late eighties a very typical 'young priest'. (Given a seven year preparation process, 'John Paul II priests' weren't hitting the streets yet.) Fr. Tom was not, like his forebears in the 70s, a radical of any particular sort. He was just very, very nice, and not (or at least not willing to appear) terribly deep. Fr. Tom's sermon's tended to be aimed at the children in the congregation under age 7, and they usually involved a prop or puppet. (This was tricky, because it meant that at masses for the parish school -- at which he was invariably the celebrant -- the intended audience for the sermon was kindergarten age or below, and the rest of us tended to feel silly.)One way or another, every altar boy ended up serving pretty much every day out of the triduum, so three years running I ended up serving Fr. Tom's Easter mass, and each time he gave the same sermon. The sermon was based around his Easter basket, and the question: Are you a good egg? Some of us, he explained, are hard boiled. (Out comes a hard boiled egg.) We're hardened, we don't care about others, but when bad things happen (he drops the egg on the marble floor of the sanctuary and it cracks) we just crack. Some of us are scrambled (out comes a ziplock full of scrambled eggs). We're just all mixed up. (He pours the scrambled eggs out on the floor.) Others look really good on the outside (a hollow chocolate egg) but on the inside (he crumbles the hollow egg in his hand) we're hollow.It went on like this for a while, with more explanation on each egg, and then when Fr. Tom returned to his chair, a couple of us had to come forward with a whisk broom, dustpan and paper towels to clean up all the mess. (You can see why by the third year, this got old.)As I was telling this altar boy horror story, I found myself saying by way of introduction "Fr. Tom was your typical young priest". And then I realized, that's no longer the case. Fr. Tom was ordained twenty years ago. And as opposed to being a 'typical young priest' he must now be in his early fifties.Odd to think of...
One of the things about the internet is that it sometimes gives you the ability to look up someone you haven't heard of in a long while.Recently, I got to wondering what Fr. Royer was up to these days. Fr. Ronald Royer (indeed, Msgr. Royer now, I find) was known to both my parents in different capacities. He was an associate pastor at St. Francis of Rome parish in Azusa California back in the 70s, which was my mom's family's parish. He was also a well known amateur astrophotographer, whom my father once had out to Santa Monica College to give a guest lecture about taking photographs of celestial objects.The Orange County Astronomers offer a brief bio of Msgr. Royer on their site. Msgr. Royer was ordained in 1958, a graduate of St. Johns Seminary in Los Angeles. He was pastor of St. Pancratius parish in Lakewood from 1983 to 2002, when he retired. (He was made a Monsignior in 1992.) He now lives with his mother in Springville, CA where he has moved his observatory, and helps out at the local parish.You can see a lot of Msgr. Royer's astrophotography here, in the Science Photo Library, which is where the above photo of part of the Milky Way is from.
I've also been meaning to blogroll Mary Meets Dolly, and I've finally gotten to that. Mary Meets Dolly is, literally, the meeting of the world of genetics and genetic engineering, represented by Dolly, “mother” of modern biotechnology, and the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life, represented by Mary, mother of Christ and the Church. So, while “Mary Meets Dolly” may sound glib, its subject matter is definitely not. My name is Rebecca Taylor. I am a clinical laboratory specialist in molecular biology at a Catholic hospital, and more importantly, a practicing Catholic. Recently, I was discussing stem cells and cloning with an older gentleman at a family party. He was very knowledgeable about biotechnology, but was surprised about many little-known and quite misleading facts. He asked where I had gathered those facts, and I told him I was reading every pertinent scientific reference I could get my hands on. He looked me in the eye and said, “Young lady, it is not good enough to read, you must do something!” I found out later he was a former U.S. congressman from California. Indeed, I began to notice a general lack of understanding about contemporary issues in genetics, genetic engineering, and reproductive technology, issues that have shaped, and will continue to shape, the future of humanity, for good or ill. I work with professionals whose business is medical genetics, and even they are confused about the pragmatics, not to mention the ethics, surrounding cloning, stem cells, and recent advances in genetic engineering. If professionals could be confused, I feared that the average Catholic would feel lost amidst the scientific jargon and, unfortunately, the hype.Pertinent stuff, and well-written.
Readers may recall (perhaps with ennui) that I've been working on restoring a German K98 Mauser battle rifle from WW2. Some 12 million K98s were made during the war, and after Germany's defeat they were literally scattered across Europe.A number of GIs smuggled them home in their duffle bags as trophies, and these 'GI Bring Backs' fetch some of the highest prices from collectors today. The US and Britain destroyed millions of them, recycling the metal and taking weapons they didn't want getting into the wrong hands off the market. The Soviets and various Eastern Bloc countries cleaned up and stored several million -- just in case they needed to send millions of men armed with bolt-action rifles charging across the steppes of Europe against Americans armed with tanks and atomic weapons. Hundreds of thousands of the K98s ended up on the international arms market, both legal and illegal, and found their way into the hands of just about any group buying arms in the late 1940s.One such group was the nascent Israeli Defense Force, then a network of paramilitary organizations dedicated to defending the growing Jewish settlements in Palestine from the political and military chaos of the region. These groups bought thousands of K98s, which became the primary battle rifle used in the fighting leading up to and following the creation of the state of Israel. The IDF chose the K98 as its primary battle rifle, and had thousands more made by the FN company in Belgium. However, there were a total of about 100,000 Nazi-made K98s which were rearsenaled by Israel and stamped with Hebrew letter identifications and the Star of David. In a few cases, the Star of David was stamped right over the Nazi markings on the receiver.Israel later adopted the semi-automatic FAL rifle in NATO .308, but the reserves continued to carry the K98 (those still in use were modified to use the NATO .308 round instead of the German 8mm Mauser) into the '70s and it saw action in a number of the wars Israel has fought.Surely not something that the German makers of the rifle intended.
The 1965 Missal
Last night when I was up late working, I also couldn't help distracting myself from work occasionally, and came across this post about the 1965 'mass of Vatican II' which was the original (and at the time expected to be the only) revision of the Tridentine Mass based upon the recommendations of the Council.The 1965 missal was a much lesser departure from the 1962 missal (which is what is generally celebrated both under the indult) and perhaps in many ways fit the bill for a gradual, organic reform that brought the mass back into line with its historical and theological purpose. The readings were said in the vernacular, while the ordinary of the mass remained in Latin. A few accreted prayers and gestures were removed from the Tridentine missal. But generally, it sounds like the 1965 order of the mass was very close to its immediate predecessor. You can read a defense of the changes from the 1962 to the 1965 missal here.And a description of the 1965 order of the mass here.The text is here.I can't say I wish I was alive in the 60's, but this sounds like the sort of reform that many of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum would have been quite satisfied with. Sadly, that is water under the bridge at this point.
Here's a little tidbit from an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about a push for new restrictions on driving while using a cellphone. In the accident, the 20-year-old driver fell asleep while talking on the phone, crossed three lanes of traffic and hit a car driven by a 55-year-old woman, who later died. Authorities lodged what they thought was Michigan's first cellphone-related negligent-homicide charge. Later, they added drug charges, after a medical exam allegedly turned up illegal drugs in the driver's system.Tell me again how the cellphone was the problem in this incident?
Rich Leonardi of Ten Reasons links to a good editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer about a 'free speech' incident an Northern Kentucky University.It seems that Sally Jacobsen, a tenured professor in the Literature & Languages department at NKU, led 9-12 of her students from a BritLit class to a grassy area near the university center where Right to Life (an approved student organization) had erected 400 crosses representing a cemetery for the unborn (a symbolic display which they had received university permission to erect). There Jacobsen encouraged them to tear all the crosses apart. She would not reveal whether she herself had participated in the destruction, but said she had encouraged the students to destroy the display, which she said was outrageous and offensive.The editorial asks pertinently:She said she was offended by the display. So what? Does she think she has the right to obliterate someone else's expression just because it offends her? Would she deface a painting she didn't care for? Smash a statue she didn't like? Burn books in the library if she disagreed with them?Surprisingly, yet gratifyingly, enough, the university apparently agrees. The AP reports:A Northern Kentucky University professor has been put on leave and will retire at the end of the semester after admitting she told students to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus.Sally Jacobsen, who is a professor in the literature and language department, will not return to the school. University president James Votruba said what Jacobsen did was outside the scope of her employment.I'm impressed that president Votruba sees the real free speech issue at stake. If you actually believe in freedom of speech, you believe in letting everyone speak. That means that destroying speech with which you disagree is the most antithetical thing you can possibly do to exercising 'free speech'. This is a point many college activists seem unclear on. At the community college where my father worked, there was an incident several years back where the Black Student Union seized an entire print run of the college newspaper and destroyed it, because they disagreed with an editorial it ran. The college president thanked them for expressing their views and promised to ferret our racism wherever she found it, but in fact, this was not an act of free speech. An act of free speech would be holding a rally against the editorial or publishing an alternative to the newspaper. Destroying the paper is an example of suppressing free speech in favor a set of imposed moral or cultural norms.Now, maybe part of the problem with is that people have become so enamored of the idea of unlimited free speech that they can't admit that free speech is not actually an absolute ideal for them. This is, after all, the country where Larry Flynt not only won the right to publish unlimited smut in court, but even had a movie made about what a great American he was to have done so.I am not myself a supporter of unlimited free speech. There are, I think, limits to what it is good for society for people to say and do. However, Prof. Jacobsen does not admit any such qualms about free speech, nor is she operating in an environment that acknowledges such limits.This Cincinnati Post article has some more good info on the dust up, including some great quotes from Votruba.And this site offers some photos of the destruction. Judge for yourself whether Prof. Jacobsen has any plausible deniability on whether or not she was involved:
Another Summer, another A/C repair
We are the proud holders of a home warranty that's supposed to fix all problems covered for $50 a repair call. Sounds nice, no? And it sure would be nice if the air conditioner had been fixed for good in the last four visits. But no, as the temperature starts pushing toward 90 degrees, I find that once again the air conditioner does not blow cold. Never fear, however -- Darwin is making the call this time, and he'll find a way to by-pass the system and speak to a live operator and make them fix the air conditioner this time.In the meantime, the windows are open -- but wait! Several of our windows have huge holes in the screen (thanks, cats next door). So the limited air flow in our surburban box is further impeded. New screens are on order and should be coming soon. In the meantime, I have the house fan on and the screened windows open, and there's an approximation of ventilation going on. Let me once more take the opportunity to rail against cheapskate builders of suburban boxes who assume that since there's air conditioning, windows are merely a cosmetic feature (though the builders' idea of beauty is off-kilter, since some sides of our house have only one or two windows in odd places).But dang, it's hot already!
A blessed, sunny, joyful Easter to you all! We had several adult baptisms at our parish last night, and I couldn't keep from smiling during them. I can't wait until tiny miss Mops is baptized. I really can't wait until her sisters can behave in church...We're off to friends for brunch. I send up many prayers for the success of my quiche, if that crust is salvagable. Here's a cooking hint from Mrs. Darwin: when bringing a dish to a meal, don't try out something new. Make something familiar, because then you'll know how it'll turn out.Alleluia!
(Note: This is a post from October, but since it's relevant to the Triduum, I thought I'd re-post it in a slightly touched-up form.)The calendar hanging on my kitchen wall has an excited notation for today: "Baby Due!" Yet there are no bags packed or meals laid in or neatly-folded crib sheets stacked in the closet, no tiny diapers in the house. The cradle sits in the corner, neglected by all but the cat. The baby whose coming was so eagerly noted for October 18 never kicked or had a heartbeat, but died in utero seven months ago and was miscarried over the three holiest days of the year: Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter. While most Catholics participate in Christ's passion symbolically, our family had a much more profound experience of Christ's suffering this year.On Good Friday, March 25, I was ten weeks pregnant. Our family was attending the Stations of the Cross at our parish when my almost-three-year-old whispered that she had to go potty. After she'd finished, I asked her to wait while I exercised my pregnant woman's prerogative of using the bathroom at every opportunity. She played quietly with the diaper bag while I stared numbly at my blood-soaked pantyliner.What did Christ feel when he saw the soldiers approaching him in the Garden of Olives? Was he terrified? Did he try to explain it away? Perhaps they weren't coming for him; maybe they were just out in the neighborhood on patrol. Maybe they would realize that they'd been misinformed and would just leave quietly. “Father, let this cup pass,” he had prayed, and his prayer became my own.Brendan and I left the girls with an understanding friend and rushed home to call the midwife, who counseled us to wait and rest until tomorrow morning when we could get a blood test to check the pregnancy hormone levels. After picking up the girls, we settled in for a long night's vigil.The night passed slowly. I spent it in fitful prayers and fitful sleep, interspersed with frequent trips to the bathroom to see if anything had changed. I thought of Christ spending his own anxious night in his cell, wondering what exactly the morning would bring, knowing that all events were progressing inexorably toward his Passion. In the morning we dropped the girls off again with my friend so that they could dye Easter eggs, then headed off for my blood test. I drove, since Brendan had also passed a rough night and was slightly feverish.I had expected a great ordeal, but it took all of ten minutes to sign in in the empty lobby, get my blood drawn, and be assured that my midwife would call me in several hours with the results. At home again, I laid right down and tried to ignore the cramps that were beginning to wash over me at regular intervals. Brendan was also deteriorating, and neither of us felt much like doing anything.After a few hours, however, it became evident that he was going to have to go into the after-hours care clinic. His fever was skyrocketing, his throat was swollen, and he could barely stand. I wasn't doing so well myself, but at least I could drive. We staggered into the doctor's office, checked in, and spent a miserable hour both curled up in hard waiting room chairs, trying to ignore the incessant blare of Saturday afternoon TV. My cramps were worsening and it was often all I could do not to cry out, but I was in a cold, impersonal lobby surrounded by others wrapped up in their own sufferings. Brendan's presence was comforting, but like Mary on Calvary, all he could do was watch and pray.At last we were shown into a small examination room, where I could finally weep into a tissue without being subjected to the stares of strangers. The midwife had said that the cramps often lasted for only three or four hours; it seemed to me that I had been laboring for days, but with no reward to look forward to at the end. After an interminable amount of time, a doctor appeared, examined Brendan, and offered an unfavorable diagnosis: double ear infection, raging fever, a touch of bronchitis. We would have to go to the pharmacy and pick up the prescriptions before I could collapse at home. The trip was agony. Once again I had to drive; Brendan was barely conscious. I willed my foot to stay flat on the pedal instead of curling under with each cramp. I poured every ounce of concentration into following the lines on the pavement and cursed each red light that broke my momentum. At the drive-through pharmacy window, I could barely communicate; I nearly cried at the news we'd have to wait fifteen minutes before the medicine would be ready. As we waited in the parking lot, I pried my hands off the steering wheel to answer the cell phone. It was the midwife calling to tell me the results of my blood test. The hormone levels indicated that the baby had died two weeks ago.And then I realized that the cramps were subsiding.The rest of the evening passed in a haze. I was almost giddy with relief at the cessation of pain. The girls stayed overnight with my friend, who dropped by to pick up their fancy Easter dresses and new shoes and promised to put together an Easter basket for them. I moved around just enough to make sure Brendan had his medicine and plenty of ginger ale. Christ may have been busy on Holy Saturday evening, harrowing hell, but I was stiff, weary, and desirous of death-like slumber.The next morning we debated whether we should attend Mass. I haven't missed Sunday Mass since I was a youngster sick in bed, and Easter is the most important day of the liturgical year. Now, however, we were both ill and beaten down. I had had a miscarriage, he was still running a fever -- surely these were extenuating circumstances? Yet what could be more comforting to those who have suffered loss than receiving Christ who perfectly comprehends all suffering? We would go.That afternoon I passed the sac with the baby inside. We opened it up and looked at the tiny body, no bigger than my little fingernail. As small as it was, we could see the tiny button nose and the beginnings of arms and legs, but the most striking feature was the large baby-blue eye. We hovered over the body for a time, fearful of touching it lest we crush it. Finally we wrapped up baby and buried it under a newly-planted rosebush. After a short prayer, we commended ourselves to our new saint and went up to sleep. ----------“Baby Due!” isn't the only item on the calendar for October 18. Next to the crossed-out 40 week mark is a penciled-in “21”. The newest member of our family is a healthy, wriggling baby girl, who has a strong heartbeat and a powerful kick. She doesn't replace the small baby who died with Christ, but it does ease the pain of the loss to know that next Easter I'll once again be looking down at a several week old baby, and this time the big blue eye will be looking right back at me.
The very last thing our liturgy needs, you might think, is a more theatrical sensibility. To those of us who have been treated to the occasional crash-and-burn bad liturgy (complete with 'liturgical dancers' lurching up the aisles in leotards which are an occasion of sin against charity if not modesty) the idea of 'liturgical theatre' brings up instant horror.And yet, one of the major problems with the weekend tragedians and comedians on the parish liturgy committee is actually a lack of familiarity with dramatic theory. You see, once upon a time the Catholic Mass was admired by dramatic theorists -- not so much because the spectacle of the high mass, but because the rubrics of the mass were such a good example of action mirroring word and meaning.The key to creating good drama is to craft a sight and sound experience that conveys the essential meaning of the script. When a director sits down to score out a script, he doesn't just think, "What would this look like in real life," but also (and to a great extent, instead) "What actions will convey to the audience what is going on." On stage, important action is usually moved to a focal point, if not the center of the stage, then an area on which the audience's attention is focused via set and lighting design. A character who is exerting greater power within a scene is often given blocking that puts him above the person he exerts power over. If one character is seated while the other stands leaning over him, the image conveys that the person standing is in power. Alternatively, if one character sits in a chair looking relaxed while the other stands stiffly or nervously before him we instinctively know it is the sitting person who is in power. If a character turns her back on another, we know that she is in some sense blocking him or shutting him out. Perhaps she is angry with him, perhaps she is hiding her thoughts and emotions from him.Director's don't simply make these things up, rather, they tap into the vocabulary of behaviors and gestures that have common meaning for us as a culture. We use these gestures and movements in life every day. The craft of the director is to understand the meaning of gestures that most of us use without even thinking, and to choose actions for his actors which will use this gesture language to convey the script more clearly to the audience.Good liturgy also uses the language of gesture to convey meaning. We kneel during the consecration because kneeling conveys reverence. We stand while listening to the Gospel because standing is also a sign of respect and attention. (Ask any drill sergeant if he'd get a good reaction making people sit at attention.) We bow before receiving the Eucharist as a sign of reverence. The use of incense, gold vessels and formal robes are all ancient signs of reverence.Other things, however simply do not draw from our cultural vocabulary of meaning. Liturgical dancers have no meaning in our culture. Sure, some ancient kings may have had dancing girls -- but the meaning there was "this king is so important he could have any one of these beautiful women." Christ isn't that kind of king. (And that kind of king wouldn't want the average liturgical dancer.)Other symbols that liturgists suggest convey messages, but not messages that mean anything relevant to the mass. Thus, having a group of children sing and 'do motions' for the congregation as 'a meditation' does not cause anyone to meditate. It causes people to think 'how cute' and wish they could reach for their video cameras so they could show Grandma.Back when we lived in LA Archdiocese, one directive that came out asked that everyone remain standing both before and after receiving communion and then sit down all at once 'to emphasize that we all sit down together at the table of God.' Well, that may have sounded good in a discussion group somewhere, but having everyone stand during the distribution of communion doesn't convey at any deep level 'we're united'. Indeed, what it mostly seemed to convey to people was 'we're waiting', and so they'd chat amongst themselves much more than when kneeling. (This particular innovation died, at least at our parish, within weeks.)Other things are just plain hard. The sign of peace, for instance. I'm not necessarily one of those people who hates the sign of peace. (It gives my toddlers something they're capable of participating in -- that's a plus right there.) But I think one of the reasons it has had problems in our culture is that there is no standard 'peace be with you' gesture in our culture. Shaking hands says "hi there" or "you've got a deal" or "what buddies we are" but it doesn't say "peace be with you". We're not a culture that gives peace. In some cultures, a kiss on each cheek might convey that. In others, clasping both arms or bowing might convey such a message. But since it's not a sentiment we have a gesture for, the sign of peace often degenerates into a 'hi ya' moment.Our parish is usually pretty good at avoiding liturgical miss-steps, but there was a mild example of clumsy symbolism tonight. Someone had got the idea of putting the church into Good Friday mode before the Holy Thursday mass. So when we came in the tabernacle was open, the statues were draped in red, the lights were off, etc. When the procession entered, the crucifix the servers carried was also shrouded. Now, I'm sure someone was thinking, "This is such powerful symbolism and says so much on Good Friday, it'll give a great Lenten feel to Holy Thursday if we do the same thing." (Similar thinking most go into taking away the holy water for all of lent rather than just Good Friday and Holy Saturday.)But no one had thought through what a mixed symbolic message you'd be sending by shrouding Christ during the celebration of the institution of the Eucharist. And leading a Eucharistic procession out of the church at the end of mass while carrying a crucifix with the corpus hidden. If Jesus is right there in the Eucharist, why use all the symbolism that's meant to convey that he's not there?UPDATE: Fr. Fox points out in the comments (and also mentions in a post on his own blog) that the rubrics in the Sacramentary for Holy Thursday mention the tabernacle being completely empty. I'd never seen this done before, so I assumed it was an innovation, but live-and-learn.I'm still think shrouding all the statues and crucifixes for Holy Thursday was a slightly misplaced idea, but as we've just seen I'm not an expert. :-) However, I'll have a better explanation at today's 3pm service when my 3-year-old daughter will doubtless ask again: "Why is Jesus hiding under a blanket." Because now it's accurate to say, "We hide Jesus today to remind us that after he died Jesus was hidden in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead."
Today being Holy Thursday, it seem appropriate to re-read the Bread of Life discourse in John 6:22-71. Jesus makes his message as clear as possible. He starts by saying, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." (v.35) The crowds murmur at this, so Jesus ups the ante by proclaiming, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (v.51) Once again the crowds debated his meaning, so finally Jesus is explicit: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (vv.53-56)Jesus lost many of his disciples over these words: "many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." (v.66) The twelve remained, even, oddly enough, Judas -- who would later betray Jesus. Why didn't Judas leave at this time? Could he have actually believed that Jesus's flesh was true food and his blood true drink? When Jesus asks why the twelve don't go, Peter tells him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." (vv.68-69) None of the others dispute this, even at at time when it would have been incredibly easy to walk away, which indicates that all the apostles concurred with what Peter said. Judas must have accepted both Jesus's words and Peter's statement.At the Last Supper, Jesus again proclaims that his flesh and blood are meant to be eaten. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Mt. 26:26-28). This time there are no doubters in the room -- no one grumbles about these being hard words to accept. Judas rushes out, preparing to betray him, but all the rest of the disciples echo Peter's words: "Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you." (Mt. 26:35) Yet all but one of the disciples did leave Jesus, much as the crowds did in John 6. Despite having just witnessed the first Mass and having given assent and partaken of Jesus's flesh at the Last Supper, there are none who come to his aid, or who can even stay awake at the garden of Gethsemane. Not even the first Eucharist bolstered the courage of the disciples, even though they truly believed.Jesus knew that his followers would need an extra dose of grace and stamina, because he promiseed them the Holy Spirit after he departs. It's not until after Pentecost that the disciples are willing to lay down their lives for Jesus. Until then, even those who have received the Eucharist do not publicly acknowledge him.Interesting footnote: John is the only gospel that doesn't mention the institution of the Eucharist during the last supper. Perhaps that's because he had such a strong Eucharistic discourse earlier in chapter 6.
This past Friday, my old man turned 50, and my siblings and I gave him the surprise of his life. About two weeks ago, my sister called me up and said, "If I were to fly you out for Dad's surprise party, would you be able to come?" I'm never one to pass up a free trip to surprise dear old Dad, so we bought tickets right then and there. My sister (who is a marvel of organization -- does anyone need a personal planner?) put together a dinner on Friday night at which all six kids would attend (Dad was only expecting three) and a party on Saturday night which would be attended by close to 70 people. Things were made somewhat easier by the fact that Dad is completely oblivious to preparations being carried out under his nose. Elizabeth cleaned the house, ordered a cake, called my brothers and me to check schedules, and strategized with my two youngest siblings, all without awakening any suspicion.Friday evening my brothers John and Will drove down from the Pontifical College Josephinum, and we converged at dad's house and snuck in the back door. Then Elizabeth called upstairs, "Dad, there's a visitor here for your birthday!" and carried Isabel upstairs. Dad was absolutely stunned, and when he came downstairs, there we all were to sing Happy Birthday. A delightful dinner followed, with much laughing, singing, and passing around of the baby. (There's always lots of singing with my siblings -- my brothers can play almost any instrument they put their hands on, and my youngest sister is gifted with a Broadway-caliber voice.)Saturday the real preparations began. People were slated to arrive at 6:45, and we weren't exactly sure how to spring them on Dad. Serendipity happened -- my youngest brother Nathanael left his track bag at the high school that hosted his track meet that morning. so Dad ran him out there to pick it up. While they were away, a crowd converged on the house and set up all the food and decorations, so that when Dad returned everyone was perfectly situated to yell "Surprise!" Once again he was completely caught off-guard. Dad doesn't like to be the center of attention, so he sat red-earred through a little roast we gave him. Many old friends showed up, and I even got to meet long-time commenter Barbfromcincy (Hi, Barb!). Everyone admired the baby (of course) and she was beautifully behaved and even smiled at a few lucky mortals.Then Sunday I ran into more old friends both at church (there was an excellent sermon, and I was able to listen to the whole thing) and then later on with my mom at a bridal shower for a lovely young girl whom I used to babysit. They grow up so fast... (And to anyone to whom I mentioned that I was going to Stephenie's baby shower, I meant BRIDAL shower. Babies are much on my mind, naturally, and baby shower rolls off my tongue much more easily than bridal shower. But I meant BRIDAL shower, so no one get the wrong idea here.)It was a wonderful trip, all in all. I've been dying to blog about it for the last two weeks, but I didn't want to ruin the element of surprise since Dad reads the blog (hi, Dad!). I really enjoy going up to Cincinnati -- I love the old place better than it probably deserves. And the houses have character! I suggested to Dad that we trade houses -- he'd get a maintenance-free domicile, and I'd get molding. For some reason he passed on that, but never fear: I took drawings of the molding around the doors and windows, and I'm considering reproducing it here at our house. Then if only I had wood floors and plaster walls and a massive piano that weighs a ton (of which the piano movers said, after much profanity, that we should sell the piano with the house instead of moving it again), I'd think I was back in the old homestead.So, everyone take this chance to wish Dad a happy 50th, and to say a prayer for a fine model of Christian humility and gentleness.
The Pew Research Center published a report about public moral norms at the end of March which you may or may not have heard of. (I haven't been getting around as much as I used to, so stop me if everyone has already read this.) They asked people's opinions about whether various things were right, wrong or not a moral issue. The results?88% of people agree that married people having an affair is wrong.79% believe cheating on your taxes is wrong.61% believe excessive drinking is wrong.52% believe having an abortion is wrong. (Actually, the number is slightly deceptive, since they also have a "it depends" category which is only 1-2% for other wrongs but a full 11% for abortion -- so there are 63% of Americans who believe that having an abortion is morally wrong at least in some circumstances.Here's some of their drill-down:Two moral issues that have had the greatest political resonance in recent years - homosexuality and abortion - divide the broad public in almost exactly the same way, but are seen differently by some sub-groups in the population.Men are more morally disapproving than women of homosexuality, but both genders have similar views about abortion. Likewise, the old and the young judge the morality of these two behaviors in different ways. On the question of homosexuality, the old are more disapproving than the young. But on the question of abortion, there is no clear difference between the old and the young.Catholics are more disapproving of abortion than they are of homosexuality. Married people are more disapproving of abortion than are those not currently married, but there is no clear difference between the married and unmarried on homosexuality.Despite these sub-group differences, the two behaviors wind up being judged in nearly identical ways by the full population. About half of those surveyed say abortion (52%) and homosexual behavior (50%) are morally wrong, while an identical 12% say that each of these activities is morally acceptable. Another one in three (33%) say homosexuality is "not a moral issue." Some 23% also say that about abortion, with an additional 11% volunteering an answer to the effect that "it depends on the situation." (Of all ten behaviors tested, abortion drew the most volunteered responses of that nature.)There's a further drill-down that's even more interesting. 53% of those aged 18-49 believe having an abortion is always wrong versus only 48% of those 50-64. (Thank you baby boomers.) However, only 7% of those 18-49 say "it depends" versus 15% of those 50-64. 26% of those 18-49 say it's "not a moral issue" versus only 20% of those 50-64. So although in general the young are slightly more anti-abortion, they're also much more polarized on the issue.And, of course, there's an inverse relationship between income and pro-life beliefs and between education and pro-life beliefs. Or, to slap an interpretation on it, if you're rich and educated you're more likely to think you're entitled to 'control your life' rather than be responsible for giving life to others.Interesting stuff.
With all the talk about immigration policy lately (and some legitimate frustration that many Catholics feel with certain bishops who appear to be actively encouraging or legitimizing illegal immigration -- which is after all a law-breaking activity) I've been thinking a bit about Catholic teaching, economics, and immigration policy.It seems to me that a lot of what is being argued about in regards to immigration (aside from the obvious point that people should not break the law when entering the country) is what your proper frame of reference should. For instance, if someone argues that cheap immigrant labor depresses the going rate for unskilled labor and thus deprives uneducated native-born Americans of a living wage -- that ignore the benefit to the immigrant laborer who even at minimum wage may be making 5-10 time what he could have made in his country of origin.Obviously, choosing a frame of reference that only looks at the effect of immigration on native-born US citizens assumes a certain understanding of what a nation is, and how citizens of a nations should treat fellow citizens versus foreign nationals.You see a similar frame of reference issue when people discuss outsourcing jobs. I have seen it lamented from time to time that with the decline of the US auto industry, one of the final areas in which a man with only a high school education would (including overtime) expect to make over 100k a year is drying up. Now, one of the reasons I'm particularly unsypathetic to this like of argument is that my father (who had a college degree and ran the planetarium at a community college for twenty-five years) certainly never got anywhere near 100k in annual salary, despite working very long hours. Nor do I, with my college degree, make anywhere near that much yet. But leaving issues of class envy aside, why is it a fundamentally more worthy thing to assure the income of a family in Detroit than a family in Mexico City or Seoul or what-have-you?In Christian terms, this seems to be a question of, "Who is my neighbor?" Do we have a greater duty to make sure that US-born agricultural workers do not see their incomes fall by keeping immigrant workers out, or do we have a greater duty to help those would-be immigrants who want to enter the US in search of higher wages than are available in their native lands?Now, of course, all of this is reliant on a semi-libertarian approach to immigration: "Let them in and give them the chance to improve their lots. It's worked in the past." I think the problem becomes more tricky if one makes certain liberal economic assumptions that some of our bishops seem attached to. It's one thing to say, "If an immigrant is happy to do the same work for less, let him do so," but another to say, "Let's displace a US-born worker with an immigrant worker and pay the immigrant the same since that's more just." At that point, why exactly are you taking the job away from the US-born worker?Historically, when un-educated immigrants have entered this country, they have taken jobs which are considered to be on the lowest rungs of the employment ladder. They've done the hardest, most menial labor and received the lowest pay. However, this has been more than they made in their native lands, and it has provided them with a powerful work ethic to improve themselves and their children so that they won't be permanently trapped in those jobs. And although there have always been some US-born citizens who have seen immigrant labor as a threat, the flow of those immigrants has also provided the incentive to US-born workers to make sure they have the requisite skills not to be drive into unemployment by immigrant competition.This can be a hard thing to watch. It means that recent immigrants often live in poverty, and unskilled US-born workers often find themselves out of work. But the general trend during the 19th and early 20th century when the immigration floodgates were wide open was towards improvement for all concerned.However, if one desires fixed 'living wages' or 'just wages' and an extensive safety net, I don't know what that does to this picture.
Thoughts of a Regular Guy linked to a short story/prophesy about Sharia ruling over Eurabia and a century long war with Islam.The Time Traveler laughed again, but with more edge this time. "Yes, I know," he said. "We all know . . . up there in the future which some of you will survive to see as free people. Civil liberties. In 2006 you still fear yourselves and your own institutions first, out of old habit. A not unworthy – if fatally misguided and terminally masochistic – paranoia. I will tell you right now, and this is not a prediction but a history lesson, some of your grandchildren will live in dhimmitude."This is a popular warning these days, and one which shouldn't be ignored. However, just in the interests of being contrarian, there's an equal and opposite warning that not many people are focusing on.Right now, the ability of the 'Arab street' to push Europe and to an extent America hither and thither by expressing its displeasure rests on the West's unwillingness to actually do anything terribly harsh to Islamic countries or domestic Islamic immigrants and citizens. Thus, to an extent, the success of the radical Islamist movement relies on its not being a success.In a world such as Simmons' short story describes where dozens if not hundreds of massive terror attacks have been made and sharia is in danger of being imposed in Europe, it's entirely possible that Europe will wake from its slumber and remember its not too distant history of ethnic cleansing. Ineffectual as the French and German governments may seem, they are infinitely better armed and than their minority citizens or the Middle East itself.Whether or not groups like al Qaeda realize it, the success of their Jihad may rely on not appearing to be enough of a threat to cause militant extremism of a European variety to become resurgent.Similarly, the ability of insurgents in Iraq to fight out military to a standstill rests entirely upon our country not actually becoming riled enough to wage a full scale war against them. The current war has one of the most lopsided casualty counts of any war in history. If it truly became a total war of the sort that some apocalyptic theorists envision, casualties for the Middle Eastern side would be so catastrophic as to cripple the region. I hope we will never have to fight a war on such a scale as to require the kind of total national commitment that went into WW2, but if we did, we'd probably win.
MrsDrP of Marriage As A Vocation as a good post up about growing up as a post-Vatican II Catholic, and makes some points that I identify with a lot:I got to thinking about this because the more I troll the Catholic blogosphere, the more complaints I hear about the Mass post-Vatican II. How horrible it is to have female alter servers, how there are too many Eucharistic ministers, how terrible the NAB translation is, and especially how trite, banal, and soul-crushingly bad the music is. Lately, I've been seeing the Mass through their eyes and they are right. I have no knowledge of what the Church was like before Vatican II. My mother was a little girl when the changes happened. I, myself, was born under John Paul the Great. But I have grown up in this Church. I have heard the same readings and sang the same songs all my life. I know all the words to most of the songs in the Glory and Praise hymnal. I've always held hands during the Our Father and served as an alter server until I was into college.The complaints against the Mass feel like attacks on my tradition. It forces me to look at my Church and feel ashamed of it. When my husband finally started to go to Mass with me, I felt that I had to apologize a lot of the liturgy. But I love the Church, and it hurts when people don't see her beauty and love her like family. I know that "Ashes" is a dumb song, but I have to sing it for it to feel like Ash Wednesday.We don't call it Holy Mother Church for nothing, Catholicism does have a lot of the peculiar dynamics of a family, one of them being that (at least for me) I feel at liberty to complain about things like liturgy, yet get all defensive when I hear the same criticisms from people who aren't Catholic.Additionally, I think there's a danger for those of us who complain about liturgy to get too caught up in the details and find almost every liturgy an occasion of sin. On the one hand, a liturgy that properly follows the rubrics and reflections the underlying action of the mass with sight and sound is a powerful tool for evangelization. On the other hand, the best mass is the one you're at. No degree of abstract love for the mass can make up for being tiresome to be around at every particular mass you attend.Ah the difficulties of the golden mean...
MrsDarwin and the baby have been off in Ohio since Friday morning attending her father's surprise birthday party (No longer a surprise now, so I can safely write about it.) so I've been holding down the roost with the two older girls over the weekend.I must say it's been an experience -- and explains why there hasn't been any posting since Thursday. But I can hardly complain all that much since most of what I've been dealing with (not being able to do anything that doesn't involve watching the girls and not having anyone adult to talk to) are things my wife deals with every day.I am, of course, outnumbered by the ladies, and Noogs and Babs take their duties as ladies very seriously, so I've had to provide them with occasional cups of tea (with lots of milk added) in their pretty tea cups and turn on "dancy music" upon demand. However, every so often Daddy's influence comes through. I asked them what they wanted to do yesterday morning and Noogs answered, "I think we should work on your gun, Daddy." So we spent a while in the back yard sanding down the stock of the Mauser. They quickly tired of the actual work and decided that the discarded pieces of sandpaper and steel wool were dinosaur eggs which they needed to take care of.
The Core Is Mother, The Core Is Father
Through the four years I was there, there was a low level war being constantly waged among faculty at Franciscan University over whether the university should have a humanities core curriculum, and if so, what form it should take. From the trickles I've heard back, five years later the war continues to this day.Since most of the small set of strongly Catholic liberal arts colleges (Steubenville, Thomas Aquinas, Christendom, Magdalene, Ave Maria, I'm sure I'm missing one or two...) have a core curriculum (or in the case of TAC are a core curriculum), Steubenville has always seemed to feel a little inadequate about the topic.I remain unsure what to think about the core curriculum idea. On the one hand, I do feel strongly that people are better educated (as people, as Catholics, as citizens) if they have a basic grounding in literature, philosophy, theology and history. On the other hand, the problem with having specific courses which everyone is required to take is that there is a tendency for the quality of those courses to gravitate towards the median skill and interest level of those students. Which is why one generally tried never to take a 101 level course in a topic one is actually interested in -- such courses are far too often tailored to the needs of those who are not interested, and refuse to become so.It annoyed me no end in college that my Business and Computer Science major friends tended to treat the humanities in general with "How do you say, 'would you like fries with that' in Latin?" derision. Indeed, it still annoys me quite a bit to hear people assert that no responsible man who wants to be a provider for his family would get anything other than a technical degree. (Though now I always get told "except for you, of course" since I've proved my worth by getting paid to do things they don't exactly understand with marketing analytics.) But the fact is that requiring these people to read Homer and Dante or Plato and Aquinas would not change their minds -- it would just result in having more disruptive students in literature and philosophy classes. Many people in the world aren't terribly interested in acquiring a classical education, and I'm not sure that making them do so against their inclination would actually help a whole lot.I suppose the whole thing goes back to whether most people actually go to college to get an education, or just to get training. Surely, I think everyone would be better of with an education rather than technical training. And given that few people are collected enough to fully know their own minds at the age of 18 or 19, maybe requiring them to take a core curriculum may be the best way to introduce them to the elements of their culture that they would not otherwise seek out. And yet I have a hard time wishing a bunch of computer science students who would raise their hands and say, "You may know what an essence is, but five years from now I'll be making twice what you are and you'll still be teaching annoying kids like me" on anyone...
Why is it...
That on diaper packages, the photos of mothers and children have been altered to give them darker hair and eyes? I've noticed this for a while. Is it that the manufacturers think that it would be racist to show a white mother and child? Or are they looking for a change, seeing that the white mother and child have been dominant for years? Are they realizing that white people just aren't reproducing as much and that the people having babies are Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, and so are altering their packages to match their market?Or perhaps it's that brown hair and eyes are predominant in the United States and so they want a picture that won't offend anyone. Though I don't know why people can't buy diapers in a package with a picture that doesn't resemble them. I don't have dark hair and eyes, and yet it doesn't bother me to look at a model who could be either Hispanic or Asian. These are the things I wonder about.
Our parish cheerfully announced in last week's bulletin that "It takes a whole parish to raise a child." (This was followed by a notice that the tuition for CCD this year will be $50 and signups begin this week.)Now, to begin with, it seems idiotic to adopt a Hillary Clinton slogan to use in a Catholic parish. But beyond that, it strikes me as untrue. I certainly would not say that either of the at which parishes I attended parochial school (I was in Catholic schools from K-5 and homeschooled thereafter) 'raised' me, nor that the religious education programs at the parishes we were members of later on were ever anything other than a cross to bear.Some of this, clearly, is a result of the unfortunate trends in parish life and catechesis over the last fifty years. Nonetheless -- even if I lived in a parish where I wasn't convinced that whoever was charged with providing my children with CCD classes would not merely fail to know many things about the faith, but also 'know' many things which are no the case -- I would honestly rather not have such classes be the primary religious education for my children. Nor, even if my parish were a veritable heaven on earth, would I consider the parish to have 'raised' my children in the faith.While I think many other orthodox or traditional-ish Catholics would agree with my sentiments here, I've been told by various people (both traditional and progressive) that once upon a time many Catholic parents did very much feel that their parish communities and institutions were responsible for raising their children in the faith. Part of me simply wants to retort, "Yes, and we can see how well that worked" but I can't help wondering if struggling against the catechetical adversity of the last half century has made the attitude of orthodox Catholic parents fundamentally more individualistic than it was in times past.Have we come to embrace "Holy Mother Church" in terms of doctrine and hierarchy in Rome, but declared undue independence from local institutions such as parishes? One of the things that attracts me so powerfully to the Catholic Church is that it not merely an institution (by definition limited, imperfect and of its time) but rather the guardian of the body of doctrine which brings us knowledge of God, Himself the ultimate absolute, eternal, all powerful, unchanging, perfect, wholly out of time. But in embracing the Catholic Church absolutely, it is necessarily to give absolute fealty to the local parish and diocese, or may these human institutions be treated in the way I, as a conservative, tend to want to treat institutions: with caution if not suspicion and a strong desire to maintain my independence.
If you, like me, have been reared on tales of the second World War as the just and virtuous struggle of the "greatest generation", Evelyn Waugh's arch novels (based loosely on his own war experiences) are an important and darkly enjoyabl...
This was the first time in some years that I've re-read this Austen novel, one of the quieter and shorter ones, but one which has ranked among my favorites. It was striking me, on this pass, that it rather shows the effects of having be... |
Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart
The Left has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction. By contrast, a Darwinian science of human nature supports traditionalist conservatives and classical liberals in their realist view of human imperfectibility, and in their commitment to ordered liberty as rooted in natural desires, cultural traditions, and prudential judgments.
Does Gay Marriage Perform the Functions of Marriage?
The "Sunday Styles" section of yesterday's New York Times has a collection of articles on how gays are responding to the legalization of gay marriage in New York State. The recurrent theme is how gay marriage might satisfy the same social needs that are satisfied by heterosexual marriage. For example, one article by Lisa Belkin is entitled "For the Sake of the Children." Gay men and lesbians want to legalize their marriages as a way of securing their attachment to their children. One mother is quoted as saying, "We feel like we're marrying the kids."But is this really true? Is the legalization of gay marriage warranted because it performs the same functions as heterosexual marriage?On his blog, Empedocles denies this in two recent posts on the function of marriage and on answering the arguments for gay marriage.He argues that the evolutionary function of marriage is to solve the problems that arise from heterosexual intercourse--particularly, the need for producing and rearing children. Since the function of marriage as a social institution is to solve this problem, and since gay marriage would not serve this function, it is just for government to legalize heterosexual marriage but not gay marriage. This does not violate the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution, because equal treatment allows for discrimination against those people who lack the qualifications relevant to performing a social function, and gays cannot perform the function of producing and rearing children.For me, this argument raises three sets of questions.(1) Do gay marriages perform the function of producing and rearing children? For some gays, the primary purpose of gay marriage is to support the bond between gay parents and their children. Are they wrong about this? If they are, does this imply that gay parenting should be illegal, because gay parenting cannot properly perform the social function of producing and rearing children?(2) Do childless marriages perform the function of securing conjugal bonding? Many gay marriages will be childless. But, of course, many heterosexual marriages are childless. If Empedocles is right about marriage having only one function--producing and rearing children--then any childless marriage is not really a marriage. Is there any socially relevant difference between a childless heterosexual marriage and a childless gay marriage?Is conjugal bonding a distinct function of marriage? If so, does that mean that reinforcing the exclusive sexual bond of the marriage partners allows marriage to solve the social problems associated with sexual mating? Has evolution produced conjugal bonding as a natural desire distinct from parental care?(3) Does marriage require governmental licensing? Empedocles seems to assume that the social institution of marriage cannot function without a system of governmental licensing by which the government acts as the "describer" in specifying what counts as a marriage. But then he also speaks of how "social stigma" is often the most effective means for holding partners to their marriage vows and their parental duties. If so, does that mean that marriage as a social institution depends mostly on the social norms of civil society rather than the laws of the state? Throughout most of human history, marriage has been enforced by social practices without governmental licensing. Does this suggest the possibility of "privatizing" marriage, so that the norms of marriage would be determined by families, churches, and other social institutions without the necessity of getting a license from government?Some posts on "Darwinian marriage" can be found here, here, and here.
Are Honeybees Created in God's Image?
Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturali...
Thomistic Nihilism, Greek Naturalism, and the Prob...
Strauss on the Supremacy of the Philosophic Life: ...
The Straussian Critique--and Defense--of Thomas Aq...
Strauss, Darwin, and the Reason-Revelation Debate |
Emotion Vs. Logic
One of the primary findings of persuasive psychology is that people are tied to their opinions through emotional and/or logical deduction. In other words, people believe that certain concepts are true for emotional and/or logical reasons. Therefore, in order to instill a new belief into an individual, we must remove the existing belief by appealing to people through the exact avenues in which they have derived their beliefs.Let us consider a hypothetical scenario in which we are entrepreneurs who have just opened a business on the top floor of an old city skyscraper. Everything is set to go, but there's one major problem with which we need to contend. The only business consultant in the entire city refuses to take the elevator to such a high elevation because he has deduced that something tragic could possibly take place at that height.Since our first impulse is to conclude that the man has a fear of heights, let us first consider that this is in fact the correct scenario. We must now ask ourselves whether this man has a fear of heights for emotional reasons or for logical ones. Barring the presence of a series of tragic events that have taken place while the consultant was in similar structures, it's a fairly safe assumption that the man has a fear based on emotion. This should be nothing new to us because we realize that phobias are typically emotional fears often attributed to isolated events that took place at an impressionable age. The next logical step here is to ask why the consultant is afraid of heights. If he cannot articulate a legitimate reason and relies instead on such explanations as "I just get scared when I look out," we know we have made a safe assumption that the man holds a belief for an emotional reason.The question now becomes "How do we eliminate this fear?" Should we bring in the experts who built the structure to ensure him that it won't fall? Should we show him the evidence that the building was constructed according to the proper codes? Should we show him the statistics of how unlikely it would be for a tragic event to take place at that height? The answer to all questions presented here is the same. No. Why would such measures fall on deaf ears? The man has an emotional fear of heights, thus we cannot appeal to his senses through pleas of logic. As he's perfectly aware that millions of people go into tall buildings every day and return to the ground unharmed, what good what it do to tell him what he already knows? Instead, we must appeal to his emotion. One such recommendation would be to have the man ascend the building slowly, allow him to look outside on each floor, and let him adjust to his surroundings each time until he feels comfortable progressing up the skyscraper. Such methods are how psychologists often remove unreasonable fears in their patients.Let us now consider a situation in which the man feels that the building will fall because he believes that old skyscrapers are not as safe as the newer ones. Instead of having an emotional fear, our business consultant has formed what he believes is a logical reason to avoid ascending the building. Do we use the same measure as we did in the previous scenario? Will having him slowly ascend and allowing him to adjust to his surroundings alleviate his fear? No. Why would such measures fall on deaf ears? The man has a logical fear, thus we cannot appeal to his senses through pleas of emotion. We must show him the evidence that the building was constructed according to code. We must bring in the experts who built the structure to ensure him that it won't fall. Such methods are how we appeal to intellect in order to remove unreasonable fears in people.So, how does this all relate to the subject of debunking Christianity? Religious beliefs, like the beliefs of the consultant, must also be held for emotional or logical reasons. With this in mind, how should we approach the task of deconversion? As before, we must delve into the history of the individual's beliefs to find the place from which they originate. I would be confident that if we undertook this exercise in a large group of people, almost the entire sample would have built their beliefs upon emotional reasons. This is not to say that people can't be Christians for logical reasons. After all, apologists are masterminds at creating logical reasons in the defense of their emotional beliefs; and as they old saying goes, smart people believe dumb things because they're very gifted at coming up with ideas that support their notions. The reason I feel that people build their beliefs upon emotion rather than logic is that the vast majority of people are introduced to the emotional components of Christianity before the logical ones. Such notions as "God is perfect," "Jesus loves you," "Heaven is real," "Hell is a terrible punishment," and "the Bible is sacred" are consistently instilled in children long before they are approached with evidence and data that suggest the fraudulent nature of such claims. If the conclusion is accurate that religious beliefs are primarily built on emotional reasons, we now know the avenue that we should take to change the incorrect beliefs held by Christians. This discovery, of course, does not destroy the layers of conditioning that one will have to fight through, nor does it remove the individual's propensity to invent absurd justifications to eliminate cognitive dissonance, but it does demonstrate the futility in trying to convince someone that the Gospels are unreliable by utilizing such examples as the disagreement between Matthew and Luke on Jesus' birth in order to reveal its obvious human fallibility. People with emotional ties in this instance will emotionally cling to the Gospels' veracity while their cognitive dissonance is alleviated by apologists' absurd "Quirinius held the office twice" or "Quirinius was a co-governor" explanations.However, life is rarely as black and white as it can be made in hypothetical scenarios. The people with the most influence over maintaining Christianity are the people with all the answers – the apologists. Upon a large foundation of emotional attachments to the veracity of their religion, they have weaved a tangled web of what they believe are logical defenses for their beliefs. While simply clearing the emotional attachments before destroying the perceived logic in belief may work for common individuals, this tactic will surely not work on those who have come up with clever ways to convince themselves that their beliefs are solid. With a network of logical and emotional bonds to wade through in order to reach the apologist, how does one even begin? For the answer, I believe we should revisit the scenario offered earlier about the business consultant. Let us now consider a hypothetical situation in which the consultant has a combination of emotional and logical reasons for not wanting to visit us at the top of the skyscraper. Not only has he developed an emotional fear of heights beginning at a young age, he has also convinced himself of the legitimacy of his fear by reinforcing his decision with a network of misinformation built upon logical inaccuracies. Now the man has created a wall of perceived legitimate reasons as to why his emotional fear is a sensible one. Well, how do we handle such a situation?Since we wish to invoke rational thinking in order to get people to drop their misplaced beliefs, we must decide whether emotion or logic is the biggest opponent of rational thought. This choice should be obvious since emotion is often irrational, and logic is closely related to rationale itself. To put it in a much simpler way, we cannot appeal to logic when emotion is in the way. We must defuse as much irrationality as possible before we can begin to utilize logic in support of our position. We cannot simply usher the man to the top of the building by allowing him to adjust to his surroundings because there will come a time when the logical fears of being on floor three will be outweighed by the emotional fears of being on floor ten. The amount of success in this initial step of tackling emotion will vary from person to person, but through much time and effort, we might be able to force the man to make enough concessions on his emotional beliefs, which will then eliminate a bit of emotional irrationalism, so that we can illustrate how his logical fears of floors three through nine are misplaced. If this much easier step of tackling logic proves fruitful, then we simply rinse, lather, and repeat.Admittedly, this is much easier said than done when it comes to religion. When some of the constructs of emotional beliefs include "God is perfect," we find that it can be extremely difficult to make chinks in perfect armor. All is not lost, however, because we know that it is possible to intellectually reach people who believe that God is perfect, or else we would not be gathered where we are right now. Where one should ideally begin the task is debatable, but I strongly feel that attributing human authorship to the Bible is the proper avenue to take. This does not invalidate the premise that God is perfect because it makes room for such possibilities as God allowing humans to write their history and God not concerning himself with perfection of everything. These ideas seem harmless enough on the surface, but they begin to provoke questions of bigger impact, such as why God would choose such avenues when they lead to increased doubt and logical ambiguity.I very often hear skeptics only going after the logical misinformation presented by Christians before giving up in disgust and wondering why they can't appeal to people's intellect. I've even caught myself doing it on more than one occasion because we're often provoked with misinformation. We must remember, however, that it can be nearly impossible to alter a person's stance on an important topic by invoking the use of logic and rational thought when so much of that person's stance is protected by emotional irrationalism.
Good post. Reminds me of the Jonathan Swift quote: It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jason, great post! The reason I feel that people build their beliefs upon emotion rather than logic is that the vast majority of people are introduced to the emotional components of Christianity before the logical ones.Exactly, exactly, exactly. When it comes to religious beliefs we have a very strong propensity to believe based on when and where we are born. Therefore, I have proposed what I call The Outsider Test to evaluate our beliefs.
Doubting John said..."So, how does this all relate to the subject of debunking Christianity? Religious beliefs, like the beliefs of the consultant, must also be held for emotional or logical reasons. With this in mind, how should we approach the task of deconversion?"The whole premise here that beliefs (religious or not) are either emotional or logical strikes me as overlysimplistic, at best, and, at worst, it seems completely contrived. But here is the real question in my mind: What if a religious belief is neither emotional nor logical? For example, what if a believer has actually encountered God for themselves? In this case there is a personal encounter which doesn't fit the category of either emotional or logical.Further, what if (per Calvin and developed more recently by Plantinga and others) God designed humanity in such a way that belief in God is a reaction to various instances in the world. i.e. moral conviction of shame as a result of commiting immoral acts, or a sense of awe of God when viewing a grandiose scene from nature. You would be quick to call these such instances "emotional," and there is certainly an emotional aspect to it. However, if God really did create humanity with this impulse to believe, then the belief would be more than a mere "emotion" as I understand you are using it above.So, basically, your above post rests on the presupposition that God does not exist and hence ways of "de-religiousizing" believers. However, if God does exist, then an appeal to either "emotional" or "intellectual" arguments would never convince them otherwise because their faith would be deeper than the simplistic dual description of belief.One last thing...It may very well be that God exists, but that a religious believer has contrived their beliefs in God (or a religious system) quite apart an actual encounter with God. They may be conforming to social or cultural standards (i.e. "everybody in my neck-o-the-woods believes in God"). Or they may have an intellectual conviction of God's existence apart from an actual experience with God. Hence, this complicates the discussion all the more, I guess!
However, if God really did create humanity with this impulse to believe, then the belief would be more than a mere "emotion" as I understand you are using it above.So what is it then, an instinct?For example, what if a believer has actually encountered God for themselves? In this case there is a personal encounter which doesn't fit the category of either emotional or logical.I agree with John, you are going to have to define "personal encounter" in some meaningful way before we can discuss whether it is emotional, logical, both or neither.As for the original post, I agree, we have to provide emotional alternatives as well as logical alternatives to religion. I hear a lot of born-agains talk about how God helped them change their previous evil ways. Basically, they have substituted the emotional support they get from believing in God for whatever emotional support they were getting from their past lifestyle. It seems to me this is one "advantage" that religion has over atheism. They have an organization in place that offers a plan for emotional fullfillment. Not that atheists aren't emotionally fullfilled, we just have to find it within ourselves. We don't have anyone (or anything) making guarantees of emotional happiness, and a lot of people would rather bet on the (seemingly) sure thing than take a chance on reality.
The dichotomy between beliefs derived from reason and beliefs derived from emotions is plausible, but it doesn't encompass quite every type of belief. For example, as Bruce suggested in this comment section, there are beliefs derived from "instinct". In-born beliefs such as those pertaining to facial structure and intentional agency, and indeed the foundations of logic themselves, are not derived from reason nor emotion. These three sources of belief are probably all that exist (as far as I can tell upon superficial reflection).Jonathan's example of the individual that has a direct experience of God, which I interpret to be something like the experience of the fictional Moses, is a member of the set of beliefs based on emotion or reason, however. The fictional Moses must have used his reason to infer that the only being matching the description in front of him was God. A belief needn't be founded upon correct reasoning to be the product of reason.In regards to the article itself, I am living confirmation of the notion that reason can be used to change a person's mind about religion. I was a 19 year old bible school student who was exposed to the critical reason of M. Martin and decided on the basis of Martin's book to reject Christianity. One can speculate about possible emotional influences in my life at that time, but I think that such speculations would be ad hoc.That is not to say that everyone can be so convinced, however. After I rejected Christianity I showed the book to a fellow student. At first she grew skeptical of Christianity as well, but then one morning she decided to continue believing. I asked her why and she provided no reasons, but it was clear that she was too emotionally bound to the faith to discard it.
Jonathan, I have addressed your post point by point with headers.JonathanThe whole premise here that beliefs (religious or not) are either emotional or logical strikes me as overlysimplistic, at best, and, at worst, it seems completely contrivedJasonWell, let us see if it can be demonstrated as such.JonathanBut here is the real question in my mind: What if a religious belief is neither emotional nor logical? For example, what if a believer has actually encountered God for themselves? In this case there is a personal encounter which doesn't fit the category of either emotional or logical.JasonYes, it would. It would be a logical belief. I believe God exists because I saw him is a logical thought, just as I believe Europe exists because I've seen pictures of it is a logical belief. Nihlo pointed this out earlier.JonathanFurther, what if (per Calvin and developed more recently by Plantinga and others) God designed humanity in such a way that belief in God is a reaction to various instances in the world. i.e. moral conviction of shame as a result of commiting immoral acts, or a sense of awe of God when viewing a grandiose scene from nature. You would be quick to call these such instances "emotional," and there is certainly an emotional aspect to it. However, if God really did create humanity with this impulse to believe, then the belief would be more than a mere "emotion" as I understand you are using it above.JasonYes, my post presupposes that the enormous evidence compiled that demonstrates the lack of veracity in the Bible is valid. Since my post was aimed toward those who have no emotional bias and have already discovered this, it's a valid presupposition to make for my audience. Since I cannot rule out the possibility of a different god instilling beliefs in people, nor can I rule out elephant-sized unicorns on Jupiter instilling them in people, nor can I rule out basketball eating aliens building a machine that emits them through radio waves, I cannot rule out an infinite amount of possibilities. Since one is just as unlikely as the next, I stick with what we can observe through study. I will admit that it is conceivable for a person to also have a belief based on instinct, as others have pointed out, but to suppose that God instills such beliefs or that unicorns instill such beliefs begs the question of the existence of God or unicorns.JonathanSo, basically, your above post rests on the presupposition that God does not exist and hence ways of "de-religiousizing" believers. However, if God does exist, then an appeal to either "emotional" or "intellectual" arguments would never convince them otherwise because their faith would be deeper than the simplistic dual description of belief.JasonNo, that's a terrible assertion. Since we do not know what level or avenues this god would utilize to instill these beliefs, we cannot say for certain that emotional or logical arguments could reach them. As you seem level-headed, I hope you understand this enough with me having to provide elaborate examples.JonathanOne last thing...It may very well be that God exists, but that a religious believer has contrived their beliefs in God (or a religious system) quite apart an actual encounter with God. They may be conforming to social or cultural standards (i.e. "everybody in my neck-o-the-woods believes in God").JasonThis might be considered a logical decision. If everyone believes in God, then it is logical to believe that there is nothing wrong with such a belief, provided that no one has questioned such a notion. To say that God must exist on the basis of these beliefs would be illogical, but it would be a decision reached on the basis of what one perceived was logical.Jonathan Or they may have an intellectual conviction of God's existence apart from an actual experience with God. Hence, this complicates the discussion all the more, I guess!JasonDepending on how you define an intellectual conviction, I imagine this would fall under logical.
I would like to make a point here about personal encounters.It is difficult for me to see how a personal encounter with an individual can be neatly categorized as either logical or emotional. For example, I believe that my brother (who lives in Texas) exists based upon my many personal encounters with him throughout the course of my lifetime. Even if you were to produce a great deal of good evidence against the fact that he ever existed it would still be very hard for me to shake the notion that he exists. I have memories of encounters with him that have stuck with me. There is really no evidence you could produce that would shake my belief except, perhaps, if my mother told me that she never had such a son. But even in that scenario my belief in my mother is grounded in my personal encounter with her.But what, I ask you, is the basis of this belief? Whatever is the basis of my belief that my brother exists, I would say it is very similar to the belief that God exists. Is it logical inference? Is it an emotional response? I just think it is too simple to say "logical" or "emotional" when we are talking about a personal encounter.Along these lines I would reference back to Nihlo's post and ask a basic question: How can Nihlo judge his friends' reason for holding on to the faith? Clearly she did not make all decisions in the same way and on the same basis as Nihlo, but that does not mean she was too "emotionally bound to the faith to discard it." It is difficult for me to logically see how this follows. At best Nihlo can say, "In spite of rational appeals against her faith she continued to believe."And on a bit of a tangent here...I always wonder about the rational atheist champion who claims to follow evidence and reason wherever it takes them. Is this possible? Or even desirable? What if you found yourself accused of a heinous crime and all the evidence was stacked against you, but you knew that you didn't do it? Would you follow the evidence, or trust your own memory and instinct? Although I don't know Nihlo's friend I would guess that she had a greater reason than rationality to maintain her faith, in the same way that you would hold on to your innocence in a court of law even in the face of evidence and testimony against you. Sometimes pure reason and evidence are not the best things we have to go on. From my experience, life is not always that simple.
What if you found yourself accused of a heinous crime and all the evidence was stacked against you, but you knew that you didn't do it? Would you follow the evidence, or trust your own memory and instinct?Good question, and it would be indeed difficult to sift it all through, especially if I was absolutely sure I did not do the crime, nor did I have it in me to do the crime. What if you woke up one morning to police officers who arrested you for murder? The case against you is that there were two witnesses who saw you at the scene of the crime, you had no alibi, you had a motive for murder, your blood and hair were found under the victims fingernails with corresponding scratches on your back, and the victim’s blood was found on your shoes? But you “know” you didn’t kill anyone. At that point you must consider the evidence against you, and it’s overwhelming. Your “knowing” ends up being delusional no matter what the reason for your delusion.Since the above scenario is possible, you could also be deluded in claiming to know God exists because of a purported veridical experience of God.The difference between the suggested "murder" scenario and your claim to have had a personal encounter with the God of the Christian variety is that there is hard objective evidence for the “murder,” whereas there is no hard objective evidence for your claim. But just because there isn’t the same kind of evidence for us to debunk your claim, you can go on your merry delusional way all you wants to.
How can Nihlo judge his friends' reason for holding on to the faith? Clearly she did not make all decisions in the same way and on the same basis as Nihlo, but that does not mean she was too "emotionally bound to the faith to discard it." It is difficult for me to logically see how this follows. At best Nihlo can say, "In spite of rational appeals against her faith she continued to believe."Her behaviour and words made it clear to me that emotions were what bound her to Christian belief. One day she agreed that the weight of reason was against Christianity, and the next she was almost crying and said that she had decided to believe. I asked her why, and she told me that no reason led her to believe.
Of course there is the possibility that you could never convince the person to ascend the building. He suggests that you move to another location, but to no avail. So you have to find another person, that is not afraid of heights.One week later you are all up in your conference room excited about your procpects. As you get up to get a cup of coffee you notice an Airliner about to smash into the building just just a few floors below you.You now have about an hour to think about the person that couldn't work with you because you refused to move to another location.
Jason- Can you say "false analogy"?Is it? Like your analogy is any more comparable to why Christians believe. You say that people believe what they believe because of reason or emotion, or both. Can you prove that? I think not. It is obviously unimaginable for you to think outside your box.Have you seen the movie Signs? It’s about the notion that there is a reason for everything. In my analogy the man who escapes death may wonder why his life was spared, and seek God? If he was already a Christian he would be thanking God for another chance? Granted he was afraid of heights, but how will he view this fear now? This fear saved his life. Now, did God create us with the ability to hear him through our conscience/sub-conscience? We don’t know either way. You seem to think that debunking Christianity is just a matter of convincing Christians of your weak arguments against it. (Of course they are not weak to you) Someone may still yet be able to convince the man that Skyscrapers are safe at this point, but if he is a Christian do you think you’d have much of a chance convincing him that his faith is founded on lies?
SteveIs it?Jason Yes, it is. My analogy was of a man who held a misguided belief about a building that was presupposed to be safe. It was not the conclusion that was in doubt, it was the method with which he reached it. You offer a solution in which the man was right, yet the man reached the solution through illogical deductions.SteveLike your analogy is any more comparable to why Christians believe.JasonIt now becomes clear that you didn't even know the definition of a false analogy. Try brushing up on your logical fallacies. Aside from that, my analogy is dead on as to why Christians and other religious members believe what they believe. Ask any former believer, and they'll tell you the same thing.SteveYou say that people believe what they believe because of reason or emotion, or both. Can you prove that? I think not.JasonIt's clear that you know nothing of persuasive psychology, an entire branch of psychology dedicated to this very topic. I guess we should just throw everything out because you don't agree with it. I have categorized beliefs into two categories. Someone else offered instinct. Unless you can offer beliefs arrived outside of these categories, you'll have to get over it.Steve It is obviously unimaginable for you to think outside your box.JasonThis has to be the most ironic thing a Christian has ever said to me. We call ourselves freethinkers for a reason, Steve. My capacity for freethought isn't in question here. If you can demonstrate to me that persuasive psychology is bunk, I'm more than happy to change my mind.SteveHave you seen the movie Signs? It’s about the notion that there is a reason for everything. In my analogy the man who escapes death may wonder why his life was spared, and seek God? If he was already a Christian he would be thanking God for another chance? Granted he was afraid of heights, but how will he view this fear now? This fear saved his life. JasonAgain, the issue is not whether or not the man was right. The issue was with the method with which he reached his conclusions. You just simply offer a scenario in which the man could be right, yet he reached the conclusion erroneously. It's a little like saying that 4 x 1 equals 4 because the product is always same as the multiplicand when multiplying any two numbers.SteveNow, did God create us with the ability to hear him through our conscience/sub-conscience? We don’t know either way.JasonNow, did unicorns create us with the ability to hear God through our conscience/sub-conscience? We don't know either way. That's yet another possibility that disproves the ideas offered in my article. There are infinite possibilities that disprove the ideas offered in my article. Do you want to know why we should not consider such possibilities as God and unicorns? Because it begs the question of their existence. I don't know how many times I've explained this.SteveYou seem to think that debunking Christianity is just a matter of convincing Christians of your weak arguments against it. (Of course they are not weak to you) JasonAny former Christian who was well versed in apologetics will tell you exactly what I'm telling you. I wonder why you repeatedly rely on logical fallacies if my arguments are so weak. Begging the question, false analogies, non-sequiturs, etc. It seems that a weak argument would be easy to deflate, but that's just my way of seeing it.SteveSomeone may still yet be able to convince the man that Skyscrapers are safe at this point, but if he is a Christian do you think you’d have much of a chance convincing him that his faith is founded on lies?JasonThe man has not been conditioned by his peers, parents, society, and environment to believe in the absolute sanctity of not going up in skyscrapers. Steve, you and probably 90% of this world just believe whatever you've been brought up believing. Why do you think that is?
Jason- “It was not the conclusion that was in doubt, it was the method with which he reached it.”I’m saying the man could possibly have been afraid of heights because a supernatural entity used that fear to save his life on that day. The conclusion was foreknown to this entity, not the man. The man realizes this after the event. That’s why I asked you if you saw the movie Signs.Jason- "Aside from that, my analogy is dead on as to why Christians and other religious members believe what they believe. Ask any former believer, and they'll tell you the same thing.”Former believer? Isn’t that you. Why should I take another’s word if I don’t take yours?Jason- "Now, did unicorns create us with the ability to hear God through our conscience/sub-conscience? We don't know either way."I thought this was Debunking Christianity, not Debunking Unicorns? I know nothing about them really. Why do you keep bringing them up? It appears to be a foolish tactic used to make Christianity look like a joke.Jason- “Do you want to know why we should not consider such possibilities as God and unicorns? Because it begs the question of their existence.”I believe the Christian God exists. Aren't you trying to convince others and me otherwise? Is this blog only for non-believers to convince each other of their non-beliefs?Jason- "This has to be the most ironic thing a Christian has ever said to me. We call ourselves freethinkers for a reason, Steve. My capacity for freethought isn't in question here. If you can demonstrate to me that persuasive psychology is bunk, I'm more than happy to change my mind."You’re confined to what you can see, hear, and touch. That's the box I'm referring too. You would need empirical evidence, or some overwhelming supernatural event that you and 10 of your friends witnessed for you to change your position. (Although I think you would reason your way out) Am I wrong here? Your post assumes that we only believe things because of either logic or emotion, or both, and you seem to rule out any unknowns that could be present. This is where you are not thinking freely and independently from yourself. I’m not arguing persuasive psychology is not plausible, I just think there’s more to why I believe than that. Jason- “It seems that a weak argument would be easy to deflate, but that's just my way of seeing it.”They are at the very least weaker than faith. If they are so solid then why don’t more Christians de-convert? And why do Atheists still convert? It’s just not that simple! For one thing even if I was to abandon Christianity, I would have more trouble with the thought of our existence than I would with the troublesome parts of Christianity.Jason- “Steve, you and probably 90% of this world just believe whatever you've been brought up believing. Why do you think that is?” Really? So you know my background? Where I grew up? You must know my parents too? The Outsider Test is indeed an interesting concept. However, it does not prove anything one way or another. What a person believes because of by whom and where they were raised does not make it impossible to be true. Granted it's highly unlikely that all of the beliefs could be true, but it is very much a possibility that one could be.
SteveI’m saying the man could possibly have been afraid of heights because a supernatural entity used that fear to save his life on that day. The conclusion was foreknown to this entity, not the man. The man realizes this after the event. That’s why I asked you if you saw the movie Signs.JasonSteve, I have one word for you. Unicorns. I've exposed the absurdity of this argument enough.Steve Former believer? Isn’t that you. Why should I take another’s word if I don’t take yours?JasonThat's right. I forgot reasoning escapes you at times. I was thinking perhaps that since the number of former learned apologists who turn skeptics greatly outnumbers the other, you might stop and think about what that could mean for a minute.SteveI thought this was Debunking Christianity, not Debunking Unicorns? I know nothing about them really. Why do you keep bringing them up? It appears to be a foolish tactic used to make Christianity look like a joke.JasonI'm sorry to call a spade a spade, but you're logically handicapped Steve. I'll try to explain. You are submitting a scenario in which a belief falls outside of emotion and logic. That is one in which God instills beliefs. Okay. I submit one in which unicorns do it. Both invalidate my proposition. What is the evidence for either one? Nothing. That is, nothing, unless you continue to beg the question of God's existence. Geez.SteveI believe the Christian God exists. Aren't you trying to convince others and me otherwise? Is this blog only for non-believers to convince each other of their non-beliefs?JasonSteve, Jesus Christ. If you beg the question of God's existence before our discussion, what's going to change your mind? Nothing. I submit reasons why you believe what you believe, and then you invent how-it-could-have-been-scenarios that you have absolutely no basis for. What belief system couldn't withstand scrutiny given such luxuries?SteveYou’re confined to what you can see, hear, and touch. That's the box I'm referring too. You would need empirical evidence, or some overwhelming supernatural event that you and 10 of your friends witnessed for you to change your position. (Although I think you would reason your way out) Am I wrong here? Your post assumes that we only believe things because of either logic or emotion, or both, and you seem to rule out any unknowns that could be present. This is where you are not thinking freely and independently from yourself. I’m not arguing persuasive psychology is not plausible, I just think there’s more to why I believe than that. JasonIn other words, you believe there is something there even though you have no way of knowing it. In other words, unicorns.Steve They are at the very least weaker than faith. If they are so solid then why don’t more Christians de-convert? And why do Atheists still convert? It’s just not that simple! For one thing even if I was to abandon Christianity, I would have more trouble with the thought of our existence than I would with the troublesome parts of Christianity.JasonFucking Christ Steve. What do you think this discussion is about? EMOTIONAL DECISIONS.Steve Really? So you know my background? Where I grew up? You must know my parents too? JasonI'd bet money on every person like you that you were raised Christian and your parents are Christian. I'd win 90% of the time, guaranteed.SteveThe Outsider Test is indeed an interesting concept. However, it does not prove anything one way or another. JasonIt sure doesn't, but it does show how people are guessing blind on emotional decisions.SteveWhat a person believes because of by whom and where they were raised does not make it impossible to be true.JasonIt sure doesn't, but it does show how people are guessing blind on emotional decisions.SteveGranted it's highly unlikely that all of the beliefs could be true, but it is very much a possibility that one could be.JasonIt's impossible for all beliefs to be true, and it is very much possible that one could be, but who is ever going to know as long as everyone submits their ridiculous scenarios? Gods instilling beliefs, unicorns eating basketballs, lets all just beg the question of our favorite deity's existence (the one we were raised with) and say "Hey, i'll shift the burden of proof! You can't prove I'm wrong!" I'm done with this discussion. |
Where is the 800 pound gorilla?
bart willruth
The formative period of Christianity was a turbulent time, to say the least. For several decades, Jews and gentiles, some Christianized, some not, belonged to the same diaspora synagogues. Many contentious issues show up in the New Testament, especially regarding the rules for the inclusion of gentiles. But there is a glaring omission. A pivotal battle which should have been occured didn't take place. To ignore it is literally like not noticing an 800 pound gorilla standing in the corner of a room. The discussion of the battle that wasn't has huge implications for Christian claims.The writings of the apostle Paul are the earliest stream of Christian thinking available to us today. He wrote from circa 50 CE to perhaps the early 60's. Only the epistle to the Hebrews competes with Paul for primacy in time. Paul never wrote a fully developed theology, nor did he offer much description of the history of his exploits, but in his letters addressing issues troubling particular congregations, we can look over his shoulder and get a feel for the situations he was addressing. His insistence that gentiles be admitted to full membership in the synagogues set off a host of issues since many of them brought some of their customs with them.Among the problems which distressed Paul were sexual immorality, eating food offered to idols, losing hope, improper observance of the supper, observance of holy days, inter-congregational relations, charity, and the understanding of the means of salvation. But no issue dominated his conversation more than that of the inclusion of gentile believers into the congregation without becoming fully observant Jews. Paul fancied himself as the man tasked with converting the gentiles and bringing them into the true Israel of God. His letter to the churches of Galatia, generally considered to be his first, is targeted directly to this issue.In the Epistle to the congregations of Galatia Paul takes issue with Judaizers, emmissaries from Jerusalem, who are insisting that his converts become fully observant Jews. The initiation rite of circumcision was used as the term standing for adherance to the whole Torah including following kosher rules for eating, ceremonial washing, wearing proper clothing, observing holy days, etc. While some of the gentile converts to Paul's preaching were willing to follow some of the laws of the Torah, some were not. And the biggest issue was that of circumcision itself. This rite of entrance into the covenant with the God of Abraham was obviously not something an adult male would wish to undergo, sans anesthesia. Yet the Judaizers contending with Paul were convincing some of his converts to undergo the procedure and to become subject to all the rules of the Torah. Those who were resistant were under pressure to submit. Paul was apoplectic.Historical context must be appreciated at this point. It must be remembered that the crisis with the Greek king Antiochus IV was fresh in the mind of every Jew. In the 160's BCE, in his conquest of Judea, Antiochus disallowed circumcision under pain of death. He intended to force his subjects to receive the blessings of his superior Greek culture, and destroying the temple-state culture of the Jews was paramount in his mind. Parents who circumcised their sons on the 8th day were routinely killed. Many followed the prohibition out of fear. Others continued to circumcize and rose in rebellion eventually throwing off the rule of Antiochus and brutally re-establishing proper Torah observance and the necessity to circumcize (commemorated in the festival of Channukah). Many of those who refused circumcision were circumcized forcibly. Others were exiled, many to the region of Galilee. To the Jews, these events were like yesterday. The issues were fresh. The necessity to be fully observant was no longer a question. The requirements were clear and final. The religious police were actively enforcing the rules.To Paul, this was a crisis of ultimate importance. To his rivals, the argument was foundational. One must be a full Jewish convert in order to find inclusion within the covenant community. Paul argued strenuously against that necessity, stating that faith alone was sufficient; that the promise to Abraham to be a blessing to all nations (gentiles) through his seed was to be enjoyed without submission to the Torah.Paul indicates that he had gone to Jerusalem to meet with the pillars, specifically Cephas and James, and received their blessing on the inclusion of gentiles based only on their faith and willingness to abstain from various immoralities. Circumcision and adherance to the entire Torah would not be required. From Paul's point of view, his arguments carried the day. But as important as the issue of Torah observance was, it pales beside the issue which defined Judaism. That issue is the nature and identity of God. This issue is fundamental to Judaism and preceeds observance to the laws in that the laws proceed from God, and he is recognized and defined in the most important prayer of Judaism. This prayer, and the identity of the 800 pound gorilla standing unnoticed in the corner, is known as the SHEMA.The Shema is the prayer which begins and ends the day of every observant Jew. It is recited at the time of death. It is the recognition that there is one God, transcendent, above all, and requiring of recognition and obedience as he calls his people into covenant with himself. Here is thereading of the Shema:שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחדSh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Deut 6:4Note that the name of God YHWH is rendered "Adonai" (the Lord) so as to avoid accidentally pronouncing the holy name. To observant Jews, the person of God is frequently called "Ha Shem" which in Hebrew means "The Name." The name of God is not to be pronounced, so holy is it. The Shema defines Jews as monotheists. This cannot in any way be minimized. They believe in the one God, the Most High, the Almighty, The Lord, and there is none like him. No image can represent him. Nothing on earth can be worshipped. There is nothing of correspondence between YHWH and his creation. Now, referring back to the crisis of Greek rule under Antiochus IV, the event which triggered the bloody rebellion of the Maccabean Jews was when Antiochus put his own image in the most holy place in the temple. Antiochus promoted the cult of the living ruler. He proclaimed himself to be the incarnation of Zeus on earth, the supreme God in human flesh. He demanded that the Jews offer worship and sacrifice to his image. The Jews would have none of it. That a man would be proclaimed to be God was the ultimate abomination. The Jews under Judas Maccabee rose up and killed both the Jewish collaborators and the foreign soldiers, reinstituting the worship of the one true God and ejecting the image of the man who claimed to be the incarnation of God.Why is this an issue, an 800 pound gorilla which no one wants to notice? Because Paul and presumably others were proclaiming that Jesus was God. Next to this claim, the issue of whether or not to circumcize would pale into insignificance. If there was one issue which should have been the ultimate point of contention in the early Christian proclamation, this was it. Where were the Jews ready to take up stones against Paul for blasphemy claiming that a man was God? Where was Paul's argumentation defending the proposition that God had come to earth and lived as a man? Where is the discussion with the Pillars in Jerusalem over this issue? Was the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols really more fundamental than the claim that God had been recently incarnated? A war had recently been fought over that very claim. To claim that anyone or anything in the material realm could have ontological correspondence with the Most High was anathema.No issue could be expected to come to the fore more than the issue of identifying Jesus as God. Yet, it didn't happen. What are we to make of this conundrum? There are several possibilities:POSSIBILITY 1. Paul never claimed divinity for Jesus, therefore no battle over monotheism would be expected: This is not a credible suggestion based upon clear statements from Paul's authentic epistles. Some examples:"Who (the Son) is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: he is before all things and by him all things consist." Col 1:15-18. This sounds rather God-like. The Son is being presented as the Creator of Genesis."Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Phil 2:5,6. Literally "not something to be held onto." This is in the hymn showing the Son descending and ascending. Again, the claim of divinity for Jesus is clear.It is apparent that Paul did proclaim the divinity of Jesus. Possibility number 1 is thus null and void. POSSIBILITY 2. There was a battle over the claim that Jesus was God, however, the record has been lost:That something so fundamental could have gone unmentioned in the book of Galatians is difficult to believe. Could there have been a battle not mentioned elsewhere in Paul? There are at least two epistles of Paul which are lost to history. His epistle to the Colossians mentions an epistle to the church of Laodicea. We have no information as to its contents. The second epistle to the Corinthians mentions "a letter of tears" which does not seem to be a match with first Corinthians. Since these have been lost, and since others not mentioned could have been lost, it is possible that a great discussion over the issue of Jesus as God could have ensued, but it cannot be known. If God had been providencially protecting his word, not allowing these letters to be lost might have been a good place to start (this has implications for the doctrine of innerancy). This possibility, however, is difficult to maintain, for it can be safely assumed that such a discussion would have touched all the epistles which were preserved. It is simply too fundamental an issue to have gone unmentioned in the foundational period of Christianity. To claim that a man was God incarnated would have been the ultimate hot button issue and an offense to Judaism. Silence on the question indicates that the battle did not take place.Therefore we must conclude that possibility 2, while not absolutely falsifiable, is overwhelmingly unlikely.POSSIBILITY 3. Paul did not assume that Christ Jesus had lived on earth as a Jew just a few years prior to his own conversion. If he did not consider Jesus to have been a man, no battle over monotheism would be expected:This is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first gasp. Mark's Gospel, the first documented mention of Jesus living in the recent past, would not be written for many years after Paul's epistles. It is nothing more than an inferrance to assume that Paul was envisioning the Jesus of the gospels. He himself is silent on the details of the "Jesus of history."The questions must be asked, Is it legitimate to read into Paul the beliefs of others from a later time? Since later writers referred to Jesus "of Nazareth" is it a necessary implication that Paul had that personage in mind? Orthodoxy would answer yes to both questions. Those accepting a priori that all writings which were collected into the New Testament were inspired, non-contradictory, and are different aspects of a single truth will feel free to harmonize Paul with the gospels, but if we examine Paul in isolation, his Jesus inhabits a very different universe than did Jesus of Nazareth. Just because Christians of later years would choose to compile a collection of disparate documents together, does not necessarily indicate that they belong together nor that their authors shared a common outlook.Paul had much to say about Jesus. His Jesus, though, does not share much commonality with the Jesus of the gospels. Imagine for a moment that Mark's gospel had never been written, or like some of Paul's letters, lost. What would we know of Jesus from reading Paul and the other epistle writers? The obvious answer is nothing aside from the activities of a descending and ascending heavenly savior who has created a new Israel through faith. Where, for instance, does one find in Paul:A. Any mention of the birth of JesusB. The virgin MaryC. JosephD. The family of JesusE. The birthplace of JesusF. His hometown of Nazareth (a town which may not have existed at the time)G. His baptism by John in the Jordan riverH. His temptation in the wildernessI. His healing miraclesJ. His exorcismsK. His preaching ministry in GalileeL. His cleanshing of the templeM. His disputes with the Pharisees in the synagoguesN. His disciplesO. His betrayal by JudasP. His struggle in GethsemaneQ. His arrestR. His trialS. His questioning by HerodT. His crucifixion in JerusalemU. The two thievesV. His burial in Joseph's tombW. The empty tombX. The resurrection appearances to the womenY. The great commissionZ. The ascension before a crowd of witnessesMany more details of the life of the Jesus of the Gospels are missing from Paul of course, but we've run out of alphabet. That which we are touching on here is The Pauline Problem. The problem is that Paul never locates the activities of Jesus in a particular historical period nor in a particular geographical location. He seems to be completely unaware of the gospel details of Jesus of Nazareth. He specifically says that he received his information about Jesus through direct revelation or interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, not by oral tradition or knowledge via human agency. His Jesus operates in the cosmos. Is it possible that the reason the issue of Jewish monotheism didn't come to the fore is because Paul wasn't making pronouncements which would be in conflict with it? If that is the case, what would the explanation be?Judaism in that period was very eclectic, and freely made use of hellenistic philosophy. For instance, God was seen as being so transcendent that some intermediary form was needed to communicate with man. It was not seen as a contradiction of belief in the one God to envision "emanations" or "aspects" of God acting in lower regions of the heavens, even treating them as somewhat separate persons. Some Jewish writers and poets of the period freely spoke of Wisdom, or Sophia, as an aspect of God, even as the feminized consort of God, or the Spirit of God. She was pictured as being sent forth by God to communicate to man but was rejected and returned to the highest heaven. In some instances she was pictured as being a virgin mother to an anointed (Christ) Son of God who was a savior to those who believe. Philo, a contemporary of Paul and platonic philosopher/theologian and historian, spoke of the logos (word) of God who was God's agent in the creation of the world and cosmos. God Himself was seen as being too transcendent to deal directly with the lower material world; he used an intermediary to create, but still an aspect of Himself. Philo's concepts were the source for the preamble to John's gospel, "in the beginning was the 'logos' (the word) and the logos was with God and the logos was God. Through him were all things made that were made." The Jewish religious literature of the period is rich with speculation and contemplation of the aspects of God descending through the heavens for the benefit of man. Diaspora Judaism was living in a Greek universe, and was immersed in Platonic thought. The concepts from that literature were the basis for many of the foundational ideas which we find in the NT and other early Christian literature. Many of the Jewish texts eloquently describing the saving aspects of the personified emanations of God sound utterly Christian until one notices that they are not referring to a man named Jesus. Some of the literature makes much of the coming of God's holy spirit and savior and uses the term "the anointed" which in Greek is simply "Christos." Paul's heavenly savior has an apropros name in "Jesus" which literally means Yahweh Saves. To refer to him in Paul's manner as "Christ Jesus" would not be foreign to the Jewish literature of the period, meaning the Anointed One through whom Yahweh Saves. There is no reason in Paul's context that "Christ Jesus" cannot be a title as much as a name. Paul's "Son of God" character did not even receive the name "Jesus" (savior) until he had ascended back to God's side. Phil 2:5-11 (nothing remotely resembling the naming of a baby in Bethlehem) It is difficult for us moderns to get into the ancient mindset with a seven layered heaven with God in the 7th and highest layer and intermediary levels descending until the first heaven just above us. But Paul believed in it. He even claimed to have known someone who had been to the third level of heaven 2 Cor 12:2, perhaps he was speaking of himself in the third person. The concept of descending and ascending aspects of God was a commonplace to the first century Jewish mind. Aspects of God such as the logos, the spirit, Wisdom, or the son, could easily move through the different levels. The lower the descent, the more they would take on material characteristics and become less spiritual so as to be more understandable to man. If Paul were referring to Christ Jesus as a descending and ascending Son-of-God savior figure rather than to a man, the problem ceases to exist. We wouldn't expect to find contention over monotheism if Paul were not envisioning a recently living man as God incarnate. Shema, the 800 pound gorilla, would no longer be in the room. Paul would simply be extrapolating the implications of Jewish thought already in vogue in his milieu. He would also be in harmony with the Greek-Egyptian hero/dying and rising sons of God common in the mystery religions of the era; Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, Adonis, Bacchus, et al.To summarize, the absence of a battle over monotheism vis a vis claims to the divinity of Jesus must be explained. It is too fundamental to first century Jewish though to just gloss over. The need to answer the "WHY?" is overwhelming. The explanation must fall into one of three categories: Early Christians didn't think of Jesus as being divine; The story of the intense battle has been lost; Paul wasn't identifying Jesus as a man who had been his contemporary in Palestine. Only the third theory offers a coherant resolution to the question.Bart WillruthMarch 2, 2008
Tyro
I e-mailed Professor Ehrman about this third possibility and he dismissed it out of hand, saying that no reputable scholar accepts this, but also saying that he couldn't think of any reputable scholar has ever articulated their reasons. As far as I can tell from interviews, it is because Paul does mention James, brother of Jesus. There are many other "brother" references which don't connote physical kinship but I never heard any follow-up or elaboration.I would dearly love to read a book or a paper where a scholar tackles this question head-on and gives not only reasons for rejecting it, but can account for all of these deafening silences.Does anyone know of any scholar who has attempted this?
This problem involves two issues.1. Paul's silence regarding the historical Jesus2. Paul's silence regarding the fight over monotheism which would be expected if he had been teaching a human Jesus, rather than a cosmic deity.Normally those who hold the possibility of a mythical Christ deal only with the first issue. The answer usually offered by orthodoxy was that the gospels told the story of the historical Jesus, whereas Paul explored the meaning of Jesus theologically. As unsatisfying as that glib answer is, it doesn't begin to address Paul's failure to deal with the Jewish understanding of monotheism.That there was a fight over one of the basic requirements for inclusion as a Jew, circumcision and submission to the Torah is clear. Why was there no fight over the abonimation of a claim that a man was God in Paul's congregations?Proponents of the view that Paul must have known of the historical Jesus and that there must have been fights over monotheism are using silence as a blank slate on which to write an agenda supporting the orthodox view of Christian history.
Bart,Paul's failure to rearticulate details found in the gospels would be significant only if there were overwhelming reason for him to do so. We have no evidence that there was such an overwhelming reason. The epistles are occasional pieces, not memoirs. Apparently memoirs were circulating fairly early anyway, so there would be no point in Paul's trying to write them up. He had not been a disciple and had not known the disciples until his conversion. What we actually find in Paul's epistles is occasional reference to a few salient facts (e.g. burial and resurrection) and a heavy concentration on the more contentious issues. This is exactly what one would expect.As for a fight over Jesus' divinity, that was pretty much the cut between the Christians and the Jews. There is plenty in Acts and the Pauline epistles about that.
Tyro,The suggestion that Paul did not think Jesus was a real historical figure who had lived recently is somewhat less plausible than most conspiracy theories. One has to explain away not only Paul's occasional connecting references like the one to James, but also the gospels and the references in Josephus. Of course, there are always some who are willing to do that rather than to admit the obvious. But as Ehrman says, no reputable scholar accepts this -- and no scholar jealous of his reputation wants to waste his time on it.About the closest you will find to someone's taking up the question is the occasional discussion, in passing of whether Jesus really existed. The comments of Bultmann and Bornkamm on this issue are too well known to be worth repeating here. One recent (and completely dismissive) treatment of Jesus myth theories is Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 6-16.
Bart,Wasn't there an early Ebionite heresy that specifically held that Jesus was not divine?Also, is it possible that 3rd and 4th century scribal changes occured that altered the original Pauline epistles?
EvanRegarding EbionitesWe know of the Ebionites mainly through their adversaries. We have no primary documents from the Ebionites unless we see them as survivors of the DSS community.Ebion, in Hebrew, means "The Poor" as in "Blessed are the poor," or "Do not forsake the Poor in Jerusalem."It is known that the DSS community referred to themselves as "The Poor" as well as "The Way." Some scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls identify James as the "Righteous Teacher" and the leader of the militant and ultra orthodox Messianic party in Jerusalem. This group rose up in rebellion following the murder of James in 62 CE, culminating in the war with Rome and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. The Ebionites may be part of the remnant of survivors of from the war who at some point thereafter made contact with the Markan or more likely the Matthean community, fusing their own messianic beliefs with the stories of Jesus.It is extremely difficult to date the Ebionite heresy's origin, but it is certainly after the war.One of the DSS scholars, Robert Eisenmann, identifies Paul as the enemy of the Jamesian DSS community who they referred to as the clown and spouter of lies. Their main point of contention with this "Liar" was over the question of the necessity of circumcision and the Torah. They were very distressed that the Liar was telling diaspora Jews and converts that Torah observance was not necessary. In the DSS, then, we may be seeing the other side of the argument Paul says he prevailed in against James and the Pillars in his letter to the Galatians.Regarding changes in the Pauline documents in the third and fourth centuries, of course it is possible that there were redactions, additions, and clarifications. We know these kinds of things occurred, but since older copies were then discarded, we will likely never know the extent of the editorial alterations which occurred.
tim,There are many, many places where Paul should have cited Jesus or quoted him or something. The silences are not merely about Jesus's time on Earth but his teachings as well. It's plausible that one or two may be missed but they add up quickly.The suggestion that Paul did not think Jesus was a real historical figure who had lived recently is somewhat less plausible than most conspiracy theories. One has to explain away not only Paul's occasional connecting references like the one to James, but also the gospels and the references in Josephus.I don't understand why you dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. It is based on evidence and it is refutable. It doesn't rely on some conspiracy, the story of events does not change, and most importantly, it doesn't involve any conspiracy! This just sounds like overly emotive language which strikes me as unhelpful when trying to understand the facts.As for the gospels and Josephus, I don't see what you think is the smoking gun, nor do they begin to offer an explanation of what appears in the gospels. It just sounds like a way of ignoring it.Let's say Jesus is historical. Alright, now how can we explain the Epistles? Not just one or two lines, but all of it. Whenever I've seen people try to examine both sides, the historical position requires a huge number of ad hoc rationalizations, far, far more than the mythicist one. I'm not saying this makes it right, but it deserves a fair treatment and not a hand-waving dismissal as you've given.
Anyone wanting to get a sound footing in the area of Antiochus lV / Epiphanes would do well to read the major Jewish historian, Elias Bickerman’s “The God of the Maccabees”. This noted work is now re-release in an updated English version in their series: Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity.The transformation of the Semitic “El” to “Yahweh” to the Greek “Theos” / “God” is marked with major theological advances and concepts drawn from the Greek language and myths.The very limited function of Peter the Jew is totally eclipsed by the Hellenistic / Greek Paul (or a school of Pauline thought) which wrote half of the New Testament. By Acts chapter 14, the last apostle (Peter who was to have been taught by the master, Jesus himself) is totally dropped in favor of the Greek Jew; it is Paul who now redefines a limited Jewish Jesus into a universal and gentile "Christ". The rest of Jesus’ Jewish apostles disappear form the stage of early Christianity only to re-appear in spurious non-canonical late pseudepigraphic and apocryphal literature. By this time, the transformation of the anthormophic “El” into the philosophical and eternal “logos” manifested as the “Xpostos” / “Christ” of Jesus; a term which now continues to reconstruct itself in the creeds of the Church.
Tyro,You write:There are many, many places where Paul should have cited Jesus or quoted him or something. The silences are not merely about Jesus's time on Earth but his teachings as well. It's plausible that one or two may be missed but they add up quickly.I have seen attempts to argue for this, but I am deeply skeptical of them. Such arguments from silence are almost always desperately weak. I don't understand why you dismiss this as a conspiracy theory.Actually, I said that it is less plausible than most conspiracy theories, not that it is one. But one of the things it has in common with conspiracy theories is that it requires numerous ad hoc explanations or independent improbabilities that mount up. Paul, who was vigorously involved in the persecution of the church from the beginning, could not have been ignorant of whether Jesus was a real person who had recently been crucified. Therefore if he did not believe that Jesus was a real person recently crucified, it is certain that Jesus was not. But then, how to account for the evidence that he was? One has to explain away not only the Testimonium in Josephus, where the evidence now inclines in favor of the Arabic text in Agapius discovered by Shlomo Pines, but also the reference to James. The gospels and Acts have to be explained away as having not even a kernel of historical truth regarding Jesus -- and here, the theories from Strauss onward really get bizarre. Let's say Jesus is historical. Alright, now how can we explain the Epistles?How does one "explain" any epistles? This question is unclear; it looks to me as though you are freighting it with the assumption that there is something particularly strange about what Paul does and does not say in the epistles -- an assumption that seems to me to be unfounded.Whenever I've seen people try to examine both sides, the historical position requires a huge number of ad hoc rationalizations, far, far more than the mythicist one. I'm not saying this makes it right, but it deserves a fair treatment and not a hand-waving dismissal as you've given.Well, I've read quite a bit of the literature and I think a hand-waving dismissal is just about exactly what it deserves. And apparently scholars from viewpoints as diverse as Van Voorst, Grant, Ehrman, Bornkamm, and Bultmann agree with me.
Tyro,Even G. A. Wells -- the only person with scholarly credentials to have seriously advanced this theory in the past quarter century or so -- has finally given up on the mythic option. Richard Carrier has endorsed Dennis R. MacDonald's idea that Mark and Acts are Homeric ripoffs. This does not inspire confidence in the soundness of his judgment. Josephus is writing a generation or more after most of the events he recounts in the Antiquities. No historian doubts on this account that he is a good source for many facts and events. The burden of proof at this point is on the critics. Merely noting that he is writing about 60 years after the crucifixion is not to the point; if that were your criterion, you would be forced to adopt an extreme sort of historical skepticism.
Tim,Even G. A. Wells -- the only person with scholarly credentials to have seriously advanced this theory in the past quarter century or so -- has finally given up on the mythic option.I don't know how many more ways I can say this, but I'll be as blunt and clear as I can: I don't care what they believe, I only care why.So far, you haven't given me any good reasons. The experts you've advanced haven't seriously considered these questions, so they can't be counted as experts.If this is such a slam-dunk, then why is it so difficult to get some straight-forward reasons?Richard Carrier has endorsed Dennis R. MacDonald's idea that Mark and Acts are Homeric ripoffs. This does not inspire confidence in the soundness of his judgment.I've read his reasons, I've seen no reason to reject them out of hand. I don't understand why you think this conclusion should make Carrier the equivalent of a scholarly pariah.Josephus is writing a generation or more after most of the events he recounts in the Antiquities. No historian doubts on this account that he is a good source for many facts and events.On the contrary, all scholars understand the limitations of 3rd hand reporting and will exhibit appropriate levels of scepticism.I'm not saying that we should reject everything he says out of hand, but neither should we trust everything he writes. Once we understand that anything Josephus writes about Jesus must be reporting what Christians have told him (if Josephus wrote those passages at all), then we treat the accounts appropriately. That doesn't mean we dismiss them, but it does mean that they cannot be taken in isolation.Am I really being so unreasonable? Doherty has done a good job of going through the epistles looking for examples which support and potentially refute his case. If this is a huge burden for scholars to bear, this makes Doherty's work all the more impressive; if this work is trivial and the mark of an amateur, then why haven't any scholars done it?The burden of proof at this point is on the critics.I agree, but that burden has been met by Doherty for a start, and now Bart Willruth. I can understand that not everyone accepts the conclusion, but where's the evidence-based rebuttal?
I would dearly love to read a book or a paper where a scholar tackles this question head-on and gives not only reasons for rejecting it, but can account for all of these deafening silences.Larry Hurtado's "How on Earth did Jesus Become God?" 2005 answers your question.You can also find his answers in media form from:I'm sure the above resources will resolve your question.
Tyro,The experts you've advanced haven't seriously considered these questions, so they can't be counted as experts.Since you cited Richard Carrier as an example of someone who has looked into this and been persuaded, I cited G. A. Wells as an example of someone who used to be persuaded and eventually gave it up. Are you suggesting that Wells, who wrote several books trying to advance this position, did not look into it seriously?I mentioned Carrier's endorsement of MacDonald only to explain why I am not rushing to find everything he has said on the mythic theory. I try, as I assume you do, to prioritize my research time according to the probability that there is something worth taking seriously.Bart's case, as he presents it here, relies on an argument from silence that is not compelling unless there is an extraordinarily strong case that Paul would have mentioned the details he lists in the epistles if he were aware of them. But Bart hasn't offered such a case; nor, in what I have seen of Doherty's work (I have not read it all), have I been persuaded that such a case can be found there. [I]f this work is trivial and the mark of an amateur, then why haven't any scholars done it?For the same reason that serious Egyptologists have been reluctant to take the time to engage with Bernal's Black Athena: they find it hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant as to swallow this, and they have better things to do with their time.Regarding Josephus, you write:Once we understand that anything Josephus writes about Jesus must be reporting what Christians have told him ...Why think a thing like that?
Bart,I've been largely interacting with Tyro, who seems to think that an argument from silence is strong.I addressed your other line of reasoning briefly in my initial comment:As for a fight over Jesus' divinity, that was pretty much the cut between the Christians and the Jews. There is plenty in Acts and the Pauline epistles about that.You suggest that I am arguing as follows (your words):Since he didn't explicitly deny that Jesus lived as a man, he must have believed it.But I haven't argued in this fashion; this is your invention. You write:You need to be aware that no matter what stories about Jesus "must have been circulating" in that time, there is no evidence that there were such.The opening verses of Luke are evidence that you are wrong.Before the gospel of Mark, there is no extant narrative.If you accept Markan priority, then there is not now any narrative extant that pre-dates Mark. Whether there was at the time of Mark's writing is another matter.After Mark, all narratives of Jesus derive from his work.This is misleading. Again, accepting Markan priority, the most that one can be said is that the accounts in Luke and Matthew depend at points on the account in Mark. Notoriously, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection narratives are not part of such material. Neither are many of the sayings found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.That means that ALL, EVERYTHING, THE TOTALITY of what we know about a human Jesus come from a SINGLE source, and that written decades after Paul.This is a very serious overstatement based on an insupportably strong conception of Markan priority. It ignores the clear points of independence among the Synoptics, the independent material in the gospel of John, the material referring to the life of Jesus in Acts, the references in Josephus, and the reference in Tacitus (Annals 15.44).One can, of course, try to explain away all of these things. No doubt you will have your own preferred methods of explaining them away. But such special pleading does not pass what John likes to call "the outsider test." That is why the mythic theory has not, for the past century or so, gained any serious currency among professional historians or NT scholars of any theological stripe, including Ehrman, Bultmann, and Lüdemann.
Tim,You said that the opening verses of Luke state that there were stories circulating.I was referring to the assumption that stories were circulating about Jesus in the time of Paul, an assumption not in evidence.That Luke used sources as he clearly states is not in doubt. I affirmed it. Luke got his narrative from the gospel of Mark. He fit speeches into Mark's narrative derived from Q. Luke as we have it now is a quite late document. In the 140's CE the first 3 chapters had not yet been written as we can see from Marcion's canon. The book of Acts and expanded Luke seem to have come into existence in the mid 2nd century.The issue of the divinity of a human Jesus die arise between Jews and Christians, but it would be difficult to show evidence that it occurred before the end of the first century after the gospel narratives were written.
Bart,You write:I was referring to the assumption that stories were circulating about Jesus in the time of Paul, an assumption not in evidence.Since Luke was almost certainly written before Acts, and since the latter half of Acts gives a first-hand account of Luke's travels with Paul, Luke 1 provides strong evidence that written memoirs existed by Paul's time. You also write:Luke as we have it now is a quite late document. In the 140's CE the first 3 chapters had not yet been written as we can see from Marcion's canon.The fact that most of the first four chapters of Luke do not appear in Marcion's Evangelicon is largely irrelevant, as we know that Marcion deliberately left out portions of the gospels that he considered too Jewish or that suggested Jesus was born of a woman -- and got excommunicated for his docetist views in A.D. 144.Tatian's Diatessaron gives us something corresponding to most of the text of Luke (excepting the genealogy), including details about Jesus' birth. There is no reason to suppose that this was invented within Tatian's lifetime. The suggestion that Luke is a late document runs afoul of the fact that phrases from it crop up in Ignatius, Polycarp, Marcus (the Gnostic, one of the Valentinians), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement. I suppose one could, heroically, try to maintain that these authors were imposed upon by a second-century forgery. But the widespread acceptance of Luke's gospel as authoritative imposes a substantial burden of proof on anyone who wants to try to make out this case. Those so inclined should study carefully what happened to Walter Cassels before venturing to follow in his footsteps.Beyond this, there is the fact that Acts is clearly Part 2 of Luke, and Acts is nailed down to the historical time period before A.D. 70 very tightly. On this, see not only A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, but also Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
Tim,We are getting pretty far afield from the basic issue I addressed, and so far it seems that you want to avoid dealing with it head-on.I don't want to spend a lot of time on the dating and composition of Acts, but as to its historicity, most scholars do not view the enigmatic "we" sections of the narrative to be indicating that the author was actually there. This section could very easily have been inserted clumsily into the third person narrative by a copyist at any time.If it were to be confirmed as historically accurate, you are then confronted with violating the law of non-contradiction. Paul's chronology is correct, or the chronology of Acts is correct. They both cannot be correct because they are in contradiction and cannot be reconciled. I'll leave it to you to decide which is unreliable.I would invite you to deal with the problem in Paul which I am addressing in this post dealing with the fundamental challenge to Jewish monotheism which Paul would have had to deal with if he had been proclaiming that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth.
Bart,You write:If it were to be confirmed as historically accurate, you are then confronted with violating the law of non-contradiction. Paul's chronology is correct, or the chronology of Acts is correct.I assume you are referring to the North Galatian view. This is, of course, seriously contested (in my opinion, overturned) by the work of Colin Hemer mentioned above and in Rainer Riesner’s Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus. The chronological contradiction arises only if one insists on the North Galatian position. But take a wider view. What if Paul's epistles really do contradict Acts at some point? What rides on this? A certain form of fundamentalism is falsified, but are the documents thereby shown to be historically worthless -- the conclusion you would need to draw in order to get the mythical theory off the ground? Hardly. The documents from which we learn the events of secular history frequently contradict each other in many places. Yet historians do not conclude that the documents are worthless or even generally unreliable. They must be evaluated thoughtfully; that is all.You write:I would invite you to deal with the problem in Paul which I am addressing in this post dealing with the fundamental challenge to Jewish monotheism which Paul would have had to deal with if he had been proclaiming that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth.Until you make a stronger case that a controversy on this point was to be expected among Christians, I don't think that you have raised a serious problem. There is literally nothing to address. We would not have expected this to be an issue among Christians, and from the account in the Pauline epistles, it wasn't.
Tim,You say,"Until you make a stronger case that a controversy on this point was to be expected among Christians, I don't think that you have raised a serious problem. There is literally nothing to address. We would not have expected this to be an issue among Christians, and from the account in the Pauline epistles, it wasn't."Ok. Even though the Jews had fought a war in the 160's BCE over the claim of the incarnation of God in the person of the emperor, and even though a similar event fomented a rebellion in first century Jerusalem with the Roman imperial cult, we would not have any reason to expect the claim that God had been incarnated in the person of a local Jew to have caused a ruckus. I'm convinced. Clearly the issue of circumcision was of far more importance to the religious police than blasphemy. Why would anyone think that would be an issue?
Bart,That will explain why many Jews did not become Christians and even why they vigorously persecuted the Christians in the decade following the crucifixion. But nothing else follows.
Tim, You said that (the issue of incarnation of God in Jesus) is why so many Jews didn't become Christians and the reason the Jews persecuted the Christians in the decade following the crucifixion.Two problems here. 1. You are assuming that the incarnation was being proposed by the Christians and that the Jews considered it blasphemous. Based on Christian theological perspective, this would be expected if it were indeed happening, but there is no evidence of this. 2. You are assuming that there was a full scale persecution of the Christians by the Jews in the decade following the crucifixion. There is no evidence of that either. Check your premises.
