Does Romans 1 allow "homogenital" sex?

The Journal of Biblical Literature is one of the leading journals in the field of biblical studies. In a recent issue, Jeramy Townsley analyzes Romans 1:23-28, arguing that “several lines of research converge to allow an interpretation that rejects the assumption that Paul here condemns “gays” and “lesbians” (Townsley, Jeramy. “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 130, n.4, (2011): 708).

The “Several lines of research” to which Townsley refers are the following:

First, Townsley argues that it is dubious that first century people thought in terms of gay or lesbian identities.

Second, Romans 1:26 does not refer to “female homogenitality” (i.e. sex between women).

Third, Romans 1:26-27 refers to actions, not “identity” or sexual orientation.

Fourth, the unnatural behavior which Paul discusses refers to “non-procreative sex (or perhaps an inversion of patriarchal gender norms).”

Fifth, the usual interpretation of this passage makes the passage incongruous.

Sixth, Paul’s “era witnessed the wide growth of goddess sects whose cross-gender and sexual practices violated patriarchal norms” and this is what Paul was referring to in Romans 1.

Townsley says that this last line of evidence is the core of his article and supports his “first five pieces of evidence” (708-709).

Townsley’s first and third “pieces of evidence” are not evidence at all.  They are merely asserted, not argued, and have little relevance to Townsley thesis (In fact, they are points on which I agree)!

Townsley’s second and fourth “pieces of evidence” are actually part of the same argument. Townsley goes to great lengths trying to show that Paul was not condemning lesbian sex in Romans 1:26b (“For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature”). Townsley says that what was really being condemned is heterosexual sex that does not lead in procreation (for example, men having anal or oral sex with women). Townsley says it is necessary to “problematize the ‘lesbian identity of the subjects in 26b” in order to understand that Paul is continuing his attack on idolatry.

It is difficult to understand why Townsley thinks an understanding Romans 1:26 as a reference to lesbian behavior jeopardizes the view that Paul is continuing his attack on idolatry, nevertheless, Townsley frames the argument saying, “Not until John Chrysostom (ca. 400 C.E.) does anyone (mis)interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to relations between women. Early commentators interpreted this passage as a reference not to female homogenitality but to nonproductive heterosexual acts” (710-711). In the last paragraph of the article Townsley writes, “at least six sources from the early church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality…” (728).

Townsley’s first source is Clement of Alexandria who writes that “we should reject sex between men, sex with the infertile, anal sex with women, and sex with the androgynous.” Townsley’s conclusion from this passage is that the issue for Clement was the wasting of sperm and that sex between women was not the issue. While the spilling of sperm for non-procreative reasons was certainly an issue for Clement, this church father simply does not tell us how he interpreted “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.”

For a second source, Townsley says, “Bernatette J. Brooten quotes an early Christian commentator, Anastasios, who, in a marginal note on the above passage, dismisses the view that Paul was describing female homogenital acts, specifying that women were not going to each other, but ‘offer themselves to men” (712). I must admit that I was not familiar with Anastasios so consulted some reference sources. I didn't find anything. For example, the massive 1,786 page Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists no one named Anastasios and only three named named Anastasius. Those three lived lived in the sixth, eighth and ninth centuries, long after the time of Chrysostom.

The second century Apocalypse of Peter is the third source Townsley uses to demonstrate that Romans 1:26 is a reference to heterosexual sex. Townsley writes, “the text specifies men with men, and some kind of relationship between men and women, but absent is any clear reference to relationships between men and women” (emphasis mine). 

In other words, Townsley himself acknowledges that the Apocalypse of Peter does not interpret Romans 1:26 as a reference to heterosexual sex. But remember that Townsley said that “at least six sources from the early church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality…” (728). The Apocalypse of Peter was one of those sources.

The fact is that the Apocalypse of Peter says nothing about how the writer interpreted Romans 1:26. In fact, the Greek text of the Apocalypse of Peter (as opposed to the Ethiopic text which Townsley cites) discusses the eternal torture of women "who behaved with one another as men with a woman” (Schneemelcheer, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha  vol. 2, 631; emphasis mine). 