4th Possibility:Paul was an expert in the OT view of the nature of God. Paul was not a trinitarian, therefore he would agree with the Jews on the nature of GOD. God is One. He simply reveals himself in different forms or "offices". Paul may of asked a Jew "What relation will Messiah be to God." And the Jew would answer, "He will be God!" Correct Pauls theology would say. God is One and NOT 3 Persons.The issue between Paul and the Jews was the timing of the Messiah's appearance, not the nature of Messiah and his relation to God. The trinity is not biblical and Paul didn't preach it.Paul would probably ask the common church leader of today: "And who is Jesus's Father?" Well, according to the Gospels, it was the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20 "....because that which is conceived in her (Mary) is from the Holy Spirit"The Holy Spirit and God are ONE IN THE SAME, NOT (3) persons. Again, Paul and the Jews have no issue with this doctrine.#2 - Paul's SilenceIn the book of Revelation we read and understand that there are (7) stars or angels sent from God to the (7) church ages. These (7) angels are messengers or prophets. Paul was the 1st messenger to the 1st church age and was not necessarily concerned with re-counting the historical facts of Jesus's life and times. He was put on the scene to set the record straight and oversee the doctrine that was being established by early believers. This is made very clear through his epistles.In summary:Paul didn't have a view of God other than Behold oh Israel, the Lord your God is One. The early church was clear on this and therefore it was not a HUGE deal until later when the church began to adopt the Trinitarian view of God at the council of Nicaea 325AD.The Trinity is NOT Pauls Doctrine.Consider the following qualifier as well. God delights in hiding simple truths from pridefull men. Sadly the doctrine of the Trinity has been a staple of the Christian faith for far too long. It is too simple for one to see who is jaded by a complex doctrine like (3) persons in one. It was not taught by Paul. Now there is an 800lb Gorilla for me and my fellow Christians. Why didn't Paul expressly detail the doctrine of the Trinity? Answer: He didn't believe it. But some might say....Are you telling me the entire church is following an error. It is entirely possible. Who missed the first coming of Jesus. The religious leaders of the day. Why? Blinded by their doctrine and the way they "knew" Messiah would appear. It isn't that hard to believe. Compare the way the average Pastor baptizes a believer today. "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Yet all accounts in the book of Acts are done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why?Because that is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father = Lord, Jesus = Son, and Christ = Holy Spirit. Do we really believe that the disciples went out and starting performing babtism's in error no less than 100 days after Jesus gave the great commission. Or is it more likely that the common belief of today's leaders is in error.Psalm 14:12There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Tim,you are neglecting the fact that I offered you references to a discussion by a contemporary scholar (van Voorst)I'm sorry, but I was not able to read this book. If there was something in the 10 pages you gave, it would be nice to see something on the web. But yes, you did give that book citation.to a scholar who used to maintain the mythic position but has given it up (Wells), and to pertinent non-Christian literature (Josephus's Antiquities, Tacitus's Annals).None of which deal with the issue, I'm sorry.But it isn't clear what you really want here.I've always said that I want to see a decent rebuttal by someone that has read and understood the mythicist position. I would like to see someone lay out a counter-theory and demonstrate that this is a superior explanation for the facts, and present a means for understanding Paul's writing.The central line of the argument in Wells (and, from what I've seen, in Doherty) has not changed greatly since the work of Drews and Jensen around 1900.I really can't comment, I haven't had a chance to read up on them. Do you have any English summaries? Have you actually read these books for yourself?Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.Which contains the sort of unthinking dismissal, poisoning of the well and ad hominem that makes me disinclined to accept their conclusions. It could be a rhetorical device, but I'd expect an exhaustive evidence-based argument to follow, but it never does, instead I just get invectives, attacks and slurs and a "stop asking so many dumb questions" attitude which almost never happens when the question is actually dumb.So, I've told you before, I don't care what these people believe, I only care why. That's all I'm looking for.
Joe,Of course I don't think Paul was a trinitarian.No messianic expectations of the period predicted that he would be divine.Paul clearly believed Jesus was a divine character.No evidence from Paul or through arguments with his detractors as seen through his epistles indicates that he was proclaiming a human Jesus.That no contention occured over the issue of equating God with His material creation via incarnation is apparent.This is a problem for Christians. Recognizing that it is a problem isn't an admission that the problem is insurmountable, but to pretend that it isn't a problem shows an inability to look at one's own preconceptions critically.
John,I no longer have ready access to most of Wells's works, so I cannot give you an exact citation. Some years ago he accepted Burton Mack's arguments that there was a historical Jesus behind some of the earliest sayings in Q. You can find a reference to this change of mind here.I should add that Wells remains deeply skeptical of the New Testament as a historical source -- just not so skeptical as to dismiss the existence of Jesus altogether.
Tyro,You are missing the point. Bultmann, who can hardly be accused of having a fundamentalist apologetic agenda, is not "poisoning the wells" -- he is expressing the conclusion to which the scholarly community had already come. No doubt the "Jesus myth" meme will live on forever on websites and in coffee shops. There will always be some people who find it congenial, and scholarship be damned. But this says nothing about the quality of the evidence.Your response indicates that you are reluctant to accept as a reference anything not available online. This does make it difficult for you to understand the extent of the existing scholarship on the question at issue, and it imposes an unreasonable burden on the defender of the mainstream position. Most libraries still do interlibrary loan. However, in this one case, you're in luck: you can find pp. 6-16 of van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament here.The German sources are hard to get: I have access only to a few of them. I listed them (and there are more) simply to give you a sense of how thoroughly the topic was beaten to death a century ago. For more modern discussions, you could look at van Voorst, or F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (1974), R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (1986), or Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed. (2002).Two important works that have bearing on the subject are Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of Gospel Tradition (2001) and Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2006).I do not have any special list of online sources, though I assume there is some discussion out there. But you can find the claim that Josepus was dependent on Matthew competently discussed here. The same site has a discussion of non-Christian evidence for Jesus here.Regarding Wells on the cut between the Jesus of Q and the Jesus of Paul, if the question is whether a teacher called (at least later) Jesus ever existed, then Wells's admission is all that I need to make my case that the only prominent myther of the past quarter century has conceded the point. If the question is whether that Jesus bore any significant causal relation to the Jesus discussed in Paul's epistles, then you should recall what you have already conceded in your comment yesterday morning (9:55), where you quoted me and then responded: Therefore if he did not believe that Jesus was a real person recently crucified, it is certain that Jesus was not.Which is exactly the point.Contrapose the conditional: If Jesus was a real person recently crucified, then Paul believed it. So the concession tells against Wells's theory.
Tim,Sorry to leave the impression that I'm not interested in doing any research outside of the web. What you're noticing is a certain amount of cynicism which has built up over the years. In my discussions with Christians over other issues, I'm frequently directed to books or people, the harder-to-locate the better. When I've taken the time to track down these sources, they didn't have the information promised, and would frequently contradict what their advocates claimed. When I raise this issue, the books would promptly be dropped and an entirely new set of books would come out. I've come to associate this as a tactic to shut me up or perhaps as a well-intentioned but ill-informed effort by people that had never checked sources themselves.It has rather given me a bias for Internet sources as I waste much less of my time, and I only check out books after reading reviews.That you've stuck around does you credit and I admit that I may be doing you a misservice by tarring you with the same brush. On the book you cited, "Jesus Outside the New Testament" does give a half-answer to my questions but since I've never read Wells, I've no idea if the descriptions of his arguments are accurate; they don't seem to match what book reviews of Wells say, nor do they match Doherty. Instead Van Voorst treats Wells as saying that Paul merely presupposes an historical Jesus but has no evidence, which is nothing like Doherty's argument and I suspect it is nothing like Wells' either.I do like that VV lists seven flaws in their argument, but I see these as hurdles or minconceptions and from what I can tell, they've all been dealt with. I would love to see these points elaborated upon, rather than quickly rattled off.The final note seems a good summary: "most New Testament scholars do not address Wells' arguments at all, and those who do address them do not go into much depth." That's exactly my impression - most scholars don't even seem to be aware of them.But if this book is representative, it at least covers some of the material so I'll try to get a few of those books from my library, thank you.Incidentally, I freely admit that many of the "mythicists" should be properly called "deniers" since they are making claims as ridiculous as Creationists, demanding "proof", using impossibly high standards for evidence for Jesus but slack standards for everything else, and whose entire argument seems to be "yeah? Sez who?"
Tim,The discussion about Paul's conception of Jesus does not directly impact the discussion of whether or not the Jesus of the gospels was based on an individual or group of individuals. Perhaps it was, or perhaps the gospels were allegory. Even if the gospel Jesus is based on some a real individual of the past, it does not necessarily follow that Paul was thinking of that person. Certainly he never says so.In all of his epistles he is writing to people who, from your perspective, would have only recently heard of this remarkable person. How would you explain his failure to mention anything of that man? Did they not need reminders? Instead of going throuh convoluted arguments against the Judaizers in Galatians (and these midrashic agruments are none too convincing) why didn't he just quote Jesus to settle the argument. Instead he appeals to his own authority. Couldn't he have just quoted Jesus to show that he had declared the kosher laws null and void? Or couldn't he have just quoted Jesus saying that God gave him up as a sacrifice for the whole world, including gentiles to be received only by faith? Instead he goes off on a tangent trying to prove that Abraham was justified by faith only. Of course this would imply that the whole period of Torah observance from Moses forward was a wrong turn in the desert.I wonder if you have read the religious literature of the Jews of that period. Is it so difficult to admit that if Paul's Jesus was not a man, but instead a "descent" of God, his teachings would fit in very well with contemporary Jewish concepts of descending and ascending "aspects" of God? Only his inclusion of gentiles without full Torah compliance would be at issue, which is in fact what we see in Galatians.If Mark hadn't written his gospel and if it and its derivatives were not eventually compiled alongside Paul's writings, what exactly in Paul would lead you to conclude that Paul was speaking of the person described in the Gospels?Set aside your premise that Paul must be speaking about a person known as Jesus of Nazareth and try alternate hypotheses to see how they fit. Will you even admit that the Pauline Problem actually is a problem?
Bart, not sure what I think of your thesis yet. Just an observation the 'he, Paul, didn't have to write anything about Jesus' defenders are the same Christians who would scream bloody murder if their minister ever preached a sermon that didn't mention Jesus. Can't you just hear the cries of apostasy or watering down the gospel. Odd how quickly they go to Paul's defense. I think it is pretty unusual at a minimum.Barry
Bart,I really don't see a problem here; you do, so to have a conversation we need to find a way forward. I think you've tried to provide that with this question:If Mark hadn't written his gospel and if it and its derivatives were not eventually compiled alongside Paul's writings, what exactly in Paul would lead you to conclude that Paul was speaking of the person described in the Gospels?But I find the question difficult to understand. First, you're assuming that the other gospels are entirely derivative from Mark. Virtually no one believes this; there is simply too much extra material in the other Synoptics for this thesis to hold up, and John is apparently wholly independent of Mark. Second, the way you're phrasing this suggests that the question has been constructed so as to be unanswerable. If the gospels did not exist, what would make me think that Paul's epistles referred to the person mentioned gospels? What gospels? If they didn't exist, there would be no standard for comparison.If, on the other hand, you are merely suggesting that we pick up the gospels in one binding (so to speak) and Paul's epistles in another and ask what coordination there is between them, then the question is answerable and I'm willing to give it a go. Is that what you meant?One more question, just for clarification: do you acknowledge that Luke and Acts are from the same author and the same time period (whenever you place that)?
Tim,I do think the the form of Luke-Acts we have today was finalized at the same time. Exactly how many redactions they went throug over an unknown number of years to get to their present form is unknown.Robert Eisenman believes that Acts and the Pseudo Clementines derive from the same common source, and that of the two, the Clementines are the most accurate. Also that Acts is dependent, to some significant degree, on Josephus. Have you examined this hypothesis?In the attempt to parellel the gospels and the Paulines, there is no obvious correspondence between the two and their conception of Jesus. In approaching a body of literature such as the Paulines, it is important to examine the literary context of the religious culture in which it arose. Paul's theology and terminology is very consistent with non Christian Jewish literature of the period with the exception that he extrapolated the implications of God's activities as allowing inclusion of the gentile without submitting to the Torah. If he had been going beyond the "descent of the aspects of God" motifs and actually proclaiming that God had become man, we would expect the fight over Jewish monotheism that I have posited. However, if his only difference was to say that the cosmic descent of God's aspects allowed Gentiles to convert without circumcision et al, then we would have exactly the kind of struggle we see in Galatians.Bart
Bart,Paul was a common name in 1st century so the NT refers to the Paul we describe as Paul of Tarsus.What was the frequency of Joshua as a name of males in Palestine at the time?If it was a rare name, this would suggest that Paul may have been speaking of a singular individual whose name was identified completely with him (a modern example would be Bono), if his name was common (a modern example would be Steve), should there not be identifiers to localize him geographically in Paul to avoid ambiguity?
Bart,I would like to remind you of the conversion of Paul on his way to Damascus and get your take on it. If you recall he saw a great light and had this awakening. I read somewhere that this could be a somewhat veiled reference to mystery religion initiation. As I recall these initiation rites were great spectacles with lights and drama and were meant to be dramatic. After the conversion he is reported to have gone to Egypt (I’m working from a poor memory) for 3 years (this may refer to a training period in which the truths were revealed) which was a hotbed of Gnosticism.Finally, to complete my association of Paul with Gnosticism, I have a copy of Elaine Pagel's book called Gnostic Paul in which she writes a commentary of the Epistles from a Gnostic viewpoint which the Valentinians were accustomed to do. There are many references in Paul that can be taken to refer to a mystery religion complete with initiation and levels of advancement. Paul refers to initiates, babes, and then speaks deeper truth to the more mature who can understand it. He speaks of levels of heaven which is Gnostic. He speaks of things in the spirit realm as affecting the earthly sphere also.I tend to agree with you and this Gnostic Paul slant would be right in line with what you propose. It would be a Jewish Gnosticism that would be an attempt to reconcile Jewish belief with a Gnostic world view and Jesus would be spiritual and not a physical person.Sorry this is poorly written but your post jogged some thoughts and I don’t have the time to look this up but I thought that you may have already considered this and I wanted to read your comments on the subject.
Evan,Jesus, Yeshua, was one of the most common names among the Jews during the period.Some of the more interesting Jesus characters of the period are Jesus the priest in the 160's BCE who led a rebellion in the temple to cleanse it from pollution. Another Jesus is the son of Ananas the high priest who in the years leading up to the war of 66-70 CE went around the temple lamenting the destruction that would soon come upon the place. He was killed outside the walls of the city after which the city fell to the Romans. Of course, we also know the name Jesus as Joshua, the man who led the people into the promised land. Using the technique of midrashic interpretation, Jesus was presented as the new Joshua (or from the Platonic perspective, the real or heavenly Joshua). The epistle to the Hebrews is a fully Platonic exposition of this concept showing how the earthly temple cult is but a shadow of the heavenly reality with Jesus as the true and heavenly priest. This split between the material and the spiritual, shadow and ultimate reality, is reflective of Plato's influenced as mediated through Philo.That Paul doesn't identify Jesus specifically, but treats him as a heavenly savior (Jesus) could indicate that he is speaking in the terms of Platonism, in vogue in that period. He certainly never identifies him as Jesus the carpenter from Nazareth who had recently done amazing things in Palestine.
Trou,The epistles of Paul were favorites of the gnostics for several reasons: He wrote in terms and categories familiar to them, his epistles can easily be interpreted as referring to the activities of a "demiurge" in the descending levels of the spiritual realm, and nothing in Paul requires the Jesus he is proclaiming to have been corrupted by presence in the earthly realm.I don't think it is profitable to go to the conversion story in Acts as he traveled on the Damascus road. Even if it does have similarities with the mystery religion experiences, or partial complex seizure for that matter, the Acts narrative cannot be reconciled with Paul's own accounts. Both accounts cannot be correct. If the account in Acts is accepted as historically accurate, then Paul's own accounts must be discounted. I believe it is better method to start with a person's own account rather than a third party hearsay account written much later.On this note, look at the Pauline biography in Acts and be cognizant of the dissimilarity of his Jesus presentation from that of the epistles. In Acts, he is repeatedly shown as preaching Jesus the man. The mysticism of the epistles is absent. This is not an accident. The writer of Acts was writing to rehabilitate Paul the Platonist as Paul the preacher of an amazing and very literal man.
RobertYour question about the synoptics excepting perhaps Mark presenting Jesus as the expected Messiah and the reaction of the Jews vis a vis the Shema is interesting.I am speaking off the cuff a bit here, but I'll make some points the best I can without references. I am not near my library at the moment.1. Mark makes Jesus out to be the expected one, perhaps Moses or Elijah come back. Even John the Baptist resurrected, an oddity since they were supposed to be contemporaties. But Mark's messiah figure is hidden. Like Wisdom and the suffering servant, Jesus was unrecognized and the temple was destroyed because of that rejection. Mark nowhere to my recollection explicitly states Jesus is the Messiah.2. Matthew and Luke, deriving their narrative from Matthew, no longer present the hiddenness of Jesus, and they make much of him fulfilling the messianic prophecies. The problem is, none of the prophecies they show to have been fulfilled predict a future messiah.3. When one examines both the OT "predictions" of a messiah and the intertestamental litarature, there really is a dearth of clear expectation. That a leader could rise up and lead his people to freedom from foreign oppression would indicate that God's blessing was upon him; he would be seen as being anointed. But the messiah concept is much weaker in Judaism than it is in Christian fulfillment theology.4. Nothing in the messianic expectation that does exist indicates that the messiah would be God himself in human skin. That would violate the Shema concept and would have brought it to the fore. The synoptics don't make such a clear claim and there was no reaction to it since it didn't happen.5. The Christology of the synoptics is considerably lower than the earlier Pauline epistles. For Paul, Jesus was divine, and no evidence exists that he thought of Jesus as being a man walking around Palestine for 30 odd years. Jesus of the synoptics walked the dust of the land and taught with great authority, but it does not follow that he was being presented as more than the greatest prophet.6. Christians were already being ejected from the synagogues by the end of the first century, but there is no evidence that it was because they were making a man into God. The issues were over observance.7. In the gospel of John, written later and in a different area, we may get a hint of the Shema issue arising. In all the gospels, we are seeing the situation of the community producing and hearing the particular gospel being anachronistically read back into a previous time. In John's presentation, at one point Jesus is made to claim, "Before Abraham was, I Am," a clear reference to the name of God, Yahweh. The reaction of the pharisees was to take up stones to execute him for blasphemy as a man who claimed to be God. This would indicate to me that the Johannine community was actually being assaulted by the Jews over the Shema issue.Finally, in John, we have a marriage of Jesus the man and Jesus the divine agent. I know of no place in the NT that synthesizes the two images earlier.When do we date John. Fundamentalists, as always, attempt to date John as early as possible so as to preserve some hope of direct connection with the apostles. But there is no reason to consider John a first century product. We do know that sometime around the beginning of the second century, emergent rabbinnical Judaism, the descendents of the Pharisees, were pronouncing a curse on the heretics who wouldn't follow their interpretations of the Torah and the oral law. This was the Minim curse which remains a part of the Talmud. There are no contemporary records of Jews taking issue with the Christians over the issue of the Shema. Jewish polemics don't start to be seen in the record for well over 100 years. This doesn't mean that no polemics existed earlier, but we do not have record of them.As we look at the "biography" of Jesus, it appears that he began his career as a fully divine being, and only later was brought down to the earthly material level.I have some theories to suggest how the Pauline divine Jesus evolved into the man from Nazareth, but that is for a different post.Thanks for your comments,Bart Willruth
Harvery Dist Super,Did I miss something. I see you waving the flag and declaring victory. I don't remember Tim dealing directly with the problem I posed, nor even admitting that there might be even the appearance of a problem. Faith can certainly provide amazing blinders.You said that my position on Markan priority is "mythical." It is not just my position. Scholars have provided more than adequate evidence for Markan priority for over 2 centuries. I remember you suggesting to me in one of your comments that I should read "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham, a book sitting on my desk right now. Are you aware that even Bauckham accepts Markan priority? It is too obvious that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a template; to argue against it is a lost cause.You also say that I believe Jesus to be a construct of the mystery religions. There is an element of truth in that. The similarities are too obvious to not see some dependency, but I think the non-canonical literature of the Jews from that period, obviously influenced by hellenism, are a more direct antecedent for the NT Jesus figure.
Harvey Burnett wrote: Bart, as I said before, your whole argument of Markaian Priori is unfounded and ONLY speculative and mythical at best. Because of that essential flaw, you fail to truly examine the life and historical narrative of Paul and the Pauline epistles, which more than adequately describe and convey the aspects of Jesus as found in the Gospels.What "aspects of Jesus as found in the Gospels" do you have in mind here? In his blog entry, Bart presented an A-Z list of significant elements found in the gospel narratives that are completely absent from the Pauline epistles. I have presented an even longer list of Pauline silences on gospel details in one of my blog entries. (I didn't restrict my list to an alphabet...;)That the gospel of Mark predates the other three canonical gospels is quite difficult to deny. Also, that the epistles of Paul were written before the gospel of Mark is widely accepted, and for many good reasons. Paul's letters clearly antedate the canonical gospels. But what "aspects of Jesus as found in the Gospels" do those letters give us?Take for example the aspect of Jesus' miraculous birth. According to Christianity, Jesus' virgin birth is a very important aspect of Jesus. But where does Paul even hint at it? According to the gospels, Jesus amassed to himself a group of 12 disciples who traveled around with him in his missionary work. Where does Paul even hint at this? According to the gospels, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot. Where does Paul "adequately describe and convey" this? How about Jesus' miracles, his sermon on the mount, his parables, his temptation in the wilderness, his exorcisms, his hesitation at Gethsemane, Peter's denials, the two malefactors who were crucified next to Jesus, his words from the cross, the spear thrust into his side, the earthquake, the unnumbered and unamed saints who came crawling out of their graves upon Jesus' death, Joseph of Arimathaea, the female witnesses, an empty tomb, etc.? Where do these "aspects of Jesus as found in the Gospels" show up in any of Paul's letters?These details are legendary developments which most likely post-date Paul's letters and were finally accepted by the Christian community at large well after he was on the scene. What Bart has called the Pauline Problem is in fact a smoking gun. The problem is easily missed by Christians because the ready Paul's letters through gospel-colored goggles, as Doherty puts it. Entire congregations assume that the order of the books of the New Testament is the order in which they were written, when in fact that is simply not the case.Regards,Dawson
Harvey,I want to pull you back toward the subject of my article. That is, the lack of contention over the Shema issue (Jewish monotheism) in Paul's epistles is a serious problem which must be answered. The proper way to discuss this issue is to first look at the context and thrust of a particular epistle eg. Galatians. Next is to examine the wider context of the Pauline corpus. Lastly one looks toward the broader context of the milieu of Jewish religious writing CONTEMPORARY WITH PAUL. You don't seem to want to follow normal scholarly procedure.I really don't want to keep dealing with Markan priority here. It has been studied to death by specialists who are there for you to read if you want to do further study. However, you should be aware that no one considered the early Christian writings to be scripture until well into the second century. It is likely that no two copies of Mark, or any other NT writing for that matter, were identical. Hand copying is subject to error, omissions being more likely than additions.Dawson is correct though. Word count is not the issue in sourcing. The general narrative of Mark is used by both Luke and Matthew. They each had their own theological thrust, sometimes at odds with each other. For this reason, ommissions are of particular interest. Luke went out of his way to omit atonement language from his narrative. It was done purposefully. Tell me if I am using a source below, even though I have changed words:Eighty seven years have passed since our forebears brought this country into being. It was founded on the principle that each person is equal.Compare with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address:Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Did I use Lincoln as a source? Did I plagiarize? Only a moron would fail to recognize source similarity, even though words were changed, and even though I omitted the concept of creation.Now please, if we are to continue the discussion on the subject of this post, lets stick to the subject.Bart Willruth
Insanezenmistress
ok, let me see if i am following this.Because the words of some stories shared by the gosples is dissimular, in syantax but not sence or meaning...it shows that such a story was witnessed?ok......Harvey, you seem to be saying that because of this story being the same shows that it had to be witness and thus writen long before ad 70. And that all "their" debunking stuff is nill?thats how i am getting it, if so i wanna interject.The stories of cinderella, and Nasty monsters in the dark woods, and the boy who cried wolf, i am willing to wager, also meet that criteria.Are their nast beasties in my forest? humIF you interpret the forest a maze of the mind, then yes.........many nasty beasties, so in one sence; a philosphophical one; yes, their are beasts in my woods, but in a literal sence, that is nonsence superstition to believe in beasties.A story that is true or can have some meaning of truth expressed, would be witnessable. The truth of the stories above have been iterated and retold and used by most cultures. Some truth within it brought out.i think why Banshen doesn't bye your argument as valid is because it doesnt matter, that fact does not validate the Bible as the word of god because that little truthy nugget is dime a dozen in myth-stories.hope i am not misunderstanding.Jessy
Burner & Willruth~ Whatever your views are they are both wrong. Because I know you won't read the material I'll post it here for you and your other avid anti-Christ followers.Since Willruth insists on staying with the argument it goes a little like this:Remember, your argument centered around the theory that Paul didn't even sound like he knew Jesus...His teachings were devoid of the understanding of the historical Jesus in any way and was by virtue different than Jesus teachings. This idea is the linchpin of your complete argument. Alfred Resch, the German author who early last century found 1,158 Pauline allusions to Jesus this is in slightly over 2,000 verses of Pauline writings!. This shows how close in teaching content Paul and Jesus are.A Few Topical Examples Include:(JESUS) Luke 6.27-28: "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you" (JESUS) Matt 5.24: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (PAUL) Romans 12.14: "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse" (JESUS) Mark 7:15: "there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.(PAUL) Romans 14:14: " I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself" (JESUS) Matt 17:20: "if you have faith...you will say to this mountain, 'Move'..."(PAUL) I Cor 13.2: "if I have all faith so as to move mountains..."(JESUS) Matt 19.21: "If you would be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor..."(PAUL) I Cor 13.3: "if I give away all my possessions..." (contra Rabbinical advice! Cf. b. Ketubot 50a and Mishnah Arakin 8.4)(JESUS) Matt 24.43: "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.(PAUL) I Thess 5:2,4: "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; (JESUS) Mark 9.50: "live at peace with one another" (verb forms are absolutely identical)(PAUL) I Thess 5.13: "live at peace among yourselves"(JESUS) Mark 4.22: "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it should come to light.(PAUL) I Cor 4.5: "who will bring to light the secrets of darkness and will make public the purposes of the heart"(PAUL) Rom 2.16: "God judges the secrets of people, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ"(PAUL) I Cor 14.25: "The secrets of his heart are made public"(JESUS) Mark 14:36: "And He was saying, "Abba! Father" (very uncommon usage)(PAUL) Gal 4.6: "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!""(PAUL) Rom 8.15: "you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"(JESUS) Luke 10.21f: ""I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.(PAUL) I Cor 1-2 (various verses): "hidden things" (2.7), "the wise" (1.19), "the understanding" (1.19), "God has revealed" (2.10), "to infants" (3.1), "God was pleased" (1.21)(JESUS) ark 14:22-23: "And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.(PAUL) I Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [the whole thing!](JESUS) Luke 10.7: "And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.(PAUL) I Cor 9.14: "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. "(PAUL) I Tim 5.18: "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."Overall, there are significant amounts of allusion material in Paul to this synoptic mission discourse, some of which are as follows:The sending of the apostles on itinerant mission (Matt 10:2, 5/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:2/10:1; so 1 Cor 9:1, 5, etc.), Their authority (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.), to preach the gospel (Matt 10:7/Luke 9:2; 10:9; so 1 Cor 9:14-16, etc.) And to cast out devils and heal (Matt 10:1/Mark 6:7/Luke 9:1/Luke 10:9; so 2 Cor 12:12), Their mission to Israel (Matt 10:5; so Gal 2:8, 9), "you received without payment; give without payment" (Matt 10:8; so 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Cor 9:18, etc.), "eating and drinking . . ." (Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:4, etc.), "the laborer deserves to be paid" (Matt 10:10/Luke 10:7; so 1 Cor 9:14, etc.), "eat what is set before you" (Luke 10:8; so 1 Cor 10:27), "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16; so Rom 16:19), "whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16; so 1 Thes 4:8).(JESUS) Matt 16.16-20: "And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.(PAUL) Gal 1.15,16: "But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, (JESUS) Mark 10.9f: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."(PAUL) I Cor 7.10-11: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away(JESUS) Matt 22.21: "Then He *said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." (reference to taxes and tribute)(PAUL) Romans 13.7: "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor" [linguistic forms are identical](JESUS) Matt 20.26: "It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."(PAUL) Romans 15.7: "For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision(JESUS) Mark 10.44: "and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.(PAUL) I Cor 9.19: "I have made myself a slave to all..."(PAUL) I Cor 10.33: "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.(JESUS) Matt 5.33f: "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil."(PAUL) 2 Cor 1.17-18: "Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no."But not only did Paul know (and repeat) Jesus' teaching--often almost verbatim!--he constantly pointed his readers to the life of Christ as an example to follow. Rom 15.1ff: "Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me."Philp 2.5: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,"I Cor 11.1: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.Eph 5.1f: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us"Where did Paul get this from, by his own account by revelation Jesus Christ HIMSELF AND that was confirmed in the Gospel accounts THAT WERE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE when he met the Apostles in 40A.D. IN NO POINT does Paul's message conflict, superceed or overide the word of Jesus or his mission on earth.Paul CLEARLY related events of the HISTORICAL JESUS within full context and gave his life through continued teaching that Jesus was both a REAL PERSON, Was God, and Was risen from The Dead as the SCRIPTURES foretold. Both of your arguments of PAULINE SILENCE are BUNK!Paul's writings are CLEARLY in line with other authors in the Bible during and after Jesus time and are fully consistent with Jesus teachings WITHOUT DOUBT. To suggest otherwise is not based on factual information but is based on fantasy...The same type of fantasy that you persist with while claiming to be rational and reasonable human beings. I have taken this time so that your readers will know that your theories are not mainstream, are not anything new and have been turned down previously as well thinking and trained individuals have also examined these facts and found your position to be without merit. Whatever you tried to do YOU DIDN'T DO IT HERE OR WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Thank you and I LOOK FORWARD to debunking more of your anti-Christ arguments in the very near future.
I'm not certain, but exactly what sort of battle would you expect Paul to spearhead, given that he was an apostle - whose priority is spiritual enlightenment over physical emancipation - a proactive pacifist - what sort of battle are you imagining should have occurred?????
Harvey,I read through your whole post. It was a long slog.Please explain to me how Paul differentiates Jesus of Nazareth from any other man named Jesus who was alive 20 years before Paul was converted.If 2000 years from now there was a gospel about someone named Steve, how would we know which Steve currently alive was being referred to?Given that we know Jesus was a common name in Judea at the time of the writing of the NT -- we should expect Paul of Tarsus to identify Jesus with some specific language to avoid ambiguity.For example, during the Bar Kochba revolt there was a Joshua ben Chananya who was leader of the Sanhedrin. How do we know Paul wasn't referring to any living Joshua?More importantly, how do we know from Paul's writing he wasn't referring to one of the Joshuas of the OT? Either the famous heir to the prophetic position of Moses, or Joshua ben Jehozadak, who was high priest from 515-490 BCE?The ancient records typically deal with common names by recording a location they are from to narrow the ambiguities. That Paul does not do this once -- not even in all your laboriously copied quotations really does answer the fundamental question Bart has raised here.
Harvey,Thanks again, this time for the long list of quotes. In fact, they help seal the case for legendary development. You quote statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels and similar statements found in Paul's letters side by side. But don't you see what's missing? When Paul gives his teachings, he does not indicate that Jesus had ever taught them - particularly in the situations in which the gospels cast Jesus teaching them. What happened is that later writers took these teachings from Paul's letters and put them in Jesus' mouth in narrative form, which we know today as the gospels.You yourself quoted Romans 15.7: "For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision"Paul tells us explicitly that it is his own teaching that he gives here.The gospel writers borrowed from other sources, such as Paul's letters, to inform the theology they put into Jesus' mouth.Again observe Wells on this very topic:Paul gives it as his own view (Rom. 13:8-10) that the law can be summed up in the one Old Testament injunction "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." According to Lk. 10:25-8, Jesus himself taught that love of neighbor (together with love of God) ensures salvation; but one could never gather from Paul that Jesus had expressed himself on the matter. In 1 Thess. 4:9 it is not Jesus but God who is said to have taught Christians to love one another. And in the injunction not to repay evil for evil but always to do good to all is given in the same epistle (5:15) without any suggestion that Jesus had taught it (as according to the gospels he did in the Sermon on the Mount). In his letter to Christians at Rome Paul says "bless those that persecute you" (12:14 and 17) and "judge not" (14:13). Surely in such instances he might reasonably be expected to have invoked the authority of Jesus, had he known that Jesus had taught the very same doctrines. (The former doctrine is ascribed to him at Mt. 5:44 and Lk. 6:28, and the latter at Mt. 7:1 and Lk. 6:37.) In the same epistle he urges Christians to "pay taxes" (13:6), but does not suggest that Jesus had given such a ruling (Mk. 12:17). It is much more likely that certain precepts concerning forgiveness and civil obedience were originally were originally urged independently of Jesus, and only later put into his mouth and thereby stamped with supreme authority, than that he gave such rulings and was not credited with having done so by Paul and… by other early Christian writers. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 33.)You wrote: But not only did Paul know (and repeat) Jesus' teaching--often almost verbatim!--he constantly pointed his readers to the life of Christ as an example to follow.Where does Paul attribute the teachings he gives to Jesus? He either quotes the OT, attributes the teachings to heavenly God (not to an earthly incarnated Jesus) or states the teaching as his own.So, Harvey, unwittingly, you've pointed to yet another smoking gun here.I'm glad these aren't my problems.Regards,Dawson
Harvey,I was waiting for Bart to clarify his position before I jumped in. But you beat me to it, and at this point you've done it so thoroughly that it would be superfluous to add further details. Thanks for that as well as for your kind words. It's nice to see someone else who is familiar with Alfred Resch's work.Evan asks:Please explain to me how Paul differentiates Jesus of Nazareth from any other man named Jesus who was alive 20 years before Paul was converted.Simple answer: he doesn't have to, since everyone he is writing to already knows who he's talking about. Incidentally, the reference to 20 years is irrelevant: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.Dawson writes:When Paul gives his teachings, he does not indicate that Jesus had ever taught them - particularly in the situations in which the gospels cast Jesus teaching them.Looks like he missed the part about Mark 14 and 1 Cor 11. It is a piece of luck for us that the Corinthian church was so screwed up on this point that Paul decided to remind them of the historical origin of the Lord's Supper, thereby demonstrating his familiarity with the details of the life of Jesus.
Simple answer: he doesn't have to, since everyone he is writing to already knows who he's talking about. Incidentally, the reference to 20 years is irrelevant: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.Funny, I had always been led to believe that the earliest epistle is dated to 50 CE. Is it your position Tim, that Paul wrote the epistles earlier than that?
Good catch. I misspoke. Should have been 5 years before he was converted and 20 years before he put pen to page.Thanks for catching that.Doesn't really change much.
Tim wrote: Simple answer: he doesn't have to, since everyone he is writing to already knows who he's talking about.How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus? Are we to just assume that they knew Paul’s Jesus to hail from Nazareth, for instance, or that his Jesus was born of a virgin? What would justify such assumptions when Paul himself nowhere refers to either Nazareth or a virgin birth?Keep in mind that Paul warned his churches of competing views of Jesus. In II Cor. 11:4 Paul wrote:For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.Similarly, in Gal. 1:6 he wrote:I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospelThese passages indicate that there were different gospels and different theologies circulating at the time. It is clear from Paul’s letters that he was weary of these competing traditions and that he wanted his congregations to be weary of them too. So today’s Christians should resist the reckless expedience of simply assuming his congregants knew certain details about the Jesus Paul was preaching, especially when those details are completely absent from Paul’s own letters. It is entirely possible that the Jesus traditions which later found their way into the gospels we find in our bibles today numbered among those traditions which Paul rejected.Tim wrote: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.Does Paul say this? Or, are you simply reading Paul with gospel-colored glasses – thus begging the question? Show us where Paul – in his letters – puts a date or place to Jesus’ crucifixion and to his own conversion. Tim wrote: Looks like he missed the part about Mark 14 and 1 Cor 11. It is a piece of luck for us that the Corinthian church was so screwed up on this point that Paul decided to remind them of the historical origin of the Lord's Supper, thereby demonstrating his familiarity with the details of the life of Jesus.Is this the only parallel that you can find which suggests that the Jesus tradition which Paul preached was the same Jesus tradition we find in the gospels? Christians are so ready to assume that Paul was reciting from the same gospel tradition we find in Mark, when in fact it is more likely the case that the author of Mark cribbed his Lord’s Supper idea from Paul’s letters.Doherty points to I Cor. 11:23-26 as the sole Gospel-like scene to be found in all of Paul’s letters.... Here Paul attributes words to Jesus at what he calls “the Lord’s Supper,” words identifying the bread and wine of the thanksgiving meal with Jesus’ body and blood. But is Paul recounting an historical event here? There are several arguments to be made that this is not the case, that Paul is instead describing something which lay in the realm of myth, just as the cult of the savior god Mithras had a myth about the establishment of its own sacred meal. In fact, the opening phrase of the passage points to Paul’s reception of this information through revelation, not through an account of others who were supposedly participants at such an event. (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 15)Look at the opening statement of the passage again. I Cor 11:23 states: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;” Paul is telling us that he did not get his story of a supper from other human beings, such as the disciples which the gospels seat around Jesus in their version of the supper scene. So we would be entirely mistaken to assume that Paul is quoting from a tradition of men here. What would keep a later writer from using Paul’s description of a supper scene involving Jesus from inserting such a scene into the context of his fictional narrative of Jesus? What would keep a later writer from using the very words which Paul attributes to Jesus in his description of such a supper scene in his own invented version of the same? Paul provided the raw material which later writers interpolated into their narratives. Nothing in either I Cor. or the gospels necessitates that we suppose Paul was quoting from Mark (the gospel of Mark hadn't even been written yet!), and nothing in Paul’s rendition of the supper scene necessitates that we suppose he had “familiarity with the details of the life of Jesus” as found in the canonical gospel narratives (again, they hadn't been written yet!). To suggest that the supper scene in Paul’s letter demonstrates that Paul has familiarity with, say, the gospel of Mark, is as naïve as it is tenuous, and borders on apologetic desperation. Now, Tim, you may still want to believe that Paul had “familiarity with the details of the life of Jesus” as we find it described in the gospel narratives. That’s fine and dandy. But here’s a friendly little challenge for you. Below is a list of details taken from the portrait of Jesus’ life as it is described in the gospels: - Bethlehem (Jesus' supposed birthplace)- a place called 'Nazareth' (as in "Jesus of Nazareth")- a Roman census - parents named Mary and Joseph- angelic visitations to both Mary and Joseph- the Virgin Birth - the Slaughter of the Innocents- the Magi (they were magically summoned to meet the baby Jesus)- John the Baptist - Jesus' baptism- Jesus' career as a carpenter - Galilee - Jesus' itinerant preaching ministry in Judea (didn't the apostle know about this?!)- that Jesus was a teacher of morals - that Jesus taught in parables- Jesus' prayers- Jesus' many miracles (Paul nowhere has his Jesus turn water into wine, stilling storms, feeding 5,000 or walking on lakes)- Jesus' healings and cures (no mention of the blind receiving their sight, for example, after Jesus spits into dysfunctional eyes)- Jesus' exorcisms- Jesus' temptation in the wilderness- Mary Magdalene- Nicodemus (mentioned only in the gospel of John)- Judas Iscariot (a key player in the lead-up to the passion story)- Gethsemane (and Jesus' hesitation there)- a trial before Pilate- Peter's repeated denials- Jesus' flogging - Jesus' crucifixion outside the walls of Jerusalem - a place called "Calvary" (mentioned only in Luke 23:33)- the two malefactors condemned with Jesus- Jesus' words from the cross- the spear thrust in Jesus' side- the darkness over the earth- the earthquake- the rising of the saints mentioned only in Matthew 27:52-53 - Joseph of Arimathaea- Golgotha- female witnesses- an empty tomb (Paul never even mentions an empty tomb!)- Doubting ThomasClearly many of these details were thought by the gospel writers to be significant, for they appear in more than one gospel. But can you find any of these details in any of Paul’s letters? The gospels are very clear in putting a time and place setting to Jesus’ crucifixion, for instance. But can you find where Paul even hints at a time and place for his Jesus’ crucifixion? Many Christians are prone to respond that Paul would not have needed to “repeat” any of these details in his letters. But this retort implies that the gospel stories were written and circulating before Paul wrote his letters, which is certainly not the case. Had Paul mentioned that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the walls of Jerusalem, for instance, he would not have been “repeating” something that had already been written! And the argument that Paul would not have needed to "repeat" something already widely known also indicates a lack of familiarity with the texts in question: scripture is chock full of repetitions.Paul warned in his letters that different gospels and different Jesus traditions were circulating in his day. He says quite little about what informed those competing gospels and Jesus traditions. When Paul characterizes his Jesus as having “emptied himself” (Phil. 2:7), are we to suppose that he thought his Jesus was going around performing miracles, as the gospels portray him? For Paul, Jesus’ life from incarnation to crucifixion represented base humiliation. But the gospel portraits characterize him as this powerful miracle-worker who earned a reputation as a teacher, a healer, a leader of a movement who amassed followers, etc. There’s no doubt that the Jesus we find in Paul’s letters is markedly different from the Jesus we find in the gospel stories. But just as this does not keep today’s believers from assuming they were one and the same, it did not keep the gospel writers from using Paul’s letters as a source for their portraits of Jesus.Regards,Dawson
I have no dog in this fight. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed or not, although I think he did. But I'm listening. I told Bart it's a tactical blunder to even discuss this subject, since many Christians will conclude we’re not truly as skeptical as we claim if we’re willing to believe just about anything that denies Christianity. I told him this is a question only skeptics themselves are interested in as a possible alternative theory on the origins of Christianity. But it’s been interesting to me. To me it doesn’t matter whether Wells changed his mind, or whether this issue was dealt with and put away in the past. I’ve heard Christians tell me that all of our arguments are as old as Hume and Kant, and sufficiently trashed soon afterward. I don’t think so at all. What matters to me are the arguments.The arguments are indeed interesting. Particularly insightful are Bart’s original argument about the lack of a debate over Jesus’ divinity in Paul’s writing, and why he never mentioned anything about the life of Jesus.To put this into perspective, Paul didn’t say anything about the tomb being empty either. The silences seem to be telling. All one has to do is listen to any sermon today about Jesus and notice how many times something in life of Jesus is mentioned. All one has to do is to hear a sermon on the resurrection and notice the stress that is put on the empty tomb. I understand the gospels weren’t yet written for Paul, but if he knew much of anything about the life of Jesus he would use it just like preachers do today, since this information is important to know.Once these things are truly considered you will see the problem. Why didn’t Paul mention anything from the life of Jesus in all of his writings?Give me some probable reasons why Paul didn't in the light of the stress that preachers today place on these things.
Dawson,So you concede that there is an event from Jesus' life recounted in one of the unquestioned Pauline epistles that corresponds in meticulous detail with the account in the gospels. That's a good start. Note also that this event, with details both great and small, makes nonsense out of the idea that Jesus was a mythic person -- and would do so even if we did not have the gospel accounts to corroborate it. Of course, that will not stop the mythers. But this is the point at which they really do have to go down the rabbit hole and wind up in conspiracy theory territory in order to maintain their position.You ask:How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus?One good way is by looking at all of places where he makes allusions that they could not have understood unless they already knew the outlines of the story of the life of Jesus. Harvey has begun to list some of these; you can consult Resch for more.You also write:Look at the opening statement of the passage again. I Cor 11:23 states: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;” Paul is telling us that he did not get his story of a supper from other human beings, such as the disciples which the gospels seat around Jesus in their version of the supper scene.This is completely unpersuasive. It is also characteristic of the sort of exegetical bullying in which the mythers routinely engage. Paul is pointing out that the solemnity of the Lord's Supper, which the Corinthians were abusing, has warrant from Jesus himself and is not Paul's own invention. There is nothing more here, certainly no grist for the mythers' mill.Are we to just assume that they knew Paul’s Jesus to hail from Nazareth, for instance, ...Probably, since the coordination between the epistles and Acts leaves no doubt that both are substantially authentic records, and Paul refers to Nazareth in Acts 26:9.... or that his Jesus was born of a virgin?That is uncertain. However, Paul refers to him as having been born of a woman (Galatians 4:4) and made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), which again forces the mythers to play exegetical Twister to evade the obvious fact that Paul considers him to have been an historic personage.Nothing in either I Cor. or the gospels necessitates that we suppose Paul was quoting from Mark ...And I never said he was. In fact, this was the very point I was waiting for Bart to clarify, when I pointed out to him that on one possible reading his "challenge" was unreasonable.Tim wrote: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.Does Paul say this? Or, are you simply reading Paul with gospel-colored glasses – thus begging the question? Show us where Paul – in his letters – puts a date or place to Jesus’ crucifixion and to his own conversion.He doesn't, but that is (a) irrelevant, since he is not writing memoirs of Jesus but rather epistles occasioned by doctrinal and behavioral problems in the various churches, and (b) unnecessary, as the coordination between the epistles, Acts, and Luke suffices to fix the dates within a few years -- and that is all the precision necessary to support my statement. This is not controversial. Now, Tim, you may still want to believe that Paul had “familiarity with the details of the life of Jesus” as we find it described in the gospel narratives. That’s fine and dandy. But here’s a friendly little challenge for you. Below is a list of details taken from the portrait of Jesus’ life as it is described in the gospels: [grocery list omitted here]Clearly many of these details were thought by the gospel writers to be significant, for they appear in more than one gospel. But can you find any of these details in any of Paul’s letters?Paul repeatedly refers to the crucifixion, of course. He also refers to the burial and the resurrection -- two items you cleverly left off of your list. As for the empty tomb, this is clearly implied (though not expressly stated) in 1 Cor 15. And he repeatedly uses language that parallel's Jesus' own sayings; some of that is documented in Harvey's list, above. Why should we expect anything more from an author of occasional letters to different people prompted by concrete situations? Do we find this, or require it, in the letters of Pliny? Honestly, Dawson, you need to do some reading in secular history in order to get a better grip on the way that documents written independently and for different purposes coordinate with each other.
John,You write:I told Bart it's a tactical blunder to even discuss this subject, since many Christians will conclude we’re not truly as skeptical as we claim if we’re willing to believe just about anything that denies Christianity.I think this is a shrewd observation. Certainly there are few things more entertaining to educated Christians than seeing the lengths to which some skeptics will go. As I said to Bart in this thread, I do not think that the mythic theory passes what you like to call "the outsider test" -- and the "outsiders" here are not just evangelical Christians but just about every historian of every persuasion who has ever lived.I'm less persuaded of the wisdom of your following comment:Paul didn’t say anything about the tomb being empty either. The silences seem to be telling.As your old mentor Bill Craig has pointed out, this detail is implied by the language of 1 Cor 15.Why didn’t Paul mention anything from the life of Jesus in all of his writings?The first and simplest answer is that he did: the night dinner, the bread, the cup, the words of institution, the betrayal, death by crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances.As for your analogy to contemporary preaching, it is important to keep two things in mind. (1) We have the gospels as texts today with nearly two millennia of commentary and theology built on them. It is only to be expected that the events they record will loom larg in contemporary preaching, which is often expository (going through a passage or sometimes a whole book over months at a time) than in Paul's preaching, where the expository option was unavailable. (2) Paul's letters are not sermons. They are occasional pieces prompted by circumstances he did not choose and directed to the resolution of specific issues. It is absurd to suggest that if they do not recapitulate a more substantial subset of the details of the evangelical narratives, then Paul is not referring to the same Jesus. Such a methodology would break down immediately in the assessment of the documents of secular history.
Wow, I'm thrilled by the high level of comments on this really interesting topic. My fellow and I are trying to follow along at the level of informed non-academics.One thing he had trouble with was this: "There is no reason in Paul's context that "Christ Jesus" cannot be a title as much as a name." He could not understand how "a common name can be used as a title." I had a hard time explaining this because there is, to the best of my knowledge, only one comparable analogy in English. Say you overheard someone saying something about "the noble Earl." Would you assume they were referring to some man by his rank, or would you assume they were praising a virtuous man named Earl? Of course you couldn't absolutely conclude one thing or another, but that's partly the point; given the context we have to admit it is possible or even likely Paul didn't necessarily mean a given person actually named Jesus.Another thing we wrestled with was the contemporary Jewish idea of levels of heaven and relative proportions of God-ness and material-ness and how Paul might have seen such a thing, as opposed to how Christians understand it these days. Again I needed to compare it to something my guy understood, and I'm not sure I'm terribly off base with this slightly sci-fi analogy:Say you were a scientist who developed a deep vat of nanoparticles in your lab that spontaneously formed and dissolved machines that continually interacted with each other in a sort of ecosystem down at the bottom of the container. Your time was too valuable to devote to the actual construction, so you had one of your grad students follow your blueprints. After a while, you determined your minor tweaks weren't curing the glitches in the ecosystem, so you decided to reach your own arm into the nanoparticulate "mud" and with your own hand sculpt a machine that would act as you would if you could literally enter the vat yourself as a machine.Now when you brought your hand out of the vat, it would be covered in the "mud." When you wiggled your fingers, the "mud" on them would also wiggle. You could argue that in some sense your hand was part you and part "mud." However, your grad student could say, "Bring your arm over here to the cleanser and we'll rinse off the "mud." Your arm would not be the less yours for being "partly mud." And likewise the machine you sculpted would not BE you. For someone to suggest that your actions supposedly brought about a situation in which your construct was "wholly nanoparticulate yet wholly you" would be more than ridiculous, it would me meaningless. If your undergrad students, who look up to you as a genius, felt that you were grossly insulted by the assertion, they might even get angry and start fights.Ok, that's a bit out there too, but he understood. Maybe a few more of us who are following along will be helped also.
Bart~The reason that this argument can't stay on track is because it's ridiculous!It makes no sense unless you begin with the wrong presuppositions. Yours are clear...You believe that The gospel narrative was misplaced and created to appeal to it's later audience and Jesus was a mythical person as you've claimed in other blogs CLEARLY. Let me just take one of your anti-Christ heroes~ Doherty for example...you and Burnner seem to love his garbage and his dirty draws sooo much...you use his unfounded, unbalanced, hypocritical assesments from one or both of his books as your support. (You guys are too smart for that clown...you don't need him) but since you do I see that's indicitive of why you approach things the way you do...example:Doherty claims the gap between the events of the New Testament and our earliest complete copies contains such a discontinuity that the texts of the New Testament documents are hopelessly unreliable.FACT:First, we have an unbroken line from the eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, through Paul and the other apostles, into the early second century with Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the Didache (an early apostolic teaching document). Even Doherty agreeS that some of Pauls letters were written well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to Christ, including his testimony of the bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. FACT: The apostle Peter, himself an eyewitness, commended Pauls letters and includes them with other Scripture (the Old Testament) as Gods Word: "our Lords patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:15-16)FACT: In his Acts of the Apostles, the evangelist Luke affirmed that the teachings of Paul agree with the teachings of the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of Christs ministry, miracles, and resurrection. FACT: Paul himself acknowledged in his letter to the Romans that there were Christians whose conversions predated his. He pointed out that they agreed that the Gospel he preached is the same Gospel they believed from the same Christ they saw resurrected. There is a continuity of teaching and testimony from the eyewitnesses through Paul and the other apostles. FACT: Papias, Polycarp, and the other earliest church fathers claimed either to have known the apostles themselves or to have known those who knew the apostlesFACT: To discount the testimony of the earliest fathers, who affirmed the apostles, who affirmed Paul, who themselves are affirmed by the liberal critics, is to discount the very critics to whom Doherty appeals! QUESTION: Should we believe the eyewitnesses who affirmed Paul, HIS MESSAGE AND WHO HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT AND who was affirmed by the other apostles, who were affirmed by their immediate successors, whose words are preserved in our earliest church writings; or should we believe "DOODLE DUMB WRITE A STUPID BOOK SO HE CAN GET RICH" Doherty, the NUT who undercuts HIS OWN ARGUMENT?THIS IS JUST HOW STUPID DOHERTY AND HIS ARGUMENT (WHICH YOU BUY HOOK LINE AND SINKER) IS~ Doherty assumes when an early writer uses a particular passage from the New Testament, one can infer only that the isolated passage was known to the writer, not the book in which the passage occurs, much less the New Testament in which the book containing the passage is found. With this standard, he could not affirm most of classical literature, including the teachings of Socrates, whose work is known to us only by references and quotations by others (e.g., Socratess Apology written by Plato). The standard approach is that when an ancient author quotes or refers to a distinctive teaching or saying of a predecessor, and we have the larger context of the quoted material in later copies, we assume that the larger context existed as the ancient writers source.~ Courtesy of Bob & Gretchin PassintinoThis is more to the heart of what Tim was saying:The comparatively infinitesimal time gap between the New Testament events and our first copies and the overwhelming volume of manuscript evidence we possess far outweigh any similar evidence we have for other classics. Geisler and Nix list in their A General Introduction to the Bible (408), for example, that we have only 643 copies of Homers Iliad, 8 of Herodotuss History, 8 of Thucydidess History, 7 of Platos works, 10 of Julius Caesars The Gallic Wars, and 20 of Livys History of Rome.3 Compare those numbers to 5,366 copies of fragments, portions, and complete books of the New Testaments, the majority later than the seventh century but with some significant copies from very early.IT IS UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN ANY other work in history. IT IS UNREASONABLE to place an undue burden on Paul suggesting that each letter must give a full account of Jesus from Birth to resurrection to be valid...THAT IS Doherty's Stupidity...Only he could help lead you to those conclusions...This is my final posyt in this thread...I'll be looking for the next and ready to blow that one up too...but look at this as an example of how ridiculous your assumptions actually are:This a variation on the great-grandfather paradox. Lets say were discussing the existence of BART WILLRUTH, skeptic extraordinair. We cant find any biographical material about him other than his stint as president of the DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY, his contributions to the Web site attacking Christianity. We might suspect he is a figment of some skeptic groups collective imagination, an editorial ghost they have conjured to plague Christianity.Then we meet BART WILLRUTH. He shows us his drivers license, birth certificate, and pay stubs where he works. We are confronted with the real BART WILLRUTH. We cannot explain his existence away without a story about identity fabrication more incredible than believing there really is somebody named BART WILLRUTH who thinks he can overthrow the truth claims of Christianity. It would be ridiculous to argue that BART WILLRUTH doesnt exist merely because we dont possess his genealogical history back for umpteen generations. We would be STUPID if we were to argue that because we can't verify the identity of BART WILLRUTH'S great-grandfather, he must not have had one. The very fact of the existence of BART WILLRUTH is proof that he must have had a great-grandfather even though no evidence may exist today for that great-grandfather.In conclusion:The existence of the Christianity of the second or third century that has as its foundation a belief in the historical verification of its founders miracle-working power, death-defeating resurrection, and thus His divine identity, could not have come into being from a source that ignores historical verification, conjures up a founder of mythic proportions, and uses miracle and resurrection fantasies as a mere motif of spiritual enlightenment. Todays history-based Christianity exists as the progeny of a history-based event.If the founders never claimed a historical base, they could not have produced a history-based religion. Myth-propagating founders can produce only a myth-perpetuating religion. There is no need for a myth religion to package itself as a history religion. The apostle Peter, in fact, declared, We did not follow cleverly invented stories [Greek muthois or myths] when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Pet. 1:16). PAUL PREACHED THE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS AND HIM CRUCIFIED.Please don't think I call any of you dumb...DOHERTY is Dumb and his books were a wast of paper and ink. So Bart, that's why we don't bite or have confidence in your original premise...it just doesn't hold water. Thanks...I'll look for your next post!
Tim: So you concede that there is an event from Jesus' life recounted in one of the unquestioned Pauline epistles that corresponds in meticulous detail with the account in the gospels. You’re overstating things here quite a bit, Tim. I do not “concede” that Jesus had a life to begin with. There's simply too many problems that Christians cannot successfully untangle. My position on the supper scene as it is described in Paul’s letter is wholly compatible with the *possibility* that Paul’s Jesus was in fact mythical, or at the very least that the supper scene he describes is legendary. It could easily be a motif that Paul borrowed from mystery religions of the day which featured sacred meals representing communion with a savior-deity. There were plenty around, and Paul was very probably greatly influenced by a wide range of different traditions.Tim: That's a good start.Good start? Toward what? Tim: Note also that this event, with details both great and small, makes nonsense out of the idea that Jesus was a mythic personHow so? If a Harry Potter book describes Harry Potter eating a meal with his friends, does that mean Harry Potter is a genuinely historical personality?Tim: -- and would do so even if we did not have the gospel accounts to corroborate it.Please explain.Tim: Of course, that will not stop the mythers.So far, I’ve seen nothing from you, Tim, or from Harvey, or from the professional apologists I've read, which calls the mythicist theory into grave question. I know you want to believe Jesus was real, and as I said before, that’s fine and dandy with me. But what you believe is not necessarily an indication of actual history.Tim: But this is the point at which they really do have to go down the rabbit hole and wind up in conspiracy theory territory in order to maintain their position.I've never thought of this to be – nor have I asserted it as – a product of a concerted conspiracy. It may have been, but I think it was largely more innocent than what such characterizations implicate.I asked: How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus?Tim: One good way is by looking at all of places where he makes allusions that they could not have understood unless they already knew the outlines of the story of the life of Jesus.So, in other words, by inference from what Paul writes. That’s fine. Indeed, you’re essentially saying this is all we have to go on here. I agree – it is all we have to go on, and it’s not much at all. Were the congregants of the Corinthian church taught that Jesus was born of a virgin? How could we infer this from anything Paul writes? Were they taught that Jesus was crucified right outside Jerusalem? What in Paul’s letters suggests that they were taught this? Were they taught that Jesus traveled about Palestine performing miracles and healing the blind, lame and sick? What in Paul’s letters would substantiate the inference that they were?What’s interesting is that you think there are things (“allusions”) in Paul’s letters that his immediately intended audience could not have fully understood if they did not know more about “the story of the life of Jesus.” That’s quite an admission, Tim. It makes me wonder why Paul didn’t include those details in his letters if in fact they were so important to his “allusions,” as you call them. You say below that he was not “writing memoirs of Jesus,” and yet you admit here that there were points in Paul’s letters that could not have been fully understood without knowledge of details which he fails to include in his own letters! Yikes, Tim! You’re all over the place.I wrote: Look at the opening statement of the passage again. I Cor 11:23 states: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;” Paul is telling us that he did not get his story of a supper from other human beings, such as the disciples which the gospels seat around Jesus in their version of the supper scene.Tim: This is completely unpersuasive.I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you supposing, contrary to what Paul himself writes in I Cor. 11:23, that he got his supper scene from Jesus’ disciples? That would make Paul a liar.Tim: It is also characteristic of the sort of exegetical bullying in which the mythers routinely engage.“...bullying...”? Tim: Paul is pointing out that the solemnity of the Lord's Supper, which the Corinthians were abusing, has warrant from Jesus himself and is not Paul's own invention. There is nothing more here, certainly no grist for the mythers' mill.The way I read it, Paul is explicitly claiming that he got his supper scene from “the Lord” – that is, from the risen Jesus – not from other human beings. It does not rule out the possibility that Paul invented it, or that he revised a tradition he borrowed from non-Christian religions to fit his own theology. I asked: Are we to just assume that they knew Paul’s Jesus to hail from Nazareth, for instance, ...Tim: Probably, since the coordination between the epistles and Acts leaves no doubt that both are substantially authentic records, and Paul refers to Nazareth in Acts 26:9.For one thing, Acts was not written by Paul. It is, at the very best, a secondhand source insofar as Paul’s views are concerned, and at several points it contradicts what Paul himself writes in his letters. (See for instance Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp. 145-165.) So bringing Acts into the mix will only amplify the problems here. Acts is clearly a late document, one that a later writer wrote in an obvious effort to show a harmony between the Pauline camp and the Jerusalem elders which, according to Paul’s own letters, did not exist. Its stories of mass conversions of Jerusalem Jews upon hearing speeches attributed to Peter which quote from the Septuagint’s mistranslations of Hebrew texts is enough to call it into question. Acts’ story of Jesus’ ascension does not even agree with the finale in the gospel of Luke: the gospel of Luke has its Jesus ascend on the day of his resurrection, while Acts has Jesus linger around for some 40 days before ascending up in a cloud. But if “coordination between [Paul’s] epistles and Acts” is the strongest you have to go on, you must have a lot of faith to compensate for the damning shortcomings here.I asked: ... or that his Jesus was born of a virgin?Tim: That is uncertain.Ah, is that because Acts – the only thing that could bail you out on the last point – is of no help here, and you’ve run out of reserves?Tim: However, Paul refers to him as having been born of a woman (Galatians 4:4) Indeed, which means: had Paul believed that his Jesus had a virgin birth, he had ample opportunity to affirm it in his letters. Indeed, while you maintain that Paul was “not writing memoirs of Jesus,” he still included scant details here and there that pertained to his incarnated life, whenever and wherever that may have taken place. See? Paul didn’t need to be “writing memoirs” to include the kinds of details I listed in my challenge to you.Tim: and made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), which again forces the mythers to play exegetical Twister to evade the obvious fact that Paul considers him to have been an historic personage.Paul does affirm Jesus as having come from “the seed of David according to the flesh,” but what’s remarkable here is that Paul himself indicates that he gets this view from the “prophets in the holy scriptures,” not from any contemporary tradition or narrative about Jesus’ life. There’s no game of “exegetical Twister” being played here – it’s quite plainly stated in the very book and chapter you cite. And as I understand the mythicist case, its proponents do not deny the view that Paul considered Jesus “to have been an historic personage,” rather they see Paul placing his Jesus in a non-earthly realm, contrary to the gospels.I wrote: Nothing in either I Cor. or the gospels necessitates that we suppose Paul was quoting from Mark ...Tim: And I never said he was.That’s a good start! ;)Tim: In fact, this was the very point I was waiting for Bart to clarify, when I pointed out to him that on one possible reading his "challenge" was unreasonable.“...on one possibly reading his ‘challenge’ was unreasonable”? That doesn’t say very much. It allows for the possibility that on other readings his challenge is not unreasonable.Tim wrote: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.I asked: Does Paul say this? Or, are you simply reading Paul with gospel-colored glasses – thus begging the question? Show us where Paul – in his letters – puts a date or place to Jesus’ crucifixion and to his own conversion.Tim: He doesn't,Right, he doesn’t.Tim: butI knew this was coming... Tim: that is (a) irrelevant, since he is not writing memoirs of Jesus but rather epistles occasioned by doctrinal and behavioral problems in the various churches,Paul did not need to be “writing memoirs of Jesus” to mention his crucifixion, did he? By your own acknowledgement, obviously not. As you say below, “Paul repeatedly refers to the crucifixion,” but nowhere once even hints at where it took place, when it took place, or any of the circumstances that we find in the gospel narratives. You want to dismiss this by saying Paul was “not writing memoirs of Jesus,” but one does not need to be writing memoirs to include such details. Tim: and (b) unnecessary, as the coordination between the epistles, Acts, and Luke suffices to fix the dates within a few yearsWhere do Paul’s epistles do this? Where? You yourself have gone on record saying that Paul was not “writing memoirs.” Tim: and that is all the precision necessary to support my statement.What “precision” do you have in mind here? Can you fix a single date to any event described anywhere in the New Testament with any certainty at all? Tim: This is not controversial.Whether or not it’s controversial is hardly the point. If I were a Christian and I realized the breadth of Paul’s silences vis-à-vis the gospel narratives, I’d be pretty concerned about this. But then again, I’m not a Christian. To me, it’s a fascinating curiosity how Christians are so eager to ignore the problem. But even you cannot explain it away.I wrote: Clearly many of these details were thought by the gospel writers to be significant, for they appear in more than one gospel. But can you find any of these details in any of Paul’s letters?Tim: Paul repeatedly refers to the crucifixion, of course.No one is contesting this, Tim. What is curious is that, unlike the gospels, Paul nowhere puts a setting to his Jesus’ crucifixion. He nowhere states where or when it happened. If we read Paul alone (as his initially intended audiences probably did), one could easily suppose that Paul’s Jesus lived centuries earlier in a completely different region of the earth – if in fact Paul thought he lived on earth.Tim: He also refers to the burial and the resurrection -- two items you cleverly left off of your list.I gather that you didn’t understand my list very well. My list itemizes elements found in the gospels which are *absent* in Paul’s letters. I grant that Paul mentions the resurrection and a burial. So there would be no reason for to have included them on my list.Tim: As for the empty tomb, this is clearly implied (though not expressly stated) in 1 Cor 15.How is an empty tomb “clearly imply” in I Cor. 15? Please, if nothing else, explain this one. If one were reading I Cor. 15 and had no knowledge of what the gospels say, how does one get any suggestion that a tomb was left empty from what Paul writes there? One does not need to be entombed in order to be buried. I suspect you’re reading details into Paul’s letters that are simply not there. This kind of carelessness is typical among the converted.Tim: And he repeatedly uses language that parallel's Jesus' own sayings; some of that is documented in Harvey's list, above.And I responded to this. If you read what I had stated, you would have seen my following statement: Paul provided the raw material which later writers interpolated into their narratives. Parallel expressions between Paul’s letters and the statements which the gospels put into Jesus’ mouth in no way seals the case for gospel authenticity. Remember that when Paul was writing his letters, the gospels were not written yet. So Paul could not have been quoting from them. Since the gospels were written well after the time of Paul, his letters may have been available for later writers to draw from. Statements in Paul’s letters thus inspired certain teachings we find in the gospels, which would explain the similarities. What’s telling, however, is that when Paul gives those teachings – as I showed above – he did not attribute them to an incarnated Jesus. So there are several factors here which come together quite nicely to buttress my position, none of which you’ve been able to explain. Tim: Why should we expect anything more from an author of occasional letters to different people prompted by concrete situations? Do we find this, or require it, in the letters of Pliny?I’m not an expert on Pliny, nor do I really care what Pliny’s habits were. Christians certainly do not hold Pliny to be divinely inspired. But they do hold Paul to be divinely inspired. Paul claimed this for himself. If that’s the case, why does his Jesus differ so markedly from the Jesus we find in the gospels? What did the competing traditions which Paul rejected teach about Jesus? We know from his letters (cf. II Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6) that rival views about Jesus were circulating at the time. If Paul taught the truth, how do we know that certain traditions which wound up in the gospel narratives weren’t among these traditions which Paul rejected? I marvel, Tim, that you are so willingly removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.Tim: Honestly, Dawson, you need to do some reading in secular history in order to get a better grip on the way that documents written independently and for different purposes coordinate with each other.I’m not sure what this statement is supposed to accomplish. It does nothing to overcome the gaping silences in Paul’s letters. And I see that you have not taken up my challenge. Should I consider this a closed matter, then, that you concede my point?Regards,Dawson
Harvey: FACT:First, we have an unbroken line from the eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, through Paul and the other apostles, into the early second century with Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the Didache (an early apostolic teaching document). Even Doherty agreeS that some of Pauls letters were written well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to Christ, including his testimony of the bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.Can you give us a quote from Doherty? What specifically does Doherty say, and where does he say it? Where does Doherty characterize the risen Jesus mentioned in I Cor. 15 as a “bodily resurrection”? Is this a “bodily resurrection” here on earth, according to Doherty? Please, quote and cite your sources. Harvey: FACT: The apostle Peter, himself an eyewitness, commended Pauls letters and includes them with other Scripture (the Old Testament) as Gods Word: "our Lords patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:15-16)II Peter is largely acknowledged to be both late and pseudonymous. That it was written by an unlearned Jewish fisherman is more than a stretch. Of the passage you quote, Wells writes:The writer... places himself on a level with Paul, whom he designates as his “beloved brother” (3:15) [“dear brother” in the version which Harvey quotes]. This indicates a time when Peter and Paul were regarded, from a later date, as the chief apostles of the church – as in Acts or the letters of Ignatius – a time when the church had become aware of its distance from the first Christian generation and had no idea of how sharp the conflicts between the leading personalities of that generation had been. That the author of 2 Peter was in fact no contemporary of Paul is revealed from his knowledge of a collection of Pauline epistles which he designates as “scriptures” (3:15-16), a word writers of the first century had reserved for the Old Testament and its Apocrypha, and which they never used for the books of the New Testament. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 86)Harvey: FACT: In his Acts of the Apostles, the evangelist Luke affirmed that the teachings of Paul agree with the teachings of the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of Christs ministry, miracles, and resurrection.And this conflicts with what Paul himself writes in his letters, where he documents deep-ranging conflicts with the Jerusalem leadership (particularly with Peter). Acts is a late document attempting to portray the earliest generation of Christians in a kind of “golden age” retrospective. It doesn’t work. Harvey: FACT: Paul himself acknowledged in his letter to the Romans that there were Christians whose conversions predated his. He pointed out that they agreed that the Gospel he preached is the same Gospel they believed from the same Christ they saw resurrected. There is a continuity of teaching and testimony from the eyewitnesses through Paul and the other apostles.Who saw Christ resurrected? Even the gospels do not put an eyewitness to Jesus being resurrected. According to the gospel narratives, Jesus was resurrected in a sealed tomb.As for eyewitnesses, who were those eyewitnesses, what specifically did they see, where did they see it, and when did they see it? If you’re going to claim eyewitness testimony of the risen Jesus, we need to look at these details. If you’re going by what Paul wrote (such as in I Cor. 15), you won’t find any details; he mentions these things in passing, and most of his claimed eyewitnesses are left anonymous (cf. the 500 unnamed brethren). Harvey: FACT: Papias, Polycarp, and the other earliest church fathers claimed either to have known the apostles themselves or to have known those who knew the apostlesOkay, so what? People can claim a lot of things. Oral Roberts claimed to have seen a 900-foot-tall Jesus. Should we believe everything people claim?Harvey: FACT: To discount the testimony of the earliest fathers, who affirmed the apostles, who affirmed Paul, who themselves are affirmed by the liberal critics, is to discount the very critics to whom Doherty appeals!Can you cite some specific instances of this?You mentioned that we “buy hook line and sinker” all of “stupid Doherty and his argument,” but you’ve not established either that either Doherty or his argument is stupid, or that we “buy” his argument “hook line and sinker.” One can be skeptical of Doherty’s grand conclusion and yet recognize that he uncovers many damning facts in the process. As for buying a position hook, line and sinker, that seems to be what Christians themselves do, and what they want us to do. So, you’re a fine one to charge others with hypocrisy. Harvey: QUESTION: Should we believe the eyewitnesses who affirmed Paul, HIS MESSAGE AND WHO HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT AND who was affirmed by the other apostles, who were affirmed by their immediate successors, whose words are preserved in our earliest church writings;What eyewitnesses do you have in mind here? Who were they, what are their writings, how do you document that the writings you cite are actually from the hands of contemporaries of Paul, and what specifically were they claiming?Harvey: or should we believe "DOODLE DUMB WRITE A STUPID BOOK SO HE CAN GET RICH" Doherty, the NUT who undercuts HIS OWN ARGUMENT?Doherty is just one man. It is amazing how much venom believers generate against him. He has only two books. Look at how many Christians are pumping out books by the dozens. Are they doing it just so they can get rich? This is amazing!Anyway, Harvey, you’ve provided enough entertainment for now. I really find very little substance to vouch for your wild castigations.Regards,Dawson
John,No apologies necessary. You were not incorrect in what you wrote regarding my argument; I just wanted to clarify so there would be no misunderstanding. There was indeed no controversy in Paul's congregations over the divinity of Jesus. My contention is that this is in itself a kind of positive evidence that Paul was not envisioning a human Jesus. The best explanation in my estimation for the lack of a controversy over the Jewish conception of God is that Paul's Jesus, knowledge of whom came solely through visions and interpretation of OT scripture, was of the nature of the descending Sophia (Wisdom) of God, or the Logos stand in for God, not someone who had lived on earth.The gospel Jesus is so radically different from the Pauline Jesus that it could be concluded that there was no direct relation between the two. If the epistles and the gospels had not been joined inside one leather bound cover and called the New Testament, is there any reason why we would conclude that they represented the thought of the same movement?I would be interested in getting comments on a related issue. The gospel of John marries the pre-existent divine Logos under the name of Jesus with the exploits of a Gallilean preacher named Jesus, though with docetic or gnostic undertones. This combination doesn't occur in the Pauline epistles, and I can't think of any other place in the NT which unequivocally makes this connection. Can anyone offer an unequivocal statement from the first century, canonical or non-canonical which marries the human and the divine Jesus as does the Johannine literature?Bart Willruth
Harvey & Dawson,Harvey: or should we believe "DOODLE DUMB WRITE A STUPID BOOK SO HE CAN GET RICH" Doherty, the NUT who undercuts HIS OWN ARGUMENT?Doherty is just one man. It is amazing how much venom believers generate against him. He has only two books. Look at how many Christians are pumping out books by the dozens. Are they doing it just so they can get rich? This is amazing!This sort of character assassination seems hardly worth commenting on. Doherty could eat kittens for tea but it wouldn't change the factual content of his arguments, and since he cites his sources, it's easy to verify his claims.But this one is off the deep end. Doherty is so interested in getting rich that he maintains a website with much supporting material and now has released an e-book version of his book for free.This speaks to a lot of things in his character, but a desire to get RICH certainly isn't one of them.
Hi MMM,Why would anyone, such as Saul/Paul, who has been personally enlightened by the resurrected Y'shua be fascinated with an empty tomb??Agreed and I would add that since Paul is constantly speaking of the resurrected Christ, which is why the tomb is empty in the first place, is sufficient to account for the silence on the empty tomb.Also, Paul is not writing the epistles to talk about the life of Jesus, but to discuss doctrine issues with the church in different locations. I see that Paul is speaking of 2 different people, God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Not God incarnate but the literal son of God the father in the flesh. he understands that there are two different beings and that Christ is his son, which is that what begotten means? His linage being Mary as his mother and God the father as his father.
Dawson,You write:[Dawson:] You’re overstating things here quite a bit, Tim. I do not “concede” that Jesus had a life to begin with.Okay. [Dawson:] There's simply too many problems that Christians cannot successfully untangle. I haven’t seen any yet that would cause an educated Christian – or an educated non-Christian – to break a sweat.[Dawson:] My position on the supper scene as it is described in Paul’s letter is wholly compatible with the *possibility* that Paul’s Jesus was in fact mythical, or at the very least that the supper scene he describes is legendary. It’s also compatible with the *possibility* that Tinky-Winky invented time travel to go back and plant the story in 1st century documents. Bare possibilities are non-starters in this sort of discussion. [Dawson:] It could easily be a motif that Paul borrowed from mystery religions of the day which featured sacred meals representing communion with a savior-deity. There were plenty around, and Paul was very probably greatly influenced by a wide range of different traditions.This is nonsense on stilts. There are so many problems with the suggestion that Paul borrowed that scene from the mystery religions that it is a complete non-starter. [Dawson:] If a Harry Potter book describes Harry Potter eating a meal with his friends, does that mean Harry Potter is a genuinely historical personality?Of course not. But the fact that you think this is pertinent to the actual recounting of the story of the institution of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians shows that you do not have the faintest idea what it takes to do history.Tim: -- and would do so even if we did not have the gospel accounts to corroborate it.[Dawson:] Please explain.Mythical people do not have real suppers. Paul is obviously recounting a real event that served to institute a ritual being practiced in Corinth in the 50s.[Dawson:] So far, I’ve seen nothing from you, Tim, or from Harvey, or from the professional apologists I've read, which calls the mythicist theory into grave question.From what I’ve seen, Dawson, you do not have the equipment that would be necessary to tell whether the mythicist theory is viable.[Dawson:] I know you want to believe Jesus was real, and as I said before, that’s fine and dandy with me. But what you believe is not necessarily an indication of actual history. What I want has nothing to do with it: it’s a matter of the overwhelming evidence in its favor.[Dawson:] I asked: How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus?Tim: One good way is by looking at all of places where he makes allusions that they could not have understood unless they already knew the outlines of the story of the life of Jesus.[Dawson:] So, in other words, by inference from what Paul writes. That’s fine. A rare moment where we agree – broken immediately by this non sequitur:[Dawson:] Indeed, you’re essentially saying this is all we have to go on here. Not at all; there are many more lines of evidence. We have the gospels, which encapsulate the story as it was likely told at the time; we have the book of Acts, which gives us more information that ties together the sources behind some of the gospels with the founding of the church; we have the history of the heretics, who by their very deviations from the traditional position help to show us what that position was. [Dawson:] I agree – it is all we have to go on, and it’s not much at all. Were the congregants of the Corinthian church taught that Jesus was born of a virgin? How could we infer this from anything Paul writes? As I said, this is uncertain, though on the whole I think it is likely that at some point before A.D. 70 the virgin birth was known at least among the Jewish Christians. But what of it? [Dawson:] Were they taught that Jesus was crucified right outside Jerusalem? They wouldn’t have needed to be: this was the event at the founding of Christianity. It was common knowledge.[Dawson:] What in Paul’s letters suggests that they were taught this?Misdirection: there is no need for Paul to discuss it.[Dawson:] Were they taught that Jesus traveled about Palestine performing miracles and healing the blind, lame and sick? Very likely, as these are themes in early sermons from Pentecost onwards.[Dawson:] What in Paul’s letters would substantiate the inference that they were?Allusions.[Dawson:] What’s interesting is that you think there are things (“allusions”) in Paul’s letters that his immediately intended audience could not have fully understood if they did not know more about “the story of the life of Jesus.” Yup.[Dawson:] That’s quite an admission, Tim. Not really: it’s a commonplace among those who have studied the epistles.[Dawson:] It makes me wonder why Paul didn’t include those details in his letters if in fact they were so important to his “allusions,” as you call them. If Paul was trying to communicate with his audiences, he would not allude to things that he did not expect them to understand. He did allude to them; he was trying to communicate; therefore he expected them to understand them.[Dawson:] You say below that he was not “writing memoirs of Jesus,” and yet you admit here that there were points in Paul’s letters that could not have been fully understood without knowledge of details which he fails to include in his own letters!Right. You think there is a problem with this? [Dawson:] Yikes, Tim! You’re all over the place.Actually, the problem here is entirely inside your own head, Dawson. People do write letters to other people and, in the course of those letters, mention events that are common knowledge without also writing out histories. [Dawson:] I wrote: Look at the opening statement of the passage again. I Cor 11:23 states: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;” Paul is telling us that he did not get his story of a supper from other human beings, such as the disciples which the gospels seat around Jesus in their version of the supper scene.Tim: This is completely unpersuasive.[Dawson:] I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you supposing, contrary to what Paul himself writes in I Cor. 11:23, that he got his supper scene from Jesus’ disciples? That would make Paul a liar.No. I am supposing, contrary to what you wrote, that Paul is not saying that the entire supper scene in its details was directly revealed to him by Jesus, since this reading of εγω γαρ παρελαβον απο του κυριου, though possible, does not seem to me to be the most plausible way to understand the expression in this context. But I would not insist on this point; nothing important rides on it in any event.[Dawson:] I asked: Are we to just assume that they knew Paul’s Jesus to hail from Nazareth, for instance, ...Tim: Probably, since the coordination between the epistles and Acts leaves no doubt that both are substantially authentic records, and Paul refers to Nazareth in Acts 26:9.[Dawson:] For one thing, Acts was not written by Paul. No kidding.[Dawson:] It is, at the very best, a secondhand source insofar as Paul’s views are concerned, ...You say that like it’s a bad thing.[Dawson:] ... and at several points it contradicts what Paul himself writes in his letters. (See for instance Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp. 145-165.)I don’t think this would matter much as far as its general reliability, but having read Wells’s books quite closely years ago I am inclined to think that Wells is probably wrong about most of his claims of conflict between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the NT. However, I do not have access to that one right now. [Dawson:] So bringing Acts into the mix will only amplify the problems here. So you claim. [Dawson:] Acts is clearly a late document, Sorry, I think this claim is insupportable. [Dawson:] ... one that a later writer wrote in an obvious effort to show a harmony between the Pauline camp and the Jerusalem elders which, according to Paul’s own letters, did not exist.I’ve heard that one too; not impressed with the arguments that this was the purpose of Acts.[Dawson:] Its stories of mass conversions of Jerusalem Jews upon hearing speeches attributed to Peter which quote from the Septuagint’s mistranslations of Hebrew texts is enough to call it into question. This is nonsense. The Septuagint was the translation accepted by Hellenized Jews at the time. It was only later, and partly as a result of the rise of Christianity, that the Jews switched focus to the Masoretic text.[Dawson:] Acts’ story of Jesus’ ascension does not even agree with the finale in the gospel of Luke: the gospel of Luke has its Jesus ascend on the day of his resurrection, No, it doesn’t; it is simply very vague on the time frame. [Dawson:]... while Acts has Jesus linger around for some 40 days before ascending up in a cloud.Finally something you got right.[Dawson:] But if “coordination between [Paul’s] epistles and Acts” is the strongest you have to go on, you must have a lot of faith to compensate for the damning shortcomings here.Produce some actual shortcomings, as opposed to recycling unpersuasive drivel, and we can talk about them. Meanwhile, how are you coming on Resch’s list of over 1,000 parallels?[Dawson:] I asked: ... or that his Jesus was born of a virgin?Tim: That is uncertain.[Dawson:] Ah, is that because Acts – the only thing that could bail you out on the last point – is of no help here, and you’ve run out of reserves?You say that like it’s a bad thing. But actually we have more evidence, as I have explained above. However, it is indirect, and I see no point in being more certain about the matter under the circumstances.Tim: However, Paul refers to him as having been born of a woman (Galatians 4:4) [Dawson:] Indeed, which means: had Paul believed that his Jesus had a virgin birth, he had ample opportunity to affirm it in his letters. 1. There is no overwhelming reason for him to do so.2. The point still tells against your mythic theory.[Dawson:] Indeed, while you maintain that Paul was “not writing memoirs of Jesus,” he still included scant details here and there that pertained to his incarnated life, whenever and wherever that may have taken place. See? Paul didn’t need to be “writing memoirs” to include the kinds of details I listed in my challenge to you.But you have not made a case that the details you list would be expected if Paul were really writing letters to people about Jesus of Nazareth. Tim: and made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), which again forces the mythers to play exegetical Twister to evade the obvious fact that Paul considers him to have been an historic personage.[Dawson:] Paul does affirm Jesus as having come from “the seed of David according to the flesh,” but what’s remarkable here is that Paul himself indicates that he gets this view from the “prophets in the holy scriptures,” not from any contemporary tradition or narrative about Jesus’ life. There’s no game of “exegetical Twister” being played here – it’s quite plainly stated in the very book and chapter you cite. Nonsense. Paul is pointing out that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy. He nowhere states that he has learned that Jesus was in fact the seed of David from prophecy. [Dawson:] And as I understand the mythicist case, its proponents do not deny the view that Paul considered Jesus “to have been an historic personage,” rather they see Paul placing his Jesus in a non-earthly realm, contrary to the gospels.Not a dime’s worth of difference here.Tim wrote: Paul was converted within just a few years of Jesus' crucifixion.[Dawson:] I asked: Does Paul say this? Or, are you simply reading Paul with gospel-colored glasses – thus begging the question? Show us where Paul – in his letters – puts a date or place to Jesus’ crucifixion and to his own conversion.Tim: He doesn't,[Dawson:] Right, he doesn’t.Tim: but[Dawson:] I knew this was coming... Clever lad.Tim: that is (a) irrelevant, since he is not writing memoirs of Jesus but rather epistles occasioned by doctrinal and behavioral problems in the various churches,[Dawson:] Paul did not need to be “writing memoirs of Jesus” to mention his crucifixion, did he? By your own acknowledgement, obviously not. You’re missing, or underestimating, the significance of the asymmetry between positive and negative evidence. When an author mentions something, particularly something surprising or unexpected, we can reasonably ask for and sometimes obtain an explanation of his mentioning it. When he fails to mention something, on the other hand, there are generally many reasons that might have been operating, and we are only rarely in a strong position to infer anything of interest from the omission. Numerous examples from secular history confirm this methodological point.[Dawson:] As you say below, “Paul repeatedly refers to the crucifixion,” but nowhere once even hints at where it took place, when it took place, or any of the circumstances that we find in the gospel narratives.Which is perfectly consistent with his not having to, since everyone to whom he was writing already knew it. I realize that you’re desperate to avoid this conclusion, but your citing the fact gives you absolutely no argumentative traction since it is at least as strongly to be expected on the mainstream understanding as on anything you’ve proposed.[Dawson:] You want to dismiss this by saying Paul was “not writing memoirs of Jesus,” but one does not need to be writing memoirs to include such details.And one does not need to be writing fantasy to omit them.Tim: and (b) unnecessary, as the coordination between the epistles, Acts, and Luke suffices to fix the dates within a few years[Dawson:] Where do Paul’s epistles do this? Where? You yourself have gone on record saying that Paul was not “writing memoirs.” There are numerous undesigned coincidences throughout the epistles. If you want to see what they are, read William Paley’s Horae Paulinae and follow it up with Colin Hemer’s Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.Tim: and that is all the precision necessary to support my statement.[Dawson:] What “precision” do you have in mind here?I did just say “to within a few years.”[Dawson:] Can you fix a single date to any event described anywhere in the New Testament with any certainty at all? Yes, several. But if you’re insinuating that in general our inability to give a precise year for something means that its historicity is in serious doubt, then once again you are revealing your unfamiliarity with the events and evidence of secular history.Tim: This is not controversial.[Dawson:] Whether or not it’s controversial is hardly the point. If I were a Christian and I realized the breadth of Paul’s silences vis-à-vis the gospel narratives, I’d be pretty concerned about this. I believe you. But you would be irrational to be concerned about it.[Dawson:] But then again, I’m not a Christian. To me, it’s a fascinating curiosity how Christians are so eager to ignore the problem. But even you cannot explain it away.It is amusing to see you keep painting this as a Christians-vs.-mythers dispute. Virtually all historians, including non-Christian historians, think the mythic theory is risible and the “evidence” of the sort you’re presenting is evidence only of how ignorant the mythers are of the nature of historical reasoning.[Dawson:] I wrote: Clearly many of these details were thought by the gospel writers to be significant, for they appear in more than one gospel. But can you find any of these details in any of Paul’s letters?Tim: Paul repeatedly refers to the crucifixion, of course.[Dawson:] No one is contesting this, Tim. What is curious is that, unlike the gospels, Paul nowhere puts a setting to his Jesus’ crucifixion. He nowhere states where or when it happened. If he had done so in a letter, we would have to conclude that he was writing to someone who was virtually completely ignorant of the matter or who was denying it in the face of what he should have known. But why assume that Paul’s audience didn’t know what he was talking about?[Dawson:] If we read Paul alone (as his initially intended audiences probably did), one could easily suppose that Paul’s Jesus lived centuries earlier in a completely different region of the earth – if in fact Paul thought he lived on earth.Well, obviously a myther can suppose this. No one else seems able to.Tim: He also refers to the burial and the resurrection -- two items you cleverly left off of your list.[Dawson:] I gather that you didn’t understand my list very well. My list itemizes elements found in the gospels which are *absent* in Paul’s letters. I grant that Paul mentions the resurrection and a burial. So there would be no reason for to have included them on my list.But then your list is worthless, since for anyone’s letters about any public figure of any significance it is always possible to make a list of things the author didn’t mention. So what?Tim: As for the empty tomb, this is clearly implied (though not expressly stated) in 1 Cor 15.[Dawson:] How is an empty tomb “clearly imply” in I Cor. 15? Please, if nothing else, explain this one. If one were reading I Cor. 15 and had no knowledge of what the gospels say, how does one get any suggestion that a tomb was left empty from what Paul writes there? One does not need to be entombed in order to be buried. I suspect you’re reading details into Paul’s letters that are simply not there. If you are simply carping over the distinction between “tomb” and “grave,” I don’t see that the semantic point is worth bothering about. He was buried – he rose. It follows that the place where he was buried no longer contained a body.[Dawson:] This kind of carelessness is typical among the converted.Yawn ...Tim: And he repeatedly uses language that parallel's Jesus' own sayings; some of that is documented in Harvey's list, above.[Dawson:] And I responded to this. If you read what I had stated, you would have seen my following statement: Paul provided the raw material which later writers interpolated into their narratives. I think you need to make up your mind whether there are so few parallels between Paul’s epistles and the gospels that they aren’t even referring to the same person or whether there are so many that the gospels were built up around the letters. It doesn’t make much sense to try to have it both ways.[Dawson:] Parallel expressions between Paul’s letters and the statements which the gospels put into Jesus’ mouth in no way seals the case for gospel authenticity. Sure helps, though.[Dawson:] Remember that when Paul was writing his letters, the gospels were not written yet. So Paul could not have been quoting from them. Plausibly so, though there is some evidence to suggest that the Aramaic version of Matthew was already published. Some of the places where Paul's language corresponds more closely to Luke's gospel than to Matthew's or Mark's also suggests that Paul may have seen portions of what Luke was writing. But I would not insist on this.[Dawson:] Since the gospels were written well after the time of Paul, his letters may have been available for later writers to draw from. Statements in Paul’s letters thus ...Whoa. Some of us have higher standards for the use of “thus” than you are meeting here.[Dawson:]... inspired certain teachings we find in the gospels, which would explain the similarities.This suggestion is really far out, and it reinforces my earlier comparison between mythers and conspiracy theorists. Why should anyone think this?[Dawson:] What’s telling, however, is that when Paul gives those teachings – as I showed above – he did not attribute them to an incarnated Jesus. This is ambiguous. If all you mean is that Paul doesn’t stop and say, “Oh, and by the way, this Jesus – he was corporeal,” then sure. If he had said something like that, we’d really have something weird to think about. Why would anyone stop and say that? Can you find any newspaper stories from the 1980s that stop in mid-column to remind readers that Ronald Reagan was corporeal?[Dawson:] So there are several factors here which come together quite nicely to buttress my position, none of which you’ve been able to explain.Nothing you’ve raised so far strikes me as significant enough to cause an atheist non-myther historian even to raise an eyebrow.Tim: Why should we expect anything more from an author of occasional letters to different people prompted by concrete situations? Do we find this, or require it, in the letters of Pliny?[Dawson:] I’m not an expert on Pliny, nor do I really care what Pliny’s habits were. You should. The letters of Pliny provide an unproblematic test case for theories about the way that unquestioned historical events are handled in correspondence. Many of the arguments you are trying to make in this discussion depend on principles that will not stand up to a comparison with the evidence.[Dawson:] Christians certainly do not hold Pliny to be divinely inspired. But they do hold Paul to be divinely inspired.This is a double red herring: first because the theological category of inspiration is not the issue here, and second because not all Christians claim that Paul was divinely inspired. Maybe it’s a triple red herring, since if he were inspired, it isn’t clear what would follow from this that would be pertinent to our discussion.[Dawson:] Paul claimed this for himself. He claims to have had a few revelations. This would not be sufficient to underwrite the inspiration of all of his writings even on a very conservative evangelical theory of inspiration.[Dawson:] If that’s the case, ...Which I am uninterested in discussing.[Dawson:] ... why does his Jesus differ so markedly from the Jesus we find in the gospels?As I’ve pointed out, you’re simply wrong about this. Repeating your claim won’t make it so, and it won’t persuade anyone who is unmoved by your previous arguments.[Dawson:] What did the competing traditions which Paul rejected teach about Jesus? We know from his letters (cf. II Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6) that rival views about Jesus were circulating at the time. If Paul taught the truth, how do we know that certain traditions which wound up in the gospel narratives weren’t among these traditions which Paul rejected? In that case, it would be pretty funny for those same gospel forgers to work so hard to incorporate material that dovetails so well with the material in Paul’s epistles. Make up your mind, Dawson: are the gospels too Pauline or not Pauline enough? Tim: Honestly, Dawson, you need to do some reading in secular history in order to get a better grip on the way that documents written independently and for different purposes coordinate with each other.[Dawson:] I’m not sure what this statement is supposed to accomplish. It points out that you’re unaware of, or unwilling to face up to the implications of, the normal nature of epistolary communication in that age. [Dawson:] It does nothing to overcome the gaping silences in Paul’s letters.The fact that you think that there are gaping silences in these letters is the best evidence that you need to go read some secular history. It will prevent you from making a fool of yourself in this fashion.
I wrote (regarding the historicity of Jesus): There's simply too many problems that Christians cannot successfully untangle. Tim: I haven’t seen any yet that would cause an educated Christian – or an educated non-Christian – to break a sweat.This is a personal admission, Tim. Try opening your eyes and broadening your horizons. What do you take as proof that the Jesus of the New Testament actually existed? I wrote: My position on the supper scene as it is described in Paul’s letter is wholly compatible with the *possibility* that Paul’s Jesus was in fact mythical, or at the very least that the supper scene he describes is legendary. Tim responded: It’s also compatible with the *possibility* that Tinky-Winky invented time travel to go back and plant the story in 1st century documents. Bare possibilities are non-starters in this sort of discussion.Not in my book. There is plenty of evidence throughout human history for invention of myth, legend and fiction. There is no evidence that Tinky-Winky built a time machine. I wrote: It could easily be a motif that Paul borrowed from mystery religions of the day which featured sacred meals representing communion with a savior-deity. There were plenty around, and Paul was very probably greatly influenced by a wide range of different traditions.Tim responded: This is nonsense on stilts. There are so many problems with the suggestion that Paul borrowed that scene from the mystery religions that it is a complete non-starter.Care to name a few of those problems for us, Tim? How is it so outlandish to suppose that Paul could have taken ideas from other religious traditions? People do this all the time. There’s much evidence to suggest that the early Christians were influenced by other religious ideas. Rash dismissals will not make that evidence go away.I wrote: If a Harry Potter book describes Harry Potter eating a meal with his friends, does that mean Harry Potter is a genuinely historical personality?Tim responded: Of course not. But the fact that you think this is pertinent to the actual recounting of the story of the institution of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians shows that you do not have the faintest idea what it takes to do history.Then go back to your own statement on this point. Recall what you had stated:Note also that this event, with details both great and small, makes nonsense out of the idea that Jesus was a mythic personYou seem to have been saying that the mere presence of “details both great and small” somehow substantiates the claim that the supper scene we find in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was a real event. As for having “the faintest idea what it takes to do history,” an important step in securing a historical claim is to distinguish it from a fictional account. I’m asking you to do this in the case of the supper scene we find in Paul’s letter. If you are so adept at “doing history” yourself, this should be easy for you to do. Paul doesn’t even give a time or place for his supper scene. He does indicate that it took place at night, but this would be expected if the scene was intended to have allegorical value. But Paul doesn’t give any indication of a setting beyond this. So if it was a real event, where and when did it take place? Later Christians would try to give it a setting by incorporating it into their gospel narratives. But once we get to the gospels, there is so much evidence of invention and legend-building that they are pretty much worthless as history.Tim: -- and would do so even if we did not have the gospel accounts to corroborate it.[Dawson:] Please explain.Tim responded: Mythical people do not have real suppers. Paul is obviously recounting a real event that served to institute a ritual being practiced in Corinth in the 50s.You assume precisely that which you’ve been called to substantiate. It’s true that mythical persons do not have real suppers. But how do you show that the supper scene that Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian church actually took place? Was Paul there? Remember that Paul says he got his gospel directly from the Lord. He writes in Gal. 1:11-12:But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.And as I pointed out, Paul repeats this very point when he introduces the supper scene in I Cor. 11. So if Paul wasn’t there (he doesn’t even claim that he was), and he didn’t get this tradition from other Christians (such as the disciples that the gospels seat around Jesus in their versions of the supper scene), it could have been a vision for Paul, one which was actually influenced by other religious traditions which were common at the time. It would have been very easy for Paul to attribute such a vision to a revelation from his Jesus. How would Paul be able to distinguish between what he called a revelation of Jesus and what he might have merely been imagining, for instance? I’ve seen many believers do this in church. They swear that Jesus is standing right there next to them as they pray and tarry. How do I know they’re not imagining? I wrote: So far, I’ve seen nothing from you, Tim, or from Harvey, or from the professional apologists I've read, which calls the mythicist theory into grave question.Tim responded: From what I’ve seen, Dawson, you do not have the equipment that would be necessary to tell whether the mythicist theory is viable.Empty statements like this are plentiful in your comments, Tim. What kind of “equipment” would I have to possess and demonstrate to you in order to show that I have what is required “to tell whether the mythicist theory is viable”? And how do you know what kind of “equipment” I have? You’ve not been able to answer any of the points I’ve presented so far. You do realize that, don’t you?I wrote: I know you want to believe Jesus was real, and as I said before, that’s fine and dandy with me. But what you believe is not necessarily an indication of actual history. Tim responded: What I want has nothing to do with it: it’s a matter of the overwhelming evidence in its favor.Okay, then let’s see what you consider to constitute overwhelming evidence. Don’t just assert that overwhelming evidence is out there. Identify it. Show some confidence in your position.I had asked Tim how we can know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters, such as the Corinthian church, knew about Jesus. He suggested that “one good way is by looking at all of the places where he makes allusions of the story of the life of Jesus,” which I take to mean that we can infer what the church congregations knew from clues from Paul’s own writing. Tim insists that there’s more than just mere inference of this nature, however. When I suggested that such inference is essentially all we have to go on, he retorts:Not at all; there are many more lines of evidence. We have the gospels, which encapsulate the story as it was likely told at the time; we have the book of Acts, which gives us more information that ties together the sources behind some of the gospels with the founding of the church; we have the history of the heretics, who by their very deviations from the traditional position help to show us what that position was.Over and over again, Tim demonstrates that he can’t keep up with the issues that have been brought forward. The gospels and the book of Acts were not around in Paul’s day. Paul nowhere cites them, nor does his portrait of Jesus at all resemble the Jesus described in the gospels. If Tim thinks there’s something in addition to inference from Paul’s letters to determine what his church congregations may have known about Jesus, he needs to find something contemporary with Paul to point to. Curiously, Tim mentions heretics. But how do we know what constituted heresy at the time in question? Paul repeatedly warned his churches of rival traditions of Jesus, of competing gospels that threatened to rob them of their salvation. Tim seems quite selective about which allusions in Paul’s letters he’s willing to take seriously. If we take his allusions about “another Jesus” and “another gospel” (cf. II Cor. 11:4) seriously, then we should be more careful about the issues in question than simply assuming that Paul’s churches had been nursed on narratives like the gospels and the book of Acts. The gospels say nothing about churches outside of Palestine, and the book of Acts is literary invention. So neither of these sources help Tim’s case.I wrote: I agree – it is all we have to go on, and it’s not much at all. Were the congregants of the Corinthian church taught that Jesus was born of a virgin? How could we infer this from anything Paul writes?Tim responded: As I said, this is uncertain, though on the whole I think it is likely that at some point before A.D. 70 the virgin birth was known at least among the Jewish Christians. But what of it?To say that it is “uncertain” whether or not the members of Paul’s church missions were taught that Jesus was born of a virgin, suggests that you might think they had been taught this, but simply cannot substantiate it with anything explicit. Is that the case? If so, what do you think suggests that Paul’s churches were taught that Jesus was born of a virgin? Also, why do you suppose that “it is likely that at some point before A.D. 70 the virgin birth was known at least among the Jewish Christians”? You ask “what of it?” If the detail about Jesus being born of a virgin were a later Christological development, it can safely be classed as an element of legend. And the gospel record supports this: the gospel of Mark makes no mention of Jesus’ birth, whether virginal or otherwise. If he believed Jesus was born of a virgin, it would be very hard to explain why he deliberately left this detail out of his gospel. The gospels of Matthew and Luke wanted to give their Jesus a miraculous beginning, so they gave him a virgin birth. Curiously their accounts differ greatly with each other at this point. The gospel of John completely ignores the virgin birth, and puts its Jesus’ beginning in the heavenly realm. You can trace the development of the portrait of Jesus through the texts of the New Testament: the legend of Jesus grows with each retelling. I wrote: Were they taught that Jesus was crucified right outside Jerusalem? Tim: They wouldn’t have needed to be: this was the event at the founding of Christianity. It was common knowledge.How do you substantiate this? What indicates to you that it was “common knowledge” that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem during the time of Paul’s missionary work? Again, you fail to grasp the nature of the challenge that has been proposed: you continue to look at Paul’s letters through gospel-colored glasses.I asked: What in Paul’s letters suggests that they were taught this?Tim: Misdirection: there is no need for Paul to discuss it.This card can be played both ways: there was no need for Paul to tell us in his letters that his Jesus was crucified in a supernatural realm – everyone was already taught this. That would explain why Paul never puts the crucifixion in the locale of Jerusalem’s environs.I asked: Were they taught that Jesus traveled about Palestine performing miracles and healing the blind, lame and sick? Tim responded: Very likely, as these are themes in early sermons from Pentecost onwards.Again, you’re appealing to traditions that post-date Paul by decades. This only tells me that your explanation of how we can determine what Paul’s churches knew of Jesus – namely inference from what Paul wrote in his letters – is insufficient to support your own position. That’s a big give-away, Tim.I asked: What in Paul’s letters would substantiate the inference that they were?Tim: Allusions.Please list some. What allusions in Paul’s letters substantiates that Paul’s churches were taught that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he was crucified outside Jerusalem? Come on, Tim, stop pretending.I wrote: What’s interesting is that you think there are things (“allusions”) in Paul’s letters that his immediately intended audience could not have fully understood if they did not know more about “the story of the life of Jesus.” Tim agreed: Yup.I wrote: That’s quite an admission, Tim. Tim responded: Not really: it’s a commonplace among those who have studied the epistles.Specifically what is “commonplace among those who have studied the epistles”? Admissions like the one you just tried to downplay? At one point you try to explain away Paul’s deafening silences by saying he wasn’t “writing memoirs,” while on the other hand you suggest that his letters are full of “allusions” (none of which you specify) that substantiate the assumption that his churches were taught things such as the virgin birth, a crucifixion outside Jerusalem, etc.I remarked: It makes me wonder why Paul didn’t include those details in his letters if in fact they were so important to his “allusions,” as you call them. Tim responded: If Paul was trying to communicate with his audiences, he would not allude to things that he did not expect them to understand. He did allude to them; he was trying to communicate; therefore he expected them to understand them.This doesn’t speak to the issue before us at hand. You say that “allusions” to Jesus’ life as the gospels portray it were necessary for Paul’s immediately intended readers to understand certain things he was trying to communicate, and yet you specify no examples of this. Why is that?I wrote: You say below that he was not “writing memoirs of Jesus,” and yet you admit here that there were points in Paul’s letters that could not have been fully understood without knowledge of details which he fails to include in his own letters!Tim: Right. You think there is a problem with this?So far, the problem is that you don’t come through with any examples to help buttress your point. I wrote: Yikes, Tim! You’re all over the place.Tim responded: Actually, the problem here is entirely inside your own head, Dawson. People do write letters to other people and, in the course of those letters, mention events that are common knowledge without also writing out histories.Exactly, Tim! Paul didn’t need to be “writing out histories” in order to include details like those which I included in my list. So the “he wasn’t writing memoirs” line is insufficient to explain these silences. Preachers and pastors do this all the time today: they will pepper their sermons with details pulled from the gospels when speaking to Christian audiences to make their points concrete and thus easier for the congregant to remember so that they can be applied in their daily lives in the world outside the church. Your pop flies aren’t even reaching the outfield, Tim. You’re out before you even make it halfway to base!I had written: Look at the opening statement of the passage again. I Cor 11:23 states: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;” Paul is telling us that he did not get his story of a supper from other human beings, such as the disciples which the gospels seat around Jesus in their version of the supper scene.Tim responded: This is completely unpersuasive.I then asked: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you supposing, contrary to what Paul himself writes in I Cor. 11:23, that he got his supper scene from Jesus’ disciples? That would make Paul a liar.Tim now writes: No. I am supposing, contrary to what you wrote, that Paul is not saying that the entire supper scene in its details was directly revealed to him by Jesus, since this reading of εγω γαρ παρελαβον απο του κυριου, though possible, does not seem to me to be the most plausible way to understand the expression in this context. But I would not insist on this point; nothing important rides on it in any event.What is the alternative reading that you find “most plausible” here, and why? You don’t even suggest what that alternative reading might be. You simply say that the plain reading of the text isn’t the most plausible way to understand it. Do you think that Paul got his supper scene from other human beings? If so, why? If not, then what’s the fuss with the way I’m understanding what Paul writes here?I had asked: Are we to just assume that they knew Paul’s Jesus to hail from Nazareth, for instance, ...Tim responded: Probably, since the coordination between the epistles and Acts leaves no doubt that both are substantially authentic records, and Paul refers to Nazareth in Acts 26:9.I then wrote: For one thing, Acts was not written by Paul. It is, at the very best, a secondhand source insofar as Paul’s views are concerned, ...Tim now writes: You say that like it’s a bad thing.“Bad”? It depends on your goal. If your goal is to point to Acts as documentation of the assumption that Paul believed Jesus to hail from Nazareth, I’d say it’s pretty bad. Obviously you cannot point to anything in Paul’s own letters to support such an assumption. Pointing to Acts, with all its problems, is admittedly the best you have for your position, which wouldn’t give me much comfort.I wrote: ... and at several points it contradicts what Paul himself writes in his letters. (See for instance Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, pp. 145-165.)Tim responded: I don’t think this would matter much as far as its general reliability, but having read Wells’s books quite closely years ago I am inclined to think that Wells is probably wrong about most of his claims of conflict between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the NT. However, I do not have access to that one right now.So contradictions between the record of Acts and Paul’s letters wouldn’t “matter much as far as [Acts’] general reliability”? Your faith serves very well as a pair of blinders, Tim. You say you’ve read Wells’ books “years ago,” which I have no reason to dispute. But you now say he “is probably wrong about most of his claims of conflict between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the NT.” Can you give us some specific examples of where Wells is wrong on this matter? Can it be that you would simply prefer to *believe* Wells is wrong here? By the way, Tim, Wells is not the only one to point out major discrepancies between Acts’ record and the Pauline epistles. Wells is very careful to cite numerous authorities not only to support his case, but to inform many of his points of contention.I wrote: So bringing Acts into the mix will only amplify the problems here. Acts is clearly a late document, Tim responded: Sorry, I think this claim is insupportable.Can you give some reasons why? It is generally agreed to have been written after Luke’s gospel, and Luke’s gospel is certainly no early document. Have you really studied these things, Tim? I wrote: ] ... one that a later writer wrote in an obvious effort to show a harmony between the Pauline camp and the Jerusalem elders which, according to Paul’s own letters, did not exist.Tim responded: I’ve heard that one too; not impressed with the arguments that this was the purpose of Acts.The purpose of Acts was to paint the story of the spread of Christianity after the point where Luke’s gospel ends. By this point in time, Paul’s theology had already become widespread – even Acts agrees with this. Paul’s own letters document several points of doctrinal contention with the Jerusalem church. Acts glosses over these disputes in order to paint a picture where all the early Christians were “with one accord,” happily professing and preaching the same thing everywhere they went. It is obvious literary invention.I wrote: Its stories of mass conversions of Jerusalem Jews upon hearing speeches attributed to Peter which quote from the Septuagint’s mistranslations of Hebrew texts is enough to call it into question. Tim protested: This is nonsense. The Septuagint was the translation accepted by Hellenized Jews at the time.This explains why Greek-speaking Christians would have used it as a source instead of the Hebrew scriptures. It does not undo the fact that the Septuagint contains mistranslations of the latter.Tim continued: It was only later, and partly as a result of the rise of Christianity, that the Jews switched focus to the Masoretic text.This is irrelevant, and fails to address my point about Acts’ Peter (and James, too) wowing thousands of Jerusalem Jews with mistranslations of their holy scriptures.I wrote: Acts’ story of Jesus’ ascension does not even agree with the finale in the gospel of Luke: the gospel of Luke has its Jesus ascend on the day of his resurrection, Tim responded: No, it doesn’t; it is simply very vague on the time frame.Luke nowhere indicates that even a single day had passed between his resurrection and his ascension. The entire context is that of one day’s events. It is not “simply very vague on the time frame,” such that it allows for the 40 day stretch that Acts inserts between these events. Inserting such an interval in Luke’s version would completely break the flow of the final movements and sayings of Jesus. I wrote: ... while Acts has Jesus linger around for some 40 days before ascending up in a cloud.Tim quips: Finally something you got right.So far, you’ve not shown me wrong on any point, Tim. At points when you charge me of being wrong, you offer no details. Rather, you just assert that I’m wrong, or that you’re unpersuaded, or that there’s some alternative reading, etc. But you give no specifics to support these charges. You offer empty dismissals.I wrote: But if “coordination between [Paul’s] epistles and Acts” is the strongest you have to go on, you must have a lot of faith to compensate for the damning shortcomings here.Tim: Produce some actual shortcomings, as opposed to recycling unpersuasive drivel, and we can talk about them.See above. But what good will my efforts be if you simply dismiss them as “unpersuasive drivel”? This kind of talk is what I would expect from an untutored novice who is afraid to deal with the issues because of their impact on his confessional investment. It’s not the kind of talk one expects from someone who is seriously determined to get to the truth on these matters.Tim asks: Meanwhile, how are you coming on Resch’s list of over 1,000 parallels?I’ve seen dozens of lists of purported parallels between the early epistolary record and the later narrative record. Whether Resch’s or someone else’s, I cannot recall specifically. But mere citation of parallels between these layers is irrelevant, and the fact that you seem to think parallels are significant only suggests to me that you haven’t really grasped the issue here. I don’t dispute the incidence of parallels between these layers. Parallels are to be expected if the later narratives drew on the earlier sources to inform literary invention. So you can cite 10,000 parallels if you like. But that will not undo the fact that we observe increasing level of details as the portraits of Jesus develop over time. For Paul, Jesus is an otherworldly figure who existed in some unspecified past. The gospels put him explicitly in first century Palestine, something Paul nowhere does.As I read through the rest of Tim’s comment, it’s more of the same: he continues to miss numerous points, begs the question by assuming what he has been challenged to substantiate, and retreats behind unsubstantiated dismissals. I can only suppose that he is not very serious about this kind of discussion, but rather is deeply anxious to protect something he’s afraid to have exposed. It seems that the more we look at this 800 pound gorilla, the more we find that we've underestimated its weight.Regards,Dawson
I wanted to make a few more points to show that Tim has apparently misunderstood much of what I have been arguing.Tim had written: And he repeatedly uses language that parallel's Jesus' own sayings; some of that is documented in Harvey's list, above.I responded: And I responded to this. If you read what I had stated, you would have seen my following statement: Paul provided the raw material which later writers interpolated into their narratives. Tim now writes: I think you need to make up your mind whether there are so few parallels between Paul’s epistles and the gospels that they aren’t even referring to the same person or whether there are so many that the gospels were built up around the letters. It doesn’t make much sense to try to have it both ways.Statements like this only confirm all the more that you have not understood my points, but this is not due to my lack of explanation. I’ve been very careful and patient with you, Tim. The parallels between the early epistolary layers, represented chiefly by Paul’s letters, and the later narratives like the gospels, are not in the details that I put in my list. Rather, they are in various teachings, mostly moral and theological teachings, which Paul tried desperately to expound, but which the later writers sought to concretize in their narratives of an earthly Jesus by putting them into his mouth in the context of events they invented for allegorical and didactic purposes. I give an example of this below.I wrote: Parallel expressions between Paul’s letters and the statements which the gospels put into Jesus’ mouth in no way seals the case for gospel authenticity. Tim responded: Sure helps, though.Not if the gospels were taking statements Paul makes on his own behalf and inserting them into their Jesus’ mouth.I wrote: Remember that when Paul was writing his letters, the gospels were not written yet. So Paul could not have been quoting from them.Tim responded: Plausibly so, though there is some evidence to suggest that the Aramaic version of Matthew was already published.What is that evidence? Is there any evidence that Paul had access to it when he was far away on his journeys? Do you think Paul was quoting teachings from Jesus as found in this Aramaic version of Matthew, and yet failed to attribute those teachings to Jesus? Tim continued: Some of the places where Paul's language corresponds more closely to Luke's gospel than to Matthew's or Mark's also suggests that Paul may have seen portions of what Luke was writing. But I would not insist on this.Couldn’t it be the case that Luke had possession of copies of Paul’s letters, and took various passages from those letters to inform speeches he invented and placed in Jesus’ mouth? I see this vastly more plausible than the supernaturalism required on the literalist Christian reading of the texsts. The historical record is just as it would need to be if this is what happened, showing a consistent pattern of development, both in detail as well as in theology and also in the portrait of Jesus, with the passing of the Pauline generation and the emergence of the gospel and later generations. We already know that the author of Luke was pro-Pauline. It would not have been at all difficult for him to take elements from Paul’s letters, such as Rom. 13:9’s injunction “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and stick them in Jesus’ mouth (as he does in Luke 10:27). Paul nowhere indicates that he got this teaching from an earthly incarnated Jesus; he nowhere attributes the teaching to Jesus at all. But in the later strata we find Paul's teachings put in Jesus' mouth. These are siezed upon by apologists as "corroborating parallels" when in fact they are a smoking gun. Examples of this kind of cribbing are found all over in the gospels. Moral teachings found in the earliest strata of the NT are later attributed to Jesus, whereas in the earliest strata where they are originally found, one could never learn from those sources that Jesus had ever spoken on the matters they touch. Do these produce “parallels” between the strata? Of course. But notice that they do not place the details that I listed in the earliest strata; those details came later, as the result of literary invention.I wrote: Since the gospels were written well after the time of Paul, his letters may have been available for later writers to draw from. Statements in Paul’s letters thus inspired certain teachings we find in the gospels, which would explain the similarities.Tim responded: This suggestion is really far out, and it reinforces my earlier comparison between mythers and conspiracy theorists. Why should anyone think this?How is it “really far out” to entertain the possibility that later writers used earlier writings as a source of content and inspiration for their own writings? We find evidence of expansion on themes throughout much of the New Testament. New Testament authors are constantly using Old Testament themes and quotes in their own writings. 2 Peter enlarges on portions of Jude. Etc. This is hardly controversial.I wrote: What’s telling, however, is that when Paul gives those teachings – as I showed above – he did not attribute them to an incarnated Jesus. Tim responded: This is ambiguous. If all you mean is that Paul doesn’t stop and say, “Oh, and by the way, this Jesus – he was corporeal,” then sure.I’m talking about parallel moral teachings, Tim, like the ones Wells cites in the passage I quote from page 33 of his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Neither you nor Harvey have addressed that statement. The parallels are not in details like miracles, healings, travels in Galilee, a temptation in the wilderness, the virgin birth, crucifixion outside Jerusalem, John the Baptist, Joseph of Arimathaea, etc., etc., etc. These details are exclusive to the gospels and later strata. They are not paralleled in Paul’s letters.Tim wrote: Many of the arguments you are trying to make in this discussion depend on principles that will not stand up to a comparison with the evidence.What are these offending principles that you have in mind, where do my arguments depend on them, and how do they not stand up to a comparison with the evidence? Specifically, what do you consider ‘evidence’ here? We have texts. To call them evidence, we need to be clear what we mean by ‘evidence’ here. Evidence specifically for what?Regards,Dawson
What I find fascinating about this debate is the fact that Bart's original contention really is standing unopposed. Dawson is ably arguing about Paul's other silences and how compelling a case they make for Paul's Christology being much more like the Gnostics than that of the proto-orthodox Roman church. But this ignores Bart's original point.So I'm curious if there is any sustained apologetic explanation for the absence of a defense in Paul for the existence of a literal human deity.Paul defends against many controversial positions, yet he ignores this. It really is an amazing argument and it's one I have never seen brought up before.Perhaps there's a book in this for ya Bart. It seems to be catching the standard apologetic defenses with their trousers at sock level.