In a footnote Townsley simply dismisses the Greek version arguing that the Ethiopic text is original (712 n.15). Whether the Ethiopic text is the original or not (the issue is disputed), the Ethiopic text simply does not support Townsley’s contention and the Greek text clearly contradicts Townsley’s interpretation.

Townsley’s fourth Source is Augustine who writes:

“But if one has relations even with one’s wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle said the same thing about women, For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature” (712; emphasis his).

In the passage by Augustine under consideration (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 35 [XX]), Augustine clearly regards any kind of sex to be sinful if it is “not meant for generative purposes.” This is true, Augustine says, whether a man has anal sex with his wife, or whether women are exchanging “natural relations for those which are against nature.” Augustine seems to be contrasting sex between a man and his wife with sex between women. In other words, Augustine actually seems to contradict Townsley’s interpretation of Romans 1:26.

Townsley’s fifth source is from Didymus the Blind (AD 309-398) who comments on Romans 1:26-27 saying that “Men, having intemperate desires for other men, working disgrace; and their females left the natural use of females for that which is unnatural and pathological; and women had whorish desires for women” (713, emphasis mine).

Since this quote clearly contradicts Townsley’s assertion that no one before Chrysostom interpreted Romans 1:26 as lesbian sex (and, therefore, one has to wonder why he included it as part of his six sources) Townsley tries to explain it away by asking why Didymus “would add the clarifying note that ‘women had whorish desires for women,’ if this was already implied in the previous clause, i.e. that “their females let the natural use of females” (The obvious answer, of course, is that Didymus felt the previous sentence needed clarification).

Townsley’s answer is to speculate that in the fourth century there must have been a “controversy regarding Paul’s intent and that Didymus added what he felt Paul had mistakenly failed to include in his original condemnation of deviant sex” (713). 

Whether Didymus misunderstood Paul is entirely beside the point. The point is that in Didymus we have someone writing prior to Chrysostom who interpreted (Townsley would say, misinterpreted) Romans 1:26 as a reference to lesbian sex.

As a sixth source, Townsley notes that “Ambrosiaster is cited as an early source documenting Romans 1:26b as clearly referring to female homogenitality” (713). Townsley argues, however, that this is only true in the two later recensions of Ambrisiaster. In another place, however, Ambrosiaster also wrote, “Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry” (Ancient Commentary on Scripture. Vol VI Romans. 46). It seems clear that Ambrosiaster, contrary to Townsley, understood Paul as condemning lesbian sex.

Finally, Townsley was apparently unaware that as early as Tertullian (AD 160-220), Romans 1:26 has been read as a reference to lesbian sex. Specifically mentioning Romans, Tertullian writes, “Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural” (Tertullian. De Corona. Ch. 6; emphasis mine).

The fact is that Townsley’s assertion that no one before Chrysostom interpreted Romans 1:26 as lesbian sex is factually wrong as is his statement that “at least six sources from the early church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality…” (628). Unfortunately for Townsley, no one before Chrysostom interprets Romans 1 the way Townsley does (in fact, I suspect that no scholar or church father has ever interpreted Romans 1 the way Townsley does until very recently when interpreters with ulterior agendas have come along).

Townsley’s fifth “piece of evidence is that the usual interpretation of this passage makes the passage incongruous.

The first major section of Townsley’s article (Roman numeral I) is entitled, “Romans 1:23-28—Gays or Idolaters?” In this section, Townsley emphasizes how the structure of Romans 1:23-28 centers around the three parallels of “exchanged” and “God ‘surrendered’ them” (or “gave them up”). The first and second parallels specifically address the idolatry that was so common in the first century: “In each passage, the people actively exchange something holy and true to worship that which is not YHWH, and God surrenders them to eroticisms” (709).

Townsley argues, however, that the third parallel does not fit the pattern. In the third parallel, women exchange natural relations for relations that are against nature. Townsley argues that “that the entire passage is about idolatry, with the third parallel referring to sacred sex, a common practice of certain sects in the first century” (710).

Townsley is surely right about the passage being about idolatry (which is certainly what Paul would have considered “sacred sex” to be), but he seems to assume that the passage cannot be simultaneously about idolatry and about sin in general. Townsley seems to ignore the fact that Paul is saying that because of idolatry, God gave people up to do “what ought not to be done” (1:28) which includes not only the homosexual behaviors described in Romans 1:26-27, but also the list of sins in Romans 1:28-32. Townsley seems to be problematizing something which is simply not a problem.

In another place, Townsley asks, “If one assumes that 1:26b is a reference to female homogenitality, the question persists why Paul would bother to mention it, and especially preceding male sex, when female sex is rarely mentioned in ancient literature and not at all in the OT.” 

Ignoring the obvious answer that Paul considered lesbian sex to be a problem in the culture to which he ministered, Townsley writes, “If this passage about sexual deviance is targeting idol worship rather than sex itself, it would not be anomalous” (716).

But again, Townsley has problematized something that is not a problem. Everyone agrees that Paul is discussing idolatry in Romans 1. Paul’s point is that “the wrath of God is revealed…against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” who “suppress the truth” and do not honor or give thanks to God, but rather exchange “the glory of the immortal God for images” of men and beasts. So in his wrath, God gave them up to do what they wanted—to commit “shameless acts,” men having sex with men, women having sex with women, and “committing all manner of unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18-32). 

The fact is that there is nothing in this passage that limits this idolatry to the confines of pagan temples, or that implies that the “shameful” and “unrighteous” acts described are somehow acceptable if not done as part of idolatrous worship!

In the sixth “line of evidence” Townsley says that “Paul would have been familiar with the goddess religions…” (727). Townsley said this would be the core of his article (708) and sure enough, roughly half of the article was spent making this point. 

Even if Townsley had written a 500 page scholarly book proving this point, however, two things would continue to be true: First, no one disputes that Paul would have been familiar with goddess religions; and second, all the scholarly background on goddess religions in the world wouldn’t determine whether or not Paul approved of homosexual behavior. 

In other words, roughly half of the article is largely irrelevant to the point Townsley is trying to prove. Excuse my cynicism, but this appears to be an attempt to overwhelm the casual reader with scholarly background in an attempt to make the reader think that the author has proven his point. It is smoke and mirrors.

The fact is that Paul could hardly have been clearer. In Romans 1:26a he writes, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.” Paul then gives two examples of “dishonorable passions.” The first is that “women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26b) and the second is that “the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men....” (Romans 1:27).

The second part (Romans 1:27) about men having sex with men is so clear even Townsley acknowledges that the verse is about sex between men. The word "likewise” or “in the same way” indicates a parallel. While acts “against nature” may include such things as anal sex in general (see Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 35 [XX]) and pederasty in particular (Philo, Spec. 3.37-39), the comparison in 1:26-27 is clear that Paul has in mind men having sex with men, and women having sex with women. Whether part or all of the reason for this is lack of procreative possibility, as Townsley contends, is really beside the point which is that Paul clearly condemned homosexual sex whether between males or between females.

Townsley tries to escape the force of this argument by arguing that even though 1:27 is about two men, the word "likewise" "does not lead to the conclusion that the clause preceding it involves two women, only that both clauses are examples of some larger idea”. As examples, Townsley cites behaviors like, a woman using a phallus on herself or a man, or “that men were having oral or anal sex with women” (715).

But the parallel in Romans 1:27 involves men having sex with men. Even if the examples Townsley cites above are examples of behavior against nature, this does not exclude the obvious parallel of  men having sex with men and women having sex with women. It would just mean that female homogenital sex and male homogenital sex are not the only kinds of sex "against nature."

The comparison (“likewise,” or “in the same way”) is between two specific types of behavior, not between one specific behavior and some “larger idea.” Townsley’s contention amounts to something like, “women were using phalluses on themselves, likewise, men were having sex with men.” Likewise? 

The comparison of women having sex with women, likewise, men having sex with men, is certainly the most natural reading of the text. Townsley’s conclusion (that “It thus seems unlikely that the original audience would necessarily have heard Rom 1:26b as a reference to ‘lesbians”) seems very dubious (to put it politely) in light of the fact that Romans 1:26b has been understood as a reference to lesbian sex since earliest times.