Rich,Ok, A for effort. As you mentioned, you are taking us a bit off topic again. I really want to keep this focused and don't want to expand the discussion into related areas too much, but I will briefly respond to your comments, easy ones first.Paul doesn't mention Mary as the mother of Jesus. Sorry.When Paul went to Jerusalem he met with Cephas and James. While tradition equates Cephas with Peter, Paul does not. He is simply one of the uppity ups that Paul denegrates in Gal 2. James, the brother of Jerus is another of those of inflated repute according to Paul. The reason for their perceived self importance isn't given and it does no good to speculate as to the reason. The term "brother" is used throughout the epistles as a synonym for a believer. Nothing in this context requires an understanding different from the rest of the epistolary usage. No familial relationship is apparent.Whether or not Mary was descended from David is not relevant. To begin with, the Davidic line had been destroyed during the Greek occupation, and there were no known descendents of David. Secondly, the stylistic and contradictory geneologies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke trace the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Anything more is strictly conjecture.The "seed of David" statement is enigmatic. It should be noted that Paul learned of the anointed one being of the seed of David from the Old Testament, not from other men, witnesses or otherwise. It is interpretive rather than biographical. This subject requires a lot of expansion which I don't want to do here. It should be noted that if it were to be understood as a biographical tidbit, it would be the only such place where Paul offers one.Now, to the crux of the matter and the point of my blog. If Paul were indeed claiming that a recent man was God himself, where is the debate with the Judaizers?
Dawson,Sorry: you're the one who wants to overturn the straightforward hypothesis that this person Paul represents as eating, speaking, being betrayed, being crucified, being buried, and so forth is doing all of these things here on earth. You're the one who insists that instead Paul is locating all of this "in a non-earthly realm." You have the burden of proof. Like virtually every Christian, Jewish, agnostic and atheist historian of the past two hundred years who has heard the arguments of the mythers, I think you have no case. Certainly nothing you've said here has persuaded me otherwise. You ask what principles you're flouting. For one thing, you think raising bare possibilities -- like the incredibly implausible suggestion that Paul, the self-described "Pharisee of Pharisees," writing to Jews, proclaiming their Messiah to have come, "borrowed from mystery religions of the day which featured sacred meals representing communion with a savior-deity" -- suffices to shift the burden of proof in an argument over a matter of fact. It doesn't. This sort of reasoning would be laughed out of court in a discussion of any matter of secular history.You think that Paul's failure to time-stamp his references to the crucifixion provides evidence that he did not think of it as taking place where and when the gospels place it. But this is obviously false. There is no reason to expect Paul to do so if the event was already known to his readers -- which clearly it was, as otherwise Paul's references would have been unintelligible to them. Crucifixion was not some Mithra-cult secret: it was a common, brutal, public fact of life under Roman rule. For you to turn Paul's matter-of-fact references to the crucifixion of Jesus into some kind of code for a spiritual death displays a disconnect with historical reality that literally defies belief.You think that simply listing facts about Jesus' biography not mentioned in the Pauline epistles suffices to cast doubt on whether Paul was writing about the same guy. It doesn't. You cannot name a single letter in antiquity that mentions a public figure known from other extensive sources where it would not be just as easy to construct such a list. And you are unwilling to put this to the test. You don't want to check to see whether other people, in their letters, typically talk about people or events without mentioning everything about those people or events. All of these factors persuade me that you are not interested in having a serious discussion. That is certainly your prerogative; it is not my mission in life to take your myther faith away from you. But equally, there is no point in trying to have a serious historical discussion with someone who holds -- and will not reexamine -- untenable methodological canons of the sort you are defending.
Judaizers - In the early Church a section of Jewish Christians who regard the OT Levitical laws as still binding on all Christians. They tried to enforce on the faithful such practices as circumcision and the distinction between clean and unclean meats. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church)Why should we expect two groups of Christians to argue about the divinity of Jesus?
Tim~I totally agree. 'Burner' and some of the die hard anti-Christ advocates here are unwilling to do what they say they do...follow the evidence and view it with reason and rationality.This is why I called them early on persons of EXTREME faith...proven from this blog...FANATICAL. Bart's whole argument is bogus and he doesn't even see it. Save a tree Bart...Jesus was crucified for saying and demonstrating that he was God and that He would sit on the Throne of God as God. This parallel caused his very rejection among the faithful that DID NOT ACCEPT that he was the Messiah. They (The Jewish Leadership)clearly understood who Jesus said he was, and please note It didn't start another war... but it did however motivate the Jewish faithful to not accept him or his small band of followers. IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE EVENTS, Paul being licensed to kill and put down as many people as he could find that believed in this Jesus of HISTORICAL FACT, MET that same Jesus and became a follower of his. He preached the SAME message that was given to the disciples, shared and received the same truths and further moved in signs and wonders, credited to the name of Jesus who demonstrated the same power during his lifetime. The believers who spoke here, gave you anti-Christ followers access to over ONE THOUSAND congruent references from Paul concerning Jesus or his teachings ACCURATELY RELAYED, in context with all the historical criteria necessary for a REASONABLE and RATIONAL person to come to come to a "reasonable" position (even if you remain unconverted)...We have demonstrated how Paul and the Gospels were: 1- Multiply attested2- Coherent within what we know of the TIME FRAME which they were written and further corroborated by independent sourcesAnd finally we've proved that Paul's record and dating of the narratives themselves were3-within a SHORT period of time of the actual events themselves.This is the process, Dawson...not some PRESUPPOSED ---Probably, could've been, would've been, should've been GARBAGE that you and Bart are peddling on this site and the rest of your blogs...YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE UNREASONABLE AND ARE ONLY GIVEN TO THE SENSATIONAL, EMOTIONAL AND UNREASONABLE. THEY ARE FANTASIES AND FAIRY TALES THAT OFFER NO BASIS IN EVEN REMOTE PLAUSIBILITY.So there is no 800lb. Gorilla here, just a TON of wishful thinking and unreasonable arguments.
Why should we expect two groups of Christians to argue about the divinity of Jesus?I just have to laugh.Dude. Do you know ANYTHING about early Christian history? The type and nature of the divinity of Christ was THE topic of argument among early Christians.Please look up:1. Adoptionists2. Docetists3. Gnostics4. Marcionites5. Ebionites6. Nestorians7. Arians8. Pelagians9. Monophysites That should get you started.
TimAllow me to correct one of your assertions. Paul nowhere says that the Messiah or Jesus has come.Paul has no concept of a "second coming." Rather, his perspective of the coming, or more accurately the appearing, of Jesus is future. There is no place in Paul's epistles where he indicates that Jesus the messiah has come (to earth) and is coming again. You are reading Paul through the lens of the later gospel stories which present (either actually or allegorically) Jesus as having come and planning to shortly return; an expectation which failed.
Let me try this one more time. Since the Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians what evidence is there that they did not believe the same thing about Paul about the divinity of Jesus?Sure is interesting that the Judaizers didn't make the list that Evan so graciously provided.
Tim: Sorry: you're the one who wants to overturn the straightforward hypothesis that this person Paul represents as eating, speaking, being betrayed, being crucified, being buried, and so forth is doing all of these things here on earth.Where does Paul say that Jesus did these things *on earth*? Specifically *where and when* does Paul have his Jesus doing these things?Tim: You're the one who insists that instead Paul is locating all of this "in a non-earthly realm." You have the burden of proof.Actually, I am not the originator of this view, Tim. Many have argued for it, and have done so far better than I ever could. Check out the literature. Examine what they say. Unfortunately, it appears that, now anyway, you are not of a mind to do so. You’ve invested yourself in the confession that literalist Christianity is true, and this will only cloud your judgment on critical matters of this nature. You have a faith to protect, and this motivates the kind of reaction we've seen from you over and over again.Tim: Like virtually every Christian, Jewish, agnostic and atheist historian of the past two hundred years who has heard the arguments of the mythers, I think you have no case. Certainly nothing you've said here has persuaded me otherwise.I really don’t expect to persuade you, Tim. For you, it’s a matter of religious faith. So you stubbornly refuse to allow anything to influence you away from your confessional investment. But as I showed in my last responses, you fail to produce any examples of the “allusions” you maintain exist in Paul’s letters to the details I included on my list. Those are not “allusions” but are in fact “illusions” which perpetuate in your mind precisely because you are unwilling to look at the Pauline corpus apart from the portraits of Jesus found in the gospels. Tim: You ask what principles you're flouting. For one thing, you think raising bare possibilities -- like the incredibly implausible suggestion that Paul, the self-described "Pharisee of Pharisees," writing to Jews, proclaiming their Messiah to have come, "borrowed from mystery religions of the day which featured sacred meals representing communion with a savior-deity" -- suffices to shift the burden of proof in an argument over a matter of fact. It doesn't. This sort of reasoning would be laughed out of court in a discussion of any matter of secular history.Can you find where the orthodox Judaism of the day taught that their Messiah was to be communed with through a sacred meal in which bread and wine are represented as the Messiah’s flesh and blood? Doherty himself points out that Judaism at the time in question was not monolithic, that those especially in the Diaspora were likely influenced by local traditions, just as we find today. Citing Koester’s Introduction to the New Testament, he points out to Gregory Boyd that “we have evidence of Jews involved in bizarre cults in places like Asia Minor, and absorbing much hellenistic influence in many locations, such as Alexandria in Egypt.” Boyd sought to interpret Doherty’s thesis in the most uncharitable manner possible, suggesting that Christianity got its sacred meal idea directly from the taurobolium of Mithras. Doherty responds, You claim that Jews would have been horrified by the bull’s blood ritual, and no doubt they were. But would they have been any more enamored with the Christian Eucharist, a rite which represented itself as eating and drinking the flesh and blood of their god? This was something fully in keeping with the mystery religion sacramentalism, especially the ancient cult of Dionysos which also ate and drank the god’s flesh and blood. But did this have anything to do with being Jewish? I hardly think so. The traditional Jewish thanksgiving meal had nothing like it, and the idea would have been blasphemy to most Jews, certainly those of the ‘mainstream type [Boyd] allude[s] to. To represent a man’s body and blood as being divine and the source of salvation would have constituted idolatry. (Challenging the Verdict, pp. 88-89)You want to dismiss all this with laughter, Tim. That’s fine. But laughter is not a counter-argument, and meanwhile you are left without a reasonable alternative explanation.Tim: You think that Paul's failure to time-stamp his references to the crucifixion provides evidence that he did not think of it as taking place where and when the gospels place it.First of all, are you conceding that Paul did in fact “fail... to time-stamp his references to the crucifixion”? Can you find any evidence in Paul’s epistles where he did characterize Jesus’ crucifixion “as taking place where and when the gospels place it”?Also, if you think such failure is the only evidence that the mythicist case produces on its own behalf, then it’s clear you haven’t done your homework here, Tim. As I pointed out several times already, Paul gave numerous moral and theological teachings in his letters, teachings that he did not credit to Jesus but which were later put in Jesus' mouth in the gospels. And there's a whole lot more than what I have presented in my comments on this thread.Tim: But this is obviously false. There is no reason to expect Paul to do so if the event was already known to his readers -- which clearly it was, as otherwise Paul's references would have been unintelligible to them.I have asked you repeatedly, Tim, to explain what specifically you think Paul’s readers knew independently of his letters, and to document why you think they knew it. You have not even attempted this. You simply assume that they knew stories such as those found in the gospels. What evidence can you produce to support this assumption? Tim: Crucifixion was not some Mithra-cult secret: it was a common, brutal, public fact of life under Roman rule.That’s irrelevant; no one is saying that crucifixion was a secret ritual. But clearly Paul thought that Jesus was an obscure figure who had to be “revealed” (Paul’s own word) precisely because he was not a public fact of life. Paul thought that Jesus had been revealed to him, and that it was upon his shoulders to make that revelation as public as possible through his missionary work.Tim: For you to turn Paul's matter-of-fact references to the crucifixion of Jesus into some kind of code for a spiritual death displays a disconnect with historical reality that literally defies belief.Don’t just assert this, Tim: put some support to it. As for defying belief, this is not a worry to me. Look at what Christians are expected to believe! You’re approaching this from a standpoint that your beliefs must remain unchallenged at all costs. That only underscores their weak basis.Tim: You think that simply listing facts about Jesus' biography not mentioned in the Pauline epistles suffices to cast doubt on whether Paul was writing about the same guy. It doesn't. You cannot name a single letter in antiquity that mentions a public figure known from other extensive sources where it would not be just as easy to construct such a list.We have many letters from Paul, and throughout his letters he is preaching Jesus crucified and resurrected. How he could know any details about his crucifixion (like those found in the gospels) and yet fail to mention any of them at any point, is – to put it mildly – perplexing. Tim: And you are unwilling to put this to the test. You don't want to check to see whether other people, in their letters, typically talk about people or events without mentioning everything about those people or events.Can you find a comparable set of letters to Paul’s where this kind of silence is commonplace? What other set of letters is focused on preaching about a savior-deity which exhibits the kind of pervasive silences that Paul’s letters do in relation to the gospels? I'm happy to test this, but let's test apples to apples. Surely you wouldn't object to this, would you?Tim: All of these factors persuade me that you are not interested in having a serious discussion. That is certainly your prerogative; it is not my mission in life to take your myther faith away from you. But equally, there is no point in trying to have a serious historical discussion with someone who holds -- and will not reexamine -- untenable methodological canons of the sort you are defending.Tim, I have been abundantly patient with you, I have answered your objections point by point, and have produced numerous quotations from the primary and secondary sources involved to support my points, and you have not interacted with hardly any of it. Now you say that I am not interested in having a serious discussion. What’s clear is that you cannot challenge my list – you cannot find in any of Paul’s letters where he breathes one word about any of the items on that list. At least here you should acknowledge your concession. Where we seem to disagree is the evidential value of such silences. That’s fine. You have not persuaded me at all to suppose that we should expect such silences on such important points about the gospel portrait of Jesus in Paul's letters – points that were obviously important enough for the gospel writers to repeat as they rewrote the story of Jesus’ life, points which the early letter writers nowhere mentioned. This you have not been able to challenge. Regards,Dawson
Paul, when you are digging a hole, the first rule (if you want to get out) is to stop digging.Please -- look up the ebionites. Then come back.Did you even look up one reference?Here's Wikipedia's entry:In contrast to mainstream Christianity, the Ebionites insisted on a universal necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[12] which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law.[13] They regarded Jesus as a mortal human messianic prophet but not as divine, revered his brother James as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an "apostate of the Law". Their name suggests that they placed a special value on religious poverty.Took me 12 seconds to find that.You are a piece of work, Paul.
Paul said... Let me try this one more time. Since the Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians what evidence is there that they did not believe the same thing about Paul about the divinity of Jesus?Paul, for your argument to even begin to work, you must assume that at the time of the letter to the Galatians, that the setting was not that of the Diaspora synagogues. Are you really arguing that Christianity had already separated from Judaism and the synagogue system by 50 CE?I think you will be very hard pressed to find many, if any, scholars who would argue that Christianity in 50 CE as not a sect within Judaism.Bart
Dawson,You write:I really don’t expect to persuade you, Tim. I'd say you're on safe ground there.For you, it’s a matter of religious faith. So you stubbornly refuse to allow anything to influence you away from your confessional investment.You’re killing me, Dawson. You will, I assume, be kind enough to extend this explanation to such noted fundamentalists as Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, Gerd Lüdemann, and Bart Ehrman, since we are all united in the belief, based on the public evidence, that Jesus was a real person. I have asked you repeatedly, Tim, to explain what specifically you think Paul’s readers knew independently of his letters, and to document why you think they knew it. And I’ve offered references to the work of Paley and Resch that would allow you to follow up on it if you wanted to. If you insist on being spoon-fed instead, you’ll have to find someone else to do it for you. Harvey tried. (He’s apparently a nicer person than I am.) Tim: For you to turn Paul's matter-of-fact references to the crucifixion of Jesus into some kind of code for a spiritual death displays a disconnect with historical reality that literally defies belief.[Dawson:] Don’t just assert this, Tim: put some support to it. You sound uncannily like some YECs and 9/11 truthers I’ve known. Believe it or not, Dawson, some things really are so obvious that virtually all atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Christians recognize their truth. If I thought your only problem were ignorance but that you were still capable of following reason and evidence and willing to try, it might be worth while as an act of charity to have a more extended discussion of the subject with you. To such a person, I might recommend Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer’s Jesus und das Judentum. But wilful ignorance is another matter entirely.[Dawson:] We have many letters from Paul, and throughout his letters he is preaching Jesus crucified and resurrected. How he could know any details about his crucifixion (like those found in the gospels) and yet fail to mention any of them at any point, is – to put it mildly – perplexing. Why? Something parallel happens all the time in collections of letters both ancient and modern.[Dawson] Can you find a comparable set of letters to Paul’s where this kind of silence is commonplace? It would be easier to find a set where it is not. For a moment, when I read this line, I hoped that you were actually considering abandoning your previous refusal to test your assumptions against the writings of secular history to see whether they would hold up there. Alas! you continue:What other set of letters is focused on preaching about a savior-deity which exhibits the kind of pervasive silences that Paul’s letters do in relation to the gospels? I'm happy to test this, but let's test apples to apples. Surely you wouldn't object to this, would you? I’m all for comparing apples with apples, but you’re trying to compare apples with aardvarks here. The sort of test that would be most directly pertinent to your theory would be to take letters in which there are unquestionable references to a real person about whom we are informed from several other extensive sources and see whether the author feels compelled to write a comprehensive biography. If repeatedly we find that the author does not do this, then the “evidence” you’ve brought forward will be shown to be worthless, since it is of the same sort we find in cases where the author is unquestionably referring to a real person – the very thing you’re trying to use the “evidence” to deny in this case. We can also obtain evidence pertinent to your thesis by considering references (or absence of references) to prominent objects or events in individual letters, diaries, travelogues, and other documents to see how much or how little can generally be inferred from silence. [Dawson:] I have been abundantly patient with you, I have answered your objections point by point, and have produced numerous quotations from the primary and secondary sources involved to support my points, and you have not interacted with hardly any of it. Since what is in question is whether you have provided anything that amounts to evidence, this windup is pretty much useless except as a profession of faith on your part. As I see it, you have largely repeated your original argument even after I have shown you why it is worthless. The quotation from Doherty in response to Boyd is one new piece, and I’m beholden to you for it not because there is anything new in the argument but because it gives me afurther reference to give to people like Tyro.[Hey Tyro, Boyd and Eddy, The Jesus Legend (2007) should be near the top of your list. It looks like it has extensive coverage of the work of Price and Doherty. I find it surprising that they would even bother, but it should make for interesting reading.] [Dawson:] You want to dismiss all this with laughter, Tim.Damn! You're onto me![Dawson:] That’s fine.I’m so relieved![Dawson:] But laughter is not a counter-argument, ...In order for there to be counter-argument, there has to be something worth calling an argument in the first place, n’est ce pas?
Bart,You write: Allow me to correct one of your assertions. Paul nowhere says that the Messiah or Jesus has come.I appreciate the offer, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. There are many evidences in the epistles that Paul is proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah. See, for example, his use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8; the reference to Jesus as the seed of David in 2 Timothy 2:8 (though pehaps you reject the pastorals as non-Pauline?); and above all, his constant use of χριστος, the term used in the Septuagint to translate mashiyach. In this last connection, see in particular the use of του χριστου in Colossians 1:7, which Westcott and Hort argue persuasively is not a proper name but rather appellative, i.e. “the Messiah.” On this point see, e.g., F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 111 ff.
Bart,Quick follow-up, in case I misunderstood you: if your claim is that Paul says nothing of Jesus as having come -- i.e. that Paul treats Jesus as not having been located on earth -- then I would naturally point to 1 Cor 11:23 ff, 1 Cor 15:3 ff, Gal 4:4, etc.
Tim,Where in Paul do you find the concept that Jesus will "come AGAIN"? The future appearing in Paul's thought is never cast as a "return."
Bart,I'm not sure why you're asking me that question, since I haven't been discussing it; my claim, in response to something Dawson had written, was that Paul was "writing to Jews, proclaiming their Messiah to have come, ..." Perhaps you have mistaken my comments for someone else's?Of course, in answer to your question, one would point to the end of 1 Thess. 4. But that isn't really relevant to anything I have said in this thread.
Bart~ In addition to the tangents that we've gone off into here, I noticed that you've also suggested a few other things that I haven't adequately touched on but I will at this point if even but briefly:You and some of your readers, take the road that somehow that Paul should have gained teaching about Jesus apart from any other source except the apostles, even to the exclusion of the OT. The problem is that you know as well as I do that the OT taught thoroughly about the Messiah and the Christ of Israel through clear predictive prophecy and messianic teaching. In fact the OT defined what the Messiah would do and how he would do it. Jesus knew this, lived in it and summarized it like this:John 5:39 - " Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" {The OT was to be searched as all of the observant Jews did and would have done their entire life}It seems that you continue to belittle the fact that the OT record that was the ‘schoolmaster’ that brought the NT believer to a more full understanding of Jesus, and that the OT was the top document of authentication in Semitic thought:Gal. 3:24-27~ "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." This whole discussion has been approached with a superimposition of Greco-Roman thought and behavior on the characters involved. That’s one of the greatest flaws of anti-Christ advocate dogma. Your assertions are not relevant to the time and actions of the individuals you examine…I mean you almost “westernize” the people and situations in order to make your points. You certainly deculturalize them and devoid them of their Jewish roots and behaviors common to the time. That’s incredulous. So I reject the notion that somehow the record of the OT is insufficient to explain or reveal who Christ was or would be. Paul because of his training in the Law was immersed in and thoroughly understood the relationship of Christ in the OT and further demonstrated his understanding through his writing. One instance was in his teaching to the Corinthian church where he spells it out clearly:1 Cor. 15:1-8: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; {The OT Scriptures} And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {The OT Scriptures} And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: {Confirmation of the relationship and sharing of the GOSPEL message with the Apostles} After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,{People who were alive, known within their communities and who could attest and witness to the resurrection of Jesus at that time} but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."Paul used a thorough understanding of the OT as a foundation for understanding and teaching the New Covenant that God established through Jesus Christ. The primary thing that you suggest is that there was no conflict between the Jews and Christians therefore the whole Gospel story is unauthentic. The reason we laugh that off is simply because it doesn't even hold up to the record. That assertion is not based in the facts contained within scripture. To answer your assertion and a question from another reader, Jesus was crucified for his declaration that he was God:John 8:58~ “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”Jesus declaration incited anger, WHY? Because the Jews heard the Messianic declaration that Jesus clearly announced that HE WAS GOD. Further, terms such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son Of God’, ‘Begotten’ which are common to the gospel narratives, CANNOT be interpreted with the Greco-Roman interpretives that you use. They are Semitic terms and titles and can ONLY be understood in light of Semitic interpretives. These sayings and expressions pin down the thought of not only Jesus’ divinity but also his claim to be God on Earth. Any jew of the day understood clearly that "son of Man" was not an earthly title for a mere person. That title was reserved for God WITH US or the MESSIAH. Paul was rooted in those same historical teachings because he was excellently trained in the Law and zealous for it and licensed to be a fighter against those who opposed the law. He WAS A Pharisee, according to his own words:Gal. 1:13-14- "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers."Bart from what we know about what was occurring at the time it was a war against Christians without the state declaring war, why? Because the Jews COULD NOT declare war themselves and you know the Romans were content as long as THEY weren’t threatened. Paul further confirms this in his own testimony and intents towards the early WAY followers to the apostles and early church:Acts 22:3-5: "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished."After his conversion, Paul met the Jews and went into their synagogues teaching and preaching Jesus BASED on the OT scriptural foundation…That’s why he was heard and that’s why he was questioned afterward THEN threatened. Look at Acts 17:17-21, Acts 18:4-6 threatened so much so here that the Jews under Sosthenes made “insurrection against Paul” and then killed Sosthenes for letting Paul speak (Acts 18:12) In other words they (The Jews) wanted to KILL Paul for his teaching. Just as expected and in harmony with your original question that you somehow say is MISSING. Finally, Acts 21: 27-40 led to Paul’s captivity amid people who wanted to KILL him for his teaching REGARDING JESUS which led to Acts 22 which further clearly explained that Paul Preached Jesus Christ. There is NO WAY anyone can say with a clear conscience that Paul either didn’t preach the Jesus Christ of the gospels or that he was ambiguous in his teaching…That’s a FANTASY. The evidence and reactions are EXACTLY what we’d expect from the characters involved. This meets the criteria of historical COHERENCE which is a strong evidence that the actual event occurred. Further, Paul’s actions and the Pharisee’s actions were DISSIMILAR which further authenticates the narratives because that's EXACTLY what we'd expect.Finally, you ask Tim about where did Paul teach about Jesus return. Although he’s answered I though maybe I should go into detail because you seem to need a little direction in this.1 Thess. 4:16-17- "For the Lord (Kurios-title is given to: God, the Messiah)himself {He's talking about JESUS} shall descend from heaven {In Order to DESCEND ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE COMING DOWN OR COMING BACK} with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ (Another Messianic title and Office) shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"(Kurios- title is given to: God, the Messiah) Secondly, of course Paul read and knew Isaiah like every other disciple and Jewish teacher of the day. That would have only affirmed his belief just like all the other scriptures concerning Messiah would have. This is pretty CONCLUSIVE and definitive that Paul not only taught the life of Jesus, but he also taught the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus and the return of Jesus to this time space dimension to gather his people. I mean there are all kinds of other things that I could add but you get the point. Tyro- there was NO EVIDENCE given to sustain the original argument, therefore NO EVIDENCE was necessary to be given in response. The whole argument was based on a faulty premise and speculation. The reason I was so hard on Doherty, is because he did the SAME thing, he only used distorted speculations, postulations and inferences and sold that garbage as factual. It wasn’t even worth the recycled paper it was printed on. No evidence and certainly nothing SOUND. But ooh boy, it sure sounded good…PLEASE. Anyone can say anything, but one cannot discount the historicity of the biblical record and then take other documents out of time and context to prove a point. As I stated the entire argument about a 800 lb. gorilla was fallacious from the beginning.Thanks.
DSHB,It's interesting that in your attempt to use the OT as proof for Paul's understanding of Jesus of Nazareth as a literal human-God ... you quote no OT texts.Which OT texts do you see as specifically describing Jesus of Nazareth?
Harvey,Paul, and the other NT writers used a method of interpretation of the OT scriptures known as midrash. This was, and is, a Jewish method of interpreting the OT in an allegorical manner. In using the method of midrash, one excises a text in the OT, wrenches it entirely from its context and original meaning, and creatively applies it to current needs. In this way, a story of the heavenly messiah could be cobbled together by finding a stray sentence in the Psalms saying "they gambled for my garments" and another one saying "a mob has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet" Ps 22.16, and on and on constructing a bio of Jesus the messiah out of texts which did not have any predictive intent at all in their original context. The texts the NT writers use are not related to each other, they are not used in context or in original intent, most have no messianic connection at all, and many such usages simply borrow phrases within sentences which cannot be construed in the manner used by the NT writers. They are using the OT allegorically, through midrash. The NT writers can claim that they are properly interpreting the OT, but if you examine the OT texts directly without the "inspired" interpretation of the NT user, there is no way one could get messianic predictions out of them.In any synagogue today, you could observe the rabbis using the OT in a similar manner. Are they inspired too?
Bart~Concerning Midrash~ Please note the following: Midrash comes from the Hebrew word darash, meaning "search" or even "commentary". It "entails searching the text for clarification beyond the obvious. In other words, midrash is a method which involves commentary on a specific passage. "In 'searching' the sacred text, the rabbis attempted to update scriptural teaching to make it relevant to new circumstances and issues. This was approach was felt to be legitimate because Scripture was understood as divine in character and therefore could yield many meanings and applications..."--- Evans, "Jewish Exegesis", p. 381. One of the best examples in the NT is John 6:25-59 which comments on Exodus 16:4, Psalm 78:24 (cf. Jn 6:31). Jesus' words are considered by some scholars as a running "commentary" on this passage found in the book of Exodus. "Research into ancient Jewish methods of exegesis, however, shows that the New Testament writers did not use the Old Testament any differently than their contemporaries" --- Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).You DECEITFULLY mention ONE of the LEAST USED methods of Midrash, called Allegory. But yet you know that the most common methods are ‘Light and heavy’ as found in Matt 6:26; cf. Luke 12:24 and Matt 7:11; Rom 5:10; Equivalence, as found in 1 Peter 2:4-8 which quotes Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 118:22, and Isaiah 8:14. Here, the term "stone" is used in equivalent regulation. Another example is Jesus' use of 1 Samuel 21:6 in Mark 2:23-28; and Pesher, which was the explanation of the mystery", usually involved in prophecies.- Evans, "The Old Testament in the New", p. 132.Examples of Pesher not only included Qumran but also include Acts 2:17-21where Peter cited Joel 2:28-32, and Mark 12:10-11 citing Psalms 118:22-23 (cf. Eph 3:4-6). Midrash is an acceptable technique of exegesis of scriptural truth, although your boy, Thomas Paine doesn't like it, he fails to show proof that it was 1- Un-historic and 2- Wrong. He just doesn't like it. Why should he? Correct exegesis DEBUNKS his fallacious arguments, he certainly doesn't want that to happen.Romans 15:4- “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”Please note that the NT writers, and Jesus himself, believed the OT to be the Word of God. An often quoted passages to affirm such. Jesus, while dealing with the topic of divorce, quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Other general examples of the OT as the Word of God include Mark 12:36, Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25, and Hebrews 1:5-8. Once again, the only persons that have a problem with the technique are those that use a Greco-Roman interpretive. Midrash was the technique used thoroughly throughout Semitic times and was the appropriate way to apply and interpret scripture. The Greco-Roman interpretive that you and most critics use, continues to strip the people of the uniqueness of the time in which they lived and the value of scriptural interpretation. It’s plain ole western ARROGANCE to tell them that they interpreted their very own scriptures wrong. The Apostles interpreted scriptures the same way…because that’s the correct way it’s done. FYI- Although I know you asked about the interpreter, Yes I believe in the inspiration of the scriptures. Why wouldn’t I? 2 Tim. 3:16~ “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” Evan ~ So far as which scriptures describe Jesus...it's all too easy to just about open the Bible and pick any one, but you can always start with Isaiah 9:6-7~ “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Or further Isaiah 53 in it’s entirety, Daniel 7…a host of psalms, and a BUNCH of illusions and descriptions in the Prophets …etc.Thank you.
j. johnson~ "In which book, chapter, and passage does it say the messiah would die and then rise again in three days?"Correct interpretations can be laid on top of Jesus very own understanding. Mt. 12:39-40 ~ "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The whole narrative came from the OT story of Jonah which Jesus used as his proof text. Further Jesus own narrative indicates his very own death and Resurrection, IN 3 DAYS.Also (Mt. 16:4, Mk. 8:12, Lk. 11:29) Additional refrences to the resurrection that the Pharisees, Essenes and others held as foundational to their belief are as follows:Ps. 16:9-11, Ps. 49:15, Ps. 86:13 NT ref. Acts 2:31-32... Heb. 13:20...Ps. 68:18 NT ref. Ephes. 4:8...Ps. 110:1 NT ref. Heb 1:13. 5:6, 7:17 & 21I'll close by restating what I said in my previous post: "Midrash was the technique used thoroughly throughout Semitic times and was the appropriate way to apply and interpret scripture. The Greco-Roman interpretive that you and most critics use, continues to strip the people of the uniqueness of the time in which they lived and the value of scriptural interpretation. It’s plain ole western ARROGANCE to tell them that they interpreted their very own scriptures wrong. The Apostles interpreted scriptures the same way…because that’s the correct way it’s done."To assert otherwise places the burden on proof on you to explain why. Thanks.
DSHB:For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.In what conceivable way could this describe Jesus of Nazareth? When was he ever part of any government?When was he ever called "The Prince of Peace"? What throne did he sit on? How could he POSSIBLY have been named "The everlasting Father" since he is the SON?Does Jesus himself not say that he is not come to bring peace but a sword?Also -- where was Jesus ever called Immanuel?
DSHB: Further Jesus own narrative indicates his very own death and Resurrection, IN 3 DAYS.Also (Mt. 16:4, Mk. 8:12, Lk. 11:29) Jesus was put in the tomb on Friday afternoon.He was resurrected and gone by Sunday Morning.How's that 3 days?
Evan, Evan, Evan~ My friend...Thou dost continue to interpret Semitic narratives with a Greco-Roman understanding, which doth not allow you to fully understand da pharases. FYI- names in Semetic thought REPRESENT nature and essence of being...the scriptures talking about what HIS name should be called DID NOT mean a name given at birth. Although that's not precluded that's not the case. The Refrence would be Is. 7:14 & Is. 9:7 to Luke 1:26-33Additionally, if you looked up the scriptures posted, the dilemma of the Pharisees in dealing with Jesus was that he claimed to be preexistant and a son at the same time. Further, read Heb. 1:8-12(as it pertained to the Messiah and specifically Jesus)..."but unto the SON he saith, THY THRONE O GOD... DIRECT refrence from Ps. 45:6-7 and Ps. 102:25-27. By the way, 32% of the NT are direct verse quotes from the OT. Out of 7,964 verses in the NT, 2,559 of them are OT verses.So it's the HEIGHT of scriptural misrepresentation to say that the OT is irrevelavent in the NT narrative or that the OT offers no relevence in understanding the NT or that the OT DOES NOT describe accurately the work, mission, death and resurrection of the Messiah.That type of argument is not based on interpretive facts or history in dealing with the texts.So far as the 3 day scenario...Underderstand the EASTERN and Semitic thoughts on day and day portions...Any part was considered COMPLETE. And the day began at night. Now there is some debate over WHAT day actually started the clock, some say Thursday as opposed to Friday however there is enough time to fulfill the Jewish concept and dogmatism on that DOES NOT change the matrial fact or account in any way.Hopefully Tim is still viewing and I would defer to a seasoned professional such as him for a more definitive answer. Thanks.
Harvey Dist SupermanMidrash is not an illegitimate method of interpretation. If someone wants to "interpret" the story of Moses'climb up Mt. Sinai as an endorsement of our need to take nature walks in the mountains, that isn't illegitimate. However, you must also recognize that there was no original intent for that meaning in the Moses story. The interpreter is using a kind of midrash.To determine the meaning of a particular OT text, one must look for original intent. Fanciful and meaningful interpretations looking back do not do this.
Mr. Bart you said this: "To determine the meaning of a particular OT text, one must look for original intent. Fanciful and meaningful interpretations looking back do not do this."I agree Bart we have come a long way...I only offer the historic facts that the Jews viewed the scriptures and prophecies in the following manner:1- to treveal that God is God(Is. 46:9-10)2 to reveal that God is faithful (Num. 23:19)3- to distinguish HIS work from counterfeits (Is.48:3-5)4- to reveal the IDENTITY of God's Son aka The Coming Messiah( (rom. 1:2-4) and a HOST of other OT scriptures) Jesus HIMSELF appealed to the same source to verify his identity to the people: Mt. 5:7, Lk. 24:27, Lk. 24:44, Mt. 13:14, Mt. 11:10, Mt. 21:42, Mt. 26:56, Mk. 13:26-Dan. 7:13-14, Lk. 4:20-21, Jn. 15:25 and Lk. 22:37.I've got 61 other points that outline Jesus fulfillment of Prophecy but I'm too tired to list them here but I will say this,HJ. Schonfield IN 'the passover Plot'sought to argue as you Bart against Jesus historically fulfilling any prophecy. But that assertion flies and dies in the face of a few things:1- Jesus good nature and character. If he was the greatest deceiver of all time why does it suppose that all records are to the contrary concerning him. This is highly implausable.2- There is absolutely NO WAY that he could have controlled all of the circumstance around each and every event THAT PREDATED HIMSELF (Unless HE WAS GOD) because even events BEFORE his arrival into the world would have to correspond to prophecy.3-Similarly, there is no way he could have controlled or manipulated the way that people would respond to him thereby fulfilling prophecy (Again UNLESS HE WAS GOD)It's like this, Peter Stoner in his book 'Science Speaks' says that the likelihood of anyone fulfilling 48 biblical prophecies and reports are 1 in 10 to the 157th Power. (Stoner SS, 109,110) That's all but too mindboggling and I'll go no further with it here. Also Evan~ I'll say that the Bible is to be taken in the sense in which it is intended. There are times and places there is a literal interpretive, there are times and places it is a symbolic interpretive, but it is always to be taken in context. Bart I don't consider myself "superman" but I LOVE TO STUDY and quite frankly, you guys help me do just that...I love it, because, The Bible is Right!Thanks.
Harvey,None of the OT texts Christians use clearly point to Jesus. These are impositions of Christian believers put back on those texts.As to the marvelous correspondence between the use of those texts and the "events" of the life of Jesus, I would expect no less when his biography was invented using those texts.
I actually looked into the Peter Stoner study of OT prophesies fulfilled in life of Jesus. It can be found online. This study is cited Lee Strobel’s A Case for Christ, though the specifics are not related there. Besides the 40 prophecy study there is also a study of 8 prophecies. This smaller study uses Bayesian logic to argue that using just these eight prophecies the strength of the argument is that all eight being true of any one individual is 1 in 10 ^ 17th power. That is an overwhelming statistic. In fact the study concludes by stating, “Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact proved perhaps more absolute than any other fact in the world.”I was told this is something that should even be convincing to an atheist/non-believer, which I am. Instead what I found was an argument that should not even be convincing to a Christian. Unless you come to this study already accepting that NT is in fact factual, there is nothing of substance in this study. Christians should be embarrassed for making the historical claims they do – at least based on this study.The eight prophecies are:1) Birth in Bethlehem – arguable whether this is actually prophesied. Further, the Biblical Archeological Institute, hardly a liberal theology organization, has published articles calling the possibility of a Bethlehem birth into question.2) Forerunner – the only one of the eight that has any independent credibility and the prophecy reference does seem testable as a prophecy. There are independent records of a John the Baptist, does appear to have been executed by a foreign power, and there are sites associated with his ministry.3) Colt, foal of an ass – already had a lot said here, but this is an abject failure. The Mark account even has Jesus conspiring to make this ‘prophecy’ come true. Odds one over one.4, 5, & 6) Betrayal by a friend, 30 pieces of silver, purchase of potters’ field – the OT verses sited is dug out of the middle of another prophecy. Ironically that larger prophecy did not come true. Some have argued with me, not true YET, but that would leave it in a context totally meaningless to those who received it.7) Silence at trial – again can be fulfilled by the one prophesied about. Also, Jesus is not silent in all accounts.8) Hands pierced – Ps. 22:16 is so clearly not about Jesus, in fact it sounds in surrounding verses as if God is being cried unto. This is like pulling a line out of a blues song and saying Jesus’s resurrection is the fulfillment of that line of lyric.I believe Christians do themselves a real disservice when weak arguments are put forward with much banging of drums about their irrefutability. As Lewis noted we must decide in the here and now with imperfect information. You lose credibility, we question your grasp of logic and method, and our willingness to pursue research you recommend is weakened.
Spontaneous~ I reverberate the same sentiments to you that I left with Bart. Just because the EVIDENCE and the narrative isn't what you want to make it DOESN'T make it non-essential. Why would you like it? You're not objective...If you had read through the discourse you would have seen the liklihood in common terms like this:The chances are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Which is equivalent to taking as many silver dollars as it would take, and cover the state of Texas with them until it was 2 FEET deep. Then mark ONE Silver Dollar, stir the coins up thoroughly all over the state, put a blindfold on a man, tell him he can travel as far as he wishes wihin the state but he MUST pick out the ONE marked coin...In other words There's NO CHANCE one man could have fulfilled all of these 8 prophecies yet alone the ADDITIONAL 40 in his lifetime with the percision that was done unless HE IS GOD. Man- Get outta here with your no strength, afraid there is a God self. He is REAL. the record verifies it, history verifies it, predictive prophecy verifies it in light of the actual events and more...Further read back a few posts. Just like you don't want a foriegn nationality of individual imposing their value system on you, DON'T impose your western views and interpretives on the text. That's the problem. You like all other anti-Christ advocates impose your value system on ancient and HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLE people and have the ARROGANCE to tell them that were there how they should have interpreted the events. Nope, the story wasn't concocted to fit and we've already shown it's authenticity. Accept it or not, don't place the blame on the evidence you place that on you and your choice. Personally, I'd respect you better if you just simply said, I don't believe it or I don't want to believe it, but don't dare say the evidence is weak, there's WEAKER evidence all the way around for Alexander the great and Julius Ceasar who's historical narratives weren't written until HUNDREDS of years after they died. I'm out...More and more, since you anti-Christ advocates realize you don't have an argument, the comments get silly. PEACE!
Evan~ As I leave I didn't want to leave the 3 day thing out there:Now, the real problem is that most of us are unfamiliar with ancient, and especially Jewish, idiomatic ways of speaking. In fact, in the Gospel of Matthew, besides the expression “Three days and three nights” in Matthew 12:40, (WHICH COMES FROM OT JONAH- THIS WASN'T AN INVENTION OF THE NT- I PLACED THIS HERE) we also find the expressions “after three days” and “on the third day” [16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:63,64; cf. 26:61; 27:40]. The Jews understood all three of these expressions synonymously. In their terminology part of a day was counted as an entire day. In addition, the Bible does not always speak in the same way we would. We need to learn the idioms and figures of speech which are used in the Bible if we are to avoid misunderstanding what it really says. ~ Hank Hanegraaff
DSHB--Let me find those directions for building my house on sand again, they have to be around here somewhere. To be clear, I did read the Stoner analysis. The silver dollars are a brilliant picture metaphor that has no credible basis in reality. This is a clear example of the defenders of the faith being recklessly irresponsible with the facts. This calculation is not what it purports to be, a responsible analysis of fulfilled NT prophecies demonstrating that Jesus is the Savior. Just because one puts a number to something doesn't mean the resulting odds are valid. If I apply the reasonable skeptical man test, the Stoner’s analysis fails 7 out of 8 prophecies:1) Prophecies are twisted out of unrelated OT verses. (hands pierced, betrayal by a friend)2) Assigning odds to events well within the control of the party prophesied about (colt into Jerusalem, silent at trial)3) Picking your fulfilled prophecies, out of the midst of unfulfilled prophesies (30 pieces of silver, potters’ field)4) Claiming fulfillment that cannot be tested anywhere but in the NT and where in fact current archeology suggests the Biblical account is not possible. (birth in Bethlehem)Finally, I am not asked to believe that my thoughts on Julius Caesar will decide where I spend eternity or that Julius Caesar is an all powerful/all loving God but somehow this is the best evidence He can provide.
I had written a response to Tim’s 11 March comment directed to me, but at the time I decided not to post it because dialoguing with him has become so worthless. So I did not post it. It’s clear that he doesn’t grasp the essence of my points. In this comment, I wanted to respond to Harvey’s point that the (alleged) fulfillment of OT prophecies by the gospel Jesus is simply too improbable to he a coincidence (that seems to be the brunt of the case he’s trying to make). Harvey wrote:The chances are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. Which is equivalent to taking as many silver dollars as it would take, and cover the state of Texas with them until it was 2 FEET deep. Then mark ONE Silver Dollar, stir the coins up thoroughly all over the state, put a blindfold on a man, tell him he can travel as far as he wishes wihin the state but he MUST pick out the ONE marked coin... In other words There's NO CHANCE one man could have fulfilled all of these 8 prophecies yet alone the ADDITIONAL 40 in his lifetime with the percision that was done unless HE IS GOD.By making the matter an issue of probability, Harvey undercuts his own position quite severely. Consider the scenario he uses to illustrate the sheer remoteness of the probability he ascribes to Jesus’ fulfillment of OT prophecy. If I told Harvey that, under the conditions he describes, I know someone who found the one marked silver dollar in the 100,000,000,000,000,000 coins that buried the state of Texas on the very first draw, would Harvey believe me? According to Harvey’s own statement, apparently not, for he insists that “There’s NO CHANCE one man could have” done this – either find that one coin, or that “one man could have fulfilled all of these 8 prophecies.” It seems that Harvey himself is telling us that this is not to be believed, given the proportions of the stated improbability. It is just a made up story that the guy I know found the coin on the first try. If we grant the astronomical improbability of this happening that Harvey insists we accept, then other explanations become more probable, such as that the story of the guy finding the one marked coin out of 100,000,000,000,000,000 is either mistaken, false, or simply fabricated.With respect to the so-called fulfilled prophecies found in the gospel portrait of Jesus, Harvey says this is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. What is the probability that a writer or group of writers pulled phrases and statements from the OT and assembled them into a literary narrative which is at the end of the mere fiction, but which on some interpretations appear to be a portrait distinguished by the fulfillment prophecy? I’d say a whole lot better than the probability that Harvey wants to ascribe to one man the fulfillment of the 8 so-called prophecies that he has in mind. And if midrash were a developed technique of re-interpreting sacred texts, as Bart has rightly pointed out, then the probability that the so-called “fulfilled prophecies” that we find in the gospel portraits of Jesus are at the end of the day a literary invention, significantly eclipses the excessively remote possibility that Harvey has claimed for his interpretation of the same.So on Harvey’s own premises, we should be quite skeptical of his position to say the least.Regards,Dawson
Dawson,I certainly agree that anyone who wants to can look at our exchange and make up his own mind. I'm content to leave it there if you are.
One more call back to the premise of this post.That is, Paul taught a divine Jesus, but in all argumentation with the Judaizers, there is no hint of an argument over the Jewish concept of God which would have been central if he had been proclaiming a human Jesus being an incarnation of God.No one has yet given a cogent explanation for this fact. We aren't discussing the perspective of the gospel writers here, nor that of the later church theologians. We are discussing why a movement within Judaism in the mid first century could co-mingle the transcendent God with a human (a clear position of idolatry) without generating a furor. Why? Why? Why?Using the principe of Occam's razor, the direct answer is that Paul could not have proclaimed a divine and human Jesus without all hell breaking loose. Therefore, he either wasn't proclaiming Jesus as a divine being, or he wasn't prclaiming Jesus as a human. Since his own writings are so clear that his Jesus was divine, and statements which can be construed as human indicative are so equivocal, the weight of the argument must come down on the side that he wasn't indicating a human Jesus.If anyone has an alternate explanation for why there was no controversy in Paul's congregations, please address them.
Dawson,The comment would be just if the defenders of the traditional position had not already occupied the historical high ground. As the case actually stands, however, the mythers must try desperately to explain away the historical evidence found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal -- not to mention the Gospels, Acts, the epistles, the non-canonical early Christian writings, the early heretics like Cerinthus and Marcion and the attacks of heathen critics like Celsus and Porphyry. I'm sure that Tyro, who actually seems to want to learn more about this, will have plenty of opportunity to reconsider his initial judgment as he reads Boyd and Eddy. I'm equally sure that there are other mythers who never will.
Bart,You write:Paul taught a divine Jesus, but in all argumentation with the Judaizers, there is no hint of an argument over the Jewish concept of God ...If anyone has an alternate explanation for why there was no controversy in Paul's congregations, please address them.Because, on this point, they agreed with him.
Tim it is bizarre to say the least that you would include the early heretics like Cerinthus and Marcion as part of your parade.BOTH of these people did not believe that Jesus was a divine human. Cerinthus believed he was all human. Marcion believed he was all divine.So if you are using them as your examples of what Paul must have thought -- you fail. Bart wins.Here's something about Marcion:Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in the I5th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum. This pronounced docetism which denies that Jesus was born, or subjected to any human process of development, is the strongest expression of Marcion's abhorrence of the world. Isn't it interesting that Marcion believed Paul was the finest Christian and included only the Gospel of Luke and the writings of Paul in his canon, yet believed this about Christ?I think you have opened a can of worms you might wish closed.
Tim,You wrote: The comment would be just if the defenders of the traditional position had not already occupied the historical high ground.I believe Tyro’s comment was specifically in regard to the performance of “historicists” in the present comments thread. I took this to include Harvey as well as you, since you seem so anxious to protect the view that the portrait of Jesus found in the gospels is historically accurate. Over and over again in your responses, you demonstrate that you don’t really grasp the major points that have been raised in this thread. I have explained this repeatedly, and in none of your follow-up comments have you overcome the habit of reading the early epistolary strata through gospel-colored glasses. You want to claim “the historical high ground,” but your own performance in this thread indicates that such a claim buckles readily under the pressure of the questions Bart, I and others have raised. You also wrote: As the case actually stands, however, the mythers must try desperately to explain away the historical evidence found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal --What evidential value do you think can be found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal in regards to the claim that the portraits of Jesus in the NT gospels are historically accurate? Let’s deal with specifics, I’d be happy to examine it with you. As for “mythers” having to “try desperately to explain away the historical evidence” found in these authors, I’ve examined for instance Doherty, Wells and other skeptics on these sources, and I see no indication of desperation in their treatment of these issues. On the contrary, they seem more than willing to explore them and interact with literalist defenses of their alleged value as evidence for the Christian view. In fact, Doherty devotes an entire chapter to Josephus in his book The Jesus Puzzle (see pp. 205-222). Wells dedicates a chapter of his book The Jesus Myth (see pp. 196-223) to “The Earliest Non-Christian Testimony,” and deals specifically with Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. Josephus is a topic that has been raked over so thoroughly in the literature that it seems silly to rehash it. But it seems to impress you for some reason; why it does is not clear to me. Suetonius references a “Chrestus” in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), and many take this to mean the Jesus of the gospels. However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” and even if “Chrestus” is taken to mean “Christ” or “Messiah,” that this passing reference somehow confirms the portraits of Jesus found in the gospels seems more than a stretch (perhaps desperation?). The relevant writings of Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus all date from after the beginning of the second century, and it is already granted that by this time stories about a Jesus had been circulating. So when Tacitus mentions a “Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate,” he may very well have been reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, thus reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. All these points have been considered and debated over and over again, they certainly pose no threat to the mythicist or other critical positions, and I find no evidence of the desperation you affirm to exist in the critical literature. Indeed, Tim, it seems that if Christians had something stronger than appealing to these relatively late and non-contemporary sources to corroborate the gospel stories, they would. But they don’t because there is no independent contemporary witness to the gospel stories. What’s interesting is that writers who would have been contemporaries of the gospel Jesus, like Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) and Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD), never mention Jesus. And yet, it seems that if Jesus had indeed garnered the international reputation at the time that the gospels ascribe to him, we might well expect such contemporary authors to take notice.Tim continued: not to mention the Gospels, Acts, the epistlesThese have already been dealt with above and in the sources that have been cited. Now, earlier you had stated that there are “allusions” in Paul’s letters to details on the list that I gave from which we can infer that Paul’s audiences knew of those details. I’m still waiting for you to present some examples of this, and to defend this claim. So far, it seems you have abandoned this position. Is that true?Regards,Dawson
Tim respondedBart,You write:Paul taught a divine Jesus, but in all argumentation with the Judaizers, there is no hint of an argument over the Jewish concept of God ...If anyone has an alternate explanation for why there was no controversy in Paul's congregations, please address them.Because, on this point, they agreed with him.Tim,Pardon me if I am underwhelmed. "On this point, they agreed with him." I see you dealt with the implications to the point of getting blisters.Ok, let's go with your suggestion. Paul went from synagogue to synagogue in the region of Galatia, convincing the Jews and partially Judaized gentiles of the truth of his doctrine of Christ Jesus. He tells them that this person named Jesus had lived a few years before in the province of Gallilee, he had been crucified, and he subsequently rose up to heaven. In fact, he had actually been the God of Israel, the creater of all, existing incognito as a man. His true nature wasn't known until he arrived back to heaven, but now through the proper interpretation of the OT, it can be determined that he was God Himself. Naturally, his audience of Jews and gentiles bought this story They were especially pleased when he told them that if they believed this doctrine, they could ignore all the dictates of the Torah.Now comes a delegation of Jews from Jerusalem all up in arms about some of Paul's converts eating food offered to idols and refusing to be circumcized which would be the act of initiation into the covenant with God. Anathema! How dare Paul teach people that they could be in covenant relationship with God while ifnoring his laws. They corrected the heresy and brought many in the congregation back into compliance with Jewish law.But while these religious policemen were completely scandalized by lapses in proper observance in obedience to God, on the issue of corrupting the very idea of God and His complete transcendence and wholly otherness from his material creation, "THEY AGREED WITH PAUL THAT A RECENTLY LIVING MAN WAS GOD HIMSELF." (paraphrase of Tim's quote above).How does this make any sense? The very definition of God would have been under assault, and all the Judaizers were worried about was clipping off a bit of foreskin? Once again, I will ask for anyone with a cogent argument which better explains the phenomenon of the lack of contention between Paul and the Judaizers over the concept of God than the possibility that Paul wasn't teaching a human Christ Jesus.
Evan,Actually, I wasn't asking you for a cigar. If I ever reach the point of craving your approval in the evaluation of an historical argument, it will be after you've demonstrated your historical chops beyond the level of a 12 second Google search.I have dealt with Bart's argument in my responses to Bart. With respect to Dawson's "Christ myth" position, the principal issue is not the reliability of the New Testament in general -- that's a related point, but it is not central. This explains why liberal Protestant theologians in Germany in the 19th and early 20th century, people like Harnack and Troeltsch and Schweitzer, came down so hard on the Christ myth theory despite the fact that they were themselves using literary criteria and philosophical presuppositions to sift through the gospel narratives in search of the "historical Jesus."When the question is whether Jesus ever existed, pointing to the existence of early heretics is perfectly legitimate. Yes, of course Christological heresies arose in the first century; this does not come as news to anyone who has studied church history. Yes, of course these early heretics tried to co-opt Paul -- good grief, have you seen what some people are still doing with him today?! -- and if we had lost all of Paul's epistles and the book of Acts, this lacuna might provide space for interminable speculation regarding what Paul actually wrote or said. But as we do have these documents, we need not speculate in vacuo. In the presence of well-authenticated texts of the epistles, the wackiness of some early heretics is irrelevant for the matter of understanding Paul as he understood himself.
Tim, you've described yourself as an evidentialist. Let's say you are right that Jesus really existed. What do you say the probabilities are that he did? Let's say you'd say it's 90% sure he existed. Have you ever tried picking out a number between 1-100 and been wrong based on those odds?So where does that leave you? You're whole faith is based upon 90% odds. But that's not all. For next you'd have to defend that we actually have Jesus' words and that they weren't misrepresented by his disciples. Can you tell me the odds of them faithfully representing his words when there are clear instances of them putting words in his mouth based upon the sitz in leben? Thise odds are well below 50% even on your best count. And on it goes. What is the probability Jesus arose? What's the probability that you have the correct view of Christianity when there were early factions and factions today? The odds just keep getting smaller and smaller, don't they? Do a Baysian analysis of this, okay?Then ask yourself why God would consign people to hell who truly see it differently and you'll see what I see, a barbaric thought policeman type God.History and historical documents are a very poor medium for God to have chosen to reveal himself to us. If he did so, this makes him look stupid.Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: "A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention – could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? Would he not be a cruel god if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? – But perhaps he is a god of goodness notwithstanding – and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse!...Must he not then…be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?"
Tim, by what standard do you consider Marcion and Cerinthus heretics?By the standards that you feel are critically important, they knew FAR more about Christ than you do. They were closer to the original sources, had likely met "eyewitnesses" if there were any, they were more widely read in the primary sources and were likely contemporaries of people who knew Paul himself.Yet they disagree with you.How do you know that the authors of the synoptic Gospels held to a Christology you would consider to be orthodox? There is strong evidence that Luke held to a Docetic Christology.You seem to brush aside the challenge of the spread of Docetism in the first century -- but it is a huge challenge. If a large numbers of readers of Paul converted to Docetism, it is most definitely an argument in favor of Bart's view.
Dawson,You write:[Dawson:] Over and over again in your responses, you demonstrate that you don’t really grasp the major points that have been raised in this thread. Either that, or I do and they’re lousy.[Dawson:] I have explained this repeatedly, and in none of your follow-up comments have you overcome the habit of reading the early epistolary strata through gospel-colored glasses.Assertion without argument alert![Tim:] As the case actually stands, however, the mythers must try desperately to explain away the historical evidence found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal --[Dawson:] What evidential value do you think can be found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal in regards to the claim that the portraits of Jesus in the NT gospels are historically accurate?You’re changing the subject, which is whether Jesus existed. [Dawson:] Let’s deal with specifics, I’d be happy to examine it with you.You’re under the illusion that I’m engaging in this discussion because I need your help. [Dawson:] As for “mythers” having to “try desperately to explain away the historical evidence” found in these authors, I’ve examined for instance Doherty, Wells and other skeptics on these sources, and I see no indication of desperation in their treatment of these issues. On the contrary, they seem more than willing to explore them and interact with literalist defenses of their alleged value as evidence for the Christian view. In fact, Doherty devotes an entire chapter to Josephus in his book The Jesus Puzzle (see pp. 205-222). Wells dedicates a chapter of his book The Jesus Myth (see pp. 196-223) to “The Earliest Non-Christian Testimony,” and deals specifically with Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. Josephus is a topic that has been raked over so thoroughly in the literature that it seems silly to rehash it. My point was not that the tone of the attempts is desperate but rather that the arguments exhibit the sort of overreaching that indicates an inability to argue the case within the ordinary canons of historical investigation. I’ve read Wells’s discussions carefully, and I’m completely unimpressed. The Josephus denials are particularly weak in view of the discovery of the uninterpolated Arabic text of the Testimonium. Does it bother you just a little bit that the attempts by the mythers to “deal with” these sources have been dismissed by every serious historian to have looked at the issue, including conservative Protestant, liberal Protestant, liberal Catholic, agnostic, and atheist historians? [Dawson:] Suetonius references a “Chrestus” in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), and many take this to mean the Jesus of the gospels.And rightly so. [Dawson:] However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” Why would you expect him to do so? [Dawson:] ... and even if “Chrestus” is taken to mean “Christ” or “Messiah,” ...“Chrestus” is a known variant on “Christus,” which is the Greek term used to translate mashiyach in the Septuagint, so there is little room for doubt here.[Dawson:] ... that this passing reference somehow confirms the portraits of Jesus found in the gospels seems more than a stretch (perhaps desperation?). Here again you are misrepresenting my position and trying to shift the subject from the existence of Jesus to the accuracy of the gospels. If you are giving up on the mythic theory, we can move on. Otherwise, you are going to have to make your case, and that will have to include, inter alia, giving a historically credible explanation of the non-Christian references. Such attempts have been made since the days of Volney, and they have never impressed professional historians of the period. You are free, of course, to say that the entire guild of professional historians is prejudiced against your pet theory. But you do bear the burden of proof.[Dawson:] The relevant writings of Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus all date from after the beginning of the second century, and it is already granted that by this time stories about a Jesus had been circulating. So when Tacitus mentions a “Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate,” he may very well have been reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, thus reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. I have been unable to find anyone outside of the myther community who accepts this claim regarding Tacitus. His description in Annals 15.44 is hostile, even contemptuous. It bears no sign of having been obtained from interviews of Christians. Contrast this with Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Epistulae 10.96), which does contain information that Pliny obtained by interviewing (and torturing) Christians.[Dawson:] All these points have been considered and debated over and over again, ... They certainly have.[Dawson:] ... they certainly pose no threat to the mythicist or other critical positions, ...In the judgment of virtually every historian who has ever looked into the question, they are fatal to the mythicist position.[Dawson:] and I find no evidence of the desperation you affirm to exist in the critical literature.This admission leads me to conclude that you are not competent to evaluate historical arguments.Indeed, Tim, it seems that if Christians had something stronger than appealing to these relatively late and non-contemporary sources to corroborate the gospel stories, they would. But they don’t because there is no independent contemporary witness to the gospel stories. This statement sounds impressive to those who know nothing of the documentary remains of the first century A.D. It would be more telling if not for the fact that a printed copy of all of the writings of the first half of the first century would fill only about one linear foot on a bookshelf, and precious little of that deals with Palestine. (Thank the Romans for this: had Jerusalem not been destroyed, we would doubtless have more material.) It would also be more impressive if there were a strong reason to think that non-Christian contemporaries of Jesus would take enough interest in him to leave literary remains on the subject. But why should they? [Dawson:] What’s interesting is that writers who would have been contemporaries of the gospel Jesus, like Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) and Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD), never mention Jesus. Here we have another common move of the mythers, the argument from silence. Again, this will impress those with no firsthand knowledge of history, since they are likely to assume that a writer could not fail to mention such a person as Jesus had he really existed. But the assumption is exploded by examples from secular history. Thucydides, for example, never mentions Socrates, though from our point of view Socrates was the principal character in Athens during the twenty years embraced in the History. No historian concludes from this silence either that Socrates did not exist or that Thucydides was inventing his history. Pliny, who in a pair of letters written to Tacitus gives a meticulous eyewitness description of the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, never mentions the fact that the eruption buried two very populous cities, Herculaneum and Pompeii. No historian doubts the authenticity and substantial accuracy of Pliny’s letters on this account. Examples like this can be multiplied at will by anyone who has bothered to do work in the primary sources of history. Ignorance of these examples is, perhaps, one of the major factors separating the mythers from the historians.[Dawson:] And yet, it seems that if Jesus had indeed garnered the international reputation at the time that the gospels ascribe to him, ... The gospels ascribe an international reputation to Jesus within his lifetime? Dawson, have you ever read the gospels?[Dawson:] Now, earlier you had stated that there are “allusions” in Paul’s letters to details on the list that I gave from which we can infer that Paul’s audiences knew of those details. I’m still waiting for you to present some examples of this, and to defend this claim. So far, it seems you have abandoned this position. Is that true?Yet again you are misrepresenting my position, a habit that you indulge sufficiently often that it is no wonder if sane people eventually abandon the attempt to have a discussion with you. I never said that Paul alludes to the details on your list. By your own admission, you constructed the list to include details that were left out of the gospels. As I pointed out to you above, this renders your list worthless (unless you have been inadvertent) since it is very easy to construct a similar list for any letter or set of letters dealing with a real figure from history about whom we have extensive independent documentation. This variation on the argument from silence provides no evidence that the figure was not real: all that it establishes is the tautology that Paul did not mention the things in the gospels that he did not mention. The only interesting question is whether there are sufficient reasons to identify the person of whom Paul speaks with the person of whom the gospels speak. For that, Harvey’s list of allusions to features of the life of Jesus that are also depicted in the gospels gives you a good place to start.
Tim said,You're simply conflating two groups of Jews: those who became Christians, and those who tried to silence, imprision, or kill those who became Christians. My contention is not, naturally, that the latter group found Paul's teaching congenial, but rather that the rift you think should be located within early Christianity was in fact one of the defining divisions between early Christianity and the surrounding Judaism.Tim,Are you suggesting that Paul's preaching was not done in the context of Diaspora synagogues?Are you suggesting that the Jews among Paul's followers no longer thought of themselves as part of Israel?Are you suggesting that Christianized Jews would have huge issues with matters of proper observance to the God of Israel, but would have had no issues whatsoever with the altered understanding of the Jewish concept and definition of the God who ordered those observances?Regarding the discussion you are having with Evan concerning Marcion, Please get out a map of Asia Minor in the ancient world. Please note that Marcion hailed from Sinope on the shore of the Black Sea, just a short distance from the border of Galatia. His proximity to Paul's earliest congregations make it quite likely that his belief system grew out of that of Paul's actual teachings. His rejection of the humanity of Jesus in a Docetic conceptualization of a descent of the divine Jesus may have been a very close approximation to Paul's thinking and could explain why there was no controversy over the nature of Jesus in the Pauline congregations.
John,I see you're trying to use Plantinga-style dwindling probabilities argument. As I've mentioned before, this will fail. I'd say that the probability that Jesus existed, given the public evidence, is better than the probability that you will not be killed by an asteroid today.It is not necessary to maintain that we have all and only the exact words of Jesus in order to maintain that we have a substantially accurate picture of his life and sayings in the gospels. I am, however, unimpressed by most of Ehrman's examples in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. I discussed this issue at some length with the late lamented Bruce Metzger, Bart's dissertation director, about a decade ago. Metzger was also unpersuaded.For the math part, your propositions are not plausibly probabilistically independent or even approximately so.
Since you had mentioned Plantinga, he agrees with me.Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga seems to concurs with Lessing and Kierkegaard when he argues against historical knowledge being the basis for his faith, by saying, “our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn’t anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in the great truths of the gospel. If [our background knowledge] were all we had to go on, the only sensible course would be agnosticism: “I don’t know whether [the great truths of the Gospel are] true or not: all I can say for sure is that it is not terribly unlikely.”[i] In response to someone who asks whether we can discover that the Bible is divinely inspired in the same way as we learn that Herodotus and Xenophon were reliable writers of what they heard and saw, he wrote, “I don’t think so. Even discounting the effects of sin on our apprehension of the historical case, that case isn’t strong enough to produce warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching are true—at most, it could produce the warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching aren’t particularly improbable.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------[i] Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford university Press, 2000), p. 280.
Tim, you are indefatigable!You want examples? Did Adam and Eve exist? Cain and Abel? Abraham, Israel, Joseph, or King David himself? How about Judas Iscariot, or Joseph of Arimathea? Then too, what about King Arthur? Or the many figures in the Mormon Bible, including Moroni?You want more examples about the lack of assurance in history?How were the Egyptian pyramids made? Who made them? Why? Was Shakespeare a fictitious name for Francis Bacon? Exactly how was the Gettysburg battle fought and won? What was the true motivation for Lincoln to emancipate the slaves? What happened at Custer's last stand? Who killed President John F. Kennedy? Why? Who knew what and when during the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President Nixon resigning? Why did America lose the “war” in Vietnam? Did George W. Bush legitimately win the 2000 election? Did President Bush knowingly lead us into a war with Iraq on false pretenses? What about some high profile criminal cases? Is O.J. Simpson a murderer? Who killed Jon Bene Ramsey? Is Michael Jackson a pedophile?History is a slender reed to hang one's hat on when it comes to metaphysical beliefs in general, especially one that reports the miraculous, which we do not experience in today's world.
John,My claim was not that there are no doubtful existence claims in history, but that there are some that are so clear that no amount of vaporing about "perspectives" puts them in serious doubt.But you're scaring me with this one:Who killed President John F. Kennedy?If you are prepared to defend a JFK conspiracy theory in order to bolster historical skepticism about Christianity, I think that's my exit cue on this discussion.
Tim, when it comes to who killed Kennedy I agree with the report produced by his brother who was US Attorney General at the time. But, am I required to know this such that if I'm wrong I'll be sent to hell? Hell no! I might be wrong on almost every historical question.I don't suppose you're a black man either, for nearly 80% of black people in America think O.J. Simpson was framed by racist cops, since that has been their experience. As white people we don't have that experience so we tend to trust cops. And as white people who think the government does mostly right by us, we trust it when it tells us who killed Kennedy. But we haven't experienced some of the things that the conspiracists have with regard to what they consider oppressive policies and haphazard enforcement.I don't think you really appreciate the fact that how we see history depends on where we are in history and what we experience, which is my point. Have you ever taken a class in the philosophy of history? As smart as you are I would think you should before you continue arguing that your faith is built on the evidence of history. You have a strangely simplistic naïveté about this.
Tim: My claim was not that there are no doubtful existence claims in history, but that there are some that are so clear that no amount of vaporing about "perspectives" puts them in serious doubt.Yes, I agree with you. There was no Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Abraham, Israel, Joseph, King David, Judas Iscariot, nor Joseph of Arimathea.In the cases of the first seven people mentioned above it is "so clear that no amount of vaporing about 'perspectives' puts them in serious doubt."Do you disagree? Many people do.
I wrote: What evidential value do you think can be found in Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Juvenal in regards to the claim that the portraits of Jesus in the NT gospels are historically accurate?Tim: You’re changing the subject, which is whether Jesus existed.I see now where you’ve gotten yourself confused in this thread. If you review what I’ve been stating, I’ve been quite consistent in defending the position that the gospels are legends, not the view that Jesus never existed. I have nowhere presented an argument with the purpose of concluding that Jesus never existed. I made this clear early on in my comments in this thread when I wrote in response to a comment by Jessy:Where Doherty may be regarded as a "mythicist," I can be regarded as a "legendist" - I think it's clearly the case that the stories we read in the gospels and the book of Acts are the product of legendary developments, regardless of whether or not Mark came first, regardless of whether or not there was ultimately a human being named Jesus which initially inspired sacred stories messianic heroism.I think Doherty makes a lot of good points, even if one rejects his mythicist conclusions. And as I pointed out to Harvey, One can be skeptical of Doherty’s grand conclusion and yet recognize that he uncovers many damning facts in the process.So if you’re going to dialogue with me, Tim, you might want at least to get my position straight. Tim: My point was not that the tone of the attempts is desperate but rather that the arguments exhibit the sort of overreaching that indicates an inability to argue the case within the ordinary canons of historical investigation.Thanks for clarifying your statement. But still, you give no example of what you’ve charged against Doherty, Wells and others in the mythicist camp. As for “ordinary canons of historical investigation,” can you show us what you have in mind here, and where and how Doherty, Wells and other mythicists defy or flout these?Tim: I’ve read Wells’s discussions carefully, and I’m completely unimpressed.If you’ve read Wells, then you should know that he bases many (if not most) of his points on conclusions and admissions made by many authorities in history and apologetics. One can hardly read a paragraph in one of Wells’ books without encountering a damning statement from highly respected sources.Tim: The Josephus denials are particularly weak in view of the discovery of the uninterpolated Arabic text of the Testimonium.I’m not sure what you mean by “Josephus denials” here, but even if we suppose that the Testimonium is authentic, specifically what value is it? Tim: Does it bother you just a little bit that the attempts by the mythers to “deal with” these sources have been dismissed by every serious historian to have looked at the issue, including conservative Protestant, liberal Protestant, liberal Catholic, agnostic, and atheist historians?This is a common tactic on the part of apologists: assume that all “serious historians” are monolithic in their views and also in their condemnation of “the attempts by the mythers to ‘deal with’ these sources.” You say that Doherty’s attempts “have been dismissed by every serious historian” who has looked into these issues, which is more than just a general statement. Where’s your support for this? Is the mark of a “serious historian” his dismissal of Doherty’s attempts? If so, then you offer a mere tautology. Is there something more substantial that you have to support your statement? I don’t know, for you don’t give anything to support it here.I wrote: Suetonius references a “Chrestus” in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), and many take this to mean the Jesus of the gospels.Tim: And rightly so.How is that “rightly so”? How does a passing reference to “Chrestus” serve to indicate specifically the Jesus of the gospels? How does a passing reference to “Chrestus” mean specifically someone who was born of a virgin, who was baptized by John the Baptist, who performed miracles and healed congenital blindness, who was the Son of God, etc.? These elements are part of the identity of the Jesus of the gospels. How can we take Suetonius’ reference to “Chrestus” as confirmation of the truth of the gospels’ portraits?I wrote: However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” Tim: Why would you expect him to do so?It’s not about what I expect of Suetonius, it’s about what he says and also about what he fails to say. “Christ” was a title indicating a station, “Jesus” is a name of a person. I wrote: ... and even if “Chrestus” is taken to mean “Christ” or “Messiah,” ...Tim: “Chrestus” is a known variant on “Christus,” which is the Greek term used to translate mashiyach in the Septuagint, so there is little room for doubt here.That’s fine. But again, what value is it as evidence? Evidence specifically for what? I wrote: ... that this passing reference somehow confirms the portraits of Jesus found in the gospels seems more than a stretch (perhaps desperation?). Tim: Here again you are misrepresenting my position and trying to shift the subject from the existence of Jesus to the accuracy of the gospels.My point has always been the vast discrepancy between the early epistolary strata and the portraits we find in the gospels, Tim. So I’m not really shifting anything. In fact, I’m trying to bring the discussion back to my point.Tim: If you are giving up on the mythic theory, we can move on.Can you find any statement of mine where I affirm the mythic theory? Again, you seem to have missed some of my own comments, and thus are not fully aware of my position. It really makes no difference to me whether Jesus was a myth or originally a real person. Tim: Otherwise, you are going to have to make your case, and that will have to include, inter alia, giving a historically credible explanation of the non-Christian references.Why do I specifically have to do this? What is so historically incredible about Doherty’s, Wells’ and others’ treatments of these references? You’ve asserted that they are overreaching, that “every serious historian” rejects them, that they are untenable or what have you, over and over again. But I’ve not seen anything specific here to suggest that Doherty and Wells in particular have gotten these things wrong. It’s not enough to claim that “every serious historian” rejects them. Such claims need ample substantiation, given their universality, and you’ve not even begun to take up this task.I wrote: The relevant writings of Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus all date from after the beginning of the second century, and it is already granted that by this time stories about a Jesus had been circulating. So when Tacitus mentions a “Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate,” he may very well have been reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, thus reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. Tim: I have been unable to find anyone outside of the myther community who accepts this claim regarding Tacitus.RT France, a respected NT scholar who is no friend of the mythicist position, calls Wells’ case for Tacitus’ reference to “Chrestus” as coming either form interviews with Christians or from hearsay about what they believed “entirely convincing” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 23). In his The Historical Figure of Jesus, EP Sanders – another NT scholar – admits that “Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports” (p. 49), where Suetonius’ mention of “Chrestus” is taken to mean Jesus. Now what is the alternative that you prefer, and what evidence do you have for that alternative? Many apologists take the unsupported position that Tacitus looked it up in Roman records. But why then would he refer to Jesus as “Chrestus”? Would the Roman records have stated that ‘the Christ’ or ‘the Messiah’ was crucified? Would the Roman records have inaccurately given Pilate the title “procurator”? Tim: His description in Annals 15.44 is hostile, even contemptuous. It bears no sign of having been obtained from interviews of Christians.Either way, the very use of “Chrestus” – if this is supposed to refer to the Christian messiah – strongly suggests that Roman records were not the source of Tacitus’ information about a person being crucified under Pilate. Also, giving Pilate the title “procurator” also speaks against this. So, if not from interviews with Christians, or hearsay that he gathered from conversations with persons acquainted with what Christians believed by this time, what do you take as Tacitus’ source of information here, and why?I wrote: All these points have been considered and debated over and over again, they certainly pose no threat to the mythicist or other critical positions, ...Tim: In the judgment of virtually every historian who has ever looked into the question, they are fatal to the mythicist position.Well, until you present “the judgment of virtually every historian who has” not only “looked into the question,” but who has reviewed Doherty’s, Wells’ and other mythicists’ points on these non-Christian references, we only have your judgment that these references are “fatal to the mythicist position.” These references are relatively late, well into the time when at least one or two of the gospels were in circulation, well into the time when the legend of Jesus had grown to the point of setting his crucifixion under Pilate. So they certainly are not damaging to the legendist case that I would defend, so I don’t see how they would be damaging to the mythicist case either. When Wells backed away from the mythicist case, it surely was not because of a passing reference to “Chrestus” in Suetonius.I wrote: What’s interesting is that writers who would have been contemporaries of the gospel Jesus, like Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) and Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD), never mention Jesus. Tim: Here we have another common move of the mythers, the argument from silence.As corroborative evidence, argument from silence is not necessarily fallacious or invalid. In the proper context, it can be quite damning.Tim: Again, this will impress those with no firsthand knowledge of history, since they are likely to assume that a writer could not fail to mention such a person as Jesus had he really existed.It’s not only that they fail to mention Jesus, who’s fame (according to the gospels) had spread quite far during his own lifetime, but also the slaughter of the innocents or “a night of the living-righteous-undead” (as one commentator puts it), both of which only Matthew reports. Tim: But the assumption is exploded by examples from secular history. Thucydides, for example, never mentions Socrates, though from our point of view Socrates was the principal character in Athens during the twenty years embraced in the History. No historian concludes from this silence either that Socrates did not exist or that Thucydides was inventing his history.I would be more impressed by this as an attempt to bolster your effort to downplay deafening Pauline silences if Thucydides had written volumes about Socrates but failed to mention that he was a teacher, a philosopher, a thinker, etc. That would be closer to what we find in Paul vis-à-vis the gospels: here we have numerous letters achingly preaching about Jesus, but nowhere do they speak of Jesus as a teacher, a miracle-worker, a healer, an exorcist, etc., etc., etc. As the Jesus cult grew, so did the stories about who he was and what he did. That’s very characteristic of legend-building, and the pattern we find in the NT is precisely what we would expect to find if the gospels and later writings were the product of legend-building.I wrote: And yet, it seems that if Jesus had indeed garnered the international reputation at the time that the gospels ascribe to him, ... Tim: The gospels ascribe an international reputation to Jesus within his lifetime? Are you faulting me specifically for using of the word “international” here? The gospels speak of Jesus’ fame spreading throughout the region, from Palestine and Galilee and into Syria and other places (see Mt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mk. 1:28; Lk. 4:14; 4:37; 5:15, et al.) My point is that Jesus’ reputation as a healer and miracle-worker, according to the gospels, reached far and wide during the lifetime the gospels give to him. Gospel passages which speak of Jesus’ fame in this manner are most likely the product of evangelistic exaggeration. Paul's Jesus, on the other hand, was "emptied" and lived in obscurity.Tim: Dawson, have you ever read the gospels?Yes, both as a believer (in my misguided youth), and now as a non-believer. Glancing back at my 20’s, I now wonder, “What was I thinking?” whenever I look at the gospels. I know many others who have asked themselves the same question.Tim: Yet again you are misrepresenting my position, a habit that you indulge sufficiently often that it is no wonder if sane people eventually abandon the attempt to have a discussion with you. I never said that Paul alludes to the details on your list.You are welcome to clarify what you meant by ‘allusions’ then. Recall that I had asked:How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus?And you responded:One good way is by looking at all of places where he makes allusions that they could not have understood unless they already knew the outlines of the story of the life of Jesus. I was hoping you could give examples of what you mean here.Tim: By your own admission, you constructed the list to include details that were left out of the gospels.Huh? The details on my list (e.g., virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents, Jesus’ baptism, female witnesses, etc.) are taken from the gospels, not “left out of the gospels.” I think you meant to say “left out of Paul’s letters,” no?Tim: As I pointed out to you above, this renders your list worthless (unless you have been inadvertent) since it is very easy to construct a similar list for any letter or set of letters dealing with a real figure from history about whom we have extensive independent documentation.You’ve claimed this before, but I can think of no parallel situation to Paul’s letters preaching about Jesus. For Paul, Jesus was not just some person who existed in the past that he mentions in passing in a letter or two. Paul is preaching, and he’s preaching Jesus crucified and resurrected, and the portrait he paints of Jesus is nondescript by comparison to what we find in the gospels. The silences we have in Paul are much harder to explain than supposing this is a common practice in secular writings. Paul repeatedly issues moral teachings, and while he nowhere attributes those teachings to the earthly Jesus, we find in the gospels that evangelists have taken those teachings and thrust them into Jesus’ mouth, in order to give those teachings authority (apparently those teachings were not thought to be good enough on their own).Tim: This variation on the argument from silence provides no evidence that the figure was not real: all that it establishes is the tautology that Paul did not mention the things in the gospels that he did not mention.As I have stated before, and apparently need to state again, whether or not there was a real man named Jesus at some point in history prior to Paul’s writings who originally inspired a cult of religious hero-worship, is really of no concern to me. I’ve gone on record more than once in this thread declaring that my position is that the gospel stories are the product of legend-building, not that Jesus never existed. And Paul’s variant portrait of Jesus as compared to the gospels has much greater value than the mere tautology you grant here. But the fact that you grant that Paul is silent on numerous details that are central to the portrait of Jesus given in the gospels, is sufficient admission for my purposes to confirm that my position has a valid basis. Tim: The only interesting question is whether there are sufficient reasons to identify the person of whom Paul speaks with the person of whom the gospels speak.And this is essentially the question I’ve been raising, Tim. If you go back and review the themes that I have been developing in my comments here and in my writings elsewhere, you’ll see that the question you mention here is quite topical.Tim: For that, Harvey’s list of allusions to features of the life of Jesus that are also depicted in the gospels gives you a good place to start.And I’ve interacted with Harvey already above. Harvey seemed unaware of my point that later evangelists were in the position to lift elements from Paul’s letters – such as the moral teachings I mentioned above – and incorporate them into their portrait of Jesus in the gospels. Over and over, the historicists seem unable to grasp this point, which I don’t think is that difficult to grasp. Regards,Dawson
Dawson,When you wrote: Where Doherty may be regarded as a "mythicist," I can be regarded as a "legendist" - I think it's clearly the case that the stories we read in the gospels and the book of Acts are the product of legendary developments, regardless of whether or not Mark came first, regardless of whether or not there was ultimately a human being named Jesus which initially inspired sacred stories messianic heroism.I took you, I think naturally enough, to be siding with the mythers to this extent: that you disbelieve that there is abundant evidence that a real messianic teacher named Jesus, who stands behind the gospel accounts (whether they are legends or memoirs), existed in Palestine in the first quarter of the first century. This statement seems to reinforce that interpretation: It really makes no difference to me whether Jesus was a myth or originally a real person. Presumably if you thought there were strong evidence for it, you wouldn’t say this. Compare: “It really makes no difference to me whether Abraham Lincoln was a myth or originally a real person.” If someone said this, what should we infer about what he thinks of the evidence for the existence of Lincoln?But now you’re telling me (aren’t you?) that you do not disbelieve this. That’s great! My mistake, then. Let’s move on.You wrote to Harvey:One can be skeptical of Doherty’s grand conclusion and yet recognize that he uncovers many damning facts in the process.Like what?Tim: My point was not that the tone of the attempts is desperate but rather that the arguments exhibit the sort of overreaching that indicates an inability to argue the case within the ordinary canons of historical investigation.[Dawson:] Thanks for clarifying your statement. But still, you give no example of what you’ve charged against Doherty, Wells and others in the mythicist camp. As for “ordinary canons of historical investigation,” can you show us what you have in mind here, and where and how Doherty, Wells and other mythicists defy or flout these?Canon #1: Arguments from silence are virtually always worthless in history. Examples have been given above. Did you need more? Why?Tim: I’ve read Wells’s discussions carefully, and I’m completely unimpressed.If you’ve read Wells, then you should know that he bases many (if not most) of his points on conclusions and admissions made by many authorities in history and apologetics. One can hardly read a paragraph in one of Wells’ books without encountering a damning statement from highly respected sources.Not on Josephus, as I recall.Tim: The Josephus denials are particularly weak in view of the discovery of the uninterpolated Arabic text of the Testimonium.[Dawson:] I’m not sure what you mean by “Josephus denials” here, but even if we suppose that the Testimonium is authentic, specifically what value is it? In the uninterpolated version of Agapius? Let’s see. It tells us that Jesus was a real Jewish teacher around the time of John the Baptist. It characterizes him as wise, says that his conduct was good, and indicates that he was known for his virtue. It tells us that many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. It tells us that he was condemned to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, that his disciples did not abandon their discipleship after his crucifixion, and that he was reported by his disciples to have appeared to them alive three days after his crucifixion.Not bad, eh?Tim: Does it bother you just a little bit that the attempts by the mythers to “deal with” these sources have been dismissed by every serious historian to have looked at the issue, including conservative Protestant, liberal Protestant, liberal Catholic, agnostic, and atheist historians?This is a common tactic on the part of apologists: assume that all “serious historians” are monolithic in their views and also in their condemnation of “the attempts by the mythers to ‘deal with’ these sources.” You say that Doherty’s attempts ...I did not say Doherty’s attempts: I said the attempts by the mythers, of whom there have been many. Doherty’s attempt seems to have attracted almost no notice; what little it has received has come only within the past year or so.... “have been dismissed by every serious historian” who has looked into these issues, which is more than just a general statement. Where’s your support for this?I did name a dozen sources early in this thread when I was interacting with Tyro on the subject. How many did you need?Is the mark of a “serious historian” his dismissal of Doherty’s attempts? It is not a definition, though it might be a good criterion.If so, then you offer a mere tautology. Is there something more substantial that you have to support your statement? I don’t know, for you don’t give anything to support it here.Check out the list above. Maybe that wasn’t enough for you, so I’ll double it: Ernst Troeltsch, Adolf von Harnack, B. B. Warfield, Shirley Jackson Case, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, F. F. Bruce, Robert van Voorst, I. Howard Marshall, James D. G. Dunn, R. T. France (on whom more below), and Martin Hengel. Now you have the names of two dozen professional historical scholars, past and present, conservative and liberal, who think that the “Christ myth” theory is ridiculous. Several of them have written books or articles or book chapters about it.If you feel moved, you might want to compile a matching list of the scholars with earned doctorates in history or New Testament studies or Classics and a tenured or tenure-track position at an accredited academic institution in any western nation who have endorsed the Christ Myth position. If you reach two dozen, please do publish it here: I would be most interested to know.[Dawson:] I wrote: Suetonius references a “Chrestus” in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), and many take this to mean the Jesus of the gospels.Tim: And rightly so.[Dawson:] How is that “rightly so”? How does a passing reference to “Chrestus” serve to indicate specifically the Jesus of the gospels? It is evidence, Dawson, not a proof. The identification explains several things well: the name, the disturbance, and Claudius’s action. It also dovetails rather well with the Nazareth Inscription, which is plausibly dated to Claudius’s reign.How does a passing reference to “Chrestus” mean specifically someone who was born of a virgin, who was baptized by John the Baptist, who performed miracles and healed congenital blindness, who was the Son of God, etc.? These elements are part of the identity of the Jesus of the gospels.Here you are simply misrepresenting the claim of those who see in Suetonius’s remark a reference to Jesus. Two people may use names to refer to the same third individual without sharing all of the information about that third individual. The subject of how names refer is a vexed one in the philosophy of language, but no one that I know of would accept your suggestion that a description theory requires that one intend all of the descriptive information meant by any other user; it is sufficient if the definite descriptions pick out the same individual.How can we take Suetonius’ reference to “Chrestus” as confirmation of the truth of the gospels’ portraits?Indirectly: it places Jesus on the ground within a specified window of time, roughly 5 B.C. to 35 A.D., and within Judaism. This means that documents written about him within the next generation or two are less likely to be complete forgeries, as there were people who would have known the actual facts and been able to correct the misstatements. Such evidence is quite valuable in historical work. If we found evidence like that for William Tell, the entire nation of Switzerland would rejoice, even if it said nothing about the apple episode.I wrote: However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” Tim: Why would you expect him to do so?[Dawson:] It’s not about what I expect of Suetonius, it’s about what he says and also about what he fails to say. “Christ” was a title indicating a station, “Jesus” is a name of a person. Why should this observation have weight? For what it is worth, Suetonius probably thought “Chrestus” was a proper name: Χρηστος (“good, excellent, kind”) was a common name among Graeco-Roman slaves and freedmen. See TDNT 9: 484-85. The phonological confusion of eta for iota in this word is well documented, even among Christians. Tertullian even makes an allusion to the common mistake and a play on the meaning of “Chrestus” (Ad Nat. 1.3.9). This helps to explain why Suetonius got the spelling wrong.[Dawson:] I wrote: ... and even if “Chrestus” is taken to mean “Christ” or “Messiah,” ...Tim: “Chrestus” is a known variant on “Christus,” which is the Greek term used to translate mashiyach in the Septuagint, so there is little room for doubt here. [Dawson:] That’s fine. But again, what value is it as evidence? Evidence specifically for what? For the existence, in the first quarter of the first century A.D., of the person about whom Paul was writing and about whom the gospel stories, whether true or false, were written.[Dawson:] My point has always been the vast discrepancy between the early epistolary strata and the portraits we find in the gospels, Tim. So I’m not really shifting anything. In fact, I’m trying to bring the discussion back to my point.Tim: Otherwise, you are going to have to make your case, and that will have to include, inter alia, giving a historically credible explanation of the non-Christian references.[Dawson:] Why do I specifically have to do this? You don’t. Just agree that the mythers are going beyond the bounds of reasonableness, and you’re off the hook on this point as far as I’m concerned. But it looks like you don’t want to do that, as you continue:[Dawson:] What is so historically incredible about Doherty’s, Wells’ and others’ treatments of these references? Aside from the intrinsic weakness of some of their arguments, particularly the arguments from silence, the problem is that they need to explain all of the secular data away. If any one of them is a genuine independent reference to the same person to whom the gospels refer, then the mythic theory is shot. Now, one or two might be explained away, particularly if they were both from one source and an argument could be made that this source was unreliable or derived information entirely from Christian writings. But every additional reference from another non-Christian source adds to the implausibility of the attempt to explain them away. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg, as they also have to explain away the gospels, Acts, and the epistles. You’ve asserted that they are overreaching, that “every serious historian” rejects them, that they are untenable or what have you, over and over again. But I’ve not seen anything specific here to suggest that Doherty and Wells in particular have gotten these things wrong. It’s not enough to claim that “every serious historian” rejects them. Such claims need ample substantiation, given their universality, and you’ve not even begun to take up this task.Let’s start with the fact that the argument from silence, which is their stock in trade, is worthless. I have given you examples. If you know any history, you’ll be able to think of more for yourself. If you don’t, there’s no time like the present to start learning!Now we come to a place where you present some evidence that really does have bearing on the scholarly consensus issue:[Dawson:] I wrote: The relevant writings of Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus all date from after the beginning of the second century, and it is already granted that by this time stories about a Jesus had been circulating. So when Tacitus mentions a “Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate,” he may very well have been reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, thus reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. Tim: I have been unable to find anyone outside of the myther community who accepts this claim regarding Tacitus.[Dawson:] RT France, a respected NT scholar who is no friend of the mythicist position, calls Wells’ case for Tacitus’ reference to “Chrestus” as coming either form interviews with Christians or from hearsay about what they believed “entirely convincing” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 23). In his The Historical Figure of Jesus, EP Sanders – another NT scholar – admits that “Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports” (p. 49), where Suetonius’ mention of “Chrestus” is taken to mean Jesus. First, a point of fact: Tacitus uses “Christus,” not “Chrestus.” Second, a point of interpretation: I said that I couldn’t think of anyone who accepts the claim that Tacitus was reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, which is what you said in the statement to which I was responding. France doesn’t quite say this: what he says instead is that it came either from interviews with Christians or from hearsay. The Sanders quotation strikes me as an overstatement (how could he know this?), but on the Tacitus question, both Sanders and France come down more on your side of this question than I had thought anyone responsible did. Let me add Schweitzer to the list, just to strengthen your case – though mythers will get no aid and comfort from him (or from Sanders).Now what is the alternative that you prefer, and what evidence do you have for that alternative?If Tacitus’s information came from interviews with Christians, it would be evidence only of what Christians believed when they were interviewed. If it came from hearsay, it would be evidence for what was believed about Christians, which is wider in scope; if there were any dissent over whether “Christus” had been crucified under Pontius Pilate, this would lessen the probability that Tacitus would refer to it in so matter of fact a fashion. If it came from Roman records, then that closes the case on the mythic theory. So there are several options here. (1) There is no hint in the passage that Tacitus has personally conducted interviews to gain this information; that is, I think, by far the least plausible hypothesis. (2) It could be that the information came from someone else’s interviews and/or torturings of Christians. This cannot be ruled out. But in that case, it matters a great deal for our discussion when this information was wrung from them. If it was after the gospels had achieved currency, then it likely reflects what they had read and believed; if it was earlier, it would reflect at least oral traditions; if it was much earlier, it would reflect teaching in a community where eyewitnesses were still living. Of these three sub-possibilities under (2), the first two are of independent significance; the third shades off into (4), below, as the information would have had to be recorded. (3) It could be that it was a matter of common knowledge. This cannot be ruled out, and it would give stronger but not decisive evidence for the veracity of the facts Tacitus relates. (4) It could be that Tacitus looked it up in Roman records or some other non-Christian source. This cannot be ruled out, and for this reason the Sanders quotation seems to me to be an overstatement. We know that Tacitus used official sources constantly in his work: the Acta Diurna (see Annals 13.31, 16.22, etc.), the speeches of Tiberius and Claudius, various collections of letters, the work of Pliny the Elder, etc. Significantly, Tacitus had access to Josephus’s works and mentions nothing about Jesus that could not have been found in Josephus. If his information came from such an early non-Christian source, the mythic theory is effectively eliminated.How much weight should we give to each of these alternatives? (1) is quite implausible since it is not represented in the passage. (Contrast Pliny.) I do not think that there is a vastly stronger case for one of the options (2), (3), or (4) over the others. Therefore, we have to try to take account of what would be the case under each. Under (2), it tells us either nothing not in the gospels or else something about oral tradition prior to the gospels; this option makes the testimony of Tacitus either no independent evidence against the mythic theory or rather weak independent evidence against it – weak, since many of those oral traditions were probably incorporated into the gospels as we have them. Under (3), Tacitus’s report tells us what was believed in the Roman world at large. Since it is improbable that this story would have undisputed currency among Romans if it were not substantially true, this option makes the testimony of Tacitus rather strong evidence against the mythic theory. But one fact that tells against (3) is that there does not seem to have been much common knowledge about Christians in the Roman world; witness Suetonius’s probable botch of Christ’s name and Pliny’s resorting to torture to satisfy his curiosity.Under (4), the mythic theory is essentially ruled out. If I had to pick just one specific hypothesis as the most plausible of the lot, I’d go with Harnack and say Tacitus was using Josephus, on the basis of close parallels between them in the recounting of information. But since this cannot be proved, only shown to be plausible, the best we can do in the absence of further evidence is to say that this passage of Tacitus offers some evidence against the mythic theory but that it is not decisive. Many apologists take the unsupported position that Tacitus looked it up in Roman records. But why then would he refer to Jesus as “Chrestus”?He doesn’t: he refers to him as “Christus.”Would the Roman records have stated that ‘the Christ’ or ‘the Messiah’ was crucified?The term would not have had this significance for the Romans.Would the Roman records have inaccurately given Pilate the title “procurator”?Perhaps. “Procurator” and “prefect” were titles that applied to governors in essentially the same capacities, so the distinction was a fine one. Tacitus makes small errors in these sorts of details of titles elsewhere. Philo uses the same term for Pilate (Leg. ad Gaium 299), as does Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.1). So it is by no means necessary that Tacitus have obtained the title “procurator” from a Christian source; and if he got it from a non-Christian source, it needn’t have been an official Roman source.Tim: His description in Annals 15.44 is hostile, even contemptuous. It bears no sign of having been obtained from interviews of Christians.[Dawson:] Either way, the very use of “Chrestus” – if this is supposed to refer to the Christian messiah – strongly suggests that Roman records were not the source of Tacitus’ information about a person being crucified under Pilate.Not really: as I pointed out above, the word is “Christus” in Tacitus, and this title would have had no significance for the Romans.[Dawson:] Also, giving Pilate the title “procurator” also speaks against this. Not really: as I pointed out above, Tacitus is not typically microscopically accurate in this, and we have no independent evidence that I am aware of to think that the Acta were moreso. But this is moot since several other writers, including Josephus, use . [Dawson:] So, if not from interviews with Christians, or hearsay that he gathered from conversations with persons acquainted with what Christians believed by this time, what do you take as Tacitus’ source of information here, and why?I’ve given you a breakdown of the alternatives as I see them.[Dawson:] [U]ntil you present “the judgment of virtually every historian who has” not only “looked into the question,” but who has reviewed Doherty’s, Wells’ and other mythicists’ points on these non-Christian references, we only have your judgment that these references are “fatal to the mythicist position.” Since Doherty’s work is not likely ever to attract the attention of more than a handful of people with actual doctorates and academic affiliations in relevant fields, we will probably never have very many data points here. Eddy and Boyd are the only ones I know of. My comment referred, not to that vanishingly small fraction of the population of professional historians who have read Doherty, but to the somewhat larger set of professional historians who have read works of the “Christ myth” school and pronounced a judgment on them. I’ve listed two dozen of these already. This doesn’t reduce simply to my own judgment.[Dawson:] These references are relatively late, well into the time when at least one or two of the gospels were in circulation, well into the time when the legend of Jesus had grown to the point of setting his crucifixion under Pilate. Your manner of phrasing this is question begging. Beyond that, the references are from people who lived a substantial part of their lives in the first century. Pliny was born around 62; Tacitus was a slightly older contemporary of his. Josephus was born around 37.[Dawson:] So they certainly are not damaging to the legendist case that I would defend, ... I would have to see a canonical statement of your position before I could say how damaging they are.[Dawson:]... so I don’t see how they would be damaging to the mythicist case either. Well, that’s a non sequitur![Dawson:] When Wells backed away from the mythicist case, it surely was not because of a passing reference to “Chrestus” in Suetonius.My point has never been that that reference, or the Tacitus reference, or the Pliny reference, or the letter of Mara bar Serapion, or the reference in Toledoth Jesu, or the reference in the Talmud, or Lucian’s reference, is by itself strong independent evidence for the existence of a real Jesus. It is the fact that there are so many of them, each requiring to be explained away, that makes the case so strong. The Josephus references, on the other hand, are very strong; the only hope for the mythers is to explain them away altogether as Christian interpolations. And if Tacitus was relying on Josephus for his information, then that seals the fate of the mythic theory.When that is all done, we have still the gospels, Acts, and the epistles as evidence.[Dawson:] I wrote: What’s interesting is that writers who would have been contemporaries of the gospel Jesus, like Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) and Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 50 AD), never mention Jesus. Tim: Here we have another common move of the mythers, the argument from silence.[Dawson:] As corroborative evidence, argument from silence is not necessarily fallacious or invalid. In the proper context, it can be quite damning.If there is a lesson to be learned about arguments from silence from a study of history, it is that such a context is almost never present.Tim: Again, this will impress those with no firsthand knowledge of history, since they are likely to assume that a writer could not fail to mention such a person as Jesus had he really existed.[Dawson:] It’s not only that they fail to mention Jesus, who’s fame (according to the gospels) had spread quite far during his own lifetime, ...I see we’re down from “an international reputation” to “quite far.” Actually, in his own lifetime Jesus was essentially a nobody from the standpoint of the Roman world.[Dawson:] ... but also the slaughter of the innocents Yes, assuming that the account in Macrobius is derivative from Christian sources – but again, as this amounted probably to only a small number of children, there is no particular reason to think it would be recorded in Roman sources; and as for Josephus, he has greater crimes in the same vein to lay to Herod’s account.[Dawson:] or “a night of the living-righteous-undead” (as one commentator puts it), both of which only Matthew reports. A baffling passage, I admit. But aren’t we slipping over here from a discussion of whether the gospels give a substantially accurate portrayal of Jesus to a discussion of inerrancy?Tim: But the assumption is exploded by examples from secular history. Thucydides, for example, never mentions Socrates, though from our point of view Socrates was the principal character in Athens during the twenty years embraced in the History. No historian concludes from this silence either that Socrates did not exist or that Thucydides was inventing his history.[Dawson:] I would be more impressed by this as an attempt to bolster your effort to downplay deafening Pauline silences if Thucydides had written volumes about Socrates but failed to mention that he was a teacher, a philosopher, a thinker, etc. That would be closer to what we find in Paul vis-à-vis the gospels: here we have numerous letters achingly preaching about Jesus, but nowhere do they speak of Jesus as a teacher, a miracle-worker, a healer, an exorcist, etc., etc., etc. Paul isn’t writing volumes about Jesus: he is writing letters to churches. We get what one might expect if the stories were known and the main purposes of the letters were practical and doctrinal rather than historical. In passing, he alludes to Jesus’ teaching on the sorts of issues that one might expect to come up in churches, including divorce (1 Cor 7:10; note the special stress he lays on this and cf. Matt 5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) and the support of ministers of the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). 1 Cor 4:12 is probably an echo of the words of Christ recorded in Luke 6:28; 1 Cor 7:35 of the scene recorded in Luke 10:39-40; 1 Cor 13:2 a reference to the saying preserved in Matt 17:20. [Dawson:] As the Jesus cult grew, ...We’ve slipped over from evidence to a bit of preaching now. Which is fine – just noting it for the record.[Dawson:]... so did the stories about who he was and what he did. That’s very characteristic of legend-building, and the pattern we find in the NT is precisely what we would expect to find if the gospels and later writings were the product of legend-building.The pattern would be more impressive if the chronological ordering of the gospels could be established independently of the level of detail of the accounts. It would also be more impressive if it weren’t wrecked by the early creed embedded in 1 Cor 15, which puts the big miracle, front and center, right back in the first decade after the crucifixion, with names of witnesses no less, and those people named in the gospel accounts too.[Dawson:] I wrote: And yet, it seems that if Jesus had indeed garnered the international reputation at the time that the gospels ascribe to him, ... Tim: The gospels ascribe an international reputation to Jesus within his lifetime? [Dawson:] Are you faulting me specifically for using of the word “international” here? Yes – I think it’s quite misleading.[Dawson:] The gospels speak of Jesus’ fame spreading throughout the region, from Palestine and Galilee and into Syria and other places (see Mt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mk. 1:28; Lk. 4:14; 4:37; 5:15, et al.) My point is that Jesus’ reputation as a healer and miracle-worker, according to the gospels, reached far and wide during the lifetime the gospels give to him. Gospel passages which speak of Jesus’ fame in this manner are most likely the product of evangelistic exaggeration. Paul's Jesus, on the other hand, was "emptied" and lived in obscurity.I’m sorry, but putting this together with your earlier use of the phrase “international reputation,” you seem to me to be misreading such expressions in a very serious way. Taken at face value, they indicate that he was a local phenomenon. Yet you invoked this “international reputation” to argue that Seneca and Philo should have taken notice of him – which wouldn’t follow even if he were known in Rome. (See the reference to Thucydides and Socrates, above) This stunner prompted my next question:Tim: Dawson, have you ever read the gospels?[Dawson:] Yes, both as a believer (in my misguided youth), and now as a non-believer. Glancing back at my 20’s, I now wonder, “What was I thinking?” whenever I look at the gospels. I know many others who have asked themselves the same question.I’m very sorry to hear it; I hope you come to a better understanding of them, if nothing else, as you continue to read.Tim: Yet again you are misrepresenting my position, a habit that you indulge sufficiently often that it is no wonder if sane people eventually abandon the attempt to have a discussion with you. I never said that Paul alludes to the details on your list.[Dawson:] You are welcome to clarify what you meant by ‘allusions’ then. Recall that I had asked:How can we know what details the immediately intended audiences of Paul’s letters (e.g., the congregation at the Corinthian church, etc.) knew about Jesus?And you responded:[Tim:] One good way is by looking at all of places where he makes allusions that they could not have understood unless they already knew the outlines of the story of the life of Jesus. [Dawson:] I was hoping you could give examples of what you mean here.The comments above indicate this sufficiently, I think.Tim: By your own admission, you constructed the list to include details that were left out of the gospels.[Dawson:] Huh? The details on my list (e.g., virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents, Jesus’ baptism, female witnesses, etc.) are taken from the gospels, not “left out of the gospels.” I think you meant to say “left out of Paul’s letters,” no?Yes: my slip.Tim: As I pointed out to you above, this renders your list worthless (unless you have been inadvertent) since it is very easy to construct a similar list for any letter or set of letters dealing with a real figure from history about whom we have extensive independent documentation.[Dawson:] You’ve claimed this before, but I can think of no parallel situation to Paul’s letters preaching about Jesus.The point is a methodological one and applies generally; there is no need to find a set of letters preaching about a savior in order to run a test. You don’t seem to be getting my point here, so I’ll try again to explain it. You claim that the Christ of the epistles is someone other than the Jesus of the gospels; I don’t see it. Your argument is that there are many, many details left out of the epistles that are found in the gospels. Well, what was the purpose of the epistles? Are they memoirs? Not at all. What, then, should we expect? That depends on whether the recipients knew who Paul was talking about. If not, he would have had to give at least a thumbnail sketch; if so, there would be no need for it. [Dawson:] For Paul, Jesus was not just some person who existed in the past that he mentions in passing in a letter or two. Paul is preaching, and he’s preaching Jesus crucified and resurrected, ...No disagreement so far, except that Paul is doing more than preaching, and his preaching is chiefly doctrinal.[Dawson:] ... and the portrait he paints of Jesus is nondescript by comparison to what we find in the gospels. Just as we should expect them to be if he were referring to someone whose life and actions were already known to his audience.[Dawson:] The silences we have in Paul are much harder to explain than supposing this is a common practice in secular writings. Paul repeatedly issues moral teachings, and while he nowhere attributes those teachings to the earthly Jesus, ... Actually, he sometimes does, e.g. on divorce.[Dawson:] ... we find in the gospels that evangelists have taken those teachings and thrust them into Jesus’ mouth, in order to give those teachings authority (apparently those teachings were not thought to be good enough on their own).This is simply conjecture on your part. It runs afoul of the close correspondences between Acts and the epistles, on the one hand, and the undoubted sequence of Luke-Acts, on the other. Here the best sources are Paley and Hemer, references to which I have given above.Tim: This variation on the argument from silence provides no evidence that the figure was not real: all that it establishes is the tautology that Paul did not mention the things in the gospels that he did not mention.[Dawson:] As I have stated before, and apparently need to state again, whether or not there was a real man named Jesus at some point in history prior to Paul’s writings who originally inspired a cult of religious hero-worship, is really of no concern to me. I’ve gone on record more than once in this thread declaring that my position is that the gospel stories are the product of legend-building, not that Jesus never existed.And Paul’s variant portrait of Jesus as compared to the gospels has much greater value than the mere tautology you grant here. If so, I have not seen the argument that convinces me of it.[Dawson:] But the fact that you grant that Paul is silent on numerous details that are central to the portrait of Jesus given in the gospels, is sufficient admission for my purposes to confirm that my position has a valid basis.It shouldn’t, since this is what we would expect if your position were false and the traditional one were true.Tim: The only interesting question is whether there are sufficient reasons to identify the person of whom Paul speaks with the person of whom the gospels speak.[Dawson:] And this is essentially the question I’ve been raising, Tim. If you go back and review the themes that I have been developing in my comments here and in my writings elsewhere, you’ll see that the question you mention here is quite topical.But the problem, Dawson, is that you have been trying to argue for a negative answer to that question using a tool that cannot, in the nature of the case, do the job.Tim: For that, Harvey’s list of allusions to features of the life of Jesus that are also depicted in the gospels gives you a good place to start.[Dawson:] And I’ve interacted with Harvey already above. Harvey seemed unaware of my point that later evangelists were in the position to lift elements from Paul’s letters – such as the moral teachings I mentioned above – and incorporate them into their portrait of Jesus in the gospels. Over and over, the historicists seem unable to grasp this point, which I don’t think is that difficult to grasp.It isn’t difficult to grasp, it’s just implausible to the point of absurdity. The whole problem of the transformation of “myth” into history of the sort we get in the evangelists is almost indescribably tangled. The gospels differ from each other in numerous ways. Were they all supposed to be filling out the epistles, just doing it on their own and in different ways? The gospels differ from the epistles on details where Paul is explicit, such as the list of witnesses in 1 Cor 15, which is not replicated in its entirety in any gospel. How did they miss that? Paul refers explicitly to numerous other people then alive, some of them personally known to the people to whom he addresses his epistles, who were in a very strong position to know the details of the life of Jesus: Cephas, James, John, Silas, Barnabas – what need, with a large cohort of people on the ground in a position to know, to flesh out the epistles in a legendary way? Or is the claim that they were all just figments of Paul’s imagination? The gospels contain abundant overlapping material not mentioned in the epistles. Where did it come from? Lucky coincidence is a non-starter: there is a real teacher back of that material, whatever else one says about it. But if so, then there is no need to suppose that the evangelists were lifting anything from the epistles. The traditional explanation is infinitely simpler and more natural.
Dawson,I see that I left a word out in that last post. Where I wrote:But this is moot since several other writers, including Josephus, use . ...the sentence should be completed "... procurator."Sorry
The traditional explanation is infinitely simpler and more natural.Yes. It's infinitely simpler and more natural to think that a man who was God died and was resurrected and went up into the stratosphere by himself than to think it was a made up story.
Tim, it leads to a skeptical attitude, and that's what I have. Why you don't have that same attitude surprises me, unless you're a teacher for a Bible College or Seminary, for then you won't allow yourself to do so.
Tim,I've been busy all day with doctor appointments both for myself and for my daughter, so you'll have to forgive me for not responding to everything you wrote to me in your comment above. Had I the luxury of unbounded time, I would be happy to devote more to considering your points. For now, this is all I'll be posting at this time.Tim: I took you, I think naturally enough, to be siding with the mythers to this extent: that you disbelieve that there is abundant evidence that a real messianic teacher named Jesus, who stands behind the gospel accounts (whether they are legends or memoirs), existed in Palestine in the first quarter of the first century.I’m not sure how I could have been clearer than when I said the following of my position:the stories we read in the gospels and the book of Acts are the product of legendary developments, regardless of whether or not Mark came first, regardless of whether or not there was ultimately a human being named Jesus which initially inspired sacred stories [of] messianic heroism.Tim wrote: I’ve read Wells’s discussions carefully, and I’m completely unimpressed.I responded: If you’ve read Wells, then you should know that he bases many (if not most) of his points on conclusions and admissions made by many authorities in history and apologetics. One can hardly read a paragraph in one of Wells’ books without encountering a damning statement from highly respected sources.Tim: Not on Josephus, as I recall.I’m sure your memory is a fine one, Tim, and that you do a lot of reading. One problem with reading a lot (I suffer from this myself) is that after a while it is sometimes hard to remember where you’ve read something that you remember reading. But I’ll give a for instance here. In his interaction with JP Meier’s criticisms, Wells, in his The Jesus Legend, quotes among others S. Mason (Josephus) several times (at length on p. 50, again on following pages), paraphrases a position maintained by JN Birdsall (p. 51), and RE Brown (p. 54). That’s just one of Wells’ books. The statements by these scholars which Wells cites are all favorable to his points in response to Meier.Tim wrote: The Josephus denials are particularly weak in view of the discovery of the uninterpolated Arabic text of the Testimonium.I responded: I’m not sure what you mean by “Josephus denials” here, but even if we suppose that the Testimonium is authentic, specifically what value is it? Tim: In the uninterpolated version of Agapius? Let’s see. It tells us that Jesus was a real Jewish teacher around the time of John the Baptist. It characterizes him as wise, says that his conduct was good, and indicates that he was known for his virtue. It tells us that many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. It tells us that he was condemned to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, that his disciples did not abandon their discipleship after his crucifixion, and that he was reported by his disciples to have appeared to them alive three days after his crucifixion. Not bad, eh?This is just a recap of what the Testimonium states. But I take this to mean that you think not only that the Testimonium is authentic, at least Agapius’ version, but also that what it states is true. Is that correct? This puts a two-fold burden on you. Although it dates from the tenth century, the version you specify is often taken to be authentic because it is supposedly less complimentary to Christians, and therefore less likely to be a Christian insert. That’s a pretty weak argument, so hopefully you have something better than this. Needless to say, the existence of Agapius’ version of the Testimonium or its downplayed tone does not undo the fact that the first Christian to quote it is Eusebius, in the fourth century. The Jewish biblical scholar S. Sandmel points out that “although Church Fathers quoted Josephus frequently, and this paragraph would have suited their purposes admirably, yet they never quoted it” (We Jews, p. 18). Feldman notes that several Fathers from the second and third centuries used Josephus’ works, but they “do not refer to this passage [the Testimonium], though one would imagine it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite” (Josephus, p. 695). For these and many other reasons, the Testimonium is considered to be a Christian interpolation. Tim wrote: Does it bother you just a little bit that the attempts by the mythers to “deal with” these sources have been dismissed by every serious historian to have looked at the issue, including conservative Protestant, liberal Protestant, liberal Catholic, agnostic, and atheist historians?I responded: This is a common tactic on the part of apologists: assume that all “serious historians” are monolithic in their views and also in their condemnation of “the attempts by the mythers to ‘deal with’ these sources.” You say that [mythicists’] attempts “have been dismissed by every serious historian” who has looked into these issues, which is more than just a general statement. Where’s your support for this?Tim: I did name a dozen sources early in this thread when I was interacting with Tyro on the subject. How many did you need?You said “every.” How many are there? Only a dozen? I asked: How can we take Suetonius’ reference to “Chrestus” as confirmation of the truth of the gospels’ portraits?Tim: Indirectly: it places Jesus on the ground within a specified window of time, roughly 5 B.C. to 35 A.D.,Suetonius does not even name Jesus, but mentions a “Chrestus” in a passing comment, and his doing so does so much more than anything in all of Paul’s writings. Paul writes many letters preaching Jesus, and yet nowhere fits him in such a time range. This is dismissed by saying that Paul wasn’t writing memoirs about Jesus. Was Suetonius writing memoirs about Jesus? I’m inclined to agree with Wells when he writes: The historian Suetonius may fairly be represented as saying that under the Emperor Claudius (who died A.D. 54) there were disturbances in Rome between Jews and Christians concerning the claim being pressed by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. But no more about the ‘historical’ Jesus need have been included in this Christianity of Claudius’s day than what extant Christian writers (Paul and others) were saying before the gospels became established later in the first century; and this much does not confirm their portrait of Jesus as a preacher and wonder-worker in Pilate’s Palestine. (The Jesus Legend, pp. 40-41) Naturally I expect you to class this explanation into the group of “desperate” attempts to “explain away” what Christian apologists like to take as “evidence” for truth of the NT. And yet, I see it as stemming from a concern for, among other things, avoiding anachronism. Consider: The statement refers to Jews (not “Christians”) in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), to a “Chrestus” (not to Jesus) who had influence over these Jews. Were these early Christians in Rome? Perhaps. What were they taught? Who knows. How long were they there? Who knows. Who missionized them? Were they worshippers of a recently crucified Jesus? If one wanted to believe the gospels’ portrait of Jesus, it would be easy to fill in these blanks with gospel-inspired answers. But is that warranted by what Suetonius actually writes? I’m not persuaded that it is. Tim: This means that documents written about him within the next generation or two are less likely to be complete forgeries, as there were people who would have known the actual facts and been able to correct the misstatements.Isn’t this itself an argument from silence, Tim? It seems you’re arguing to the effect that, since we don’t have anyone coming forward and challenging the statement, we can rest assured that no one did, no one could have, or no one would have disagreed? Statements that a person writes are not suddenly broadcast – especially back in the second century – to everyone who might be interested as soon as they’re penned. I observed: However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” Tim asked: Why would you expect him to do so?I then responded: It’s not about what I expect of Suetonius, it’s about what he says and also about what he fails to say. “Christ” was a title indicating a station, “Jesus” is a name of a person. Tim now asks: Why should this observation have weight?If “Chrestus” is supposed to mean “Christ” (and for all I know, it very well could have), it still only references a title, not a specific individual named Jesus. Paul himself, in his letters as I have pointed out, warned his congregations about rival gospels, rival Jesuses, rival Christs. Whether Suetonius thought “Chrestus” or “Christ” was a proper name seems irrelevant, for he was reporting what he had learned, and a misunderstanding – whether Suetonius’ own or one he inherited from his own sources – won’t help us here.Tim wrote: “Chrestus” is a known variant on “Christus,” which is the Greek term used to translate mashiyach in the Septuagint, so there is little room for doubt here. I asked: That’s fine. But again, what value is it as evidence? Evidence specifically for what? Tim responded: For the existence, in the first quarter of the first century A.D., of the person about whom Paul was writing and about whom the gospel stories, whether true or false, were written.The way I read the passage in Suetonius, it could easily be taken to mean that the “Chrestus” under whose influence the Jews of Rome were causing unrest, was still alive, even present with them. Am I being outlandish here?Here’s the Latin: “Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.”Here’s the English translation: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”I asked: What is so historically incredible about Doherty’s, Wells’ and others’ treatments of these references? Tim: Aside from the intrinsic weakness of some of their arguments, particularly the arguments from silence, the problem is that they need to explain all of the secular data away. If any one of them is a genuine independent reference to the same person to whom the gospels refer, then the mythic theory is shot. Now, one or two might be explained away, particularly if they were both from one source and an argument could be made that this source was unreliable or derived information entirely from Christian writings. But every additional reference from another non-Christian source adds to the implausibility of the attempt to explain them away.I disagree. None of the non-Christian references are early. In fact, most are from the second century and later. The best of them only testifies that Christians existed, not that the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels was a real person. Also, I have reviewed Doherty’s and Wells’ interactions not only with the references in question, but also with apologetic treatments hoisting them up as evidence for a historical Jesus, and I do not find their explanations at all “desperate,” as you had indicated earlier. It could simply be that we have different contexts of judging the material in question, but from what you’ve provided, I’m unpersuaded that anything I’ve read in either of these two authors is really such a stretch.I wrote: RT France, a respected NT scholar who is no friend of the mythicist position, calls Wells’ case for Tacitus’ reference to “Chrestus” as coming either form interviews with Christians or from hearsay about what they believed “entirely convincing” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 23). In his The Historical Figure of Jesus, EP Sanders – another NT scholar – admits that “Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports” (p. 49), where Suetonius’ mention of “Chrestus” is taken to mean Jesus. Tim: First, a point of fact: Tacitus uses “Christus,” not “Chrestus.”Thanks for the correction – you can tell I’m multitasking like crazy to try to participate here.Tim: Second, a point of interpretation: I said that I couldn’t think of anyone who accepts the claim that Tacitus was reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, which is what you said in the statement to which I was responding. France doesn’t quite say this: what he says instead is that it came either from interviews with Christians or from hearsay.Understood. My point in my above statement was that Tacitus was essentially reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. How specifically Tacitus learned it – whether through firsthand interviews with Christians, or from hearsay, etc. – is ultimately immaterial to the point I was trying to make. But keep in mind that Tacitus was governor of the province of Asia ca. AD 112-113 and, as Wells surmises, "may well have had the same kind of trouble with Christianity that Pliny experienced as governor of nearby Bithynia at that very time.” He notes Hengel’s statement that “Tacitus’ precise knowledge of Christians and his contempt for them are probably to be derived from the trials of Christians which he carried out when he was governor in the province of Asia,” and concludes: “To decide from his ‘hostile tone’ that his information does not derive from Christians, is entirely unwarranted.” (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 17; Wells quotes Hengel’s Crucifixion, p. 3). Tim: The Sanders quotation strikes me as an overstatement (how could he know this?),I think that’s a fair question, but as a respected source, don’t you suppose he has his reasons for making such a statement? Or, is it the case that even scholars are capable of overstating their case?Tim: but on the Tacitus question, both Sanders and France come down more on your side of this question than I had thought anyone responsible did.So there you have your answer.I wrote: It’s not only that they fail to mention Jesus, who’s fame (according to the gospels) had spread quite far during his own lifetime, ...Tim: I see we’re down from “an international reputation” to “quite far.” Actually, in his own lifetime Jesus was essentially a nobody from the standpoint of the Roman world.“International” does not by definition denote all nations; rather, it means involving two or more nations. And that is the impression I get from the NT passages I cited.I wrote: ... but also the slaughter of the innocents Tim: Yes, assuming that the account in Macrobius is derivative from Christian sources – but again, as this amounted probably to only a small number of children, there is no particular reason to think it would be recorded in Roman sources; and as for Josephus, he has greater crimes in the same vein to lay to Herod’s account.So, there is admittedly no corroboration of the slaughter of the innocents – even in the NT (Matthew being the only one who mentions it) – but we can be sure it happened all the same, because Matthew includes it in his gospel. Got it.I wrote: or “a night of the living-righteous-undead” (as one commentator puts it), both of which only Matthew reports. Tim: A baffling passage, I admit. But aren’t we slipping over here from a discussion of whether the gospels give a substantially accurate portrayal of Jesus to a discussion of inerrancy?No, inerrancy is not where I was going with this. The point is that the gospel of Matthew is an excellent example of the kind of legend-building I’m talking about. There are numerous details in Matthew’s gospel that are so “baffling” (as you yourself put it) that they embarrass many believers. In my experience, Christian apologists don’t want to touch these points with a ten-foot pole.Tim: Paul isn’t writing volumes about Jesus: he is writing letters to churches.Paul is by far the most prolific writer of the New Testament. In terms of volume (i.e., quantity, as I intended the use of the term in my statement above), he produced the largest portion of writings concerning Jesus that the church saw fit to canonize. In that corpus of epistles, we do not find Paul ever characterizing Jesus as a teacher, a miracle-worker, a healer, an exorcist, as born of a virgin, etc. Imagine someone writing 10 letters heaping admiration for Mozart, and never once mentioning that Mozart wrote music or that he lived in the 1700s. Tim: We get what one might expect if the stories were known and the main purposes of the letters were practical and doctrinal rather than historical.Not if Paul had known of the teachings which the gospels attribute to Jesus. Had Paul known of these teachings, why didn’t he credit Jesus with them when he (Paul) pens them into his letters? Indeed, Christians are always trying to put the stamp of Jesus’ approval on the things they say. It is conspicuous by its very absence that he doesn’t do this.Tim: In passing, he alludes to Jesus’ teaching on the sorts of issues that one might expect to come up in churches, including divorce (1 Cor 7:10; note the special stress he lays on this and cf. Matt 5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18)I Cor. 7:10 is probably the strongest citation you’ll be able to produce on behalf of your point. In it Paul attributes his charge to those who are married to “the Lord,” which for Paul is the risen, heavenly Jesus, not a pre-crucifixion Jesus. So he doesn’t have the earthly Jesus we encounter in the gospels in mind here. Also, Mark’s use of this teaching is troublesome. Wells points out:Jesus could not, as Mark alleges, have told a Palestinian audience that a wife should not seek divorce, since in Palestine only men were allowed to do so. But Paul could appropriately urge such a ruling on the Gentile Christian communities to which he appealed; and if he told them it was Jesus’ teaching, he would have meant (as many commentators admit) not a teaching of a Palestinian Jesus but a directive given by some Christian prophet speaking in the name of the risen one.... This would have been the obvious way of supporting a ruling on divorce which the Christians of Paul’s day were anxious to inculcate. At a later stage it would naturally have been supposed that Jesus must have said during his lifetime what it was believed the risen one had said through Christian prophets; and so the doctrine was, however inappropriately, put into his mouth as an address to a Palestinian audience by Mark. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 23)So that Paul got this teaching from traditions about an earthly Jesus is problematic.Well, Tim, I wish I had more time to respond to your many other points. Unfortunately I do not, so I’ll have to let things lie unless somehow I am afforded more opportunity to delve into these matters further.Regards,Dawson
Tim,I said,Please get out a map of Asia Minor in the ancient world. Please note that Marcion hailed from Sinope on the shore of the Black Sea, just a short distance from the border of Galatia. His proximity to Paul's earliest congregations make it quite likely that his belief system grew out of that of Paul's actual teachings. Then you responded,You and I clearly have different standards for what it means for one thing to make another quite likely.I now write,Am I saying that Marcion perfectly reflected Pauline thought? No, but I'm not saying it didn't either. We simply don't know. However, the region of Galatia borders on Marcion's home. His thinking didn't fall out of the air. And he used Paul as his theological source, believing that he alone understood the gospel. And Marcion didn't accept the idea that Jesus was a real man. It is more likely that Marcion grew out of authentic Pauline roots than that he came up with an independent Christology and gospel and just tried to impose it on Paul.You must keep in mind that no example of Pauline Christianity can be found in any first century document, nor from the writings of the early second century fathers. In fact, Pauline Christianity emerged first through Marcion. Marcion claimed to be faithfully representing Pauline thought. On what basis would you counter Marcion's claim? Prior to Marcion, where do you find any Christian clearly following the Pauline tradition?
Dawson,Not to worry about breaking off the discussion: I won’t assume that you’ve been convinced or that you’ve run out of things to say just because you no longer have time to pour into it. I’ve spent more time on it than I should myself. Tim: I took you, I think naturally enough, to be siding with the mythers to this extent: that you disbelieve that there is abundant evidence that a real messianic teacher named Jesus, who stands behind the gospel accounts (whether they are legends or memoirs), existed in Palestine in the first quarter of the first century.[Dawson:] I’m not sure how I could have been clearer than when I said the following of my position:the stories we read in the gospels and the book of Acts are the product of legendary developments, regardless of whether or not Mark came first, regardless of whether or not there was ultimately a human being named Jesus which initially inspired sacred stories [of] messianic heroism.My confusion arose because you repeatedly defended Wells's and Doherty’s positions and arguments.Tim wrote: I’ve read Wells’s discussions carefully, and I’m completely unimpressed.[Dawson:] I responded: If you’ve read Wells, then you should know that he bases many (if not most) of his points on conclusions and admissions made by many authorities in history and apologetics. One can hardly read a paragraph in one of Wells’ books without encountering a damning statement from highly respected sources.Tim: Not on Josephus, as I recall.[Dawson:] I’m sure your memory is a fine one, Tim, and that you do a lot of reading. One problem with reading a lot (I suffer from this myself) is that after a while it is sometimes hard to remember where you’ve read something that you remember reading. But I’ll give a for instance here. In his interaction with JP Meier’s criticisms, Wells, in his The Jesus Legend, quotes among others S. Mason (Josephus) several times (at length on p. 50, again on following pages), paraphrases a position maintained by JN Birdsall (p. 51), and RE Brown (p. 54). That’s just one of Wells’ books. The statements by these scholars which Wells cites are all favorable to his points in response to Meier.My point was not that Wells lacks references but rather that they are not, taken collectively and in the context of wider Josephan scholarship, "damning" (your term). Mason, for example, contends (in keeping with the vast majority of modern scholarship on this issue) that the core of the Testimonium was present in the original but suffered later Christian interpolations which, however, we can identify, partly thanks to the uninterpolated text of Agapius. Birdsall’s critique depends on lexical arguments that the majority of scholars have not found persuasive; he represents the minority position, and there is a reason that it is in the minority.Tim wrote: The Josephus denials are particularly weak in view of the discovery of the uninterpolated Arabic text of the Testimonium.[Dawson:] I responded: I’m not sure what you mean by “Josephus denials” here, but even if we suppose that the Testimonium is authentic, specifically what value is it? Tim: In the uninterpolated version of Agapius? Let’s see. It tells us that Jesus was a real Jewish teacher around the time of John the Baptist. It characterizes him as wise, says that his conduct was good, and indicates that he was known for his virtue. It tells us that many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. It tells us that he was condemned to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, that his disciples did not abandon their discipleship after his crucifixion, and that he was reported by his disciples to have appeared to them alive three days after his crucifixion. Not bad, eh?[Dawson:] This is just a recap of what the Testimonium states. But I take this to mean that you think not only that the Testimonium is authentic, at least Agapius’ version, but also that what it states is true. Is that correct?I think we are just using terminology differently here. By “authentic” I took it that you meant veridical. From this comment, however, it appears that you meant what I would mean by “genuine” – really the work of Josephus. However, we can go on, as it is my position that the Testimonium (in something like Agapius’s version) is both genuine and authentic: Josephus really wrote it, and he was not confused.[Dawson:] This puts a two-fold burden on you. Although it dates from the tenth century, the version you specify is often taken to be authentic because it is supposedly less complimentary to Christians, and therefore less likely to be a Christian insert.The case in favor of the Agapian text is more detailed than this. Your flattening it out this way may explain your next comment:[Dawson:] That’s a pretty weak argument, so hopefully you have something better than this. For a fuller, but still compact, statement of the argument, I recommend the discussion in van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 81-104, and particularly the seven reasons adduced on pp. 95-99 for favoring a neutral reconstruction.[Dawson:] Needless to say, the existence of Agapius’ version of the Testimonium or its downplayed tone does not undo the fact that the first Christian to quote it is Eusebius, in the fourth century. The Jewish biblical scholar S. Sandmel points out that “although Church Fathers quoted Josephus frequently, and this paragraph would have suited their purposes admirably, yet they never quoted it” (We Jews, p. 18). Feldman notes that several Fathers from the second and third centuries used Josephus’ works, but they “do not refer to this passage [the Testimonium], though one would imagine it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite” (Josephus, p. 695). For these and many other reasons, the Testimonium is considered to be a Christian interpolation.Again an argument from silence. This is mildly interesting but carries (as usual) little weight. Feldman himself does not consider the passage to be a wholesale Christian interpolation, so he obviously isn't as impressed with the argument as Wells is. The passive construction "is considered to be" should certainly not be construed to include Feldman. Tim wrote: Does it bother you just a little bit that the attempts by the mythers to “deal with” these sources have been dismissed by every serious historian to have looked at the issue, including conservative Protestant, liberal Protestant, liberal Catholic, agnostic, and atheist historians?[Dawson:] I responded: This is a common tactic on the part of apologists: assume that all “serious historians” are monolithic in their views and also in their condemnation of “the attempts by the mythers to ‘deal with’ these sources.” You say that [mythicists’] attempts “have been dismissed by every serious historian” who has looked into these issues, which is more than just a general statement. Where’s your support for this?Tim: I did name a dozen sources early in this thread when I was interacting with Tyro on the subject. How many did you need?[Dawson:] You said “every.” How many are there? Only a dozen? I listed another dozen for you above. (The thread is getting abominably long, so I can understand how you might have missed them.) Yes, we’re going to run out of people eventually, simply because the mythic theory isn’t exactly the sort of thing to occupy the majority of serious scholars. I've given you two dozen; how many people can you find who meet the criteria I listed (earned doctorate in history, NT studies, or classics, academic affiliation) who hold the mythic theory? [Dawson:] I asked: How can we take Suetonius’ reference to “Chrestus” as confirmation of the truth of the gospels’ portraits?Tim: Indirectly: it places Jesus on the ground within a specified window of time, roughly 5 B.C. to 35 A.D.,[Dawson:] Suetonius does not even name Jesus, but mentions a “Chrestus” in a passing comment, and his doing so does so much more than anything in all of Paul’s writings. Paul writes many letters preaching Jesus, and yet nowhere fits him in such a time range. This is dismissed by saying that Paul wasn’t writing memoirs about Jesus. Was Suetonius writing memoirs about Jesus? Whoa. The context for this exchange was your prior comment: [Dawson:] Suetonius references a “Chrestus” in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), and many take this to mean the Jesus of the gospels.I answered your question in the light of this prior comment: if Suetonius’s reference ot “Chrestus” does, in fact, pick out Jesus, then what I said follows. It forms no part of this contention that Suetonius knew much of anything about the details of Jesus’ life.[Dawson:] I’m inclined to agree with Wells when he writes: The historian Suetonius may fairly be represented as saying that under the Emperor Claudius (who died A.D. 54) there were disturbances in Rome between Jews and Christians concerning the claim being pressed by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah.Here, for once, I agree with Wells.[Continuing quotation from Wells:] But no more about the ‘historical’ Jesus need have been included in this Christianity of Claudius’s day than what extant Christian writers (Paul and others) were saying before the gospels became established later in the first century; and this much does not confirm their portrait of Jesus as a preacher and wonder-worker in Pilate’s Palestine. (The Jesus Legend, pp. 40-41) Between “need have been” and “probably was” there is a serious gap. Wells needs the reader to infer the latter from the former, more cautious statement. But he presents no evidence that would justify this further step.[Dawson:] Naturally I expect you to class this explanation into the group of “desperate” attempts to “explain away” what Christian apologists like to take as “evidence” for truth of the NT. And yet, I see it as stemming from a concern for, among other things, avoiding anachronism.Consider: The statement refers to Jews (not “Christians”) in Rome during Claudius’ reign (AD 41-54), to a “Chrestus” (not to Jesus) who had influence over these Jews. Were these early Christians in Rome? Perhaps. What were they taught? Who knows. How long were they there? Who knows. Who missionized them? Were they worshippers of a recently crucified Jesus? If one wanted to believe the gospels’ portrait of Jesus, it would be easy to fill in these blanks with gospel-inspired answers. But is that warranted by what Suetonius actually writes? I’m not persuaded that it is.I agree with you that by itself the Suetonius reference does not speak to most of these questions – nor did I say that it does. However, that reference fits together well with the account of the growth of the early church and the clashes with Judaism as recounted in Acts and the epistles. Tim: This means that documents written about him within the next generation or two are less likely to be complete forgeries, as there were people who would have known the actual facts and been able to correct the misstatements.[Dawson:] Isn’t this itself an argument from silence, Tim? It seems you’re arguing to the effect that, since we don’t have anyone coming forward and challenging the statement, we can rest assured that no one did, no one could have, or no one would have disagreed? Statements that a person writes are not suddenly broadcast – especially back in the second century – to everyone who might be interested as soon as they’re penned. No. I am not arguing that the records must be true because they are uncontradicted: I am pointing out that large-scale fabrications are more difficult to pass off as genuine when the events they report are supposed to have taken place within living memory than when they are not. [Dawson:] I observed: However, he nowhere mentions a “Jesus,” Tim asked: Why would you expect him to do so?[Dawson:] I then responded: It’s not about what I expect of Suetonius, it’s about what he says and also about what he fails to say. “Christ” was a title indicating a station, “Jesus” is a name of a person. Tim now asks: Why should this observation have weight?[Dawson:] If “Chrestus” is supposed to mean “Christ” (and for all I know, it very well could have), it still only references a title, not a specific individual named Jesus. Paul himself, in his letters as I have pointed out, warned his congregations about rival gospels, rival Jesuses, rival Christs. Whether Suetonius thought “Chrestus” or “Christ” was a proper name seems irrelevant, for he was reporting what he had learned, and a misunderstanding – whether Suetonius’ own or one he inherited from his own sources – won’t help us here.If I had claimed that we can infer a lot about Jesus from the Suetonius reference alone, then I would see your point. But I haven’t. So it seems that you’re attacking a straw man here.Tim wrote: “Chrestus” is a known variant on “Christus,” which is the Greek term used to translate mashiyach in the Septuagint, so there is little room for doubt here. [Dawson:] I asked: That’s fine. But again, what value is it as evidence? Evidence specifically for what? Tim responded: For the existence, in the first quarter of the first century A.D., of the person about whom Paul was writing and about whom the gospel stories, whether true or false, were written.[Dawson:] The way I read the passage in Suetonius, it could easily be taken to mean that the “Chrestus” under whose influence the Jews of Rome were causing unrest, was still alive, even present with them. Am I being outlandish here?No, but you are changing the subject, perhaps because you have forgotten the context of our exchange. Just before the bit you’ve quoted came this bit:[Dawson:] I wrote: ... and even if “Chrestus” is taken to mean “Christ” or “Messiah,” ...So the question is not (as you are now making it out) whether Suetonius thought “Chrestus” was the Jewish messiah or whether he thought “Chrestus” was alive, but rather whether, if the guy whose name Suetonius got wrong was, in fact, “Christus,” the messiah, this reflects on the historicity of Jesus.[Dawson:] I asked: What is so historically incredible about Doherty’s, Wells’ and others’ treatments of these references? Tim: Aside from the intrinsic weakness of some of their arguments, particularly the arguments from silence, the problem is that they need to explain all of the secular data away. If any one of them is a genuine independent reference to the same person to whom the gospels refer, then the mythic theory is shot. Now, one or two might be explained away, particularly if they were both from one source and an argument could be made that this source was unreliable or derived information entirely from Christian writings. But every additional reference from another non-Christian source adds to the implausibility of the attempt to explain them away.[Dawson:] I disagree. No surprise there.None of the non-Christian references are early. In fact, most are from the second century and later. In the context of ancient history, Dawson, that’s awfully early. And the Josephus references are from the first century.[Dawson:] The best of them only testifies that Christians existed, not that the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels was a real person. The Tacitus reference goes further than the existence of Christians to the existence and crucifixion of Christus under Pontius Pilate, as does the Josephus reference (in uninterpolated form), which Tacitus may be following.[Dawson:] Also, I have reviewed Doherty’s and Wells’ interactions not only with the references in question, but also with apologetic treatments hoisting them up as evidence for a historical Jesus, and I do not find their explanations at all “desperate,” as you had indicated earlier. I never indicated that you would find them desperate; rather, my point is that professional historians who have bothered to look at myther works almost invariably find them so, as do I.It could simply be that we have different contexts of judging the material in question, but from what you’ve provided, I’m unpersuaded that anything I’ve read in either of these two authors is really such a stretch.Okay.[Dawson:] I wrote: RT France, a respected NT scholar who is no friend of the mythicist position, calls Wells’ case for Tacitus’ reference to “Chrestus” as coming either form interviews with Christians or from hearsay about what they believed “entirely convincing” (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 23). In his The Historical Figure of Jesus, EP Sanders – another NT scholar – admits that “Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports” (p. 49), where Suetonius’ mention of “Chrestus” is taken to mean Jesus. ...Tim: Second, a point of interpretation: I said that I couldn’t think of anyone who accepts the claim that Tacitus was reporting what he learned from Christians he had interviewed, which is what you said in the statement to which I was responding. France doesn’t quite say this: what he says instead is that it came either from interviews with Christians or from hearsay.[Dawson:] Understood. My point in my above statement was that Tacitus was essentially reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. How specifically Tacitus learned it – whether through firsthand interviews with Christians, or from hearsay, etc. – is ultimately immaterial to the point I was trying to make. I do not understand why you say this. If Tacitus learned it from Josephys, then Josephus contained a clear reference to Jesus centuries before Eusebius is supposed to have inserted it. That closes the loophole that both Wells and Doherty have tried to use to get rid of the Testimonium. [Dawson:] But keep in mind that Tacitus was governor of the province of Asia ca. AD 112-113 and, as Wells surmises, “may well have had the same kind of trouble with Christianity that Pliny experienced as governor of nearby Bithynia at that very time.” Note the use of “may well have” here. That is acceptable if one is merely trying to establish possibility. But Wells needs much more than this: he needs to establish a high probability not only that Tacitus had trouble but that he derived his information regarding Christians at first hand from the Christians or, failing that in some other manner that does not allow for a non-Christian, first century source. For that purpose, he needs to cite strong evidence. But such evidence is not available; indeed, as I have suggested above, the most plausible explanation for Tacitus’s reference – and the only proferred explanation that directly explains his use of “procurator” as Pilate’s title – is that he was making use of the Testimonium in Josephus’s Antiquities[Dawson:] He notes Hengel’s statement that “Tacitus’ precise knowledge of Christians and his contempt for them are probably to be derived from the trials of Christians which he carried out when he was governor in the province of Asia,” ... I have very great respect for Martin Hengel, but in this instance I think he is mistaken.... and concludes: “To decide from his ‘hostile tone’ that his information does not derive from Christians, is entirely unwarranted.” (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 17; Wells quotes Hengel’s Crucifixion, p. 3).The conclusion of this is from Wells, of course, not from Hengel. If Wells were right that this is unwarranted it would not follow that the information does derive from Christians, of course.Tim: The Sanders quotation strikes me as an overstatement (how could he know this?),[Dawson:] I think that’s a fair question, but as a respected source, don’t you suppose he has his reasons for making such a statement? Yes; in this case, however, I have a sneaking suspicion that he is simply following Schweitzer, who says almost exactly the same thing. Since Schweitzer’s analysis is somewhat dated, I am not inclined to place great weight on this point. But if Sanders has other evidence that he simply didn’t bother to state in his book, I would be interested to hear it.Tim: but on the Tacitus question, both Sanders and France come down more on your side of this question than I had thought anyone responsible did.[Dawson:] So there you have your answer.I’m not sure what it’s an answer to, but I do try to acknowledge when you’ve brought forward some relevant evidence, even if I still disagree; hence my statement.[Dawson:] I wrote: It’s not only that they fail to mention Jesus, who’s fame (according to the gospels) had spread quite far during his own lifetime, ...Tim: I see we’re down from “an international reputation” to “quite far.” Actually, in his own lifetime Jesus was essentially a nobody from the standpoint of the Roman world.[Dawson:] “International” does not by definition denote all nations; rather, it means involving two or more nations. And that is the impression I get from the NT passages I cited.But that will not come anywhere near to underwriting your claim that because of that “international reputation,” Seneca and Philo should have taken notice of Jesus.[Dawson:] I wrote: ... but also the slaughter of the innocents Tim: Yes, assuming that the account in Macrobius is derivative from Christian sources – but again, as this amounted probably to only a small number of children, there is no particular reason to think it would be recorded in Roman sources; and as for Josephus, he has greater crimes in the same vein to lay to Herod’s account.[Dawson:] So, there is admittedly no corroboration of the slaughter of the innocents – even in the NT (Matthew being the only one who mentions it) – but we can be sure it happened all the same, because Matthew includes it in his gospel. Got it.No need to be snarky. Singly-attested facts are common in historical work; they are none the worse for that. Only the baleful influence of the argument from silence magnifies the fact of single attestation into a problem. As for “being sure,” did I say this? You’ve disavowed trying to bring this back to a discussion of inerrancy, but it seems that you can’t resist slipping back into the assumption that I am trying to defend every detail of every narrative.[Dawson:] I wrote: or “a night of the living-righteous-undead” (as one commentator puts it), both of which only Matthew reports. Tim: A baffling passage, I admit. But aren’t we slipping over here from a discussion of whether the gospels give a substantially accurate portrayal of Jesus to a discussion of inerrancy?No, inerrancy is not where I was going with this. The point is that the gospel of Matthew is an excellent example of the kind of legend-building I’m talking about. There are numerous details in Matthew’s gospel that are so “baffling” (as you yourself put it) that they embarrass many believers. In my experience, Christian apologists don’t want to touch these points with a ten-foot pole.The slaughter of the innocents doesn’t fit a “legend-building” agenda in any way that I can see. Matthew 27:51b-53 could fit that pattern, but it is quite an extrapolation from this to “numerous details.” The stories in the first two chapters of Matthew, whether they are authentic and veridical or not, do not stand disconnected from the rest of the narrative like Matthew 27:51b-53 does.Tim: Paul isn’t writing volumes about Jesus: he is writing letters to churches.[Dawson:] Paul is by far the most prolific writer of the New Testament. In terms of volume (i.e., quantity, as I intended the use of the term in my statement above), he produced the largest portion of writings concerning Jesus that the church saw fit to canonize. Yep.[Dawson:] In that corpus of epistles, we do not find Paul ever characterizing Jesus as a teacher, ...But we do find him citing Jesus’ teaching as authoritative.[Dawson:]... a miracle-worker, a healer, ... But we do find him emphasizing the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.[Dawson:]... an exorcist, as born of a virgin, etc. So: some things mentioned, others not. [Dawson:] Imagine someone writing 10 letters heaping admiration for Mozart, and never once mentioning that Mozart wrote music or that he lived in the 1700s. Bad analogy. It would be a little better (but still not very good) to say that Mozart is to music what Jesus is to salvation; and there is plenty of soteriology in the epistles. But there would be nothing surprising about someone’s writing letters in praise of Mozart’s music who doesn’t mention the circumstances of his birth, or his sayings (even about music), or his habits of composing. Tim: We get what one might expect if the stories were known and the main purposes of the letters were practical and doctrinal rather than historical.[Dawson:] Not if Paul had known of the teachings which the gospels attribute to Jesus. Had Paul known of these teachings, why didn’t he credit Jesus with them when he (Paul) pens them into his letters? Indeed, Christians are always trying to put the stamp of Jesus’ approval on the things they say. It is conspicuous by its very absence that he doesn’t do this.As I’ve pointed out above, had Paul done so, we would have grounds for believing that he was writing to people who did not know the story.Tim: In passing, he alludes to Jesus’ teaching on the sorts of issues that one might expect to come up in churches, including divorce (1 Cor 7:10; note the special stress he lays on this and cf. Matt 5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18)[Dawson:] I Cor. 7:10 is probably the strongest citation you’ll be able to produce on behalf of your point. In it Paul attributes his charge to those who are married to “the Lord,”... So far so good, but our agreement terminates abruptly:[Dawson:] ... which for Paul is the risen, heavenly Jesus, not a pre-crucifixion Jesus. This attempt to make ο κυριος refer strictly to the risen Jesus seems to me to be a real stretch. Why (over)read the phrase like that? Simply because Paul uses ο κυριος frequently in greetings, exhortations, etc.? I do not see a persuasive argument here against the allusion.[Dawson:] So he doesn’t have the earthly Jesus we encounter in the gospels in mind here.I’m sorry; this argument strikes me as a very serious stretch. This just isn’t compelling.[Dawson:] Also, Mark’s use of this teaching is troublesome. Wells points out:Jesus could not, as Mark alleges, have told a Palestinian audience that a wife should not seek divorce, since in Palestine only men were allowed to do so. But Paul could appropriately urge such a ruling on the Gentile Christian communities to which he appealed; and if he told them it was Jesus’ teaching, he would have meant (as many commentators admit) not a teaching of a Palestinian Jesus but a directive given by some Christian prophet speaking in the name of the risen one.... This would have been the obvious way of supporting a ruling on divorce which the Christians of Paul’s day were anxious to inculcate. At a later stage it would naturally have been supposed that Jesus must have said during his lifetime what it was believed the risen one had said through Christian prophets; and so the doctrine was, however inappropriately, put into his mouth as an address to a Palestinian audience by Mark. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 23)So that Paul got this teaching from traditions about an earthly Jesus is problematic.There are several holes in this argument. In some respects the simplest solution is that Mark, who is writing for a Roman audience, has added an explanatory sentence in verse 12 to cover the case. (Cf. Matt 19:9) This need not even have been an attempt to put words in Jesus’ mouth; the focus shifts after verse 12, so it could well be a gloss. Another possibility is that there were Greeks as well as Jews in the audience in Judaea and that Jesus elaborated the point for their benefit. In neither case does Wells’s attempt to cast doubt upon the obvious source of 1 Cor 7:10 succeed. Best,Tim
Tim, I'm not capable of barn-burners like you and Dawson are going through but I do have a single question when you say:The slaughter of the innocents doesn’t fit a “legend-building” agenda in any way that I can see.Do you not agree that the prophecy that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem is legend-building, and that the fact that he recreated the circuit of the house of Israel by going to Egypt and then returning also helps create a mythopoetic narrative? Especially since the flight to Egypt is set up by the slaughter of the innocents and is singly attested?
Tim: My confusion arose because you repeatedly defended Wells's and Doherty’s positions and arguments.I have defended points which Wells and Doherty have incorporated into substantiating their larger conclusions, yes. But I explained this when I pointed out that one can dispute their grand conclusion (e.g., that there never was a man named Jesus) while recognizing that they make solid points along the way. You asked for examples of this, which is a fair question. But given my time constraints and your own confession to have read Wells (and perhaps Doherty?) in the past, I would point you to their writings. If you do not have their books, both Wells and Doherty have published some of their material online and it is available free of charge. You should also note that both authors have interacted extensively with their critics.I had quoted Wells: But no more about the ‘historical’ Jesus need have been included in this Christianity of Claudius’s day than what extant Christian writers (Paul and others) were saying before the gospels became established later in the first century; and this much does not confirm their portrait of Jesus as a preacher and wonder-worker in Pilate’s Palestine. (The Jesus Legend, pp. 40-41)Tim: Between “need have been” and “probably was” there is a serious gap. Wells needs the reader to infer the latter from the former, more cautious statement. But he presents no evidence that would justify this further step.I think Wells puts greater weight on his assessment of the situation because of the timeframe involved (Claudius' reign between 41 and 54 AD) in relation to the body of Christian literature extant at that time, and also the scant detail included in Suetonius' statement (for instance, Suetonius tells us nothing that isn't already present in Paul's letters). Again, I would agree with this move because the narrative details found in the gospels (such as the ones I included in my list) are not attested to during this timeframe. This is what Wells means by "the 'historical' Jesus" - i.e., a Jesus which was born of a virgin, who was an itinerant preacher, a moral teacher, a miracle-performer, a curer of diseases, etc. The Suetonius passage recommends none of this, and I have seen no good reason put forth to suppose that anything more than what Wells suggests could be read into Suetonius here. As “evidence” for the “historical Jesus,” it is as flimsy as it gets. But I realize that Christians have historically tried to make the most with at best flimsy evidence (it is better than nothing, I suppose), so I am not surprised by the persistence.Tim: However, that reference fits together well with the account of the growth of the early church and the clashes with Judaism as recounted in Acts and the epistles.Since Paul's letters already indicate that early Christianity experienced conflicts with Judaism, this "fit" that you mention is of no value in confirming the content of later narratives.Tim: I am not arguing that the records must be true because they are uncontradicted: I am pointing out that large-scale fabrications are more difficult to pass off as genuine when the events they report are supposed to have taken place within living memory than when they are not.I'm not sure how difficult you suppose this to be, nor is it clear how one determines whether or not a fabrication is "large-scale." If someone came up to me and said that some event happened 10 years ago, a time well within my memory, and I had never heard of it, on what basis would I dispute it? Indeed, I am not the owner of the claim that it happened, so as a hearer of the claim I have no onus to prove or disprove it. Nor am I obligated to accept it as knowledge, especially if the content of the claim contradicts knowledge that I have already validated. But still, how would it be "difficult" for a person "to pass off as genuine" a fabricated claim? Of course, the chances of him successfully passing off such claims would depend in part on the nature of what's being claimed as well as on the judgment or credulity of those who happened to learn of those claims. Some people are readily willing to believe claims about allegedly supernatural personalities, even if they have no good reason for doing so. I've met persons like this myself. A recent visitor to my website recounted anecdotally his encounter with a Christian believer who declared, "I don't care whether Jesus existed or not, all I know is that He is always by my side, and no one can be happy without His love." Others will simply find claims about allegedly supernatural personalities to be absurd, and many of them are not going to launch into research trying to refute such claims. Thus they go unchallenged, and this very fact can easily be recruited by the faithful as a corroborating point recommending them. And yet, they’re untrue all the same.I wrote: None of the non-Christian references are early. In fact, most are from the second century and later.Tim responded: In the context of ancient history, Dawson, that’s awfully early. And the Josephus references are from the first century.I don’t see where you’ve established that the Josephus references (e.g., the Testimonium) are genuinely Josephan (thus allowing you to put them into the first century). At any rate, your objection seems trivially semantic, and I’ve come to expect better from you. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll rephrase my point for you: none of the non-Christian references antedate the gospel narratives, the only earlier source that we know these details are found in written form. Even if we accept the Testimonium (in whatever form) as genuinely Josephus, it still would date from the last decade of the first century, at a time when at least a couple of the gospel narratives would have been in circulation and thus available to Josephus. The Testimonium, even at its best, tells us nothing that we do not already find reported in the gospels. Tacitus dates from ca. 112, give or take, and again tells us nothing we don’t already find in the gospels. I find it quite unlikely that Tacitus was drawing from Roman records, for it is hard to believe that he would see Pilate registered in those records as a prefect and then mistakenly call him a procurator in his own writings (and even more difficult to believe that the Roman records would record him as procurator instead of prefect in the first place). Similarly I find it very unlikely - and statements you’ve made yourself support this – that Roman records would have referred to Jesus as “Christ.” Etc., etc., etc. The potential that these sources are merely relating what Christians at the time had already come to believe and were claiming is very real. Tim: The Tacitus reference goes further than the existence of Christians to the existence and crucifixion of Christus under Pontius Pilate, as does the Josephus reference (in uninterpolated form), which Tacitus may be following.They do not attest to these things if they are simply repeating in one form or another what Christians of the time had been claiming; in that case, they're just repeating what Christians are already on record as believing. In other words, it needs to be established that these sources are in fact independent of Christian reports. Otherwise, they carry very little if any weight. If, for instance, Tacitus was simply reporting what he learned about what the Christians of his day believed - either through interviews he conducted with various of Christianity's representatives, from hearsay, from some written source that was itself based on such reports - then he's not an independent witness of a historical Jesus.I wrote: My point in my above statement was that Tacitus was essentially reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. How specifically Tacitus learned it – whether through firsthand interviews with Christians, or from hearsay, etc. – is ultimately immaterial to the point I was trying to make.Tim: I do not understand why you say this.I say this because, if Tacitus is merely repeating something he learned either directly or indirectly from Christian sources (i.e., is simply repeating what Christians were already on record as believing), then specifically how Tacitus learned this - whether through interviews he conducted with Christians, from hearsay, from trials of Christians that he knew of, etc. - is essentially irrelevant.Tim: If Tacitus learned it from Josephys, then Josephus contained a clear reference to Jesus centuries before Eusebius is supposed to have inserted it. That closes the loophole that both Wells and Doherty have tried to use to get rid of the Testimonium.I know of no compelling reason to suppose that Tacitus got his information from Josephus. The Testimonium names Jesus, and yet Tacitus refers to “Christ,” as if that were his name. Of course, if we are to believe that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, are we also to believe that got his information from Roman records as well? As for Josephus, I simply find it very much a stretch to suppose that Josephus affirmed that Jesus was "the Christ" and yet remained a committed orthodox Jew.I wrote: Imagine someone writing 10 letters heaping admiration for Mozart, and never once mentioning that Mozart wrote music or that he lived in the 1700s.Tim scoffs: Bad analogy.The analogy I gave is actually quite strong, given the vast differences between the Jesus of the Pauline epistles and the Jesus of the gospel narratives. The analogues here are, in the case of Mozart, the fact that he wrote music and lived in the 1700s, and, in the case of the gospel Jesus, the crucial elements that he was widely known throughout Palestine and neighboring regions as a miracle-performer and lived in the 1st century. Someone writing letters expounding on the greatness of Jesus while failing to ever mention that he performed miracles or lived in the 1st century is like someone writing letters expounding on the greatness of Mozart while failing to ever mention that he wrote music or lived in the 1700s. That Paul would write so much recommending Jesus, and yet nowhere credit his handiwork as miracle-worker, for instance, is comparable – in my mind, anyway – to someone writing a similar quantity recommending Mozart, but never mentioning that he wrote music. Tim: There are several holes in this argument. In some respects the simplest solution is that Mark, who is writing for a Roman audience, has added an explanatory sentence in verse 12 to cover the case. (Cf. Matt 19:9) This need not even have been an attempt to put words in Jesus’ mouth; the focus shifts after verse 12, so it could well be a gloss. Another possibility is that there were Greeks as well as Jews in the audience in Judaea and that Jesus elaborated the point for their benefit. In neither case does Wells’s attempt to cast doubt upon the obvious source of 1 Cor 7:10 succeed.The passage in Mark (cf. 10:2) makes it clear that Jesus is addressing Pharisees. If the evangelist added his own explanatory note, how is this not putting words into Jesus’ mouth? This seems only to confirm Wells’ point, at least by degrees, which is significant concession enough. The passage does not indicate that there were Greeks in the audience; in fact, Mark specifies that Pharisees are his audience. Perhaps a good point to research is whether or not the law prohibiting a woman to divorce her husband was strictly a Jewish law (and thus meant only for Jews), or a secular law (and thus applicable to all inhabitants, including any Greeks that we want to put in the audience). I haven’t checked this out. Do you have any sources on this? However, as it stands, the “holes” that, according to you, plague Wells’ take on this issue either take the “it could be” stance (which isn’t entirely weak, but it doesn’t have the strength you seem to give to it), consist of adding an explanation that most likely wouldn’t have made sense to the immediate audience (which seems to confirm Wells' point), or posit something that isn't stated in the text itself (such as the presence of Greeks, which smacks of ad hoc defensiveness). Besides, if Paul were getting his “words of the Lord” from a prior source, what was his source? Paul tells us in Galatians and elsewhere that he got his gospel directly from the Lord, not from other men, which suggests he didn’t get it from traditions that were already circulating. Mark and the other gospels weren't written yet. So where did he get this teaching of the earthly Jesus if that’s the position you want to maintain? This remains unanswered. Meanwhile, that the evangelist was taking a teaching that had already acquired currency among early Christians (such as in the early epistolary strata, as I have suggested) and putting it into Jesus’ mouth in the development of a narrative of an earthly Jesus, does not rely on these tactics, and fits (a word you found appropriate earlier) best with the legend case. It's not a stretch by any means.Regards,Dawson
I recently had a discussion with that went as follows:Bart,You ask:Are you suggesting that Paul's preaching was not done in the context of Diaspora synagogues?No. But you'll note from the book of Acts how well Paul's message was received by those who remained Jews in those synagogues.Are you suggesting that the Jews among Paul's followers no longer thought of themselves as part of Israel?No. But this will do no work for you unless you add the assumption that no one could consider himself to be part of Israel unless he rejected a high christology. Are you suggesting that Christianized Jews would have huge issues with matters of proper observance to the God of Israel, but would have had no issues whatsoever with the altered understanding of the Jewish concept and definition of the God who ordered those observances?Yes, this seems most likely. That is one of the key things that distinguished them from non-Christianized Jews.Below is my response to this conversation:Let us not hide behind a term like a "high Christology." In fact Paul's Christology was much higher than that of the synoptic gospels. His Jesus was divine. The Jesus of the synoptics was thought of as a prophet, perhaps Elijah or John the Baptist come back. When we speak of Paul's high Christology, we are talking about Jesus being God. When you assert that a Jew with a high Christology could remain a part of Israel, you are assuming that he could believe Jesus the man is God, clearly at odds with the Shema and the Jewish conception of monotheism. I will once again maintain that the lack of conflict between Paul and his detractors over this issue indicates that he was not equating a man with God.When you suggest that believing that Jesus the man is God was one of the things which distinguished Christians from Jews, you again have to account for the lack of that conflict in Paul's congregations.One of the problems we are having in communication over this issue is that I am working within the Pauline corpus, and you are allowing the book of Acts to set its context. That is a larger subject that perhaps can be dealt with as a separate blog, but I will clearly state my position that Acts is a second century document written with the express purpose of establishing the concept of apostolic succession, apostolic authority, suppressing the freewheeling prophetic cacophony, and creating a "history" of the early years of Christianity. I see Acts as a hodgepodge of stories cobbled together from multiple sources such as the internal Pauline travel outline (but with contradictions), Josephus, OT stories applied typologically, and other unknown sources. In Acts studies, I find myself allied with scholars such as Crossan, Eisenman, and many others from previous generations which see it as legendary rewrites of the period. Most critical scholars openly denigrate Acts as history, but then many go on as though it were accurate. But without Acts, the entirity of the period of Paul's ministry and the alleged Jerusalem origins of Christianity would be unknown aside from Paul's epistles. That is, the book of Acts is a single source for the entirity of the story of Christian origins, and it is deeply flawed. From Paul, it is not possible to infer a separate Christian identity from that of diaspora Judaism. The context of the Pauline teaching and conflict would be seen as an intramural debate, not the birth pangs of a separate religion. If we deal with the Pauline epistles on their own terms and identify the context as he describes it, it is simply not possible to find a book of Acts storyline underlying it. That is an imposition from a later time.So yes, I am conflating Paul's detractors with the Jewish fundamentalists sent out to police heresy within the synagogues. Paul's only sin, and from their point of view it was a bit one, was to allow gentiles to join the synagogues as Jews without submitting to the Torah. That's it. His enemies would have been happy if his converts were not being told that they didn't have to be circumcized and brought within the way of the law. That is quite evident from the epistles. If he had actually been teaching that a recently living Jew was God, the uproar over circumcision would have seemed like a firecracker compared to an atom bomb.Bart
Dawson,You write:I have defended points which Wells and Doherty have incorporated into substantiating their larger conclusions, yes. But I explained this when I pointed out that one can dispute their grand conclusion (e.g., that there never was a man named Jesus) while recognizing that they make solid points along the way. You asked for examples of this, which is a fair question. But given my time constraints and your own confession to have read Wells (and perhaps Doherty?) in the past, I would point you to their writings. If you do not have their books, both Wells and Doherty have published some of their material online and it is available free of charge. You should also note that both authors have interacted extensively with their critics.I have read much of Wells’s earlier work, but less of Doherty’s. I have seen some of Wells’s responses to his critics online.[Dawson:] I had quoted Wells: But no more about the ‘historical’ Jesus need have been included in this Christianity of Claudius’s day than what extant Christian writers (Paul and others) were saying before the gospels became established later in the first century; and this much does not confirm their portrait of Jesus as a preacher and wonder-worker in Pilate’s Palestine. (The Jesus Legend, pp. 40-41)Tim: Between “need have been” and “probably was” there is a serious gap. Wells needs the reader to infer the latter from the former, more cautious statement. But he presents no evidence that would justify this further step.[Dawson:] I think Wells puts greater weight on his assessment of the situation because of the timeframe involved (Claudius' reign between 41 and 54 AD) in relation to the body of Christian literature extant at that time, and also the scant detail included in Suetonius' statement (for instance, Suetonius tells us nothing that isn't already present in Paul's letters). Actually, the very oddness of Suetonius’s reference is excellent evidence that he isn’t getting his information from Paul’s letters. So it does provide independent evidence for the physical existence of Christ, though of course I would maintain that the gospels, Acts, and the epistles are far stronger evidence on this point.[Dawson:] Again, I would agree with this move because the narrative details found in the gospels (such as the ones I included in my list) are not attested to during this timeframe. This is what Wells means by "the 'historical' Jesus" - i.e., a Jesus which was born of a virgin, who was an itinerant preacher, a moral teacher, a miracle-performer, a curer of diseases, etc. Here we have a semantic juggle on Wells’s part. If there was a real itinerant Jewish teacher named Jesus, hailing from Nazareth, who delivered even many of the sayings and sermons reported in the gospels, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, whose disciples declared him to have risen from the dead and founded the Christian church on account of their professed belief, then there was a historical Jesus even if the virgin birth never happened and the miracle stories were all late additions. It is for this more minimal claim that the evidence of Suetonius, Tacitus, et al. is pertinent. Demanding that the secular evidence present him as a miracle worker if it is to count for his mere existence is demanding the unreasonable. Someone fully persuaded that Jesus worked miracles would in all probability have become a Christian, at which point his testimony would no longer be considered non-Christian evidence. From this, my answer to the rest of your paragraph should be clear:[Dawson:] The Suetonius passage recommends none of this, and I have seen no good reason put forth to suppose that anything more than what Wells suggests could be read into Suetonius here. As “evidence” for the “historical Jesus,” it is as flimsy as it gets. This is at best a confusion about what Christians who cite the Suetonius and Tacitus passages mean by “the historical Jesus.”[Dawson:] But I realize that Christians have historically tried to make the most with at best flimsy evidence (it is better than nothing, I suppose), so I am not surprised by the persistence.For my part, I realize that treating the Christian argument fairly would make it more difficult to answer, so I am not surprised by Wells’s misrepresentation of it. I am, however, disappointed to see that you follow him in this.Tim: However, that reference fits together well with the account of the growth of the early church and the clashes with Judaism as recounted in Acts and the epistles.[Dawson:] Since Paul's letters already indicate that early Christianity experienced conflicts with Judaism, this "fit" that you mention is of no value in confirming the content of later narratives.I agree that the confirmation afforded by the Suetonius reference is marginal given the Pauline epistles. But as mythers usually have to put a strange spin on Paul’s epistles, the value of a reference that cannot plausibly be spun as derivative from Paul’s epistles increases.Tim: I am not arguing that the records must be true because they are uncontradicted: I am pointing out that large-scale fabrications are more difficult to pass off as genuine when the events they report are supposed to have taken place within living memory than when they are not.[Dawson:] I'm not sure how difficult you suppose this to be, nor is it clear how one determines whether or not a fabrication is "large-scale." Under hostile circumstances, I’d say that it would be almost impossible within living memory to do more than insert a few isolated passages and twiddle with a few more. The manuscript evidence for the gospels is extensive and indicates that this, plus the numerous but insignificant scribal errors one would expect, is about all that happened. If someone came up to me and said that some event happened 10 years ago, a time well within my memory, and I had never heard of it, on what basis would I dispute it? Indeed, I am not the owner of the claim that it happened, so as a hearer of the claim I have no onus to prove or disprove it. Nor am I obligated to accept it as knowledge, especially if the content of the claim contradicts knowledge that I have already validated. But still, how would it be "difficult" for a person "to pass off as genuine" a fabricated claim? Of course, the chances of him successfully passing off such claims would depend in part on the nature of what's being claimed as well as on the judgment or credulity of those who happened to learn of those claims. If he claimed that the event was done in public and that there were living eyewitnesses of it, that would help his case. If he told you that you should break with the religious group with which you have identified since birth, change your way of life, submit to new rules of conduct, and endure fierce persecution because this event took place, you would have to be crazy to accept it without strong evidence. Some people are readily willing to believe claims about allegedly supernatural personalities, even if they have no good reason for doing so. I've met persons like this myself. A recent visitor to my website recounted anecdotally his encounter with a Christian believer who declared, "I don't care whether Jesus existed or not, all I know is that He is always by my side, and no one can be happy without His love." Let’s set a howling mob on his trail and burn a few of his fellow-parishoners in shirts dipped in wax for a garden party and then see how firm his convictions are.Others will simply find claims about allegedly supernatural personalities to be absurd, and many of them are not going to launch into research trying to refute such claims. Thus they go unchallenged, and this very fact can easily be recruited by the faithful as a corroborating point recommending them. And yet, they’re untrue all the same.No doubt about this one: every such claim stands or falls with the evidence provided in its favor.[Dawson:] I wrote: None of the non-Christian references are early. In fact, most are from the second century and later.Tim responded: In the context of ancient history, Dawson, that’s awfully early. And the Josephus references are from the first century.[Dawson:] I don’t see where you’ve established that the Josephus references (e.g., the Testimonium) are genuinely Josephan (thus allowing you to put them into the first century).We haven’t gotten into this discussion in detail, but I am persuaded by the same evidence that has persuaded the overwhelming majority of Josephus scholars that, although the Testimonium as it stands in most manuscripts has suffered interpolation, it was originally a brief and fairly neutral passage. The Agapius text confirms this – in fact, Maier uses the (uninterpolated) Agapius text as the basis for the translation he gives in his translation of Josephus, relegating the interpolated text to a footnote.[Dawson:] At any rate, your objection seems trivially semantic, and I’ve come to expect better from you.Certainly not trying to be trivial.[Dawson:] But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll rephrase my point for you: none of the non-Christian references antedate the gospel narratives, the only earlier source that we know these details are found in written form. No disagreement so far, but I can see one looming ...[Dawson:] Even if we accept the Testimonium (in whatever form) as genuinely Josephus, it still would date from the last decade of the first century, at a time when at least a couple of the gospel narratives would have been in circulation and thus available to Josephus. This will help you, in the sense that it will take away the value of the Testimonium as an independent non-Christian source of evidence for the existence of Jesus, only if you assume that Josephus is making use of the gospels.[Dawson:] The Testimonium, even at its best, tells us nothing that we do not already find reported in the gospels. Right: but if it is an independent witness, then what it tells us corroborates the gospels, particularly when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. For that reason, it is necessary for mythers to explain it away as an interpolation en toto: nothing less will do.[Dawson:] Tacitus dates from ca. 112, give or take, and again tells us nothing we don’t already find in the gospels. I find it quite unlikely that Tacitus was drawing from Roman records, for it is hard to believe that he would see Pilate registered in those records as a prefect and then mistakenly call him a procurator in his own writings (and even more difficult to believe that the Roman records would record him as procurator instead of prefect in the first place). As I have pointed out, this mistake is found in Philo and Josephus as well; nor is Tacitus normally particularly accurate about titles in other contexts.[Dawson:] Similarly I find it very unlikely - and statements you’ve made yourself support this – that Roman records would have referred to Jesus as “Christ.” I think you must have misunderstood what I have said about the Roman records. It is entirely plausible – in the case of Suetonius it seems actually to have been the case – that the Romans at some remove from Palestine thought that “Chrestus” was Jesus’s name, as “Chrestus” was a fairly common Roman name. [Dawson:] The potential that these sources are merely relating what Christians at the time had already come to believe and were claiming is very real. In the Josephus case I believe this is very unlikely, since the language of the passage (in the uninterpolated form) is not what a Christian would have written, does not use the phrases a Christian would have used, etc. You can find a good discussion of this in van Voorst.Tim: The Tacitus reference goes further than the existence of Christians to the existence and crucifixion of Christus under Pontius Pilate, as does the Josephus reference (in uninterpolated form), which Tacitus may be following. [Dawson:] They do not attest to these things if they are simply repeating in one form or another what Christians of the time had been claiming; in that case, they're just repeating what Christians are already on record as believing. In other words, it needs to be established that these sources are in fact independent of Christian reports. Otherwise, they carry very little if any weight. I agree. That is why Josephus scholars have looked into the question closely. [Dawson:] If, for instance, Tacitus was simply reporting what he learned about what the Christians of his day believed - either through interviews he conducted with various of Christianity's representatives, from hearsay, from some written source that was itself based on such reports - then he's not an independent witness of a historical Jesus.As I acknowledged above. However, though this cannot be ruled out directly, the evidence does not seem to point that way.[Dawson:] I wrote: My point in my above statement was that Tacitus was essentially reporting what Christians at that time had come to believe. How specifically Tacitus learned it – whether through firsthand interviews with Christians, or from hearsay, etc. – is ultimately immaterial to the point I was trying to make.Tim: I do not understand why you say this.[Dawson:] I say this because, if Tacitus is merely repeating something he learned either directly or indirectly from Christian sources (i.e., is simply repeating what Christians were already on record as believing), then specifically how Tacitus learned this - whether through interviews he conducted with Christians, from hearsay, from trials of Christians that he knew of, etc. - is essentially irrelevant.That depends on whether he learned it from an independent source.Tim: If Tacitus learned it from Josephys, then Josephus contained a clear reference to Jesus centuries before Eusebius is supposed to have inserted it. That closes the loophole that both Wells and Doherty have tried to use to get rid of the Testimonium.[Dawson:] I know of no compelling reason to suppose that Tacitus got his information from Josephus. The Testimonium names Jesus, and yet Tacitus refers to “Christ,” as if that were his name. In Antiquities 20.200, just a few pages on from the Testimonium, Josephus refers to “Jesus who was called the Christ.”[Dawson:] Of course, if we are to believe that Tacitus got his information from Josephus, are we also to believe that got his information from Roman records as well? Either hypothesis would render the other superfluous, though it would not necessarily show that the supposition is false.[Dawson:] As for Josephus, I simply find it very much a stretch to suppose that Josephus affirmed that Jesus was "the Christ" and yet remained a committed orthodox Jew.In the uninterpolated Testimonium this phrase does not occur; in 20.200, Josephus says, not that he was the Christ, but that he was called the Christ – a designation he apparently expects his readers to recognize. Some distinguishing feature was necessary in any event in view of the twenty other Jesuses whom Josephus mentions in his works.[Dawson:] I wrote: Imagine someone writing 10 letters heaping admiration for Mozart, and never once mentioning that Mozart wrote music or that he lived in the 1700s.Tim scoffs: Bad analogy. [Dawson:] The analogy I gave is actually quite strong, ...I have already addressed this; what you say subsequently simply reiterates your analogy and takes no account of what I said, so there is nothing new here requiring response.Tim: There are several holes in this argument. In some respects the simplest solution is that Mark, who is writing for a Roman audience, has added an explanatory sentence in verse 12 to cover the case. (Cf. Matt 19:9) This need not even have been an attempt to put words in Jesus’ mouth; the focus shifts after verse 12, so it could well be a gloss. Another possibility is that there were Greeks as well as Jews in the audience in Judaea and that Jesus elaborated the point for their benefit. In neither case does Wells’s attempt to cast doubt upon the obvious source of 1 Cor 7:10 succeed.[Dawson:] The passage in Mark (cf. 10:2) makes it clear that Jesus is addressing Pharisees. If the evangelist added his own explanatory note, how is this not putting words into Jesus’ mouth?Because verse 12 doesn’t start with ιησους ειπεν ...?[Dawson:] This seems only to confirm Wells’ point, at least by degrees, which is significant concession enough. Sorry: I just don’t see this as a significant concession at all.[Dawson:] The passage does not indicate that there were Greeks in the audience; It simply doesn’t tell us much about the audience.[Dawson:] ... in fact, Mark specifies that Pharisees are his audience.No: it specifies that the Pharisees are his target.[Dawson:] Perhaps a good point to research is whether or not the law prohibiting a woman to divorce her husband was strictly a Jewish law (and thus meant only for Jews), or a secular law (and thus applicable to all inhabitants, including any Greeks that we want to put in the audience). I haven’t checked this out. Do you have any sources on this? No, I haven’t.[Dawson:] However, as it stands, the “holes” that, according to you, plague Wells’ take on this issue either take the “it could be” stance (which isn’t entirely weak, but it doesn’t have the strength you seem to give to it), ...If Wells is going to make a “could not” claim, he’s taking on a significant burden and is going to have to close those holes.[Dawson:] ... consist of adding an explanation that most likely wouldn’t have made sense to the immediate audience (which seems to confirm Wells' point), ...If the explanation were added for Mark’s audience, that would not really help Wells’s case that the event never took place (because Jesus never existed).[Dawson:] ...or posit something that isn't stated in the text itself (such as the presence of Greeks, which smacks of ad hoc defensiveness). Again, Wells is making an extremely strong claim. All that is necessary to undermine it is that one or another of these suppositions be true. None of them is wildly implausible, and any one of them would suffice to undermine his claim.[Dawson:] Besides, if Paul were getting his “words of the Lord” from a prior source, what was his source?Most likely from the apostles, either directly or indirectly. Traveling with Luke would be a great way to find out a lot of information.[Dawson:] Paul tells us in Galatians and elsewhere that he got his gospel directly from the Lord, not from other men, which suggests he didn’t get it from traditions that were already circulating. I think these passages are being overread. Paul, by his own account, was commissioned directly by the Lord, but nothing he says in Galatians or 1 Corinthians conflicts with the account in Acts that he spent time with the disciples at Damascus immediately after his conversion and baptism (9:19) and subsequently was with the disciples in Jerusalem (9:27-28). Mark and the other gospels weren't written yet. So where did he get this teaching of the earthly Jesus if that’s the position you want to maintain? This remains unanswered. I have answered it for you now.[Dawson:] Meanwhile, that the evangelist was taking a teaching that had already acquired currency among early Christians (such as in the early epistolary strata, as I have suggested) and putting it into Jesus’ mouth in the development of a narrative of an earthly Jesus, does not rely on these tactics, and fits (a word you found appropriate earlier) best with the legend case. It's not a stretch by any means.There are so many problems with this hypothesis that I cannot even begin to enumerate them all in a blog post. Where did Paul get all these ideas? (The mystery religions “explanation” is beyond hopeless.) What did Peter, James, and John have to say about his teaching? How did the actual beliefs of those pillars of the early church – to whom Paul himself refers in Galatians 2 – manage to disappear without a ripple? Whence the materials in the gospels that could not have come from the Pauline epistles? How did the clever forgers manage so thoroughly to cover their tracks that there is no hint now of their existence? How on earth did the undesigned coincidences get built in, so that things in one gospel that make no sense taken on their own are explained by passing references in others? How does one account for the undesigned coincidences between the epistles and Acts – things that could not plausibly have been written up on the basis of Paul’s epistles?We have forgeries in history, and we know what they look like. This isn’t it. If the mythic theory requires this sort of retrojection of Paul’s epistles into the gospels and Acts, that simply puts more nails into its coffin.
Bart,You write:Let us not hide behind a term like a "high Christology." In fact Paul's Christology was much higher than that of the synoptic gospels. His Jesus was divine. The Jesus of the synoptics was thought of as a prophet, perhaps Elijah or John the Baptist come back. If the suggestion that in the synoptics Jesus is definitely not God, then I think this is just false. We could start the argument with Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Luke 5:24. All I would concede here is that the case for a divine Jesus is easier to make from the fourth gospel and Paul’s epistles.When we speak of Paul's high Christology, we are talking about Jesus being God. When you assert that a Jew with a high Christology could remain a part of Israel, you are assuming that he could believe Jesus the man is God, clearly at odds with the Shema and the Jewish conception of monotheism. I will once again maintain that the lack of conflict between Paul and his detractors over this issue indicates that he was not equating a man with God.We’ll just have to agree to disagree, then.When you suggest that believing that Jesus the man is God was one of the things which distinguished Christians from Jews, you again have to account for the lack of that conflict in Paul's congregations.As I’ve pointed out several times, this would be the case only if you were right on the key point where we disagree.One of the problems we are having in communication over this issue is that I am working within the Pauline corpus, and you are allowing the book of Acts to set its context. Although I am persuaded by the evidence in Paley, Smith, Hemer, and Kettenbach that Acts is basically a historical narrative and that it dovetails as well with the epistles as we can expect any narratives of secular history to dovetail with each other, I do not see that I am using this as an assumption in our discussion.That is a larger subject that perhaps can be dealt with as a separate blog, but I will clearly state my position that Acts is a second century document written with the express purpose of establishing the concept of apostolic succession, apostolic authority, suppressing the freewheeling prophetic cacophony, and creating a "history" of the early years of Christianity. I see Acts as a hodgepodge of stories cobbled together from multiple sources such as the internal Pauline travel outline (but with contradictions), Josephus, OT stories applied typologically, and other unknown sources. In Acts studies, I find myself allied with scholars such as Crossan, Eisenman, and many others from previous generations which see it as legendary rewrites of the period. In this respect, Crossan and Eisenman are at odds with the best scholarship of the past century. Most critical scholars openly denigrate Acts as history, but then many go on as though it were accurate. There is actually quite a lively fight on regarding the historicity of Acts, as you should know if you have read Martin Hengel’s works on the subject.But without Acts, the entirity of the period of Paul's ministry and the alleged Jerusalem origins of Christianity would be unknown aside from Paul's epistles. We have ten or a dozen epistles that give us a window on the origins of Christianity. We also have a narrative in Acts that gives us a different point of view but can be reconciled remarkably well with the picture we get from the epistles. Your claim is that if we didn’t have these things, why, we wouldn’t know much from the first century about the origins of Christianity. Well, yes ... but what can you hope to derive from this?That is, the book of Acts is a single source for the entirity of the story of Christian origins, ... I thought you just said that the epistles are also a source. Wasn’t that the point of your saying, “... aside from Paul’s epistles”? We could also get a bit of information from the Petrine and Johannine epistles, which I suppose you must also take to be forgeries.... and it is deeply flawed. The narrative of Acts is minutely circumstantial, and in the second part in particular it ranges quite widely in space and is therefore subject to cross checks from various sorts of evidence (archaeological, nautical, etc.). The result of these cross checks is that the narrative appears to be astonishingly accurate in dozens of details that we can verify. This provides a very strong case that it is an authentic travelogue.From Paul, it is not possible to infer a separate Christian identity from that of diaspora Judaism. You cannot mean this literally. Diaspora Judaism practiced the Last Supper, talked about the messiah as come, proclaimed the availability of the Abrahamic promises to the gentiles, declared the law to be ended, maintained that circumcision was now optional, and referred to the resurrection of Jesus as authenticated by numerous witnesses? The context of the Pauline teaching and conflict would be seen as an intramural debate, not the birth pangs of a separate religion. This is not credible, for the sorts of reasons I have outlined above.If we deal with the Pauline epistles on their own terms and identify the context as he describes it, it is simply not possible to find a book of Acts storyline underlying it. That is an imposition from a later time.I couldn’t disagree more heartily. If the book of Acts did not exist, the many details in Paul’s epistles would force us to postulate something like it in outline.So yes, I am conflating Paul's detractors with the Jewish fundamentalists sent out to police heresy within the synagogues. Paul's only sin, and from their point of view it was a bit one, was to allow gentiles to join the synagogues as Jews without submitting to the Torah. That's it. His enemies would have been happy if his converts were not being told that they didn't have to be circumcized and brought within the way of the law. That is quite evident from the epistles. If he had actually been teaching that a recently living Jew was God, the uproar over circumcision would have seemed like a firecracker compared to an atom bomb.It was an atom bomb, and no one knew that better than Paul; see passages like 2 Cor 11: 24-26. But the explosion, just as we would expect, was the utterly understandable one of orthodox Judaism against nascent Christianity.
I wrote: I think Wells puts greater weight on his assessment of the situation because of the timeframe involved (Claudius' reign between 41 and 54 AD) in relation to the body of Christian literature extant at that time, and also the scant detail included in Suetonius' statement (for instance, Suetonius tells us nothing that isn't already present in Paul's letters). Tim: Actually, the very oddness of Suetonius’s reference is excellent evidence that he isn’t getting his information from Paul’s letters. So it does provide independent evidence for the physical existence of Christ...That Suetonius did not get his information from Paul’s letters (something I wasn’t suggesting anyway), does not make it independent testimony. Indeed, Suetonius refers to a “Chrestus” which you admit was a common name, so how can we be sure it was a reference to someone named Jesus? As I mentioned earlier, the Suetonius reference can be taken to mean that the individual who was prompting the offending disturbances was not only present (in Rome!), but also still alive. But I think you’ve missed the point that I was making above, which is: we already know from Paul’s letters that there were conflicts in Claudius’ day, and Suetonius’ passing reference to unspecified Jews making disturbances under the instigation of someone named “Chrestus” gives us no new information. As such, it may – in your mind – pose a threat to the mythic case (though even here I’m unpersuaded), it poses no threat to the legend case whatsoever. Why? Because the legend case is compatible with conflicts such as those to which Suetonius refers.I wrote: Again, I would agree with this move because the narrative details found in the gospels (such as the ones I included in my list) are not attested to during this timeframe. This is what Wells means by "the 'historical' Jesus" - i.e., a Jesus which was born of a virgin, who was an itinerant preacher, a moral teacher, a miracle-performer, a curer of diseases, etc. Tim: Here we have a semantic juggle on Wells’s part. If there was a real itinerant Jewish teacher named Jesus, hailing from Nazareth, who delivered even many of the sayings and sermons reported in the gospels, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, whose disciples declared him to have risen from the dead and founded the Christian church on account of their professed belief, then there was a historical Jesus even if the virgin birth never happened and the miracle stories were all late additions.Wells puts “historical” in scare quotes to distinguish what Christians take as the historical Jesus from what he would consider an actually historical Jesus. Christians want to take the supernaturalism of the gospels and other NT texts seriously, as if they were truly historical. Wells does not consider these elements truly historical, hence the use of scare quotes. There’s no juggling going on here.Tim: Demanding that the secular evidence present him as a miracle worker if it is to count for his mere existence is demanding the unreasonable.I’m not sure about this. Jesus is said to have entertained many large audiences, not all of whom became his follower. Someone could have observed Jesus engaged in some miraculous stuntwork, but assumed that he was like many magicians of the day. He could have easily attributed some supernatural gift to the fellow and thought his performances were indeed otherworldly, but he may have scoffed at the idea that he was “the son of God.” Indeed, as I imagine what I read in the gospels (they give the imagination quite a bit to play with), I could easily imagine such a situation. On the other hand, one could reasonably fathom that a non-Christian individual witnessed some miraculous event and never came to attribute its cause to a Christian religious hero. For instance, he could have seen a group of formerly dead people emerging from their graves and walking among the streets of the city, something that would seem truly miraculous. However, this same fellow may not have realized that the cause for these resuscitations was the death of some guy named Jesus outside the city walls. Indeed, why would he make such a correlation? Tim: Someone fully persuaded that Jesus worked miracles would in all probability have become a Christian, at which point his testimony would no longer be considered non-Christian evidence.If he were familiar with the Christian teachings surrounding his identity, I would think so. This is one reason why I think the Josephus passage is simply unbelievable: I don’t think Josephus would surmise that Jesus was in fact the Messiah and yet remain a committed, non-Christian Jew.I wrote: Since Paul's letters already indicate that early Christianity experienced conflicts with Judaism, this "fit" that you mention is of no value in confirming the content of later narratives.Tim: I agree that the confirmation afforded by the Suetonius reference is marginal given the Pauline epistles. But as mythers usually have to put a strange spin on Paul’s epistles, the value of a reference that cannot plausibly be spun as derivative from Paul’s epistles increases.I don’t think “the mythers” need Suetonius’ reference to derive from Paul’s epistles. My point about this above, which I explained, is that – at best – Suetonius’ reference points to something that we already know from the epistles, namely disputes among Jews. The Suetonius reference loses even more value as evidence if “Chrestus” is a common name that could refer to just about anyone (indeed, someone who has otherwise been forgotten by history) and that this someone was still alive and present in Rome, someone who was personally responsible for the instigating to which the Suetonius passage refers. I certainly don’t see anything in the Suetonius passage which suggests that the individual instigating the disturbances it mentions was crucified and later resurrected, for instance.Tim wrote: I am not arguing that the records must be true because they are uncontradicted: I am pointing out that large-scale fabrications are more difficult to pass off as genuine when the events they report are supposed to have taken place within living memory than when they are not.I responded: I'm not sure how difficult you suppose this to be, nor is it clear how one determines whether or not a fabrication is "large-scale." Tim: Under hostile circumstances, I’d say that it would be almost impossible within living memory to do more than insert a few isolated passages and twiddle with a few more.I guess I’m just not persuaded here at all. It seems that anyone could write whatever they want, and if he tried to pass it off as history, it’s quite possible that someone out there is going to buy into it, especially if he were philosophically predisposed to believing in the supernatural. Many would just laugh, assuming they caught wind of it, which is what I expect many did. But there will be some who are either gullible or desperate, anxious for something to make them feel better, and these individuals will be susceptible to believing a lie, a fiction, a legend, a tale, even if it purported to take place within living memory.I wrote: If someone came up to me and said that some event happened 10 years ago, a time well within my memory, and I had never heard of it, on what basis would I dispute it? Indeed, I am not the owner of the claim that it happened, so as a hearer of the claim I have no onus to prove or disprove it. Nor am I obligated to accept it as knowledge, especially if the content of the claim contradicts knowledge that I have already validated. But still, how would it be "difficult" for a person "to pass off as genuine" a fabricated claim? Of course, the chances of him successfully passing off such claims would depend in part on the nature of what's being claimed as well as on the judgment or credulity of those who happened to learn of those claims. Tim: If he claimed that the event was done in public and that there were living eyewitnesses of it, that would help his case.It would be easy to claim that there were living eyewitnesses to the event in question, even if this were a complete fabrication. He doesn’t even need to name the alleged eyewitnesses, or say where the alleged event took place, or when it took place. He could, for instance, say “above five hundred brothers” saw this, and to make it seem real, he could say that some are now “asleep” (meaning apparently that they’re now dead), but never mentioning who these people were, where they could be found for purposes of inquiry, etc.Tim: If he told you that you should break with the religious group with which you have identified since birth, change your way of life, submit to new rules of conduct, and endure fierce persecution because this event took place, you would have to be crazy to accept it without strong evidence.Tim, I have known a lot crazy people then. They’re called Christians. They have broken from their families, burned bridges with past friendships, and become almost unrecognizable, both in appearance and in character (some sprinkle their conversation with phrases like “the Lord willing” or “Praise Jesus!”, while others seem to have this feigned euphoric disposition going on). They go through all kinds of troubles in the world, like everyone else, and call them “trials and tribulations.” When they encounter differences of opinion, such as in the workplace or in some public venue, they call this “persecution.” I have seen pastors claim to have raised persons from the dead (such as at the scene of an accident in one case, another at a hospital, and yet another in an elderly home), and the entire congregation just believes it, because they have determined to put their trust in everything he says. After all, he’s the “man of God,” so they would rather undergo additional hardship themselves rather than be caught questioning the pastor.I wrote: Some people are readily willing to believe claims about allegedly supernatural personalities, even if they have no good reason for doing so. I've met persons like this myself. A recent visitor to my website recounted anecdotally his encounter with a Christian believer who declared, "I don't care whether Jesus existed or not, all I know is that He is always by my side, and no one can be happy without His love." Tim: Let’s set a howling mob on his trail and burn a few of his fellow-parishoners in shirts dipped in wax for a garden party and then see how firm his convictions are.Indeed. I wonder what a lot of internet apologists would do if faced with such threats to their persons. It’s easy to say “I would never disavow Jesus!” But until you’re faced with such a situation, how do you know? There have been some throughout history – in the past century we’ve seen Muslim suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, Heaven’s Gaters, Jonestown, etc. – volunteer their lives for all kinds of baffling causes. They believed, and then they acted on it. They didn’t even wait for some howling mob as you describe to come chasing after them. On the contrary, they took the initiative toward their own demise. Then again, we have no idea what St. Paul did if he was tortured in Rome. Christians prefer to think he remained faithful until the end, as his torturers flogged him for the last time. The Christians of the day, of course, had they heard that Paul recanted, probably would not have recorded it, settling it in their minds as a lapse into weakness, or that he was a vessel which the Christian god used and discarded for whatever reason a god would do so.I wrote: I don’t see where you’ve established that the Josephus references (e.g., the Testimonium) are genuinely Josephan (thus allowing you to put them into the first century).Tim: We haven’t gotten into this discussion in detail, but I am persuaded by the same evidence that has persuaded the overwhelming majority of Josephus scholars that, although the Testimonium as it stands in most manuscripts has suffered interpolation, it was originally a brief and fairly neutral passage. The Agapius text confirms this – in fact, Maier uses the (uninterpolated) Agapius text as the basis for the translation he gives in his translation of Josephus, relegating the interpolated text to a footnote.I see, you rest your position on an appeal to authority. That’s fine.I wrote: Even if we accept the Testimonium (in whatever form) as genuinely Josephus, it still would date from the last decade of the first century, at a time when at least a couple of the gospel narratives would have been in circulation and thus available to Josephus. Tim: This will help you, in the sense that it will take away the value of the Testimonium as an independent non-Christian source of evidence for the existence of Jesus, only if you assume that Josephus is making use of the gospels.If I make the stretch needed to allow the Testimonium to be genuinely Josephan, I see no stretch needed at that point to suppose that he could have made use of literature that was available in his day. Of course, he could have heard reports about what the gospels were claiming, and based his passage on this. Either way, if we grant that the Testimonium is genuinely Josephan, he had to get his information from somewhere, did he not? If he didn’t get it from gospel traditions, some of which by the last decade of the first century were already written, where did he get it?I wrote: The Testimonium, even at its best, tells us nothing that we do not already find reported in the gospels. Tim: Right: but if it is an independent witness, then what it tells us corroborates the gospels, particularly when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. For that reason, it is necessary for mythers to explain it away as an interpolation en toto: nothing less will do.I see no good reason whatsoever to suppose that the Testimonium is an independent witness. Scholars already have agreed – pretty much in consensus from what I’ve seen – that Josephus’ writings were tampered with by Christians, no one before Eusebius (4th cent.) makes use of the passage in question (even though many earlier apologists relied heavily on Josephus to argue for the truth of the gospels), and it tells us nothing that the gospels don’t already themselves tell us. I wrote: Tacitus dates from ca. 112, give or take, and again tells us nothing we don’t already find in the gospels. I find it quite unlikely that Tacitus was drawing from Roman records, for it is hard to believe that he would see Pilate registered in those records as a prefect and then mistakenly call him a procurator in his own writings (and even more difficult to believe that the Roman records would record him as procurator instead of prefect in the first place). Tim: As I have pointed out, this mistake is found in Philo and Josephus as well; nor is Tacitus normally particularly accurate about titles in other contexts.For the position that Tacitus got his information from Roman records, you need either that those records incorrectly recorded Pilate’s title, or you need Tacitus reading the correct title in those records and then making the mistake when he incorporates what he read in those records in his own writings. Both are possible (so is bowling a 300 game), but I don’t find it very likely. And again, there’s nothing in the passage in question to suggest that this is what happened. So in the final analysis, as “evidence,” the Tacitus passage is just not helpful.I wrote: Similarly I find it very unlikely - and statements you’ve made yourself support this – that Roman records would have referred to Jesus as “Christ.” Tim: I think you must have misunderstood what I have said about the Roman records.That’s possible. I went back to find what I thought I recalled you saying on this point. Here’s what I think it was:I had asked: Would the Roman records have stated that ‘the Christ’ or ‘the Messiah’ was crucified?You had responded: The term would not have had this significance for the Romans.I took this to mean – as I myself would think – that Romans would not record Jesus’ name as “Christ” in a record of his crucifixion. Perhaps you think they would record his name as “Christ” instead of Jesus, even though “Christ” is a religious title that, as you had stated, would not have the significance for Romans that it did for the early Christians.Tim: It is entirely plausible – in the case of Suetonius it seems actually to have been the case – that the Romans at some remove from Palestine thought that “Chrestus” was Jesus’s name, as “Chrestus” was a fairly common Roman name.The appeal to Suetonius here is question-begging at best (see my points above). Indeed, if “Chrestus” was a fairly common Roman name, the Chrestus that Suetonius refers to need not be the Jesus of the Christians. I already gave reasons to suppose it could easily have meant someone else. But the point in question here was in reference to Tacitus, not Suetonius. Without coming out and affirming it explicitly, it seems that you are suggesting that Roman records have “Christ” where I would think they’d have “Jesus,” even though “Jesus” was his name, and “Christ” was a religious title that the Romans would not have recognized. You say this by supposing they might have thought it really was his name. Do you suppose they might have thought “Lord” might have been his name as well? At any rate, it seems you need the Romans to have mistakenly recorded Jesus’ name as “Christ” in order for Tacitus to be an independent source. Meanwhile, I see no reason why Tacitus could not have gotten his information from someone like Pliny, from Christians themselves, from trials that he attended or learned about, from discussions with other officials who had field knowledge of Christians in their jurisdictions, etc., all of which would point to repeating what Christians believed and were preaching at the time.I wrote: The potential that these sources are merely relating what Christians at the time had already come to believe and were claiming is very real. Tim: In the Josephus case I believe this is very unlikely, since the language of the passage (in the uninterpolated form) is not what a Christian would have written, does not use the phrases a Christian would have used, etc. You can find a good discussion of this in van Voorst.This seems to confuse what Josephus would have written with what a Christian would have written. If we grant that the Testimonium is genuinely Josephan (even the version that you prefer), we would still be saying that Josephus wrote it, not a Christian. Then again, it wouldn’t be too difficult for a Christian interpolator to attempt to approximate Josephus’ voice in order to make the passage seem all the more authentic. In fact, I would expect as much (I’ve come across some exquisitely crafty Christians in my day).I wrote: If, for instance, Tacitus was simply reporting what he learned about what the Christians of his day believed - either through interviews he conducted with various of Christianity's representatives, from hearsay, from some written source that was itself based on such reports - then he's not an independent witness of a historical Jesus.Tim: As I acknowledged above. However, though this cannot be ruled out directly, the evidence does not seem to point that way.I suppose we just see the evidence pointing in opposite directions. I believe I’ve given your viewpoint a fair hearing and have interacted with it as much as I can, given my limited time and resources. At best, it seems, there is nothing that conclusively recommends Tacitus or any other non-Christian source as firm evidence for the truth of the gospels. There are just too many holes here, too much potential implausibility (such as supposing that Tacitus got his facts mistaken or that the Roman records he consulted were, or that Josephus thought Jesus was the Messiah and yet remained a committed non-Christian Jew, etc.) to take these sources down the Christian path, a path that leads to supernaturalism which, as an adult thinker, I find absolutely unbelievable to begin with. In fact, it seems that, if there were a Jesus and the story of Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus were at all historical, I’d wonder why that same Jesus doesn’t just appear to everyone else he wants to convince, just as he did for Saul. I remember asking a Mormon missionary this question once, and his response was, “Jesus wants us to have faith.” I then asked, “Didn’t Paul have faith?” He was stupefied in silence, and insisted on changing the subject. I wrote: I know of no compelling reason to suppose that Tacitus got his information from Josephus. The Testimonium names Jesus, and yet Tacitus refers to “Christ,” as if that were his name. Tim: In Antiquities 20.200, just a few pages on from the Testimonium, Josephus refers to “Jesus who was called the Christ.”Which is another passage which some scholars consider to be an interpolation. Some scholars have pointed out that Josephus is careful to avoid messianic language in his writings. As Wells points out, Feldman has noted that Josephus mentions about ten Messianic figures in the last three books of the Antiquities without using the term ‘Christ’ or Messiah of them. That he avoided it is intelligible, since at that time it “had definite political overtones of revolution and independence,” and he was “a lackey of the Roman royal house.” (The Jesus Myth, p. 218; Wells quotes Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, pp. 689-690)So, although perhaps not conclusive, there is good reason to suppose the use of “Christ” or “Messiah” is out of character for Josephus. In fact, the use of the participle ‘legomenos’ (“to be named” or “called”) in the shorter Josephan passage is quite consistent with its use in several places in the gospels. France wants to suppose that Josephus was using the participle with negative implications (as “alleged” instead of “called”), and yet there are many places in the NT and even in Josephus’ own writings where it does not imply such negativity.Interestingly, Josephus does reference John the Baptist, but he nowhere connects him with the Christian movement (see Ant. 18:116).I wrote: The analogy I gave is actually quite strong, ...Tim: I have already addressed this; what you say subsequently simply reiterates your analogy and takes no account of what I said, so there is nothing new here requiring response.You offered what you considered to be a stronger analogy, but gave no indication why the analogy I gave for my point was bad. It appeared to me that you didn’t grasp its strength, which is why I stopped to point out the relevant points of comparison. You still apparently think it is a bad analogy, and yet you do not show why. The analogy that I gave (involving someone writing a bunch of letters praising Mozart and yet never mentioning that he wrote music or lived in the 1700s) encapsulates what the Christian position expects us to accept about Paul’s silences vis-à-vis the gospels’ portraits of Jesus. The gospels make it clear that Jesus was known for his marvelous works, his healings, etc., and yet it is of these things for which the gospels have him famous which Paul seems completely ignorant.I wrote: The passage does not indicate that there were Greeks in the audience;Tim: It simply doesn’t tell us much about the audience.On the contrary, at Mark 10:2 it specifies the Pharisees and at 10:10 it specifies Jesus’ disciples.I wrote: ... in fact, Mark specifies that Pharisees are his audience.Tim: No: it specifies that the Pharisees are his target.What’s interesting is Mark 10:10, which narrows Jesus’ audience, at the point where he issues his teaching about divorce that Paul is said to have “echoed,” to just his disciples: “And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.” Were any of Jesus’ disciples Greek?I asked: Besides, if Paul were getting his “words of the Lord” from a prior source, what was his source?Tim: Most likely from the apostles, either directly or indirectly. Traveling with Luke would be a great way to find out a lot of information.This would go against what Paul himself tells us. He tells us explicitly that he did not receive his knowledge of the gospel from other men, nor was he taught it, but that he got it “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). He also tells us that his time with the Jerusalem apostles was quite short and limited primarily to Peter and James (cf. Gal. 1:17-19). So if we take Paul’s word for it, he didn’t get these teachings from the apostles.But you think otherwise:Tim: I think these passages are being overread. Paul, by his own account, was commissioned directly by the Lord, but nothing he says in Galatians or 1 Corinthians conflicts with the account in Acts that he spent time with the disciples at Damascus immediately after his conversion and baptism (9:19) and subsequently was with the disciples in Jerusalem (9:27-28).Here’s what I read in Gal. 1:11-12:“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”Here’s what he says a few verses later (vss. 17-19):“Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”Paul explicitly states that he was not “taught” the gospel that he took to the gentile mission, that he did not get it from other men, that it was given to him directly “by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”But you would still prefer that we believe Paul got a teaching “of the Lord” from apostles, even though his own words strongly suggest otherwise. Okay. I wrote: Meanwhile, that the evangelist was taking a teaching that had already acquired currency among early Christians (such as in the early epistolary strata, as I have suggested) and putting it into Jesus’ mouth in the development of a narrative of an earthly Jesus, does not rely on these tactics, and fits (a word you found appropriate earlier) best with the legend case. It's not a stretch by any means.Tim: There are so many problems with this hypothesis that I cannot even begin to enumerate them all in a blog post.I can appreciate this. At this point, instead of arguments supporting your contention here, you chose to list a number of questions. And while I am fascinated by all this, I am by no means an expert, so all I can do in my limited time is give it my best shot.Tim: Where did Paul get all these ideas?For many of Paul’s teachings, he refers to the OT (and curiously not to an earthly Jesus). He apparently saw himself as opening the scriptures in a new light, having received a “revelation of Jesus Christ” which empowered him to impart a new message to the gentile world.Again, Wells makes an interesting point here:Any reader of Paul can see that all his important doctrines are buttressed by an appeal to the OT. But he very strikingly does not do what Matthew repeatedly does, namely cite it as foreshadowing incidents in Jesus’s incarnate life, such as his virgin birth, his settling at Capernaum, his teaching in parables, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and his disciples’ desertion of him at his arrest. Paul shows no knowledge of such incidents, nor of John the Baptist, whose preaching was, according to all three synoptics, foretold in the OT, and whom both Matthew (11:11) and Luke represent as Jesus’s forerunner and hence as greater than any ordinary mortal. Paul makes no mention of him because John the Baptist’s preaching had in fact nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity [Wells references Josephus here]... (The Jesus Myth, p 77)Wells also points out that “The influence of Jewish Wisdom literature on Paul is undeniable: statements made about Wisdom in this literature are made of Jesus in the Pauline letters.” (The Jesus Myth, p. 97)Tim: (The mystery religions “explanation” is beyond hopeless.)I don’t think I’ve made this appeal, however I would note that Paul was no unlearned man, and he hailed from Tarsus where mystery religions had been thriving at the time. Paul himself even appeals to “mystery” on numerous occasions (see for instance here). Again Wells: The pagan environment of earliest Christianity cannot have been unimportant. (The Jesus Myth, p. 99)Tim: What did Peter, James, and John have to say about his teaching?I don’t think we have anything authentic from their hand.Tim: How did the actual beliefs of those pillars of the early church – to whom Paul himself refers in Galatians 2 – manage to disappear without a ripple?Perhaps I’m just daft or tired, but I’m not sure what you’re asking here.Tim: Whence the materials in the gospels that could not have come from the Pauline epistles?You mean like the virgin birth, the association with John the Baptist, a crucifixion under Pilate, the sayings attributed to Jesus? It is good that you admit that these elements are not present in the earliest strata of the NT. There are many plausible explanations for these. Some are the result of attempts to reinterpret the OT. Some are attempts to put Jesus into a historical context by associating him with genuinely historical places and people. There were collections of wise sayings (e.g., the Quelle) which were incorporated into certain Christian circles and put into Jesus’ mouth.Tim: How did the clever forgers manage so thoroughly to cover their tracks that there is no hint now of their existence?Who says “there is no hint now of their existence”? And were they really “forgers”? Perhaps not in today’s understanding of the term. At any rate, there were many things in existence in those says the evidence for which did not survive unto today.Tim: How on earth did the undesigned coincidences get built in, so that things in one gospel that make no sense taken on their own are explained by passing references in others?Unless you give me an example of what you mean, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to weigh in on here.Tim: How does one account for the undesigned coincidences between the epistles and Acts – things that could not plausibly have been written up on the basis of Paul’s epistles?Again, I’m not sure what specifically you have in mind here.Tim: We have forgeries in history, and we know what they look like. This isn’t it. If the mythic theory requires this sort of retrojection of Paul’s epistles into the gospels and Acts, that simply puts more nails into its coffin.I see. Well, I guess this is your vote in favor of the NT’s supernaturalism then. Regards,Dawson
Regarding the source of Tacitus’ information, I had asked: Now what is the alternative that you prefer, and what evidence do you have for that alternative?Tim: If Tacitus’s information came from interviews with Christians, it would be evidence only of what Christians believed when they were interviewed.I would say this is correct. If Tacitus' information came from interviews with Christians, it would only confirm that the Christians he interviewed believed what is being reported in his statement. This does no damage to either the mythic theory or the legend theory.Tim: If it came from hearsay, it would be evidence for what was believed about Christians, which is wider in scope; if there were any dissent over whether “Christus” had been crucified under Pontius Pilate, this would lessen the probability that Tacitus would refer to it in so matter of fact a fashion. If it came from Roman records, then that closes the case on the mythic theory.If it could be established that Tacitus' information in fact came from Roman records (something that no one, to my knowledge, has been able to do), I would tend to agree that it would put a capper on the mythic theory. But it would not put a capper on the legend theory. Recall that the legend theory allows that a real human being named Jesus existed and may even have been crucified at some point, and that the narratives we find in the NT about a man so-named are legendary tales that grew over time since his death on a cross under Roman rule.Tim: So there are several options here. (1) There is no hint in the passage that Tacitus has personally conducted interviews to gain this information; that is, I think, by far the least plausible hypothesis.You are correct, Tacitus does not state that he gathered the information he is reporting from interviews that he personally conducted. In fact, he doesn’t make any statement identifying the source of his information at all. So far as what Tacitus does state, it is an open question. It’s not clear how we can conclude that the possibility that Tacitus did get his information from interviews with Christians is “by far the least plausible hypothesis.” But I do agree that you are free to think this. I had already pointed out that Tacitus was governor of Asia ca. AD 112-113 – around the time that the passage in question was written in fact. I quoted Wells pointing out that Tacitus could very well have had problems with Christians in his province similar to those that Pliny experienced as governor in neighboring Bithynia at the same time. Pliny tells us that he interviewed Christians. If he actually did do this, I don’t see why the possibility that Tacitus did the same is “by far the least plausible hypothesis.” No, that Pliny did confer directly with Christians does not mean that Tacitus did, but if it wasn’t beneath Pliny to have done so, why suppose it was in Tacitus’ case? No argument has been given to conclude as strongly as you indicate here that Tacitus would not have done this. Tim: (2) It could be that the information came from someone else’s interviews and/or torturings of Christians. This cannot be ruled out. But in that case, it matters a great deal for our discussion when this information was wrung from them. If it was after the gospels had achieved currency, then it likely reflects what they had read and believed; if it was earlier, it would reflect at least oral traditions; if it was much earlier, it would reflect teaching in a community where eyewitnesses were still living.I don’t know how one would go about determining when the information – supposing it was gathered through interviews or torturings of Christians – was “wrung from them.” We do know that Tacitus was writing in the early part of the second century, and we also know that the Christian movement had been in existence for several decades before this. There is certainly nothing in the record to suggest that the information Tacitus was relating in the passage in question had been lying in wait, as it were, for 60 or 70 years.Tim: (3) It could be that it was a matter of common knowledge. This cannot be ruled out, and it would give stronger but not decisive evidence for the veracity of the facts Tacitus relates.We have to be a little more specific here: what exactly is being proposed as “a matter of common knowledge” at this time (ca. 112-115)? That Christians lived in Rome? That Christians worshipped someone “called Christ”? That this Christ had been condemned some 85 years earlier by a “procurator” named Pilate in Judea? That the crucifixion of this Christ initially dampened the movement, but it proved resilient and sprang back with renewed vigor and spread from Judea “to Rome itself”? As we borrow into the elements contained in the Tacitus reference, we find an increase in specificity, and “common knowledge” is usually not very specific as this gets. That Tacitus was reporting common knowledge here seems to become more unlikely as each element he reports is introduced. But let’s say that much of this was, ca. 115, already common knowledge at least for Tacitus and his cronies. Tacitus was a learned and well traveled man, a historian who was penning histories. Was this common knowledge for such a person by this time? Perhaps, but this would need to be shown. And even then, it is not necessarily the case that this “would give stronger… evidence for the veracity of [what] Tacitus relates.” Tim: (4) It could be that Tacitus looked it up in Roman records or some other non-Christian source. This cannot be ruled out, and for this reason the Sanders quotation seems to me to be an overstatement. We know that Tacitus used official sources constantly in his work: the Acta Diurna (see Annals 13.31, 16.22, etc.), the speeches of Tiberius and Claudius, various collections of letters, the work of Pliny the Elder, etc. Significantly, Tacitus had access to Josephus’s works and mentions nothing about Jesus that could not have been found in Josephus.I have already addressed the proposal that Tacitus got his information about “Christ” from Roman records. It seems quite implausible to me. I’ll run through some of the reasons why: (a) Tacitus refers to the individual in question as “Christ,” not as Jesus. “Christ” is a religious title which I highly doubt would have been recorded in a Roman record; (b) Tacitus refers to Pilate as ‘procurator’ which was the title of Pilate’s position in Tacitus’ day, but not during Pilate’s day, suggesting that, if he was consulting any kind of record, it was a contemporary record, not a record from the time in question; that Tacitus would consult Roman records and see Pilate’s title as ‘prefect’ and then call him ‘procurator’ in his own writing seems unlikely to me; (c) that Tacitus would take the time for a passing mention of Christ to consult Roman records from Judea aged some 80 plus years to add a brief explanatory note in his mention of Christians as Nero’s scapegoat for the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD seems quite fantastic to me; (d) that Romans in the remote province of Judea would have kept such meticulous records about condemned criminals at the time the gospels put Jesus’ crucifixion seems a bit of a stretch; the Romans crucified thousand upon thousands of condemned prisoners, and even if they did record Jesus’ crucifixion, it seems quite a stretch that they would have recorded his name as “Christ” (if it were recorded as “Jesus,” how would Tacitus have found it if he were looking for someone named “Christ”?), and if they did record it (even as “Christ” instead of, say, “King of the Jews” as the gospels indicate), the likelihood that they survived and made their way to Rome so that some 80 plus years later Tacitus could go into some great hall of records and spend perhaps days looking for such a reference, borders on wishful thinking at this point. So for these reasons, I would say that your (4) is the least plausible. As for Josephus, I have already discussed him as a source at length in previous comments.Tim: If his information came from such an early non-Christian source, the mythic theory is effectively eliminated.But not the legend theory. The legend theory is compatible with the possibility that a cultic preacher named Jesus was condemned under a Roman official in Judea. That a man named Jesus was crucified in Judea is nothing remarkable. That legends sprang up in the memory of such a person is not at all impossible, especially if he was considered a martyr for a cause.You gave your assessment of plausibility for each of these proposals:Tim: (1) is quite implausible since it is not represented in the passage. (Contrast Pliny.)If the test of a proposal’s plausibility is whether or not “it is… represented in the passage” in question, then all four of your proposals are equally implausible, for none of them is represented in the passage in question. Apparently, but not clearly, you seem to agree, for you say:Tim: I do not think that there is a vastly stronger case for one of the options (2), (3), or (4) over the others.Of all the proposals, (2) seems closest to having any staying power, though I would expand it to include conversations and discussions that Tacitus could have had with clerks and officials, such as Pliny, who had field experience with Christians, and perhaps even written reports about Christians and conflicts involving them in various provinces that may have found their way into his possession. Also, since Tacitus was himself governor of Asia (neighboring Pliny’s Bithynia at the same time he was having problems with Christians), the possibility that Tacitus learned about the Christ cult during his service in such a role seems quite strong to me. (2) seems more likely than (1) since it is broader; (1) requires that Tacitus himself interviewed Christian representatives; (2) allows that he learned about Christians through his colleagues. (2) may be stronger than (3) depending on what is taken as “common knowledge” (see my points above). And below you make a strong point against (3) yourself, which lessens its likelihood. I certainly think that (2) as I would characterize it is several times more plausible and more likely than (4), for reasons already stated.Regarding proposal (2), you stated:Tim: Under (2), it tells us either nothing not in the gospels or else something about oral tradition prior to the gospels; this option makes the testimony of Tacitus either no independent evidence against the mythic theory or rather weak independent evidence against it – weak, since many of those oral traditions were probably incorporated into the gospels as we have them.I agree: (2) would pose no threat against the mythic theory (and even less against the legend theory), but note that it is not because of this that I find (2) more plausible. You should see that this is where I think the evidence points after considering it.Tim: Under (3), Tacitus’s report tells us what was believed in the Roman world at large. Since it is improbable that this story would have undisputed currency among Romans if it were not substantially true, this option makes the testimony of Tacitus rather strong evidence against the mythic theory.Your assessment here depends on specifically which element in Tacitus’ report is thought to be “substantially true.” Is it the part that Christians were already hated by Nero’s time? I don’t see how this speaks against the mythic theory (it certainly doesn’t speak against the legend theory). Is it the part that Nero scapegoated Rome’s Christians for the fire? Again, I don’t see how this vies against either the mythic or legend theory. So far both theories are in agreement that the Christian movement existed at the time in question. Is it the part about someone “called Christ” being the “founder” of the cult bearing his name at the time in question? Again, both the mythic and the legend theories are compatible with this. And so far, I don’t see how these parts being “common knowledge” would at all recommend the truth of the gospel portrait of Jesus. Is it the part about Christ being crucified under a Roman official named Pilate? I see no reason why the mythic theory would be incompatible with the possibility that Jesus’ crucifixion had taken place under Pilate could (I’ll be as charitable as possible here) by Nero’s time have been incorporated into oral traditions that were circulating about Jesus. And it certainly is not incompatible with the legend theory which grants that a cultic preacher was condemned to die by crucifixion under a Roman official. Would this part have been “common knowledge” in Nero’s day? I strongly doubt it, if by “common knowledge” we mean common to non-Christians as well as Christians. I suspect that most non-Christians of Nero’s day took little notice of Christians or their beliefs, unless of course they were in their midst and encountered conflicts with them. Most people were probably doing their best just to survive. Then again, Christians would have been just one of many different belief systems of the day. In the very passage under review, Tacitus characterizes Rome as “the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth.”Tim: But one fact that tells against (3) is that there does not seem to have been much common knowledge about Christians in the Roman world; witness Suetonius’s probable botch of Christ’s name and Pliny’s resorting to torture to satisfy his curiosity.I think this is a strong, but less than conclusive point against (3). So far I think (2) (as I have nuanced it) is the strongest of the three options so far considered. But we have one more to consider:Tim: Under (4), the mythic theory is essentially ruled out.I would tend to agree, so long as (4) could be established as it is herein conceived. But, significantly, it would not rule out the legend theory. As I have pointed out, the legend theory is compatible with an actual cultic figure, wholly mortal in his nature, being martyred under the Romans by means of crucifixion. So even if we could establish (4), the gains here for Christianity aren’t even meager in my view.Tim: If I had to pick just one specific hypothesis as the most plausible of the lot, I’d go with Harnack and say Tacitus was using Josephus, on the basis of close parallels between them in the recounting of information.Then again, if close parallels are the deciding factor, it would be just as easy to suppose that Tacitus had reviewed reports from various Asian provinces about Christians and what they believed. I would put this under (2) as I enlarged it above. And again, even if we grant that the Testimonium, for instance, is authentically Josephan (I’ve already indicated that I don’t think it is), and also that Tacitus relied on it for his information about Christ (which even you admit is unprovable), this would not pose a threat to the legend theory, as I have indicated.Tim: But since this cannot be proved, only shown to be plausible, the best we can do in the absence of further evidence is to say that this passage of Tacitus offers some evidence against the mythic theory but that it is not decisive.I can also say that it offers no evidence against the legend theory.Regards, Dawson
Tim said,If the suggestion that in the synoptics Jesus is definitely not God, then I think this is just false. We could start the argument with Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Luke 5:24. All I would concede here is that the case for a divine Jesus is easier to make from the fourth gospel and Paul’s epistles.Yes, it certainly is easier to make the case for Jesus' divinity from John and Paul. Let's look at your synoptic proof texts above:Mark 2:10 All this says is that the son of man has authority to forgive sins. You can make the case that forgiving sins is a godlike characteristic, but then again, letting a goat carry away sins into the desert didn't make the goat into a god. This can be understood as delegated power. The use of the "son of man" title (one of those curious omissions in Paul) is a synonym for "man" not to be understood as a divinity.Matt 9:6 See above. Matthew simply copies Mark's son of man forgiving sins.Luke 5:24 What a coincidence! Luke is copying Mark just like Matthew did. Nothing new here.This isn't much of a case. I will continue to maintain that only the Johannine literature unequivocally marries the concept of Jesus the man and Jesus the divinity.Tim wrote,Although I am persuaded by the evidence in Paley, Smith, Hemer, and Kettenbach that Acts is basically a historical narrative and that it dovetails as well with the epistles as we can expect any narratives of secular history to dovetail with each other, I do not see that I am using this as an assumption in our discussion.You are viewing the Paulines through the template of Acts, taking for granted such reports as1. A protracted ministry of Jesus following the resurrection.2. A miraculous infusion of the holy spirit to the dispirited disciples giving them clarity of thought in theology, resulting in mass conversions of a quarter of the population of Jerusalem.3. The identification with the disciples with the apostles.4. The murderous actions of the Jews in reaction to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.5. The identification of Paul with a Saul of Tarsus.6. The miraculous conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.7. The violent reaction of the Jews against Paul's preaching.8. The Jerusalem conference.9. Christians being put out of the synagogues.10. Opposition to Paul coming from Jewish Christians from Jerusalem.None of these things are discernable in the Pauline epistles unless one is looking for them, first looking through the lens of Acts. The entirity of the story of the origin of the church as seen in Acts just isn't there in Paul. Conversely, Acts makes no mention of any Pauline letters and creates a Pauline theology at odds with those letters, but more in line with proto catholic orthodoxy.Tim wrote:The narrative of Acts is minutely circumstantial, and in the second part in particular it ranges quite widely in space and is therefore subject to cross checks from various sorts of evidence (archaeological, nautical, etc.). The result of these cross checks is that the narrative appears to be astonishingly accurate in dozens of details that we can verify. This provides a very strong case that it is an authentic travelogue.I will take no issue with the details of geography. There is no reason to suspect that the writer of Acts wouldn't have had some knowledge of the location of Cyprus, Jerusalem, Antioch, Athens, Corinth, Rome, et al. The movie "Gladiator" put Russel Crowe's character into a historical and geographical context, but it didn't actually happen. I had stated:From Paul, it is not possible to infer a separate Christian identity from that of diaspora Judaism. Tim wrote,You cannot mean this literally. Diaspora Judaism practiced the Last Supper, talked about the messiah as come, proclaimed the availability of the Abrahamic promises to the gentiles, declared the law to be ended, maintained that circumcision was now optional, and referred to the resurrection of Jesus as authenticated by numerous witnesses? Paul never suggests a sharp break between his followers and the synagogues. Judaism of the period was "evangelistic" in that they actively recruited gentile converts. Yes, these converts were accepted as those of the nations who were to be blessed "in Abraham" according to the promise. Obviously, these gentile God-fearers who converted were expected to be circumcized and follow the Torah (part of the point of my post). Paul's message claimed that they could be grafted into Israel without being circumcized and following the minutae of Jewish regulations. That was the point of contention between Paul and the Jews.Judaism could and did have enough diversity in the first century to accommodate some eerily Christian sounding parallels. The DSS community, for instance, were ruled by a council of 12, called themselves "The Way" and "The Poor (ebion), proclaimed a new covenant, baptized, and celebrated a community ritualized mean of bread and wine. Paul's use of "Christos" may only mean God's anointed. The concept of an anointed heavenly son, a savior, and the offspring of the Father and Sophia (the spirit, Wisdom) were certainly concepts extant in the first century within Diaspora Judaism.Paul's few mentions of others having visions of the risen anointed savior are not substantively different from his own visions, nor at odds with the "heavenly son" concept within Judaism.