The reason this point (i.e. that Paul is not condemning sex between women) is so important for Townsley doesn’t become clear until the last paragraph of his conclusion to the article where he writes, “Further, considering that at least six sources from the early church imply or state that v. 26b is a reference to heterogenitality, it seems that the tradition linking this verse to ‘lesbians’ is dubious, thus problematizing the idea that in vv. 26-27, Paul is describing the ‘category of homosexuality” (628).

As we have seen, however, the idea that “six sources from the early church imply or state that v.26b is a reference to heterogenitality” is factually false. And while I agree that Paul is not describing a “category of homosexuality,” that is beside the point. Paul is condemning homosexual behavior, whether by men or by women. Townsley has done nothing to undermine this clear reading of the text.

CONCLUSION

Townsley began his article asserting that “Several lines of research converge to allow an interpretation that rejects the assumption that Paul here condemns ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians” (708). Of these “five pieces of evidence” (708) we have seen that the first and third are merely asserted, not argued, and have little or no relevance to Townsley’s thesis (and are, in fact, points on which I agree). 

Townsley completely failed in his attempt to prove the second and fourth “line[s] of evidence,” i.e. to demonstrate that Romans 1:26b refers only to heterosexual relations. In the fifth line of evidence, Townsley was problematizing something which was simply not a problem. Finally, the sixth “line of evidence,” i.e. that Paul was familiar with goddess religions—what Townsley described as the “core of this article” (708) is a point which no one would dispute but which does not prove his thesis.

In fact, nothing in this article demonstrated that Paul only disapproved of homosexual sex in the context of idolatrous worship. If that were really Paul's point, however, then one could ask whether Paul was only condemning murder, evil, envy, deceit or the other sins in 1:28-32 when done in conjunction with idolatrous worship. 

Regardless of whether the erotic acts of 1:26-27 are conducted as part of idolatry or not, Paul makes it perfectly clear that he regards such actions as impure (1:24) “dishonoring” (1:24, 26), “shameless acts” (1:27) and “contrary to nature” (1:26). The suggestion that Paul only thought such actions were impure, dishonoring, shameless and contrary to nature if they were conducted as part of a idolatrous  worship service is ludicrous.

Finally, I would argue that Townsley’s article is a brilliant example of sophistry, i.e. overwhelming the reader with a mass of scholarly-sounding discussion to the point that the casual reader (and even the editor of JBL!) thinks the author has made a case.

The thesis for Townsley’s article is that Paul is not condemning homosexual behavior as such, but only in connection with idolatrous worship. But Townsley’s arguments about Romans 1 being about idolatry is a point which no one disputes and which does not prove his thesis. 

Townsley’s arguments about Romans 1:26b even if true, would only mean that Paul didn’t specifically single out lesbian sex. Even Townsley admits that Paul was writing about male homosexual sex in Romans 1:27. 

Townsley’s extended scholarly  discussion of goddess cults in the ancient world was fascinating, but did nothing to prove his point. All the scholarly discussion about ancient goddess cults in the world would not show whether or not Paul approved of homosexuality. 

Absolutely nothing in the article demonstrated that Paul was only condemning homosexual behavior when it occurred in the context of idolatrous worship. When you strip away the extensive scholarly-sounding arguments and the fascinating historical background, all that’s left is smoke and mirrors!

Finally, after a critique like mine, I feel compelled to emphasize that the same apostle who condemned homosexual sex also condemned (in the same passage) covetousness, malice, envy, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, haughty boasting, and lack of faith (Romans 1:29-32). Paul goes on to argue that even the religious teachers have not kept God’s law fully (Romans 2:17-24) and that, in fact, “None is righteous, no, not one” (3:10), “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (3:23). 

The only hope, says Paul, is to turn our heart over to Jesus Christ in faith (which I would define as a repentant heart of loving devotion). For those who would truly follow Jesus and Paul, there is no room for a self-righteous looking-down-our-noses at other sinners as if we were somehow better than they (and certainly no room for gay-bashing, whether physically or verbally). While we must speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), we must speak the truth in love.

The James ossuary

Back in 2002 I was privileged to see an ossuary (bone box) in Toronto which had the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."  The "James ossuary," as it has been called, was presented as the burial box of Jesus' brother, James.

Since that time the authenticity of the inscription has been called into question. In fact, there was actually a court trial in Israel in which someone was accused of forgery. The verdict has come down. The court held that "the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inscription was a forgery."

In an article in the July/August 2012 Biblical Archaeology Review (26ff.) noted archaeologist Hershel Shanks not only convincingly demonstrates that the inscription is authentic, he explains why the skepticism is entirely unfounded. Not only that, but Shanks produces statistical arguments showing that there is a 95% probability that the James ossuary is not just the burial box of some guy named James, but that it belonged to James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

Excellent article!

Transmission of the New Testament text

I've been reading an outstanding book entitled, Jesus and His World by Craig A. Evans. Among other things, Evans points out that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran were two to three hundred years old when the community was destroyed! Evans also points to the work of George Huston who studied manuscripts from "libraries, collections and archives from late antiquity" and found that the manuscripts "were in use anywhere from 150 to 500 years before being discarded. In fact, one of the major ancient biblical manuscripts, "The fourth-century Codex Vaticanus (B)" was still being used 600 years after it had been produced. The point Evans makes is that "It is possible, perhaps even probable that the autographs of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were still being read and copied" when the copies we now have, like P45, were being copied (75-76).

Take, for example, the Gospel of Mark which was written sometime between about AD 50 and 70. The earliest surviving copy of Mark and the other Gospels is P45 which dates to about 220 CE. We should not imagine that there were dozens--or even a half dozen--copies between the original Mark and P45. Evans' point is that it is "entirely possible, perhaps even probable" that the original Mark was still in existence (and could therefore be checked for accuracy) when P45 was copied.

The Myth of Junk DNA

Scientists agree that most of our DNA does not code for protein. The question is whether this non-coding DNA is just useless junk left over from a very long line of evolution, or whether the non-coding DNA actually serves some useful purpose. The reason this question is important is that some vocal evolutionists have used the junk DNA theory to mock the idea that life was intelligently designed. If life was intelligently designed, why, they ask, would an intelligent designer spread so much useless junk throughout our genome?

The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from U.C. Berkeley) cites hundreds of articles by over 1,000 scientists—many, if not most of whom are evolutionists—who are now saying that this so-called junk DNA is not junk after all. They are discovering that even though the “junk” DNA does not code for proteins, it does serve numerous other important functions in the cell (one scientist cited in this book “listed over 80 known functions for non-coding repetitive DNA”). The book also answers those who are still, despite the evidence, defending the junk DNA theory, some of whom seem to be not up to speed on the latest research and are just parroting outdated information.

It almost looks to me like a few evolutionist ideologues wanted the non-coding DNA to be junk so badly, they stopped looking for possible reasons for its existence. In other words, their faith-commitment to naturalist philosophy prevented them from pursuing scientific investigation into the possible purpose of non-coding DNA.

The Myth of Junk DNA is a short but excellent book. Highly recommended.

Jesus Christ: Did he really rise from the dead?

Published in the Shakopee ValleyNews, March 21, 2012

Christians around the world will soon celebrate Easter in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most people understand, however, that no one comes back to life after being dead for “three days.” How could any intelligent person believe such a thing? We could be cynical and say the key word is “intelligent” but there are many people with Ph.D.’s who believe that Jesus rose from the dead. What reasons could they possibly have?

First, Jesus’ crucifixion is considered to be historical fact. It is confirmed even by ancient non-Christian sources like Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar Serapion. In addition, since crucifixion was considered such a shameful way to die, most biblical scholars don’t believe Christians would have invented a crucifixion story that would expose them to ridicule and hinder the spread of their message.