Bart says:Paul's use of "Christos" may only mean God's anointed. The concept of an anointed heavenly son, a savior, and the offspring of the Father and Sophia (the spirit, Wisdom) were certainly concepts extant in the first century within Diaspora Judaism.Indeed we have textual evidence to support just this reading from Theophilus of Antioch, writing as late as 180 CE.Here's Theophilus:And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.Where's Jesus? |
The year of financial apocalypse may be 5 years away PRAVIN PALANDE
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007 03:56:04 AM]
MUMBAI: Economists, fund managers and technical analysts rarely agree with each other. But if it is 2012, many of them seem to have a consensus. For them, 2012 spells only one thing — global meltdown in financial markets. The present boom in the financial markets may come to an abrupt end in 2012, feels a Harvard University Economist Jeffery Frankel. According to him, the reason is very simple. He feels that markets move in from seven years of lull and seven years of boom. But in between these two phases the flow of money stops. 2012 is that year when there is a chance that liquidity from global emerging markets will get drained out. The last time this happened was in 1997 when the Asian market hit the peak and there was a capital flight out of Asia. Before that in 1982, Mexico faced problems after the oil price crisis that was experienced by the country which affected the world. Due to fall in oil prices Mexico suffered heavily due to loss in revenues. This backdating of 15 years takes us to 1697, which marked the end of the Mayan Kingdom. The Mayan King Pacal Voltan was known for his prophecies and was known for his knowledge of numbers. Pacal Voltan speaks about the end of the world on December 21, 2012, a year which many believe is the year of the apocalypse. Diego Arevalo is a fund manager who is presently in Guatemala and is intrigued by Pacal Voltan and his prophecies. Apart from his day job of fund management he takes a keen interest in the Mayan culture. Mr Arevalo who spoke to ET on e-mail believes that there is something out there which is not easy to understand. He has been talking to a lot of Mayan experts and is of the opinion that the world may not actually come to an end as depicted by the prophecies of Pacal Voltan. “The world is going to go through some drastic change around that year. There will be an impact on global financial markets. But doesn’t it intrigue us that so many theories are converging in one year and these theories are coming in from different parts of the world.” To prove his point Mr Arevalo talks about the Elliott Waves. Technical analysts use the Elliott Waves to understand the movement of the markets. The Elliott model proposes that the market prices alternate between five and three waves and in a way represents fractals. These waves are based either on multi-decades to weekly patterns and are called as major cycles or minor cycles. According to Mr Arevalo we are touching the ‘Wave V’ in 2012. Wave V, Fibonacci number is the last wave in an upward trend of a major cycle. Since these waves are fractals, they appear at various point in time. The macroview or supercycle has Wave V located in 2012. “I expect a reversal at that exact point in the markets, possibly a great correction in the form of a depression. The Mayan calendar expects something more disruptive. I think an event derived from global warming is something what they expect.” Maybe Mr Arevalo has a point. Indian technical analysts are of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the Indian markets for the next two to three years. “In technical analysis we don’t look beyond two to three years. But I don’t see anything going wrong for India in this time. It is very difficult to point out what will happen in 2012,” says a senior technical analyst from Mumbai. Financial markets are waiting for a volatility shock. Nobody knows in what fashion or which part of the world this shock will come from. Till then fund managers and economists have enough time to meet Mayan Shamans or understand Elloit Waves. Source: 2012 in the NEWS |
Interview Carole Jesse Experienced Analytics Professional R in the Cloud
R for Quantitative Finance
Train in R
An interview with Carole Jesse, an experienced Analytics professional in SAS, JMP , analytics and Risk Management.
Ajay- Describe your career in science from school to now.
Carole- Truthfully, my career in science started in 7th grade. Hey, I know this is further back in time than you intended the question to go! However, something significant happened that year that pretty much set me on the path that I am still on today. I discovered Algebra. Up to that point in time, I was an average student in ‘arithmetic’. Algebra introduced LETTERS into the mix with numbers, in the simplest of ways that we have all seen: ‘Solve for x in the equation x+2=5’. That was something I could get behind, AND I excelled at it immediately. Without mathematical excellence, efforts in learning science can fall apart. Mathematics is everywhere!
I spent the rest of my secondary education consuming all the math and science that I could get. By the time I entered college I had already been exposed to pre-calculus and physics and was actually surprised by those in my college Freshman courses who had not seen anti-derivatives, memorized the quotient rule, or worked an inclined plane friction problem before.
My goal as an undergraduate was to become a Veterinarian. The beauty of a pre-Vet curriculum is that it is pretty much like pre-Med, rigorous and broad in the sciences. In my first two years of undergraduate work, I was exposed to more Chemistry, more Mathematics, more Physics, along with things like Genetics, Biology, even the Plant and Animal Sciences. Although I did not stick with my pursuit of Veterinary Medicine, it laid a solid foundation that has served me very well in the strangest of places.
I consider myself a Mathematician/Statistician due to my academic degrees in those areas, first a BS in Mathematics/Physics at the University of Wisconsin followed by a MS in Statistics at Montana State University. In between the BS and MS I also dabbled briefly in Electrical Engineering at the University of Minnesota.
Since academia, it is my breadth in ALL sciences which has allowed me to be very fluid in straddling diverse industries: from High Volume Manufacturing of Consumer Products, to Nuclear Energy, to Semiconductor Manufacturing/Packaging, to Financial Services, to Health Care. I succeed at business problem solving in these industries by applying my Statistical Methods knowledge, coupled with business acumen and peripheral understanding of the technologies used. I have worked closely with scientists and engineers, and could enter THEIR world speaking THEIR language, which was an aid in getting to these solutions quickly.
I can not place enough emphasis on the importance of exposure to a broad range of sciences, and as early as possible, for anyone who wants to be involved in Advanced Analytics and Business Intelligence. As a manager, I look closely at candidates for these diverse sorts of backgrounds.
Ajay- I find the number of computer scientists and analysts to be overwhelmingly male despite this being a lucrative profession. Do you think that BI and Analytics are male dominated? How can the trend be re-shaped?
Carole- Welcome to my world! All kidding aside, yes that has been my observation as well. While I am not versed in the specifics of actual gender statistics in Computer Science and Advanced Analytics versus other fields, based on my years in and around these fields, there does appear to be a bias.
This is not due to a lack of capability or interest in these fields on the part of women. I believe it is more due to the long history of cultural norms and negative social messages that perhaps push woman away from these fields. The messages can be subtle, but if you pay close attention, you will see them. Being one of 10 females in an undergraduate engineering class of 150 students has a message right there. Even though these 10 women were able to make entry to the class, the pressure of being a minority, whether gender based or otherwise, can be a powerful influencer in remaining there.
In my own experience, I have encountered frequent judgments where I was made to feel “good at math” was an unacceptable trait for a woman to have. It is important to note that these judgments have been delivered equally by men AND women. So I think until both genders develop higher expectations of women in the hard science areas, the trends will continue. It has been decades since my 7th grade introduction to algebra, but it appears the negative social messages regarding girls in math and science are still present today. Otherwise there would be no need (i.e. no market) for books like Danica McKellar’s “Math Doesn’t Suck,” and the follow-up “Kiss My Math,” both aimed at battling these negative messages at the middle school level.
As to how I have battled these cultural expectations, I developed a thick skin. I have also learned to expect excellence from myself even when a teacher, or a peer, or a boss may have had lower expectations for me than for a male counterpart. Sort of a John Mayer “Who Says” type of attitude. Who says I can’t do Math and Science. Watch me.
Carole- There are many areas of Risk Management. My specific experience has been on the Credit Risk Management and Fraud Risk Management sides in a couple of industries. For credit risk in financial services, typically there is a specific department whose role is to quantify and predict credit risk. Not just for the current portfolio, but for new products as well. Various methodologies are utilized, ranging from summarization of portfolio characteristics that have a known relationship to default to using historical data to build out predictive models for production implementation. Key skills needed here are good understanding of the business, solid statistical methods knowledge, and computing skills. As far as the computing /software skills needed, there are three main categories 1) query and preparation of data, 2) model building and validation, and 3) model implementation. The actual tools will likely differ across these categories. For example, 1) might be tackled with SAS®, Business Objects, or straight SQL;
2) requires a true modeling package or coding language like SAS®, SPSS, R, etc; and lastly 3) is the trickiest, as implementation can have many system limitations, but SAS® or C++ are often seen at implementation.
Ajay- Describe some of your most challenging and most exciting projects over the years.
Carole- I have been very fortunate to have many challenges and good projects in every role I have been in, but as I look back today, some things that stand out the most were in ‘high tech’. By virtue of being high tech, there is no fear of technology, and it is fast-paced and ever evolving to the next generation of product.
I spent seven years in the Semiconductor industry during the 90’s at Micron Technology, Intel, and Motorola. At the beginning of that window, we left the “486 processor” world, and during that window we spanned the realm of “Pentium processors.” Moore’s Law dominated all of this. To stay competitive all of these companies embraced statistical methods to help speed up development time.
At one point, I supported a group of about 10 R&D engineers in the Design and Analysis of their process improvement and simplification experiments. This afforded me exposure to much of the leading edge research the team was working on.
I recall one project with the goal of optimizing capacitance via surface roughness of the capacitor structures. In addition to all the science involved at the manufacturing step, what made this so interesting was the difficulty in measuring capacitance at the point in the process where film roughness was introduced. All we had were surface images after this step. The semiconductor wafers had to pass through several more process steps to get to the point where capacitance could actually be measured. All of this provided challenges around the design of the experiment and the data handling and analysis.
By working closely with both the process engineer and the process technician I was able to gather the image files off the image tool that were taken from the experimental runs. I used SAS® (yes, another shameless plug for my favorite software) to process the images using Fast Fourier Transforms. Subsequently, the transformed data was correlated to the capacitance in the analysis of the experimental results. Finding the “sweet spot” for capacitance, as driven by surface roughness, provided a huge leap for this process technology team.
The challenges of today are much different than they were in the 90s. In the more recent years, I have been working with transactional data related to financial services or health care claims. The challenges manifest themselves in the sheer volume of the data. In the last decade in particular most industries have been able to put the infrastructures in place to gather and store massive amounts of data related to their businesses. The challenge of turning this data into meaningful actionable information has been equally exciting as using Fast Fourier Transforms on image processing to optimize capacitance!
Currently I am working with an Oracle database where one table in the schema has 250 million records and a couple hundred fields. I refer to this as a “Pushing Tera” situation, since this one table is close to a Terabyte in size. As far as storing the data, that is not a big deal, but working with data this large or larger is the challenge. Different skill sets are needed here beyond those of just an analyst, data miner, or statistician. These VLDB situations have morphed me into a bit of an IT person.
How do you efficiently query such large databases? An inefficient SQL query will not be a bother in a situation where the database is small. But when the database is large, SQL efficiency is key. Many skills needed for industry are not necessarily taught in academia, but rather get picked up along the way, like Unix and SQL. I now write efficient SQL code, but many poorly written jobs gave their lives so that I could learn these efficiencies!
Eventually I will need to organize this data into an application specific format and put data security controls around the process. Again, is this Advanced Analytics? Not really, it is more of an MIS role. The newness in these challenges keeps me excited about my work.
Ajay- How important do you think work life balance is for people in this profession? What do you do to chill out?
Carole- I don’t think the work-life balance is any more or less important to the decision science professionals than it is to any other profession really. I have friends in many other professions like Law, Nursing, Financial Planning, etc. with the same work-life balance struggles.
We live in a busy culture that includes more and more demands placed on us professionally. Let’s face it, most of us are care-takers to someone besides ourselves. It might be a spouse, or a child, or a dog, or even an elderly parent. Therefore, a total focus on work is bound to upset the work-life balance for most of us.
My biggest struggle comes in the form of balancing the two sides of my brain. That may sound weird, but one thing you have to agree with is that all of this is pretty “Left Brained”: mathematics, statistics, business intelligence, computing, etc. To balance this out, and tap into my Right Brain, I like to dabble in the arts to some extent. Don’t get me wrong, I am not an artist! But that doesn’t mean I can’t draw on creativity in the artistic sense. For example, this past summer I took a course on Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator at Minneapolis College of Art and Design. This provided the best of both worlds, combining software and art! In addition to learning how to remove Cindy Crawford’s mole (yes, we did this), there were some very useful projects. One of my course projects was creating my customized Twitter background. An endeavor like this provides me a ‘chilling out’ factor from the normal work world. I know of many other Left Brain leaners that do similar things, like playing a musical instrument, or painting, etc. This is another reason why I took up digital photography: more visual arts.
Volunteer work has a balancing effect too. I try to give back to the community when I can. Swinging a hammer at Habitat for Humanity, or doing record keeping for an Animal Rescue organization, are things I have participated in.
And if none of this works, I enjoy cooking for my family and friends, and plying them with wine!
There are many areas of Risk Management. My specific experience has been on the Credit Risk Management and Fraud Risk Management sides in a couple of industries. For credit risk in financial services, typically there is a specific department whose role is to quantify and predict credit risk. Not just for the current portfolio, but for new products as well. Various methodologies are utilized, ranging from summarization of portfolio characteristics that have a known relationship to default to using historical data to build out predictive models for production implementation. Key skills needed here are good understanding of the business, solid statistical methods knowledge, and computing skills. As far as the computing /software skills needed, there are three main categories 1) query and preparation of data, 2) model building and validation, and 3) model implementation. The actual tools will likely differ across these categories. For example, 1) might be tackled with SAS®, Business Objects, or straight SQL; 2) requires a true modeling package or coding language like SAS®, SPSS, R, etc; and lastly 3) is the trickiest, as implementation can have many system limitations, but SAS® or C++ are often seen at implementation.
4) Describe some of your most challenging and most exciting projects over the years.
I have been very fortunate to have many challenges and good projects in every role I have been in, but as I look back today, some things that stand out the most were in ‘high tech’. By virtue of being high tech, there is no fear of technology, and it is fast-paced and ever evolving to the next generation of product.
5) How important do you think work life balance is for people in this profession? What do you do to chill out?
I don’t think the work-life balance is any more or less important to the decision science professionals than it is to any other profession really. I have friends in many other professions like Law, Nursing, Financial Planning, etc. with the same work-life balance struggles.
6) What are you views on:
A) Data Quality |
Gene Expression has a comprehensive post on this inversion whose age had been estimated as 3-million years old, but was downgraded by a couple of orders of magnitude by the current study.The polymorphism is found at its highest frequency in Southern Europe and Southwest Asia, but Razib argues in favor of its ultimately African origin because of its existence at a low frequency in the "isolated" Mbuti:If H2 arose in the Middle East its presence in Africa could be explained by back-migration. I immediately was skeptical of this model because H2 is extant at frequencies of 5% among the Mbuti Pygmies. The Mbuti are relatively isolated genetically from the Bantu farmers who have come to dominate their region. If there was any group which represented the ancient genetic variation of Central Africa, it is likely the Mbuti.While the Mbuti are indeed fairly isolated, it is not right to think of them as a relic of African genetic variation. The distinction is crucial: while the Mbuti contain a large component of "ancient" (pre-farming) African genetic diversity, they are by no means pure, as can be seen by last year's comprehensive study on African variation.In other words: the Mbuti are a good population to find ancient African variation in; but, they also have admixture with more recent populations, which may have served as a conduit for the introduction of extraneous genetic elements such as the inversion in question.Getting back to the paper itself, the moral is clear: be doubtful of genetic age estimates for extremely old events (by which I mean anything predating the Neolithic).This includes the age estimate in this study which is based on microsatellites. The long-term behavior of these markers is based pretty much on conjecture, as we normally have the ability to observe them only across a few (human) generations.So, I'm not taking as granted the accuracy of the current paper's age estimate. Nonetheless, the study of the distribution of the inversion is quite useful. Its origin is probably in West Asia, a region which would explain its presence in both Europe and Africa.AJHG doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.01.007The Distribution and Most Recent Common Ancestor of the 17q21 Inversion in HumansMichael P. Donnelly et al.AbstractThe polymorphic inversion on 17q21, sometimes called the microtubular associated protein tau (MAPT) inversion, is an ∼900 kb inversion found primarily in Europeans and Southwest Asians. We have identified 21 SNPs that act as markers of the inverted, i.e., H2, haplotype. The inversion is found at the highest frequencies in Southwest Asia and Southern Europe (frequencies of ∼30%); elsewhere in Europe, frequencies vary from less than 5%, in Finns, to 28%, in Orcadians. The H2 inversion haplotype also occurs at low frequencies in Africa, Central Asia, East Asia, and the Americas, though the East Asian and Amerindian alleles may be due to recent gene flow from Europe. Molecular evolution analyses indicate that the H2 haplotype originally arose in Africa or Southwest Asia. Though the H2 inversion has many fixed differences across the ∼900 kb, short tandem repeat polymorphism data indicate a very recent date for the most recent common ancestor, with dates ranging from 13,600 to 108,400 years, depending on assumptions and estimation methods. This estimate range is much more recent than the 3 million year age estimated by Stefansson et al. in 2005.Link
@onur: yap, guess costs, laws and special socio-political situations are obstacles for genetic sampling in some cases.It's easier and cheaper to work with previously existent databases than go and get the data yourself. Places like Burma seem like a no-no for geneticists to work for political reasons, even if they might be very interesting from the viewpoint of population genetics. In other cases, like the often mentioned French case it seems mere negligence. @stepi:"And during that period I think land was shaped rather different than today and I quess see level was in some periods quite below today.Is there a reason why it cant be in what-is-today see?"I can barely understand what you mean but in any case lower sea levels did not ever cause Africa and Europe to be joined. The pattern seems (to my eyes) similar to other markers with a South Asian origin and greater frequencies in West Eurasia, so I'd say that it's spread seems to belong to the colonization of West Eurasia from South Asia some 50-40 Ka ago.
My take on it would be that it is South West Asia, and from there expanded into Europe and Africa.Since, to me, agriculture originated in West Asia/Middle East and came in 2 waves to Western Europe:1. First a faster Coastal Route, around Iberia, and maybe bringing Pastoralists, with sheep/goats2. Next a slightly later and slower Continental route, like LBK, bringing crop farming and cattle and pigsAgriculture spread in 2 waves to Africa also:1. First Pastoralist carrying R1b1 and speaking AfroAsiastic languages - - bringing sheep/goats2. Next crop farming, spread by E1b1b, and spreading into the Sahel, where they are halted by climate for a few thousand years, till they exchange some of their crops for more tropical ones, and spread on again as the Bantu Expansion.So this would explain the current distribution nicely, and concords well with the evidence.
Let's see Conroy: you have to take in account the real archaeology: Neolithic is not earlier in the Basque Country (the peak population, btw) than in, say Czechoslovakia, nor there are greater indications of colonization in Spain than in Germany, Britain or Poland. Actually it's the other way around. Also, why you may be correct about bovine cattle mostly going along the north route, pigs, cereals and legumes are known in Cardium/Epicardial Pottery neolithic, as well as high seas fishing and, at least in Iberia, olive too.Your description of the process in Africa is IMO also wrong: Afroasiatic languages spread surely with Capsian culture (Epipaleolithic) and then this culture was Neolithized by cultural flow (Capsian Neolithic) with a handful of Cardium pottery colonies at the coasts. I'm not sure about West Africa but I think that there is a spread of Agriculture into the jungle areas before Bantu expansion, giving origin to the Bronze Age civilization of Nok as maybe their most notable representative. Also there's (Nilotic?) herder expansion through East Africa, whose influence extended to Southern Africa too (Khoikhoi used to be pastoralists and that's before Bantu arrival) Bantu expansion is Iron Age agriculturalist expansion into ill-populated Paleolithic areas but once they reached more densely populated East Africa they seem to have absorbed a pre-existent population. So, meh, you sound like Balaresque: oversimplifying "Neolithic FTW" because it either has a Mediterranean distribution or a Central European, or an Atlantic one or an Eastern European or an Indian or an African one... all is "Neolithic". Remember that Europe and North Africa were colonized from West Asia around 40,000 years ago and that West Asia itself was colonized from South Asia only slightly earlier.And well, let's face it, Basque can't be more "Neolithic" than Catalans because all the Neolithic influences into the Basque Country arrived from the area of Catalunya. So if something is more common among Basques than among Catalans, then it just can't be Neolithic. Just the same that if something is more common among Mozambicans than among Gabonese, then it is probably not Bantu. And that if something is more common among Iroquois than among white New Yorkers, then it's surely not European. Sure, it might be a founder effect, but the chances are that not, so you have to PROVE it with some deeper research.
Maju,I think that West Asians/Middle Easterners took the fast boat Coastal Route and got to Iberia, Brittany, Ireland, England, Holland and Denmark, and somewhere in the Holland/Denamrk area they encountered their cousins who took the Continental Route. Holland has the highest diversity of R1b1b2 AFAIK, and we see mtDNA T and J in Denmark - so I attribute these to the Coastal Route.Also, there are many way to skin a cat! We don't know where the Basques originated, but recent evidence suggests the Western Caucusus ultimately, and proximately from Western France or Aquitane in particular. So your claims about Catalyuna don't have much bearing on this question.
In regards to R1b, I have already discussed that a Neolithic scenario is plainly impossible because there is only one star-like explosion and this took place in West or Central Europe (R1b1b2a1) and not West Asia (R1b1b2* and R1b1b2*) nor the Balcans (too rare). Also it's plainly absurd that this lineage became overwhelmingly dominant not in one but several unrelated Far West populations known precisely for their relative isolation. The Neolithic flows must therefore be associated to other Y-DNA lineages such as E1b1b1, J2b, G2a, T and such."We don't know where the Basques originated, but recent evidence suggests the Western Caucusus ultimately, and proximately from Western France or Aquitane in particular. So your claims about Catalyuna don't have much bearing on this question".Let's see: the Western Caucasus thing seems to be plainly wrong but the Aquitaine one is surely correct. But I'm not talking about "origin of Basques" but about Neolithic inflows. And, archaeologically speaking, the Neolithic inflows into both Aquitaine and the Basque Country came essentially from the area of Paisos Catalans (along the Ebro river) and Languedoc (along the Garonne river) which is the Catalan area roughly speaking. So if something is higher among Basques than Catalans (and their close cousins: Valencians and Languedocines), then it's most likely not Neolithic. (Notice that this not means that the opposite is true automatically because Catalan Neolithic shows low colonization index in the archaeological record, just as most Cardium Pottery does, just that has infinitely better chances to be correct).
Maju: The pattern seems (to my eyes) similar to other markers with a South Asian origin and greater frequencies in West Eurasia, so I'd say that it's spread seems to belong to the colonization of West Eurasia from South Asia some 50-40 Ka ago.Makes sense to me - the distribution looks very archaic. Hard to tell though where and when the mutation arose: it could have been carried as a rare incidence by a member of the early migrations into Europe, or perhaps could have arisen there very early on. The frequency is very low east of the Black Sea (low enough to be imported there during IE/historic back migrations), so it seems clear that if this mutation already existed in south or west Asia, it would have had to be extremely rare as to basically die out.
Another thing I would like to add is that these types of studies will eventually falsify replacement theories. If it can be shown that such mutations are old, and if they follow patterns like this one, where we basically see a diffusion, and no sign of any of the known, characteristic migrations (and yes, I know, the figure is misleading because it has way too much resolution considering the paucity of data points) - then replacement rarely happens.I find the eastern front of this mutation particularly intriguing: it seems to indicate that some genetic gradient was maintained in R1a and much later proto-slavic populations forever. Sure, there was continuous mitigating inflow from the East, but fact is that the high Balkan/ Southeastern European rate comes to a full stop, here - in total contradiction to IE and Slavic expansion theories....
Why do you make any association of this marker with Y-DNA, Eurologist? Y-DNA lineages are in most cases probably correlated with only a rather small fraction of the overall genetic pool. At least that seems to be the case in most populations. I don't see any clear correlation of this marker with any haploid lineages, excepting to some extent a general correlation with the demic flow described by them all (taken together) from South Asia to West Eurasia and, in Europe, with different routes and gradients through the southern central and east European cultural dispersal routes, routes that are more or less attested (or implicit) since the Palolithic. You may mean specifically the relatively sharp gradient at the Balcan/East Europe border but that specific "bump" of density might well be a case of Neolithic flow from the southern Balcans. More surprising to me is the relatively low levels of this marker in Germanic Europe (but not Britain nor Norway), i.e. the "bump" in the opposite southwards direction. It may be a matter of founder effects of some sort though.
Not just y-DNA - I mentioned IE and Slavic expansion. In all of those terms, eastern Europe and the immediately adjacent West Asia are relatively homogeneous - whereas here you have a strong, essentially east-west gradient of five contour levels from the Baltic to the Black Sea.Yes, the "hump" north of the Balkans could be either neolithic or Slavic expansion. But it all seems to point to a pool of this mutation mostly south of the Alps, and a different population north and north-east that perhaps was initially free of it.
princenuadha
@eurologist The only way for old genetic traits to remain highly organized, and not be diffuse, is if there wasn't common significant population movements. If polpulation movement is common then an old genetic traits whether originally exhibiting spatial organization or not will become diffuse. You will see highly organized distribution payterns of genetic traits after few migrations of a new genetic trait but not many.
Monday, April 12, 2010 5:47:00 am
Just because the 13,600 to 108,400 years estimate makes it possible that Meds are heavily mixed with some pre-Neolithic African element..
Ebizur
ren said,"The Mbuti are admixed with "Caucasoid"?"They probably are. According to some data in my possession, even representatives of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b have been found in at least two pygmy tribes in two different countries of western Central Africa.
The Mbuti are admixed with "Caucasoid"?You have a vivid imagination.
"They probably are. According to some data in my possession, even representatives of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b have been found in at least two pygmy tribes in two different countries of western Central Africa"R1b1a in most subclades is Central African, not "Caucasoid". The Mbuti are not from Western Central Africa but from the Ituri forest, towards the East. ...@Ren: even when you are right, you manage to be wrong by going personal.
Maju said,"R1b1a in most subclades is Central African, not "Caucasoid"."Are you suggesting that haplogroup R1b is not of recent Eurasian origin in its entirety?Maju said,"The Mbuti are not from Western Central Africa but from the Ituri forest, towards the East."That makes it even more likely that the Mbuti should have Caucasoid admixture, since they are in closer proximity to some heavily Caucasoid-admixed Semitic, Cushitic, and Nilotic peoples of East Africa. Please keep in mind that the various pygmy groups speak the languages of their taller neighbors, so there is no linguistic barrier to prevent geneflow from a hypothetically Caucasoid-admixed Central Sudanic-speaking population (Lese) to the Mbuti, for example.
Maju said,""Recent"? Probably not. It seems quite old to me. 30 or 40 Ka ago is not "recent". Calling R1b "Caucasoid" is like saying that E1b1b is "Negroid": meaningless."You have no basis but your own prejudiced zeal for the hypothesis of an almost "pristinely Palaeolithic" Franco-Cantabrian origin of the Basque gene pool to support your claim that haplogroup R1b is 30,000 or 40,000 years old. If R1b were really so old, don't you think we should expect to see greater morphological and autosomal genetic differentiation between modern populations that are mainly R1b (e.g. Dutch people) and those that are mainly R1a (e.g. Polish people)? In reality, most ethnic groups that have mostly R1a or R1b Y-DNA are morphologically, autosomally, and even linguistically homogeneous.By the way, I do believe that haplogroup R1b is originally Western Eurasian, but I do not believe that haplogroup E1b1b is originally Western Eurasian or Sub-Saharan African. If anything, it is probably from some ancient South/East Eurasian population.Maju asked,"How can this contradict the previous?"How are you replying to text that should not have been posted for more than one minute? It is very strange.I wanted to avoid getting bogged down in an argument about the variance and phylogenetic origin of haplogroup R1b and how both suggest a recent Eurasian origin of this haplogroup despite the high frequency of R1b1a-V88 in some populations of the Sahel and northern Cameroon, but it looks like my effort has failed to achieve the desired effect. Suffice it to say that it is not parsimonious to suppose that R1b should be divided into one originally "Caucasoid" subclade that has developed in the Palaeolithic population of the Franco-Cantabrian refugium (as you are apt to claim) and another originally "Negroid" subclade that has developed in a Palaeolithic population of what is now the Sahara Desert or vicinity.Maju said,"If you see it in terms of "races", who knows? But the center of R1b in Africa is south of Lake Chad, much closer to Western Pygmies than to the Mbuti. So I doubt that the Mbuti have R1b in their gene pool. I also think that the erratics you mention of R1b among Western Pygmies are not of any Caucasoid origin but of Chadic (Negroid) origin."I do not have any direct evidence of a presence of haplogroup R1b in the Mbuti or other pygmies of eastern Central Africa, but it is a fact that R1b has been found in pygmies of western Central Africa, which probably indicates recent geneflow into the pygmies of western Central Africa from neighboring Bantu populations. Of course, these Bantu populations may have acquired some R1b1a-V88 Y-DNA through geneflow from speakers of Chadic, Adamawa, Central Sudanic, or Saharan languages further north in Central Africa, but it does not change the fact that the presence of any sort of haplogroup R1b Y-DNA pretty much proves that there has been a certain degree of recent geneflow from (Western) Eurasia to Central Africa.
"How are you replying to text that should not have been posted for more than one minute? It is very strange".Probably because I read the comments in my email account, so even if you delete, I get an email with the original message and, sure, I don't bother making sure if the message is still there or not (normally they are). "You have no basis but your own prejudiced zeal for the hypothesis of an almost "pristinely Palaeolithic" Franco-Cantabrian origin of the Basque gene pool to support your claim that haplogroup R1b is 30,000 or 40,000 years old". Well, I'm not sure if the origin (or R1b1b2a1 if anything) is at the FC region or in Central Europe but that's pretty irrelevant. It is beyond the scope of this discussion and I'd find very difficult to explain to you in a mere comment why I suspect that R1b1b2a1 should be Paleolithic (it has to do with star-like expansions and mtDNA H or H1) but what is clear is that the arrival of R1 leading to R1b as a whole to West Eurasia must have happened along with the main flow from South Asia in the 50-40 Ka window. Hence the R1b scatter into Europe and Africa should belong to the immediate pre-LGM window. "If R1b were really so old, don't you think we should expect to see greater morphological and autosomal genetic differentiation between modern populations that are mainly R1b (e.g. Dutch people) and those that are mainly R1a (e.g. Polish people)?"No because of three reasons:1. It's Y-DNA and Y-DNA does not typically reflect but a minor apportion of ancestry. This is the main reason: the same that make Greek or Albanians or Moroccans look clearly West Eurasian in spite of being largely E1b1b1. The same that makes Chadic peoples from North Cameroon indistinct from their neighbors in spite of being largely R1b1a. 2. It's still possible that R1a coalesced in Europe or West/Central Asia. It is probably the case for its main subclade. 3. Polish and Dutch look very different to my eyes (even if autosomally they are more similar, it seems). Indians and Europeans do not look that different and are quite close autosomally speaking too. There's been some differentiation since 50 Ka ago but not that much. "In reality, most ethnic groups that have mostly R1a or R1b Y-DNA are morphologically, autosomally, and even linguistically homogeneous".That's over-simplistic. It's like saying that J1 is "Semitic" or "Arabic". It's not that simple because we know that there was very limited Semitic or Arabic demic flow into North Africa and still J1 is very high there. In fact it looks like of much older origin. Equating languages (which are lost and learnt) with genes (which persist through generations regardless of cultural or linguistic changes) is a waste of time - at least in most cases. Languages are all very recent (none has been tracked to before the Epipaleolithic) while haplogroups are in most cases much older.
"By the way, I do believe that haplogroup R1b is originally Western Eurasian, but I do not believe that haplogroup E1b1b is originally Western Eurasian or Sub-Saharan African. If anything, it is probably from some ancient South/East Eurasian population."E1b1b? You must be kidding! E has a very clear African origin. In fact it's the representative of the C'D'E'F that did not left Africa and for some reason was swept to fixation in that population (F was swept to fixation in South Asia and C and D survived in the Eastern frontier only). E1b1b is very clearly of NW African origin (Sudan or nearby). "Suffice it to say that it is not parsimonious to suppose that R1b should be divided into one originally "Caucasoid" subclade that has developed in the Palaeolithic population of the Franco-Cantabrian refugium (as you are apt to claim) and another originally "Negroid" subclade that has developed in a Palaeolithic population of what is now the Sahara Desert or vicinity".For me haplogroups are color blind. You can be "white" and have Y-DNA A and you can be "black" and have Y-DNA Z. Phenotype is not defined by patrilineal ancestry, obviously. Much less after dozens of millennia. I insist that I am not sure how R1b1b2a1 was swept to fixation and expanded in star-like pattern (very fast) in Europe. It can be Magdalenian or Gravettian or even Aurignacian (but cannot be Neolithic because the pattern doesn't fit - much less Indoeuropean). Such sweeping to fixation can only have happened under very low population levels, i.e. before the post-LGM expansion (which was maybe more important than the Neolithic expansion, at least in proportion to what existed before). Also it's a lot easier to explain other R1b offshoots such as the ones in Central Africa and Central Asia if they expanded early on, in UP times, when population was low. Also, as P and R coalesced surely in South Asia (and possibly also R1) it's easier to explain their migration from South Asia in the general context of the colonization of West Eurasia.So all that gets us with R1b in West (Eur-)Asia c. 40 or at most 30 Ka ago. So it's not "recent". "but it does not change the fact that the presence of any sort of haplogroup R1b Y-DNA pretty much proves that there has been a certain degree of recent geneflow from (Western) Eurasia to Central Africa".What I say is that is is surely not "recent" at all. There has been some gene flow between West Eurasia and the Sahel... in both directions... but mostly it does not look recent.
Btw, Ebizur, I have just made a long post on why R1b1b2a1 just cannot be Neolithic (hopefully the definitive reference so I don't have to explain again and again). I'd suggest further discussion on this matter to have it there. Up to you anyhow.
Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree with most of it.Obviously, one of the main questions is at which level R migrated into West Asia and then into Europe, and with how many sub-groups (and which ones, exactly). I think it is easily explained (through the LGM population bottle-neck) why only few sub-sub-groups survived (and why R1a kind of mirrors this, in the East).The most serious criticism often promulgated is why R mutated so quickly down the ladder in perhaps as little as 10,000 to 20,000 year in Asia, and then a particular sub-group got the advantage perhaps 14,000 or 12,000 years ago (or earlier) and has changed little, after. Again, I don't think this is a serious problem.The initial population in Asia would have been huge, in comparison. I have pointed out before the likelihood of a different (from the South) population of humans in Northern India and Pakistan - separated from the South by huge deserts and uninhabitable zones. This would have been the collective, rich niche for both R1a and R1b just before the climate changed and migration to Europe (and overwhelming the indigenous Neanderthal population) became feasible.So, from the get-go, only a few of the deriving sub-groups of these would have participated and would have made it into Europe - where rather shortly after arrival conditions turned worse, and the total population number became rather small, again. And of what remained, only a few Y-lineages where the lucky ones to exponentially dominate the growth after LGM.
"Thanks, Maju, very nice write-up. I agree with most of it".I'm glad you found it useful."The most serious criticism often promulgated is why R mutated so quickly down the ladder..."It may be just that it's over-researched in comparison to other lineages... but only at the stem level. We know that very little work has been done to understand the downstream structure of R1b and in particular of R1b1b2a1. The number of SNPs can hence be just an illusion. "Again, I don't think this is a serious problem".Not necesarily. I have the impression (and have read some peer-reviewed references that seem to confirm it) that large haplogroups appear to mutate more slowly than small ones. This might be a mere effect of drift, as novel mutations would be mostly absorbed or kept at bay (i.e. as "private" lineages) in large populations (more mutations would happen but they'd have very limited effect). "I have pointed out before the likelihood of a different (from the South) population of humans in Northern India and Pakistan - separated from the South by huge deserts and uninhabitable zones".I am not aware of such barriers within South Asia. I'd agree that there would have been some (many?) different groups in such a huge subcontinent but I can't identify any single barrier. Even the Thar Desert is only a partial barrier. However I do identify at least two different scatter routes: the Narmada-Son-Ganges and the southern one. More in detail I could think of five different scatter routes: Indus river, along the eastern border of the Thar Desert, Narmada-Son-Lower Ganges, West Coast plus Krishna river and finally the purely coastal one. These distinct routes (as well as the E-W Ganges axis) could have provided for some differentiation patterns but the various populations would have also been able to remix. In contrast the Iranian deserts and the NE India hill-jungle country provide for low density buffers that would act as real barriers after the initial flows. "This would have been the collective, rich niche for both R1a and R1b"...While I can tentatively agree with a South Asian origin for R1a, R1b clearly coalesced already in West Eurasia. This migration leading to R1b happened at the R1 stage probably (assuming a SA homeland for R1a) or at the R stage (if R1a coalesced in West Eurasia after all). "So, from the get-go, only a few of the deriving sub-groups of these would have participated and would have made it into Europe - where rather shortly after arrival conditions turned worse, and the total population number became rather small, again. And of what remained, only a few Y-lineages where the lucky ones to exponentially dominate the growth after LGM".I have two issues with this explanation:1. The UP population of Europe appears to have been low all the way into the LGM. Only with the post-LGM expansion it shows clear signs of demographic explosion, whatever the reasons (see: Bocquet-Appel 2005). 2. What about mtDNA H? In order to have reached NW Africa in the Solutrean period (right in the LGM phase), which is the only reasonable possibility I can think of, it must have existed, not just as H but also as H1, H3, H4 and H7, already by that time. That makes its latest possible date to be the Gravettian expansion. But, considering the huge dimensions of the H star-like structure, only comparable to M, I am really tempted to consider the Aurignacian expansion (i.e. the original colonization of Europe by H. sapiens) as the real moment. Also, counting mutations from the root, I always come up with R0 and H being older than other WEA and Euro lineages respectively. There is the problem of the downstream mutation count but I have commented on that issue above.
I am not aware of such barriers within South Asia. I'd agree that there would have been some (many?) different groups in such a huge subcontinent but I can't identify any single barrier. Even the Thar Desert is only a partial barrier. The paleoclimate data/maps I have seen show that much of India was semi-desert with few or no trees for much of the time ~100,000 to ~15,000 years ago, except for the very south and south-east (maintaining rain forest) and a fairly narrow strip south of the Himalayas (which would have at least provided fertile river valleys). So, humans would have been able to migrate up the Indus river valley and the Ganges river, but not much in between. My bet is that by the time these two populations met again some place south of the Himalayas, the former group would have developed an advantage in having already adapted to the cooler, dryer climate and appropriate survival and hunting methods.At any rate, I see a good possibility of a northern Indian (and stretching into nowadays Pakistan and Afghanistan) population that would have been somewhat isolated from the south and east and perhaps, over 10,000 to 20,000 years or so, developed some of the "Caucasian" characteristics that are common from India to NW Europe. In other words, you don't only have to rely on later back migrations to explain some of the Indian phenotypes and Haplogroup idiosyncrasies.
I haven't ever seen such thing. For example I have this reference, which shows that South Asia was essentially savanna/grassland or forest, depending on the period. However, based on mtDNA distribution and archaeological data, I suspect that the Central-East (from inner Maharastra to Orissa) was scarcely populated or was colonized mostly in a relatively late date, being maybe a quasi-barrier of some sort (dense jungle?) but almost for sure permeable by the coastal routes anyhow, specially the Western one. Similarly the Thar Desert may have been a partial barrier between the Indus and Northern India (but again permeable north and south of it). "In other words, you don't only have to rely on later back migrations to explain some of the Indian phenotypes and Haplogroup idiosyncrasies".I agree with that. However I would rather think of a phenotype continuum through southern Asia that we could well call "proto-Australo-Caucasoid". Sincerely I fail to see a clear divide between these two categories, specially when the term "Australoid" is used in a classical but utterly ambiguous sense, including all kind of "archaic-looking" morphotypes that do not fit into the usual two main categories of "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" (i.e. including Ainu, many South Asians, Papuans, Negritos, etc., as well as most fossil skulls). I think that all these variants are related but in a very ancestral sense, i.e.: the morphotype would be typical of early Eurasians in general and what we see are local variants of it, most of which are very localized.
I think the consensus from sediments, pollen data, foraminifera etc. for India away from the coasts is (in years BP):~55,000 - 75,000 no Monsoon, very dry~25,000 - 55,000 Monsoon, moderately dry, but variable~11,000 - 25,000 no Monsoon, extremely dryTruly large, expanding populations were likely impossible before ~55,000 years ago, although migration to the north along the two main rivers would have been feasible. The data suggest that AMHs after that would have been able to thrive in India for roughly 10,000 years before wetter conditions extended grass lands to the west (~50,000 to 45,000), and treks to Europe became feasible. India and adjacent regions then would have been a pool for people expanding and moving west (and east) for another twenty millennia of favorable conditions - a time frame that coincides with known migrations into and newly-evolving cultures in Europe. Then again, for ~15,000 years around LGM, the North would have been essentially cut off from the south.There is a brief summary of available data in:Quaternary ResearchVolume 50, Issue 3, November 1998, Pages 240-251doi:10.1006/qres.1998.2002 Do Stable Isotope Data from Calcrete Record Late Pleistocene Monsoonal Climate Variation in the Thar Desert of India?*1Julian E. Andrewsa, Ashok K. Singhvib, Ansu J. Kailathb, Ralph Kuhnc, Paul F. Dennisd, Sampat K. Tandone and Ram P. Dhirf"The two periods of weakened monsoon are consistent with other paleoclimatic data from India and may represent widespread aridity on the Indian subcontinent during isotope stages 2 and 4."There are some much newer pollen studies that I have to try and find again.
IDK: it's hard to judge based only on an abstract. In any case they mention that:"Conversely, 25,000–60,000-yr-old calcretes (eolian units II and III) probably formed under monsoonal conditions."So in that period South Asia had a climate somewhat like today. Also, does the "widespread aridity" mentioned for IS2 and IS4 mean desertic barriers or does it mean a mere decay of jungle ecology into savanna? It's all a matter of degree. From memory I have read about savanna conditions also before 60 Ka and never read anything specifically mentioning large deserts or semideserts (the Thar excepted). And the abstract seems to confirm they talk about grasslands and not desertization:"This is best explained by expansion of C4grasses at the expense of C3plants at low latitudes during glacial periods when atmosphericpCO2was lowered".
Yes, I think the extent of arid semi-deserts vs. grasslands is still not clear, but the pollen studies show that at times there were literally no trees (i.e., not a savanna in the common sense). I'll try to find some of the more recent pollen studies.Conversely, at times of savanna-like conditions, India could have of course supported quite large human populations, which seems to be reflected in the multitude of haplogroups originating from that general region.I am also quite certain that even from 25,000 to 55,000 conditions were cooler and dryer than today, and fairly variable.
Maybe you're right about grasslands (prairie) instead of savanna, however I find difficult to imagine steppe so far south... unless it's indeed semi-desert. I'm not any ecological expert but aren't semi-deserts dominated by shrubs, which are normally C4 plants?"I am also quite certain that even from 25,000 to 55,000 conditions were cooler and dryer than today, and fairly variable".In this you're surely right, conditions must have been cooler back then but still we're talking of the Tropics...
Well, only about 1/2 of India is in the tropics sensu stricto:...and only about 1/2 of India - mostly the Northeast and a thin strip on the coasts and along the Himalaya - receives reasonably large amounts of rainfall, even today:For example, just arbitrarily take the green and above amounts of rainfall (>1000mm/year, roughly equivalent to the northern half of Portugal) as required for a lush plant and wild life. Then, during times when rainfall is only 1/2 of average (using today's numbers as a general proxy), you'll find that virtually no such zones exist, any longer (pink and above restricted to the immediate west coast).Even today, in much of India, agriculture depends on unsustainable usage of pumped well water. India's plant and wildlife is clearly highly susceptible to decreased rain amounts, as they occur when the Monsoon (that delivers the vast majority of rainfall) is even marginally disrupted.
That's interesting, Ebizur, thanks. Still, deforestation reduces rain (tropical forests generate their own rain or almost) and maybe even more important is to understand monsoon in the Ice Age, which, if I'm correct largely depends on the Tibet plateau being heated in summer, what probably did not happen when it was under a thick ice sheet. Another important think is that Northern Portugal is quite rainy, not as much as the Cantabrian strip but this is one of the most rainy places in the temperate world (my English roommate is outraged: "woot, here it rains more than in London!"). In fact, the area with present day greatest rainfall in Central-East India, is precisely, excluding the Ganges banks, the area I mentioned as an apparent low density/late colonization area. So it's likely that people preferred something less humid or maybe more likely that the thick forest that rain would create acted as such partial barrier, much as the Congo forest in Africa. Can't say. It's a very complex matter but it certainly would seem as if South Asia has two halves: a wet one by the east and a drier one by the west. However DNA data (and to a large extent archaeological data too) suggest that people preferred the West to the East (only in general: riverine/coastal migration routes excepted).
Ha, I need a couple of hours and a couple of cups of coffee to properly wake up, myself.Yes, the dryness was likely much more of a factor in the west and reaching into Pakistan and Afghanistan.I am sure there will be better and more extensive data available in the future - I just wanted to add a bit of this here so people (when thinking about AMH migrations and expansions) keep in mind that there have been significant climate differences over the past ~120,000 years, and not all of them pertain to extreme cold in the North. |
Agriculture Support Mechanisms in the European Union: A Comparison with the United States
Creator: Becker, Geoffrey S
Description: The European Union (EU), comprised of 15 member states (countries), is one of the United States’ chief agricultural trading partners and also a major competitor in world markets. Both heavily support their agricultural sectors, with a large share of such support concentrated on wheat, feed grains, cotton, oilseeds, sugar, dairy, and tobacco. However, the EU provides more extensive support to a broader range of farm and food products. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the EU and United States in 2001 together accounted for nearly two-thirds of all government support to agriculture among the major developed economies. However, EU agricultural spending generally is much higher than in the United States. Information comparing how the U.S. and EU governments support their producers is expected to be of interest to policymakers while negotiations are underway among world trading partners to further reform agricultural trade. |
Elizabeth Sarah Kite
Elizabeth Sarah Kite Elizabeth Sarah Kite (1864-1954) was a teacher, social scientist, historian and archivist. Born in Philadelphia to Quaker parents, Kite undertook advanced studies in Europe for six years. While studying in England in 1906, Kite was baptized a Catholic. Upon her return, she taught in a number of private schools in Pennsylvania, California, and Massachusetts.
Kite worked at the Vineland Training School for Mental Defectives, 1909-1918, and conducted research there (and later under the auspices of
the New Jersey Commissioner of Charities and Corrections) pertaining to
residents of the Pine Barrens. She translated The Intelligence of the Feeble-Minded
by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon (translation published 1916). She also researched various historical topics, especially the influence of French participation during the American Revolution, and served as the archivist for American Catholic Historical Society. Kite became the first laywoman to receive the degree of doctor of literature at Villanova College later University. |
Shepherdstown, West Virginia
Bruce Cannady at age 95ABSTRACT: Bruce Cannady played a significant role in the siteing, funding and construction of major new and reconstructed fish hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest. These hatcheries located on Indian reservations and along major water courses doubled the annual release of Pacific salmonids to enhance Tribal benefits and meet mitigation objectives of Federal water development projects. He also played a major role in the professionalization of the hatchery manager cadre in the selection of college graduate fishery biologists and developing a training program for the entry level personnel into the National Fish Hatchery system. He retired as a Deputy Assistant Regional Directory for the National Fish Hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest with 32 years of service. Notable, as of January 2009 his 32 years of service has resulted in 38 years of retirement as he approaches his 97th birthday.
Interview with Bruce Cannady (age 89) (and his wife Pauline – age 92)
Bruce Cannady: I was born in 1912 in Central Park, Nebraska. I went to high school in a small school at McGrew, which is in the country. Dad was a farmer
Jerry Grover: How did you meet Pauline?
Bruce Cannady: Another gal and I had split up is the best way I can say, and I went back over to McGrew and I knew there was a dance, and I went to the dance, and there was a girl there and I met her.
Pauline Cannady: She was a teacher he knew. First we went to the church, didn’t we?
Bruce Cannady: No, we were at Albertine’s Place.
Pauline Cannady: Well, they said that they were going to have a dance afterwards, so we went there. I went with another fellow, but I got there and I kept dancing with Bruce. I thought he was the one that brought me.
Bruce Cannady: And then she was surprised when the dance broke up and Aldin showed up, and he said, “Well, we’re ready to go,” and Pauline looked at me kind of surprised. I liked her.
Pauline Cannady: Bruce lived in town, but Aldin lived out in the country and he’d come in to see me, and Bruce would come right over.Jerry Grover: So after that it didn’t take long I take it, that the love birds kind of got in you...
Bruce Cannady: She moved to Scotts Bluff. I was in the town of Bayard, and that’s where she had graduated from high school. I worked at the sugar factory there as a chemist. And then I finally decided she was right for me in 1934, and boy things are really, anyway, I’m trying to think. I went to Scotts Bluff. I was at the factory for five years at Bayard, and then I was up there for two years. Oh, I was still at Bayard after we got married because I stayed with her mother. We only saw each other at the weekends because she was working in Scotts Bluff and I was working in Bayard. So we got married.
Pauline Cannady: He’s younger than I am, and I didn’t want to marry a younger fellow.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, we got married, 65 years of it. We got married when I was only 21. I tell you, the reason, one of the reasons I got married is it was right in the middle of, I got a job over here and she had a job here, and we, and I had to walk about eight blocks, and we’d get together in the evening, and I’d walk home, and I finally said along in the spring, I said, you know, this is the silliest thing in the world. You know, in these days you just shack up and let it go at that. Well, those days you didn’t do it that way. So I said one day, “You know, this is silly. We’re both paying rent and maybe we ought to just get married and move together, and we would have more money and not be spending it for rent.” Pauline surprised me. She said, “You know, that sounds like a pretty good idea.” We waited, remember, we waited until the Fourth of July.
Pauline Cannady: Yeah, we both got days off. We got married the third of July in the evening
Bruce Cannady: We waited about six weeks, and we both had the time off on, lets see, what was it, Saturday and Sunday. We got married on Friday evening so we could go somewhere over the weekend, which we did. Well, we didn’t want to wait until the fourth.
Jerry Grover: How long was it then you started, the kids started coming along then?
Bruce Cannady: Seven and a half years, one. No, she had told me, I believe it was before me, when we began to think about, you know the future, and she advised me that there would never be any children because she had broken, had her back broken the year she got out of high school.
Pauline Cannady: The doctor told me be sure and tell my boyfriend if we got engaged, think of it to tell him that I may not be able to have any children. So I did. Well, we didn’t want any children then anyway.
Depression time!
Bruce Cannady: So we went along and then, and then when I went to work for the government, we’d been here two, two and a half years and we made a trip out West and that was the first time we’d never been on the West Coast, and so I said, “Why don’t we move out to Washington?” And I managed that, got all set up, moved in out here in the spring. We’d come back to Leadville and things were beginning to get to where I was getting to be moved, and then she said she was pregnant.
So we left Leadville and got out here, and he was born in May. We landed out here in November, and Mike was born in May.
Jerry Grover: Did you have lots of sisters and brothers? Did you grow up with sisters?
Pauline Cannady: Yes, I had five sisters and two brothers.Jerry Grover: What about you, Bruce?
Bruce Cannady: I only had one brother, and he’s seven and a half years younger than I am. We both started out in Nebraska. I wound up with the Federal service, wandering around and finally landed in Portland. He got a job out of Nebraska with Boeing up here at the end of the war. When he got out of that, he got his degree at the University of Washington and went to work in Seattle; wound up finally as Assistant Planning Director here in Portland for the City of Portland. And so we both wound up a few blocks from each other. We started in a different place and wound up in the same place doing different things.
Jerry Grover: You were living in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, and you’re applying for a job with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bruce Cannady: I was expecting an answer, and here I am reading this letter about Fish and Wildlife Service, and I don’t even understand what I’m trying to read . I just figured, well, I’d forgotten about it. But as it happens, I was caught, when was it, about in March. Didn’t really have a job. So I said, well, what shall I do? Pauline says, “Why don’t we go over and just ask for a job, and maybe we can go over to Denver or somewhere.” She was working at the time at Woolworth’s in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska. Wound up with that idea when we went up to Leadville, Colorado that if after three months, if we didn’t like it, we’d go back to Denver to look around.
Jerry Grover: Are these summer months or winter months?
Bruce Cannady: We went up on the 4th of April, 1939, and I wound up getting a job for 32 years instead of three months, and stayed at Leadville National Fish Hatchery for about two and a half years. They sent me out to Carson National Fish Hatchery, Washington. It was a beautiful little place, but I tell you, they couldn’t raise fish there at all, really, because they didn’t have any ponds. So we were there one year, sent to California to Coleman National Fish Hatchery. We were there five and a half years. My first year there, I was at the old hatchery, Battle Creek substation that they finally closed. Then I went up to the main Coleman station and stayed there until 1948, and then they sent us to, back believe it or not back to Carson again. Pauline had no more idea of wanting to go back to Carson than the man in the moon. But then we were there one year, and then they sent us to Cortland.
Jerry Grover: What grade were you hired in at when you went to Leadville, Bruce?
Bruce Cannady: When I was at Leadville, and an unknown thing at that time, I think they called it the Apprentice Fish Culturist.
Pauline Cannady: Apprentice Fish Culturist.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, Apprentice Fish Culturist, and I was in that, what, two years.
Pauline Cannady: And they, they could have you leave after what, six months if they weren’t satisfied.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, the old probationary period. And then when I landed back at Carson, I was called a Junior Fish Culturist, and then when I went to Battle Creek, what did they call it then? They called...
Pauline Cannady: Assistant Superintendent.
Bruce Cannady: No, Senior Fish Culturist, I don’t remember exactly. I wasn’t in charge. I was working for......, he died, and then I was acting manager for three or four months.Pauline Cannady: He was dying of cancer, and so Bruce...
Bruce Cannady: Can you remember his name? Isn’t that awful? That is my problem anymore. And then I was there, oh, about a year when I went up to Coleman, and I worked then as a foreman, something like that, foreman fish culturist? No, it wasn’t that. Foreman what? I was in charge of, they had this thing all cut up in some fashion and I don’t really remember, but I was... Anyway, I was there, what, five years. Then they sent me as the manager at Carson. I felt pretty good because I’d, come in and not knowing anything about what I was getting into, and nine years later I was manager, and most of the fellows around there had either never made manager or they made it later.
Jerry Grover: Were those GS grades at that time, with Manager?
Bruce Cannady: I was a 6 I think, at that time. Yeah, I know I was a 6 because just a year or two later they moved us, and we had to do it twice. We moved from a 7 and then to a 9, and that was about, well, I’d been at Carson, I’d been to Cortland [,New York Training School] and back. I went as a 6. God, that ís what everybody was, GS-5 or 6. Then we come back as a, and I come back as a 9 about a year later. Well, a 7 and then a 9, and I was there from 1948 to Cortland and back...
Bruce Cannady: And in 1957 I came..and in 1957 I came...
Pauline Cannady: We came to Walker.
Jerry Grover: Where were you between 1950 and 1957? Were you at Carson or at Cortland?
Bruce Cannady: Seven years...
Pauline Cannady: They remodeled it all for them ponds and...
Jerry Grover: In Carson?
Pauline Cannady: He was heading up all that remodeling.
Jerry Grover: Okay, they had just the three houses that were there.
Bruce Cannady: Oh yeah, but they built the other houses and put in ponds. That was done when I was there.
Pauline Cannady: And all those ponds.
Jerry Grover: Okay, and then you came, in 1957 then you came to the Regional Office in Portland, Oregon.
Bruce Cannady: I came in as Assistant Regional Supervisor in 1957.
Jerry Grover: What grade was that?
Bruce Cannady: It was a GS-12. Well, I came in as 11. Let’s see, again, I was a 9. I had to wait a year, got my 11, and then another year to 12. But that is what practically everybody was having to do if they moved into the office, because you know, they’ve always had this little problem of when people are promoted, and I held there until, well I was a GS-13 when I retired.Pauline Cannady: You had gone to Washington, DC between that time.
Bruce Cannady: 1950, after I’d been there three years, they sent me to Washington, DC in a training program. I was here, well first they called me in about September and kept me in Washington until December. Then I came home; I was home 17 day. They sent me back in for a training program, middle management training from January until June, and then I come back to Portland and they...
Pauline Cannady: He wouldnít stay there.
Bruce Cannady: Now, let me tell that story in my way. When I come back to Portland, they wanted me to go back to Washington and stay there and take my chances on wherever I wanted. I felt I had a couple of things that was wrong. First, I didn’t have a degree which was never, I always figured that was going to always be three strikes on me anyway because practically, well I think everybody had.
Jerry Grover: You didn’t have a fisheries degree or you didn’t have a college degree?
Bruce Cannady: I didn’t have a college degree.
Pauline Cannady: Some college classes but……..
Bruce Cannady: Oh, I had some here and there, and even when I was in Washington, DC up there in that middle management I picked up six credits in George Washington University. And anyway, people, including Abe Tunnison and Ray Johnson, Bill Hagen all wanted me to come back there, and I was a little reluctant, very reluctant in fact, because the more I thought, the more I’m probably going to wind up with a Washington office career. And I liked it here. I had a home here.
Pauline Cannady: But there was, you also liked the hatcheries and they weren’t so interested in hatcheries.
Bruce Cannady: Well, you spent your time in Washington, DC, and you know that it’s different.
Jerry Grover: I had two trips, yes.
Bruce Cannady: It’s a different climate.
Jerry Grover: Yes, it is.
Bruce Cannady: Completely different climate.
Jerry Grover: Well, the people at the time, did Bill Hagen have a college degree?
Bruce Cannady: Oh, yes. Everybody had it.
Jerry Grover: Everybody. The people that were back there then, so you were, you felt out of place?
Bruce Cannady: Well, when I was in Portland, the Assistant Director, I mean, Assistant Regional Director Barnaby had his masters and he begged me to go to Washington, and I kept telling him I could go and I’m sure I’m smart enough, but I know a few people in Washington that would resent the hell out of anybody that would even think they should have any kind of a promotion, and I’m not going to get into this, and I didn’t.Pauline Cannady: And so when he come home, they called me and talked to me, tried to, said, “Get him to come to Washington.”
Pauline Cannady: No, I don’t know.
Bruce Cannady: Bill Hagen sat, stood in my house one evening, told Pauline, “Goddam it, you’ve got to get him to go back there or he’s just going to sit here and rot.” So I sat here and rotted.
Pauline Cannady: And he enjoyed it.
Jerry Grover: Okay. So now you’re out here. You were, you said you came out when you came back from Washington DC under the training program. You came back as what, essentially the same job?
Bruce Cannady: When I came here, see, when I came here in 1957, Ned Tuttle was the Supervisor of Hatcheries, and I was the Assistant, and that was it. There was two of us was all. Just before I left in 1960 to go back to this, that, and the other, Marv Smith came in. I approved him in fact. He had to have my approval because we’ve got to have a man; “what would you think of Marv Smith?” I thought he would be great. Anyway and then he came and I, I had to leave, and I was gone about eight months or so, or nine. So the two of them handled it then. So when I come back for the first time, we had three. Well a little later, (I don’t remember just when) Ray Vaughan came in and worked for us a couple of years, and then Paul Handy. Galen [Buterbaugh] was here. Oh, we had a lot of nice people going through here and going up, and up, and up. Paul Handy and John Miller were here up until the time I retired. I was the, somewhere in there, I became a, the Deputy, it isn’t Deputy, what do they call it? Anyway, Tuttle was the Supervisor of Hatcheries, and I was the Assistant, and that was it.
Pauline Cannady: You were working with then.
Bruce Cannady: Well, this, this was a little different. This, about five years before I retired, which would be about 1966, Kimmerick, when I came into Washington. He said, “one of these days I’m going to be going, and I’ve been into building hatcheries. Whatever has been going on, and you better kind of watch and do whatever you have to do as you go along because this is going to happen.” Well, he was right because about 1960, I don’t know, mid-í60's was when we had, began to build things like the big one out at Spring Creek.
Jerry Grover: The rebuilding the Spring Creek.
Bruce Cannady: And the one out at Dworshak.
Jerry Grover: Dworshak Hatchery. Before that, Kooskia NFH.
Bruce Cannady: Well, I also was into it for the State of Oregon here at Bonneville Dam. I was into some of the work that was being done in the Warm Springs reservation, down in California at the spawning channel at Red Bluff. I had Quinault and Makah Hatcheries up in northwest Washington, that was, Dan Slater agreed to have that. Well, and then I kind of helped out here and there on that, and anyway...
Jerry Grover: So you were basically into the construction money bag, organizing?
Bruce Cannady: That was the last five years I was working; I had a hand in, and one of the reasons I retired. We began to, we planned to move on these hatcheries that where were beginning to be constructed or were already half finished or wherever we were. One day the Corps of Engineers called me from Walla Walla and started telling me about the hatcheries that they were going to have built in eastern Washington, what they called, oh what was the name of these?
Jerry Grover: That would be the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.
Bruce Cannady: They wanted me too, they said. I said, “good Lord, this will take five years just to get the thing lined up and get people thinking it would be a good idea, and I’m not going to wait that long to retire.” And they kept bothering me so I retired, and it was never built. It was not planned. It would have been if I had been there, I think, but I don’t know, because I didn’t stay long enough.
Jerry Grover: And if they weren’t built brand new they were reconstructed, like Spring Creek.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, but some of them were new. Quinault was new. And Makah, yeah. And so was Warm Springs for the tribe. And the one in California was new, Tehama-Colusa, the spawning channel. The Russian River. That was one that California ended up operating. It was a Corps of Engineers project.
Well, most of the time I knew who was going to operate. The one that finally come out that I thought was going to be built by the State, fell apart and we wound up with Spring Creek [National Fish Hatchery]. It was just one of those things. Because I was working with the states and we all knew what the policies were, and we might argue and talk about it, but when we got down to talking finally, like Bonneville Dam, there was no question about where it was going to be and how much it was going to be. But they were expecting one person to kind of carry the ball.
Jerry Grover: They, the Corps?
Bruce Cannady: When I began working with the Corps, hardly anybody was speaking with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It took me three years to get some fences mended, and when I finally got the fences mended with a lot of other help, guess what? --you just stood back and got out of the way, because they were going to build places like Dworshak whether you wanted it or not..Jerry Grover: Well, Dworshak, as I understand it, was going to be a state operated hatchery until halfway through and then Idaho backed out. Was that a surprise?
Bruce Cannady: Not really, because I was almost sure that the Federal Government was going to build it because I had been talking along with the Corps, and we were talking about the State. We had to pay the state of Idaho, keeping the state aboard on every meeting we had and it was all at once clear. They said, “Jesus, this thing is going to be pretty big, isn’t it?” And I said, “You better believe it”. “Well, who is going to finance it?” And I said, “Well, that is something we have to begin to work out pretty soon, because there is going to be a lot of money involved.” Well what really broke it, I don’t know who the boss was, but he is one of the people that came in and he said, “Well, what we want to do is for you to give us the money and we will go ahead and build it.” And I said, “You people are foolish. If they ask you, like, we’ll say four million dollars short, and you’re three-fourths finished, what are you going to do then, dig up your own money? I said, “The Corps will never do that.” “Well, what will you do?” I said, “Just tell the Corps to build it, and it doesn’t matter.” It wound up ten million dollars is what it finally wound up, and that is when the Governor, whoever he was at the time, said, “Wait a minute, we’re not going to get into anything like this. This is too big for you. We don’t have anything in Idaho like this” So it was built by the U.S., and that is what happened.
Jerry Grover: And then operated by us. We moved John Parvin
Bruce Cannady: John still is alive. I’ve lost track because, I can’t believe that it’s been 30 years since all that stuff. You know, since I retired, except what was on board to build, I don’t think there is been anything built since then. They’ve talked about a couple up here, and I’ve often thought, if I was still working, if I was still working, I know of two of them in Washington that would have been built, and the State would have operated them. One of them was..............Niss….
Jerry Grover: Nisqually?
Bruce Cannady: Yeah.
Jerry Grover: Okay now, they did build that one, and the Indians are operating it because it’s on the reservation.
Pauline Cannady: Can I say something? I don’t know whether you want me to say it or not.
Jerry Grover: Pauline, wives are spouses and included.
Pauline Cannady: The idea of taking out the dams is going way back. They gave up with the buggies, and oh, you have to go ahead. You cannot turn back.
Bruce Cannady: Well, there are a whole lot of people who’d like to turn them back, take out all the dams.
Jerry Grover: That is a major issue. Were the impact of those dams on the fish evaluated?
Bruce Cannady: I was right in the middle of that. I was only 58, again, because I can tell you right now I would have been in there telling them that don’t be foolish now, don’t be foolish on this and leave it alone in the first place. The biggest mistake that was ever made right now is marking fish. We had enough data 30 years ago to know that about 90 percent of the fish come out of hatcheries and 10 percent are wild. That has never changed in 30 years; not one bit. And you know what with all that beautiful data, they could have stopped marking fish 30 years ago and say, 90 percent of these are fish hatchery, and you know, they wouldn’t be able to know the difference if they hadn’t marked, marked them all this time and clipped off a fin every time they did that.
Pauline Cannady: They had the poor little fish from the hatcheries that were three-fourths dead before they ever got into the water.
Jerry Grover: Well, I know when I was involved in the fin clipping thing, it was kind of addressed as the annual maiming program. The first thing that went was the adipose, and then you chose between a right or a left ventral.
Bruce Cannady: And now they keep arguing about, well these fish are not as good as the wild fish. Well why not?
Jerry Grover: You don’t believe that argument, Bruce?
Bruce Cannady: Do you think that you could take off a couple of fins and not harm them? That doesn’t even make sense.
Pauline Cannady: You think you could handle a little tiny fish and take all that...
Bruce Cannady: See, she is an old, she spent several springs marking fish.
Jerry Grover: You were part of the fish marking crew? Like a lot of the hatchery wives did that...
Pauline Cannady: Yes.
Jerry Grover: ...picked up a little part time money going down and clipping?
Bruce Cannady: Did Judy [Jerry’s wife] do any of that?
Jerry Grover: Yes, she did. She clipped fins at Coleman until she was blue in the face.
Pauline Cannady: I did it in California. Then I did it again in the state of Washington.
Bruce Cannady: But it was a good way to make money and work a few months.
Jerry Grover: Yeah, at the rate they paid you, it was always a little extra money.
Bruce Cannady: Sure.
Jerry Grover: And Judy, for example, split a job with another hatchery wife. I mean, we both had little kids, and so one would clip in the morning and look after the kids, and the other one would clip in the afternoon while the other one looked after the kids. They each got four hours work in, and so they had a little pocket money.
Bruce Cannady: Well, I thought it was great, but I still think if they’d just stop marking fish, they’d all be better off and save an awful lot of money. But I don’t know where it is going to go anyway. I have no idea.
Pauline Cannady: Well, they won’t have any fish if take out the dams, because it is going to rile up all that under the area, you know, and the fish can’t stand that.Bruce Cannady: All the sludge. They’ve got a lot of those going here in downtown Portland.
Jerry Grover: Dredging the Willamette River, you’re talking about?
Pauline Cannady: Yeah.
Jerry Grover: Stirring up the sediment.
Pauline Cannady: But a time when Bruce was still at the hatchery in the state of Washington, they cleaned up the . It was all pure and clean, and I don’t know what, the first thing I know they just forget it. After they do something, they don’t think they have to maintain it. The same way with buildings. They feel like if they build it, why then they don’t have to do a thing to take care of it. From the date, if you buy a house...
Bruce Cannady: Maintenance programs have always been on the low lowest priority
Jerry Grover: And that was part of the areas you looked at too, the cyclical maintenance program, trying to get money just to...
Bruce Cannady: Just trying to get enough money to keep things going, and I remember that one year that I was in Washington, DC and I was talking to Abe Tunnison, [Chief, NFH System] and Abe knew the figures because he’d been with them for several years. He told me one day, he said, “You know, we’d like to have one and a half million dollars just in maintenance, and you know what we’re going to get?” I said, “What?” He said, “If we could just get a million and a half every year” When I went to the Corps when they brought in Dworshak the first year, I helped put the budget together with the Corps. I said, “I want a million dollars.” “A million dollars? It is brand new.” I said, “In the first place, we’re going to spend a million just correcting all the things that are not done right during construction, and then after that we need it just to keep things going well as we go along, because there will be a lot of things that we’ll find out that should have been done right during construction and wasn’t done,” And I said, “When we finally get through with this we will find out that we should have that ten percent from day one, not wait until about the 15th year and then try to catch up, because you never catch up.”
Jerry Grover: Good philosophy. How come that never sold, except with Dworshak?
Bruce Cannady: Because it’s maintenance. You will never solve a maintenance program anywhere because you don’t cut, clip clippings, I mean, cut ribbons like they do on a new one, whatever you...
Jerry Grover: Yes, okay. So even with Abe, you think Abe was an able leader as far as being able to get money into the budget? Was there a leadership problem in Washington, or is it just the acceptance of Congress?
Bruce Cannady: I don’t know about Abe or Carson. I didn’t know him, I didn’t know he as well as I did Tom Barnaby, and I always remember what Tom said once about people. He said, “You know, I was in research for 20, 25 years before I wound up as an administrator,” and he said, “I will tell you right now,” and by the way I did this for my 50th, I said, “Anyone that starts out to get a degree in anything should have to take administration, public administration, whatever. Just, if nothing else, a couple of classes as you go to know what budgets are and this sort of thing, because if you go in as an...
Pauline Cannady: Engineer.Bruce Cannady: Well, engineer or chemist or whatever, you are not even going to think about budgets or money or anything like that.” How many classes did you have in administration? Did you...
Jerry Grover: Bruce, I’d like to ask you about high points and low points on your caree with the Service..
Bruce Cannady: Good high points, and it seemed like every time something like Spring Creek finally fell into our lap and expanded Dworshak, but it seemed like every one of these was some kind of a high spot because I felt like, and the people and myself were really doing something well for everybody in the long, long run.
Jerry Grover: And the resource?
Bruce Cannady: And the resource. I’m still a hatchery man because I think that the people that thought up hatcheries 125 years ago were on the right track then, and they still are on the right track, and if they hadn’t have been on it I don’t know where we would be with Pacific salmon today. I’m still a hatchery man because I think that the people that thought up hatcheries 125 years ago were on the right track then, and they still are on the right track, and if they hadn’t been on it I don’t know where we would be with Salmon today.
Jerry Grover: Are you saying that without hatcheries you don’t think there’d be salmon in the Columbia River, for example?
Bruce Cannady: If they’d have never, if nobody had figured out a way to have hatcheries, what would have happened? Not very, nothing very good would have happened because they would have finished catching every salmon. They of course are doing that with others species too.
One of my big, one of my high spots, believe it or not, was coming to the Regional Office. I never expected to make it; never even thought of it for several years until I went, Pauline and I had gone to, down to New Orleans, all the ways down for a trip. I think it was May or June, and I had just got back. I was feeling pretty good. We’d had such a lot of fun and so forth. I said, “You know, we ought to do this more often,” and so on and so forth, and Al Kimmerick and Bill Hagen and, they me, and one of the fellows, he was a predecessor of Abe Tunnison, I think he was there. I think there was three of us, and they had stopped, and we were going, I think we were going into lunch or something, and I’d gotten in the back seat. One of them was driving, and all at once one of them, we were just, one of them turned around and said, “Would you mind going to Portland to the Regional Office one of these days?” That is a high spot.
Pauline Cannady: About his retirement, they had a retirement and all the, all those folks that he’d ever worked with in the state...
Bruce Cannady: That was the biggest, the biggest, were you here then?
Jerry Grover: No, I think in that year I would have been in DC and going through the Departmental training program, so I was not here.
Bruce Cannady: Well, I don’t think they’ve had another one after that that was as big as that. Art Hughey who also retired and I were in there. Art went first. Art knew, he was an engineer, and well, he knew the people inside the Service and a few others, but not really like I had. I couldn’t believe, the old Columbia Edgewater was absolutely crammed, and they had come from California and Nevada and all over the place. Pauline Cannady: All the states that he had representatives
Bruce Cannady: Every one that I’d ever worked with. Goddam, they showed up, and I tell you, it just made me feel good. Talk about a high spot, now there was a high spot.
Pauline Cannady: They gave him things. Yeah, that was nice, very nice
But for low points, I don’t know. I was disappointed when I didn’t get to be Regional Supervisor and Smith got it. That was kind of a blow because I thought I was told that I was going to get it. Ned Tuttle was retiring. I thought I was, turned out that it was a man in Washington had another idea, so that was that. And Smith and I got along very well through the years. I mean, we’re good friends. We play bridge together. He’s a better bridge player than I am.
Jerry Grover: If you had to categorize all those things that you did in your career, what was the most pressing issue that you had to address? Which is the button that seemed to push the hardest or lit up the biggest?
Bruce Cannady: My job here in the Regional Office.
Bruce Cannady: Two of them. I think Al Kimmerick and Tom Barnaby. They were both, when I came into the Regional Office, they both had just been Assistant Regional Directors, and he [Tom] had moved into this new job at the same level as the Regional Director on this program they were going to have that had just started not too long after the war, doing something, not just hatcheries, everything, and of course still trying to do. He was in that. Of course, Tom Barnaby was Assistant Regional Director, both of them, for a long time. Now like I said earlier, I never thought of them as . I liked them both, and I liked them so well that when I retired, (well they both retired ahead of me) when I retired, we kept right on visiting back and forth. In fact, up until a couple of years before Kimmerick died, we had a meeting down in southern Portland or else down at Salem once a month, just chewing the fat. People like Harland Johnson [Hatchery Biologist] was there all the time. We just got together. We liked each other, and kind of a friendship thing that was far beyond what ever we did at hatcheries. Both of them, for a long time.
Jerry Grover: It was far beyond co-workers or...
Pauline Cannady: Tell them about Harland Johnson having, once every fall we all got together.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, you knew about Harland having annual meeting of retirees.
Jerry Grover: Yeah, I wasn’t a retiree when he was doing that, and then when I got retired, why, he had passed.
Bruce Cannady: Went down, God, he didn’t last long.
Pauline Cannady: Oh, we loved that. We all got together.
Bruce Cannady: Oh, yeah. You would have enjoyed that. Marv come to that every year too, after he retired. Marv was in about, I think he was in four or five years after I retired. I don’t really remember, but I remember him telling me once that, that he (and I didn’t know that until he told me a little later), he said, “You know, when I finally retired they were about ready to throw me out of here.” I said, “Youíre kidding!” “Well,” he said, “it wasn’t that. I can last as long as ever, but,” he said, “they had taken away a lot of things we used to do” Are they still doing those things like in hatcheries and so forth? Are they reorganizing?
Jerry Grover: Well, at the time that I think Marv was talking about was when they were reorganizing and going into Area Offices. The Regional Supervisor for Fisheries, a lot of the operations responsibilities going out to three Area Offices - one in Olympia, one in Boise, and one in Sacramento.
Bruce Cannady: That’s what he was talking about! And so they just, kind of eliminated the stuff that was being done in the Regional Office, and then talking with Marv, he was unhappy with that. They demoted him from a 14 to 13. He told me some about it, but I didn’t ask him too much. Well, I asked him what it was all about, but I don’t remember exactly, but that’s been 20 years ago or so.
Jerry Grover: Yeah, that was a trial for 5 years. They were reorganizing, they still are, Bruce. Things haven’t changed.
Bruce Cannady: Somebody told me awhile back about, and they were telling me, and I said, “Gee, that sounds like the one in 1957 when they called them Tom, Dick, and Harry.” Tom Barnaby, Dick Griffith, and Harry ?; he was the head of River Basins or whatever. He was one of them. They were the three original. They said, and I thought it, that was the way it was when I come in, and they said...
Jerry Grover: Reorganization, you’re talking about.
Bruce Cannady: Yes. They had that organization going for about four or five years, and then all at once they scrapped it and did something else, and they were telling me, he was describing what was going on, and I said, “Jesus, that sounds like the one they had in 1957.”
Jerry Grover: Well, how many reorganization changes did you see in the Service? You talk about the Tom, Dick, and Harry, and we were just mentioning area offices.
Bruce Cannady: I come in 1949...and the Bureau of Fisheries, and they didn’t, and the Wildlife people were over in a separate field. 1951, they pulled them back for the first time together.
Jerry Grover: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife?
Bruce Cannady: Fish and Wildlife, yeah, Bureau of Sport Fisheries, no. No, this was the one ahead of that. They had that together. Then I went through that before I even left Leadville, and then when I came to, in fact, they finally were just getting their first people together into, I called Albuquerque. I was in Leadville. I was supposed to come out to Portland, and I’d waited for, they’d even stopped sending me checks. I tried this one and that one. They were out of the office. Well, I wound up [talking] to the Regional Director and I explained to him. He said, “I’ll get into it. I’ll let you know about it.” Boy, did he. Two days later I had my papers.
Bruce Cannady: We shipped our furniture from Colorado clear out here to Washington, and I don’t know, I still don’t know where everything was or what they did, but I’ll tell you, he called and he must have moved somebody because I had papers and was on my way in two days. And then the next one [reorganization] they had was just before I came into the office because that was the Tom, Dick, and Harry, and Leo Lace and that group, and then they had another one. Well, that was a, that was in 1957. By 1958 and 9 was when they split the Commercial Fisheries out, away, and left us Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in Washington,
Jerry Grover: And then the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Bruce Cannady: That was the one, that was my second one, if you call it one. Yeah, that is my second one. Now, that went on until about the time I retired. They were already talking about another one, and right after that they set up these Regional or District Offices, or whatever they called them. When was this, about 1972 or 3?
Jerry Grover: 1971. Reorganization plan number four that the President signed creating NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service, and they moved Commercial Fish over into there and called them NMFS
Pauline Cannady: That is when he retired.
Jerry Grover: And they dropped the name Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and just said Fish and Wildlife Service, which is what we’ve been since.
Bruce Cannady: Think they’ll ever bring them together?
Jerry Grover: Well, I understand Bruce, that last week Secretary Babbitt said they need to be together.
Pauline Cannady: There is another highlight. He had another highlight. He went to Red Bluff and he got there on the train, and he was getting off the train, and here was a band and everything, and he thought, “Whoa, a movie star probably is coming off.” He got off, and they were honoring him, the whole city. They gave him a Stetson and they, I don’t know what all they gave him.
Bruce Cannady: That was about two weeks before I retired, and I was...
Jerry Grover: That was because of Tehama-Colusa?
Bruce Cannady: A bunch from Red Bluff that I’ve gotten pretty well acquainted with being in and out of there, and I remember I was, got in late, about 6:00 or so, and what his name took me over to this, oh, there was about eight or ten in the group.
Jerry Grover: Was Dale Schonaman there then?
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, Schonaman. They had sandwiches, and we got to visiting and God, I guess 10:00 or so. So I kind of got acquainted with all these guys, and then all at once when they decided to have this affair they really bowled me over. I didn’t know about that at all. They just, that was right out of, I thought this band and everything, they were going t o have a parade of some kind. It turned out the whole damn thing was for me.
Jerry Grover: Overall, would you gauge that it’s been a good career and the Fish and Wildlife Service is good to work for?
Bruce Cannady: If I had to go over and do it again, I’m sure I would. I might like one or two of the spots we could do without, but what the hell, you have to take the good and the bad and the bad and the good, so...Jerry Grover: But there was more good than bad?
Bruce Cannady: was a good one, and I think that I had a lot to do with things. You’ve been in your career. You’re now retired. Can you look back and feel like you did a lot of good while you were there? You have to.
Jerry Grover: Oh, I do. I didn’t, you know, but some folks left with a red ass. You know, they walked out the door of the Fish and Wildlife Service and never looked back and I don’t feel that way at all. I gave 36 and a half years of my life. I felt good that I did. I liked the Fish and Wildlife Service. I too would do it again.
Bruce Cannady: Well, I used to say, if you don’t enjoy what you’re doing, by God you better get another line of work because it is only one road that you’re going down, and if you’re not going to be happy while you’re going, you better find another road of doing it.
Jerry Grover: Have you found people were jealous of the job that you had, envious?
Bruce Cannady: When I thought of it, I immediately discarded it because I thought that it was a waste of time trying to decide whether you were liked. When I was a boss, as a manager out there, you know when you’re in here it is different, it is a different deal. It’s like if you were in Washington; that is a different deal. Everything is different. When I was out there I always had, I used to say, you know, being a manager is the toughest job of all because you are trying to make people happy, and you can’t make people happy. I always remember Tom, or John Pelner. When I was leaving to come up to Carson he said, “Bruce, remember this: no matter what you do with those fellows, there is going to be days. They’re going to hate your guts,” and he’s right.
Pauline Cannady: He only had one fellow leave, and he didn’t want to fire him, but he was so incompetent.
Bruce Cannady: Ben Crosby.
Pauline Cannady: Yeah, so he brought him in and talked to him and everything like that. Finally, what did you do about him?
Bruce Cannady: I run into him once in Portland, and he was nice. Well, he was a tough guy to...
Pauline Cannady: A college fellow.
Bruce Cannady: He graduated from the University of Wyoming, and he was as out of his depth here as if he was in water 90 feet deep, and he had the nicest wife and they were, in fact when I said I, it was five and a half months, I said, “I’ve got to decide whether you’re going to go or not, and I think you ought to go, really.”
Pauline Cannady: They had six month probation.
Bruce Cannady: “You’ve just made enough mistakes that I think you ought to go, and I don’t like it.” And all he said, “Well, that is all right.” He said, “You know, we’re expecting a baby, and I wonder if I could stick around here for about another month or two” I said, Sure.” The only one that I can swear that I finally, and I always remember the people in the office. I told them that a couple of times that I had this problem and I might have to let him go and, “Oh yeah, we’ll back you up, fine and dandy. We’ll back you up.” Then when I had to drop it on the desk in paper, this guy is going oh, good God. They just turned around about this 180 degrees. I’m sure you had, you were in that same spot a few times.
Bruce Cannady: I have known people like Pelner and so on. Benny Cox –did you know Benny?
Jerry Grover: I knew Benny. Knew John when I was at Coleman. John would come by and coach the running of the hatchery down there.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, and you knew, of course you knew Harland.
Jerry Grover: I knew Harland and Steve Leak, who was his assistant.
Bruce Cannady: He surprised me. He left a little sooner than I thought he would, so I, that was before you came in. I’m trying to think, you were, who did you follow?
Jerry Grover: Well, I came to the Region three different times, Bruce.
Bruce Cannady: You would think when you talk about a hatchery, we always want to go get one of these guys that’s out of the eighth grade somewhere. But I was wanting to get college graduates. I was meeting with Bill Hagen, Chief of Fish Hatcheries and he was describing the great benefit of college graduates with fishery science degrees. And when he got through expounding this he said, “What do you think? “ And I could talk faster I guess, always than Tuttle, but I said, “When and how much, you kidding. We will take six.” He said, “No, I’m not kidding.” I said, “I tell you, we’ve got to get these kind of people in.” Yes sir, and he said, “Fine and dandy.”
Now, about this time, Jimmy Warren came wandering into the office. He come wandering in the office in an Army uniform looking for a job. That’s how he came to be aboard with us because boy, I’d began to snap these people right up, right now. I didn’t know who he was or what he was like, but I always remember that I asked for six people, and I got them. You can name them probably today, Bill Walsdorf was one of them. Okay. I know Ken Higgs would have to be in that crowd or close to it. Russ Ferg, Paul Hemrick, Einer Wold, Jack Kinchloe. I’m trying to think, I don’t know my names anymore.
Jerry Grover: You said Jim Warren.
Bruce Cannady: He wasn’t one of that six. He was extra, and there was another one. But that is when we got them in. The minute they graduated we sent them through this two years plan. You worked at the hatchery one year, then you’d go to Courtland In-service fish nutrition training school and then you’d go to Leetown fish health course, or vice versa, and all of that come right of that little conversation that we had with Bill Hagen. It was Bill Hagen that did it, and he did it there in about five minutes.
Jerry Grover: That seemed like that was a major change or a major move for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish Hatcheries. It changed forever the look of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Pauline Cannady: You went to the college and talked to fellows.
Bruce Cannady: What was the big guy that was at Carson?
Jerry Grover: Don Zirjacks.Bruce Cannady: No, he was bigger. He went to, he went to school, but he went to Boston. He was in Boston, and then he came back out here. He was, he was a trainee, but it was some kind.
Jerry Grover: Don Zirjacks. He never got a degree. He was in the GS-488 series, but
they converted them all. He was grandfathered in, and he still was a hatchery manager, and he managed Carson...
Bruce Cannady: At one time I knew these guys and I knew the program, and I’d been there, I was in there from day one.
I had some criticism from different ones. I always remember Tuttle said once, he said, “You know, at one time we always thought if a guy worked hard he would go right on up until he became a manager.” I said, “Well, that has nit changed, we still have a bunch of people doing the same things.”
Jerry Grover: Well, it kind of kick started these college graduates because instead of starting as a Fish Culturist 1 or a GS-1, you started them out as a GS-5. They got up a few ladder rungs. Did you see any conflict with the people on board when you started bringing these college people in, because you were showing them some favoritism by bringing them in at a higher grade and then sending them to Courtland or Leetown after one year?
Bruce Cannady: I talked to some of them at the time and I said, You know, at least for a few years and probably as long as you’re working you will have the same chance as any one else, it’s just going to be a little bit tougher, and it was, of course. We got some very good people.
God, I thought once, I spent an evening with Ken Higgs, and we got into two or three arguments about this and that, and I was absolutely amazed. He was so goddamn smart. I mean, he knew what he was talking about, and that was the kind of people I wanted in the hatchery program.
Jerry Grover: Good. They all turned out to be successful, turned out to be managers or hatchery biologists or station biologists like Walsdorf.
Bruce Cannady: I never really knew them before. I had them on paper, and we picked them. I always remember that when they went to work, all six of them, I told Ned one day, I said, “You know, we’re going to be lucky if we keep two of these people.” And several years later I said, “I’ll be damned, we kept all six of them.” Wasn’t that something? But that was a good, that was a good program.
I don’t know how it went in the other part of the system, whether Bill did the same, but Bill, God, he told me later, he said, “Boy you just went for this hand over fist, just wanted it badly.” He said, “Here I thought maybe people would be against this, and you weren’t” Well, I said, no, anybody in their right mind would go for this kind of a program. It is going to cost some money, and I said, “Bill,” I said, “I don’t worry about it.” And we didn’t.
Jerry Grover: This was the professionalization of the Fish Hatchery program, bringing in the college graduates.
Jerry Grover: You didn’t lie to these guys, did you?
Bruce Cannady: No.
Jerry Grover: To get them on board? See, I was told, I was working as a Fisheries Management Biologist in California doing professional and scientific fisheries management things. Fish hatcheries people were thought of as a kind of like, a low life. They were the ones that would shoot a doe deer out of season, you know, and probably would keep an undersized fish if they caught it and hide it. I was hired back in Region 5. I was told you were going to be a Fisheries Management Biologist in this poor, backward state of West by God Virginia, you know, the land of John L. Lewis and the coal miners and the unions and screwed up habitat, and they needed professional biologists back there, but you’ll be stationed at a hatchery in White Sulphur Springs. I go back there, and guess what my first job was? I was sweeping fish shit out of the ponds.
Bruce Cannady: That wasn’t always fun.
Jerry Grover: Then I got into high tech grass cutting.
Pauline Cannady: When Bruce was at Cortland, New York, they tried to talk him into staying there and taking over the hatchery portion of the training school
Bruce Cannady: Art Phillips wanted me to stay there.
Pauline Cannady: And boy, I tell you, that weather.
Bruce Cannady: John Maxwell was already going to go, they already had made up their mind that John was going to go to the office in Boston, and he wanted me to stay. Well, it was the same job that a couple years later that Ray Vaughan had.
Jerry Grover: Okay, I didn’t remember Ray being at Cortland. I remember him being at Lamar.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, he was at Cortland before he went to Lamar. Anyway, I said, “I don’t want to do that. I’m a westerner and I’ve been here a year, and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it, but I’d like to go home.” I told them I just feel like a long way from home. So he let me go home, but I, you know, Art, I don’t know how many times I think he had dinner with us in Portland here, a couple of three times. Well, what else?
Jerry Grover: Stories. You talk about Cookie, the manager at the Creston, MT, hatchery. There is always so many stories told about Cookie. Are any of those true, you suppose? About the one, I can remember one about a...
Bruce Cannady: Did you ever read, did you ever happen to read one of his letters? He would write. Don’t know whether I ever, I’m sure I told you. He’d write epistles.
Jerry Grover: Yes, one that... They should have framed those things.
Bruce Cannady: He’d start in and he’d write, and about the time that he’d sign the goddamn thing he’d have an afterthought, so he would write up on the side of the page, and then he would have another one and he’d write it on the other side, write it along the bottom. He would turn it over and God, he’d have these addendums would just go on and on and on, and most of, I don’t know why he even bothered about writing, and I don’t know that he ever, you know, in the office. He’d have the people all doing this and that, and he would be out feeding the fish. He loved to feed the fish. He was a manager, so he got to feed the fish.
Jerry Grover: The fun part. On the letters again, I understand everything. I’ve heard that same story about Cookie writing the letters in big long epistles. He’d write on the back side, he’d add a second page and then he would say, “Oh heck, forget the whole thing, I’ve changed my mind.” Then he would sign it and send it in.Did you ever...
Bruce Cannady: I tell you, he was a classic.
Jerry Grover: He was also the guy, I heard the story about him looking over the surplus property list, always trying to find some he needed at the hatchery for free. There was this drilling machine in Seattle and he said, “God that would be just what they needed in the shop,” and so he puts in a request and gets it shipped there, and the guy from, from the train station called and said he had a delivery for the hatchery, and he said, “I’ll be right down and pick it up.” The train station guy said, “What do you mean, it is on two flat cars.” Well, this drilling machine was something for 16 inch guns that came out of the Naval base in Seattle, and then Cookie had to pay to send that darn thing back, which was a bunch of money.
Bruce Cannady: I remember the story, but I had forgotten all about it, but that is him exactly, he was going to get this little thing and wound up he had two flat cars. Hell’s fire, he had to get a drag line crane to move anything like that, but that was Cookie. He, oh boy, and I tell you, I’ll tell one story about him. I generally would like to stay in a hotel, but this time, particular time when I said I’m coming, why old Cookie says, “Well, be sure and stay with us,” and I started to hesitate and he said, “No, I’m not taking no for an answer. You’ve got to stay with us.” So I told him all right. So I spent the night with him. His wife, I’m trying to think what her name is, I can’t think, but anyway, then I said something later about it and they said, “Oh Jesus, she is the best cook in the world.” I got it. Oh boy, was she a cook.
Jerry Grover: Well there were some characters in the Fish and Wildlife Service up and down the river, and there is some hard drinking, hard poker playing.
Bruce Cannady: You knew, I think you did, Bob McElrath. His wife, his wife... Well, she lives over here at the coast at Manzanita.
Jerry Grover: What about other old characters on the river here in the system? John Pelner was one. He is kind of, I don’t know whether there is any stories...
Bruce Cannady: John and I had a falling out and I’ve always regretted it, and its one of those things that I just had a brainstorm that I should’nt have, something else. John and I had been very good friends ever since I knew him, almost except for the very last before he retired. When I left Battle Creek and went up to Coleman, John and I, John didn’t want me to come up there at all. He later changed his mind and in fact, I found out later that of all the people that did him. When I left Battle Creek and went up to Coleman, John did not recommend anybody to be promoted. I was one of the very few that John did. He thought that was all right. When I first got up there, I’d only worked there about two weeks. It was spring and we began to change things around, and I had to get a crew out here to work, clean and whatever they were doing, and I sent them out. We’d had some bad weather, and we hadn’t done anything for a couple, three days. Well all at once this morning we have nice weather, so I sent a crew out there, and then I walked up to the hatchery and ran into John, and John began to give me hell because these people were not working and they were supposed to be out working, and by God, what are you doing, blah, blah, blah. John really, he could do this and I waited until he ran down, and then I really told him off. He had made me mad, so I made him mad right back because I pointed out, “There are four men out there working right now and doing what I’ve already told them. Now what are you talking about?” Blah, blah, and he turned around and he apologized, and we, I had already been told for years that John, if he’d ever get on top of you he’d just beat you right into the ground. I had made up my mind that was never going to happen to me even if I had to leave town. So I waited for him when I got this time, and then I took care of him. Well anyway, it went on until after he retired, and I get this notice that instead of, he had a home down in Red Bluff, but he was staying there, and that was against that particular required occupancy rule for hatchery housing at the time. Now as it happened, not long after that, the thing came up with Benny Cox at Spring Creek and I did what I should have done the first time with John, and I didn’t. I told Benny, I called him and told him, I said, “You are not supposed to do this.” “Well,” he said, “I’m kind of in a bind”, and I said, “Just leave it alone.” So I went to the Chief of Administration and... So I got an okay and we handled it all verbally, and he was gone in a couple of weeks and everything was taken care of. But in John’s case, instead of me doing what I should have done the second time, I told him what I’m what am I going to do, words like this. So for some reason, Tuttle was gone, and I wrote a letter and went to have the Regional Director sign it. John Finley got it. He sent it back. He said, “Oh!” I said, ”It’s the rule. What are we going to do about it?” He said, “Well I don’t know, it’s kind of your problem. If you want to write a letter, go ahead.” That was a mistake. That was my, his first mistake, and mine was listening to him because I went ahead and I wrote the letter and I signed it as Acting Regional Supervisor, and John never forgave me.
Jerry Grover: Basically you told him to move back on the hatchery or move out, retire.
Bruce Cannady: Something like that. And instead, he compounded it. What he should have done was given me a ring and said, “Jesus, I’m in a trouble,” and we would have worked it out, and I would have taken the second route and got him out of it. Instead, the last time I saw John he was still mad. I ran into him in Red Bluff at something or other and he made some remark, and I said, “John, I’m sorry,” because at the time it was just one of those things probably shouldn’t have happened, but it did, but he never forgave me.
Jerry Grover: John, what I remember of John Pelner, at least in his later years, that he always smoked these roll-your-own cigarettes, and he always set back, and there was always little sparks. He didn’t have a shirt that didn’t look like it had been shot with a shot gun. I mean, just full of little burnt holes.
Bruce Cannady: Yeah, oh yes. John was, I tell you, I loved John. I liked him, and we got along fine, and I always regretted that last damn incident that, I didn’t have any idea that he would react like he would, that he would do something or other, maybe call or whatever, and I look back, I think, Jesus, I should have called him first, you know and said, “Look, you’re in trouble on and you’re causing me a lot of trouble. We’ve got to work something out here.” I just did it wrong.