Second, Jesus’ tomb was found empty. All four biblical Gospels claim that Jesus’ tomb was empty (as does the second century “Gospel of Peter). The Gospels are unanimous in presenting women as the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb. Since women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in those days, even many skeptical scholars are convinced that early Christians would not fabricate a story in which the earliest eyewitnesses were thought to be unreliable.

The earliest explanation for the empty tomb is found in the Gospel of Matthew which says that the guards reported that someone stole the body while they slept (if they were sleeping, how would they know)? The stolen body theory might explain why the tomb was empty but we would still have to account for the stories that say Jesus was seen alive after his death.

Some have suggested that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Most biblical scholars find this unconvincing. Three crucified friends of Josephus (a first century historian) were taken off their crosses after only a few hours. Although all of them presumably received medical attention, two of them died the same day, and the third one died shortly thereafter. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986) concluded that theories about Jesus’ survival are contrary to the evidence. Even if Jesus had survived, however, it seems a bit silly to think that early Christians would have hailed this very bruised and broken man (most likely in critical condition) as their resurrected Messiah!

Third, Jesus was believed to have appeared alive physically after his execution (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39-43; John 20:17, 27-28). Recent scholars have argued that in the Gospels we are in touch with what early Christians believed about Jesus. Regardless of whether anyone today believes their stories, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospel writers taught that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not merely “spiritual.” Even Ignatius, writing shortly after the last New Testament book was written, said that that Jesus was still in the flesh after his resurrection.

Years before the Gospels were written St. Paul also affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. In First Corinthians—which even the most skeptical scholars believe is genuine—Paul writes that the resurrected Jesus was seen by more than 500 people. It seems pretty clear that Paul is not intending to say that 500 people had hallucinations or visions! Not only that, but Paul uses the word “resurrection” to describe what happened to Jesus. Resurrection” meant that the body came back to life, not that the spirit lived on after death which is something most people believed anyway.

In Second Corinthians, Paul reminds his readers of the persecution he faced for preaching the gospel, including imprisonment, beatings and life-threatening danger like being stoned (with real stones)! Paul was so convinced of the resurrection that he staked his whole life on it! Many other early Christians staked their lives on the same conviction.

Finally, the resurrection of Jesus could be treated as a historical hypothesis; a hypothesis which explains a lot that is difficult to explain otherwise. For example:

The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the conversion of Paul. By his own testimony Paul had violently opposed Christianity. How did this rabid opponent of Christianity became one of its most ardent promoters? Paul himself would say it was due to his conviction that Jesus had risen.

The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the change in worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Sabbath observance was so central to ancient Jewish identity that for Jewish Christians (The earliest Christians were all Jewish) to start worshiping on Sunday would be more shocking than if PETA started sacrificing puppies! It would demand an explanation. Belief that Jesus had risen on the first day of the week would explain the change.

This hypothesis also explains the continuation of the Jesus movement even after his death. Many Jews expected their Messiah to kick the Romans out of Judea. When the Romans crushed these Messiah wannabees their movements always died with them. Only in the case of Jesus did the movement continue after his death.

The hypothesis would also explain the worship of Jesus by early Christians who were fiercely monotheistic Jews!

We really haven’t even scratched the surface on this topic but evidence like this has convinced even highly skeptical scholars that Jesus’ earliest followers sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead. These skeptical scholars are quick to add, however, that we can be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead because dead people just don’t come back to life. Some might say that their philosophical presuppositions (faith) outweigh historical considerations.

In the final analysis, nothing can be “proven” beyond all possible doubt. There is always a gap that can be crossed only by faith (this is also true in science). Those of us who have examined the evidence, however, and have experienced what we believe to be the grace and power of God in our lives, and the witness of the Spirit in our hearts, have no trouble proclaiming with Christians around the world that He is risen indeed!

"Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions"

Here's the next step in the abortion debate:

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After-Birth Abortions | TheBlaze.com

The Gospels and mythology

Recently a student mentioned a book that was claiming that nothing in the Gospels was new and that everything had been borrowed from earlier sources. The following was my (slightly edited) e-mail response:

First, many of those who promote the idea that all of Jesus’ teachings are found in earlier sources seem to assume that for Jesus to be who the Gospels say he was, means that all his teachings had to be unique. This is a silly assumption.  Jesus was a pious Jew. His Bible was our Old Testament. Much of what he taught comes right out of the Old Testament, so we don’t have to look to dubious parallels in ancient writings from Egypt, Greece, Rome, or Babylon. We need only look to the Old Testament and other ancient Jewish writings!