Description Rating Title Bruce Cannady oral history transcript Creator Grover, Jerry C. Description Oral history interview with Bruce Cannady as conducted by Jerry C. Grover. Subject HistoryBiographyFish hatcheriesFisheries managementWater management Location NebraskaColoradoWashingtonOregonWashington, DC FWS Site CARSON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERYCOLEMAN NATIONAL FISH HATCHERYLEADVILLE NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY Publisher U. S. Fish &Wildlife Service Contributors Grover, Jerry; Cannady, Pauline Date of Original 2000-03-23 Type Text Format PDF Item ID cannaday.032400.pdf Source NCTC Archives Museum Language English Rights Public domain Audience General File Size 96KB Original Format Digital Length 21 p. Transcript O R A L H I S T O R Y BRUCE CANNADY FISHERY RESOURCES PROGRAM - HATCHERIES Interview by JERRY C. GROVER March 23, 2000 Portland, Oregon Oral History Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center Shepherdstown, West Virginia Bruce Cannady at age 95ABSTRACT: Bruce Cannady played a significant role in the siteing, funding and construction of major new and reconstructed fish hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest. These hatcheries located on Indian reservations and along major water courses doubled the annual release of Pacific salmonids to enhance Tribal benefits and meet mitigation objectives of Federal water development projects. He also played a major role in the professionalization of the hatchery manager cadre in the selection of college graduate fishery biologists and developing a training program for the entry level personnel into the National Fish Hatchery system. He retired as a Deputy Assistant Regional Directory for the National Fish Hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest with 32 years of service. Notable, as of January 2009 his 32 years of service has resulted in 38 years of retirement as he approaches his 97th birthday. Oral History Interview with Bruce Cannady (age 89) (and his wife Pauline – age 92) At his home in Portland, Oregon Interviewed by: Jerry C. Grover March 23, 2000 Jerry Grover: I’m talking with Bruce Cannady, retired Deputy Regional Supervisor for Fish Hatcheries for Region 1, the Pacific Region, and his wife Pauline. Bruce Cannady: I was born in 1912 in Central Park, Nebraska. I went to high school in a small school at McGrew, which is in the country. Dad was a farmer Jerry Grover: How did you meet Pauline? Bruce Cannady: Another gal and I had split up is the best way I can say, and I went back over to McGrew and I knew there was a dance, and I went to the dance, and there was a girl there and I met her. Pauline Cannady: She was a teacher he knew. First we went to the church, didn’t we? Bruce Cannady: No, we were at Albertine’s Place. Pauline Cannady: Well, they said that they were going to have a dance afterwards, so we went there. I went with another fellow, but I got there and I kept dancing with Bruce. I thought he was the one that brought me. Bruce Cannady: And then she was surprised when the dance broke up and Aldin showed up, and he said, “Well, we’re ready to go,” and Pauline looked at me kind of surprised. I liked her. Pauline Cannady: Bruce lived in town, but Aldin lived out in the country and he’d come in to see me, and Bruce would come right over.Jerry Grover: So after that it didn’t take long I take it, that the love birds kind of got in you... Bruce Cannady: She moved to Scotts Bluff. I was in the town of Bayard, and that’s where she had graduated from high school. I worked at the sugar factory there as a chemist. And then I finally decided she was right for me in 1934, and boy things are really, anyway, I’m trying to think. I went to Scotts Bluff. I was at the factory for five years at Bayard, and then I was up there for two years. Oh, I was still at Bayard after we got married because I stayed with her mother. We only saw each other at the weekends because she was working in Scotts Bluff and I was working in Bayard. So we got married. Pauline Cannady: He’s younger than I am, and I didn’t want to marry a younger fellow. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, we got married, 65 years of it. We got married when I was only 21. I tell you, the reason, one of the reasons I got married is it was right in the middle of, I got a job over here and she had a job here, and we, and I had to walk about eight blocks, and we’d get together in the evening, and I’d walk home, and I finally said along in the spring, I said, you know, this is the silliest thing in the world. You know, in these days you just shack up and let it go at that. Well, those days you didn’t do it that way. So I said one day, “You know, this is silly. We’re both paying rent and maybe we ought to just get married and move together, and we would have more money and not be spending it for rent.” Pauline surprised me. She said, “You know, that sounds like a pretty good idea.” We waited, remember, we waited until the Fourth of July. Pauline Cannady: Yeah, we both got days off. We got married the third of July in the evening Bruce Cannady: We waited about six weeks, and we both had the time off on, lets see, what was it, Saturday and Sunday. We got married on Friday evening so we could go somewhere over the weekend, which we did. Well, we didn’t want to wait until the fourth. Jerry Grover: How long was it then you started, the kids started coming along then? Bruce Cannady: Seven and a half years, one. No, she had told me, I believe it was before me, when we began to think about, you know the future, and she advised me that there would never be any children because she had broken, had her back broken the year she got out of high school. Pauline Cannady: The doctor told me be sure and tell my boyfriend if we got engaged, think of it to tell him that I may not be able to have any children. So I did. Well, we didn’t want any children then anyway. Depression time! Bruce Cannady: So we went along and then, and then when I went to work for the government, we’d been here two, two and a half years and we made a trip out West and that was the first time we’d never been on the West Coast, and so I said, “Why don’t we move out to Washington?” And I managed that, got all set up, moved in out here in the spring. We’d come back to Leadville and things were beginning to get to where I was getting to be moved, and then she said she was pregnant. So we left Leadville and got out here, and he was born in May. We landed out here in November, and Mike was born in May. Jerry Grover: Did you have lots of sisters and brothers? Did you grow up with sisters? Pauline Cannady: Yes, I had five sisters and two brothers.Jerry Grover: What about you, Bruce? Bruce Cannady: I only had one brother, and he’s seven and a half years younger than I am. We both started out in Nebraska. I wound up with the Federal service, wandering around and finally landed in Portland. He got a job out of Nebraska with Boeing up here at the end of the war. When he got out of that, he got his degree at the University of Washington and went to work in Seattle; wound up finally as Assistant Planning Director here in Portland for the City of Portland. And so we both wound up a few blocks from each other. We started in a different place and wound up in the same place doing different things. Jerry Grover: You were living in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, and you’re applying for a job with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Bruce Cannady: I was expecting an answer, and here I am reading this letter about Fish and Wildlife Service, and I don’t even understand what I’m trying to read . I just figured, well, I’d forgotten about it. But as it happens, I was caught, when was it, about in March. Didn’t really have a job. So I said, well, what shall I do? Pauline says, “Why don’t we go over and just ask for a job, and maybe we can go over to Denver or somewhere.” She was working at the time at Woolworth’s in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska. Wound up with that idea when we went up to Leadville, Colorado that if after three months, if we didn’t like it, we’d go back to Denver to look around. Jerry Grover: Are these summer months or winter months? Bruce Cannady: We went up on the 4th of April, 1939, and I wound up getting a job for 32 years instead of three months, and stayed at Leadville National Fish Hatchery for about two and a half years. They sent me out to Carson National Fish Hatchery, Washington. It was a beautiful little place, but I tell you, they couldn’t raise fish there at all, really, because they didn’t have any ponds. So we were there one year, sent to California to Coleman National Fish Hatchery. We were there five and a half years. My first year there, I was at the old hatchery, Battle Creek substation that they finally closed. Then I went up to the main Coleman station and stayed there until 1948, and then they sent us to, back believe it or not back to Carson again. Pauline had no more idea of wanting to go back to Carson than the man in the moon. But then we were there one year, and then they sent us to Cortland. Jerry Grover: What grade were you hired in at when you went to Leadville, Bruce? Bruce Cannady: When I was at Leadville, and an unknown thing at that time, I think they called it the Apprentice Fish Culturist. Pauline Cannady: Apprentice Fish Culturist. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, Apprentice Fish Culturist, and I was in that, what, two years. Pauline Cannady: And they, they could have you leave after what, six months if they weren’t satisfied. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, the old probationary period. And then when I landed back at Carson, I was called a Junior Fish Culturist, and then when I went to Battle Creek, what did they call it then? They called... Pauline Cannady: Assistant Superintendent. Bruce Cannady: No, Senior Fish Culturist, I don’t remember exactly. I wasn’t in charge. I was working for......, he died, and then I was acting manager for three or four months.Pauline Cannady: He was dying of cancer, and so Bruce... Bruce Cannady: Can you remember his name? Isn’t that awful? That is my problem anymore. And then I was there, oh, about a year when I went up to Coleman, and I worked then as a foreman, something like that, foreman fish culturist? No, it wasn’t that. Foreman what? I was in charge of, they had this thing all cut up in some fashion and I don’t really remember, but I was... Anyway, I was there, what, five years. Then they sent me as the manager at Carson. I felt pretty good because I’d, come in and not knowing anything about what I was getting into, and nine years later I was manager, and most of the fellows around there had either never made manager or they made it later. Jerry Grover: Were those GS grades at that time, with Manager? Bruce Cannady: I was a 6 I think, at that time. Yeah, I know I was a 6 because just a year or two later they moved us, and we had to do it twice. We moved from a 7 and then to a 9, and that was about, well, I’d been at Carson, I’d been to Cortland [,New York Training School] and back. I went as a 6. God, that ís what everybody was, GS-5 or 6. Then we come back as a, and I come back as a 9 about a year later. Well, a 7 and then a 9, and I was there from 1948 to Cortland and back... Pauline Cannady: 1957. Bruce Cannady: And in 1957 I came..and in 1957 I came... Pauline Cannady: We came to Walker. Jerry Grover: Where were you between 1950 and 1957? Were you at Carson or at Cortland? Bruce Cannady: Seven years... Pauline Cannady: They remodeled it all for them ponds and... Jerry Grover: In Carson? Pauline Cannady: He was heading up all that remodeling. Jerry Grover: Okay, they had just the three houses that were there. Bruce Cannady: Oh yeah, but they built the other houses and put in ponds. That was done when I was there. Pauline Cannady: And all those ponds. Jerry Grover: Okay, and then you came, in 1957 then you came to the Regional Office in Portland, Oregon. Bruce Cannady: I came in as Assistant Regional Supervisor in 1957. Jerry Grover: What grade was that? Bruce Cannady: It was a GS-12. Well, I came in as 11. Let’s see, again, I was a 9. I had to wait a year, got my 11, and then another year to 12. But that is what practically everybody was having to do if they moved into the office, because you know, they’ve always had this little problem of when people are promoted, and I held there until, well I was a GS-13 when I retired.Pauline Cannady: You had gone to Washington, DC between that time. Bruce Cannady: 1950, after I’d been there three years, they sent me to Washington, DC in a training program. I was here, well first they called me in about September and kept me in Washington until December. Then I came home; I was home 17 day. They sent me back in for a training program, middle management training from January until June, and then I come back to Portland and they... Pauline Cannady: He wouldnít stay there. Bruce Cannady: Now, let me tell that story in my way. When I come back to Portland, they wanted me to go back to Washington and stay there and take my chances on wherever I wanted. I felt I had a couple of things that was wrong. First, I didn’t have a degree which was never, I always figured that was going to always be three strikes on me anyway because practically, well I think everybody had. Jerry Grover: You didn’t have a fisheries degree or you didn’t have a college degree? Bruce Cannady: I didn’t have a college degree. Pauline Cannady: Some college classes but…….. Bruce Cannady: Oh, I had some here and there, and even when I was in Washington, DC up there in that middle management I picked up six credits in George Washington University. And anyway, people, including Abe Tunnison and Ray Johnson, Bill Hagen all wanted me to come back there, and I was a little reluctant, very reluctant in fact, because the more I thought, the more I’m probably going to wind up with a Washington office career. And I liked it here. I had a home here. Pauline Cannady: But there was, you also liked the hatcheries and they weren’t so interested in hatcheries. Bruce Cannady: Well, you spent your time in Washington, DC, and you know that it’s different. Jerry Grover: I had two trips, yes. Bruce Cannady: It’s a different climate. Jerry Grover: Yes, it is. Bruce Cannady: Completely different climate. Jerry Grover: Well, the people at the time, did Bill Hagen have a college degree? Bruce Cannady: Oh, yes. Everybody had it. Jerry Grover: Everybody. The people that were back there then, so you were, you felt out of place? Bruce Cannady: Well, when I was in Portland, the Assistant Director, I mean, Assistant Regional Director Barnaby had his masters and he begged me to go to Washington, and I kept telling him I could go and I’m sure I’m smart enough, but I know a few people in Washington that would resent the hell out of anybody that would even think they should have any kind of a promotion, and I’m not going to get into this, and I didn’t.Pauline Cannady: And so when he come home, they called me and talked to me, tried to, said, “Get him to come to Washington.” Jerry Grover: Who was that? Is that Barnaby or was it Bill Hagen? Pauline Cannady: No, I don’t know. Bruce Cannady: Bill Hagen sat, stood in my house one evening, told Pauline, “Goddam it, you’ve got to get him to go back there or he’s just going to sit here and rot.” So I sat here and rotted. Pauline Cannady: And he enjoyed it. Jerry Grover: Okay. So now you’re out here. You were, you said you came out when you came back from Washington DC under the training program. You came back as what, essentially the same job? Bruce Cannady: When I came here, see, when I came here in 1957, Ned Tuttle was the Supervisor of Hatcheries, and I was the Assistant, and that was it. There was two of us was all. Just before I left in 1960 to go back to this, that, and the other, Marv Smith came in. I approved him in fact. He had to have my approval because we’ve got to have a man; “what would you think of Marv Smith?” I thought he would be great. Anyway and then he came and I, I had to leave, and I was gone about eight months or so, or nine. So the two of them handled it then. So when I come back for the first time, we had three. Well a little later, (I don’t remember just when) Ray Vaughan came in and worked for us a couple of years, and then Paul Handy. Galen [Buterbaugh] was here. Oh, we had a lot of nice people going through here and going up, and up, and up. Paul Handy and John Miller were here up until the time I retired. I was the, somewhere in there, I became a, the Deputy, it isn’t Deputy, what do they call it? Anyway, Tuttle was the Supervisor of Hatcheries, and I was the Assistant, and that was it. Pauline Cannady: You were working with then. Bruce Cannady: Well, this, this was a little different. This, about five years before I retired, which would be about 1966, Kimmerick, when I came into Washington. He said, “one of these days I’m going to be going, and I’ve been into building hatcheries. Whatever has been going on, and you better kind of watch and do whatever you have to do as you go along because this is going to happen.” Well, he was right because about 1960, I don’t know, mid-í60's was when we had, began to build things like the big one out at Spring Creek. Jerry Grover: The rebuilding the Spring Creek. Bruce Cannady: And the one out at Dworshak. Jerry Grover: Dworshak Hatchery. Before that, Kooskia NFH. Bruce Cannady: Well, I also was into it for the State of Oregon here at Bonneville Dam. I was into some of the work that was being done in the Warm Springs reservation, down in California at the spawning channel at Red Bluff. I had Quinault and Makah Hatcheries up in northwest Washington, that was, Dan Slater agreed to have that. Well, and then I kind of helped out here and there on that, and anyway... Jerry Grover: So you were basically into the construction money bag, organizing? Bruce Cannady: That was the last five years I was working; I had a hand in, and one of the reasons I retired. We began to, we planned to move on these hatcheries that where were beginning to be constructed or were already half finished or wherever we were. One day the Corps of Engineers called me from Walla Walla and started telling me about the hatcheries that they were going to have built in eastern Washington, what they called, oh what was the name of these? Jerry Grover: That would be the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. Bruce Cannady: They wanted me too, they said. I said, “good Lord, this will take five years just to get the thing lined up and get people thinking it would be a good idea, and I’m not going to wait that long to retire.” And they kept bothering me so I retired, and it was never built. It was not planned. It would have been if I had been there, I think, but I don’t know, because I didn’t stay long enough. Interviewers Note: The Lower Snake Compensation Plan hatchery system was built and is operating as a joint venture between the Federal Corps of Engineers, the construction agency, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the budgeting & technical administrative agency and the States of Idaho and Washington, the operating entities. Jerry Grover: So you retired then in 1971. Bruce Cannady: Yeah. I was 58 years old. 32 years of service, and I had planned to wait until I was at least, well, maybe even 62, certainly 60, and the day that I went down to tell John Finely that I was going to retire, you wouldn’t believe it. We ate lunch, John and Gib Basset and a little group of us, and one of them said, “Hell, you’re not going to retire because we don’t even have any word about that.” The other one said, “Oh yes, we did.” It just fell on his lap just about 20 minutes ago. Pauline Cannady: You . Bruce Cannady: Oh, that is another hatchery. Jerry Grover: Lahontan, in Nevada. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, I was in on the end of that one too. I was into, I suppose I could sit down and probably count, there was probably eight of them, at least. Jerry Grover: And if they weren’t built brand new they were reconstructed, like Spring Creek. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, but some of them were new. Quinault was new. And Makah, yeah. And so was Warm Springs for the tribe. And the one in California was new, Tehama-Colusa, the spawning channel. The Russian River. That was one that California ended up operating. It was a Corps of Engineers project. Well, most of the time I knew who was going to operate. The one that finally come out that I thought was going to be built by the State, fell apart and we wound up with Spring Creek [National Fish Hatchery]. It was just one of those things. Because I was working with the states and we all knew what the policies were, and we might argue and talk about it, but when we got down to talking finally, like Bonneville Dam, there was no question about where it was going to be and how much it was going to be. But they were expecting one person to kind of carry the ball. Jerry Grover: They, the Corps? Bruce Cannady: When I began working with the Corps, hardly anybody was speaking with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It took me three years to get some fences mended, and when I finally got the fences mended with a lot of other help, guess what? --you just stood back and got out of the way, because they were going to build places like Dworshak whether you wanted it or not..Jerry Grover: Well, Dworshak, as I understand it, was going to be a state operated hatchery until halfway through and then Idaho backed out. Was that a surprise? Bruce Cannady: Not really, because I was almost sure that the Federal Government was going to build it because I had been talking along with the Corps, and we were talking about the State. We had to pay the state of Idaho, keeping the state aboard on every meeting we had and it was all at once clear. They said, “Jesus, this thing is going to be pretty big, isn’t it?” And I said, “You better believe it”. “Well, who is going to finance it?” And I said, “Well, that is something we have to begin to work out pretty soon, because there is going to be a lot of money involved.” Well what really broke it, I don’t know who the boss was, but he is one of the people that came in and he said, “Well, what we want to do is for you to give us the money and we will go ahead and build it.” And I said, “You people are foolish. If they ask you, like, we’ll say four million dollars short, and you’re three-fourths finished, what are you going to do then, dig up your own money? I said, “The Corps will never do that.” “Well, what will you do?” I said, “Just tell the Corps to build it, and it doesn’t matter.” It wound up ten million dollars is what it finally wound up, and that is when the Governor, whoever he was at the time, said, “Wait a minute, we’re not going to get into anything like this. This is too big for you. We don’t have anything in Idaho like this” So it was built by the U.S., and that is what happened. Jerry Grover: And then operated by us. We moved John Parvin Bruce Cannady: John still is alive. I’ve lost track because, I can’t believe that it’s been 30 years since all that stuff. You know, since I retired, except what was on board to build, I don’t think there is been anything built since then. They’ve talked about a couple up here, and I’ve often thought, if I was still working, if I was still working, I know of two of them in Washington that would have been built, and the State would have operated them. One of them was..............Niss…. Jerry Grover: Nisqually? Bruce Cannady: Yeah. Jerry Grover: Okay now, they did build that one, and the Indians are operating it because it’s on the reservation. Pauline Cannady: Can I say something? I don’t know whether you want me to say it or not. Jerry Grover: Pauline, wives are spouses and included. Pauline Cannady: The idea of taking out the dams is going way back. They gave up with the buggies, and oh, you have to go ahead. You cannot turn back. Bruce Cannady: Well, there are a whole lot of people who’d like to turn them back, take out all the dams. Jerry Grover: That is a major issue. Were the impact of those dams on the fish evaluated? Bruce Cannady: I was right in the middle of that. I was only 58, again, because I can tell you right now I would have been in there telling them that don’t be foolish now, don’t be foolish on this and leave it alone in the first place. The biggest mistake that was ever made right now is marking fish. We had enough data 30 years ago to know that about 90 percent of the fish come out of hatcheries and 10 percent are wild. That has never changed in 30 years; not one bit. And you know what with all that beautiful data, they could have stopped marking fish 30 years ago and say, 90 percent of these are fish hatchery, and you know, they wouldn’t be able to know the difference if they hadn’t marked, marked them all this time and clipped off a fin every time they did that. Pauline Cannady: They had the poor little fish from the hatcheries that were three-fourths dead before they ever got into the water. Jerry Grover: Well, I know when I was involved in the fin clipping thing, it was kind of addressed as the annual maiming program. The first thing that went was the adipose, and then you chose between a right or a left ventral. Bruce Cannady: And now they keep arguing about, well these fish are not as good as the wild fish. Well why not? Jerry Grover: You don’t believe that argument, Bruce? Bruce Cannady: Do you think that you could take off a couple of fins and not harm them? That doesn’t even make sense. Pauline Cannady: You think you could handle a little tiny fish and take all that... Bruce Cannady: See, she is an old, she spent several springs marking fish. Jerry Grover: You were part of the fish marking crew? Like a lot of the hatchery wives did that... Pauline Cannady: Yes. Jerry Grover: ...picked up a little part time money going down and clipping? Bruce Cannady: Did Judy [Jerry’s wife] do any of that? Jerry Grover: Yes, she did. She clipped fins at Coleman until she was blue in the face. Pauline Cannady: I did it in California. Then I did it again in the state of Washington. Bruce Cannady: But it was a good way to make money and work a few months. Jerry Grover: Yeah, at the rate they paid you, it was always a little extra money. Bruce Cannady: Sure. Jerry Grover: And Judy, for example, split a job with another hatchery wife. I mean, we both had little kids, and so one would clip in the morning and look after the kids, and the other one would clip in the afternoon while the other one looked after the kids. They each got four hours work in, and so they had a little pocket money. Bruce Cannady: Well, I thought it was great, but I still think if they’d just stop marking fish, they’d all be better off and save an awful lot of money. But I don’t know where it is going to go anyway. I have no idea. Pauline Cannady: Well, they won’t have any fish if take out the dams, because it is going to rile up all that under the area, you know, and the fish can’t stand that.Bruce Cannady: All the sludge. They’ve got a lot of those going here in downtown Portland. Jerry Grover: Dredging the Willamette River, you’re talking about? Pauline Cannady: Yeah. Jerry Grover: Stirring up the sediment. Pauline Cannady: But a time when Bruce was still at the hatchery in the state of Washington, they cleaned up the . It was all pure and clean, and I don’t know what, the first thing I know they just forget it. After they do something, they don’t think they have to maintain it. The same way with buildings. They feel like if they build it, why then they don’t have to do a thing to take care of it. From the date, if you buy a house... Bruce Cannady: Maintenance programs have always been on the low lowest priority Jerry Grover: And that was part of the areas you looked at too, the cyclical maintenance program, trying to get money just to... Bruce Cannady: Just trying to get enough money to keep things going, and I remember that one year that I was in Washington, DC and I was talking to Abe Tunnison, [Chief, NFH System] and Abe knew the figures because he’d been with them for several years. He told me one day, he said, “You know, we’d like to have one and a half million dollars just in maintenance, and you know what we’re going to get?” I said, “What?” He said, “If we could just get a million and a half every year” When I went to the Corps when they brought in Dworshak the first year, I helped put the budget together with the Corps. I said, “I want a million dollars.” “A million dollars? It is brand new.” I said, “In the first place, we’re going to spend a million just correcting all the things that are not done right during construction, and then after that we need it just to keep things going well as we go along, because there will be a lot of things that we’ll find out that should have been done right during construction and wasn’t done,” And I said, “When we finally get through with this we will find out that we should have that ten percent from day one, not wait until about the 15th year and then try to catch up, because you never catch up.” Jerry Grover: Good philosophy. How come that never sold, except with Dworshak? Bruce Cannady: Because it’s maintenance. You will never solve a maintenance program anywhere because you don’t cut, clip clippings, I mean, cut ribbons like they do on a new one, whatever you... Jerry Grover: Yes, okay. So even with Abe, you think Abe was an able leader as far as being able to get money into the budget? Was there a leadership problem in Washington, or is it just the acceptance of Congress? Bruce Cannady: I don’t know about Abe or Carson. I didn’t know him, I didn’t know he as well as I did Tom Barnaby, and I always remember what Tom said once about people. He said, “You know, I was in research for 20, 25 years before I wound up as an administrator,” and he said, “I will tell you right now,” and by the way I did this for my 50th, I said, “Anyone that starts out to get a degree in anything should have to take administration, public administration, whatever. Just, if nothing else, a couple of classes as you go to know what budgets are and this sort of thing, because if you go in as an... Pauline Cannady: Engineer.Bruce Cannady: Well, engineer or chemist or whatever, you are not even going to think about budgets or money or anything like that.” How many classes did you have in administration? Did you... Jerry Grover: Bruce, I’d like to ask you about high points and low points on your caree with the Service.. Bruce Cannady: Good high points, and it seemed like every time something like Spring Creek finally fell into our lap and expanded Dworshak, but it seemed like every one of these was some kind of a high spot because I felt like, and the people and myself were really doing something well for everybody in the long, long run. Jerry Grover: And the resource? Bruce Cannady: And the resource. I’m still a hatchery man because I think that the people that thought up hatcheries 125 years ago were on the right track then, and they still are on the right track, and if they hadn’t have been on it I don’t know where we would be with Pacific salmon today. I’m still a hatchery man because I think that the people that thought up hatcheries 125 years ago were on the right track then, and they still are on the right track, and if they hadn’t been on it I don’t know where we would be with Salmon today. Jerry Grover: Are you saying that without hatcheries you don’t think there’d be salmon in the Columbia River, for example? Bruce Cannady: If they’d have never, if nobody had figured out a way to have hatcheries, what would have happened? Not very, nothing very good would have happened because they would have finished catching every salmon. They of course are doing that with others species too. One of my big, one of my high spots, believe it or not, was coming to the Regional Office. I never expected to make it; never even thought of it for several years until I went, Pauline and I had gone to, down to New Orleans, all the ways down for a trip. I think it was May or June, and I had just got back. I was feeling pretty good. We’d had such a lot of fun and so forth. I said, “You know, we ought to do this more often,” and so on and so forth, and Al Kimmerick and Bill Hagen and, they me, and one of the fellows, he was a predecessor of Abe Tunnison, I think he was there. I think there was three of us, and they had stopped, and we were going, I think we were going into lunch or something, and I’d gotten in the back seat. One of them was driving, and all at once one of them, we were just, one of them turned around and said, “Would you mind going to Portland to the Regional Office one of these days?” That is a high spot. Pauline Cannady: About his retirement, they had a retirement and all the, all those folks that he’d ever worked with in the state... Bruce Cannady: That was the biggest, the biggest, were you here then? Jerry Grover: No, I think in that year I would have been in DC and going through the Departmental training program, so I was not here. Bruce Cannady: Well, I don’t think they’ve had another one after that that was as big as that. Art Hughey who also retired and I were in there. Art went first. Art knew, he was an engineer, and well, he knew the people inside the Service and a few others, but not really like I had. I couldn’t believe, the old Columbia Edgewater was absolutely crammed, and they had come from California and Nevada and all over the place. Pauline Cannady: All the states that he had representatives Bruce Cannady: Every one that I’d ever worked with. Goddam, they showed up, and I tell you, it just made me feel good. Talk about a high spot, now there was a high spot. Pauline Cannady: They gave him things. Yeah, that was nice, very nice But for low points, I don’t know. I was disappointed when I didn’t get to be Regional Supervisor and Smith got it. That was kind of a blow because I thought I was told that I was going to get it. Ned Tuttle was retiring. I thought I was, turned out that it was a man in Washington had another idea, so that was that. And Smith and I got along very well through the years. I mean, we’re good friends. We play bridge together. He’s a better bridge player than I am. Jerry Grover: If you had to categorize all those things that you did in your career, what was the most pressing issue that you had to address? Which is the button that seemed to push the hardest or lit up the biggest? Bruce Cannady: My job here in the Regional Office. Jerry Grover: It would be. Out of your career has there been someone, Bruce, that you could point to that had been a particular mentor or somebody that really influenced you, been helpful? Is there a single individual? Bruce Cannady: Two of them. I think Al Kimmerick and Tom Barnaby. They were both, when I came into the Regional Office, they both had just been Assistant Regional Directors, and he [Tom] had moved into this new job at the same level as the Regional Director on this program they were going to have that had just started not too long after the war, doing something, not just hatcheries, everything, and of course still trying to do. He was in that. Of course, Tom Barnaby was Assistant Regional Director, both of them, for a long time. Now like I said earlier, I never thought of them as . I liked them both, and I liked them so well that when I retired, (well they both retired ahead of me) when I retired, we kept right on visiting back and forth. In fact, up until a couple of years before Kimmerick died, we had a meeting down in southern Portland or else down at Salem once a month, just chewing the fat. People like Harland Johnson [Hatchery Biologist] was there all the time. We just got together. We liked each other, and kind of a friendship thing that was far beyond what ever we did at hatcheries. Both of them, for a long time. Jerry Grover: It was far beyond co-workers or... Pauline Cannady: Tell them about Harland Johnson having, once every fall we all got together. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, you knew about Harland having annual meeting of retirees. Jerry Grover: Yeah, I wasn’t a retiree when he was doing that, and then when I got retired, why, he had passed. Bruce Cannady: Went down, God, he didn’t last long. Pauline Cannady: Oh, we loved that. We all got together. Bruce Cannady: Oh, yeah. You would have enjoyed that. Marv come to that every year too, after he retired. Marv was in about, I think he was in four or five years after I retired. I don’t really remember, but I remember him telling me once that, that he (and I didn’t know that until he told me a little later), he said, “You know, when I finally retired they were about ready to throw me out of here.” I said, “Youíre kidding!” “Well,” he said, “it wasn’t that. I can last as long as ever, but,” he said, “they had taken away a lot of things we used to do” Are they still doing those things like in hatcheries and so forth? Are they reorganizing? Jerry Grover: Well, at the time that I think Marv was talking about was when they were reorganizing and going into Area Offices. The Regional Supervisor for Fisheries, a lot of the operations responsibilities going out to three Area Offices - one in Olympia, one in Boise, and one in Sacramento. Bruce Cannady: That’s what he was talking about! And so they just, kind of eliminated the stuff that was being done in the Regional Office, and then talking with Marv, he was unhappy with that. They demoted him from a 14 to 13. He told me some about it, but I didn’t ask him too much. Well, I asked him what it was all about, but I don’t remember exactly, but that’s been 20 years ago or so. Jerry Grover: Yeah, that was a trial for 5 years. They were reorganizing, they still are, Bruce. Things haven’t changed. Bruce Cannady: Somebody told me awhile back about, and they were telling me, and I said, “Gee, that sounds like the one in 1957 when they called them Tom, Dick, and Harry.” Tom Barnaby, Dick Griffith, and Harry ?; he was the head of River Basins or whatever. He was one of them. They were the three original. They said, and I thought it, that was the way it was when I come in, and they said... Jerry Grover: Reorganization, you’re talking about. Bruce Cannady: Yes. They had that organization going for about four or five years, and then all at once they scrapped it and did something else, and they were telling me, he was describing what was going on, and I said, “Jesus, that sounds like the one they had in 1957.” Jerry Grover: Well, how many reorganization changes did you see in the Service? You talk about the Tom, Dick, and Harry, and we were just mentioning area offices. Bruce Cannady: I come in 1949...and the Bureau of Fisheries, and they didn’t, and the Wildlife people were over in a separate field. 1951, they pulled them back for the first time together. Jerry Grover: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife? Bruce Cannady: Fish and Wildlife, yeah, Bureau of Sport Fisheries, no. No, this was the one ahead of that. They had that together. Then I went through that before I even left Leadville, and then when I came to, in fact, they finally were just getting their first people together into, I called Albuquerque. I was in Leadville. I was supposed to come out to Portland, and I’d waited for, they’d even stopped sending me checks. I tried this one and that one. They were out of the office. Well, I wound up [talking] to the Regional Director and I explained to him. He said, “I’ll get into it. I’ll let you know about it.” Boy, did he. Two days later I had my papers. Pauline Cannady: They’d already shipped our furniture. We were without our furniture, sleeping on the floor. Bruce Cannady: We shipped our furniture from Colorado clear out here to Washington, and I don’t know, I still don’t know where everything was or what they did, but I’ll tell you, he called and he must have moved somebody because I had papers and was on my way in two days. And then the next one [reorganization] they had was just before I came into the office because that was the Tom, Dick, and Harry, and Leo Lace and that group, and then they had another one. Well, that was a, that was in 1957. By 1958 and 9 was when they split the Commercial Fisheries out, away, and left us Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in Washington, Jerry Grover: And then the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Bruce Cannady: That was the one, that was my second one, if you call it one. Yeah, that is my second one. Now, that went on until about the time I retired. They were already talking about another one, and right after that they set up these Regional or District Offices, or whatever they called them. When was this, about 1972 or 3? Jerry Grover: 1971. Reorganization plan number four that the President signed creating NOAA and National Marine Fisheries Service, and they moved Commercial Fish over into there and called them NMFS Pauline Cannady: That is when he retired. Jerry Grover: And they dropped the name Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and just said Fish and Wildlife Service, which is what we’ve been since. Bruce Cannady: Think they’ll ever bring them together? Jerry Grover: Well, I understand Bruce, that last week Secretary Babbitt said they need to be together. Pauline Cannady: There is another highlight. He had another highlight. He went to Red Bluff and he got there on the train, and he was getting off the train, and here was a band and everything, and he thought, “Whoa, a movie star probably is coming off.” He got off, and they were honoring him, the whole city. They gave him a Stetson and they, I don’t know what all they gave him. Bruce Cannady: That was about two weeks before I retired, and I was... Jerry Grover: That was because of Tehama-Colusa? Bruce Cannady: A bunch from Red Bluff that I’ve gotten pretty well acquainted with being in and out of there, and I remember I was, got in late, about 6:00 or so, and what his name took me over to this, oh, there was about eight or ten in the group. Jerry Grover: Was Dale Schonaman there then? Bruce Cannady: Yeah, Schonaman. They had sandwiches, and we got to visiting and God, I guess 10:00 or so. So I kind of got acquainted with all these guys, and then all at once when they decided to have this affair they really bowled me over. I didn’t know about that at all. They just, that was right out of, I thought this band and everything, they were going t o have a parade of some kind. It turned out the whole damn thing was for me. Jerry Grover: Overall, would you gauge that it’s been a good career and the Fish and Wildlife Service is good to work for? Bruce Cannady: If I had to go over and do it again, I’m sure I would. I might like one or two of the spots we could do without, but what the hell, you have to take the good and the bad and the bad and the good, so...Jerry Grover: But there was more good than bad? Bruce Cannady: was a good one, and I think that I had a lot to do with things. You’ve been in your career. You’re now retired. Can you look back and feel like you did a lot of good while you were there? You have to. Jerry Grover: Oh, I do. I didn’t, you know, but some folks left with a red ass. You know, they walked out the door of the Fish and Wildlife Service and never looked back and I don’t feel that way at all. I gave 36 and a half years of my life. I felt good that I did. I liked the Fish and Wildlife Service. I too would do it again. Bruce Cannady: Well, I used to say, if you don’t enjoy what you’re doing, by God you better get another line of work because it is only one road that you’re going down, and if you’re not going to be happy while you’re going, you better find another road of doing it. Jerry Grover: Have you found people were jealous of the job that you had, envious? Bruce Cannady: When I thought of it, I immediately discarded it because I thought that it was a waste of time trying to decide whether you were liked. When I was a boss, as a manager out there, you know when you’re in here it is different, it is a different deal. It’s like if you were in Washington; that is a different deal. Everything is different. When I was out there I always had, I used to say, you know, being a manager is the toughest job of all because you are trying to make people happy, and you can’t make people happy. I always remember Tom, or John Pelner. When I was leaving to come up to Carson he said, “Bruce, remember this: no matter what you do with those fellows, there is going to be days. They’re going to hate your guts,” and he’s right. Pauline Cannady: He only had one fellow leave, and he didn’t want to fire him, but he was so incompetent. Bruce Cannady: Ben Crosby. Pauline Cannady: Yeah, so he brought him in and talked to him and everything like that. Finally, what did you do about him? Bruce Cannady: I run into him once in Portland, and he was nice. Well, he was a tough guy to... Pauline Cannady: A college fellow. Bruce Cannady: He graduated from the University of Wyoming, and he was as out of his depth here as if he was in water 90 feet deep, and he had the nicest wife and they were, in fact when I said I, it was five and a half months, I said, “I’ve got to decide whether you’re going to go or not, and I think you ought to go, really.” Pauline Cannady: They had six month probation. Bruce Cannady: “You’ve just made enough mistakes that I think you ought to go, and I don’t like it.” And all he said, “Well, that is all right.” He said, “You know, we’re expecting a baby, and I wonder if I could stick around here for about another month or two” I said, Sure.” The only one that I can swear that I finally, and I always remember the people in the office. I told them that a couple of times that I had this problem and I might have to let him go and, “Oh yeah, we’ll back you up, fine and dandy. We’ll back you up.” Then when I had to drop it on the desk in paper, this guy is going oh, good God. They just turned around about this 180 degrees. I’m sure you had, you were in that same spot a few times. Bruce Cannady: I have known people like Pelner and so on. Benny Cox –did you know Benny? Jerry Grover: I knew Benny. Knew John when I was at Coleman. John would come by and coach the running of the hatchery down there. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, and you knew, of course you knew Harland. Jerry Grover: I knew Harland and Steve Leak, who was his assistant. Bruce Cannady: He surprised me. He left a little sooner than I thought he would, so I, that was before you came in. I’m trying to think, you were, who did you follow? Jerry Grover: Well, I came to the Region three different times, Bruce. Bruce Cannady: You would think when you talk about a hatchery, we always want to go get one of these guys that’s out of the eighth grade somewhere. But I was wanting to get college graduates. I was meeting with Bill Hagen, Chief of Fish Hatcheries and he was describing the great benefit of college graduates with fishery science degrees. And when he got through expounding this he said, “What do you think? “ And I could talk faster I guess, always than Tuttle, but I said, “When and how much, you kidding. We will take six.” He said, “No, I’m not kidding.” I said, “I tell you, we’ve got to get these kind of people in.” Yes sir, and he said, “Fine and dandy.” Now, about this time, Jimmy Warren came wandering into the office. He come wandering in the office in an Army uniform looking for a job. That’s how he came to be aboard with us because boy, I’d began to snap these people right up, right now. I didn’t know who he was or what he was like, but I always remember that I asked for six people, and I got them. You can name them probably today, Bill Walsdorf was one of them. Okay. I know Ken Higgs would have to be in that crowd or close to it. Russ Ferg, Paul Hemrick, Einer Wold, Jack Kinchloe. I’m trying to think, I don’t know my names anymore. Jerry Grover: You said Jim Warren. Bruce Cannady: He wasn’t one of that six. He was extra, and there was another one. But that is when we got them in. The minute they graduated we sent them through this two years plan. You worked at the hatchery one year, then you’d go to Courtland In-service fish nutrition training school and then you’d go to Leetown fish health course, or vice versa, and all of that come right of that little conversation that we had with Bill Hagen. It was Bill Hagen that did it, and he did it there in about five minutes. Jerry Grover: That seemed like that was a major change or a major move for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish Hatcheries. It changed forever the look of the Fish and Wildlife Service Pauline Cannady: You went to the college and talked to fellows. Bruce Cannady: What was the big guy that was at Carson? Jerry Grover: Don Zirjacks.Bruce Cannady: No, he was bigger. He went to, he went to school, but he went to Boston. He was in Boston, and then he came back out here. He was, he was a trainee, but it was some kind. Jerry Grover: Don Zirjacks. He never got a degree. He was in the GS-488 series, but they converted them all. He was grandfathered in, and he still was a hatchery manager, and he managed Carson... Bruce Cannady: At one time I knew these guys and I knew the program, and I’d been there, I was in there from day one. I had some criticism from different ones. I always remember Tuttle said once, he said, “You know, at one time we always thought if a guy worked hard he would go right on up until he became a manager.” I said, “Well, that has nit changed, we still have a bunch of people doing the same things.” Jerry Grover: Well, it kind of kick started these college graduates because instead of starting as a Fish Culturist 1 or a GS-1, you started them out as a GS-5. They got up a few ladder rungs. Did you see any conflict with the people on board when you started bringing these college people in, because you were showing them some favoritism by bringing them in at a higher grade and then sending them to Courtland or Leetown after one year? Bruce Cannady: I talked to some of them at the time and I said, You know, at least for a few years and probably as long as you’re working you will have the same chance as any one else, it’s just going to be a little bit tougher, and it was, of course. We got some very good people. God, I thought once, I spent an evening with Ken Higgs, and we got into two or three arguments about this and that, and I was absolutely amazed. He was so goddamn smart. I mean, he knew what he was talking about, and that was the kind of people I wanted in the hatchery program. Jerry Grover: Good. They all turned out to be successful, turned out to be managers or hatchery biologists or station biologists like Walsdorf. Bruce Cannady: I never really knew them before. I had them on paper, and we picked them. I always remember that when they went to work, all six of them, I told Ned one day, I said, “You know, we’re going to be lucky if we keep two of these people.” And several years later I said, “I’ll be damned, we kept all six of them.” Wasn’t that something? But that was a good, that was a good program. I don’t know how it went in the other part of the system, whether Bill did the same, but Bill, God, he told me later, he said, “Boy you just went for this hand over fist, just wanted it badly.” He said, “Here I thought maybe people would be against this, and you weren’t” Well, I said, no, anybody in their right mind would go for this kind of a program. It is going to cost some money, and I said, “Bill,” I said, “I don’t worry about it.” And we didn’t. Jerry Grover: This was the professionalization of the Fish Hatchery program, bringing in the college graduates. Jerry Grover: You didn’t lie to these guys, did you? Bruce Cannady: No. Jerry Grover: To get them on board? See, I was told, I was working as a Fisheries Management Biologist in California doing professional and scientific fisheries management things. Fish hatcheries people were thought of as a kind of like, a low life. They were the ones that would shoot a doe deer out of season, you know, and probably would keep an undersized fish if they caught it and hide it. I was hired back in Region 5. I was told you were going to be a Fisheries Management Biologist in this poor, backward state of West by God Virginia, you know, the land of John L. Lewis and the coal miners and the unions and screwed up habitat, and they needed professional biologists back there, but you’ll be stationed at a hatchery in White Sulphur Springs. I go back there, and guess what my first job was? I was sweeping fish shit out of the ponds. Bruce Cannady: That wasn’t always fun. Jerry Grover: Then I got into high tech grass cutting. Pauline Cannady: When Bruce was at Cortland, New York, they tried to talk him into staying there and taking over the hatchery portion of the training school Bruce Cannady: Art Phillips wanted me to stay there. Pauline Cannady: And boy, I tell you, that weather. Bruce Cannady: John Maxwell was already going to go, they already had made up their mind that John was going to go to the office in Boston, and he wanted me to stay. Well, it was the same job that a couple years later that Ray Vaughan had. Jerry Grover: Okay, I didn’t remember Ray being at Cortland. I remember him being at Lamar. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, he was at Cortland before he went to Lamar. Anyway, I said, “I don’t want to do that. I’m a westerner and I’ve been here a year, and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it, but I’d like to go home.” I told them I just feel like a long way from home. So he let me go home, but I, you know, Art, I don’t know how many times I think he had dinner with us in Portland here, a couple of three times. Well, what else? Jerry Grover: Stories. You talk about Cookie, the manager at the Creston, MT, hatchery. There is always so many stories told about Cookie. Are any of those true, you suppose? About the one, I can remember one about a... Bruce Cannady: Did you ever read, did you ever happen to read one of his letters? He would write. Don’t know whether I ever, I’m sure I told you. He’d write epistles. Jerry Grover: Yes, one that... They should have framed those things. Bruce Cannady: He’d start in and he’d write, and about the time that he’d sign the goddamn thing he’d have an afterthought, so he would write up on the side of the page, and then he would have another one and he’d write it on the other side, write it along the bottom. He would turn it over and God, he’d have these addendums would just go on and on and on, and most of, I don’t know why he even bothered about writing, and I don’t know that he ever, you know, in the office. He’d have the people all doing this and that, and he would be out feeding the fish. He loved to feed the fish. He was a manager, so he got to feed the fish. Jerry Grover: The fun part. On the letters again, I understand everything. I’ve heard that same story about Cookie writing the letters in big long epistles. He’d write on the back side, he’d add a second page and then he would say, “Oh heck, forget the whole thing, I’ve changed my mind.” Then he would sign it and send it in.Did you ever... Bruce Cannady: I tell you, he was a classic. Jerry Grover: He was also the guy, I heard the story about him looking over the surplus property list, always trying to find some he needed at the hatchery for free. There was this drilling machine in Seattle and he said, “God that would be just what they needed in the shop,” and so he puts in a request and gets it shipped there, and the guy from, from the train station called and said he had a delivery for the hatchery, and he said, “I’ll be right down and pick it up.” The train station guy said, “What do you mean, it is on two flat cars.” Well, this drilling machine was something for 16 inch guns that came out of the Naval base in Seattle, and then Cookie had to pay to send that darn thing back, which was a bunch of money. Bruce Cannady: I remember the story, but I had forgotten all about it, but that is him exactly, he was going to get this little thing and wound up he had two flat cars. Hell’s fire, he had to get a drag line crane to move anything like that, but that was Cookie. He, oh boy, and I tell you, I’ll tell one story about him. I generally would like to stay in a hotel, but this time, particular time when I said I’m coming, why old Cookie says, “Well, be sure and stay with us,” and I started to hesitate and he said, “No, I’m not taking no for an answer. You’ve got to stay with us.” So I told him all right. So I spent the night with him. His wife, I’m trying to think what her name is, I can’t think, but anyway, then I said something later about it and they said, “Oh Jesus, she is the best cook in the world.” I got it. Oh boy, was she a cook. Jerry Grover: Well there were some characters in the Fish and Wildlife Service up and down the river, and there is some hard drinking, hard poker playing. Bruce Cannady: You knew, I think you did, Bob McElrath. His wife, his wife... Well, she lives over here at the coast at Manzanita. Jerry Grover: What about other old characters on the river here in the system? John Pelner was one. He is kind of, I don’t know whether there is any stories... Bruce Cannady: John and I had a falling out and I’ve always regretted it, and its one of those things that I just had a brainstorm that I should’nt have, something else. John and I had been very good friends ever since I knew him, almost except for the very last before he retired. When I left Battle Creek and went up to Coleman, John and I, John didn’t want me to come up there at all. He later changed his mind and in fact, I found out later that of all the people that did him. When I left Battle Creek and went up to Coleman, John did not recommend anybody to be promoted. I was one of the very few that John did. He thought that was all right. When I first got up there, I’d only worked there about two weeks. It was spring and we began to change things around, and I had to get a crew out here to work, clean and whatever they were doing, and I sent them out. We’d had some bad weather, and we hadn’t done anything for a couple, three days. Well all at once this morning we have nice weather, so I sent a crew out there, and then I walked up to the hatchery and ran into John, and John began to give me hell because these people were not working and they were supposed to be out working, and by God, what are you doing, blah, blah, blah. John really, he could do this and I waited until he ran down, and then I really told him off. He had made me mad, so I made him mad right back because I pointed out, “There are four men out there working right now and doing what I’ve already told them. Now what are you talking about?” Blah, blah, and he turned around and he apologized, and we, I had already been told for years that John, if he’d ever get on top of you he’d just beat you right into the ground. I had made up my mind that was never going to happen to me even if I had to leave town. So I waited for him when I got this time, and then I took care of him. Well anyway, it went on until after he retired, and I get this notice that instead of, he had a home down in Red Bluff, but he was staying there, and that was against that particular required occupancy rule for hatchery housing at the time. Now as it happened, not long after that, the thing came up with Benny Cox at Spring Creek and I did what I should have done the first time with John, and I didn’t. I told Benny, I called him and told him, I said, “You are not supposed to do this.” “Well,” he said, “I’m kind of in a bind”, and I said, “Just leave it alone.” So I went to the Chief of Administration and... So I got an okay and we handled it all verbally, and he was gone in a couple of weeks and everything was taken care of. But in John’s case, instead of me doing what I should have done the second time, I told him what I’m what am I going to do, words like this. So for some reason, Tuttle was gone, and I wrote a letter and went to have the Regional Director sign it. John Finley got it. He sent it back. He said, “Oh!” I said, ”It’s the rule. What are we going to do about it?” He said, “Well I don’t know, it’s kind of your problem. If you want to write a letter, go ahead.” That was a mistake. That was my, his first mistake, and mine was listening to him because I went ahead and I wrote the letter and I signed it as Acting Regional Supervisor, and John never forgave me. Jerry Grover: Basically you told him to move back on the hatchery or move out, retire. Bruce Cannady: Something like that. And instead, he compounded it. What he should have done was given me a ring and said, “Jesus, I’m in a trouble,” and we would have worked it out, and I would have taken the second route and got him out of it. Instead, the last time I saw John he was still mad. I ran into him in Red Bluff at something or other and he made some remark, and I said, “John, I’m sorry,” because at the time it was just one of those things probably shouldn’t have happened, but it did, but he never forgave me. Jerry Grover: John, what I remember of John Pelner, at least in his later years, that he always smoked these roll-your-own cigarettes, and he always set back, and there was always little sparks. He didn’t have a shirt that didn’t look like it had been shot with a shot gun. I mean, just full of little burnt holes. Bruce Cannady: Yeah, oh yes. John was, I tell you, I loved John. I liked him, and we got along fine, and I always regretted that last damn incident that, I didn’t have any idea that he would react like he would, that he would do something or other, maybe call or whatever, and I look back, I think, Jesus, I should have called him first, you know and said, “Look, you’re in trouble on and you’re causing me a lot of trouble. We’ve got to work something out here.” I just did it wrong. Jerry Grover: I’m going end the interview here. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me and share your life. Many thanks! Images Source File Name 10724.pdf Date created 2012-12-13 Your rating was saved. you wish to report: |
Emanuel AME Church
110 Calhoun ST
This brick Gothic Revival-style church with its tall steeple replaced an earlier 1872 church badly damaged by the 1886 earthquake. Built in 1891, it retains its original altar, communion rail, pews, and light fixtures. The sanctuary is one of only a few unaltered religious interiors in Charleston that date from the Victorian period. Today Emanuel is the oldest African Methodist Episcopal church in the South and houses the oldest black congregation south of Baltimore, MD. The history of this congregation reflects the development of religious institutions for African Americans in Charleston. Its roots stem from a religious group of free blacks and slaves organized in 1791. In 1816, black members of Charleston's Methodist Episcopal Church withdrew over disputed burial ground, and under the leadership of Morris Brown, formed a separate congregation. The church's 1,400 members soon after established themselves an African Methodist Episcopal church, a denomination formally established in that same year in Philadelphia, Pa. Two years later, Brown and other ministers of the church were jailed for violating state and local laws which prohibited religious gatherings of slaves and free blacks independent of white supervision. |
Study: Tai chi helps ease symptoms of Parkinson's Posted on February 9, 2012 by Chris Elkins in News By The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — The ancient Chinese exercise of tai chi improved balance and lowered the risk of falls in a study of people with Parkinson’s disease.
Symptoms of the brain disorder include tremors and stiff, jerky movements that can affect walking and other activities. Medications and surgery can help, and doctors often recommend exercise or physical therapy.
Tai chi (ty-CHEE’), with its slow, graceful movements, has been shown to improve strength and aid stability in older people, and has been studied for a number of ailments. In the latest study, led by Fuzhong Li of the Oregon Research Institute in Eugene, tai chi was tested in 195 people with mild-to-moderate Parkinson’s.
The participants attended twice-weekly group classes of either tai chi or two other kinds of exercise – stretching and resistance training, which included steps and lunges with ankle weights and a weighted vest.
The tai chi routine was tailored for the Parkinson’s patients, with a focus on “swing and sway” motions and weight-shifting, said Li, who practices tai chi and teaches instructors.
After six months of classes, the tai chi group did significantly better than the stretching group in tests of balance, control, walking and other measures. Compared with resistance training, the tai chi group did better in balance, control and stride, and about the same in other tests.
Tai chi training was better than stretching in reducing falls, and as effective as resistance training, the researchers reported. The improvements in the tai chi group continued during three months of follow-up.
Li said the study showed tai chi was safe. It’s easy to learn, and there’s no special equipment, he added.
“People are looking for alternative programs, and this could be one of them,” he said.
Estimates vary, but at least 500,000 people in the United States have Parkinson’s.
The findings are in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine. The study was paid for by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Dr. Chenchen Wang, who is studying tai chi for arthritis and fibromyalgia, said the results of the Parkinson’s research were “dramatic and impressive.” She heads the Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.
One of the study’s strengths: Researchers could measure the results directly instead of relying on the patients’ own reports, she said. But a placebo effect can’t be totally discounted, she said, since the participants knew which exercise program they were assigned and that could have influenced results. |
Businesses, police department trying to stem tide of fake IDs
Jan 31, 2013 | 2488 views | 0 | 9 | | DOVER-The Deerfield Valley attracts visitors of all ages year-round, to experience the secluded beauty of the seasons, or buy a lift ticket to shred the skiing and snowboarding slopes. But some visitors that are under 21 come with a piece of plastic in their wallet that they believe is a ticket to a fun time, a fake ID. But Dover police chief Robert Edwards says that fake IDs present a danger to both businesses and individuals alike, and he has spent decades combating their use both locally and statewide, and training businesses across the valley and Windham County on how to spot them. Last year Edwards teamed up with the Deerfield Valley Community Partnership to use a two-year, $40,000 grant from the Vermont Department of Health Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs to expand the program. As the Windham County coordinator of START (Stop Teen Alcohol Risk Team), Edwards says the goal is simple: Keep alcohol out of underage hands.“Over the past year we reached out around the country to other law enforcement agencies and developed what we consider to be one of the best training programs anywhere,” said Edwards. “This training is then provided to local law enforcement, bars, and stores.”The training that businesses receive combines both samples of real IDs and samples of fakes, and a sure-fire way of finding flaws through the use of LED lights and magnifying glasses that look for discrepancies, special insignias, and holograms. Edwards has tailored the false ID identification program to target the types of IDs that typically come through the valley, but even so, he says that training can become out of date within as short a time span as a year. This is because companies that make fake IDs continue to find new ways of changing the game, making higher quality fakes.For the employees of 7-Eleven in West Dover, the training has paid off. According to the store’s co-manager Chris, who asked to have his last name withheld from publication, the program has turned his employees into experts who, in a slow week, will net three to five, and on weekends, up to 10 in one day. The store’s proximity to Mount Snow, the destination of many out-of-staters, makes it the target of many of those who come to town with fake IDs in their pockets.“The people that work here do a great job protecting the business,” said Chris. “If somebody underage was to leave our store, get intoxicated, and do damage somewhere, there is liability involved and our employees do a good job of keeping alcohol out of underage hands.”Employees of stores like the West Dover 7-Eleven are sent to a state training session on fake IDs every 24 months, and each new employee is given on-the-spot training as well. “Our area bars and stores regularly call the Dover Police Department with yet another false ID,” said Edwards. “There have been approximately 50 cases just since mid-December 2012, and we follow up on each of these cases and because establishments do a great job getting plate numbers, we end up finding and charging 95% of the youth that attempt to use them.”Edwards says that in some cases, the results are immediate. Recently, a local retail business that has been operating for years received special on-site training. Within less than 30 minutes of receiving the training the business got its first false ID and several others within the week. One false Rhode Island driver’s license confiscated in West Dover came from ID Chief, an overseas company that is popular among college students. According to Edwards, overseas companies like chief ID have created a huge problem for US security. It is estimated that young people were sending $30 million a year to this company, which allowed it to produce even better fakes. The same store where the ID was confiscated was trained on this company’s tactics, and 14 more Rhode Island driver’s licenses were confiscated as a result “The problem is these fakes are not just popular with college kids, but also with identity thieves,” said Edwards.The training program was given a big boost this summer with a Vermont Department of Health grant, sponsored by the DVCP, whose mission is to reduce drug and alcohol use among youth. According to DVCP coordinator Cindy Hayford, the goal of the grant is to have a specific focus on local underage drinking.“Being a resort area, we’re a little different than the other communities in Windham County,” said Hayford. “We have so many young people coming in from the outside, and our local youth connect with other youths that are visiting at the mountain and that can become access if they have a false ID, and it can potentially put alcohol in our kid’s hands.”Hayford would like to see the program expand through other areas of the valley and beyond. She believes the DVCP’s partnership with Edwards and START can and will provide a wider area to cover. “The whole idea is around our goal of preventing underage drinking by preventing access and it lets businesses be part of the wall between kids and alcohol.”Edwards says that businesses should never look at the process as if they are the ones being watched because no business is trying to sell alcohol to minors, and to get the proper training puts law enforcement and local businesses on the same page. Edwards also expressed that minors often don’t know the ramifications of their actions, even though they can be heavy. “First and foremost they put businesses and employees at risk of criminal and civil liabilities if they end up selling to them,” said Edwards. “For the youth themselves just possession of a false, borrowed, or loaned driver’s license is a $293 fine and 60-day suspension of their driver’s license. We have also found out that their auto insurance is likely to go up as much as $600 per year. A conviction on this can cause them additional problems in the future; especially if they plan on joining the military or other job that requires a security clearance.”Minors can also be charged with “misrepresenting their age to purchase alcohol” which carries a $300 fine and 90-day suspension of their driver’s license. This is the most likely charge and if it is a first offense they are eligible for the Teen Alcohol Safety Program (TASP). This program includes a fine, alcohol assessments, and community service in order to come out with a clean record.
Discussions on what will become of the old school building gain momentum
Community discusses new uses for old school
Join author of “Mud Season” for laughs and stories
Hospital closure creates challenges for local towns |
Interview | You and Your FriendsLearn Posted on February 6, 2012 by victorrivero As an engineer, Bhargav Sri Prakash’s passion and perhaps, obsession, has been to dream of and implement scalable technologies to solve the world’s biggest problems. Bhargav was one of the many immigrants to the United States who left everything behind in pursuit of a graduate education. “Considering the criticality of education,” says Bhargav, “as it relates to being an enabler of human ability, the unfortunate circumstances surrounding its economic viability, the lack of scalability intrinsic to traditional models, and the sheer personal opportunities it has afforded me—I felt the urge to do some thing in this space.” Before FriendsLearn (an educational company delivering gamified 3-D experiences), Bhargav founded Vmerse, a commercially successful and patented 3-D MMO (massively multiplayer online) gaming platform to help universities recruit students. “It got me thinking more broadly about ways by which social gaming can deliver a scalable impact on education,” says Bhargav. Today, FriendsLearn exists to enhance human potential, through games on social networks and mobile devices. Educational gaming also happens to be a rapidly evolving space that according to NextUp Research, is a $2.8 Billion dollar a year market, growing at 35 percent a year. “My team and I are also inspired by some of the most insightful minds in tech, like Marc Andreesen, who predict that education is about to be disrupted through technology and is likely to generate the next Internet phenomenon. I created FriendsLearn to participate in this exciting opportunity,” says Bhargav, and he has a lot more to say in this interview. Enjoy!
Bhargav: The name focuses on the power of a user-centric and socially entertaining experience, in achieving learning objectives.
Victor: What is it and who created it?
Bhargav: FriendsLearn is an educational gaming company that is producing a pipeline of learning experiences on social networks and mobile devices. It was founded when I was a Fellow of the Kauffman Foundation’s KLABS Education Ventures initiative in 2011 and began to leverage my experience with games for college recruiting. Several key employees from Vmerse – my previous company – are now the people behind FriendsLearn. FriendsLearn is committed to define the cutting-edge of education using technology. Our first product “Your 5 Steps to US Study” has the distinction for being the world’s first and the only official gamified advising adventure from the US Department of State’s EducationUSA, to inform and compel all international students to the United States of America.
Bhargav: The gaming medium delivers almost unprecedented levels of cognitive engagement for the user. “Your 5 Steps to US Study” creates an immersive 3D experience for international students and delivers gamified information to them based on their chosen field of study within realistic environments. This demystifies the college search-match, financial planning, and visa-immigration processes for an international applicant. Our pipeline of social games has a learning objective and is designed to initially target our current user base of prospective international applicants. Our games deliver tremendous value for the user by offering richly engaging and social entertainment, highly personalized learning, goal oriented objectives, learning impact measurement, embedded analytics, credential tracking and publishing, through a highly scalable technology platform, which is available 24×7 on mobile devices. All this will be available at little, to no, direct cost to the user.
Victor: How is it unique? Any competitors? Bhargav: FriendsLearn brings together a proven team, patented technologies and a revenue generating business. There are very few social gaming companies that combine educational objectives with user engagement. We also have a strong brand that is backed by our track-record in delivering success through educational games. As the company chosen by the U.S. Department of State to create the official product that attracts all international students to the U.S. every year, we now have a unique platform, with access to our existing user base of several million users around the world. We are already building on this momentum. However, given our direct-to-consumer distribution channel, we compete with all social gaming companies and that is a pretty crowded space.
Bhargav: As a result of the significant and measurable increase in applications from international students at the universities where we had implemented Vmerse and our previous track-record, FriendsLearn was approached by the U.S. Department of State’s EducationUSA around the middle of 2011, to create and develop a gamified advising adventure to engage and compel international students to the United States of America. This led to our first product – “Your 5 Steps to US Study” – and now, we are working on a pipeline of direct to consumer social games for learning. Our first game title is “Fooya” and aims to help people learn about diet, nutrition and wellness. It is designed to cater to our user base of international students. As a former international student to the US myself, I know it would resonate with applicants from around the world, who may have limited exposure to food options in the US.
Bhargav: Our games are always free to play. Our business however has two channels of revenue. One allows FriendsLearn to gain revenue from B2B engagements, such as the one with the U.S. State Department, which are likely to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and can resemble ERP revenue models. The second component to our revenue is our direct-to-consumer channel, which will include a freemium model, sale of virtual goods/in-app purchases, and revenue from online advertising.
Bhargav: We have already launched “Your 5 Steps to US Study”, which can be obtained from U.S. Consulates and EducationUSA Advising Centers around the world. In the next few weeks, we will launch the same game on Facebook. In the next couple of months, we will launch “Fooya” on Facebook, which is our first title that aims to teach students about the health impact of the foods they encounter. We intend to develop games that revolve around more curriculum based topics in the future. You will be able to see examples on our website –
Bhargav: Our initial games are specifically tailored for international students who are interested in studying in the US. This basically means a teenager-young adult demographic comprised of prospective undergraduate/graduate students. Down the road, we intend to reach this demographic more broadly. We do not intend to cater to young children or K-7 in the near term.
Victor: Your thoughts on education these days?
Bhargav: Education today is largely the same as it has been for centuries. The model revolves around transmittal of knowledge from a teacher to several students, with the teacher (assisted by tools/technology/support staff etc) helping to mediate any exchanges between the students themselves. There clearly are limitations of scalability associated with such an approach. Also, due to the need for the teacher-student to participate synchronously, it relegates learning to a more theoretical exercise for a student, instead of providing an experientially contextualized and instantly reinforcing technique. Unfortunately, such a contextually relevant learning experience will need to be delivered to the student at any place and at any time, which means the teacher must be available always. The economic unsustainability of traditional education is what will drive disruptive technology enabled models. I think we have passed the proverbial “tipping point”, where the tools at hand will fundamentally transform education.
Victor: What sort of formative experiences in your own education helped to inform your approach to creating FriendsLearn?
Bhargav: I grew up in India, where the theoretical rigor and emphasis on exams were almost unhealthy! The college that I went to for my undergrad in engineering had nearly 200,000 applicants for an entering class of 400. We were trained and fine-tuned for mental calculations, which was the only way to achieve more on time-constrained examinations. This uni-dimensional approach to education develops very strong analytical capabilities with a bias against risk-taking and experimentation. The lack of practical reinforcement of such theory, also limited my ability to gain hands-on experience, and therefore fully grasp, scientific concepts. I then moved to the U.S. to attend the graduate program in Automotive Engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor because of my passion for cars. It was when I was a graduate student in Ann Arbor that I started my first company to commercialize my graduate research work in automotive simulation and design optimization, which gave me my first taste for entrepreneurship. I would say that my educational journey defines who I am today.
Victor: How does FriendsLearn address some of your concerns about education?
Bhargav: FriendsLearn is defining new boundaries with respect to a highly scalable social gaming platform, which is intended to serve as a solution to the problems faced by education. While we are positioned to tackle the constraints surrounding traditional methods of learning, we fully expect to learn and iterate quickly as we build a learning platform, which engages users at scale, provides a socially rich experience, delivers value to our users by providing them marketable credentials, and ultimately captures value by monetizing our platform in ways that do not impede the growth of our user base.
Bhargav: The world spends nearly $4 Trillion a year on education. Education is, however, dominated by traditional models that are not market driven and have thus largely been unchallenged by new models or ventures. Unfortunately, this affords those that thrive on the traditional model, the luxury of not having to to do more with less. With economic pressures mounting, it is only a matter of time before market-driven and user-centric innovation will drive the mantra of “cheaper, better, faster” into the world of education. Few can argue against the value of a well-educated society — we spend too much money, time and resources on education, for us to ignore higher standards and measurable results.
Victor: Got anything quirky or funny to share regarding your company? Bhargav: The game ideation and development phase is always the most exciting and tense period because everybody on my team brings their creative passion to the table and we have a culture of total creative freedom and camaraderie. Recently, one of our new college recruits went on to passionately defend an idea he proposed, which was opposed by the rest of team and lead to intense debate. I wanted to ensure that he has a fair shot at being able to communicate his idea, despite the fact that he was new to game programming itself. I went up to him and said, “listen dude, it sounds like you have a good idea and a lot of conviction for it. A good way to win over the others on the team, is to create a prototype of the game mechanic and let them play it after the company’s weekly happy hour”. A couple of weeks later he came back to thank me because it worked so well and I was thrilled at having helped new talent integrate in to our team. Just the other day, he came up to me and said “We have so many awesome ideas during the day and the best way to resolving debates, to drive consensus and increase productivity – daily happy hours”! We now meet twice a week at the end of the work day, for a team huddle, intense game demos and to resolve our debates on the company tab.
Victor: What else can you tell educators and other leaders in and around education about the value of FriendsLearn? Bhargav: FriendsLearn is aspiring to help make an impact on education through innovative technology and business models.
Victor: What makes you say that?
Bhargav: The real value to educators is that they can save increasingly scarce resources and achieve greater scalability, while reaching students through a medium that resonates with them. We know that we need the support and participation of educators to make a more insightful impact and will always keep this philosophy at the core of our company’s mission. We are keen to partner with educators and leaders in the space, who want to contribute towards defining the future of learning. |
Featured Animal: Ibis
By Azanimals
Ibis are a group of birds that are found all over the world, but more commonly in the more temperate regions of the southern hemisphere. Ibis are most well known for their long necks and beaks which help them to get food out of the water.
The ibis is found inhabiting areas where there are large amounts of water. The ibis enjoys to eat aquatic animals so it prefers to be in areas such as swamps, marshes and wetlands where food is in abundance.
There are roughly 30 different species of ibis found around the world, that vary in size and color depending on the species. The ibis can vary in size from the tiny 5cm tall dwarf olive ibis to the giant ibis which to grow to more than a meter in height and inhabiting the remote forests of Cambodia and parts southern Laos.
Ibis are generally very sociable birds that gather together in large flocks both to feed and to find a partner during the mating season. Despite their relatively large size, many species of ibis rest in the safety of the trees and not on the ground.
Although the ibis is an omnivorous bird that eats both plants and animals, when there are plenty of aquatic species about, the ibis has more carnivorous diet. The ibis hunts fish, insects, small reptiles, frogs, small mammals and crabs,which the ibis picks out of the mud using it's long and pointed beak.
Due to the relatively large size of the ibis, it has few natural predators besides large birds of prey that often steal the eggs of the ibis, or the young. Snakes are known to eat the ibis around the world, along with wild cats and foxes.
During the mating season, the female ibis builds a nest in the trees that is made out of sticks and reeds. Ibis commonly nest close to a large amount of water such as a river or a lake, with other water-birds such as herons. |
For other uses, see Abacus (disambiguation).
"Abaci" and "abacuses" redirect here. For the Turkish surname, see Abacı. For the medieval book, see Liber Abaci.
A Chinese abacus
Calculating-Table by Gregor Reisch: Margarita Philosophica, 1508. The woodcut shows Arithmetica instructing an algorist and an abacist (inaccurately represented as Boethius and Pythagoras). There was keen competition between the two from the introduction of the Algebra into Europe in the 12th century until its triumph in the 16th.[1]
The abacus (plural abaci or abacuses), also called a counting frame, is a calculating tool that was in use centuries before the adoption of the written modern numeral system and is still widely used by merchants, traders and clerks in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. Today, abaci are often constructed as a bamboo frame with beads sliding on wires, but originally they were beans or stones moved in grooves in sand or on tablets of wood, stone, or metal. The user of an abacus is called an abacist.[2]
The use of the word abacus dates before 1387 AD, when a Middle English work borrowed the word from Latin to describe a sandboard abacus. The Latin word came from Greek ἄβαξ abax "board strewn with sand or dust used for drawing geometric figures or calculating"[3] (the exact shape of the Latin perhaps reflects the genitive form of the Greek word, ἄβακoς abakos). Greek ἄβαξ itself is probably a borrowing of a Northwest Semitic, perhaps Phoenician, word akin to Hebrew ʾābāq (אבק), "dust" (since dust strewn on wooden boards to draw figures in).[4] The preferred plural of abacus is a subject of disagreement, with both abacuses[5] and abaci[5] in use.
Mesopotamian[edit]
The period 2700–2300 BC saw the first appearance of the Sumerian abacus, a table of successive columns which delimited the successive orders of magnitude of their sexagesimal number system.[6]
Some scholars point to a character from the Babylonian cuneiform which may have been derived from a representation of the abacus.[7] It is the belief of Old Babylonian[8] scholars such as Carruccio that Old Babylonians "may have used the abacus for the operations of addition and subtraction; however, this primitive device proved difficult to use for more complex calculations".[9]
Egyptian[edit]
The use of the abacus in Ancient Egypt is mentioned by the Greek historian Herodotus, who writes that the Egyptians manipulated the pebbles from right to left, opposite in direction to the Greek left-to-right method. Archaeologists have found ancient disks of various sizes that are thought to have been used as counters. However, wall depictions of this instrument have not been discovered,[10] casting some doubt over the extent to which this instrument was used.[original research?]
Persian[edit]
During the Achaemenid Persian Empire, around 600 BC the Persians first began to use the abacus.[11] Under Parthian and Sassanian Iranian empires, scholars concentrated on exchanging knowledge and inventions by the countries around them – India, China, and the Roman Empire, when it is thought to be expanded over the other countries.
Greek[edit]
The earliest archaeological evidence for the use of the Greek abacus dates to the 5th century BC.[12] The Greek abacus was a table of wood or marble, pre-set with small counters in wood or metal for mathematical calculations. This Greek abacus saw use in Achaemenid Persia, the Etruscan civilization, Ancient Rome and, until the French Revolution, the Western Christian world.
A tablet found on the Greek island Salamis in 1846 AD (the Salamis Tablet), dates back to 300 BC, making it the oldest counting board discovered so far. It is a slab of white marble 149 cm (59 in) long, 75 cm (30 in) wide, and 4.5 cm (2 in) thick, on which are 5 groups of markings. In the center of the tablet is a set of 5 parallel lines equally divided by a vertical line, capped with a semicircle at the intersection of the bottom-most horizontal line and the single vertical line. Below these lines is a wide space with a horizontal crack dividing it. Below this crack is another group of eleven parallel lines, again divided into two sections by a line perpendicular to them, but with the semicircle at the top of the intersection; the third, sixth and ninth of these lines are marked with a cross where they intersect with the vertical line.
The normal method of calculation in ancient Rome, as in Greece, was by moving counters on a smooth table. Originally pebbles (calculi) were used. Later, and in medieval Europe, jetons were manufactured. Marked lines indicated units, fives, tens etc. as in the Roman numeral system. This system of 'counter casting' continued into the late Roman empire and in medieval Europe, and persisted in limited use into the nineteenth century.[13] Due to Pope Sylvester II's reintroduction of the abacus with very useful modifications, it became widely used in Europe once again during the 11th century[14][15] This abacus used beads on wires; unlike the traditional roman counting boards; which meant the abacus could be used that much faster.[16]
Writing in the 1st century BC, Horace refers to the wax abacus, a board covered with a thin layer of black wax on which columns and figures were inscribed using a stylus.[17]
One example of archaeological evidence of the Roman abacus, shown here in reconstruction, dates to the 1st century AD. It has eight long grooves containing up to five beads in each and eight shorter grooves having either one or no beads in each. The groove marked I indicates units, X tens, and so on up to millions. The beads in the shorter grooves denote fives –five units, five tens etc., essentially in a bi-quinary coded decimal system, obviously related to the Roman numerals. The short grooves on the right may have been used for marking Roman "ounces" (i.e. fractions).
Chinese[edit]
Main article: Suanpan
Suanpan (the number represented in the picture is 6,302,715,408)
The earliest known written documentation of the Chinese abacus dates to the 2nd century BC.[18]
The Chinese abacus, known as the suànpán (算盤, lit. "Counting tray"), is typically 20 cm (8 in) tall and comes in various widths depending on the operator. It usually has more than seven rods. There are two beads on each rod in the upper deck and five beads each in the bottom for both decimal and hexadecimal computation. The beads are usually rounded and made of a hardwood. The beads are counted by moving them up or down towards the beam. If you move them toward the beam, you count their value. If you move away, you don't count their value.[19] The suanpan can be reset to the starting position instantly by a quick jerk along the horizontal axis to spin all the beads away from the horizontal beam at the center.[20]
Suanpans can be used for functions other than counting. Unlike the simple counting board used in elementary schools, very efficient suanpan techniques have been developed to do multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root and cube root operations at high speed. There are currently schools teaching students how to use it.
In the famous long scroll Along the River During the Qingming Festival painted by Zhang Zeduan (1085–1145 AD) during the Song Dynasty (960–1297 AD), a suanpan is clearly seen lying beside an account book and doctor's prescriptions on the counter of an apothecary's (Feibao).
The similarity of the Roman abacus to the Chinese one suggests that one could have inspired the other, as there is some evidence of a trade relationship between the Roman Empire and China. However, no direct connection can be demonstrated, and the similarity of the abaci may be coincidental, both ultimately arising from counting with five fingers per hand. Where the Roman model (like most modern Japanese) has 4 plus 1 bead per decimal place, the standard suanpan has 5 plus 2. (Incidentally, this allows use with a hexadecimal numeral system.) Instead of running on wires as in the Chinese and Japanese models, the beads of Roman model run in grooves, presumably making arithmetic calculations much slower.
Another possible source of the suanpan is Chinese counting rods, which operated with a decimal system but lacked the concept of zero as a place holder. The zero was probably introduced to the Chinese in the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) when travel in the Indian Ocean and the Middle East would have provided direct contact with India, allowing them to acquire the concept of zero and the decimal point from Indian merchants and mathematicians.
Indian[edit]
First century sources, such as the Abhidharmakosa describe the knowledge and use of abacus in India.[21] Around the 5th century, Ind |
Earl of Warwick
Warwick Castle, traditionally the seat of the Earls of Warwick, on the River Avon.
Earl of Warwick (i/ˈwɒrɪk/ WORR-ik) is a title that has been created four times in British history and is one of the most prestigious titles in the peerages of the United Kingdom. The first creation came in 1088. The 14th Earl was created Duke of Warwick in 1445, a title which became extinct on his early death the following year. The most well-known Earl of this creation was the 16th Earl, who was involved in the deposition of two kings, a fact which later earned him his epithet "Warwick the Kingmaker". This creation became extinct on the death of the 17th Earl in 1499. The title was revived in 1547 for the powerful statesman John Dudley, 1st Viscount Lisle, who was later made Duke of Northumberland. The earldom was passed on during his lifetime to his eldest son, John, but both father and son were attainted in 1554. The title was recreated or restored in 1561 in favour of Ambrose, younger son of the Duke of Northumberland. However, Ambrose was childless and the earldom became extinct on his death in 1590. It was created for a third time in 1618 for Robert Rich, 3rd Baron Rich, in spite of the fact that the Rich family were not in possession of Warwick Castle. From 1673 the Earls also held the title Earl of Holland. All the titles became extinct on the death of the 8th Earl in 1759. The earldom was revived the same year in favour of Francis Greville, 1st Earl Brooke. The Greville family were in possession of Warwick Castle and the title and castle were thereby re-united for the first time in over a century. The 1759 creation is extant and currently held by Guy Greville, 9th Earl of Warwick. However, Warwick Castle was sold by the family in 1978.
Armorial of Newburgh/Beaumont Earls of Warwick, adopted c. 1200 at start of age of heraldry: Checky azure and or a chevron ermine[1] |
José Piñera
José Piñera Echenique (born October 6, 1948) is a Chilean economist, one of the so-called Chicago Boys who transformed the Chilean economy, and as such a former minister of Labor and Social Security, and of Mining, during the military regime of Augusto Pinochet. He is the architect of Chile's private pension system based on personal retirement accounts. Piñera has been called "the world's foremost advocate of privatizing public pension systems"[1] as well as "the Pension Reform Pied Piper" (by the Wall Street Journal).[2] He is now Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, President of the International Center for Pension Reform based in Santiago, Senior Fellow at the Italian libertarian think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni, and member of the Advisory Board of the Vienna-based Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe. He has a Masters and a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University.
3 Promoter of democracy
4 Promoter of privatized pensions
7 External links and sources
José Piñera Echenique is the son of José Piñera Carvallo, Chile's Ambassador to the United Nations during the government of President Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964–1970). His uncle Archbishop Bernardino Piñera was twice elected President of Chile's Council of Bishops. He has three younger brothers: Sebastián Piñera, a businessman-politician and the current President of Chile; Pablo Piñera, managing director of Banco del Estado and former member of the Board of the Central Bank; and Miguel Piñera, a musician. He also has two sisters, Guadalupe and Magdalena. His maternal lineage is of Basque descent and his paternal lineage is of Asturian descent.
Piñera graduated in 1970 as an economist from the Universidad Católica de Chile, at that time closely associated with the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago. In this same year, 1970, he began graduate studies at Harvard University. In 1972 he received his M.A. and in 1974 his Ph.D. in economics. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard and an Assistant Professor at Boston University. Piñera returned to Chile in 1975 as a professor of the Catholic University of Chile. He has written eight books and numerous essays and articles. He was awarded an honorary degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquin. |
Metuchen, New Jersey
Borough of Metuchen
Main Street, Metuchen, in spring
Motto: The Historic Brainy Borough
Map of Metuchen in Middlesex County. Inset: Middlesex County highlighted in the State of New Jersey.
Coordinates: 40°32′33″N 74°21′46″W / 40.542445°N 74.362767°W / 40.542445; -74.362767Coordinates: 40°32′33″N 74°21′46″W / 40.542445°N 74.362767°W / 40.542445; -74.362767[1][2]
Government[6]
Thomas Vahalla (term ends December 31, 2015)[3]
• Administrator
William E. Boerth[4]
• Clerk
Kathryn Harris[5]
2.766 sq mi (7.166 km2)
0.002 sq mi (0.006 km2) 0.09%
356th of 566 in state
18th of 25 in county[2]
Population (2010 Census)[8][9][10]
• Estimate (2012[11])
• Rank
18th of 25 in county[12]
4,910.4/sq mi (1,895.9/km2)
• Density rank
9th of 25 in county[12]
Eastern (EST) (UTC-5)
Eastern (EDT) (UTC-4)
08840[13][14]
732/848[15]
3402145690[16][2][17]
0885298[18][2]
Metuchen (/mɨˈtʌtʃɨn/ mə-TUCH-ən) is a borough in Middlesex County, New Jersey, United States, which is 8 miles (13 km) northeast of New Brunswick, 18 miles (29 km) miles southwest of Newark, 24 miles (39 km) southwest of Jersey City, and 29 miles (47 km) southwest of Manhattan, all part of the New York metropolitan area. As of the 2010 United States Census, the borough's population was 13,574,[8][9][10] reflecting an increase of 734 (+5.7%) from the 12,840 counted in the 2000 Census, which had in turn increased by 36 (+0.3%) from the 12,804 counted in the 1990 Census.[19]
Metuchen was incorporated as a borough by an Act of the New Jersey Legislature on March 20, 1900, from portions of Raritan Township (now known as Edison).[20]
3 Government
3.1 Local government
3.2 Federal, state and county representation
7 Notable people
Metuchen is located at 40°32′33″N 74°21′46″W / 40.542445°N 74.362767°W / 40.542445; -74.362767 (40.542445,-74.362767). According to the United States Census Bureau, the borough had a total area of 2.766 square miles (7.166 km2), of which, 2.764 square miles (7.160 km2) of it is land and 0.002 square miles (0.006 km2) of it (0.09%) is water.[1][2]
The Borough of Metuchen is surrounded by Edison Township. |
Suppression of the Society of Jesus
Society of Jesus
History of the Jesuits
Regimini militantis
Jesuit Hierarchy
Superior General
Adolfo Nicolás
Ad majorem Dei gloriam
Notable Jesuits
St. Francis Xavier
St. Peter Faber
St. Aloysius Gonzaga
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Peter Canisius
St. Edmund Campion
The Suppression of the Jesuits in the Portuguese Empire, France, the Two Sicilies, Malta, Parma and the Spanish Empire by 1767 was a result of a series of political moves rather than a theological controversy.[1] By the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (21 July 1773) Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits took refuge in non-Catholic nations, particularly in Prussia and Russia, where the order was ignored or formally rejected. The scholarly Jesuit Society of Bollandists moved from Antwerp to Brussels, where they continued their work in the monastery of the Coudenberg; in 1788, the Bollandist Society was suppressed by the Austrian government of the Low Countries.
Suppression[edit]
By the mid-18th century, the Society had acquired a reputation in Europe for political maneuvering and economic exploitation. The Jesuits were regarded by their opponents as greedy plotters, prone to meddle in state affairs through their close ties with influential members of the royal court in order to further the special interests of their order and the Papacy.
Monarchs in many European states grew progressively wary of what they saw as undue interference from a foreign entity. The expulsion of Jesuits from their states had the added benefit of allowing governments to impound the Society's accumulated wealth and possessions.
Various states took advantage of different events in order to take action. The series of political struggles between various monarch |
The Pet Goat
"The Pet Goat"
Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner
"The Pet Goat" (often erroneously called "My Pet Goat") is a children's story from the book Reading Mastery II: Storybook 1 by Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner. It gained attention when on September 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush was read the story by children at Emma T. Booker school in Sarasota where it was part of a larger reading "lesson". According to Bush's statements after the story was read, regarding the story, there is "more to come".
2 George W. Bush: 9/11
"The Pet Goat" is the story of a girl's pet goat that eats everything in its path. The girl's parents want to get rid of the goat, but she defends it. In the end, the goat becomes a hero when it butts a car thief into submission.
The book was written by Siegfried Engelmann and Elaine C. Bruner and is part of the 31-volume Reading Mastery series published by the SRA Macmillan early-childhood education division of |
Topographic prominence
In topography, prominence[a] characterizes the height of a mountain's or hill's summit by the vertical distance between it and the lowest contour line encircling it and no higher summit. It is a measure of the independence of a summit. A peak's key col is a unique point on this contour line and the parent peak is some higher mountain, selected according to various objective criteria.
1 Definitions
2 In mountaineering
3 Parent peak
3.1 Encirclement or island parentage
3.2 Prominence parentage
3.3 Line parentage
3.4 Other criteria
4 Interesting prominence situations
5 Calculations and mathematics
6 Wet prominence and dry prominence
Definitions[edit]
Figure 1. Vertical arrows show the topographic prominence of three peaks on an island. The dotted horizontal lines show the lowest contours which do not encircle higher peaks.
Topographic prominence of three peaks near Great Pond Mountain, Maine, USA. Red triangles mark the peaks, the lowest contour line encircling each peak are shown in black and the green dots mark the key cols. The prominences are Atkins Hill: 430 – 310 = 120 ft, Cave Hill: 570 - 530 = 40 ft, Mead Mountain: 671 - 530 = 141 ft. The parent peak of each peak is Great Pond Mountain.
By convention, the prominence of Mount Everest, the Earth's highest mountain, is taken to equal the elevation of its summit above sea level. Apart from this special case, there are several equivalent definitions:
The prominence of a peak is the height of the peak’s summit above the lowest contour line encircling it and no higher summit.
If the peak's prominence is P metres, to get from the summit to any higher terrain one must descend at least P metres. Together with the convention for Mount Everest, this implies that the prominence of any island or continental highpoint is equal to its elevation above sea level.
For every ridge (or path of any kind) connecting the peak to higher terrain, find the lowest point on the ridge. This will be at a col (also called a saddle point or pass). The key col (or key saddle, or linking col, or link) is defined as the highest of these cols, along all connecting ridges. (If the peak is the highest point on a landmass, the key col will be the ocean, and the prominence of the peak is equal to its elevation.) The prominence is the difference between the elevation of the peak and the elevation of the key col. See Figure 1.
Suppose that the sea level rises to the lowest level at which the peak becomes the highest point on an island. The prominence of that peak is the height of that island. The key col represents the last isthmus connecting the island to a higher island, just before they become disconnected.
In mountaineering[edit]
Prominence is interesting to some mountaineers because it is an objective measurement that is strongly correlated with the subjective significance of a summit. Peaks with low prominences are either subsidiary tops of some higher summit or relatively insignificant independent summits. Peaks with high prominences tend to be the highest points around and are likely to have extraordinary views.
Only summits with a sufficient degree of prominence are regarded as independent mountains. For example, the world's second highest mountain is K2 (height 8,611 m, prominence 4,017 m). While Mount Everest's South Summit (height 8,749 m, prominence about 10 m[1]) is taller, it is not considered an independent mountain because it is a subsummit of the main summit (which has a height and prominence of 8,848 m). |
Universal grammar (UG) is a theory in linguistics, usually credited to Noam Chomsky, proposing that the ability to learn grammar is hard-wired into the brain.[1] The theory suggests that linguistic ability manifests itself without being taught (see the poverty of the stimulus argument), and that there are properties that all natural human languages share. It is a matter of observation and experimentation to determine precisely what abilities are innate and what properties are shared by all languages.
2 Relation to the evolution of language
4 Chomsky's theory
5 Presence of creole languages
Argument[edit]
The theory of Universal Grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions (not conditions of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with a certain property X (e.g., distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from lexical words). As a result, property X is considered to be a property of universal grammar in the most general sense (here not capitalized).
There are theoretical senses of the term Universal Grammar as well (here capitalized). The most general of these would be that Universal Grammar is whatever properties of a normally developing human brain cause it to learn languages that conform to universal grammar (the non-capitalized, pretheoretical sense). Using the above examples, Universal Grammar would be the innate property of the human brain that causes it to posit a difference between nouns and verbs whenever presented with linguistic data.
As Chomsky puts it, "Evidently, development of language in the individual must involve three factors: (1) genetic endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition possible; (2) external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow range; (3) principles not specific to FL." [2] [FL is the faculty of language, whatever properties of the brain cause it to learn language.] So (1) is Universal Grammar in the first theoretical sense, (2) is the linguistic data to which the child is exposed.
Occasionally, aspects of Universal Grammar seem to be describable in terms of general details regarding cognition. For example, if a predisposition to categorize events and objects as different classes of things is part of human cognition and directly results in nouns and verbs showing up in all languages, then it could be assumed that rather than this aspect of Universal Grammar being specific to language, it is more generally a part of human cognition. To distinguish properties of languages that can be traced to other facts regarding cognition from properties of languages that cannot, the abbreviation UG* can be used. UG is the term often used by Chomsky for those aspects of the human brain which cause language to be the way it is (i.e. are Universal Grammar in the sense used here) but here for discussion it is used for those aspects which are furthermore specific to language (thus UG, as Chomsky uses it, is just an abbreviation for Universal Grammar, but UG* as used here is a subset of Universal Grammar).
In the same article, Chomsky casts the theme of a larger research program in terms of the following question: "How little can be attributed to UG while still accounting for the variety of I-languages attained, relying on third factor principles?" (I-languages meaning internal languages, the brain states that correspond to knowing how to speak and understand a particular language, and third factor principles meaning (3) in the previous quote).
Chomsky has speculated that UG might be extremely simple and abstract, for example only a mechanism for combining symbols in a particular way, which he calls Merge. To see that Chomsky does not use the term "UG" in the narrow sense UG* suggested above, consider the following quote from the same article:
"The conclusion that Merge falls within UG holds whether such recursive generation is unique to FL or is appropriated from other systems."
I.e. Merge is part of UG because it causes language to be the way it is, is universal, and is not part of (2) (the environment) or (3) (general properties independent of genetics and environment). Merge is part of Universal Grammar whether it is specific to language or whether, as Chomsky suggests, it is also used for example in mathematical thinking.
The distinction is important because there is a long history of argument about UG*, whereas most people working on language agree that there is Universal Grammar. Many people assume that Chomsky means UG* when he writes UG (and in some cases he might actually mean UG*, though not in the passage quoted above).
Some students of universal grammar study a variety of grammars to abstract generalizations called linguistic universals, often in the form of "If X holds true, then Y occurs." These have been extended to a variety of traits, such as the phonemes found in languages, what word orders languages choose, and why children exhibit certain linguistic behaviors.
Later linguists who have influenced this theory include Noam Chomsky and Richard Montague, developing their version of this theory as they considered issues of the Argument from poverty of the stimulus to arise from the constructivist approach to linguistic theory. The application of the idea of Universal Grammar to the area of second language acquisition (SLA) is represented mainly by the McGill linguist Lydia White.
Most syntacticians generally concede that there are parametric points of variation between languages, although heated debate occurs over whether UG constraints are essentially universal due to being "hard-wired" (Chomsky's Principles and Parameters approach), a logical consequence of a specific syntactic architecture (the Generalized Phrase Structure approach) or the result of functional constraints on communication (the functionalist approach).[3]
In an article titled, "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?" Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch present the three leading hypotheses for how language evolved and brought humans to the point where we have a Universal Grammar.
Hypothesis 1 states that FLB (the Faculty of Language in the broad sense) is strictly homologous to animal communication. This means that homologous aspects of the Faculty of Language exist in non-human animals.
Hypothesis 2 states that FLB "is a derived, uniquely human adaptation for language". This hypothesis believes that individual traits were subject to natural selection and came to be very specialized for humans.
Hypothesis 3 states that only FLN (the Faculty of Language in the narrow sense) is unique to humans. It believes that while mechanisms of FLB are present in both humans and non-human animals, that the computational mechanism of recursion is recently evolved solely in humans.[4] This is the hypothesis which most closely aligns to the typical theory of Universal Grammar championed by Chomsky.
The idea of a universal grammar can be traced back to Roger Bacon's observation that all languages are built upon a common grammar, even though it may undergo accidental variations, and the 13th century speculative grammarians who, following Bacon, postulated universal rules underlying all grammars. The concept of a universal grammar or language was at the core of the 17th century projects for philosophical languages. There is a Scottish school of universal grammarians from the 18th century, to be distinguished from the philosophical language project, which includes authors such as James Beattie, Hugh Blair, James Burnett, James Harris, and Adam Smith. The article on "Grammar" in the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1771) contains an extensive section titled "Of Universal Grammar."
The idea rose to notability in modern linguistics with theorists such as Noam Chomsky and Richard Montague, developed in the 1950s to 1970s, as part of the "Linguistics Wars".
During the early 20th century, in contrast, language was usually understood from a behaviourist perspective, suggesting that language learning, like any other kind of learning, could be explained by a succession of trials, errors, and rewards for success.[5] In other words, children learned their mother tongue by simple imitation, listening to and repeating what adults said.
For example, when a child says “milk” and the mother will smile and give her some as a result, the child will find this outcome rewarding, enhancing the child’s language development.[6]
Chomsky's theory |
The purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive view of the positive legislation of the Church on appeals belonging to the ecclesiastical forum; but it does not treat of the nature of the ecclesiastical forum itself nor of the rights of the Church and its supreme head, the pope, to receive appeals in ecclesiastical matters. For these and other similar questions see POPE, PRIMACY, COUNCILS, GALLICANISM, ECCLESIASTICAL FORUM.
I. DEFINITION, KINDS, AND EFFECTS
An appeal is "a legal application to a higher authority for redress against an injury sustained through the act of a lower authority." The Lower authority is called judex a quo (judge appellee); the higher authority, judex ad quem (appellate judge or court). Appeals are judicial and extrajudicial. A judicial appeal is one made against such acts as are performed by the lower authority, acting in the official capacity of judge at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Hence a judicial appeal is not only one taken from a final sentence, but such is also an appeal taken from an interlocutory sentence, viz, from a sentence given by the judge before pronouncing the final judgment. An extrajudicial appeal is one made against acts performed by the inferior authority when not acting as judge, such as for instance a bishop's order to build a school, the election of a candidate to an office, and the like. Every appeal, when admissible, has an effect called devolutive (appellatio in devolutivo), consisting in this, that through the law there devolves on the appellate judge the right to take cognizance of, and also to decide, the case in question. Appeals have often also a suspensive effect, which consists in suspending the legal force of a judgment or an order so that the judge appellee is prevented from taking any further action in the case unless his action tends to favour the appellant in the exercise of his right of appeal.
II. APPEALS IN CHURCH HISTORY
The right of appeal is founded on the law of nature, which requires that a subject, bound as he is to abide by the action of a superior liable to err, should be supplied with some means of defence in case the latter, through ignorance or malice, should violate the laws of justice.
Accordingly, the sacred canons as early as the first œcumenical council allow clerics who believe themselves to have been wronged by their bishops to have recourse to higher authorities (Council of Nice, 325, can. 5). In the same century and in the following centuries the same right is insisted upon in other councils, both local and universal. In the East mention of it is made in the councils of Antioch (341, c. 6, 11), and Chalcedon (451, can. 9). In the West it is met with in the councils of Carthage (390, can. 8; 397, can. 10; and 398, can. 66), Mileve (can. 22), Vannes (465, can. 9), Viseu (442), Orleans (538, can. 20). According to these canons the court of appeal was that of the neighbouring bishops of the provincial synod; and there is mention of the metropolitan with the other bishops in documents of the eighth and ninth centuries (VIII (Œcumenical Council, 868, c. 26; Council of Frankfort, 794). But as the provincial councils came to be held less frequently, the right of receiving appeals from any bishop of a province remained with the metropolitan alone; a practice which was repeatedly sanctioned in the Decretals (c. 11, X, De off. ord., I, 31; c. 66, X, de appell., II, 28), and has never since been abandoned. Though the right of appeal was never denied, it had to be kept within the proper bounds in order that what was allowed as a means of just defence should not be used for evading or putting obstacles to the administration of justice.
In this, canonical legislation followed several of the rules laid down in the Roman civil law (Corpus Juris Civilis), e. g. those prescribing the limits of the time available for entering an appeal (Nov. 23, C. 1; c. 32, X, De elect., I, 6), or finishing the case appealed (1, 5, Dc temporibus . . . appellationum, c. VII, 63). The same is true of laws excluding certain appeals which are rightly presumed to be made for no other reason than in order to retard the execution of a sentence justly pronounced (1, un. C. Ne liceat in unâ eâdemque causâ, VII, 70; c. 65, X, De appell., II, 28).
In several points, however, the sacred canons were less rigorous, either by leaving more to the discretion of the judge appellee in cases of laws intended for his benefit or interpreting more liberally laws imposing strictures on the appellant in the exercise of his right (c. 2, De appell. Clem., II, 12; 1, 24, c. De appell., VII, 62; 1, un D. De libellis dimissoriis, XLIX, 6). Moreover, if abuses crept in, they were checked by the sacred canons, as appears from the enactments of popes and councils of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, embodied in the authentic collections of the "Corpus Juris Canonici", in the title "De appellationibus". Thus we see, in 1181, the Third Lateran Council (c. 26, X, De appell., II, 28) forbidding subjects to appeal from ecclesiastical discipline, and at the same time preventing bishops and other prelates from taking undue measures against their subjects when the latter were about to use their right of appeal. Again, in 1215, we see the Fourth Lateran Council (c. 13, De off. ord., I, 31) insisting that appeal should not interfere with bishops while taking legal action for correcting or reforming morals.
These and other similar wise regulations were enforced again by the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 7, De reform; c. 3, De appell., in 6). Especially did this council provide that the regular administration of a diocese should not suffer from appeals. Thus, besides forbidding (Sess. 22, c. 1, De ref.) that appeals should suspend the execution of orders given for the reformation of morals and correction of abuses, it mentioned explicitly several acts of pastoral administration which were not to be hampered by appeals (c. 5, Sess. 7, De ref.; c. 7, Sess. 21, De ref.; c. 18, Sess. 24, De ref.), and it ordained that appeals should not interfere with decrees made by a bishop while visiting his diocese (c. 10, Sess. 24, De ref.).
Moreover, in order to protect the authority of local ordinaries, it prescribed that if cases of appeals of a criminal nature had to be turned over to judges outside the Roman Curia by pontifical authority, they should be delegated to the metropolitan or to the nearest bishop (c. 2, Sess. 13, De ref.). Finally, this council provides that appeals should not cause unnecessary delays in the course of a trial, where it forbade (as the Roman law had done) appeals from interlocutory sentences, admitting only a few necessary exceptions (c. I, Sess. 13, De ref.; c. 20, Sess. 24, De ref.). The decrees of the Council of Trent and other pontifical laws, framed for the purpose of reconciling freedom of appeal with the prompt exercise of episcopal jurisdiction in matters admitting of no delay, were too important to be allowed to go into desuetude, and were embodied by Benedict XIV in his constitution "Ad militantis", 30 March, 1742.
After this brief reference to the main sources of the laws concerning ecclesiastical appeals - the "Corpus Juris Canonici", the" Corpus Juris Civilis", the Council of Trent, the Const. "Ad militantis", it only remains to mention the Instruction of 11 June, 1880, sent to the Italian hierarchy by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, containing rules for a summary procedure (also in the matter of appeals) to be used by bishops in trying criminal cases. This same introduction with a few changes was sent a few years later by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda to the hierarchy of the United States of North America. In the following paragraphs we shall refer to these two documen |
Is “so” a pronoun?
4 Reminded by What is the grammatical function of so in this sentence, something that has always bothered me is that the word "so" can be used as a pronoun:
It looks like rain
Responding with:
No, I don't think so.
(Where "so" refers to the statement about rain "that it looks like rain".)
Definition of 'so' - see items 21, 22, where they say it is a pronoun:
such as has been stated: to be good and stay so.
something that is about or near the persons or things in question, as in number or amount: Of the original twelve, five or so remain.
Rather, I am not bothered that it might function as a pronoun (weird things happen). I am perfectly fine with it being a pronoun and using it...so. But it never seems to be mentioned in a list of pronouns (as much as memory can serve). It is not in the set of canonical pronouns. "Thus" seems to share this use.
So...(clears throat), what is the provenance and history of this usage? Do other languages have a similar use of a word that introduces a deduction as also a pronoun for a sentence? (And are there any other such non-canonical pronouns?)
Such is definitely a pronoun. I suppose you could argue that so may be directly replaced by such but that is not true in all cases. In the case of a sentence like "I am your friend and will remain so through thick and thin," although some dictionaries would cite that as a pronominal usage, I still feel that so is really an adverb modifying remain. I could be wrong, but if so is a pronoun there it is a special kind of pronoun and there is at least some ambiguity as to what part of speech it is.
I believe it is a demonstrative pronoun. See here and here. (Of course, the internet has much more to offer than that, as you should know.)
In these cases, the specific referent must be mentioned previously in the text for 'so' to work in such a way. 'This' and 'that', among other demonstrative pronouns, work in a similar way as well.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since I've only been a student of linguistics for about a year and a half now.
I agree that 'so' is working like 'that' in these instances, but I can't find any external confirmation (other than AHD). |
Evolution and Systematics
Functional Adaptations
The Phylum Chordata includes the well-known vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals). The vertebrates and hagfishes together comprise the taxon Craniata. The remaining chordates are the tunicates (Urochordata), lancelets (Cephalochordata), and, possibly, some odd extinct groups. With few exceptions, chordates are active animals with bilaterally symmetric bodies that are longitudinally differentiated into head, trunk and tail. The most distinctive morphological features of chordates are the notochord, nerve cord, and visceral clefts and arches. Chordates are well represented in marine, freshwater and terrestrial habitats from the Equator to the high northern and southern latitudes. The oldest fossil chordates are of Cambrian age. The earliest is Yunnanozoon lividum from the Early Cambrian, 525 Ma (= million years ago), of China. This was just recently described and placed with the cephalochordates (Chen et al., 1995). Another possible cephalochordate is Pikaia (Nelson, 1994) from the Middle Cambrian. These fossils are highly significant because they imply the contemporary existence of the tunicates and craniates in the Early Cambrian during the so-called Cambrian Explosion of animal life. Two other extinct Cambrian taxa, the calcichordates and conodonts, are uncertainly related to other Chordata (Nelson, 1994). In the Tree of Life project, conodonts are placed as a subgroup of vertebrates. Chordates other than craniates include entirely aquatic forms. The strictly marine Urochordata or Tunicata are commonly known as tunicates, sea squirts, and salps. There are roughly 1,600 species of urochordates; most are small solitary animals but some are colonial, organisms. Nearly all are sessile as adults but they have free-swimming, active larval forms. Urochordates are unknown as fossils. Cephalochordata are also known as amphioxus and lancelets. The group contains only about 20 species of sand-burrowing marine creatures. The Cambrian fossils Yunnanozoon and Pikaia are likely related to modern cephalochordates. During the Ordovician Period (510 - 439 Ma) jawless or agnathan fishes appeared and diversified. These are the earliest known members of Vertebrata, the chordate subgroup that is most familiar to us. Fossils representing most major lineages of fish-like vertebrates and the earliest tetrapods (Amphibia) were in existence before the end of the Devonian Period (363 Ma). Reptile-like tetrapods originated during the Carboniferous (363 - 290 Ma), mammals differentiated before the end of the Triassic (208 Ma) and birds before the end of the Jurassic (146 Ma). The smallest chordates (e.g. some of the tunicates and gobioid fishes) are mature at a length of about 1 cm, whereas the largest animals that have ever existed are chordates: some sauropod dinosaurs reached more than 20 m and living blue whales grow to about 30 m. © John G. Lundberg
Chordates form a very diverse phylum with species living all over the planet (1). The extant animals in the phylum include the vertebrates—a familiar group that includes fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds—plus less well-known creatures including hagfish (which, together, with vertebrates make up the group Craniata), lancelets, and tunicates(1). A crucial defining feature of chordates is a long, cartilage-like(2) structure called the notochord (1,2), which runs along the central axis of the embryo of all chordates (2) and is important in embryonic development (1,2). While in the more modern chordates, the notochord turns into bone before birth(2), in some ancient vertebrates, such as lampreys and sturgeons, the notochord remains in the body for all of the animals’ lives(2); in the even older chordates such as tunicates and lancelets, which do not have backbones, the notochord remains for part or all of the animals’ lives as well, providing the structural support needed for them to swim(1,2). These creatures, particularly lancelets, are probably related to the oldest chordate fossils ever found, which date back to the Early Cambrian period, some 525 million years ago(1). 1. Lundberg, John G. “Chordata.” Tree of Life Web Project. 1995. 1 Sept. 2011. |
by Richard M. Ebeling
The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Modern European Thought
by Jerry Z. Muller (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002); 487pages; $30.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the well-known Italian classical-liberal historian Guglielmo Ferrero attempted to explain the reasons for the social disruptions and civil wars that European society had gone through from the time of the French Revolution in 1789. His general conclusion was that the revolutions and civil wars of the 19th century and then the “Great War” of 1914–1918 were in one way or another concerned with the problem of political “legitimacy.”
For ages, political legitimacy had been based on hereditary monarchy. And with monarchy had come the structure of hierarchically ordered society. All in the social order knew their place. They were born into it, they lived out their lives as members of one of the social classes and castes, and their positions in this inherited vertical arrangement of the social world gave each person a sense of meaning, continuity, security, safety, and stability.
But with the American and French Revolutions, the claim was made that political legitimacy was derived from the consent of the governed, with each individual possessing certain inherent “rights of man.” The guiding concept became the equality of men under an impartial rule of law.
The inherited and age-old social structures crumbled under the weight of this new (classical) liberal ideal, under which contract and voluntary consent replaced inherited class and caste. Each man found his own place in the social order of things in the new world of commercial capitalism.
The political and social battles of the 19th century, Ferrero argued, were, in their essentials, conflicts between monarchy and representative government, and between inherited social hierarchy and fluid contractual market relationships. Ferrero believed that the First World War developed partly out of this crisis of legitimacy and social order.
And out of the Great War there had came a third alternative to compete for political legitimacy: the political usurper, the “leader” claiming the right to rule in the name of the people but without the consent of the people.
Lenin and Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler represented this leader type. They offered people a new sense of meaning and identity, safety and security by virtue of their belonging to the totalitarian collectivist state.
Ferrero died in 1942, during the Second World War, having written a variety of books developing this theme and uncertain about the war’s outcome.
On the one hand are those thinkers who in general and in various ways saw the market-based society as an avenue for social peace, material prosperity, cultural growth, and human development. They included, among others, Voltaire, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hegel, Georg Simmel, Joseph Schumpeter, and Friedrich A. Hayek.
The anti-market mentality
On the other hand, there were those who hated and feared the market order as undermining ordered society, traditional community, culture, and social stability and security. These thinkers included Justus Moser, Karl Marx, Matthew Arnold, Werner Sombart, Georg Lukacs, and Herbert Marcuse.
Muller devotes chapters to each of these as well as other European intellectuals to trace and tease out what it was that each of them admired or disliked about the emerging and increasingly dominant capitalist society.
An opponent of the market economy, such as Justus Moser, considered that it undermined historical continuity and stability of local community life. The market introduced people to non-traditional wants that made them dissatisfied with the existing order of things, and then merchants attempted to satisfy the new wants by importing goods that threatened the local crafts and light industries through which community members inherited their customary ways of earning a living.
Matthew Arnold disliked the apparent reduction of human life to economic calculation and pursuit of material wealth in market society. Men lost their sense and understanding for beauty and a higher noncalculating culture of art and literature. It was Arnold who popularized the term “philistine” to characterize the person who lacked this wider and higher appreciation of human life. He wanted government to fund and direct publi |
INTRODUCTORY SOCIOLOGY is a scientific study of human behavior involving two or more individuals. It is intended as a general survey of the discipline of sociology, analyzing various institutions that may affect human behavior. Some of the institutions that sociologists study are the family, religions, media, peer groups, and political systems. This course is the prerequisite for all advanced courses in sociology and social work. (Social Science Core) 3 credit hours
CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIETY examines the relationship between religion and human behavior. The course is designed to introduce students to a current sociological perspective for dealing with contemporary social problems and concerns. In addition, students will learn the value of taking a sociological perspective for understanding the various statements and efforts of Christian groups and individuals to address social issues. Students will be encouraged to view social problems from both sociological and Christian perspectives, thereby coming to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the complexity of our lives and our social world. (Social Science Core) 3 credit hours
COMMUNES AND COVENANTS exposes the student to various groups and movements in the United States. Each is described and analyzed in a sociological framework. The groups range from Gypsies, Shakers, Amish, and Oneida, to the Bruderhof Communes of the seventies and the charismatic covenant communities. A search is made for their underlying causes and their probable consequences for both the individual and the larger community. 3 credit hours
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY is a popular course because many students realize that this is a serious vocation and, as a consequence, they wish to learn more mature ways of dealing with it. The general student will appreciate the insights that sociologists have provided—certain ways of looking at husband-wife relations and parent-children relations. Sociology majors will, in addition, acquaint themselves with a special aspect of the general theories of institutions. An attempt at blending these two approaches is made by the instructor and students. 3 credit hours
CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY deals with the philosophy and history of society’s ideas about crime and what should be done about it. Sociology has uncovered many facets through the use of concepts developed in general sociology as well as in the field of criminology itself. Based on this new knowledge, a number of new theories and new policies are advocated. 3 credit hours
SOCIAL THEORY provides the framework for sociological research. The classical sociologists such as Comte, Spencer, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim will be presented followed by discussions of the modern sociological theories such as functionalism, conflict theory, social exchange, and symbolic interactionism. These theories will be re-evaluated in light of a Christian perspective. 3 credit hours
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY explores the growth of a social personality, the effects of crowd behavior, the development of values and attitudes, and the mechanics of group life in general. The recognized scholars—Maslow, Goffman, Berger, Luckman, and others—are included in this study of the whole person. Cross-listed with PSY 224`3 credit hours
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION covers a wide variety of topics including religious social ethics, history of religious movements, church and sect organizations, religion in American society, religion and identity, and the religious aspects of the sociology of knowledge. 3 credit hours SOC 409
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE examines the violence that exists in many families today. Sociologists and social psychological theories will be presented as possible explanations and solutions to domestic problems. The course will focus on spousal physical and emotional abuse, marital rape, incest, and child abuse. 3 credit hours
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY analyzes juvenile behavior that is beyond parental control and subject to legal action. This course will focus on the social circumstances that promote such behavior, particularly in family situations and peer groups. In addition, the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the juvenile justice system will be analyzed. 3 credit hours
PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES investigates the basis of knowledge in the social sciences through a study of recent debates. The course deals with problems of theory construction, verification, and the role of models in sociology as well as aspects of the use of the social sciences in the formation of public policy. 3 credit hours
SENIOR THESIS is required of all senior majors. Students will meet with their advisor to discuss their senior thesis, which will be an original library research project. 1 credit hour |
Issue 119: Mike Lieberman
Mike Lieberman was living in a concrete jungle in Brooklyn when he got the urge to grow his own food. Unfazed by the lack of space that was de rigueur with city living, he created a container garden on his fire escape that sparked a passion to learn more about food and its impact on the environment. Although his garden thrived in the tiny 2’ x 3’ space, he had a few detractors who groused that his new hobby was a fire hazard.
“I had everything up against the rails and was able to leave ample foot space if the fire escape ever needed to be used,” said Lieberman. “But there was a fire code and technically it was illegal, so I started thinking about getting a bigger space.”
Lieberman found plenty of space by moving to California where he promptly started a larger garden on his balcony. Compared to his humble fire escape garden, it seemed like a farm because he was able to grow more of everything and take advantage of the milder West Coast climate. Despite having no gardening experience, he learned by trial and error and wasn’t afraid to experiment with different varieties of plants and seedlings.
“I attempted to read a few gardening books, but they were rather boring,” said Lieberman. “So I started thinking about what people did 500 years ago before they could Google something, and the simple answer was to just do it! So I just started doing it, and although I’m by no means an expert, I like to share the knowledge that I’ve accumulated along the way.”
Lieberman’s gardening experiences and philosophies have attracted thousands of fans who converse with him on his blog, Twitter, Facebook and his web site at Every day he enjoys fielding questions from wanna-be gardeners who have endless questions about how to get started, what to grow, and how to fend off insects. Lieberman also has advice for budget-conscious consumers who don’t think they have enough resources to support a container garden.
“Some people see that the high end containers such as Earth Boxes are about $60 each, and they get discouraged,” he said. “But I built my own for about $5 each and can show people how to do that. I initially got into this because I wanted to be healthier and grow my own food, but now I’m passionate about educating people and spreading awareness.”
Greens are the star attraction in his garden, which includes Swiss chard, cilantro, parsley, and lettuce in addition to red winter kale, onions and edible flowers. For those who want something on a smaller scale, he says a good sunny windowsill is all that’s needed for sprouts and herbs.
It’s no surprise that Lieberman’s diet is predominantly plant-based and includes only an occasional smidgen of raw goat cheese he buys from a local farmer. He purchases nearly all of his food that he doesn’t grow himself from local farmer's markets and co-ops, and encourages people to develop relationships with farmers so they can know what produce is in season and get extra freebies from time to time.
“I tell people to go to farmer’s markets the last half an hour before they close because it’s usually a bargain frenzy!” he said.
One of the biggest rewards of growing his own food is that he has been able to inspire others to think about where their food supply comes from and how it is processed. He believes that because we are living at a time when we don’t have to be dependent on what we grow, most people are used to buying anything they want at any time of year without having a clue where the food was grown or what pesticides might have been sprayed on it.
“When you start growing your own food and realizing all of the things that go into it, you become much more appreciative of it,” said Lieberman. ‘And nothing compares with having a home cooked meal every evening with food you have picked from your own garden.” |
The Great Debate: Kennedy, Nixon, and Television in the 1960 Race for the Presidency
Imagine the setting. Since soon after the close of World War II, the United States had been engaged in a heated Cold War with the Communist Soviet Union. Within the previous four years, Soviet tanks and troops had crushed a democratic revolt in Hungary and threatened...
Technology in the Persian Gulf War of 1991
In August 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. Five short months later, a powerful...
The Scarlet Letter and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s America
Nathaniel Hawthorne is the strange American author who has never been out of fashion; since his death in 1864, his stories and novels have resisted the tides of taste, canon...
Abolition and Antebellum Reform
When the Boston abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson looked back on the years...
First personal computer
IBM released the first personal computer, the IBM PC. The computer retailed at $1565, and IBM received more than 240,000 orders within a month.
Wright brothers’ first flight
The Wright brothers made their first flight, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
Chromosomal determination of sex discovered
Scientist Nettie Maria Stevens reported her discovery that sex is determined by a particular chromosome.
The National Defense Education Act of 1958 was passed as a response to the successful launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellites. The act approved grants for American schools that focused on language, mathematics, and science, and appropriated $295 million for college student loans. The act’s measures were intended to strengthen American education and position the nation as a leader in technology, defense, and security.
Glossary Term – Place
The Panama Canal is an artificial waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Isthmus of Panama in Central America. Built by the United States between 1904 and 1914, the canal stretches about forty miles. The United States controlled the canal until 1979, when it became overseen by both US and Panama authorities joined together in the Panama Canal Commission. On December 31, 1999, the United States officially relinquished its control over the canal.
Professor DeLay looks at changes in thought, technology and outlook that prompted early exploration. He looks at Spain’s late entry into colonial pursuits. |
Google describes perfect advertising
In a post titled "Ad Perfect", Googler Susan Wojcicki describes targeting ads as matching a deep understanding of a user's intent, much like personalized search.Some key excerpts:Advertising should deliver the right information to the right person at the right time ... Our goal is always to show people the best ads, the ones that are the most relevant, timely, and useful .... We need to understand exactly what people are looking for, then give them exactly the information they want.When a person is looking for a specific item ... the best ads will give more specific information, like where to buy the item.In other cases, ads can help you learn about something you didn't know you wanted ... [and to] discover something [you] didn't know existed.One way to make ads better would be to customize them based on factors like a person's location or preferences. It [also] needs to be very easy and quick for anyone to create good ads ... to measure [and learn] how effective they are .... [and then] to show them only to people for whom they are useful.What strikes me about this is how much this sounds like treating advertising as a recommendation problem. We need to learn what someone wants, taking into account the current context and long-term interests, and then help them discover interesting things they might not otherwise have known existed.It appears to be a big shift away from mass market advertising and toward personalized advertising. This vision no longer has us targeting ads to people in general, but to each individual's intent, preferences, and context.[Thanks, John Battelle, for the pointer to Susan's post]
No, I think Daniel is also talking about "direct relevance response" advertising, and not just branding or marketing. At the risk of putting words in Daniel's mouth, I think what Daniel is saying is that, relevance or not, what makes advertising different from search is the method or mode of delivery.Search is pull, advertising is push. (Search is things that you ask for. Advertising is things that others foist upon you.)That fact alone fundamentally changes the dynamic of the information, and gives rise to the problems that Daniel describes.Let's put it this way: if there were only one single search result and one single advertisement in existence, for your particular query, then this wouldn't be an issue. But often there are thousands of results, and dozens of advertisers. Suppose now that there are 500 web pages that are equally relevant, based on content alone, to your query. 500 pages all about iPods. Well then the thing that breaks the tie is an organic sort of popularity linking.. pagerank-like feature. So relevance is determined by the natural growth of the web. On the other hand, suppose there are now 50 advertisers who all want to sell you an iPod. More or less, every single advertisers is equally relevant to your "iPod" query. There is not much Google can do to automatically determine quality of merchant service or something like that, to rank by that feature.So what ends up happening is that the feature that determines how these 50 equally relevant advertisers rank is.. $$$. The person who pays the most money gets the most traffic. So in one case, relevance was determined by organic web structure. In the other case it was determined by cold, hard cash.We're not talking about deceptive advertising here. We're talking about 50 advertisers, all of whom are legitimately selling iPods. And yet ads get ranked by $$$, and not by merchant service quality, by available discounts, by combined savings offers, by shipping costs, or by other things that the *user* would probably find relevant. Instead, they are ranked by how much money the advertiser is willing to pay.That is the exact opposite of user-focused relevance. It serves the advertiser, not the user. Daniel has a good point, here.
For example, what if I, as a user, wanted to search for (and find) advertisements on Google on which the merchant had only spent a single penny. The idea being that the merchant would agree to pass the savings along to me.. the less advertising money that the merchant has to spend, the more he can cut his own costs, and therefore lower his prices.So let's take that idea one further: The merchant who has had to spend $0.00 on advertising is even *more* relevant to me than the one who had to spend $0.01. And there we are again.. back in the organic results! Only this time, all advertisements have disappeared from the page, because someone paying money to get my attention is not relevant to me, because they're only going to charge me higher fees, to recoup the cost of their advertising.Perfect advertising (and I do mean advertising, not branding or marketing) is advertising that doesn't exist. If relevance is of such key importance, then the search engine should be good enough to put that relevant information in the natural results.
Jeremy, I'm glad we agree, and I suspect that "push" and "pull" are imprecise concepts in the first place.Greg, I'm not sure how far we are away from the extreme. For example, I experimented with using AdWords to advertise my blog, figuring it would be a cheap way to spread the word. I quickly found that I'd have to spend dollars per click to do so--which quickly persuaded me to stick to word-of-mouth marketing. But it's hardly that the competitors for those AdWords had more relevant content; rather they stood to gain more from the traffic.Perhaps the right approach, in terms of optimizing user experience rather than Google's profits, is to use an attention bonds approach. I put down a deposit for each click (or perhaps even for each impression), but I don't pay unless you as a user feel that I wasted your time. Obviously such an approach would require some thought to implement, not to mention motivation on the part of the search engines!
Daniel, isn't that what, more or less, CPA (cost per action) is about? ONLY if you click through AND if you actually execute some action (e.g. buy a product from the advertizer/merchant) does the money move around?Something doesn't sound 100% right about that, though, as a sloppy merchant who can't convert the visitor to a customer might then not pay the publisher (e.g. Google), even though Google did its part of serving the ad... but the basic idea is there. |
Conditions InDepth: Eczema (Atopic Dermatitis)
Eczema is actually just another word for dermatitis, which is an inflammation of the skin. There are many types of dermatitis, but the term eczema has come to be associated with a specific type of dermatitis called atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, noncontagious condition that causes itchy, inflamed skin. Atopic dermatitis (eczema) most commonly affects the insides of the elbows, the backs of the knees, and the face, but it can affect any area of the body and in rare cases may cover most of the body.
Although eczema can develop at any age, it is most common in infants and children. It is estimated that 65% of people with eczema develop symptoms in the first year of life, and 90% develop symptoms before age five. The condition often improves in adulthood, but 50% of those affected as children are affected throughout life.
A Baby With Eczema
In the United States, it is estimated that 15 million people have eczema.
The exact cause of eczema is still unknown, but current theories suggest that it is related to an abnormal immune response and genetic factors. Eczema is often associated with other hereditary allergic disorders such as
Eczema flare-ups may be triggered by:
Extremes in temperature and climate
Skin irritants
Airborne and contact allergens
Viral, bacterial, and possibly fungal infections of the skin |
Resource Guide for Infertility in Men
This organization provides a wide variety of information geared for patients and healthcare providers. In addition to publishing a scientific journal, the organization also produces fact sheets describing various conditions and procedures. Information regarding health insurance laws pertaining to fertility treatment is also available.
7910 Woodmont AVE, Suite 1350
RESOLVE provides factual information on male and female infertility, treatment methods, and links to alternative resources, such as adoption programs.
http://www.theafa.org
With the goals to share information with the public on reproductive disease and treatment and offer support to families, the American Fertility Association (AFA) features an online education series, special events, and a resource directory. (Note: Some aspects of the site require a login, but membership is free.) In addition, you'll find the Association's magazine and monthly newsletters, as well as message boards on a range of topics. Also useful are the article collections on fertility and adoption.
While geared toward its over 15,000 members, the American Urological Association (AUA) does provide patient information. The accompanying website, called
UrologyHealth.org
, allows you to find information on a condition (either adult or pediatric), search for a urologist, and learn more about this specialty. Information is also available in Spanish. |
What was meant by “paradise” when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross?
1 As he was crucified, Jesus engaged in a conversation with one of the other thieves hung along side him. at the end is this pronouncement:
Luke 23:43 (ESV)
43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
This verse is often referenced to make a theological point about how people come into salvation and the absence of presence of ceremony/action in the process. However it seems to me that most usages of the verse are based on an interpretation that uses a theological construct or doctrinal position of some kind to interpret this verse based on their larger understanding of the concepts. For example:
Protestants who believe salvation is entirely a work of God might say that this verse shows that Jesus pronouncement that this person was now heaven bound means that he can bestow salvation on whomever he pleases with them having to have done any works or go through an rituals. Paradise refers to Heaven and salvation (admittance) is a free gift.
Mormons who believe that salvation is impossible without some accompanying works argue that this verse isn't talking about heaven at all but some other realm where that person would again have a chance to do good works. Paradise is not heaven and the gift given was a second chance to earn admittance into heaven.
Starting with the word Greek παράδεισος and it's original meaning and how it would have been understood in context, what can a good hermeneutical approach to this passage show us? How would the original audience have understood this usage? Then bringing in other passages to bear on the issue, what relevant related texts do we have? At what point in the process of zooming out from the text must our doctrine formed by other sources become the determining factor in how we interpret this saying?
Note that I do not think interpretation based on other clearer passages or understandings is wrong, but part of my interest in asking this is understanding _where the line between that and textual analysis is drawn in this case. Is the word itself self-evident? If so why the dispute about what it means? If it's not self evident, when do we step back and apply other methods and what are those in this case?
This meaning would not exclude others since there would be four layers of meaning in what he said.
Jesus' statement in Luke 23:43 is not so much about the afterlife or what's required of us to get into heaven. It's primary purpose is to depict Jesus' death as undoing the curse of Adam. Luke presents Jesus as a new Adam.
This is beyond a doubt the purpose in Luke's placement and arrangement of Jesus’ genealogy. Unlike Matthew who places his genealogy at the outset of his gospel, Luke places it immedietly after Jesus’ adult baptism and just prior to the temptations. It’s thus bookended by the issue of Jesus’ sonship. In the baptism God declares Jesus to be His “beloved Son” and in the temptations Satan challenges Jesus, ”if you are the Son of God…”
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And
as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended
on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You
are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:21-22) Luke then records the genealogy and then...
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the
Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted[a] by
the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he
was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell
this stone to become bread.” (Luke 4:1-3)
Also instead of beginning with Abraham and working forward to Jesus, as Matthew does (Matthew 1:1-16), Luke genealogy begins with Jesus and works backwards to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). The net effect makes this genealogy a list of sons rather than a list of fathers and points to Adam rather than Jesus. Matthew is a list of fathers starting with Abraham.
Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the
father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and
Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the
father of Ram...
Luke is a list of sons ending with Adam and God.
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of
Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth,
the son of Adam, the son of God.
Of course Luke’s intention is not to diminish Jesus but rather to make a comparison between Jesus and Adam. Both Jesus and Adam are said to be God’s son.
Luke presents Jesus as tempted like Adam.
Jesus’ three temptation follow immediately after the genealogy. If Luke intends to present Jesus like Adam than the temptations could not have been better placed. But Jesus’ success here is merely the beginning of a battle that will continue in the later part of Luke. Luke tells us that after the temptations the devil, ”left him until an “opportune time” (4:13). In Luke, Satan finds this opportunity at the beginning of the crucifixion plot, entering into Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3).
This suggests that the events surrounding the crucifixion are themselves a continuation of the temptation. Certainly there are echoes of the devil’s challenge at the trial when the leaders ask, “Are you the Son of God…” (22:70). And it’s Jesus’ bold “Yes!” which seals his fate, overcoming the potential desire to save his own skin.
As with the other gospels Jesus confession is juxtaposed with Peter’s denial. If Peter’s denial is due to, as Luke tells us, the sifting of Satan (22:31-32) then there is little doubt Satan is also present in this challenging question to Jesus. It echoes the devil’s challenge in the earlier temptations.
Luke presents Jesus undoing the curse of Adam.
At Jesus’ death, the centurion declares, “surely this man was innocent!” Here Luke differs remarkably from the centurion’s confession in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. In those accounts the centurion says, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” Owing to the fact that Luke has already declared Jesus to be the Son of God, it is doubtful that Luke wants to downplay this fact here. Instead it appears the verdict of innocence is in some sense connected to Jesus being like Adam, the Son of God.
For Luke, Jesus’ innocence is not simply in reference to the crime for which He has been charged but instead refers to his victory over all temptation. What Christ has done in his persistent innocence is to reopen the way closed by Adam. Jesus final words to the thief on the cross are directly connected to this second Adam motif, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” “Paradise” is the same Greek word used elsewhere in Septuagint and the book of Revelation for the “garden” of Eden.
In the Hebrew Bible there is no explicit expectation that anyone ever went up to heaven after death; on the contrary, righteous people had had an expectation of descending down into Sheol. For example, Jacob (Gen 37:35) and Job (Job 14:13) and Hezekiah (Is 38:9-11) mention their expectation of going down into the earth after their death. The passage in Jonah 2:5-7 provides us an explicit reference to Sheol. That is, Jonah mentioned his descent into Sheol notwithstanding that his corpse remained in the belly of the great fish in the sea. In other words, Jonah had died in the belly of the great fish and his soul had descended to the "roots of the mountains," which is an allusion to the underworld of Sheol (since there were no roots of any mountains in the belly of the fish). In other words, Jonah had descended into the "belly" of the earth, which was Sheol. He was of course resuscitated by the Lord and went on to preach to Nineveh.
So before the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, all righteous at their physical death descended into the Sheol, which was a place of rest according to the description mentioned in Luke 16:22-24. Sheol was therefore the "paradise" to which Jesus was referring when he hanged on the cross, since the destination was a haven compared to Torments, which was the destination of the unrighteous. When Jesus died on the cross, his soul descended down into Hades, which is Sheol (Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31 compared with Ps 16:10, where "Sheol" is mentioned and equated with the Greek word "Hades" in the two passages of Acts). As the "second Moses" Jesus delivered the righteous from the confines of Sheol according to the timelines as illustrated here. That is, Sheol was the analog to Egypt, which "confined" God's people. From the resurrection onward, the Christian New Testament therefore begins to talk about going up to heaven after death (e.g., Phil 1:23), since Jesus was the "first born from the dead" (Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5). For more discussion, please click here.
Finally, a good clincher is that Jesus alludes to Jonah who was in the "belly" of the fish, and, like Jonah, Jesus had indicated that he would be in the "belly" of the earth (Mt 12:40).
Nothing in the text supports Jonah dying and being resurrected. Surely resurrection is special enough that it would have been mentioned had it happened? (It's also not clear to me what that part has to do with the present question; maybe you could either edit it out or make it clearly relevant?) Also, you say a lot about Sheol's role (analog to Egypt, etc), but where do you get that from the text? And finally, your last paragraph doesn't seem to fit; our focus here isn't on church doctrine/history.
Is Jonah describing himself in the belly of the fish (in the sea), or in the belly of the earth, when he writes, "I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever"? It is plain, isn't it? |
Nellie Neilson
President of the Association, 1943
Presidential address delivered before the American Historical Association at New York on December 29, 1943. Published in the American Historical Review 49, no. 2 (January 1944): 199-211.
The Early Pattern of the Common Law
It has been pointed out to me by a kind and helpful critic that of late years scholars sitting in this "sliddery" seat, as King James would have called it, have more often presented for your consideration certain generalizations drawn from their own experiences in the study of history than specific subjects of discussion drawn from their own field. My life has been spent in the Middle Ages, however; my field of work lies there, and I can not forego the opportunity to talk about them, especially since they seem to me to offer material pertinent to our own time.
Medieval English law seems very far from the world of today, and in the opinion of many may well be left unstudied until the war is over and we can once again enjoy the pleasant pursuit of the nonessential. Perhaps the differing of opinion among medievalists is only self-delusion, but I hope not. Surely it is essential that the history of the great contestants should be known, not only for its own sake but also for the growth of political and social ideas whose birth lies hidden in the remote past but whose influence has had an important share in forming present opinion and action resulting therefrom. The roots of the present lie deep in the past, a truism that we cannot today despise if we seek a solution of our own difficult problems.
Especially, I believe, we should study those characteristics of English history which make her different from other countries, her constant stress on the particular forms of self-government and civil liberties which she has developed and which, we must gratefully acknowledge, she has in part passed on to us. Much of her history is our history. Our own law is in part derived from her law and legal procedure. We think in large measure the same legal thoughts, in spite of many political and social differences. The same lawbooks and legal dictionaries are used by both of us, and we cannot appropriate so much of her essential framework without some recognition and knowledge of the model from which we have acquired it. The pattern of her common law she began to build very long ago, and throughout her history she has continued to elaborate it quietly without violent breaks or changes. It is a living organism and one the knowledge of which is especially essential to us Americans in war and in peace.
The medieval pattern of her law was well formulated by England in the two hundred years that followed the Norman Conquest, the period when there was most danger, perhaps, of the imposition of alien rules and regulations. The legal interest of this faraway and somewhat obscure period centers in the growth of the king's justice and its contact with already existing laws and customs. I have chosen this period for several reasons. It has to my mind intrinsic interest, and we are a little inclined to neglect it, or, rather, in the dearth of material it has to offer, we are often inclined to endow it with some of the conditions that belong clearly to later times. But most of all I have chosen it because it illustrates the English method of gentle change. It is the period when the first lines of the magnificent common law were graven deep into their legal foundation, never to be erased by later edifices.
The meeting during this period of the common law with church law, the ius commune of the universal church, is a great subject by itself and one that I am not competent to deal with. I must leave that to church historians. It has also, however, contacts with another and more manageable condition existing in England, namely, English customary law in its various forms, some pre-Conquest English custom, some post-Conquest adaptations of that custom.1 Maitland speaks of 1066 as the midnight of legal history and emphasizes how little written law the Normans had of their own and how English law is far more than a meeting of two thin streams, English and Norman, and is really formed out of all the complex events and currents of the history of the time. It is by no means simply made out of a law imposed by a conqueror upon a conquered people.2 Perhaps some of William's patience with lack of uniformity in his conquered country was due to his tolerance of tradition and to the old idea, now passing, that the law of the conqueror was too good for the conquered. The Conqueror promised, it will be remembered, to maintain the law of Edward the Confessor.
What were then some of the variations in law and custom that were present in England after the Conquest and how among them did the so-called common law become of transcendent importance for later history? First and most important is its evident basis in the law of the royal court, of the king's court, and in the method of that court in dealing with conditions as it found them. It grew slowly with the increasing understanding of the "tremendous empire of the kingly majesty."3 It was the general law as accepted by the courts, not yet clearly enacted in statute,4 in contact with local customs, with the ideas and conditions that lay along its always extending boundaries. With such conditions it dealt variously, rarely by denying their force, more often by adapting them to common-law notions, or by adopting them entirely and enshrining them in common-law rules. In later times these variations became unimportant, but in speaking of the early formative days it is necessary to see that the law was exposed to different variations and that it molded these slowly and reasonably into the growing pattern of king's law and court procedure. It is a mistake to think of early English law as too immature to be reasonable. Even early pleading shows a desire to understand differences and to make a peaceful adjustment with existing conditions.
Recognition of special custom occurs again and again in early English legal material. Very commonly in early Year Books and other material one meets the words consuetudo loci--the best-known phrase--usage de pays, mos est, mos comitatus, consuetudo comitatus, consuetudo rape, consuetudo christianitatis, consuetudo marisci or burgi or ville, or manerii, custom and law of London, of Wales, of Scotland, of Normandy, of the manors of the king, custom and liberty of the vill, usage defait commune ley que usage usee parmi le pays, and other like phrases.5
The consuetudo loci refers in general to the local custom of particular places. Such custom has always had for me a peculiar fascination, I suppose because it takes one so far back into the past, unknown but imaginable. From certain regions such custom excludes all or part of the operations of the king's law, the law of the king's courts. What will the natural desire for legal uniformity do with these? Perhaps the most important of such customs and in some ways the clearest, because it lasted down into times of definition and was too strong to be obliterated, is the well-known custom of Kent. The story goes, but there is no proof of its truth so far as I know, that William, marching through Kent after Hastings, was met by the moving wood of Swanscombe, composed of men in armor, carrying trees, and that William thereupon agreed to let them have their customs intact. In later times the custom included at least fourteen points, of which some were evidently accretions.6 The most famous of them were partibility of tenement amongst heirs, which was of course not peculiar to Kent but was found elsewhere in that great socage tenure which was accepted as part of the common law and which is crying for its historian. Secondly, the payment of gafol, from which the gavol-kind tenure of Kent takes its name, a name not used elsewhere in England in early documents, but, I am informed, occasionally found in South Scotland. Thirdly, a lesser age for attaining majority than that of the common law and also a different ruling on dower, on the awarding of the custody of a minor to the procheym ami, usually the mother instead of the lord; again a relief paid on entrance into property of double the rent, a special jury system, and in cases of felony, poetically, "the father to the boghe, the son to the ploghe." In addition several economic rules regarding rights of way and the cutting of trees in Kent, the county of dennes, appear. Such rules were regarded as selon l'usage de Kent, and the various manuscripts in which they were recorded await an editor.7 I suppose that the explanation of their long endurance against the pressure of common law is the fact that Kent was in part the much-traveled road to the Continent, where formulation of rules would occur early, and in other part was covered by the weald, which was backward and inaccessible.
Other counties too had once their own customs, but we know little of these because they were assimilated into the common law at an early date. The Prerogativa Regis in the statute book speaks of the custom of the county of Gloucester. The custom of the counties of York and Norfolk is very occasionally mentioned without much definition, and also the custom of a Sussex rape, of the honor of Brittany, and of "the north where cornage prevailed." Cradle right, the succession of the youngest son to the holding, while a variation of the common rule of the succession of the eldest, was sufficiently prevalent to have a place of its own. It seems sometimes to have been in force in certain distinct localities, especially in mid-southern England.
Of a nature similar to county peculiarities were the long-prevailing rules regarding tenements called ancient demesne of the king. In these instances royal influence preserved them as separate entities in some legal matters. Much has been written about them.8 Land in ancient demesne was land which at the time of the Conquest was royal land and had descended as such from Edward the Confessor and was so entered in Domesday Book. The more exact definition seems to have been land that was King Edward's on "the day he was alive and dead," which allows for some changes between 1066 and 1086. For all intents and purposes, however, the picturesque summoning of Domesday Book into court to give evidence that King Edward had held the land in question was sufficient to establish its identity.9 I am at present engaged in preparing for the Dugdale Society the great book of ancient demesne customs, the Stoneleigh Leger Book. It shows the special writs for lands which had to be brought in the Stoneleigh court and were excluded from the king's courts. These were the little writ of right close, so-called in contrast to the usual proprietary writ of right, and the monstraverunt against increase of services in such manors. The king insisted on the maintenance of the peculiar writs of ancient demesne, even where the land had been given away by him, feeling that if it should escheat at any time in the future he himself would have more control over it in the manorial court than in the Common Bench. In time the little writ of right when brought for such land in the manor court could by "protestation," as it was called, be changed into some other form of land action. There is much that is of interest in ancient demesne procedure and some points that are not yet clear, but it is clearly accepted as outside common-law jurisdiction.
Other variations in custom are found in boroughs where the borough court administered its own law in all its own ancient peculiarities. The twelfth century burgess in Cardiff went free of summons, for example, if he could prove that he had one foot in the stirrup and was about to leave the town. Another defendant elsewhere could gain a delay in procedure if he spoke out and said, "Have law." Such picturesque survivals can be seen best in Mary Bateson's Borough Customs,10 but even her two large tomes are by no means exhaustive. Manuscript material discloses many more local customs, which, it is true, add little to her main classifications. Miss Bateson lays great stress on the transference to English boroughs of the customs of boroughs in France, but I think that sometimes the transference is rather due to the appearance in the English borough of customs already imbedded in the surrounding countryside. Similar variations in customs are found in manors and vills. Manorial court records are full of regulations which are often applicable to unfree and free alike and are important because they sometimes preserve old uses and have a definite influence on the development of ideas of freedom and self-government. The old men, seniores, of the village are often called into court or are consulted in order that they may give descriptions of old procedure. I have been specially interested in the part played by the old men in drawing lines of division through ancient waste,11 used from antiquity for common pasture by the men of adjacent sokes, villages, or groups but now to be partitioned among them and their practice of intercommoning thus stopped. Interesting instances of this procedure appear to antedate the strict control by feudal lords. Also it is of interest to see how the village itself regulates the intercommoning of tenants, in other vills outside its group, and the admissions of the cattle of other villages for a sum of money for specified times of pasture. Villages in the great stretches of fen in Holland in Lincolnshire furnish much interesting information on arrangements that are derived from old local conditions of pasture and the use of the waste, which indicate free discussion and common action on the part of villagers.12
Another variation from ordinary common-law procedure of a somewhat different kind occurred in the great franchises of Norman England. The legal side of these units is interesting. They were built up before and after the Conquest, in the main for purposes of defense along an unruly border in the north and west. Each was composed of tiers under an overlord whose position in his domain was in some cases almost that of a king. The "sword of Chester" was in some ways almost equivalent to the "crown of St. Edward" over the lord. The king was still ruler, demanding loyalty and exercising a certain amount of control, in different degree in different franchises, especially over defaulters and traitors.13
The most marked characteristic of these great franchises was the usual exemption from the authority of the common-law courts and variations in procedure. From some points of view the palatinates of Chester, Durham, and Lancaster may be considered as the most instructive in their varied history. In ordinary matters the lord took the place of the king, always theoretically by the king's consent. If royal justices appeared within their boundaries it was with the lord's consent, unless there had been a default in feudal justice. The king's writ did not run, although procedure on the lord's writ might be like that of the ordinary courts. Most of the exempt jurisdictions had their general centers in the gateways into Wales, at Shrewsbury, Hereford, and Gloucester, and their lands were in part at least conquered lands. Shrewsbury ceased to be a palatinate in the time of Henry I; Chester went back to the crown in 1237 and was given to Prince Edward in 1254. He finally conquered it, together with Flintshire, Denbighshire, Cardigan, and Carmarthen, and in 1284 the ordinance annexing Wales, which resulted in a compromise between Welsh and English law, was issued. The later survey of the honor of Denbigh, edited by Sir Paul Vinogradoff's seminar,14 shows some of these points of contact of English and Welsh law and custom, part of the inhabitants living under Welsh custom, part under English. The king's writ did not run in some parts of the liberty, and the king's problem of how to attain a peaceful government was a difficult one. There was no writ of error, no writ of certiorari, and the peace that was broken was the lord's, not the king's. Recourse might be had to parliament, however, and the king was regarded as the ultimate dominus. The building up of the great Lancaster fief and the accumulation of lands finally in the hands of the Black Prince, from the earldom of Chester and the earldom of Cornwall and other great lordships, is also very instructive. The threads of local liberties and customs were without question gathered up in Westminster and London.
Durham, a very great liberty on the northern border of England, brings in an additional factor, the ecclesiastical courts and church law, for its lord was a bishop. Durham was a border district and often the subject of dispute between English Northumberland and the Scottish kings. It was almost more Scottish than English. In Dr. Lapsley's famous and admirable book15 on this franchise we can watch the working of palatinate law and the contact of the franchise with common law and church law. Only crime or an attack upon the king was subject to immediate royal jurisdiction. The maxim developed, "quicquid rex habet extra, episcopus habet infra." The bishop speaks of pax nostra. Even here, however, fell the shadow of the crown; not all was left to custom and local law. The king could be reached by petition and the powers of the bishop varied at different times, being at their height from 1292 through the fourteenth century. There are traces of northern custom still remaining in this northern franchise; for example, rewards are paid for the heads of decapitated robbers. Among these great jurisdictions should be mentioned the Channel Islands, where the custom and law of Normandy prevailed, and the Isle of Man, once belonging to Norway.
Within England were many smaller franchises which varied in the amount of exemption they had from common-law procedure. Most extensive of the liberties in privilege, but very small in the extent of territory, were the banlieux of monasteries and ecclesiastical foundations. Within a limited territory the king's writ did not run, but the abbot or ecclesiastical officer was the lord. Within the Four Crosses of St. Edmund, for example, such jurisdiction was exercised, and common-law officers were excluded. Very rewarding in this connection would be a study of some of those bundles of writs preserved in the Record Office, not yet calendared and still largely unused. They furnish a good field of investigation for some student of early English history. There often is a bundle of five or six hundred for each of the four law terms of the Common Bench in a given year. Even the later ones, those of early Edward III, the only ones which I have used, are full of detailed matters of importance. Those in any bundle dealing with liberties show the sheriff delivering the writ to the bailiff and the bailiff returning it, or not, with notes on its adventures within the liberty. If the bailiff has not delivered it, the writ ne omittas propter libertatem is issued to the sheriff, which enables him to enter the liberty and perform his duties. In cases where the king's writ did not run the substantive common law is found within the liberty, and the difference was one of procedure, but even here old custom would also be recognized:
And as in good St Edwards days So must it go, St Use allows, When Norman lords, ride English ways.
While not very much may be known of the early law of exempt jurisdictions, some light is thrown on them in the great volumes wherein are printed the Hundred Rolls and subsequent proceedings. The English Justinian before and after his accession in 1272 tried to cut down on private jurisdiction wherever it lay by questioning the ancient warrant for it, and, even when accepting the efficacy of its charter or claim of prescription, by preventing its extension--and incidentally by taking large fines for settlement of the cases. There is a good deal of information on this in early Year Books dealing with franchises and their legal status. An interesting example arose in the liberty of Durham; the question is asked: May the king's sheriff enter the liberty on the king's command? The answer is that the bishop has such franchise that he has royal power, and no minister of the king may enter except on default of franchisal justice. It is objected that the king's prerogative is above any franchise, and if a sheriff distrains in a liberty he does it in contempt of the king, who has by his prerogative created the liberty.16
Other exemptions from the application of the common-law courts and their rules were functional in character. Districts lay outside the corpus comitatus, for example, because they were furnishing mines and their products. Mines for precious metals, gold and silver, belonged to the king, and his claim was accepted generally. Non-precious metals were mined in the usual way, although Richard I tried to claim special control over them. They went with the land, and the owners had their rights, as they had over the rest of their soil. But there was a third class of miners more interesting from the point of view of exemption from common-law rules. In some places where there were tin and lead mines, for example, in Cornwall and Devon, there had grown up groups of miners from very early times who formed semi-independent communities with their own customs and their own courts.17 Besides courts they had executive convocations and perhaps legislative meetings as well, and no tinner might be subpoenaed by any other court for any matter determinable in his own court. Their workings were divided into five districts in each county, each with its own court and steward, and there were larger courts under wardens. The Pipe Rolls refer to their privileges in 1243 and 1297, and there are earlier references. Richard I's charter of 1198 gives some picture of the organization as it was at that time, but the tin mines were much older even than this and were probably pre-Conquest in origin, forming little states of great solidarity.
Similar communities of miners may be found in the Mendips and in the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire and elsewhere, for example, in Cumberland and Derbyshire. I suppose that the crown insisted on maintaining its courts in order to keep the metal flowing. Common-law procedure took too long. Here, too, definition of the miners' privileges and place of work restricted their extension. They were clearly not always welcome neighbors to the owners of the soil. A late protest states, for example, that more than sixty tinners entered on the Black Prince's demesne and soil, "which was bearing corn, barley, oats, beans, and peas as fine as any in Cornwall, and have conducted water in, by reason of which they deluge the land, and nothing remains but stones and gravel."
Still other regions in England that were in early times under special jurisdiction of their own in regard to certain matters of daily living were those which had to be defended against natural dangers arising from the sea and the flooding by rivers. Very clear provisions were made for the regions of salt marshes and the fenlands. Great fens stretched sometimes far inland in low-lying countryside, and the "sweet waters" of the downrushing rivers meeting low plains and the high tides of the sea were piled back and the land along their course was thus flooded. From the earliest time local safeguards had to be set up to protect the inhabitants. One remembers the old stories of the stilt-walking and skating Gyrvians, the fenmen of the Wash, and their rude ways. Here there grew up the custom of the maintenance of walls and dykes and ditches, the extension of the duty of maintenance over all living in the region, and the heavy punishments of those who failed in their duty. In like manner great salt marshes along the seacoast where the sea overflowed and had to be kept walled out were from Saxon days treated specially and severely. The negligence of one might endanger all. Romney Marsh is a very good example; its great churches are an evidence of the close habitation of the region in early times, and we know of the great "innings" from the sea made by early archbishops. In time ordinances and rules were made and officers appointed for the maintenance of old safeguards, including within them all of the ancient customary arrangements that were possible.18 Thus the old sea wall of Dymchurch, made famous in our time by Kipling, was retained, and also some of the old regulations made necessary by the white steeple of Lydd church, which drew into the sandy shore ships laden with raisins and spices.
A very delightful variation in common-law procedure is found in the beautiful regions called forests. You may remember Chaucer's lines:
Thorgh me men gon into that blysful place Of hertis hele and deadly woundis cure, Thorgh me men gon unto the welle of grace There grene and lusty May shall ever endure. This is the weye to all good aventure.
The dark obscurity of the Conquest period makes it difficult to see the exact development of the forest administration. We know of William's assignment of New Forest and certain other regions mentioned in Domesday Book to be forests and so to be distinguished from the usual silva or boscus, the ordinary woodland. We know of pre-Conquest charters which speak of hunting parties in certain regions, but it is probable that the pre-Conquest wood was not forest in the technical sense in which the word is later used, and it is clear that early English forest organization owes much to the already existing forests of Normandy. One finds many familiar arrangements in the Forest of Eu in Normandy, for example.
To understand the technical use of the word forest in England we must give up its usual connotation as statio ferarum, home of wild beasts, wild wood, or waste. After the Conquest the word refers to a region probably largely wood and waste, it is true, but also a region under forest law and not necessarily excluding all habitation. Such districts were usually the king's but not always. There are a few private forests also, like Whitby's in the East Riding, or Coupland in Cumberland, and down through early English history there are forests which disappear later in the rapes of Sussex and in Lancaster regions in the north and elsewhere. Within the forests both the red and fallow deer and the boar are preserved for royal hunting and for any disposition the king may wish to make of them. He may grant them to his sister, or to a bishop, or to lords passing through the forest, or to Westminster Abbey, with a hunting menee sounded as they are put on St. Peter's altar. To the poor are sometimes given those that are putrid and not fit for ordinary use!
In these lands there was built up a very clear and exacting system of punishment and fine. Sad was the lot of the jolly huntsman who let himself be caught doing any injury to vert, that is, bush high enough to cast a shadow, or venison. Forest fines were very profitable to the king, if looked at from that point of view! There were many royal officers, forest justices in eyre, foresters for special forests, some of whom held their office in fee and had many perquisites. There were courts held for forest trespasses and offenses, and records of their procedure give a clear view of many forest arrangements.
There are, however, some points where questions arise. It is clear enough that the common law operated in forest regions for offenses not concerned with the forest code. Such cases may be studied in common-law records of villages, for example, that lay within the forest boundaries and where other kinds of offenses might also well occur. In the wilder regions the offenses would usually be only forest cases tried by forest law. There still remain from early days, however, some puzzling questions, resulting largely from the confusion regarding the status of given regions. Districts were put in or out of forest law, and uncertainty of boundaries prevailed. Such questions, however, would be satisfactorily answered as time went on and clear definition appeared. It is obvious that the king would enjoy a wide district to hunt in and perhaps still more obvious that he would enjoy the fines his officers could collect. But it is also clear that feudal lords objected to the curtailment of their liberty implied in afforestation, and still more clear that commoners in land once free would object to interference with their cattle going to and from pasture and with the cutting of wood for fuel. Did common-law officers and forest officers always reach a happy adjustment in these matters? The number of forests even in the restricted days after the great disafforestations of Edward III was listed at approximately seventy, and the extent of their liberty must once have been greater.19
The forests had other uses. They were used as breeding places of the king's studs, his great horses, his mares, his cows. They seem sometimes to have been part of defense units, as in the rapes of Sussex, and also they became sometimes, by the king's command, refuges for those in danger from invasion by the Scots.
Merchant law and maritime law also present many interesting features that differ from the common-law procedure.20 They are concerned very often with those who were not Englishmen, or those Englishmen who lived away from the neighborhood where the particular cases were coming to trial or peaceful settlement. The word foreigner was used for both these classes. Foreign merchants in our sense of the word came into England in groups for trade purposes and as a rule used the code of laws which English ports preferred, the so-called code of Oléron, originating in Barcelona but widely used elsewhere, just as merchants of the Mediterranean used often the Consolato del Mare. These codes, established in coast towns of the countries using them, were of much importance in the growth of merchant law. We find the code of Oléron clearly in use in the days of Edward II. There is not very much evidence of earlier procedure.
There was in very early days a somewhat mysterious custuma maritima on the sea coasts for trade or protection. The courts of admiralty do not develop clearly until the days of Richard II. The main problem of these early coastal courts was to secure speedy justice. Foreign merchants were "come today and gone tomorrow" and procedure in ordinary courts of common law was extremely slow. So special arrangements were made. In Grimsby, for example, cases relating to foreign fish had to be settled within three tides, those related to foreign corn within three days. The judges in these courts were the merchants, and the procedure, except in land cases, was summary. It was pointed out long ago by Professor Gross that these courts helped to extend a reasonable method of proof against the slower methods of compurgation and ordeal, assize, and outlawry used in the common-law courts. Thus at Yarmouth, courts sitting at tide time had to render their decision by the next tide.
There is a certain picturesque side to the contact of the king's courts with old customs and regulations such as I have enumerated. Except where customary procedure is definitely encountre la ley, as the court puts it, there is a desire to maintain the old tried familiar ways and to adapt them to new ends. Reasonable conditions will be maintained, and dull uniformity is not in itself considered meritorious. The king's prerogative, which might well become a danger to just, established, and reasonable procedure, is in practice required to conform with reason. Four times the early courts as described in the Year Books decide in a case before them that the king has not proved his right to have certain advowsons to churches. Once his order to execute a delinquent is not obeyed. The answer given to him may be couched in courteous terms: "The king would not have asked for this if he had known the circumstances which would make assent to it unjust"; "the king has forgotten that he had already appointed to this post." It is assumed that the king will govern with justice and support the courts in the maintenance of old tradition where it is just. The royal prerogative while a very important factor in the administration of law is in practice restrained within reasonable limits. The king too must adapt himself to the customs of the kingdom, sometimes upholding them as in ancient desmesne, in the thought that to himself may sometime escheat the land in question.
One would not today perhaps like Serjeant Maynard of old choose a year book to divert one in one's travels, but one can still read legal records with profit to see how the free governments of the English-speaking peoples have come into being. Professor McIlwain has spoken recently of the "barrier" of the common law against tyranny and injustice. I should like to add, in concluding my remarks, those well-known words of Sir Francis Bacon: "The king is bound by the law he makes. He cannot exceed the limits of that law. If he does wrong he is nothing but tyrant. Ideo cor regis bene regentis dicitur in manu dei." Nurtured in the common law we Americans too have pledged against what seems to us to be tyranny "our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honour."
8. See especially Paul Vinogradoff, Villainage in England (Oxford, 1892), essay i, chap. iii.
9. For example, see Year Books, 33-35 Edward I, p. 310; F. W. Maitland, Year Books, 2 Edward II, I (London, 1903), p. 60; W. C. Bolland, Year Books, 5 Edward II, XI (London, 1915), p. 126.
10. Publications of the Selden Society, XVIII, XXI (London, 1904-1906).
11. Neilson, ed., Terrier of Fleet, Lincolnshire (London, 1920), introduction.
12. Ibid., introduction.
13. Caroline A. J. Skeel, The Council in the Marches of Wales (London, 1904), introduction; Thomas F. Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England (3 vols., New York, 1920-33); Eleanor C. Lodge and Robert Somerville, eds., John of Gaunt's Register, 1379-1383 (2 vols., London, 1937); Holdsworth, I, 117 ff.
14. Vinogradoff and Frank Morgan, eds., Survey of the Honour of Denbigh, 1334 (London, 1914).
15. Gaillard T. Lapsley, Count Palatine of Durham (New York, 1900).
16. Year Books, 5 Edward II, XI, 62 ff.
17. George R. Lewis, The Stannaries: A Study of the English Tin Miner (Boston, 1908); L. Margaret Midgley, ed., Ministers' Accounts of the Earldom of Cornwall, 1296-1297 (London, 1942).
18. Neilson, ed., Cartulary and Terrier of the Priory of Bilsington, Kent (London, 1928), introduction; Henry C. Darby, The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge, 1940); William Dugdale, History of Imbanking and Drayning of Divers Fenns and Marshes (London, 1662).
19. James F. Willard and William A. Morris, eds., The English Government at Work, 1327-1336, I (Cambridge, 1940), chap. ix, where many references are given; also Elizabeth Cox Wright, "Common Law in the Thirteenth-Century English Royal Forest," Speculum, III (1928), 168 ff.
20. See especially Holdsworth, I, 526 and passim; Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, compiled by various authors and edited by a committee of the Association of American Law Schools (Boston, 1907-1909), I, chap. ix; Ephraim Lipson, Economic History of England (London, 1915-31), I, 196 ff.; Charles Gross, The Gild Merchant: A Contribution to British Municipal History (Oxford, 1890). |
Why was the US so against Japanese aggression in China but did nothing about Germany in Europe?
1 The US was very vocal against Japanese aggression in China in the 1930's and early 1940's but said nothing against German aggression in Europe. The US finally placed an embargo on sending oil and iron ore to Japan as a protest but did nothing against Germany. Yet it would seem that China at that time was not a vital interest of the US but Europe, with friendly nations like England and France, was. The embargo finally caused Japan to look for other sources of these vital materials which eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. We declared war on Japan as a result but not on Germany. My question is why did we put up with Germany's actions but not Japan's? I know that we aided England with Lend Lease and such, but we maintained diplomatic relations with Germany and did not protest their actions the way we did with Japan.
While others will probably be able to give a complete answer, my guess is that it was partly because Japan had already started a major and brutal war against China (early 1930s) whereas German aggression before the attack against Poland had not been military.
"The China lobby."
@Sid Annexation of the Czechoslovakia was also backed up by a military threat.
– quant_dev
@quant_dev: True but threatening military action and actually waging a brutal military war are two very different things.
Seriously? The US began selling vast quantities of arms to the Allies in September 1939 ('Cash and Carry'), bartered 50 warships to the British a year later ('Destroyers for Bases'), and finally just started giving them vast quantities of munitions in March 1941 ('Lend-Lease'). In Summer 1941 American troops relieved the British in Iceland, and US naval forces began an undeclared but very real war against U-Boats in the North Atlantic. Strange way to do "nothing!"
– Evan Harper
There was considerable political opposition to the US becoming involved in European affairs again. Perhaps the most influential of these was Charles Lindbergh and the America First organization he was affiliated with. When you read through his speeches and other non-interventionist, you'll see that their main focus was on Europe. These groups fell silent for the most part after the German declaration of war against the US following Pearl Harbor.
There was less concern about Japan in the general public. For the most part, up until Pearl Harbor, people didn't think an Asian power would pose a threat. They considered the aggressive, yet diplomatic, moves to be sufficient to curb Japanese aggression in Asia. It wasn't seen as a prelude to war as much as things like Lend-Lease and proposed arms sales to Britain were.
As I noted above, Lindbergh's and America First's opinions were the predominate ones when it came to non-interventionism in Europe. From America First on the Charles Lindbergh site: America First Committee Original Four Principles:
The United States must build an impregnable defense for America
No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
"Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
The above principles expressed the general thoughts of the movement. The attack on Pearl Harbor shattered the first 2 points, weakened the 3rd and made the last one moot.
Before that attack followed by the German declaration of war, with the memory of WWI and its aftermath still fresh in the minds of middle age and older Americans, many did not want to become entangled in what they saw as another European war. Most were concerned about the rise of Germany as a power in Europe again although there was much division about the way to deal with it. Lindbergh's idea of "impregnable defense" competed with FDR's limited interventionism.
Polling data from the era isn't as accurate as today's polls but they indicated that about 2/3's of the public supported FDR's policies but that America First was gaining support quickly in some regions of the country, enough that the 1942 mid-terms could have caused a switch in opinions in Congress.
It's still not clear to me why Germany's actions were not as vigorously opposed by the US as compared to how Japan's were. The US knew that its strong rhetoric and actions such as the embargo were going to lead to war with Japan (Pearl Harbor was a surprise because the Philippines was expected to be the initial target). Once Germany declared war on the US, the "Greatest Generation" suddenly was very eager to stick it to them. What's not clear is where were these emotions before. Was it just due to isolationism or the desire to have the Germans fight the Russians, or something else?
@quant_dev - There has always been a significant portion of the US population that had a moral indignation about racism and related problems. This was on the increase in the 1930's. The extreme and brutal racial dogma of the Axis regimes increased this trend.
Germany was not a DIRECT threat to the United States. There were two reasons. First, Germany had no navy to speak of (unless it captured the British fleet). Second, the U.S. was counting on Britain and France to contain Germany (until May/June 1940).
Japan was a much clearer threat to the United States. First, because there was no counterweight in Asia to Japan. Second, Japan had a real navy, one that actually more powerful than that of the United States BEFORE Pearl Harbor. That disaster was a consequence, not a cause, of U.S. naval inferiority. (Japan overbuilt, and the U.S. underbuilt the 3-5 ratio prescribed by the Washington Naval Treaty.)
If the United States had been able to defend Britain against Germany, it needed only to defeat Japan in order to be "safe." The combined U.S. and British fleets would have deterred an invasion across the Atlantic. On the other hand, an Axis victory scenario would probably have involved a Japanese fleet convoying a victorious German army from Siberia across the Pacific to Alaska and British Columbia.
"On the other hand, an Axis victory scenario would probably have involved a Japanese fleet convoying a victorious German army from Siberia across the Pacific to Alaska and British Columbia." -- This army would be doomed. I can't imagine successfully supplying such an invasion army across an OCEAN.
@quant_dev: It's something like 55 miles from Siberia across the Bering Strait to Alaska. If the Japanese fleet had maintained parity with ours (with the help of the Germans) this could have been a threat. (But the Japanese fleet DIDN'T maintain parity.)
I don't think the distance from Siberia is really an issue, unless Siberia had some kind of large agricultural or manufacturing capabilities I'm unaware of. I do agree with your first two paragraphs, but the bit in question seems rather unlikely to me. More likely the'd have happily settled for hegemony over the Old world. I'm not a fan of the Axis, but I don't think they were truly bent on world conquest like they were playing Risk or something.
"It's something like 55 miles from Siberia across the Bering Strait to Alaska." - Were there ports which didn't freeze in winter in both Eastern Siberia and Alaska? |
Mounted in 1999, Origins of American Animation is among the very earliest online exhibits. Composed of twenty-one full-length animations and two fragments, the exhibit documents the earliest years of animation pioneers. Animations include J. Stuart Blackton’s Humorous Phases of Funny Faces (1906); one from Earl Hurd’s Bobby Bumps theatrical cartoon series (1916–1925); several examples from Raoul Barré's seven-film Phables series (1915–1916); and two Winsor McCay offerings, including Gertie the Dinosaur (1914) and The Centaurs (1921), among others. Probably the best examples are Leon Searl’s Krazy Kat cartoons. Like many of the other Library of Congress online collections, Origins of Animation is accessible by browsing a subject index, an alphabetical title list, a chronological title list, or via a keyword search. The results are displayed as a list.
Stills from Krazy Kat, Bugologist
Accompanying the exhibit is a special presentation, “Notes on the Origins of American Animation,” that provides basic information about the cartoon clips and the animators. (The Web site indicates that the clip commentaries are essentially liner notes from another project and are fairly brief.) The animation clips themselves are available in three formats: RealMedia, MPEG, and QuickTime. Of these, the MPEG option is the most useful; the QuickTime version is postage-stamp sized and RealMedia is an outdated format. I can happily report, however, that the Library of Congress has made its Origins of Animation cartoons and four additional examples available on YouTube. These clips are much larger and can be downloaded for classroom use. One last summary collection of related materials, Collection Connections, augments the archive. Unfortunately, there is no teaching module accompanying the exhibit. |
American Memory: Historical Collections for the National Digital Library
Library of Congress, American Memory.This expansive archive of American history and culture features photographs, prints, motion pictures, manuscripts, printed books, pamphlets, maps, and sound recordings going back to roughly 1490. Currently this site includes more than 9 million digital items from more than 100 collections on subjects ranging from African-American political pamphlets to California folk music, from baseball to the Civil War. Most topical sites include special presentations introducing particular depositories or providing historical context for archival materials. Visitors can search collections separately or all at once by keyword and type of source (photos and prints, documents, films, sound recordings, or maps). In addition, the Learning Page provides well-organized help for using the collections, including sample teaching assignments. WWW.History includes individual annotations for many of the current collections.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO, VIDEO.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
Steven Mintz and Sara McNeil. See JAH web review by Simon Appleford and Vernon Burton. Reviewed 2008-03-01.Provides multimedia resources and links for teaching American history and conducting basic research, while focusing on slavery, ethnic history, private life, technological achievement, and American film. Presents more than 600 documents pertaining to American politics, diplomacy, social history, slavery, Mexican American history, and Native American history, searchable by author, time period, subject, and keyword, and annotated with essays of 300–500 words each. The site offers a full U.S. history textbook and more than 1,500 searchable and briefly annotated links to American history-related sites, including approximately 150 links to historic Supreme Court decisions, 330 links to audio files of historic speeches, and more than 450 links to audio files and transcripts of historians discussing their own books. Also includes five high school lesson plans; 39 fact sheets with quotations and study questions on major historical topics; 10 essays (800 words) on past controversies, such as the Vietnam War, socialism, and the war on poverty; seven essays presenting historical background on more recent controversies, such as hostage crises and NATO in Kosovo; and essays of more than 10,000 words each on the history of American film and private life in America. Four current exhibits offer 217 photographs, ca. 1896–1903, from the Calhoun Industrial School in Alabama, a freedmen’s school; 19 watercolor sketches by a Civil War soldier; seven letters between 18th-century English historian Catharine Macaulay and American historian Mercy Otis Warren; and an 1865 letter from Frederick Douglass to Mary Todd Lincoln. A valuable site for high school students and teachers looking for comprehensive guidance from professional historians on the current state of debate on many topics in American history.Resources Available: IMAGES.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin and American Culture
Stephen Railton, University of Virginia. See JAH web review by Ellen Noonan. Reviewed 2001-12-01.This well-designed site explores Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin “as an American cultural phenomenon.” The section of “Pre Texts, 1830–1852” provides dozens of texts, songs, and images from the various genres Stowe drew upon: Christian Texts, Sentimental Culture, Anti-Slavery Texts, and Minstrel Shows. The section on Uncle Tom’s Cabin includes Stowe’s preface, multiple versions of the text, playable songs from the novel, and Stowe’s defense against criticism, The Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. A third section focuses on responses to the book from 1852 to 1930, including 25 reviews, over 400 articles and notes, nearly 100 responses from African Americans, and almost 70 of pro-slavery responses. The final section explores “Other Media,” including children’s books, songs, games, and theatrical versions. 15 interpretive exhibits challenge students to explore how slavery and race were defined and redefined as well as how various characters assumed a range of political and social meanings. Excellent for teachers and students.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO.Website last visited on 2007-10-11.
America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945
American Memory, Library of Congress.More than 160,000 images taken by government photographers with the Farm Security Administration (FSA) and the Office of War Information (OWI) during the New Deal and World War II eras are featured on this site. These images document the ravages of the Great Depression on farmers, scenes of everyday life in small towns and cities, and, in later years, mobilization campaigns for World War II. This site includes approximately 1,600 color photographs and selections from 2 extremely popular collections: “’Migrant Mother’ Photographs” and “Photographs of Signs Enforcing Racial Discrimination.” The site also provides a bibliography, a background essay of about 500 words, seven short biographical sketches of FSA-OWI photographers, links to 7 related sites, and 3 essays on cataloging and digitizing the collection. The photographs are searchable by keyword and arranged into a subject index.Resources Available: IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-10-01.
African-American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A. P. Murray Collection, 1818–1907
American Memory, Library of Congress. See JAH web review by Randall Burkett. Reviewed 2005-12-01.This site presents approximately 350 African-American pamphlets and documents, most of them produced between 1875 and 1900. These works provide “a panoramic and eclectic review of African-American history and culture” in a number of forms, including sermons, organization reports, college catalogs, graduation orations, slave narratives, Congressional speeches, poetry, and playscripts. Topics covered include segregation, voting rights, violence against African Americans, and the colonization movement. Authors include Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Benjamin W. Arnett, Alexander Crummel, and Emanuel Love. Information about publication and a short description (75 words) of content accompanies each pamphlet. The site also offers a timeline of African-American history from 1852 to 1925 and reproductions of original documents and illustrations. A special presentation “The Progress of a People,” recreates a meeting of the National Afro-American Council in December 1898. A rich resource for studying 19th- and early 20th-century African-American leaders and representatives of African-American religious, civic, and social organizations.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-10-02.
Votes for Women: Selections from the National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection, 1848–1921
Creative Americans: Portraits by Carl Van Vechten, 1932–1964
New York Public Library Digital Gallery
New York Public Library.This massive collection presents more than 550,000 images relevant to both U.S. and world history, from the earliest days of print culture to the present. These images consist primarily of historical maps, posters, prints and photographs, illuminated manuscript pages, and images drawn from published books. For browsing, the materials are divided by subject heading, library of origin, the name of the item’s creator and/or publisher, and by collection: Arts & Literature; Cities & Building; Culture & Society; History & Geography; Industry & Technology; Nature & Science; and Printing & Graphics. Within these broad collection headings, the images are further subdivided into more specific groupings, for example, Indonesian dance, dress and fashion, Civil War medical care, and New York City apartment buildings. Keyword and Advanced Search options are useful for those wishing to locate specific items. All images can be downloaded for personal use and are accompanied by detailed biographic information, though users will have to turn elsewhere for further historical context.Resources Available: IMAGES.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
Federal Resources for Educational Excellence: History & Social Studies
U.S. Department of Education.This megasite brings together resources for teaching U.S. and world history from the far corners of the web. Most of these websites boast large collections of primary sources from the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the National Archives and Records Administration, and prominent universities. There are more than 600 websites listed for U.S. history alone, divided by time period and topic: Business & Work, Ethnic Groups, Famous People, Government, Movements, States & Regions, Wars, and Other Social Studies. While most of these websites are either primary source archives (for example, History of the American West, 1860–1920) or virtual exhibits, many offer lesson plans and ready-made student activities, such as EDSITEment, created by the National Endowment for the Humanities. A good place to begin is the (Subject Map), which lists resources by sub-topic, including African Americans (67 resources), Women’s History (37 resources), and Natural Disasters (16 resources). Each resource is accompanied by a brief annotation that facilitates quick browsing. Resources Available: TEXT.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
SCETI: Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text and Image
University of Pennsylvania Special Collections Library.These eclectic special collection materials span the 17th to the 20th centuries. Visitors can search material from nine collections and visit 14 exhibitions. The collection “A Crisis of the Union” on the Civil War presents 224 pamphlets, broadsides, clippings, paintings, and maps to address the “causes, conduct, and consequences” of the war. A collection devoted to Theodore Dreiser presents correspondence, variant editions of the novel Sister Carrie, an early manuscript for Jennie Gerhardt, and scholarly essays. A collection of approximately 4,000 photographs from singer Marian Anderson’s papers is complemented by an exhibit that includes more than 40 audio and video recordings. A collection on the history of chemistry emphasizes the pre-1850 period with monographs on chemistry and alchemy, and more than 3,000 prints and photographs of scientists, laboratories, and apparatus. The Robert and Molly Freedman archive of Jewish Music recordings includes 26,000 catalog entries in English, Yiddish, and Hebrew and six sample recordings. Exhibits celebrate the work of Eugene Ormandy and Leopold Stokowski. Women’s history is represented by the diaries of five American and one English woman written between 1850 and 1909. Diaries range from one to 30 years and are both indexed by date and available for reading as text. An exhibit titled “Household Words” presents writing by women about food from the 15th to the 20th century. An exhibit on the colonization of the Americas as it appeared in print presents illustrations, maps, and manuscripts from the age of exploration. The site also includes an exhibit on the development of the ENIAC computer and a selection of 49 works from the University of Pennsylvania’s art museum. he English Renaissance in Context (ERIC) provides tutorials and a database of texts to help students analyze Shakespearean works and plays.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO, VIDEO.Website last visited on 2007-12-04.
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota. See JAH web review by Joel Perlmann. Reviewed 2003-06-01.Currently provides 22 census data samples and 65 million records from 13 federal censuses covering the period 1850–1990. These data “collectively comprise our richest source of quantitative information on long-term changes in the American population.” The project has applied uniform codes to previously published and newly created data samples. Rather than offering data in aggregated tabular form, the site offers data on individuals and households, allowing researchers to tailor tabulations to their specific interests. Includes data on fertility, marriage, immigration, internal migration, work, occupational structure, education, ethnicity, and household composition. Offers extensive documentation on procedures used to transform data and includes 13 links to other census-related sites. A complementary project to provide multiple data samples from every country from the 1960s to 2000 is underway. Currently this international series offers information and interpretive essays on Kenya, Vietnam, Mexico, Hungary, and Brazil. Of major importance for those doing serious research in social history, the site will probably be forbidding to novices.Resources Available: TEXT.Website last visited on 2008-10-08.
Heading West & Touring West
New York Public Library. See JAH web review by William D. Rowley. Reviewed 2008-09-01.This site is home to two related exhibits about the exploration and settlement of the American west. “Heading West” is a collection of 15 maps produced between 1540 and 1900 and divided into five categories: imagining, exploring, settling, mining, and traveling. A 700-word essay introduces the exhibit and each image is accompanied by 50–400 words of explanation. The site links to 16 other sites about exploration and maps of the west. “Touring West” is a collection of materials about performers who toured the west in the 19th century. It is divided into five sections: travel, abolitionists, railroads, recitals, and heroics. Visitors will find 3 images in each section and 50–400 words of explanation. The images include prints and photographs of performers, programs, and promotional posters. An introductory essay of 500-words describes the collection. The site offers 15 links to sites about performance. Both exhibits will be useful to those interested in the west, performance, or search of illustrations.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
Kentuckiana Digital Library
Kentucky Virtual Library.Provides a wealth of historical material from 15 Kentucky colleges, universities, libraries, and historical societies. Includes nearly 8,000 photographs; 95 full-text books, manuscripts, and journals, from 1784 to 1971; 94 oral history interviews; 78 issues of the magazine Mountain Life & Work, from 1925–62; and 22 issues of the publication Works Progress Administration in Kentucky: Narrative Reports, covering 1935–37. Includes photographic collections of renowned photographer Russell Lee, who documented health conditions resulting from coal industry practices; Roy Stryker, head of the Farm Security Administration photographic project; and others that provide images of a variety of cities, towns, schools, camps, and disappearing cultures. Presents oral histories pertaining to Supreme Court Justice Stanley F. Reed, U.S. Senator John Sherman Cooper, the Frontier Nursing Service, American military veterans, Appalachian fiddlers, and the transition of an area from farming to an industrial economy. Texts include Civil War diaries, religious tracts, speeches, correspondence, and scrapbooks. Includes documents on colonization societies, civil rights, education, railroads, feuding, the Kentucky Derby, exploits of Daniel Boone, pioneer surgery, and a recollection of Abraham Lincoln. Valuable for those studying changes in the social and cultural history of the state.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO.Website last visited on 2007-11-23.
University of Georgia Libraries.Provides an enormous amount of material digitized from collections housed in libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural institutions in the state of Georgia. Legal materials include more than 17,000 public state government documents from 1994 to the present, updated daily, and a complete set of Acts and Resolutions from 1799 to 1995. A set of “Southeastern Native American Documents” provides approximately 2,000 letters, legal documents, military orders, financial papers, and archeological images covering the period 1730–1842. Materials from the Civil War-era include a soldier’s diary and two collections of letters, one from the wife of an Atlanta lawyer and plantation owner. The site provides a collection of 80 full-text, word-searchable versions of books from the early nineteenth century to the 1920s and three historic newspapers. The site also includes approximately 2,500 political cartoons by Clifford H. “Baldy” Baldowski, from 1946–1982; copies from a first-hand account of a violent incident of civil unrest during a political rally in 1868; Jimmy Carter’s diaries of 1971–75 and 1977–81; annual reports of the mayor of Savannah, 1865–1917; photographs of African Americans from around Augusta in the late 19th century; and 1,500 architectural and landscape photographs from the 1940s to the 1980s. A valuable collection for students of southern life, politics, law, and culture.Resources Available: IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-11-23.
Ohio Memory Project. See JAH web review by Susan E. Gray. Reviewed 2003-12-01.In honor of the state of Ohio’s bicentennial in 2003, this site was created to digitize and make accessible extensive collections residing in a variety of Ohio archives, libraries, museums, and local historical societies. At present, more than 330 Ohio institutions have contributed more than 4,100 collections covering Ohio life, culture, and history from prehistoric times to 1903. Currently the site provides more than 26,000 images: 2,786 audiovisual items; 768 historical objects, artifacts, buildings, or sites; 106 natural history specimens; 809 published works; and 691 collections of unpublished material. Users can search by word, date, or place, and browse by format, place, subject heading, or institution. Displayed materials are presented chronologically on scrapbook pages with 9 selections per page. The site provides descriptions and cataloging information for each entry, including links to related sites. Visitors can zoom into individual images for close inspection and create their own annotated scrapbook for future use. The site includes a �Learning Resources� section with 22 categories, including African Americans, agriculture, American Indians, arts and entertainment, business and labor, civil liberties, daily life, education, immigration and ethnic heritage, government, religion, science and technology, sports, and women. This section provides essays of up to 2,000 words illustrated with relevant material. Objects range from 500,000,000-year-old fossils to a 19th-century amputating kit to a 161-page book of poems by a Youngstown steel worker known as the “Puddler Poet.” Valuable for those looking to understand a wide variety of historical topics from a local or regional perspective.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
WPA Life Histories, Virginia Interviews
Library of Virginia.Provides approximately 1,350 life histories and youth studies created by the Virginia Writers‘ Project (VWP)—part of the Works Progress Administration’s Federal Writers’ Project—between October 1938 and May 1941. In addition, the site offers more than 50 interviews with ex-slaves conducted by the VWP’s all-black Virginia Negro Studies unit in 1936 and 1937 and six VWP folklore studies produced between 1937 and 1942. The life histories—ranging between two and 16 pages in length—offer information on rural and urban occupational groups and experiences of individuals during the Depression, in addition to remembrances of late 19th-century and early 20th-century life. The youth studies investigate experiences of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who left school and include a survey of urban black youth. The ex-slave narratives, selected from more than 300 that were conducted for the project—of which only one-half have survived—provided research for the 1940 WPA publication The Negro in Virginia. Interviews and studies were edited—sometimes extensively—at the Richmond home office. Each study includes a bibliographic record with notes searchable by keyword; for many records, notes are structured to include searchable data on age, gender, race, nationality, industrial classification, and occupation. The site includes a 2,300-word overview of the project. Valuable for those studying social, economic, and cultural life in Virginia during the Depression, in addition to early periods, youth culture, and the history of slavery.Resources Available: TEXT.Website last visited on 2008-10-09.
Plymouth Colony Archive Project
Patricia Scott Deetz, Christopher Fennell, and J. Eric Deetz, University of Virginia. See JAH web review by John Saillant. Reviewed 2004-06-01.Presents a wealth of documents and analytical essays pertaining to the social history of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1691. Also offers a tribute to the scholarly work of the late James Deetz, Harrison Professor of Historical Archaeology, University of Virginia. Documents include 135 probates, 24 wills, and 14 texts containing laws and court cases on such subjects as land division, master-servant relations, sexual misconduct, and disputes involving Native Americans. In addition, the site provides more than 90 biographical studies, research papers and topical articles by James Deetz, Patricia Scott Deetz, and their students that analyze “life ways” of 395 individuals who lived in the colony and offer theoretical views on the colony’s legal structure, women’s roles, vernacular house forms, and domestic violence, among other topics. Includes 25 maps or plans of the colony; approximately 50 photographs; excerpts from Deetz’s books on the history and myths of Plymouth Colony and on Anglo-American gravestone styles; seven lesson plans; an extensive glossary of archaeological terms; and tributes to Deetz. Valuable for those interested in historical anthropology, material culture studies, and American colonial history.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-11-09.
Library of Congress.In conjunction with the Russian State Library in Moscow, the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg, and the Rasmuson Library of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, the Library of Congress has digitized more than 2,500 items, comprising approximately 70,000 images, and provided transcriptions and commentaries in English and Russian to offer a comparative history of American and Russian expansion through frontier territories in each nation’s continent. The site presents an overview of expansion into Siberia and the American West in six sections: Exploration, Colonization, Development, Alaska, Frontiers and National Identity, and Mutual Perceptions. Each section contains from two to 11 modules that call attention to similarities and differences between the two histories with regard to subjects such as migration—forced and otherwise, missionaries, religious flight, mining, railroads, agriculture, cities, popular culture, and tourism, and even compares Cossacks with cowboys. The site offers more than 40 complete books, including manuals, handbooks, fiction, and travelers accounts; 77 maps and one atlas; 438 items from the Russian-Ukrainian Pamphlet and Brochure Collection; materials from six complete manuscript collections, regarding exploration, trade, and commercial activities; four tour-of-the-century films; 125 newspaper articles; 11 dime novel covers; five photographic collections; and one sound recording of a Russian folk song. Provides a 500-title bibliography and links to 30 related sites. Valuable for those studying the American West and Russian history and investigating ways to explore frontiers of comparative histories in order to expand beyond limits of national history narratives. Listen to the audio review: Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
First American West: The Ohio River Valley, 1750–1820
American Memory, Library of Congress; University of Chicago Library; and Filson Historical Society.Provides approximately 15,000 pages of historical published and unpublished manuscript material related to the migration of Europeans west into the Ohio River Valley during the latter half of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th. Includes books, pamphlets, newspapers, periodicals, journals, letters, legal documents, pictorial images, maps, ledgers, and other types of material. The collection, from the University of Chicago Library and Filson Historical Society of Louisville, Kentucky, was started in the late 19th century by a group dedicated to preserving documents related to Kentucky and Ohio River Valley history. The site includes a special presentation with a 6,500-word hyperlink-filled essay arranged into five sections on contested lands, peoples and migration, empires and politics, Western life and culture, and the construction of a Western past. The site offers materials on encounters between Europeans and native peoples, the lives of African-American slaves in the area, the role of institutions such as churches and schools, the position of women in this society, the thoughts of naturalists and other scientists, and activities of the migrants, including travel, land acquisition, planting, navigation of rivers, and trade. Well-known personages represented include Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, James Madison, and William Henry Harrison. Includes a 26-title bibliography and annotated links to 19 related sites. Valuable for students and serious researchers of early American history, the history of cross-cultural encounters in the West, frontier history, and the construction of the nation’s past.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-11-19.
Bureau of the Census.To celebrate the centennial of the Census Bureau, this site provides access to a wealth of statistical information on the U.S. population. While most materials offer recent data, more than 30 comprehensive reports and tables are included that track decade-by-decade demographic-related shifts, including urban and rural population change, population of the largest 100 cities, population density, and homeownership rates. Additional material details shifts in U.S. international trade in goods and services from 1960–2000; poverty from 1959–2000; race and Hispanic origin of foreign-born populations from 1850–1990; interracial married couples from 1960–1998; and marital status of women at first birth from 1930–1994. Visitors can find current detailed information on social and economic characteristics of African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and American Indian and Alaska Natives, and of baby boomers. The North American Industry Classification System offers recent economic data on eight business sectors. American FactFinder offers detailed maps with demographic information for individual blocks and for larger areas. Yearly editions of Statistical Abstract of the United States from 1995 to 2001 are included, along with charts of demographic information according to categories such as age, ancestry, and income. In addition, the site provides a collection of “fast facts” for each decade of the 20th century, four historical timelines, and approximately 20 photographs related to the census. Valuable for students and professional historians needing demographic and other statistical information on population trends.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2009-02-04.
American Memory, Library of Congress.Designed as a gateway for researchers working in the field of American women’s history, this site provides easy access to an online version of the Library of Congress� 2001 publication American Women: A Library of Congress Guide for the Study of Women’s History and Culture in the United States. The structure of 456-page guide is maintained and enhanced through hyperlinks and full-text searching. Most of the digital content featured in “American Women” was not digitized solely for the site; rather, it is either linked to or displayed elsewhere on one of the Library’s many web pages. The expanded resource guide allows users to easily move across the Library’s multiple interdisciplinary holdings and provides guidelines on searching for women’s history resources in the Library’s catalogs; advice on locating documents relating to women within the American Memory collections; and a valuable tutorial for discovering women’s history sources in the Library’s online exhibitions. The research guide also contains five essays that explore several aspects of women’s history. They include an introduction by historian Susan Ware and a short piece describing the 1780 broadside “The Sentiments of An American Woman.” The newest addition to the site is an audiovisual Web broadcast lecture featuring Mary Lynn McCree Bryan, editor-in-chief of the Jane Adams Papers Project at Duke University, and Esther Katz, editor-in-chief of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University. This site is an important resource for any student or researcher studying American women’s history.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2003-05-22.
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. See JAH web review by Chauncey Monte-Sano. Reviewed 2009-03-01.This large, attractive site provides high-quality material on American history for historians and teachers. The collection contains more than 60,000 “rare and important” American historical documents from 1493 to 1998 includes more than 34,000 transcripts. Authors include George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln. Users can also search the complete database of the Institute’s collection. Each week an annotated, transcribed document is featured, and an archive contains eighty past featured documents. “Treasures of the collection” offers 24 highlighted documents and images. Six online exhibits cover topics such as Alexander Hamilton, the Dred Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln, and topics such as freedom and battles. Teaching modules cover more than 20 topics corresponding to major periods in American history, each with a historical overview, lesson plans, quizzes, primary source material, visual aids, and activities. Additional resources include links to historical documents, published scholarship, and general history resources on the web. There are also descriptions of the Institute�s public programs and summer seminars, essay contests, national book prizes, and awards for teachers and students.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES, AUDIO, VIDEO.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
In Motion: The African-American Migration Experience
Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. See JAH web review by Clare Corbould. Reviewed 2006-09-01.This extensive, well-designed website features images, essays, lesson plans, and maps all focused on the movements of African Americans from the 1400s to the present. The site is built around the history of 13 African American migration experiences: the transatlantic slave trade (1450s-1867), runaway journeys (1630s-1865), the domestic slave trade (1760s-1865), colonization and emigration (1783–1910s), Haitian Immigration (1791–1809), Western migration (1840s-1970), Northern migration (1840s- 1890), the Great Migration (1916–1930), the Second Great Migration (1940–1970), Caribbean immigration (1900-present), the return South migration (1970-present), Haitian immigration in the 20th century (1970-present), and African immigration (1970-present). Each section includes an extensive image gallery with 60 or more images, two or more color maps and charts, an overview, short web essays on aspects of the migration with links to excerpts from various works on the subject, educational materials, a bibliography, and links to related websites. There are more than 67 detailed and informative color maps and more than 8,300 images available. Educational materials include at least two lesson plans (most have five or more) in each section and links to related resources. More than 90 lesson plans are available. An interactive timeline extends from the 15th to the 21st century and places migration in the context of U.S. history and the history of the African Diaspora. Searching is limited to a keyword search.Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2008-10-06.
Brown University Library. See JAH web review by Elaine Frantz Parsons. Reviewed 2007-12-01.A small, but useful, site with a wide range of primary source material for researching the history of the prohibition movement, temperance, or alcoholism, this archive presents broadsides, sheet music, pamphlets, and government publications related to the temperance movement and prohibition. Materials include items from the period leading up to prohibition as well as the prohibition era itself, ending with the passage of the 21st amendment in 1933. More than 1,800 items can be browsed by title, creator, or publisher. The collection is also searchable by keyword (basic and advanced searches are available). All digitized items are in the public domain. A historical essay, “Temperance and Prohibition Era Propaganda: A Study in Rhetoric” by Leah Rae Berk is available. Resources Available: TEXT, IMAGES.Website last visited on 2007-10-30. |
Henry Siegman, writing in the Financial Times (London) (Feb. 10th, 2004)
It would have been hard to imagine in the aftermath of the second world war that the issue of anti-Semitism would once again require the attention of decent men and women within the lifetime of Holocaust survivors. It would have been even harder to imagine that the state of Israel, whose creation was intended by its Zionist founders as a cure for the malignancy of anti-Semitism, would itself be seen as being at the heart of this disease's recrudescence.These thoughts are occasioned by the European Commission's preparations for a conference on anti-Semitism next week, and by a recent essay by Omer Bartov, a professor of history at Brown University*. There is much in this essay that serves importantly to identify the dangers of a re-emerging cultural and political anti-Semitism. Particularly disturbing is tolerance of an anti-Semitism that has polluted much of the religious and political discourse in Islamic countries. Nevertheless, Mr Bartov recognises the problem of confusing legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. He finds that the"policies of the current Israeli government in the territories are indeed contrary to the strategic and moral interests of the Jewish state", a point that takes some courage to make these days.Yet one has to ask whether criticism of objectionable Israeli policies is justified only if these policies are seen as damaging to Israel's"strategic and moral interests". That this would be a dangerously narrow view was illustrated recently by the astounding comments of Benny Morris, the Israeli historian of Israel's War of Independence, in an interview with the Ha'aretz newspaper (January 9).Mr Morris said that David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, realised at the outset of the war that the new state of Israel would face impossible demographic problems unless the areas that came under Israeli control were" cleansed" of their Arab inhabitants. Ben Gurion, he said, issued"operational orders that state explicitly that (Israeli forces) were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves". Mr Morris concedes that these actions constituted war crimes, but insists they were justified by circumstances, for they served Israel's political and moral interests, namely securing the return of Jews to their historic patrimony.To insist on the legitimacy of criticism of unjust Israeli policies is not to condone its transformation into blatant anti-Semitism. Those who preach the destruction of the Jewish state should not be allowed to hide behind the unfortunate policies of Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister. Supporting the cause of Palestinian nationhood does not require denial of the right of Jews to live in their own state.It is important to add that the desire of Palestinians to return to territory they consider to be their patrimony is not to be construed as anti-Semitism. For most Palestinians a return to what they consider to be their legitimate home is no more motivated by an ideological imperative to destroy Jews and their homeland than the Jewish return to Zion is shaped by a Jewish desire to destroy the Arab community in Palestine. Rather, both sides have come up against the hard truth that return cannot be achieved without destroying the other unless they are prepared to divide the land equitably. This is an endlessly complicated task that will not be made easier by inappropriate accusations of Palestinian anti-Semitism or of Zionist hatred of Islam.The struggle against anti-Semitism is not helped by wilful or misguided exaggeration. Prof Bartov recognises the danger from"hysterics" who seem not to know"that Hitler and the Third Reich are history". He notes that Jews are more prosperous, more successful and safer in the US than they have ever been, and"the same could even be said about the nervous Jews of western Europe".The important question to be asked about criticism of unjust Israeli policies should not be how anti-Semites might exploit such criticism, but rather how these policies can be changed. Preventing injustice should hold a higher priority for friends of Israel, not to mention Israelis themselves, than preventing the exploitation of criticism of that injustice by anti-Semites, who in any event are never at a loss to find reasons for their hatred. Jews who do not regard this as a priority not only fail their Jewish heritage but also perversely help to make the anti-Semites' case. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. |
During the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1980-84), at his inception, Congress passed the Carter-Torrijos treaty.
was signed into law by the president. It stipulated that on December 31, 1999, the Panama
Canal would be surrendered to the Central American country of Panama (Torrijos being its president at the time). This act ended 85 years of control of the Panama Canal by the United States of America. The Panama Canal was constructed by
the United States government, beginning in 1903 and ending in 1914. The
present U.S. investment in the canal over the years is $32 billion dollars. Approximately
5,000 men, U.S. citizens and local laborers, died of malaria and work-related accidents
during the construction period. The service of the canal to sea-going
merchants and the U.S. Navy is incalculable. Over 13,000 Naval and commercial
vessels pass between the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans every year, saving the time of an 8,000 mile trip
around South America's Cape Horn, its southernmost point. The canal is put to constant use by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Merchant Marine Fleets. The U.S. Merchant Marine transports war materials for the U.S. military during wartime. The canal has played a crucial role in the outcome of U.S. military operations from World War I to Desert Storm. Under Theodore Roosevelt in 1913, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson
said to Scribner's Magazine: "The Military importance of
the (Panama) canal to the American nation has not been so clearly recognized by the people
at large. While they have been quick to see how important it is that in time of war the
canal should open to our own fleet, it has not been equally appreciated how important it
is that the canal should be closed to the fleet of the enemy." We can
relate this quotation, uttered
almost a century ago, to the predicament described below:
As soon as the world became aware of
the intent of the U.S. government to surrender the Panama Canal to the Panamanian
government on December 31,1999, a Hong Kong international trading company,
Hutchison-Whampoa, owned by Hong Kong billionaire Dr. Li Ka-shing, quietly began adding
the Panamanian seaports along each coast of the Isthmus of Panama to its world-wide
seaport holdings. Ten per-cent of his new venture, Panama Ports, is owned by China
Resources, the commercial arm of the Peoples Republic of China's
(PRC) Ministry of
Trade and Economic Cooperation. On July 16, 1997, Senator Fred
Thompson (R-TN) was quoted in the South China Morning Post as stating that China
Resources was "an agent of espionage--economic, military, and political--for
China." Dr. Li Ka-shing is also a chief in the
Peoples' Republic of China's China Telecom and the China International Trust
and Investment Corporation, worth $21 billion dollars, run by the PRC's Wang Jun.
Wang Jun serves as the PRC's main arms dealer to Communist regimes. Wang Jun and other
Chinese agents have been welcome guests at the Clinton-Gore White House. Clinton's
courting of Chinese money is documented in the U.S. media. Dr. Li Ka-shing's Hutchison-Whampoa is
a partner with the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the merchant marine arm
of the Peoples' Liberation Army of China. Hutchison-Whampoa owns most or all of
the seaports and shipping facilities on both sides of the Isthmus of Pananma. If Jimmy
Carter's administration surrendered the Panama Canal on December 31, 1999, the
administration of President Bill Clinton has allowed this ensuing debacle to proceed unchecked. On January 16, 1997, the Panamanian
National Legislature passed "Law 5" which granted Hutchison-Whampoa a lease to
manage the locks of the Panama Canal using pilot boat crews which could consist of up to
25% of troops from the People's Liberation Army of China. These crews include harbor police
boat crews for Port Balboa on the Pacific side of the canal and for Port Cristobel on the
Atlantic side. By empowering this new Port Authority, Law 5 violates the 1997 Panama Canal
treaty with the United States governing the order of passage for ships proceeding through
the canal. No one in the Clinton administration has objected to this move by the country of Panama.
Two thousand years ago, a Chinese
warrior by the name of Sun Tzu wrote a book called "The Art of War". It is widely read by those involved in military strategic planning and training. In the light of the fact that the U.S. military has suffered a 15 percent across the board cutback in allocations and manpower since the Reagan era, and the fact that thousands of career military personnel are leaving the military every year for better paying jobs in civilian life, it is well for us to reflect on
a few quotations from Sun Tzu's book: "It is a doctrine of war not
to assume the enemy will not come, but rather to rely on one's readiness to meet him; not
to presume that he will not attack, but rather to make one's self invincible." "When the leader is morally
weak and his discipline not strict, when his instructions and guidance are not enlightened,
when there are no consistent rules...neighboring rulers will take advantage of this."
"To subdue the enemy without
fighting is the supreme excellence."
Our Lord Jesus Christ told the visionary Nancy Fowler: "Korea, China and Russia are a deadly trio."
(September 8, 1993) And: "China is a real enemy. "From China will come a great war. Do not trust China. Do not trust China. Do not trust China. I will say no more." (June 1, 1993)
Our Loving Mother told Nancy Fowler in 1993:
"Please, children, it is time to wake up."
In June of 2000, North and South Korea signed a pre-unification accord. This
was followed by state sponsored visitations of relatives who had been separated since
the Korean truce of 1953. It is a reality that the Koreas may unite under a provisional government at any time.
The Communist Chinese long have had missiles capable of firing from Beijing. They have at least one missile that can hit Los Angeles. Additionally, Communism is making a come-back in Russia. It is not difficult to assert, that, with information readily available on the Internet, China, Russia and a united Korea outnumber the U.S. Army and Marine Corps 15 divisions to 1. |
Click for weather forecast Kramer earns first place in InvestWrite essay competition Written by Kyle Arnoldy It came as a complete surprise to Holyoke High School senior Caitlyn Kramer when she was informed in February that she had taken first place in SIFMA Foundation’s InvestWrite high school essay competition. Her surprise was based on the fact that when she handed in her essay during the first semester of Kristie Ham’s introduction to business course, she was completely unaware that Ham intended to submit the top three essays in class to the state competition.
“Mrs. Ham didn’t tell us it was a contest,” explained Kramer, “She told us it was a class assignment so we would all do better, so I was pretty surprised when I found out I won.”
Kramer was recognized at the SIFMA Foundation Stock Market Game Awards Ceremony at the University of Colorado-Boulder Thursday, May 23. For her award-winning essay, Kramer received a $100 gift certificate and Ham was awarded a $25 gift certificate. Kramer was also given a large trophy, which will be added to Holyoke High School’s trophy case.
Roughly 20,000 students participate in the competition nationwide each year. The SIFMA Foundation’s InvestWrite competition aims to challenge children in grade school through high school to analyze an investment scenario and create short- and long-term financial goals. Kramer was asked to pick a real-world stock, bond or mutual fund and describe an actual political or economic event that could increase the price and one that could reduce the price.Caitlyn Kramer displays the trophy she earned by placing first in SIFMA Foundation’s InvestWrite high school essay competition for Colorado. The trophy will be housed at Holyoke High School. —Enterprise photo
She then had to explain if she thought her choice was a wise investment given the current events and global economy. The essay is the final phase for the more than 600,000 students nationwide who compete in The Stock Market Game each year.
Kramer took the information she learned about the stock market and business in the class and paired it with her knowledge and interest in agriculture to piece together her essay entitled “2012 Drought Affects Ag Companies.”
“I knew how the drought was affecting our family farm so I wanted to think about the crop and cattle side and how the drought affected large companies,” Kramer said.
Through the assignment, Kramer said she was surprised by how linked local prices were affected by global events. Ham noted that while many students chose to speak on Hurricane Sandy’s effect on prices of various goods, Kramer was able to make the connection between the concepts learned and apply them to what was going on around her.
By winning the state competition, Kramer’s essay has been entered into the national competition for a chance to win a three-day, two-night trip to New York City for a “Wall Street experience.” Judging for the national event will take place in the fall.
Essays were judged based on the student’s understanding of the subject matter, rationale and writing style.
Although Kramer has always had a passion for agriculture as she grew up in a farming/ranching family, the class and project helped her identify that ag business was something she wanted to pursue. She mentioned her interest in the possibility of running a cattle operation later in life. |
Human Rights Internship Program From the Andes to Uganda, University of Chicago Human Rights interns combat police abuse, research drone attacks, organize with workers for fair conditions, help trafficking victims find new livelihoods, and report on election irregularities. Our interns are all over the world and very close to home...putting theory into practice and creating human rights in action!
The Human Rights Internship Program offers a select group of Chicago students the opportunity to learn the skills and understand the inherent difficulties in putting human rights into practice. Since its establishment in 1998, the Internship Program has helped place more than 350 students with non-governmental organizations, governmental agencies, and international bodies around the world. The Internship Program is unique in its flexibility, awarding $5,000 grants to afford all interns the freedom to explore their interests, whether thematic or regional in focus.
2013 Human Rights Program Interns
Elizabeth Behrens
Elizabeth is spending her summer with Teaching For Change in Washington, D.C. She will be working on various projects that attempt to incorporate human rights and social justice into teaching curricula. Her task will include researching and designing curricula, as well as directly working with educators and parents in the D.C. area.
Victoria, BC, Canada
Sean Burr
Sean's internship will focus on the universal human right to adequate housing with Our Place Society in Victoria, BC, Canada. As a result of its temperate climate, Victoria has one of the largest homeless populations in Canada. Our Place Society responds to this need with temporary housing, mental health services, and employment supports. Our Place does outreach and advocacy to raise local awareness of homelessness and inequality. Sean will conduct a comprehensive survey with the local homeless population to develop recommendations to improve Our Place Society's responsiveness to their needs and broader justice issues.
Alex Ducett
Alex is at the US Campaign for Burma in Washington DC, a small organization which coordinates with a network of grassroots activists in Burma and around the world to advocate for political reform in Burma and to bring attention to the systematic human rights abuses happening in the country. Alex will be assisting with all aspects of the organization’s campaigns this summer, a critical time for the growth of democracy in Burma.
Nory Kaplan Kelly
Nory is working at the People's Law Office, which for over 40 years has been the leading private law firm in Chicago working against police misconduct and for civil and human rights. He will assist attorneys with their case intake work and write new website content. Most importantly, he will also be reading the office's prisoner correspondence and looking for coded language of abuse or human rights violations. Nory is also working on the PLO's project investigating the Criminalization of LGBT People.
Kaitlin Leskovac
Kaitlin is an intern at the Women's Law Project (WLP) in Philadelphia, PA. The mission of the Women's Law Project (WLP) is to create a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women through high-impact litigation, advocacy and education. As an intern, Kaitlin works with the Executive Director on the strategic communications team to develop social media, aimed at the Millenial Generation, with a focus on women's legal, health and social status. She is also involved with the development of an online "Women and the Law" class, also geared toward Millenials. Finally, she will also serve as a counselor for WLP's call-in line which provides legal information and referrals on issues including reproductive rights, domestic/sexual violence, child custody, etc.
Carolyn Morales
ARISE Chicago builds partnerships between faith communities and workers to fight workplace injustice through education, organizing and advocating for public policy changes. Carolyn will provide research and organizing support for Arise Chicago's workplace justice campaigns, public policy work, and coalition work. She assists the Worker Center Director in the implementation of the new Chicago anti-wage theft ordinance, while supporting its use in other cities. She also works with staff organizers to recruit and train new members and in l support of workplace justice campaigns.
Tala Radejko
Tala works in the Arms Department of the Human Rights Watch office in DC. She is doing research and advocacy on issues related to fully autonomous weapons and the increasing use of drones in warfare with particular attention to the use of such weapons in the Middle East.
Angelica Velazquillo
Angelica is an intern with the Interfaith Committee for Detained Immigrants and the Sisters of Mercy in Illinois. She serves as an advocate for undocumented immigrants who are facing deportations. On a weekly basis Angelica will attend immigration court and visit the Broadview, Illinois "Processing" Center to monitor conditions for detained immigrants and their families. She will also work with the Post Detention Accompanied program.
Gabrielle works with Fundacion En Via an organization that combines tourism and micro-finance to fight poverty in Oaxaca, Mexico. The organization provides interest-free micro-loans to help women in Oaxaca start or expand their small businesses in order to facilitate social change and authentic cultural experiences for visitor. She will be leading tours, developing stronger connections between borrowers, the organization, donors, and tourists, and assisting the organization in developing new programs.
Nick Zebrowski
Nick Zebrowski is in Mexico City working at FUNDAR, an organization that monitors public policy and institutions through applied research, critical reflection, and linkage with civil, social and governmental actors. He will be working on a project evaluating the new national gendarmerie initiative in Mexico.
Liz works with the Caribbean Umbrella Body for Restorative Behaviour (CURB). CURB is the first and only Caribbean network of non-profit associations working to assist and support criminal offenders, ex-offenders, crime survivors, and their respective families. CURB organizes the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) across the Caribbean to promote and implement models of restorative justice. Liz will build partnerships with non-profits in Trinidad and Tobago and help develop new initiatives for CURB's target populations.
Cartagena, Columbia
Leora Hudak
Leora is in Cartagena, Colombia with El Observatorio Para El Desplazamiento Forzado, an organization affiliated with the University of Cartagena, dedicated to studying Colombia's armed conflict, displacement, and human rights. She will be working on a research project studying displaced communities in the Caribbean region of Colombia, with attention to reconciliation and the construction of peace.
Brenna Mackin
Brenna's placement is at Centro Bartolome de Las Casas in San Salvador, El Salavador. She will be working on various projects with their masculinities program. This is a pro-feminist program that works with men to recreate more equal and inclusive relationships between men and women.
No interns this year
Nur Kara
Nur's work with the Girl Child Network (GCN) in Kampala, Uganda, is to provide counseling support to women and girls affected by trafficking and forced labor. Additionally, she will be assisting GCN with developing and teaching a legal workshop. Understanding Uganda's legal framework—via cultural and state courts—will enable girls and women to better address certain issues they face on the ground in their home country.
Mahlet Yared
Mahlet will be working with Women in Progress, affectionately known as Global Mamas, in greater Accra, Ghana. Women in Progress is an organization that teaches business skills to women entrepreneurs, helping them to open their own fair trade textile businesses. Mahlet will be conducting Marketing/Public Relations seminars, as well as making follow-up visits to startup businesses that were opened by women who previously received Women in Progress training.
Alexa Greenwald
This summer Lexi will work for ASER Centre in New Delhi, India. She will be assisting with the Inside Primary Schools: A Study of Teaching and Learning in Rural India project, which examines the relationship between school organization and teaching practices and student outcomes across various rural regions.
Rakkar, Himachal Pradesh, India
Heather Lyon
Heather will be an intern at Jagori Grameen in rural Rakkar, Himachal Pradesh, in Northern India. With its roots in the feminist movement, Jagori seeks to empower women, fight discrimination, and organize around issues of environmental justice. Heather will be working with local youth collectives and contributing to several broader projects at the organization.
Imphal, Manipur, India
Alexa Tarter
Alexa works with the Manipur International Center in Imphal, Manipur (Northeast India). She will document human rights violations occurring as a result of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, as well as facilitating human rights educational workshops for children experiencing violence and oppression.
Gurgaon, India
Shirley Yan
Shirley is an intern at Futures Group in Gurgaon, India, working on the Health Policy Project, a USAID funded project. She will help build better policy infrastructure for reproductive health and family planning. This will include establishing partnerships with other government and non-government organizations, analyzing best practices, and organizing advocacy events to promote reproductive health rights.
David Kaner
David's internship is at The Cambodia Daily, an English-language newspaper in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. An independent non-profit, the paper is dedicated to the development of a free press in Cambodia and provides its readers information about the numerous challenges Cambodia faces, including corruption, environmental destruction and human rights.
Rural Northeast Thailand
Anna Knapke
Anne is with the Thai Restoration Community Development Foundation in rural Northeast Thailand where she supports the organization's mission of "breaking the cycle" of migration to urban centers to work in the high-risk sex industry. Her organization establishes community-based efforts to restore and transform families, education systems, and the economies of local communities. Anne will expand resources for the organization through partnerships, conduct social research that will inform economic development programs, and carry out a photo-journalism project.
Chelsea works in Chiang Mai, Thailand with Urban Light—a grassroots organization which is dedicated to "making noise regarding boys" who are victims of trafficking and exploitation. The Urban Light Youth Center empowers boys who work in the red light district by providing education, health services, and housing and emergency care.
Joan Park
Joan is at the Ban-suk School and Compassion International. As a teacher and mentor at Ban-suk School, she helps North Korean refugees adapt culturally and academically to South Korean society. At Compassion, Joan works with the new North Korean aid branch and is researching international development aid projects to adapt them to the culture and needs of North Korea. The combination of work at these two organizations gives her a holistic picture of the lives of North Korean refugees, to better understand the human rights aspects of education, societal position, and cultural difference.
Beijing and Sichuan, China
Tiffany Wong
Tiffany is an intern with the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation, working with a micro-finance project that focuses on community and economic development. The project works on protecting, maintaining, and improving the rights of women and children after natural disasters (such as the earthquake in Sichuan), including education, basic health amenities and psychological health. The project invests in NGOs that focus on long-term development goals, assisting them in working with the government entities while maintaining a focus on the protection of human rights. |
January 23rd, 2013How we can truly honor Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacyMarian Wright Edelman
By Marian Wright Edelman
In his last Sunday sermon at Washington National Cathedral, Dr. King retold the parable of the rich man Dives who ignored the poor and sick man Lazarus who came every day seeking crumbs from Dives’ table.
Dives went to hell, Dr. King said, not because he was rich but because he did not realize his wealth was his opportunity to bridge the gulf separating him from his brother and allowed Lazarus to become invisible. He warned this could happen to rich America, "if we don’t use her vast resources to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life."
At his death in 1968, when he was calling with urgency for an end to poverty in our nation, there were 25.4 million poor Americans including 11 million poor children and our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $4.13 trillion. Today there are 46.2 million poor people including 16.1 million poor children and our GDP is three times larger. Twenty million of our neighbors are living in extreme poverty including 7.3 million children. Disgracefully children are the poorest age group in America and the younger they are the poorer they are and one in four preschool children is poor. More than one in three Black children and the same proportion of Latino children are poor. Children have suffered most since the recession began.
• The number of poor children - 16.1 million - exceeds the combined populations of Haiti and Liberia, two of the poorest countries on earth.
• The number of extremely poor children - 7.3 million - in America is greater than the population of Sierra Leone.
• The number of poor children under five - 5.0 million - exceeds the entire population of South Carolina or Louisiana or Alabama.
I have no doubt that Dr. King would be mounting a nonviolent campaign to end rampant hunger, homelessness, and poverty today.
Let’s honor Dr. King by our committed action to end child poverty and close the morally obscene gulf between rich and poor in our nation where the 400 highest income earners made as much as the combined tax revenues of 22 state governments with 42 million citizens in 2008, and the wealthiest top 1 percent hold more net wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. The rich don’t need another tax break and they need to give back some of their unfair share of our nation’s tax subsidies, loopholes and bailouts to feed and house and educate our children and employ their parents.
Let’s honor and follow Dr. King by naming and changing the continuing racial disparities, undergirded by poverty, that place one in three Black and one in six Hispanic boys born in 2001 at risk of prison in their lifetimes. Incarceration is the new American apartheid. Let’s reroute our children into a pipeline to college and productive work to compete with children from China and India.
Let’s honor and follow Dr. King by speaking truth to power and demanding justice for poor and vulnerable children with urgency and persistence and effective nonviolent direct actions to bring our nation back from the brink of self destruction fueled by the unbridled greed of the few and a military budget that dwarfs our early childhood development budget where the real security of our nation lies.
Let’s honor and follow Dr. King by stopping the resurgence of racial and income segregation in our schools, unfair treatment of children of color with zero tolerance school discipline and special education practices that push them out of school and towards prison, and efforts to undermine the hard earned right to vote. Let’s not return to Jim Crow shenanigans that strangled our democracy far too long.
Let’s honor and follow Dr. King by building a beloved community in America where all have enough to eat, a place to sleep, enough work at decent wages to support a family, buy a home, raise children, and send them to public schools that empower children with hope, confidence and skills for the future.
Let’s truly honor Dr. King by transforming our education system that sentences millions of children to social and economic death by failing to prepare them and our country for the future. That a majority of all children in all income and racial groups and seventy-six percent of Black and Hispanic children cannot read or compute at grade level in fourth and eighth grades is a threat to America’s future economic and military strength.
Let’s honor Dr. King by ensuring every child’s safety and right to live by ending the epidemic gun violence in our nation that has snuffed out more than 1.3 million American lives since he and Robert Kennedy were killed by guns in 1968 - including the lives of approximately 148,000 children and teens. That is 7,400 classrooms of 20 children. Let’s honor Dr. King by doing whatever is required for as long as needed to break the political grip of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their allies who seek to add more guns to the approximately 300 million in circulation and continuing production and sales of assault weapons and high volume ammunition magazines that should not be in the hands of civilians.
The day after Dr. King was shot, I went into riot-torn Washington, D.C. neighborhoods and schools urging children not to loot, get arrested and ruin their futures. A young Black boy looked me squarely in the eyes and said, "Lady, what future? I ain’t got no future. I ain’t got nothing to lose." Let us follow Dr. King by proving that wrong in our militarily powerful, materially rich, but too spiritually poor nation.
Dr. King is not coming back. It’s up to us to redeem the soul of America. He told us what to do. Let’s do it. |
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.
Founded in 1986, IATP is rooted in the family farm movement. With offices in Minneapolis and Geneva, IATP works on making domestic and global agricultural policy more sustainable for everyone.
Despair abounds in the ethanol industry after the California Air Resources Board (ARB) voted 9 to 1 in favor of the so-called Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) last week. The regulation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels 10 percent by 2020. Taking firm steps toward greenhouse gas emissions reductions is, of course, a good thing. But the new law could potentially cross corn ethanol off the list of fuel options for not only California but also the 11 states planning to adopt programs modeled on the LCFS. The LCFS will rate the carbon intensity of different transportation fuels by calculating carbon emissions during each fuel’s production, transportation and consumption. Fuel refiners, blenders and distributors will be required to phase out high carbon intensity fuels or to purchase credits from utilities companies selling low-carbon electricity to power electric cars. Greenhouse gas emissions from consuming and even transporting a fuel are pretty easy to measure. What are much harder to calculate—and far more controversial—are the emissions caused by a fuel’s production. The biofuels industry has cried foul over ARB’s inclusion of emissions from what’s known as biofuels’ “indirect land use change” effect. Indirect land use change (ILUC) is an attempt to calculate the effect ethanol production has beyond just the land where the corn is grown and the refinery where it’s processed. According to the scientists ARB commissioned to calculate ILUC, when American farmers sell their corn to ethanol plants, bypassing traditional food and feed markets, farmers on the other side of the globe cut down rainforests and plow up grasslands to plant crops to fill the gap. The resulting release of carbon dioxide from decomposition of exposed organic soil is large, many researchers argue, and must be included in corn ethanol’s carbon footprint. It’s not so simple, say ethanol producers and a different set of scientists. Not only is it almost impossibly difficult to accurately quantify the influence U.S. farmers’ actions have on decisions made a world away (how do you sift out other market pressures, politics, etc?), but also, say the critics, the ILUC burden falls unfairly on biofuels: no one is calculating the indirect emissions of petroleum, for example (add up the emissions created by our military in defense of our oil supply, and the number would likely be significant).
I’ve struggled with this one as I’ve watched the lead-up to this decision. Prominent scientists on each side have sent compelling letters to ARB defending or decrying ILUC. I’ve watched heated debates between ILUC inclusion’s defenders and those that support the ethanol industry. I’ve seen public policy students here at UC Berkeley, where I’m a graduate student (in journalism, not public policy), furrow their brows and scratch their heads over its muddled-ness.
How, then, to think about it?
The easiest part is this: to applaud California’s leadership on carbon emissions reductions, something we desperately need bold action on. After that, things get trickier. Clearly, indirect land use change exists, and it’s something we need to address. But is it responsible or useful to quantify this for policy? I’m not sure that it is. The work that’s been done on these calculations (much of it by UC Berkeley professors) has been good. But if you read the literature, you’ll find that an awful lot of uncertainty, unknowns and assumptions go into the calculations. That’s okay for academic work—a process of continual refining, debate, review, revision—but it’s problematic when it comes to policy that will have a big impact on the biofuel industry (and here I’m thinking most about the farmers who either grow biofuel crops, have a stake in local refineries, or both).
The critics here might say, “Well, what’s the alternative?” or “As compared to what?” I don’t think it’s an either/or. Until we can figure out a way to accurately calculate ILUC and other fuels’ indirect effects in a way that has—if not consensus—broader scientific and stakeholder support, ARB and eventually the EPA (who is watching this closely as a possible model), would be better off making carbon emissions reductions and indirect land use change two different issues.
ARB has committed to reviewing again the carbon intensity calculations before the LCFS becomes binding in January 2011. Let's hope they will decide to include only biofuels’ direct emissions, as they do for other fuels. Then let's enter into a separate dialogue—with separate policy initiatives—to work on indirect land use change and the indirect effects of other fuels. Let the scientists continue the ILUC debates, and let the stakeholders—both here and abroad—come together to find immediate ways to tackle the actual problem of ILUC. My guess is that we’d make more progress on both fronts. Julia Olmstead
, Climate
| Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) April 29, 2009
Are foodstocks taboo at FAO?
Last week I was in Rome, attending a bunch of FAO meetings related to the food crisis. On Monday, April 20, we co-organized our own event at the FAO, a two-hour discussion on the merits of foodstocks and other market regulatory instruments for food security and long-term development. The discussion was very well attended, proof of the interest in these issues in the wake of the 2008 food crisis.
We had five very interesting presentations (thanks to Alex Danau, Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires, for the photo). Mamadou Cissokho and George Eward, respectively representing West and East African farmers federations, both highlighted how stockholding schemes have been dismantled in their regions and yet are essential to achieving food security and helping farmers take advantage of better marketing opportunities. Daryll Ray, from the University of Tennessee, presented concrete proposals for setting up an international reserve— some of which are also valid for national or regional schemes. Yves Leduc presented the impacts of the Canadian supply management system during the food price spike. He highlighted the role of this scheme in minimizing the abuse of market power by processors and retailers. Finally, Maria Squeff, representative of Argentina, insisted on the need for any new agriculture policy measures to comply with WTO rules. She also talked about the central role of developed country support measures in distorting international markets. Argentina plays a critical role in discussions on the global governance of agriculture since it is chairing the group in charge of reforming the Committee on World Food Security.
We thought holding such a meeting in an UN agency—at a time when government delegates participated in the first FAO trade committee since the food price spike broke out—would be an opportunity to pick government experts' brains about innovative policy tools to once and for all address hunger. It sounded to us like the different policy measures governments have taken as a response to the crisis last year show they realized the need to regulate markets. But I have to admit that we were a little disappointed by governments' responses. Most of those who spoke at the event pointed at past failures as a reason to not consider foodstocks or grain reserves as an option. In the official meeting, the U.S. delegation argued that the best way out of the crisis is to "simply let markets work."
Now why are governments so stubborn when more than 100 million people have just been added to the ranks of the hungry? Is that not proof enough that something is seriously wrong with the way markets work right now? The point is not to go back to past measures, but to create something new that can help. In Africa, farmers organizations are working on agriculture policies that work for small farmers. It would certainly help if they had international support.