Second, some of these critics seem to assume that similarity always means that someone was borrowing from someone else. But just because a teaching found in one document/culture is similar to a teaching found in another document/culture does not mean any borrowing occurred. For example, just because something the Buddha taught may be similar to something Confucius taught, does not mean that Buddha borrowed from Confucius! Yet some of these fringe critics seem to assume that anything in the gospels that is similar to anything in some other ancient culture, must have been borrowed by the Gospel writers from that culture. It is important to note that this is not what mainline Jesus scholars believe. It is only held by a tiny fringe element.

Third, the closest parallels to Jesus’ miracles are found in the life of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius was supposedly a first century miracle worker. The thing is that while we have four first century Gospels that attest to Jesus’ miracles, the only source for Apollonius comes from Philostratus who lived in AD 170-247! So if Apollonius lived at all, and if he even did miracles, why would we assume that the Gospel writers borrowed from the life of Apollonius rather than assuming that Philostratus (who wrote the Life of Apollonius much later than the Gospels) borrowed from the Gospels? Who is borrowing from whom?

Fourth, let’s take a closer look at some of these imagined parallels. The Egyptian myth of Osiris is often presented as a parallel to the resurrection of Jesus, but in the Osiris myth, Osiris’ body is dismembered and reconstructed for an existence in the afterlife. He never returns to this life. In other words, he is never resurrected.

Another supposed Egyptian resurrection parallel is the myth of Horus. Horus “merged” with the sun god and then “dies” and “raises” every day as the sun rises and sets. Similarly, Tammuz “died” every year in the Fall/winter with the death of vegetation, and “rose” again in Spring when everything comes back to life. The assumption that Jewish writers borrowed from such stories to create a story about their Messiah coming back from the dead is a very big stretch (to put it politely). 

A Greek myth sometimes presented as a resurrection parallel is the myth of Arachne. In this myth Arachne is a mortal who loses a contest with the goddess Minerva. Arachne hangs herself in shame. Minerva, however, apparently had a vindictive streak so she brings Arachne back to life and turns her into a spider (at least this is close to a resurrection story except that Arachne never comes back as Arachne, but as an insect!

When Dionysus was a child, the Titans tried to destroy him by dismembering, cooking and eating him—except for a single limb that was saved by a goddess. In another version, the god Apollo buries him and he comes back to life. Dionysus then grew up as a god of absolute power, an eater of raw flesh and the god of wine and intoxication. Stories about him are often violent and have sexual overtones. Those who oppose his orgiastic rites were driven insane or destroyed. Can you imagine pious Jews hearing this story and thinking, hey, let’s make up a story about our Messiah based on this?!

My favorites, however, are the virgin birth “parallels.”  The story of Mithras, for example is sometimes presented as a parallel to Jesus’ virgin birth. But according to the Mithras myth, Mithras was born out of solid rock (maybe the rock was a virgin!). And the story wasn’t written until a century AFTER the time of the N.T.!  Who is borrowing from whom?

In the myth of Adonis, the gods turned his mother into a tree and Adonis was born from the tree (perhaps it was a virgin tree).

In another myth, Minerva “leaped forth” from the brain of Jupiter, fully grown and in complete armor!

Attis was supposedly born when his mother placed the blossoms of an almond tree in her lap—almonds which had grown from the castrated testicles of another god.

Zeus had the misfortune of being born to a father (Kronos) who tended to eat his children. Zeus survived through a trick played on his father. When Zeus grew up, he overpowered his father and forced him to vomit up Zeus’ brothers (apparently, a bunch of “virgin births”). Zeus later seduces a woman named Semele and gets her pregnant, not through mating, but with a special potion made from someone’s heart. I’m not exactly clear on this one. In another version I read, Zeus then appears to her as lightening which kills her and sends her into the underworld. In either case, Zeus rescues her unborn child, Dionysus, and sews the child into his own thigh. Dionysus is later born from Zeus’ thigh—a virgin birth!

According to a story about the birth of Plato, Ariston had tried repeatedly to make his wife, Periktione pregnant but did not succeed. After they stopped having intercourse she was made pregnant by Apollo. The story was recorded by Diogenes Laertius who lived in the third century AD! Why would anyone think the New Testament story of Jesus was borrowed from a story written long after the New Testament was written? It seems to me that any objective observer would conclude that it was Diogenes who borrowed from the New Testament and not the other way around.

In one story of the birth of Alexander the Great, provided by Plutarch, when Alexander’s mother was sleeping one night, a snake stretched out at her side. This disgusted Alexander’s father and he rarely slept with her after that. The implication seems to be that she was then impregnated by Apollo. But Plutarch also gives another version of the story in which Alexander’s mother was a devotee of Dionysus and regularly engaged in sexual worship orgies. That would kind of negate the virgin part! It should be noted, however that Plutarch lived from AD 46 to 120 so the story was not written until after N.T. times.

Then there is the birth of emperor Augustus.  According to the story, his father’s wife went up to a pagan temple overnight. As she slept, a snake crawled up her vagina and impregnated her! Nine months later, Augustus was born. What some people seem to miss is that she was married--not a virgin! You can't have a virgin birth without a virgin!

The point is that when these fringe critics tell people that there are all kinds of parallels to Jesus in ancient literature, they leave the impression that the parallels are about historical stories in which real human beings have been born of virgin mothers or who have come back from the dead. The fact is that the supposed "parallels" are not really parallels at all! By the way, on the internet you really have to be careful because some of these supposed parallels appear to have been fabricated entirely by the authors of various anti-Christian websites.

This brings us to the fifth point: one thing that is abundantly clear from reading the Gospels is how thoroughly Jewish the Gospels are. The stories take place, with only a few exceptions (like Tyre, Sidon, Decapolis) in Israel—Judea, Samaria, Galilee, or more specifically in places like Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Bethany, Jericho, Cana, Bethsaida, etc. All of the celebrations are Jewish, e.g. Passover, Tabernacles, Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah). All of the heroes are Jewish heroes—Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Elijah, Jonah, Zechariah.  Not once do the Gospels quote from or allude to any Egyptian, Greek or Roman heroes like Achilles, Hector, Ulysses, Jason, Aeneas or Ajax. All of the quotations and illusions are from the Old Testament—the Gospels quote or allude to 29 of the 39 books in the Old Testament. Not once do they quote or allude to any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors or classics—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Herodotus, Livy, Cicero, Virgil, etc.

The point is that the Gospels were written by pious Jews—Jews who believed in one and only one God and who thought the worship of pagan gods was abominable idolatry! According to Josephus, there were thousands of Jews in those days who were fully willing to die rather than have their temple corrupted by Roman images. The idea that these pious Jews were sitting around trying to dream up stories about their Messiah by borrowing from stories of violent, immoral and sleazy pagan gods is just plain silly! The very idea sounds like an act of desperation by people desperate to find excuses not to believe! Mainline Jesus scholars (even those who are not believers) think the idea is absurd.  

Benet, William Rose.  The Reader’s Encyclopedia.  2nd edition.  New York : Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965, 273.

Carlier, Jeannie and Silvia Milanezi.  Encyclopedia of Religion.  Vol. 15.  New York : Macmillan, 1987, 568.

Cartlidge, David R. and David L. Dungan. Documents for the Study of the Gospels (Revised and enlarged ed.) Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1994 (129-130, 134).

Detienne, Marcel.  “Dionysos.”  Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 4.  New York : Macmillan, 1987, 358-361.

Leeming, David Adams.  Mythology.  Philadelphia : J.B. Lippincott, 1973, 270.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary.  3rd edition. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996, 479-482, 1382.

Plutarch. The Age of Alexander.  New York : Penguin Classics, 253-254.

Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. New York : Penguin Classics, 104-105.