With increasing public concern and awareness about climate change, food safety, health, immigration, and even swine flu, industrial agriculture’s grip on the American food and agriculture system is starting to loosen. Nowhere was this more evident than at the St. Anthony Main movie theater in Minneapolis on Sunday, where people filled an already packed theater—sitting on the floor and in the aisles—and where many others were turned away from the sold-out showing. For a 9:20 p.m. Sunday night time slot, I figured turnout would be minimal, and especially for Food, Inc., a documentary about the horrors of our industrial agriculture system. But instead, a rapt audience sat for 94 minutes as filmmaker Robert Kenner took us through the origins of U.S. industrial agriculture, the devastating consequences for workers, consumers, animals, and the environment, and how people are fighting back. As part of the 27th Annual Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Fest, Food, Inc. was billed as “one of the most radical” films of the festival. With renowned writers and activists like Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin and Eric Schlosser, the film examines the illusion of choice and “diversity” in the typical American supermarket, and exposes the numerous hidden costs of our cheap food: appalling conditions in slaughterhouses—both for the animals and the exploited laborers, who are a disposable workforce composed primarily of undocumented workers (many of whom were farmers in Mexico before NAFTA drove 1.5 million Mexican farmers off their land) and people of color; destructive environmental consequences from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) run-off and pesticides; and farmers who are in such debt to corporations that they have little to no choice about how to run their farms. And while agribusiness makes a huge profit, we are the ones who pay. At the end of the film, audience members cheered at Food, Inc.’s call for activism and list of ways to break out of industrial ag’s stranglehold. And while most of the suggestions were positive (e.g., shopping at farmers markets), many were too focused on individual behavioral changes. After a powerful systemic critique, the film could have offered more systemic solutions; much of the ending emphasized market-based solutions, when more weight could have been placed on policy-level ones. When the rules at the policy level are stacked against organic/sustainable agriculture, market-based solutions are limited. Watch for the film to be in local movie theaters soon. Allison Page |
Lucky and charmed
Irish interns learn all things Lincoln and a bit about Springfield, too
By Amanda Robert
Irish student interns at the presidential library (left to right): Andrew Tipping, Lynsey Gillespie, Daniel McCarthy, Joanne Gallagher, and Patrick RooneyPHOTO BY AMANDA ROBERT
Five young adults in matching blue-and-burgundy polo shirts sit in a row at a long blond-wood table in the sunny Governor's Conference Room at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. At first glance, they could be students from University of Illinois at Springfield or Lincoln Land Community College, but as soon as they open their mouths to speak the unmistakable lilt of Irish accents comes dancing out and confirms to anyone listening that they didn't grow up just around the block. They're from Northern Ireland, all studying history at Queens University Belfast, and have signed on as summer interns at the library and museum. In addition to learning about all things Lincoln, they've discovered that Springfield's got character. "It looks like the towns you see in the films," says Andrew Tipping, a 21-year-old who hopes to work in a museum. "The ground layout, the little shops and stuff — it looks like the stereotypical American town."
Not that that's a bad thing, Tipping adds before mentioning that he's also learned that Springfield is home to the horseshoe sandwich. Joanne Gallagher, a 20-year-old first-timer to the United States, gets a laugh from her friends when she mentions that Illinois drivers don't like to signal and also says she didn't expect the hot, humid weather (the interns say it's mostly cool and rainy in Northern Ireland). Lynsey Gillespie, a 20-year-old who's visiting Springfield for the second time, and Patrick Rooney, a 20-year-old who's spent some time checking out the capital city's golf scene, say the interns were amazed by the community's warm welcome. They've been invited to pool parties, to church, and to other get-togethers and have even been taken to St. Louis and Chicago by their new friends. "The friendliness of the people has been a big surprise," Rooney says. "I've been to San Francisco and Las Vegas, and it's just a completely different atmosphere here. It really lives up to the reputation of the Midwest."
For seven hours a day, five days a week, the interns work in the library/museum complex as part of their university's pilot work-study program. Daniel McCarthy, the fifth and youngest intern at 19 years old, is assembling an oral-history project focused on African-Americans growing up in Springfield. Tipping works with the museum foundation, learning about memberships and fundraising. Gallagher is constructing an oral-history project on the Korean War for the Internet. Gillespie interacts with different departments in a library-services position, and Rooney cleans up political cartoons from the early 20th century and readies them for exhibition. Their professor, Catherine Clinton, an American who taught at Harvard University before moving on to Queens University Belfast, says the program was designed so that the students could work in a field of education, history, and conservation in a U.S. environment. Clinton and a longtime friend, library and museum director Rick Beard, decided that it would be beneficial not only for her students to receive the same type of opportunities offered to American students but also for them to act as ambassadors for Queens University Belfast and for Northern Ireland — historically known for periods of violence between the Nationalists and Unionists until the Good Friday agreement was signed and democracy established in 1998. "They were welcomed in Springfield, and I wanted them to have that feeling and to also let other people know that Belfast is a very special place," Clinton says. "They can be proud of their role in carrying on the democratic traditions that hold the U.S. together and that hold Northern Ireland together today." |
Immigration Fact Checks provide up-to-date information on the most current issues involving immigration today. The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine
More Immigrants are being “Removed” from the United States than Ever Before
Despite some highly public claims to the contrary, there has been no waning of immigration enforcement in the United States. In fact, the U.S. deportation machine has grown larger in recent years, indiscriminately consuming criminals and non-criminals alike, be they unauthorized immigrants or long-time legal permanent residents (LPRs). Deportations under the Obama administration alone are now approaching the two-million mark. But the deportation frenzy began long before this milestone. The federal government has, for nearly two decades, been pursuing an enforcement-first approach to immigration control that favors mandatory detention and deportation over the traditional discretion of a judge to consider the unique circumstances of every case. The end result has been a relentless campaign of imprisonment and expulsion aimed at noncitizens—a campaign authorized by Congress and implemented by the executive branch. While this campaign precedes the Obama administration by many years, it has grown immensely during his tenure in the White House. In part, this is the result of laws which have put the expansion of deportations on automatic. But the continued growth of deportations also reflects the policy choices of the Obama administration. Rather than putting the brakes on this non-stop drive to deport more and more people, the administration chose to add fuel to the fire.
IRCA and the New Era of DeportationsRead more...
Published On: Wed, Apr 09, 2014 | Download File H-1B Program’s Impact on Wages, Jobs, and the Economy
Every year, U.S. employers seeking highly skilled foreign professionals have rolled the dice on April 1 and submitted their applications for the limited pool of H-1B visas available each fiscal year. With only 65,000 visas available for new hires - and 20,000 additional visas for foreign professionals who graduate with a Master’s or Doctorate from a U.S. university - in recent years demand has far outstripped the supply and the cap has been quickly reached. Understanding the H-1B process is important to understanding the vital economic role that higher-skilled immigration plays in growing our economy and creating new opportunities for native and foreign-born workers alike. H-1B workers do not harm native-born workers’ job opportunities, are not poorly compensated, and are not “cheap foreign labor.” In fact, their presence often leads to higher wages and more job opportunities. Highly skilled immigrants complement their native-born peers; they do not substitute for them. This is true throughout high-skilled occupations, but is particularly true in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Arguments that foreign-born workers and immigrants are depressing wages or displacing native-born workers are contradicted by the available evidence. The following guide answers the questions most often asked and debunks the most prevalent myths about the H-1B program.
Published On: Wed, Apr 02, 2014 | Download File Misplaced Priorities: Most Immigrants Deported by ICE in 2013 Were a Threat to No One No one can say with certainty when the Obama administration will reach the grim milestone of having deported two million people since the President took office in 2008. Regardless of the exact date this symbolic threshold is reached, however, it is important to keep in mind a much more important fact: most of the people being deported are not dangerous criminals. Despite claims by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that it prioritizes the apprehension of terrorists, violent criminals, and gang members, the agency’s own deportation statistics do not bear this out. Rather, most of the individuals being swept up by ICE and dropped into the U.S. deportation machine committed relatively minor, non-violent crimes or have no criminal histories at all. Ironically, many of the immigrants being deported would likely have been able to remain in the country had the immigration reform legislation favored by the administration become law.
ICE’s skewed priorities are apparent from the agency’s most recent deportation statistics, which cover Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. However, it takes a little digging to discern exactly what those statistics mean. The ICE report containing these numbers is filled with ominous yet cryptic references to “convicted criminals” who are “Level 1,” “Level 2,” or “Level 3” in terms of their priority. But when those terms are dissected and analyzed, it quickly becomes apparent that most of these “criminal aliens” are not exactly the “worst of the worst.”
The agency defines three “priorities for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens”:Read more...
Published On: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 | Download File What’s on the Menu? Immigration Bills Pending in the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress During the first session of the 113th Congress, more than half-a-dozen immigration bills were introduced in the House of Representatives, but no major immigration-related legislation had made it to the House floor by the end of 2013. The following discussion outlines some of the significant immigration bills introduced in 2013 and 2014 and provides analysis of their key points.
Across the United States of America, there is no doubt that immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators play an important role. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring in additional revenue, create jobs, and contribute significantly to the economy. Immigrant small business owners contribute in many ways to their local communities. Furthermore, highly skilled immigrants are vital to the country’s innovation industries, and to the many metropolitan areas across the nation, helping to boost local economies.
Immigrant entrepreneurs contribute greatly to the United States’ economy. The United States is home to many successful companies with at least one founder who was an immigrant or child of an immigrant. In 2010, more than 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants (90 companies) or children of immigrants (114 companies), according to the Partnership for a New American Economy.Read more...
In South Dakota, there is no doubt that immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators play an important role. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring in additional revenue, create jobs, and contribute significantly to the state’s economy. Highly skilled immigrants are vital to the state’s innovation industries, and to the metropolitan areas within the state, helping to boost local economies. Furthermore, local government, business, and non-profit leaders recognize the importance of immigrants in their communities and support immigration through local “welcoming” and integration initiatives.
Immigrant entrepreneurs contribute to South Dakota’s economy.
From 2006 to 2010, there were 606 new immigrant business owners in South Dakota, and in 2010, 1.2 percent of all business owners in South Dakota were foreign-born.
In 2010, new immigrant business owners had a total net business income of $13.1 million, which is 0.5 percent of all net business income in the state.
Highly skilled immigrants are vital to South Dakota’s innovation industries, which in turn helps lead American innovation and creates jobs.Read more...
Published On: Sun, Mar 09, 2014 | Download File How the United States Immigration System Works: A Fact Sheet
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. Congress and the President determine a separate number for refugee admissions. Immigration to the United States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.
Published On: Sat, Mar 01, 2014 | Download File The Economic and Political Impact of Immigrants, Latinos and Asians State by State
Click on any state to see the full political and economic power of immigrants, Latinos, and Asians:
Published On: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 | Download File Alaska: Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Innovation, and Welcoming Initiatives in the Frontier State
In Alaska, there is no doubt that immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators play an important role. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring in additional revenue, create jobs, and contribute to the state’s economy. Highly skilled immigrants are vital to the state’s innovation industries and to the metropolitan areas within the state, helping to boost local economies. Furthermore, local government, business, and non-profit leaders recognize the importance of immigrants in their communities and support immigration through local “welcoming” and integration initiatives.
Immigrant entrepreneurs contribute to Alaska’s economy. From 2006 to 2010, there were 3,394 new immigrant business owners in Alaska and in 2010, 10.1 percent of all business owners in Alaska were foreign-born. In 2010, new immigrant business owners had a total net business income of $160 million, which is 7.8 percent of all net business income in the state. Highly skilled immigrants are vital to Alaska’s innovation industries, which in turn helps lead American innovation and creates jobs.Read more...
Published On: Wed, Jan 01, 2014 | Download File New Hampshire: Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Welcoming Initiatives in the Granite State
In New Hampshire, there is no doubt that immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators play an important role. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring in additional revenue, create jobs, and contribute significantly to the state’s economy. Highly skilled immigrants are vital to the state’s innovation industries, and to the metropolitan areas within the state, helping to boost local economies. Furthermore, local government, business, and non-profit leaders recognize the importance of immigrants in their communities and support immigration through local “welcoming” and integration initiatives.
Immigrant entrepreneurs contribute to New Hampshire’s economy.
From 2006 to 2010, there were 4,253 new immigrant business owners in New Hampshire, and in 2010, 5.7 percent of all business owners in New Hampshire were foreign-born.
New Hampshire is home to many successful companies with at least one founder who was an immigrant or child of an immigrant, including well-known companies such as the footwear company Timberland. Based in Stratham, Timberland currently employs more than 5,800 people and has over $1.5 billion in annual revenue.
Highly skilled immigrants are vital to New Hampshire’s innovation industries, which in turn helps lead American innovation and creates jobs.Read more... |
THE ZEIT GIST
Readers get last word on 'gaijin' tag
The Community Page received another large batch of e-mails in response to Debito Arudou's followup Sept. 2 (Sept. 3 in some areas) Just Be Cause column on the use of the word "gaijin." Following is a selection of the responses. Don't live in denial like U.S.
Here in America, we hear about the word "gaijin," but its significance is not clear to us. However, when your writer connects it to the N-word . . . well, that is, as Frank Baum would say, "a horse of a different color" — we get the impact immediately.
Hence, as an African-hyphen-American, and one that has living relatives of three other ethnicities, I say, "Well done." I hope your Japanese readers will not live in denial like their American counterparts. Slavery has now been dead some 200 years and its cousin, segregation, over 40. But the stench from both of them lingers like unventilated raw sewage.
I am hoping to live and work in Japan one day. I hope to find a land far more tolerant than the one in which I now reside.
A distant but regular reader
Can't defuse this bombshell
"Once a 'gaijin,' always a 'gaijin' " definitely raised some eyebrows. That said, I'm going to comment on one particular aspect — the N-word (I'm going to actually spell the word out, so don't be too shocked when you see it). In full disclosure, I'm a black American.
OK, so the use of "nigger" and "gaijin" to Mr. Debito Arudou seem to be one and the same. I have to disagree. The reality is that "nigger" is a far more loaded word than "gaijin" will ever hope to be, and that is societal fact. Anyone can joke with "gaijin" — Americans, Europeans, Africans, even other Asians. The term can be defused quite easily. Of course we can also infuse the word with hatred and xenophobic overtones. That said, I think it is used largely in the defused sense.
Now, go to east Los Angeles or Southside Chicago and try using "nigger" jokingly — see what kind of response you get. Go to the Deep South, and say the word in whatever crowd — you might become "strange fruit" overnight.
People talk about defusing the word, but it never seems to stick. You simply can't defuse that kind of bombshell. History has given "nigger" a weight to bear and it must be respected. Hip-hop and rap artists from the United States have talked about "owning" the word, and yet it still causes uproar throughout the community.
The word is heavier than any one person, or group of people, can bear. It takes a certain sensitivity, cultural understanding, and a host of other variables that I can't even describe before being able to say, "Let's approach the word." If you can say that about "gaijin" then I stand corrected. But somehow I doubt it.
The article by Mr. Debito Arudou definitely raises some issues with regards to Japan and how Japanese people deal with foreigners, all of which need to be tackled by Japanese and gaijin alike, but to equate the use of "gaijin" to "nigger" is, as another respondent said, "hyperbolic," and, I would say, 180 degrees off target.
Wayne Malcolm, Akita City
Both bad, but one's worse
From the Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary's "gaijin" entry: "a foreigner in Japan." From the N-word's entry: ". . .now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English."
No one alive today who has been called the N-word has ever been beaten as a slave in a state-supported system. No one alive today who has been called the G-word has ever been beaten, nor stolen from their homelands in a state-sponsored system of oppression.
That being said, let's take a look at the definition of "discriminate": "recognize or perceive the difference." Right there is the rub: It denotes a difference between "this kind of people" and "that kind of people." As such, it has no place in the polite lexicon.
Another important point of the modern discussion of the N- vs. G-words is, in my opinion, the fact that their roots are almost exactly the same. The French word for "black" has been mispronounced by Americans for years, leading to the commonly vulgar "n---er," or the modern,"embraced" term "n---a." It is a mispronunciation of a word. Similarly, the shortening of "gaikokujin" could be looked at as a mispronunciation, albeit of a native word. In short, "you people aren't worth my time" is the subtext; "I'll just call you all this" is the action.
One word has its roots in slavery (and mispronounced French), the other has its roots in wanting to save time when discriminating against others. One's worse, but they're both pretty bad.
I hope we can move forward to a more positive, kindhearted world by no longer relying on such catch-all terms for "us" and "them."
You don't speak for us
With all due respect, Mr. Arudou, your assertion that there is any sort of comparison between the word used to address the slaves and children and grandchildren of your former compatriots and "gaijin" are strained and, at best, ill-informed.
Your stated desired outcome is to have your Japanese status acknowledged. And what would that look like? At a social event, would a recent acquaintance mistakenly call you Taro Arudou instead of Debito? The nation of Japan has issued you your passport, you have your health care card, and you are entitled to all the benefits the nation offers. Clearly the state has given you what you want. What is it you want from me and from the readers of this newspaper, then?
I appreciate that you play at fighting the good fight, but in this instance, sir, you have seriously offended me. Because, let's face it, you don't speak for the "n---ers" living in Japan. When you make such lazy comparisons, you're not a champion of the rights of the Filipina sex workers that are brutalized here in Okinawa. You're not the defender of the Chinese or third-generation Koreans that still aren't Japanese. You've simply appropriated a term whose mere presence in this debate serves only to sell advertising space on the (Japan Times) Web site and does not further the prospects of the people you claim to be defending.
You want to champion the rights of newcomers to Japan, but what we need, Mr. Arudou, are not your ham-fisted and ugly similes; we need words that can nourish the imagination of the reader — words that speak to every human being's basic need to be a part of a community predicated on mutual benefit. In your own, American tradition we can look to the poet Robert Frost for the kinds of words we need. In his poem "The Mending Wall," we read that good fences make good neighbors. It is in these supposed boundaries — our cultural differences, which at once seem to cut us off from each other — that we find the very source of our mutual strength. That we are different and the inheritors of rich cultural traditions mean that we are better able to meet and surpass the needs of our communities, because within these vast repositories of cultural knowledge we find the stories of those who have been as bridges between cultures and communities.
Paul Boshears, Uruma City, Okinawa
Glad Arudou is out there
Since he is a controversial figure, I imagine Debito Arudou's latest piece has produced more disagreement than agreement. I want to be onboard as saying that I think his point about differentiating different types of Japanese people with a "hyphenated term" (e.g., "Amerika-kei Nihonjin") is a well-received one, at least by this reader.
Until a term exists which allows those who do not obviously appear to be Japanese to be referred to as Japanese citizens, a mentality that accepts that you can look "non-Japanese" but still be Japanese will not develop. The language has to be present first in order to give citizens a way in which to express a way of thinking which is currently alien to them. If they start to hear the hyphenated terms on television or read them in newspapers, a new pattern of thinking will develop.
While I don't always agree with everything Debito Arudou says, I'm very glad that he's out there saying it. He's the first bona fide activist for foreigners in Japan and as such he sometimes is extreme because it's the only way he can shake people's thinking and wake them up to the problems in Japan. Activists who are attempting to get equal rights have always been criticized for bucking the status quo by people who are sufficiently satisfied that they would rather passively accept inequality and prejudicial treatment than "rock the boat." They're also often treated as objects of hate or scorn by the very people they're laboring to help.
I applaud The Japan Times for giving him a platform from which to speak and hope that it will continue to give him a more public and widely read voice.
Shari Custer, Tokyo
Gaijin, and proud of it
Those of us who are "gaijins" don't all agree with the opinion of Mr. Arudou. The word "gaijin" is not the same as the English word "n--ger" in meaning, and there is no common effect on diversity.
Gaijin is a Japanese word meaning "foreigner" or "outsider." The word is composed of "gai" ("outside") and "jin" ("person"), so the word can be translated literally as "outside (foreign) person." The word can refer to nationality, race or ethnicity.
The word "gaijin" does not have the same effect as "n--ger," and nor will it ever. Mr. Arudou may be a Japanese in the legal sense, but neither Mr. Arudou nor I will ever be true Japanese. To be a true Japanese you must be born and raised as a Japanese. Anyone else is just not genuinely Japanese, regardless of what your passport says.
I'm sorry, Mr. Arudou, but you do not think like a Japanese and, judging by your writings, you will never assimilate into the Japanese way of life. You are like so many other Americans, who want everyone to change and accept you instead of you changing and accepting them.
Let's all agree that "gaijin" is just a word. Making it into a bad word is just wrong. I am a gaijin and damn proud to be one, and the Japanese accept me for what I am, not what I want to be called.
Equality of censorship Thanks for both of these columns, which I fully identify with. I agree that "gaijin" is a painful word, and the fact that the word engages debate proves it. I have one comment, though. If you write "n--ger," why not use "g--jin"? Let's find some "katakana" transcription. If someone could start the trend, this has to be you, Debito! This may bring awareness about the deeply unpleasant undertones.
No one said Japan was easy
Poor Debito Arudou, arguing the cause of foreigners in Japan about the term "gaijin." Every generation of long-term residents in Japan has faced the insular nature of "us versus them" living in Japan. I did during my 8 1/2 years in Japan (1985-92).
Some of us choose to feel slighted by the word and make mountains out of mole hills, trying in futility to change Japanese thinking by writing books and verbose essays in English, appealing to those of a similar mind set, while others choose to get on with their lives and recognize that you can't be accepted by all those in Japanese society. It is far easier to make peace with yourself and the close circle of friends and family that you have than it is to tear apart the psychology of the Japanese group and individual identity.
People who live in Japan for a long period of time do gradually lose sight of the reality in their home countries as well, on how immigrants are often treated at home.
There are some good and negative points to all countries. Some people might be a bit more accepting of immigrants than others when they have taken the time to learn the language. There are a quite a few Westerners who have become legal Japanese citizens, even local politicians. The fact is, if you who have chosen to live in Japan but cannot come to grips with the fact that you are not going to be considered "Japanese" even if you naturalize, then maybe it is better for you to move on before this becomes a psychosis.
No one ever said that living in Japan would be easy. You would probably find the insularity in some other Asian countries like China and Korea even more disconcerting, carrying that chip on your shoulder all the time.
Kerry M. Berger, Bangkok
Chip on your shoulder
Racial and ethnic prejudice is present globally, not just in Japan. My parents were Americans of Japanese ancestry. Dad served in the segregated U.S. Army during World War II in Italy fighting Germans. He couldn't get a job in America because "japs" weren't hired. He served in 442nd RCT/100th Battalion, themost decorated unit in the history of the U.S. Army.
If you don't like living in Japan, move. People like you walk around with a chip on your shoulder.
Norman Matsumura, Tucson, Ariz.
'Sorry, gaijin'
People in the US use the term "foreigner" to describe people not from America in pretty much the same way Japanese use "gaijin" to describe people not from Japan. Some people use that term to hurt others. Some people are hurt by it. But if there are a handful of foreigners in the U.S. who feel offended by its usage, does that mean that it is suddenly a bad word?
About 99 percent of the citizens of Japan would say that Mr. A. does not look like a native of this country. If that is a priority for him, I would recommend moving to the U.S. or Canada. I have immense respect for the fact that Mr. A became a Japanese, but it is silly to think that just by becoming Japanese suddenly 125 million native Japanese citizens will start to think of a white person as a Japanese. How would the average Japanese know that Mr. A. (a) has citizenship here and (b) is of "American descent" and therefore should be addressed as "amerika-kei nihonjin" instead of "gaijin," which applies to the vast majority of white people here?
Even the suggestion that gaijin are stripped of their ancestral identity in the way Africans were when they were forcibly taken from their homes and sent to America is an enormous affront to peoples who lost their ancestral identity in the process, least of all due to language. It is particularly absurd to think that happens to gaijin who freely emigrate to Japan. Quite the contrary. No one seems to forget the ancestry of Korean-Japanese (who often did not freely emigrate), and I am often asked, "Are you German? American?" Japanese are sensitive to these distinctions despite the label. In any event, how is "gaijin" any more culture-erasing than "gaikokujin"?
Regarding the broadcasters, using the more formal "gaikokujin" keeps things nice and diplomatic, and awkward. I would encourage anyone who considers Japanese broadcasters to be the moral standard for this fine country to watch a little late night TV (any night, any station). Is this the moral compass of the Japanese people? Sorry ace, try looking somewhere else.
No matter how much I adapt to Japanese ways, I'll always be a gaijin here, and the better I understand this the more easily I will be able to live in my adopted country. When I hear a noisy foreigner complaining about how things here should be more like they are back home, all I really can say is, "Sorry, gaijin."
When natives are the outsiders I for one don't think "gaijin" is as bad a term as people make it out to be. For instance, what about Americans calling their native peoples "Indian?" We are not Indian, and yet we are referred to as such. Why?
Indians are outsiders (from another country) — who does that mean the natives are?
I know Columbus thought he landed in/near India, but that was in the 1400s. I think some people take the term "gaijin" too seriously.
Eledore Massis, Long Branch, N.J.
Like trying to grasp water As a 31-year resident of Japan, it seems to me that the intonation of the speaker who utters this word matters a great deal, as does the situation in which its use takes place. It still irritates me to hear "gaijin," but then language is a living thing, so attempts to control it are largely futile — it's rather like trying to grasp water.
Jeff Jones, Tokyo
Singled out, lumped together
Just wanted to say thanks for a stellar read. I've spent the better part of the last six months trying to tie words with emotions on what it's like to be singled out, then lumped together, all at the hand of one little word.
Would love to see more of this debate continuing in the future.
Zach P, Okayama
Author is discriminating I like how the author complains of discrimination when his article does the exact same thing back to the Japanese. He makes broad generalizations about how Japanese perceive foreigners, with absolutely no evidence to back his obviously biased observations. In addition,his comparison to term "n--ger" is ludicrous considering all the perks and opportunities foreigners often enjoy in Japan. My heart breaks for poor, suffering foreigners such as Howard Stringer, the CEO of Sony. And by the way, if you don't have to guts to print the full word, you shouldn't put it in your article.
My experience living as a foreigner in Japan has always been pleasant, and I have found that Japanese people, while often not very knowledgeable of other cultures, are genuinely interested in hearing about other countries, and the U.S. in particular. So I wonder what the author's complaint is? Is it the often unfair career advantages foreigners enjoy here or the extra attention and curiosity you receive as someone who looks different? In either case, I can imagine things far worse to complain about.
And I wonder what the author's position is on the large number of ethnic Koreans who were born in Japan and are virtually indistinguishable from ethnic Japanese? Or how he feels about labeling foreigners as "aliens" in the U.S., and its strict immigration policies.
If anything, an article highlighting the very real problem of prostitution and exploitation of foreign women would have been far more informative and worthy of attention. But I hardly think Debito has much to personally complain about in that regard. Overall, this was a very poorly thought-out article with the same biases and prejudices it complains about. I give it a -1 on a 1-to-10 scale.
Tae Kim, Seattle
Be known as the best gaijin I always like to read what Debito Arudou has to say. The word "gaijin" may seem strange or misused.
Despite the fact I was born here, I've heard it all my life. If you are called by a name all your life it becomes your identity. It would feel strange to change what I'm called mid-stream.
Even a funny name on a good person changes the feeling of the name to a good name for that person. I don't worry about it at all. Just be known as the best "gaijin" with a Japanese passport around. Enjoy life, know who you are, people who really know you will know you for who you really are. No worries.
Loyd, Kobe
'Gaijin-san' proves point I always try to avoid using the word "gaijin," but it's not because I think the word may sound more offensive than "gaikokujin" or other terms that are used to refer to non-Japanese people. I just do so because it would be preferable to call them Americans, Russians, Brazilians, etc, if possible.
Whatever historical study suggests, "gaijin" has no more a negative implication than "gaikokujin." In fact, some Japanese use the term "gaijin-san" to make it sound polite. This single fact shows that "gaijin" has no discriminatory connotation.
Satoru Yoshikura, Tokyo |
Looking at the Future of Biosimilars
InterbrandHealth
on Monday, June 11 2012 04:28 PM | Comments
The true market potential for biosimilars has been under a microscope. In our last blog post we framed the industry, looking at some of the varying and conflicting points of view of major players in the industry. In this post we will begin exploring InterbrandHealth’s perspective on biosimilars. We recently participated in the Financial Times US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference on June 6, 2012 in New York City. Below are some of the points that were discussed during the biosimilars panel that Wes Wilkes, our Executive Director of Global Strategy, participated in during the panel Biosimilars: Coming of Age? Biosimilars are here. Most of the conversation today is how the regulatory pathways will shape the landscape in the US, EU, and the rest of the world. What we are helping most of our clients with today is looking past the regulatory approvals and focusing on the uptake and competition post-regulatory approval. The uptake in developed markets will ultimately provide significant savings and access to a new population of patients. But new entrants may be underestimating the loyalties that exist with reference product manufacturers, and the trepidation that may exist for providers and patients to switch to the biogenerics, specifically those that treat more chronic conditions. We are not talking the same price disparities we see with generics in the small molecule space. In some markets we may be talking less than 30% in price savings, not to mention the price elasticity reference product manufacturers are willing to explore as the basement price for many of the big products is still unknown. Pair that with the brand loyalty, trust and safety that have been built up over the last decade — and we have a much different game on our hands. Some of the newer entrants can learn from the mistakes made in the past in the small molecule space, especially in how they will compete and differentiate themselves in a highly competitive environment.We see the future successors differentiating themselves on: 1) The corporate/manufacturer brand 2) The manufacturing process 3) The technologies and delivery devices However, we see most of the efforts to date being placed in the reverse order. Of course the technology and delivery device is an obvious differentiator, but we are encouraging our clients to consider the uptake barriers that do and will exist post-approval. One of the greatest barriers is concern over safety and quality controls. Yes, the price will be a driver of choice, but the hurdle of a relatively “unknown” player with different manufacturing technologies may not be enough to overcome the price disparity. Starting now to lay the foundation of the corporate and manufacturer equities will be key to post-approval commercial success. Providers and payers will have an increased scrutiny on this space especially in the more chronic conditions. We feel that focusing only on the differences in delivery and dosing may be a bit myopic in a category where brand loyalty, trust and respect will be key. Stay tuned for a white paper on biosimilars where we will be exploring these commercial strategies in more depth. For more information on this topic please email: [email protected] Post a comment
Photo Credit: Shutterstock Biosimilars have been in the news recently as testimony has been offered to the FDA on the subject and excitement mounts as some see significant growth opportunities for the pharmaceutical and generic industries. The Financial Times' US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference is bringing together an international line-up of industry experts, government decision-makers and leading market commentators to explore the market potential for Biosimilars. InterbrandHealth's Executive Director of Global Strategy Wes Wilkes is a confirmed panel speaker on this significant subject. The Financial Times describes the current atmosphere, promise and controversy around Biosimilars and topics for discussion within the panel, "The emerging market for Biosimilars is expected to represent an important growth opportunity for pharma and generic companies in the years ahead. Regulatory pathways for Biosimilars are already well established in Europe, where the focus is moving to more complex biological products, and the FDA is in the process of establishing a framework. Opinion is split, however, on the true real potential of this market, with some suggesting that the market will grow to a multi-billion dollar market in the next 5 years, while others point to the slower development of Biosimilar products in Europe, as well as regulatory and cost challenges to show that Biosimilars will never be a serious threat to branded pharmaceuticals." Doug Trapp of American Medical News explained Biosimilars in a piece on the FDA's release of a draft proposal in February to give a detailed explanation of approval requirements. "Biologics includes a variety of vaccines, blood and blood components, gene therapies, tissues and proteins, according to the FDA guidance. Biologics are made using complex, large molecules and typically are significantly more difficult to manufacture than small molecule drugs, such as aspirin. A Biosimilar is a product based on an original biologic that has no meaningful clinical differences from the original." In 2010 the FDA reported the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to create an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products demonstrated to be Biosimilar with an FDA licensed product. The Immune Deficiency Foundation's (IDF) President and Founder Marcia Boyle testified before the FDA this month, urging the agency to exempt immunoglobulin (Ig) therapies from the Biosimilars pathways of drug approvals. Boyle argued the FDA should follow the example of the European Medicines Agency to exempt Ig therapy from Biosimilars pathway or to require Biosimilar products to undergo clinical trials to determine if clinical outcomes are the same with proposed interchangeable therapies. While opinions differ on the potential of the Biosimilars market, Zachary Russ in a recent article in Genetic Engineering and Biotech News argues, "...the EMA is properly handling the question of how to evaluate Biosimilars." But he raises a number of questions. Russ asks, "An assay technologies and expression systems continue to improve, will we ever see two different manufacturers with different processes make identical Biologics? Can the Biosimilar approval model be used for approving Biologics with intentionally different kinetics? What level of similarity is worth pursuing? In the event that a biologic finds a new indication, how will the approval of that indication for approved Biosimilars be handled?" The Biosimilars: Coming of Age? panel at the Financial Times Healthcare Conference will explore the true market potential for Biosimilars -- the drivers and resistors to future growth. And InterbrandHealth's Wes Wilkes is an avid thought leader and speaker on the changing role of brand within the healthcare sector, including the rapidly developing markets. The Financial Times US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference will be held at The University Club, New York City |
Why the minimum wage matters
Heather Gibney
It doesn’t take long after someone proposes an increase in the minimum wage — as President Obama did in his State of the Union message — to hear the same, tired arguments against it.
Rather than repeat them, and the bad economics behind them, it’s important to put the minimum wage in the context of the cost of making ends meet. It doesn’t come close — which means two things: (1) the wage itself needs to keep pace with increases in typical household costs, and (2) to fill gaps between the wage and the cost of basic needs, and to encourage people to work, we can through public policy offer work supports, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as assistance with the costs of food, health care and child care.
The Cost of Living in Iowa analysis by the Iowa Policy Project last year provides a look at just how far short a $7.25 hourly wage would fall for a single parent even working two full-time jobs. It would not come close to paying the bills without work-support programs. Note these estimates in the accompanying table (Table 3 from that May 2012 report) of a basic-needs, no-frills household budget for a single-parent family of two or three.
The national minimum wage of $7.25 has not been increased in almost four years — and in Iowa it’s already been over five years, as the state’s $7.25 minimum took effect in January 2008. Prices are higher than they were then, and employers cannot be counted upon to raise pay for minimum-wage workers without the stick of wage-and-hour laws. That is why there’s a minimum.
Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate |
I was recently approached by a friend, Michael J. Whelan, to participate in an online blogging chain where writers describe their upcoming projects. Michael is a writer and poet as well as a military historian- he served with the Irish Defence Forces as a Peacekeeper in Lebanon and Kosovo, and has published on the Battle of Jadotville, where Irish soldiers became engaged in the Congo in 1961.
Although this style of post is a departure from what I normally put up on the site, after some reflection I thought it might be a means to discuss some of the current and future projects I want to work on.
I have a tendency to work on a number of projects concurrently, until one emerges from the pack to take precedence over the others. At present I have four main areas I am looking at. These include the Irish-born Medal of Honor Project that I outlined here, which I hope will shed some light on the lives of these men and their families. As well as that I am about to start looking at Irish-born Generals in the Union army, to include the commissioned Generals (12 in total) and the breveted Generals (32 in total). Some of these men are not well-known but led quite remarkable lives. The final two areas are collections of eye-witness accounts. I intend to compile a range of these accounts for the Irish in the American Civil War and also Irish Redcoats in the British Army from the 17th to 19th centuries.
What is the Working Title of your book?
At the moment I think it probable that the next publication I will look to complete will be the Irish accounts of the American Civil War. I am using the working title ‘Irish Voices of the American Civil War.’
Where did the idea come from for the book?
General history readers often relate more to eye-witness accounts than to any other form of historical delivery. The American Civil War produced many Irishmen and women who recorded their experiences before, during and after the conflict. This combination should hopefully be of interest to readers, and further raise the profile in Ireland of the experiences of the 1.6 million Irish in the United States at this time.
What genre does your book fall under?
Historical non-fiction.
What is the one sentence synopsis of your book?
The Irish experience of the American Civil War through the words of those who were there.
How long did it take you to write the first draft of your manuscript?
In the case of my first book which is coming out in February in the region of 6 months, although I had carried out a large amount of the background research prior to that.
What other books would you compare this book to within your genre?
For the ‘Irish Voices’ concept it would be the likes of Ian Fletcher’s Voices From the Peninsula and Jerome A. Greene’s Indian War Veterans.
Who or what inspired you to write this book?
As with all my writing on the American Civil War, be it on the blog or for publication, it is principally the fact that the impact this conflict had on Irish people has been largely forgotten in Ireland, and it certainly does nor receive the historical attention in Ireland it deserves given it’s scale.
What else about your book might pique the reader’s interest?
I am fascinated by the social impacts of the American Civil War on the Irish, both at an individual and community level. With this in mind I try to look beyond simply the battlefield and the confines of 1861-1865. What were Irish views before the conflict? How did they feel about it afterwards? How did change the lives of those involved?
When and how will it be published?
I intend to spend the next year of so putting the research together, with a view to exploring publication options in 2014.
It is customary to tag other writers to continue the chain, which I hope to do in the coming days. I will also have more news on the site shortly regarding the publication of The Irish in the American Civil War by The History Press Ireland. |
Age of the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married her
Whilst visiting some chat rooms, I read a very strange topic, and I want someone who has knowledge of the Prophet’s biography (seerah) to explain this matter to me, may Allah bless you. To sum up, after researching the accusations the reports narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari which state that ‘Aa’ishah’s age, when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did the marriage contract with her, was six years, and that he consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, a journalist cast doubts on Saheeh al-Bukhaari. The researcher did not only examine the reports from the angle of figures and dates, but also from the angle of the isnaads through which the most famous hadeeths were narrated, as mentioned in al-Bukhaari and Muslim. In both cases he seems to have wanted to demonstrate that he is smart and prove his point.
Praise be to Allah
Firstly: The definition of the age of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did the marriage contract with her as being six years, and of the age when he consummated the marriage with her as being nine years, is not a matter of ijtihaad (individual opinion) on the part of the scholars, such that we could argue whether it is right or wrong; rather this is a historical narration which is proven by evidence that confirms its soundness and the necessity of accepting it. That is for several reasons: 1.
It was narrated by the individual concerned herself, namely ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), and is not something that someone else said about her, or the description of a historian or hadeeth scholar. Rather it comes in the context of her speaking about herself (may Allah be pleased with her), when she said:
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married me when I was six years old. We came to Madinah and stayed among Banu’l-Haarith ibn Khazraj. I fell sick and lost my hair, (then I reovered) and my hair grew down to my earlobes. My mother Umm Roomaan came to me when I was on a swing and some of my friends were with me. She called me loudly and I went to her, and I did not know what she wanted of me. She took me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house, as I was gasping for breath, until I had calmed down. Then she took some water and wiped my face and head with it, then she took me into the house. There were some women of the Ansaar in the house, who said: With good wishes and blessings and good luck. She handed me over to them and they adorned me, and suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) at mid-morning, and they handed me over to him. At that time I was nine years old. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3894; Muslim, 1422. 2.
This report from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) is in the soundest of books after the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, namely the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim. 3.
It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) via a number of isnaads (chains of narration), not by one isnaad only, as some ignorant people claim. · The most well-known chain of narration is that of Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, from his father ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). This is one of the soundest narrations, as ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr is one of the most well acquainted of people with ‘Aa’ishah, because she was his maternal aunt.
· It was also narrated via another chain, by az-Zuhri from ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, from ‘Aa’ishah. Narrated by Muslim, 1422.
· It was also narrated via another chain, from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, from Yahya ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Haatib, from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4937. Shaykh Abu Ishaaq al-Huwayni compiled the names of those who followed ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, namely: al-Aswad ibn Yazeed, al-Qaasim ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, ‘Amrah bint ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan, and Yahya ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Haatib. He also compiled the names of those who followed Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah in narrating this hadeeth. They were: Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri and Abu Hamzah Maymoon, the freed slave of ‘Urwah. Then he named those who narrated it from Hishaam ibn ‘Urwah among the scholars of Madinah. The reader should understand that this hadeeth is one of those that were also narrated by Hishaam in Madinah. They were: Abu’z-Zinnaad ‘Abdullah ibn Dhakwaan and his son ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Abi’z-Zinnaad, and ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn ‘Urwah.
Among the people of Makkah (it was narrated by) Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah. (It was also narrated by) Jareer ibn ‘Abd al-Hameed ad-Dubbi among the people of ar-Rayy. |
Curtis Faville Historically, the content of a text has generally been considered as having a separate existence from its physical manifestation as print. Western Literature was originally oral, and though later committed to written form, the spoken word — the conditions of its utterance (or performance) — was long thought to precede, or to lie outside the parameters of, the physical text. This regard for the text as a convenient repository was reinforced by the traditions of dramatic and public speech.
In the East, where wood-block printing preceded moveable type printing (in Europe) by several hundred years, there nevertheless developed a different tradition involving elaborations of calligraphic expression and design. Europe also had a calligraphic tradition, though it was primarily restricted to the evolution of the Roman alphabet, and was geometrical in its spirit and character. In the East, calligraphic characters were invented to express meanings through shapes and styles of design, which encouraged the elaboration of techniques, sometimes associated with, or related to, painting, and a tradition of poetic expression going back hundreds of years, in which the meaning of a literary work was both signified, and visually expressed by the brush (calligraphic) medium, either as an integral accompaniment to works of art, or through the expressive definition and shape of the characters themselves. There is no true counterpart in Western Tradition, to the various Eastern calligraphic traditions of China, Korea, and Japan, which were unknown, for the most part, in the West, until the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Printing from moveable type had a revolutionary effect on the production of literature, as it is credited with facilitating the spread of knowledge during the Renaissance, and of the Enlightenment in Europe. The enormous power of this mechanism tended to suppress the relationship between the means of text-generation and the artisan-writer, a division which continues right into the twenty-first century. This lack of a coherent tradition of calligraphic expression in the West, which contributed to a systematic alienation of the writer from the material text, fostered a skeptical regard for the visual possibilities and potentials of a literature based on the eye and the hand, instead of the mere conveniences of mechanized typographic generation.
The trend towards mechanization was accelerated during the Industrial Revolution, with increasingly sophisticated and efficient techniques of automated reproduction. A series of typographic machine inventions, beginning in the nineteenth century — including the linotype machine, rotary press, offset press, and the manual typewriter — transformed the traditional typeset model, driving the proliferation of print mass media throughout the twentieth century. Isolated exceptions to this historical trend would include William Blake (1757–1827), painter, engraver and poet extraordinaire — whose work has clear antecedents in the documents of medieval scribes — and his illuminated “visionary” manuscripts — integrating both custom inscription and illustration — are a direct attempt to resuscitate or restore a tradition effectively driven underground by the ubiquity of moveable print technology; and in America, where Walt Whitman (1819–1892) — who had worked as a typesetter early in his career — paid for, designed, and did much of the typesetting for the first edition of his Leaves of Grass (1855). Both the concept and feel of this original edition suggest that Whitman was attempting to unite the qualities of the material text, as an embodiment of visual and tactile object, with the rustic, nativist thematic content of his ambitious American poem sequence.
It was not until the invention of the manual typewriter — which may be seen, in an historical timeline of increasing elaboration of type technology (printing), as an intermediate step in the development of expression through mechanical textual means (media) — that efficient production of the print text was first made possible directly by the individual user, not depending upon any intermediate step for realization, freeing the writer/artisan from a dependence upon the printing press — permitting, in effect, a rapid setting of text, and an opportunity to express meaning through a medium controlled by the artisan/writer.
The manual typewriter, in the form that we now know it, was invented in 1867. It used the so-called “QWERTY” layout of keyboard letters (in English), which has remained standard through to the present day with personal computer keyboards. By 1910, after some minor mechanical adjustments, the manual typewriter achieved a standardized design. The dimensions of the paper — the familiar 8.5 x 11 “letter size” (as a field or visual surface) — is also a standard that is linked historically to the development of the typewriter. Traditional typefaces were designed to set type with variable “proportionate” widths. Since mechanical typewriters could not “justify” type (that is, adjust the incremental movement of the platen carriage to accommodate the differing widths of the individual letters), monospaced typefaces were invented. The invention of the typewriter, with its equivalently spaced letters, created a two-dimensional grid of the paper field, consisting of the spacing between the individual horizontal lines of type, and the vertical equivalent spacing of the letters. Thus, the component materials for the personal typographic text were established and in place well before Eigner assumed their use in the 1940s.
Though originally invented to facilitate rapid and efficient recordation of physical text, the typewriter eventually supplanted handwriting for many kinds of writing, both technical and creative. Traditional typesetting techniques, as well as page and book design, both played a significant role in the assumptions and clichés regarding the formatting of prose, line length, paragraph dimensions, indents, justification, and so forth. The mechanical manual typewriter, however, despite its nearly universal use for nearly a hundred years, was largely ignored as a device with an inherent potential for creative expression. Typographic and book design styles and traditions were determined by the commercial publishing industry, which was in turn based upon pre-industrial, and later, industrial applications or adaptations of classic typesetting practice, and book binding. It has been commonly thought that the personal typewriter’s predominant characteristic, its equivalent spacing, and equivalently spaced type font(s), represented an inconvenient limitation, which could perhaps serve as an intermediate step in the generation of text (from which typesetters and composers made a finished product) — a necessary evil or unfortunate consequence of the limitation of the typewriter’s mechanical design. History would have to wait until the invention of the personal computer — with its automated justification programs — to liberate artists and writers from the typewriter’s dominant inter-position, as the sole alternative to either script or voice recording, to produce their art.
Early modern departures from the traditional presentation of distributed text formalities would include such deliberate examples as Mallarmé’s Un Coup de Des, or Apollinaire’s Calligrammes. In the fields of advertising and graphic display, of course, countless innovations took place, but these were primarily non-literary in origin, and visual in their intended effects. Meanwhile, the typewriter became the common medium across the spectrum of users, for composing, and fixing, written texts. For the first time in history, creative writers made their own textual versions directly in print form. It was inevitable, given this fact, that the new mechanical medium would influence the work of artisan-poets in the modern age. William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, Marianne Moore, and — most particularly — E. E. Cummings (each a major Modernist innovator), were all influenced or inspired by the typewriter’s facility to arrange, modify, and express visual and aural effects directly on the page. It doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate the precisionist’s delight in lines like these, of Marianne Moore’s, constructed out of the most arbitrary of syllabic structures —
wade through black jade. Of the crow-blue mussel-shells, one keeps adjusting the ash-heaps; opening and shutting itself like
an injured fan. The barnacles which encrust the side of the wave, cannot hide there for the submerged shafts of the
sun, split like spun glass[1]
— and so on, without also acknowledging that its mathematical efficiency derives from an acute sensitivity to the strict increments which form the basis of its measure, a count not just of its syllables, but of its vertical indents and the visual tensions of its line-breaks — all qualities which suggest a mechanical appreciation of nature and form. From Pound’s perspective, the inclusion of Chinese characters directly into the body of his texts (in The Cantos) implied a coincident respect for the symbolic evidence of original meanings, embodied in their original form(s). To Williams, the poem was dynamic and gesticular, his stepped movements dramatic demonstrations of purpose —
Sunday in the Park
Outside outside myself there is a world, he rumbled, subject to my incursions — a world (to me) at rest, which I approach concretely —
The scene’s the Park upon the rock, female to the city
— upon whose body Paterson instructs his thoughts (concretely) …[2]
— which expresses a kinetic motion through the placement of words — nervous, impulsive, and shifting. Such innovations of the free use of shifting parameters and coordinates in verse, however, reach a kind of crescendo in E. E. Cummings’s various “typographical” “experiments” during the 1920s and after. Though it is not generally known or acknowledged, Cummings had always conceived of his poems in monotype face — his famous entanglements with traditional typesetters notwithstanding — and had striven to achieve a kind of mediated compromised version of his poems by tweaking his work into “linotype-ese”:
am fighting — forwarded and backed by a corps of loyal assistants — to retranslate 71 poems out of typewriter language into linotype-ese. This is not so easy as one might think;consider,if you dare,that whenever a typewriter “key” is “struck” the “carriage” moves a given amount and the “line” advances recklessly or individualistically. Then consider that the linotype(being a gadget)inflicts a preestablished whole — the type “line” — on every smallest part;so that the words,letters,punctuation marks &(most important of all)spaces-between-these various elements,awake to find themselves rearranged automatically “for the benefit of the community” as politicians say.[3]
As baffling as Cummings’s preferences regarding the appearance of his published pages may have seemed to his contemporaries, his insistence on the material realization of his original compositional methodology can now be seen within the context of a growing renewal of interest in the possibilities and potentialities of a closer relationship between author and medium, meaning and means. It’s easy to see how the setting of one of his typical poems — for instance, one such as his famous “Buffalo Bill”: Buffalo Bill’sdefunct who used to ride a watersmooth-silver stallionand break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat Jesus
— presented here in equivalently set Courier font — would depend upon the precision with which individual words and phrases were placed in relation to each other, on the grid of the page. Attempts to mediate traditional proportional typesetting procedure to accommodate such settings usually result in distortions of one kind or another. Though Cummings’s work would not be published in the manner in which it had originally been conceived, until the appearance of the ambitious Typewriter Edition of 1973, some eleven years after his death (London: The Marchim Press, Ltd., George Firmage, editor) — followed by the subsequent reissue of the original separate books of poems under the Liveright imprint “typescript” editions — the promise of his interest in the creative potentials of the typewriter was soon to be taken up by others in the intervening decades.
In his 1950 essay “Projective Verse,” Charles Olson had proposed the typewriter as a conscious creative element influencing the generation of literary text:
from the machine has come one gain not yet sufficiently observed or used, but which leads directly on toward projective verse and its consequences. It is the advantage of the typewriter that, due to its rigidity and its space precisions, it can, for a poet, indicate exactly the breath, the pauses, the suspensions even of syllables, the juxtapositions even of parts of phrases, which he intends. For the first time the poet has the stave and the bar a musician has had. For the first time he can, without the convention of rime and meter, record the listening he has done to his own speech and by that one act indicate how he would want any reader, silently or otherwise, to voice his work. It is time we picked the fruits of the experiments of Cummings, Pound, Williams, each of whom has, after his way, already used the machine as a scoring to his composing, as a script to its vocalization. It is now only a matter of the recognition of the conventions of composition by field for us to bring into being an open verse as formal as the closed, with all its traditional advantages.[5]
Despite Olson’s theoretical insistence on the typewriter as an accommodation of the writer’s desire to score texts for “performance,” his insistence on the importance of the typewriter as an instrument of composition did not carry that purpose over to the finished page in his own work. His dramatic, muscular, rhetorical verse is recorded on the page with a great variety of line lengths and arrangements, but in traditional proportional typefaces. In any event, by 1950 then, there had occurred a recognition of the crucial place the typewriter might play in creative composition, but aside from a handful of largely underappreciated experiments by Cummings (beginning in the 1920s), no serious poet had yet ventured into the visual/musical FIELD to explore what subtleties and effects might be achieved by using the equivalent grid to make poems radically set to their own specific measures and weights. In a statement Eigner made for publication in 1996, he said (in 1995):
Hindsight (experience) says people give meaning to the world by evaluating or emphasizing things strangely enough: I picked up from e. e. cummings that everything you do on the page matters. When you don’t have regular meter or rhyme, the slight pause provided by the line (/) or stanza (//) break, the turn from one verse to another, gives stress and emphasis. It seems that one thing may be given too much stress, sort of like getting too hung up, fanatic, about a thing, unable to continue until, say, you may lessen the stress by just having a line, instead of a stanza, break … It’s a course of thinking — unlike a piece of prose it can be very short or long, can stop anywhere or continue unexpectedly like a letter or a walk. But it’s different from either of these in that it has to have more coherence, more immediacy and force (I realized this before I saw Olson’s characterization ‘energy construct’).[6]
Larry Eigner’s career as a poet could not have happened were it not for the invention of the manual typewriter. Though he was capable of a crude kind of handwriting, this was neither rapid enough, nor controlled adequately to have permitted accurate composition. Larry learned to type as a teenager, though his ability was limited to the use of a single index finger and thumb. The agonizing pace of this procedure — slowly typing one letter (key) at a time — was a determinative factor in his approach to writing. Thus the typewriter both facilitated and limited his approach to composition, restricting his access to its typographic qualities, while ironically affording him his only entrée into print. Beginning in the late 1940s, with the help of his Mother, he was able to make fair copies of his work, and to write letters. Though physically isolated, by the time of his first literary contacts, with Cid Corman and Robert Creeley, he was enabled by the typewriter to reach out into the world at large. The typewriter was thus the key “prosthetic” link between Larry’s disabled body and the universe of print media, facilitating his participation in it, while gratifying his hunger for contact and intellectual discourse.
By the early 1950s, Eigner had begun to survey the territory first explored by earlier twentieth-century writers, marking out parameters of scoring and placement — of words and stanzas — and testing the limits of syntactical progression, of visual massing, which would become the hallmarks of his mature style. This style bore an obvious relationship to traditional Chinese painting, as well as to pictographic brushwork, through the deliberate organization of the spatial arrangement of individual words and stanzas, a technique whose effects would variously be referred to as “floating” or “hovering” or as resembling the movements of the dance or birds in flight. Such metaphoric descriptives, though, fail to take full account of the essential linguistic sophistication of his poetic experiments.
The specific combination of factors influencing Eigner’s approach to the page can be conflated: A) physical and social isolation for the first fifty years of his life, largely confined to the rooms in his parents’ house, his access to experience of the world circumscribed by limited opportunities for travel, movement, working in an enclosed porch; B) use of the typewriter to create texts, either as reflexive meditations, or as communications within a growing social and literary sphere. In retrospect, it may be seen that the adaptations forced upon him by these conditions would lead, ironically enough, to a fulfillment of Olson’s predictive composition by field technique, with its emphasis upon the typewriter as creative instrument, as well as upon the incremental unfolding of perceptions, whereby the poem becomes an open-ended extension into space and time, without arbitrary structural restraints or closures, beyond those imposed by the typewriter page. It is the coincidental nature of this “opportunity by limitation” which is perhaps the most revealing and gratifying aspect of Eigner’s accomplishments.
Though Eigner would initially be forced to acknowledge — as Cummings had before him — the predominance of traditional typesetting procedures, he lacked alternative means of composition, and thus continued throughout his life to create his typewriter texts in the same manner, unchanged. Given the limitations of his circumstance, it is unlikely that Eigner would ever have been in a position to dictate the terms of his appearances in print; nonetheless, when afforded the opportunity, he usually did his best to mediate between the precision of his original typescripts, and the proofs or galleys of printed pages of distributed type, just as Cummings had. The history of the publication of Eigner’s works, in magazines, books and broadsides is the record of the appropriation of his stylistic exactitude(s) to the limitations of traditional print text models.
In poring over Eigner’s voluminous manuscripts, and noting the extraordinary range of various traditional typographical “versions” of his poems undertaken over the years, it became apparent that to add to this list of adaptations would not do justice to the central meaning of his artistic effort and significance, and would in effect perpetuate the subtle but troubling distortions to which his work had been subjected during his lifetime. Eigner regarded the setting of his poems, within the exact equivalent dimensions afforded by the typewriter grid-field, as organizations of precise spatial relationships. As anyone who has ever attempted to mimic or duplicate the shifting relations of his words and stanzas on the page with distributed (variable) proportional typefaces knows only too well, this task is impossible: Following left-hand placements of first letters aligned with subsequent letter increments from above, or below, results in lines and words — especially in longer poems — radically rearranged. Such distortions are self-propagating; as each subsequent resetting of text takes place, there is progressively less fidelity to the original design. The basis, then, for any determination of the correct (intended) set of relationships, must be the original text. In order to present a valid “ur-text” or model upon which future use could be based, for posterity, it was decided to present the texts in equivalent typeface, just as Eigner had “set” them. It is possible, perhaps even useful, to imagine, that, like photographic negatives, these poems will be reimagined (printed) in other typefaces — distributed or proportional — over time. No writer can completely control how his or her work is reproduced in the future, but in order that the original designs and settings are not lost, the first responsibility to Eigner’s text, as to his present and future audiences, is to establish a reliable benchmark.
All decisions regarding typeface, composition and layout are aesthetic, though they may masquerade as practical requirements: legibility, size, density, and so forth. In the case of Eigner’s work, determined by the manual typewriter’s equivalent spacing, and the traditional letter-sized sheet, these are a priori frames, within which other problems must be mediated. Eigner’s text itself is, therefore, in every sense, an “image” of itself — or, in William Carlos Williams’s sense, “the thing itself” — opaque and obdurate. It is not a version of something, but the thing itself. That is both its beauty and its potential. |
Reducing Your Risk of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Living With PAD
(PAD) is caused by
which is a progressive condition. The same lifestyle changes used to manage PAD are also effective tools to prevent it. The following practices may help prevent peripheral artery disease:
Eating a healthier diet
Controlling conditions that put you at risk for PAD, such as:
Blood fat disorders
Exercising regularly
—Be sure to check with your doctor before starting any type of exercise.
Resource Guide for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Medications for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Treatments for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Talking to Your Doctor about Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Symptoms of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Surgical Procedures for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Screening for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
Risk Factors for Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) |
/ in Country: Iran
Qashqai, Kashkai in Iran Joshua Project has identified the Qashqai only in Iran Photo Map
Conservative Baptist Fellowship
Map Source: Bethany World Prayer Center © Copyrighted Population
Islam (100.0%)
Kashkay Progress
The Qashqa'i (pronounced KASH-kai) are a nomadic people who roam across the harsh deserts of southwest Iran. Although they are made up of many different linguistic, cultural, and tribal origins, they all call themselves "Turks." Qashqai Turki, their spoken language, does not yet exist in written form; most of them communicate in the Farsi language instead. We know very little about their history, except that the Qashqa'i left central Asia in the 11th century AD and began entering Iran. Nothing else is recorded about them until the mid-18th century when the ruler of southern Iran appointed a Qashqa'i as the tribal leader of a province. The Qashqa'i are considered a minority people group in Iran. Forceful attempts have been made to incorporate them into the mainstream of Iranian society; however, such efforts have failed, and these fascinating people have remained independent and proud. Although the Qashqa'i are professing Muslims, they have little use for organized religion beyond political purposes. What are Their Lives Like? In the Qashqa'i society, the upper class consists of men who are politically active. Their wealth comes mainly from control over land and ownership of herds. The lower class is made up of those who hire out their labor. They may serve as full-time shepherds and camel drivers, or as part-time field laborers and sharecroppers. The poorest of the Qashqa'i are those people who own no land or herds. They are not paid money for their goods or services, but are paid in food, clothing, supplies, and/or animals. Within this "poor class," anyone over the age of eight years is expected to work to support himself. Although the Qashqa'i women have little freedom, they do take the lead in certain family matters. For example, they are responsible for arranging marriages. They are probably best known, though, for their expert weaving skills. The main foods for Iranians are rice and bread. Traditional dishes include abgusht (a thick meat and bean soup), dolmeh (vegetables stuffed with meat and rice), and kebob (lamb roasted on a skewer). The fact that the Qashqa'i are "travelers" seems to add to their military, political, and cultural identity. In fact, the Qashqa'i who "settle" are seen by others within their group as people who lack an interest in political matters. What are Their Beliefs? Islam is the state religion of Iran, and virtually all of the Qashqa'i profess to be Muslims. In reality, however, they have very little contact with Islamic institutions or devout Muslims; they simply use Islam for its political advantages. Very few observe daily prayers, and they do not fast during Ramadan (the ninth month of the Muslim calendar in which all Muslims are expected to fast and pray). They do, however, follow Muslim traditions during the rites of marriage and death. What are Their Needs? Iran today faces serious economic and political problems. To survive the political order, they must side with certain leaders, such as Muslim clergy, who they feel can help protect them from demanding state institutions and rulers. The Qashqa'i live in a constant state of political unrest, and there is a tremendous need for true, inner peace. Many children do not attend school due to the lack of classrooms and teachers. Only about 48 percent of Iranian adults can read and write. The Qashqa'i have had little chance of ever hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Prayer Points
* Ask God to create a hunger in the hearts of the Qashqa'i and an openness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. * Pray that God will raise up laborers who understand the Muslim culture and who can effectively take the Gospel to them.
* Pray that God will provide contacts for the missions agencies trying to reach the Qashqa'i. Pray that He will give them His strategy and wisdom. * In the midst of Iran's constant political unrest, pray that these nomads will begin to search for the true, lasting peace that only Jesus can give. * Pray that God will open doors for Christian businessmen from other countries to share the Gospel with the Qashqa'i.
Southwest, Fars and South Kohgiluyeh va Boyerahmad Province. Shiraz, Gachsaran, and Firuzabad are centers
Population in Iran |
Trends and Open Source Writing
I get the greatest emails sometimes, thanks to my blog. Here’s the lead-in line that especially piqued my interest:
“I’m researching trends in technical communication for a grad-level writing class,”
She had me at trends in technical communication. And research. So of course, I read on.
” and I’ve found lots of posts on the web by established tech writers who specialize in the open source arena and who appear to be fairly entrenched in technical industries. Any references to the wanna-be writers in the same environment are followed by quips about their being poor, because they have to do a lot of jobs gratis to make a name for themselves.”
At the time I received this note, I had just started in my role as a technical writer and community doc coordinator for OpenStack, open source cloud computing software. I was surprised by the juxtaposition she noticed just in researching web posts, so I read on.
“Maybe I’m making the wrong inference, but it also seems that the comments about new writers are referring to grads who fit the traditional model of the 22 to 25-year-old coming right out of college. For my essay, I’d like to talk about the trends in Open Source where the “new” writer is middle-aged, possibly even retired, with years of expertise in a non-techie industry.”
Wow, I thought. A thesis about Open Source writers. I remember riding with Janet Swisher from Austin to Dallas for last year’s (2010) STC Summit, and we could count on both our hands the number of Open Source writers we know. This is a small group to study but a fascinating group in which to look for trends. Plus, I’m in a position to recruit writers who want to write for Open Source projects.
“Based on your experience, do you see an emerging need for writers (we’re talking paid gigs) who have lots of expertise in other areas, but are looking to switch to tech writing for their next career or as a part-time job in retirement? What avenues would be best to explore in the start-up phase?”
This thesis could help me understand this small group, so I responded and encouraged others to do so. But. I was left with trying to decide if I agree or disagree with her thesis, that Open Source attracts retired writers with years of expertise in a non-techie industry. I wanted to sift through which points I disagree with.
1. Age or years of experience in Open Source writers: The tech writers who are established in open source are often highly technical but not necessarily in a certain age group. I would say their technical skill set is the thing they have in common. I honestly haven’t met an early-20-something open source writer yet, come to think of it. I think you have a lot of work to do to “prove” yourself when coming to many open source projects as a volunteer. There’s a lot of meritocracy where only your work matters, not your methods necessarily. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Open source projects often use wikis (extremely lightweight CMSes) for documentation. Experienced, entrenched-in-the-enterprise writers are surprised at how effective a wiki can be for authoring and delivery, especially when they’re used to an Adobe toolkit. So, from where I sit, I don’t currently see “a trend in Open Source where the “new” writer is middle-aged, possibly even retired, with years of expertise in a non-techie industry.” Also, writers in open source nearly always come from technical industries.
2. Having to take lots of jobs gratis to build a reputation: Yes, you would have to do some jobs for free to make a name for yourself, but I’m doubtful that new tech writers have the experience needed to be a huge contributor or lone writer on an open source project. I say that because I have talked to college students (more than 10) about helping with FLOSS Manuals work or with OpenStack and I haven’t seen big contributions from any of them, yet. I’ve also invited college students to book sprints with little response. College graduates are another story, but I have no experience with recent grads to speak of, so I don’t have even anecdotal data to share.
3. Emerging needs for open source tech writers?: I definitely don’t see an emerging need for “new” writers looking to switch to tech writing or part-time in retirement to seek out an Open Source writing gig. That said, through FLOSS Manuals I have definitely met and worked with seasoned (but not retired) publishers and writers who have great contributions writing, testing, and publishing pages and pages of information. These weren’t paid gigs, although these volunteer opportunities certainly lead to great opportunities
These are just my observations in less than five years participating in open source communities. How have your observations differed?
If you’re interested in open source and documentation, please take a look at the upcoming Open Help Conference coming up June 3-5, 2011 in Cincinnati, Ohio. I’m the new kid on the block, embracing these techniques (maybe hugging them too hard?), looking forward to learning a lot and sharing my experiences. I hope you’ll join us! |
Originally published on Sat July 6, 2013 10:44 am By editor Listen View Slideshow
Many of the flowers at Hillwood are doing well despite the ever-changing local climate.
Emily Files
Once the Washington, D.C., home of cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, the Hillwood Estate has a number of gardens. Like home gardeners, professionals here are trying to adapt to a changing climate.
To keep the flowers healthy, gardeners have to check leaves for fungus and bacteria. |
Originally published on Wed May 23, 2012 9:12 am By Margot Adler Listen This 1964 Andy Warhol lithograph entitled "Liz" is signed by the artist. It reads, "To Elizabeth with much love" in felt-tip pen.
Celebrity auctions have become common, but once in a while there's an event that will make almost anyone stand up and take notice. After a world tour, the entire collection of Elizabeth Taylor's jewelry, clothing and memorabilia is on view starting Saturday at Christie's auction house in New York City. After 10 days, there will be a four-day auction. Some 2,000 objects from the film star's life will be on the block, both at Christie's and online. 'Gutsy, Glamorous' Behind a glass wall, an area has been decked out as if it were Taylor's walk-in closet. At least 80 handbags, out of more than 200, are arranged by color — one shelf violet going to purple, another various reds, another browns. Shoes and boots are on the floor; drawers are open with jewelry dripping out of them. "Gutsy, glamorous; wish I'd met her," says Meredith Etherington-Smith, who curated the fashion part of this exhibit. And why the faux closet? "Because that was what her house looked like," Etherington-Smith says. "She kept everything immaculately." There are clothes from every designer you can think of, in perfect condition: a red velvet Valentino ball gown, a Dior organza jacket in white with delicate handmade flowers. There are also wild colors. In one corner there's what Etherington-Smith calls "a cast of kaftans," some in historic fabrics. "A lot of them were made by Thea Porter," she says, "who used to go around the Middle East, finding fabrics, and then reassembling them as kaftans. The three heavily embroidered groups are antique Ottoman. So that was when Ms. Taylor was going through a sort of modified hippie phase." A Girl's Best Friend Most extraordinary is the jewelry: diamonds, sapphires, rubies. Many of them are gifts from the two of her seven husbands whom she loved most: actor Richard Burton, whom she married twice, and theater and film producer, Mike Todd. Daphne Lingon, a senior vice president in the jewelry department of Christie's stands before a case filled with emeralds, almost all of them gifts from Burton. She points out a brooch of emeralds and diamonds. "That was an engagement present in 1962 from Richard Burton," she says. "It was also worn when she married him in 1964, in Montreal on her yellow chiffon dress." That yellow dress is only footsteps away. There is also the 33-carat diamond ring, conservatively estimated to go for between $2.5 million and $3.5 million. Perhaps most amazing is the 16th-century La Peregrina, one of the most perfect, largest pear-shaped pearls in the world, found in paintings by Velasquez and once part of the crown jewels of Spain. Thoroughly Curated Rahul Kadakia is head of the jewelry department at Christie's. He says since the late 1700s Christie's has sold the greatest collections of jewels: from Doris Duke, Princess Margaret, the Queen of Italy, on and on. "They are all great collections, but never have we seen a collection that is as complete and as curated as this one," he says. There are the finest Burmese rubies, the finest diamonds, the finest Colombian emeralds, Kadakia says. Taylor, he says, was a great curator. "It was not just the jewel, it was the design, it was the person who made the jewelry," Kadakia says. "You think of every great jewelry house in the world, she had something from all of them." Officially, it is estimated that the auction will bring in around $50 million. Each item has been priced as if Taylor never owned it, though, so privately people are saying the $3.5 million diamond ring could go for $7 million and so forth. It's all on view for the next 10 days — more opulent than the tree at Rockefeller Center, 100 yards away. "It's like going to a museum, really, isn't it? ... You just have to kind of take a step back," Etherington-Smith says. All proceeds from the four-day auction will go to Taylor's estate, with a portion going to her AIDS Foundation.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Transcript SCOTT SIMON, HOST: This is WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. Celebrity auctions have become pretty common, but once in a while there's still a real event. The entire collection of Elizabeth Taylor's jewelry, clothing and memorabilia is on view starting today at Christies Auction House in New York. There will be a four day auction, starting on December 13; some 2,000 objects from the film star's life will be on the block, both at Christies and online. NPR's Margot Adler has more. (SOUNDBITE OF CONVERSATIONS) MARGOT ADLER, BYLINE: I'm standing in front of a glass wall, looking into an area that has been decked out as if it was Elizabeth Taylor's walk-in closet. At least 80 hand bags, out of more than 200, are arranged by color; one shelf violet going to purple, another reds, another browns. Shoes and boots on the floor, drawers open with jewelry dripping out of them. Meredith Etherington-Smith has curated the fashion part of this exhibit. Of Taylor, she says... MEREDITH ETHERINGTON-SMITH: Gutsy, glamorous, I wish I'd met her. ADLER: And why this faux closet? ETHERINGTON-SMITH: Because that was what her house looked like. She kept everything immaculately. ADLER: Then, clothes from every designer you can think of, in perfect condition: a red velvet Valentino ball gown, a Dior organza jacket in white with delicate handmade flowers. But also wild colors, in one corner what Etherington-Smith calls a cast of kaftans, some in historic fabrics. ETHERINGTON-SMITH: A lot of them were made by Thea Porter, who used to go around the Middle East, finding fabrics, and then reassembling them as kaftans. The three heavily embroidered groups are antique Ottoman. So that was when Ms. Taylor was going through her sort of modified hippie phase. ADLER: But most extraordinary, the jewelry: diamonds, sapphires, rubies, many of them gifts from the two of her seven husbands she loved best: Actor Richard Burton, who she married twice and theatre and film producer, Mike Todd. Daphne Lingon, a senior vice president in the jewelry department of Christies is standing with me before a case filled with emeralds, almost all of them gifts from Richard Burton. DAPHNE LINGON: The emerald and diamond pendant broach, that hangs from the necklace - that was an engagement present in 1962 from Richard Burton. And it was also worn when she married him in 1964 in Montréal - on her yellow chiffon dress. ADLER: The one that's over there, the yellow chiffon dress that we're looking right at over there. LINGON: Exactly. And then the emerald and diamond necklace from which it is suspended, that was the wedding gift in 1964. ADLER: There is also the 33-carat diamond ring, conservatively estimated to go for between two and a half and three and a half million dollars. And perhaps most amazing, the 16th century La Peregrina, one of the most perfect, largest pear shaped pearls in the world, found in paintings by Velasquez, once part of the crown jewels of Spain. Ruhul Kadakia is head of the jewelry department at Christies. He says since the late 1700s Christies has sold the greatest collections of jewels; Doris Duke, Princess Margaret, the Queen of Italy, on and on. RUHUL KADAKIA: And they are all great collections, but never have we seen a collection that's as complete and as curated as this one. ADLER: The finest Burmese rubies, the finest diamonds, the finest Columbian emeralds. And what does he means by saying she was a great curator. KADAKIA: It was not just the jewel, it was the design, it was the person who made the jewelry. You think of every great jewelry house in the world, she had something from all of them. ADLER: While the official estimates are that the auction will bring in around $50 million, everything has been priced as if Elizabeth Taylor never owned it. So privately, people say the three and a half million dollar diamond ring could go for seven and so on. It's all on view for the next 10 days - more opulent than the tree at Rockefeller Center, a hundred yards away. As Etherington-Smith put it... ETHERINGTON-SMITH: It's like going to a museum, really. Isn't it? You know, you just have to kind of take a step back. ADLER: All proceeds from the four-day auction will go to Taylor's estate, with a portion going to her Aids Foundation. Margot Adler, NPR News, New York. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. |
Mitral Valve Prolapse
(MVP; Floppy Valve Syndrome; Barlow's Syndrome; Click-Murmur Syndrome)
Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common, usually benign heart disorder. The mitral valve controls blood flow between the upper and lower chambers on the left side of the heart. Normally, blood should only flow from the upper chamber into the lower chamber. In MVP, the valve flaps don’t work properly. Part of the valve balloons into the atrium, which may be associated with blood flowing in the wrong direction or leaking back into the atrium.
Prolapsed Mitral Valve
In most cases, the cause of MVP is unknown. In some cases, it appears to be an inherited genetic condition.
Factors that may increase your chance of getting mitral valve prolapse include:
Family history of mitral valve prolapse
Age: 14 to 30
Thin chest diameter
Low body weight
Chest wall deformities
Ebstein's anomaly
People with mitral valve prolapse often do not have symptoms. If symptoms do occur, they may include one or more of the following:
Panic attacks or
Mitral valve prolapse can be heard through a stethoscope. A small blood leakage will sound like a murmur. When the mitral valve balloons backward, it may produce a clicking sound. Both murmurs and clicks are signs of MVP. An
can confirm the diagnosis. You may also be asked to wear a
for a day or two to record the electrical activity of your heart.
In most cases, no treatment is necessary. Although no longer routinely recommended, you may need to take antibiotics prior to some dental and medical procedures. This is to prevent infections. Ask your doctor if you will need to take antibiotics.
If symptoms include chest pain, anxiety, or panic attacks, a beta-blocker medication can be prescribed. Ask your doctor whether you may continue to participate in your usual physical activities.
In very rare cases, the blood leakage may become severe. In these few cases, the mitral valve may need to be surgically repaired or replaced.
There are no guidelines for preventing MVP of unknown or genetic origin.
You may be able to prevent symptoms, through certain lifestyle changes:
Limit your intake of
Avoid medications that speed up your heart rate, including decongestants.
Exercise regularly
, following your doctor's recommendations. |
Routine On U.S. Racetracks, Horse Doping Is Banned In Europe
French jockey Olivier Peslier celebrates a win at Longchamps racecourse near Paris in 2012. While many drugs can legally be used on horses in U.S. racing, they are barred in Europe.
Fred Dufour AFP/Getty Images
Gina Rarick, an American horse trainer who works in France, says U.S. horse racing is out of step with the rest of the world.
Eleanor Beardsley NPR
Rarick rides on practice tracks at Maison Lafitte, the lush horse country west of Paris where she trains.
At the famous Hippodrome de Longchamp just outside of Paris this month, crowds came to cheer and bet on the sleek thoroughbreds that opened horse racing season by galloping down the verdant turf course. Horse racing in Europe is different from the sport in the U.S., from the shape and surface of the track to race distances and the season itself. Another big difference is doping. Drugs are not allowed in European horse races. But in America, they aren't just legal, they're widely used — particularly furosemide, better known as Lasix. The drug helps prevent horses' lungs from bleeding during races. Gina Rarick, an American horse trainer in France, is grooming a horse at her stables in Maison Lafitte, lush horse country west of Paris. Rarick feels the practice of administering Lasix is ruining the sport in America. "Every horse in America starts his day with a shot or two in the neck. I'm sorry, but it's wrong. It's just wrong." she says. "The Americans ... have these horror stories about, 'Oh, if we don't use Lasix they're gonna bleed to death and drop in front of people.' ... It's ridiculous. We don't use Lasix in the rest of the world." Last month, the American horse Animal Kingdom, winner of the 2011 Kentucky Derby, had a two-length win at the Dubai World Cup. That victory, Rarick says, shows that a horse can run without Lasix. It also comes at a time when drugging is a top issue in the U.S. racing industry. The Breeders' Cup has banned race-day drugging of 2-year-olds and was going to extend that ban to all of its races this year. But last month, the Breeders' Cup board rolled back on those plans, in part due to lack of support by many in the racing industry. A Powerful Drug Rarick says Lasix is a powerful diuretic. "If you give a horse a shot of Lasix and then watch what happens, he'll start to pee, and pee, and pee. ... [It] gives the [phrase] 'piss like a racehorse' a whole new meaning," she says. "He will lose ... 30 pounds of body weight in fluids. ... It's a tremendously powerful drug." Horses are then so dehydrated after the race, she says, that other drugs are needed to help them recover. She describes it as a vicious circle. While Animal Kingdom won the Dubai Classic clean, he raced on Lasix when he won the 2011 Kentucky Derby. In fact, there are 14 medications allowed in America's top horse race, Rarick says. Critics argue that those legal drugs help mask a raft of illegal substances. Barry Irwin, Animal Kingdom's owner, wants the use of drugs in American racing stopped. He says 95 percent of American racehorses are being medicated for a problem that affects only about 5 percent. "I'm more interested in not having any drugs in racing at all, so that everybody can play on a level field and we can be more in line with international sport," Irwin says. "All other sports are getting rid of medication, and we're stubbornly hanging on to one drug." Different Approaches Veteran thoroughbred trainer Dale Romans disagrees. He believes using Lasix is the right thing to do and says horse racing in the rest of the world should catch up with the U.S. — and modern science. "A lot of people don't realize we have this problem," Romans says, "because they don't see it. They don't come back to the barn with the horse. They don't see blood running out of their nose. They don't see ... that they're bled inside and it causes lung infections. So we have an inexpensive medication to prevent it from happening and I think we should use it. I think the horse should be put first." Tom Ludt, outgoing chairman of the board of directors of the Breeders' Cup, says the issue of medication in the U.S. horse racing culture is extremely complicated. "It's very hard for us to compare racing here and in Europe because they run a different style, they run mainly on turf and they take many more seasonal breaks," Ludt says. "We're much more commercialized here. If you look at what the horses run for in purse money in Europe versus here, it's crazy. They run for nothing, except in a very few races." The use of Lasix and other race-day drugs has created two worlds of horse racing: the U.S. and everywhere else. Rarick says she wishes that weren't so. "It would be nice to have an ambition of one day getting a horse good enough to run the Breeders' Cup or win the Kentucky Derby," Rarick says. "But that's not my ambition at all because I could never run under those conditions. If they make it drug-free, yes, that would be a dream to go back and one day compete in one of the races I used to watch as a kid growing up." But for now, Rarick says, she's more than happy to stay in the European racing world.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Transcript ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Last month, an American horse won the world's richest horserace: the $10 million Dubai World Cup. The horse was former Kentucky Derby winner Animal Kingdom. It's not just the money that makes this notable. Animal Kingdom's victory highlights a big divide in the sport between America, where many horses are drugged on race day, and the rest of the world. To learn more, NPR's Eleanor Beardsley went to the races in France. (SOUNDBITE OF CHEERING) ELEANOR BEARDSLEY, BYLINE: In France, horseracing season kicked off this month at the famous Longchamp hippodrome just outside of Paris. Crowds came out to cheer and bet on sleek thoroughbreds galloping down the verdant, turf course. (SOUNDBITE OF CHEERING) BEARDSLEY: Horseracing in Europe is different from the sport in the U.S., from the shape and surface of the track to the distance of the races and the length of the racing season. But the biggest difference is drugs. There are none allowed in European horse races. But in America, drugs aren't just legal, they're widely used, particularly furosemide, better known as Lasix, which helps prevent horses' lungs from bleeding during races. GINA RARICK: Come on. BEARDSLEY: Gina Rarick is an American horse trainer in France. She grooms a horse at her stables in Maison Lafitte, lush horse country to the west of Paris. Rarick feels the practice of administering Lasix is ruining the sport in America. RARICK: Every horse in America starts his day with a shot or two in the neck. I'm sorry, but it's wrong. It's just wrong. The Americans will have these horror stories about, oh, if we don't use Lasix, they're going to bleed to death and drop in front of people, and how pretty is that? It's ridiculous. I mean, we don't use Lasix in the rest of the world. BEARDSLEY: The two-length win March 30 by American horse Animal Kingdom at the Dubai World Cup shows that a horse can run without Lasix, says Rarick, and it comes at a time when drugging is a top issue in the U.S. racing industry. The Breeders' Cup has banned race day drugging of 2-year-olds and was going to extend that ban to all of its races this year. But last month, the Breeders' Cup board rolled back on those plans in part due to lack of support by many in the racing industry. Rarick rides one of her horses on a morning training run. She says Lasix is a powerful diuretic. RARICK: If you give a horse a shot of Lasix and then watch what happens, he'll start to pee and pee and pee. He will lose 30 pounds of body weight in fluids. It's a tremendously powerful drug. BEARDSLEY: Rarick says the horses are then so dehydrated after the race that other drugs are needed to help them recover. She describes it as a vicious circle. (SOUNDBITE OF HORSERACE) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: And Animal Kingdom wins the Dubai World Cup... BEARDSLEY: Animal Kingdom won the Dubai classic clean, but when he won the Kentucky Derby in 2011, he raced on Lasix. In fact, there are 14 medications allowed in America's top horserace, says Rarick. Critics say the legal drugs help mask a raft of illegal drugs. Barry Irwin, Animal Kingdom's owner, wants the use of drugs in American racing stopped. He says 95 percent of American racehorses are being medicated for bleeding, a problem that only affects about five percent. BARRY IRWIN: I'm more interested in not having any drugs in racing at all, so that everybody can play on a level field, and that we can be more in line with international sport. All other sports are getting rid of medication, and we're stubbornly hanging on to one drug. BEARDSLEY: Veteran thoroughbred trainer Dale Romans disagrees. He believes using Lasix is the right thing to do and says horseracing in the rest of the world should catch up with the U.S. and modern science. DALE ROMANS: A lot of people don't realize we have this problem because they don't come back to the barn with the horse. They don't see blood running out of their nose. They don't see that they're bled inside, and it causes lung infections. So we have an inexpensive medication to prevent it from happening, and I think we should use it. I think the horse should be put first. BEARDSLEY: Tom Lute is the outgoing chairman of the board of directors of the Breeders' Cup. He says the issue of medication in the U.S. horseracing culture is extremely complicated. TOM LUTE: It's very hard for us to compare racing here and Europe because they run a different style, and they take many more seasonal breaks. We're much more commercialized here. If you look at what the horses run for in purse money in Europe versus here, it's crazy. They run for nothing, except for a very few races. BEARDSLEY: The use of Lasix and other race-day drugs has created two worlds of horseracing: the U.S. and everywhere else. Trainer Gina Rarick wishes that weren't so. RARICK: You know, it would be nice to have an ambition of one day getting a horse good enough to run the Breeders' Cup or, you know, win the Kentucky Derby. But that's not my ambition at all because I could never run under those conditions. If they make it drug free, yes, that would be a dream to go back and one day compete in one of the races I used to watch as a kid growing up. BEARDSLEY: But for now, Rarick says she's more than happy to stay in this racing world. Eleanor Beardsley, NPR news, Paris. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. |
Helpful Tips On Talking To Your Kids About 9/11
As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches this Sunday, parents will be wrestling with a number of questions about the best ways to discuss this landmark event with their children. Here are some great suggestions to consider.
* Start the conversation: It’s a good idea to open up the lines of communication sooner rather than later. It can be as simple as saying “You might be hearing about 9/11 on TV or at school (or on the computer). Let me know if you want to talk about it, okay?”
* Be prepared for many small conversations rather than one big one: Kids often formulate questions over time. It’s common for them to ask you something “out of the blue” that’s connected to something they saw or heard the prior day or two.
* Let kids dictate how much information they want: If your child wants to talk about 9/11, be an especially good listener and give them short answers so you can let them tell you what they really want to find out.
* Tightly monitor exposure to media: Part of your discussion may be to talk about how you will monitor exposure to media, particularly TV and Internet. Assume that there will be unprecedented coverage as this is the 10th anniversary. |
Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Center
Any of various diseases transmitted by direct sexual contact that include the classic venereal diseases (eg, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chancroid) and other diseases (eg, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, giardiasis, and AIDS). Some of these diseases may also be contracted by ways other than sexual means.
Condoms are used for birth control and/or protection from sexually transmitted infections.
Condom options
Condoms today are a far cry from their generic predecessors—you can now choose your favorite texture, color, and even flavor. What's the best?
Let's talk about sex (and STDs)
When is the "right time" to talk to your new lover about STDs and safer sex? A sex therapist offers advice on how to broach this difficult, yet enormously important, subject.
How to detect and treat STDs
Learn about the dangers, symptoms, and treatment of chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, genital herpes, and venereal warts.
Health issues for gay teens
Gay teens, often concerned about bashing and emotional abuse, are at increased risk for physical and emotional health problems. If medical care is not user-friendly, gay teens may avoid treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Read more here.
True or False?
True or false: it is possible for a person to get a sexually transmitted infection from a public toilet seat
A common fear among people is that STIs can be passed in public places, such as through contact with toilet seats. Is this true? |
Earle Landry Reynolds was born Earle Landr
Schoene on October 18, 1910 in Des Moines, Iowa, the only child in a family of trapeze artists called the Landr Troupe, or The Flying Landrys. Circus life kept the family on the road during his early years, and as Earle remembered it, "my best friends were the fat lady, the man with no arms and the wild man of Borneo." One day in August 1918 his father, William Schoene, was killed in a fall from the trapeze.
Shortly thereafter his mother, Madeleine Landr, left the circus and returned home to Canada. It was not long before she remarried, this time to an old circus acquaintance from Louisiana named Louis Reynolds. Promising to leave show business forever, Louis adopted Earle as his son, and the family settled down in Mississippi, where the boy earned his diploma from Vicksburg High School in 1927.
In Earle's senior year, Louis was bed-ridden with a terminal illness, and financial responsibility for the family fell to Earle. Three years later, after Louis had died and the final bills were paid, Madeleine sent Earle off to college with half of their remaining assets and the promise of support after she found a job. ‹ Introduction |
WHO: Safety issues in the preparation of homeopathic medicines Homeopathy is used worldwide. However, the national regulatory framework and the place of homeopathy within the health care system differ from country to country.This technical document, published on 17 February 2010 (448 pages), is the WHO's response to requests and recommendations made by relevant World Health Assembly resolutions, by Member States, as well as international conferences of drug regulatory authorities, and is a part of the implementation of the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy and the WHO Medicines Strategy.The document aims to provide guidance to Member States on technical aspects of the production and manufacture of homeopathic medicines that potentially have implications for their safety. This is of relevance for establishing national quality standards and specifications for homeopathic medicines, as well as for controlling their quality. The document does not address issues of efficacy or clinical utilization.The terms used in this document are defined and annexed as a reference.The document can be downloaded from the WHO website here. |
April 18, 2011 · 16:39 ↓ Jump to Comments
Art 101: What Is Impressionism?
Impression: Sunrise - Claude Monet, 1872
Impressionism was a 19th-century art movement that began as a loose association of Paris-based artists whose independent exhibitions brought them to prominence in the 1870s and 1880s. The name of the movement is derived from the title of a Claude Monet work, Impression, Sunrise (Impression, soleil levant), which provoked the critic Louis Leroy to coin the term in a satiric review published in Le Charivari.
Impressionism, both in context and in style, was an art of industrialized, urbanized Paris. As such, it furthered some of the concerns of the preceding movement, Realism, and was resolutely an art of its time. But whereas Realism focused on the present, Impressionism focused even more acutely on a single moment.
Characteristics of Impressionist paintings include relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on the accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, the inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles. The emergence of Impressionism in the visual arts was soon followed by analogous movements in other media which became known as Impressionist music and Impressionist literature.
Liberty Leading the People - Eugène Delacroix, 1830
Radicals in their time, early Impressionists broke the rules of academic painting. They began by giving colours, freely brushed, primacy over line, drawing inspiration from the work of painters such as Eugène Delacroix. They also took the act of painting out of the studio and into the modern world. Previously, still lifes and portraits as well as landscapes had usually been painted indoors. The Impressionists found that they could capture the momentary and transient effects of sunlight by painting en plein air. Painting realistic scenes of modern life, they portrayed overall visual effects instead of details. They used short “broken” brush strokes of mixed and pure unmixed colour, not smoothly blended or shaded, as was customary, in order to achieve the effect of intense colour vibration.
Although the rise of Impressionism in France happened at a time when a number of other painters, including the Italian artists known as the Macchiaioli, and Winslow Homer in the United States, were also exploring plein-air painting, the Impressionists developed new techniques that were specific to the movement. Encompassing what its adherents argued was a different way of seeing, it was an art of immediacy and movement, of candid poses and compositions, of the play of light expressed in a bright and varied use of colour.
The public, at first hostile, gradually came to believe that the Impressionists had captured a fresh and original vision, even if it did not receive the approval of the art critics and establishment.
Eugène Chevreuls color wheel, 1839
Impressionists used contemporary scientific research into the physics of color, including work carried out by Eugène Chevreul, to achieve a more exact representation of color and tone. By re-creating the sensation in the eye that views the subject, rather than recreating the subject, and by creating a welter of techniques and forms, Impressionism became a precursor seminal to various movements in painting which would follow, including Neo-Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, and Cubism.
In an atmosphere of change as Emperor Napoleon III rebuilt Paris and waged war, the Académie des Beaux-Arts dominated the French art scene in the middle of the 19th century. The Académie was the upholder of traditional standards for French painting, both in content and style. Historical subjects, religious themes, and portraits were valued (landscape and still life were not), and the Académie preferred carefully finished images which mirrored reality when examined closely. Color was somber and conservative, and the traces of brush strokes were suppressed, concealing the artist’s personality, emotions, and working techniques.
The Académie held an annual, juried art show, the Salon de Paris, and artists whose work displayed in the show won prizes, garnered commissions, and enhanced their prestige. The standards of the juries reflected the values of the Académie, represented by the highly polished works of such artists as Jean-Léon Gérômeand Alexandre Cabanel. Some younger artists painted in a lighter and brighter manner than painters of the preceding generation, extending further the realism of Gustave Courbet and the Barbizon school. They were more interested in painting landscape and contemporary life than in recreating scenes from history. Each year, they submitted their art to the Salon, only to see the juries reject their best efforts in favour of trivial works by artists working in the approved style. A core group of young realists, Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, and Frédéric Bazille, who had studied under Charles Gleyre, became friends and often painted together. They soon were joined by Camille Pissarro, Paul Cézanne, and Armand Guillaumin.
In 1863, the jury rejected Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) by Édouard Manet primarily because it depicted a nude woman with two clothed men at a picnic. While nudes were routinely accepted by the Salon when featured in historical and allegorical paintings, the jury condemned Manet for placing a realistic nude in a contemporary setting. The jury’s sharply worded rejection of Manet’s painting, as well as the unusually large number of rejected works that year, set off a firestorm among French artists. Manet was admired by Monet and his friends, and led the discussions at Café Guerbois where the group of artists frequently met.
After seeing the rejected works in 1863, Emperor Napoleon III decreed that the public be allowed to judge the work themselves, and the Salon des Refusés (Salon of the Refused) was organized. While many viewers came only to laugh, the Salon des Refusés drew attention to the existence of a new tendency in art and attracted more visitors than the regular Salon.
Artists’ petitions requesting a new Salon des Refusés in 1867, and again in 1872, were denied. In the latter part of 1873, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, and Sisley organized the Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs (“Cooperative and Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers”) for the purpose of exhibiting their artworks independently. Members of the association, which soon included Cézanne, Berthe Morisot, and Edgar Degas, were expected to forswear participation in the Salon. The organizers invited a number of other progressive artists to join them in their inaugural exhibition, including the older Eugène Boudin, whose example had first persuaded Monet to take up plein air painting years before. Another painter who greatly influenced Monet and his friends, Johan Jongkind, declined to participate, as did Manet. In total, thirty artists participated in their first exhibition, held in April 1874 at the studio of the photographer Nadar.
Le Moulin de la Galette - Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1876
The critical response was mixed, with Monet and Cézanne bearing the harshest attacks. Critic and humorist Louis Leroy wrote a scathing review in the Le Charivari newspaper in which, making wordplay with the title of Claude Monet’s Impression, Sunrise (Impression, soleil levant), he gave the artists the name by which they would become known. Derisively titling his article The Exhibition of the Impressionists, Leroy declared that Monet’s painting was at most, a sketch, and could hardly be termed a finished work.
He wrote, in the form of a dialog between viewers:
“Impression—I was certain of it. I was just telling myself that, since I was impressed, there had to be some impression in it … and what freedom, what ease of workmanship! Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished than that seascape.”
The term “Impressionists” quickly gained favour with the public. It was also accepted by the artists themselves, even though they were a diverse group in style and temperament, unified primarily by their spirit of independence and rebellion. They exhibited together—albeit with shifting membership—eight times between 1874 and 1886.
Ballet Rehearsal - Edgar Degas, 1874
Monet, Sisley, Morisot, and Pissarro may be considered the “purest” Impressionists, in their consistent pursuit of an art of spontaneity, sunlight, and colour. Degas rejected much of this, as he believed in the primacy of drawing over colour and belittled the practice of painting outdoors. Renoir turned against Impressionism for a time in the 1880s, and never entirely regained his commitment to its ideas. Édouard Manet, despite his role as a leader to the group, never abandoned his liberal use of black as a colour, and never participated in the Impressionist exhibitions. He continued to submit his works to the Salon, where his Spanish Singer had won a 2nd class medal in 1861, and he urged the others to do likewise, arguing that “the Salon is the real field of battle” where a reputation could be made.
The Bath - Mary Cassatt, ca. 1892
Among the artists of the core group (minus Bazille, who had died in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870), defections occurred as Cézanne, followed later by Renoir, Sisley, and Monet, abstained from the group exhibitions in order to submit their works to the Salon. Disagreements arose from issues such as Guillaumin’s membership in the group, championed by Pissarro and Cézanne against opposition from Monet and Degas, who thought him unworthy. Degas invited Mary Cassatt to display her work in the 1879 exhibition, but he also caused dissension by insisting on the inclusion of Jean-François Raffaëlli, Ludovic Lepic, and other realists who did not represent Impressionist practices, leading Monet in 1880 to accuse the Impressionists of “opening doors to first-come daubers”. The group divided over the invitation of Signac and Seurat to exhibit with them in 1886. Pissarro was the only artist to show at all eight Impressionist exhibitions.
The individual artists saw few financial rewards from the Impressionist exhibitions, but their art gradually won a degree of public acceptance and support. Their dealer, Durand-Ruel, played a major role in this as he kept their work before the public and arranged shows for them in London and New York. Although Sisley would die in poverty in 1899, Renoir had a great Salon success in 1879. Financial security came to Monet in the early 1880s and to Pissarro by the early 1890s. By this time the methods of Impressionist painting, in a diluted form, had become commonplace in Salon art.
Saint-Lazare Train Station - Claude Monet, 1877
Some of the other influences on the Impressionists were the newly industrialized and bourgeoise urbanisme of Paris. Most of the Impressionists depicted scenes in and around Paris, where industrialization and urbanization had their greatest impact. Monet’s Saint-Lazare Train Station depicts a dominant aspect of Parisian life. The expanding railway network had made travel more convenient, bringing throngs of people into Paris. Saint-Lazare was centrally located, adjacent to the Grands Boulevards, a bustling, fashionable commercial area. Monet captured the area’s energy and vitality; the train, emerging from the steam and smoke it emits, comes into the station. the tall buildings that were becoming a major component of the Parisian landscape are just visible through the background haze. Monet’s agitated paint application contributes to the sense of energy and conveys the atmosphere of urban life.
Paris: A Rainy Day - Gustave Caillebotte, 1877
Other Impressionists represented facets of city life. Gustave Caillebotte depicted yet another scene in Paris: A Rainy Day. His setting is a junction of spacious boulevards that resulted from the redesigning of Paris begun in 1852. The city’s population had reached close to 1.5 million by mid-century, and to accommodate the congregation of humanity, Emperor Napoleon III ordered the city rebuilt. Napoleon was also interested in making an imperial statement through his redesign of Paris and in facilitating the movement of troops in the event of another revolution. the emperor names Baron Georges Haussmann, a city superintendent, to oversee the project; consequently, this process became known as “Haussmannization.” In addition to new water and sewer systems, street lighting, and new residential and commercial buildings, a major component of the new Paris was the creation of wide, open boulevards. These great avenues, whose construction caused the demolition of thousands of ancient buildings and streets, transformed medieval Paris into the present modern city, with its superb vistas and wide uninterrupted arteries for the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Caillebotte chose to focus on these markers of the city’s rapid urbanization.
Although Caillebotte did not dissolve his image into the broken color and brushwork characteristic of Impressionism, he did use an informal and asymmetrical composition. The figures seem randomly placed, with the frame cropping them arbitrarily, suggesting the transitory nature of the scene. The picture captures the artist’s overall “impression” of the urban city.
A Bar at the Folies-Bergère - Édouard Manet, 1882
Leisure, recreation, and lively nightlife were also common themes for Impressionists. Scenes of dining, dancing, the café-concerts, the opera, the ballet, and other forms of entertainment were mainstays of Impressionism. Although seemingly unrelated to industrialization, these activities were facilitated by it. With the advent of set working hours, people’s schedules became more regimented, allowing them to plan their favorite pastimes, such as the dance hall scene from Renoir above. One of the most famous Impressionist paintings is Édouard Manet’s A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, 1882. The Folies-Bergère was a popular Parisin café-concert (a café with music-hall performances). These cafés were fashionable gathering places for throngs of revelers, and many of the Impressionists frequented these establishments.
“Boobie Wednesday” and the State of Women’s Health
Curse of Being a Modern Woman
It’s the Little Things
Pink All Over
Reading the Visual World
Politics, #p2, and Being Purposefully Pugnacious
And So I Begin, Again…
The Perils of Public Emotion
Critical Examination of Edward Said’s “Orientalism”
Sweet Tea with Vodka and Lemonade
Buttermilk Fried Chicken
Chicken Paella
Summer Tequila Cocktails
Andy's Bloviations
Blue Eyed Blog
Married. Four Cats. Apartment Full of Books.
MIT Meydan
Quest for Ambrosia
The Chick Abides
The Constant Linguist
Tim Corrimal
Treasured Tentacles
"Hell exists, it’s right here at 3am when I wake up without you laying there beside me." - i haven’t slept... tmblr.co/ZNfYkw1DAZGle 4 hours ago |
Equation [04/03/1997] Solve for x...
Equation for a Curved Line [01/19/1997] Is there a formula into which you can enter a starting point, a starting
slope, an ending point, and an ending slope that gives the equation of
the curved line between these points?
Equation of a Circle [08/25/1997] Write the equation of the specified circle in general form...
Equation of Parabola with Given Vertex, Point [8/4/1996] How do I find the equations for all parabolas containing the origin whose
vertex is at (2,1)?
Equations for the Paths of Four Lady Bugs [12/02/1998] Four ladybugs travel from the corners of a square towards the center.
Find the equations that describe the path.
Escaping L'Hopital's Loop [10/14/2003] I'm trying to apply L'Hopital's rule, but I keep ending up with 0/0
after each application. What am I missing?
Euler Equation and DeMoivre's Theorem [05/18/1999] Do you have a proof of the equation e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0?
Evaluate the Limit [12/03/1997] In Calculus today we were trying to evalulate the limit of (1-cos x)/
(x^2) as X->0.
Evaluating Two Definite Integrals [02/28/1998] Evaluating a definite integral and determining an enclosed area.
Exact? Area under a Curve [03/13/1998] Would you please explain why the area under a curve is exact and not an
approximation?
Explaining the Intermediate Value Theorem [02/18/2004] I want to know how to explain the Intermediate Value Theorem in its
most simple form: If f is a continuous function on the closed interval
[a,b] and N is any number between f(a) and f(b), there must be a
number c in (a,b) such that f(c)= N.
Explanation of L'Hopital's Rule [02/06/2001] I understand the method, and I somewhat understand the proof, but can you
give me an explanation of why L'Hopital's Rule actually works?
Exploring the Distance from (0,0) to (1,1) with Limits [10/15/2006] Any route traveling from (0,0) to (1,1) going only north and east will
cover a total distance of 2 units. But the straight line distance from
(0,0) to (1,1) is sqrt(2) units. It seems that if I think of a
staircase connecting the two points and let the stairs become
infinitely small, the limit of the north/east route distance should
converge to sqrt(2). But it doesn't! What's going on here?
Exponential Growth & Compound Interest [6/2/1996] (1) The cost of goods and services in an urban area increased 1.5% last
month. If the rate continues, what will be the annual rate of increase?
(2) Suppose a certain population increases by 30% every 10 years. By what
percent does it increase each year?
Exponential Growth of a Population [05/03/1998] A population P(t) is increasing at a rate directly proportional to 800 -
P(t), where the constant of proportionality is k...
Exponential Growth of Bacteria [8/7/1995] A colony of N bacteria increases with time according to the formula dN/dT
= kN. If initially there are N' bacteria, show that the number at any
time is given by N = N'e^kt.
Factoring Polynomials [02/12/1999] What are some real-life applications of factoring polynomials?
The Figure of Maximum Area and Given Perimeter [06/02/1998] Can you help me show, with and without calculus, that the geometric figure of a maximum area and given perimeter is a circle? What are the dimensions of a triangle with perimeter p that encloses the maximum area?
Find a Function, Integrals [12/17/1997] Suppose the graph of f has the formula f(x)=-x+1 for 0<=x<=1; x-1
for 1<x<=2 ...
Find Curve Given Slope, Point [8/29/1996] Find the curve whose slope at (x,y) is 3x^2 and which passes through (1,-
Finding a Definite Integral with Natural Log and Sine [05/14/2008] I'm trying to evaluate the definite integral of ln(sin(x)) dx from 0
to pi. I've tried integration by parts but am not getting anywhere.
Finding a Limit [02/28/2002] My calculus teacher gave my class the answer to this limit; however, we
cannot figure out how to get the answer that is given.
Finding a Vertical Asymptote [05/11/2000] How can I find the vertical asymptote of the equation xy^2 - x^3y = 6?
Finding First Derivatives by Definition [10/30/1998] Can you show me an easy example of how to find the first derivative of a
function using the definition?
Finding Integrals Using Trigonometric Substitutions [10/2/1995] What is the integral of 1/(x(1-x))^(1/2)? How can I integrate this
function using only the derivative of arcsin or arctan?
Finding Limits Using Natural Logs and L'Hopital's Rule [05/03/1998] I think I need to use l'Hopital's Rule and the natural logarithm function
to find lim (x goes to 0) [(cos (2x))^(3/(x^2))].
Finding Maxima and Minima: Turning Points [05/10/1998] Can you help me find all of the maxima and minima of the function: 5e^(-
x/2)sin(2x)?
Finding Tangents to Curves Using Derivatives [09/29/1999] Three problems that involve finding the tangents of a curve using
calculus.
Finding the Area of Overlap between Two Circles [04/16/2008] Suppose I know the centers and radii of two circles that overlap. How
can I find the area of that overlapping region?
Finding the Derivative [07/27/1999] Find dy/dN if y= A*(1 - e(-cN))* (1 - e(-cM)).
Finding the Domain of a Function [9/28/1995] What is the domain of f(x)=((2-x)/(x-2))^.5
Finding the Equation of a Tangent Line [10/6/1995] What is the equation of the tangent line to the graph of f(x)=x^(2/5) at
the point (-32,4)?
Finding the Equation of a Tangent Line [11/24/1998] I only have where the tangent intersects the y axis...
Finding the Extrema of a Function [10/25/1996] Find the extrema of f(x)=(ln(1+exp(-a-bx-cx^2)))/((x+d)^2)...
Finding the Factorial of Non-Integers [01/06/2005] I thought the factorial function was only defined for positive
integers, but I notice that my calulator returns a value for
non-integers like 3.5! What's going on?
Finding the Indefinite Integral [2/1/1996] I am trying to find the indefinite integral of the following function:
f(x) = x^x.
Finding the Limit [10/24/1995] For a limit to exist, the right side and left side have to equal each
other. Say you have a limit such as "lim as x->4 for function (3x-4). To
see if this function exists, you have to check it on both sides. Would
you plug in 3 for the left and for the right?
Finding the Maximum Area of a Rectangle [1/28/1996] A rectangle is inscribed in a triangle (with certain dimensions). Find
the maximum area of the rectangle.
Finding the Roots of a Function [11/4/1996] How do you find the positive roots of x^9+3x^8-5x^3+4x+6=0? Show that
x^n- 1=0 has exactly 2 roots if n is even, and only 1 real root if n is |
Mutation V60L increases predisposition to skin cancer
Conrado Martínez Cadenas, researcher at the Department of Medicine in the Universitat Jaume I.
When Homo sapiens left Africa and had to adapt to less sunny climates, there was a mutation in one of the genes responsible for regulating the synthesis of melanin, the MC1R gene, which involved a discoloration of the skin. This discoloration allowed for better absorption of vitamin D, necessary for growth, but it also increased the risk of developing skin cancer in adulthood. This mutation, called "V60L", is at present the most common among people from Mediterranean regions such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Israel. It is present in about 10-20% of the population, according to the study carried out by researchers at the Universitat Jaume I and the University of the Basque Country performed on over 1,000 individuals from different areas of Spain.
The V60L mutation is more common in people with light hair and skin tone that, despite being light, tans easily in the summer. This mutation is positive for the climate of the Mediterranean region, as it facilitates the absorption of vitamin D in the winter months, in which the ultraviolet radiation is lower. In the summer months, in which the radiation is greater, the ease to darken the skin pigmentation provides a certain protection. However, the study also revealed that among people with this mutation there is a greater predisposition to skin cancer. This discovery may be useful in the field of medical prevention.
The research results, published in the Molecular Biology and Evolution journal, reveal that the MC1R gene, which regulates the synthesis of melanin, is much more diverse in the Eurasian populations in sub-Saharan Africa. There, it remains mostly without mutations, thus giving to people the dark colour favourable to high solar radiation. Researchers have dated the rise of the V60L mutation between 30,000 and 50,000 years after the Homo sapiens left Africa and began to colonize Europe. Clear skin posed a better adaptation to the new environment where ultraviolet radiation was lower. Thus, being whiter facilitated the synthesis of vitamin D, a vitamin that is key in the periods of gestation and growth, in a way that its proper absorption is critical to the survival of the species. However, fair skin is also associated with an increased susceptibility to melanoma, the most aggressive type of skin cancer. In this sense, the researchers point out that as far as evolution is concerned, depigmentation has been favoured to ensure a better absorption of vitamin D and a proper development in the stage of pre-reproductive development at the cost of an increased risk of melanoma in the post-reproductive stage. "Melanoma has been an invisible illness to natural selection; it is the price that has to be paid for the improved survival of the species in areas of the world with low solar radiation", states Conrado Martínez Cadenas, researcher at the Department of Medicine in the Universitat Jaume I.
Martínez Cadenas explains that in countries like Spain there are much less common variants of the MC1R gene called "capital R". These variants are linked to a lighter colour of the skin and a reduced protection against ultraviolet rays, typical of people with very light skin and reduced ability to tan. Such mutations, more common in Northern European countries, pose a greater risk of skin cancer with a high exposure to ultraviolet rays. However, the researcher clarifies that there are many factors beyond genetics that influence on the risk of developing skin cancer, such as an excessive exposure to ultraviolet rays, having suffered sunburn in childhood, etc.
The MC1R gene is one of the genes that presents a higher genetic diversity in the human species, and all outside sub-Saharan Africa, unlike most of the rest of the human genome. This genetic diversity outside Africa is what has contributed to adapt the synthesis of melanin, and therefore the colour of the skin, to the different latitudes and levels of ultraviolet radiation from the planet. This collaboration between the University of the Basque Country and the Universitat Jaume I in Castelló has also helped to determine the genetic variability of this gene that exists within the Spanish population.
Research has been conducted by the researcher and doctor at the UPV/EHU Santos Alonso, with the participation of Dr. Conrado Martínez Cadenas at the Universitat Jaume I in Castelló as main researcher. Due to its great interest, both in the field of health and in the human evolution, it was selected for publication in the Science journal among the most interesting publications in October.
All instances of a gene mutation that contributes to light skin color in Europeans came from the same chromosome of one person who most likely lived at least 10,000 years ago, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers.
Study helps explain increased melanoma risk in individuals with red hair
A person's skin pigment, which determines hair color and skin tone, is influenced by the melanocortin-1 (MC1R) gene receptor. For the population's one to two percent of redheads, a mutation in MC1R accounts for their red ...
Modern life may cause sun exposure, skin pigmentation mismatch
As people move more often and become more urbanized, skin color—an adaptation that took hundreds of thousands of years to develop in humans—may lose some of its evolutionary advantage, according to a Penn State anthropologist.
Skin cancer patients not avoiding sun, study suggests
(HealthDay)—Some people with melanoma aren't cautious about sun exposure, a small new study suggests, even though ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun is a major cause of skin cancer. |