Saturday, August 22, 2015

How Biblical Worship is like Hearing a Good Ghost Story - Part 2

Part 1 here

Line drawings depicting various ancient Near Eastern divine beings.

A Strange Encounter

A woman approached him sheepishly after he delivered his talk in a church in Seattle. She asked if she could speak with him in private about something bizarre she had seen during the talk. Hesitantly, she reported that for half an hour she had clearly seen three angels surrounding him as he spoke--one to his left, one at his right and one of larger stature behind him.

J. P. Moreland, the professional philosopher who happened to be involved with my Biola program, reports this experience occurring to him in October of 2004.  He had flown in to speak for a weekend retreat at a noncharismatic traditional church:
"When she left, I asked four or five people, including the pastor, to tell me about the woman, and to a person they said she was probably the most spiritually mature woman in the congregation.  Still, I was skeptical of her claim, but I retained her testimony in my heart."[1]
Moreland returned the next few days back to his home in southern California and says he never mentioned this event to anyone. Fast-forward eleven months later in 2005. While praying on his bed one night over burdens in his life, Moreland asked God if He would send the three angels back, requesting that he might be shown them in order to be comforted.  It was the first time he had ever prayed such a thing.  He told no one about this prayer request, but within a few days he received the shock of his life:
"I received an e-mail (which I kept) from a philosophy graduate student named Mark who was taking a metaphysics class with me that semester.  Mark began saying that he had wanted to share something with me for a few days, but he wanted to process it with two or three other graduate students before he did. 
It turns out that a few days earlier during one of my lectures, he had seen three angels standing in the room (one on each side, a taller one behind me) for five to ten minutes before they disappeared!  I asked Mark to come to my office, and a few days later we talked further...[H]e began by saying that he would never want to say anything to me that he wasn't sure of, and he knew that the angels were next to me in the room and not in his head.  In fact, he gave me a sketch he had drawn from his angle of perception in the class, a sketch of me and the angels (which I kept)."[2]
When he was asked if Mark could have known about his previous angel encounter, Moreland responded that "there was no way this guy [Mark] could have known anything about that."[3]

Numinous Fear

If the spiritual visitors in this story managed to get any sort of emotional rise out of you, it was likely as sort of goosebumps awe.  In part 1, we saw that human beings possess a strange, dreadful awe of the Numinous.

For example, If you saw a ghost, you would feel fear and dread.  Like C. S. Lewis observed, that fear would not be grounded in natural, physical danger, since no one is primarily scared of what a ghost is going to do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost!  We also saw that this creeping flesh or Numinous fear feeling can be found in heightened expression in all religions since religion involves the worship of great spirits.

Why the Mere Existence of Numinous Fear is an Argument For the Supernatural

C. S. Lewis, himself a huge fan of Rudolf Otto, explained why this emotion is so special:
This Numinous [fear] is [not] already contained in the idea of the dangerous…[and no] perception of danger or any dislike of the wounds and death which it may entail could give the slightest conception of ghostly dread or numinous awe to an intelligence which did not already understand them.  When man passes from physical fear to dread and awe, he makes a sheer jump, and apprehends something which could never be given, as danger is, by the physical facts and logical deductions from them.[4]
Because the feeling of creeping-flesh fear does not arise from an aversion to physical danger, it’s inexplicable within a purely mechanistic scheme how man should have ever come to possess it—that is, how we should have ever come to be capable of a fear, the object of which, cannot be an elaboration of physical reality or physical preservation.

Most materialistic accounts of numinous dread thoughtlessly attempt to smuggle awe into the idea of physical danger; they presuppose what they are claiming to explain.  Scientist presuppose that fear of gods, angels and the dead is grounded in physical preservation, but if you consult your experience you know that physical attention to your body would not be your primary concern if you had encountered such a being. In that way, it is in a totally other dimension from an encounter with a lion, your boss or a rise in prices.

Unless we are to conclude Numinous dread is a freak emotional capacity in man which has managed to develop despite having no correspondence with the facts of reality, it seems inescapable that the religious mind of man has veins drawing life from something lurking beyond the natural, and it is the very fact that you are even capable of this emotion which whispers of at least one thing engraved in us which metaphysical materialism never can satisfy by definition.

I'm taking a lighthearted jab here at philosophers like Alain de Botton.  It seems their attempts to create a "religious atheism," as clever as they may be, will always fail to satisfy at least one universal and powerful dimension of human expression.

The "Man-Creates-God-in-his-Image" Objection:

If what I have observed so far lands in the ballpark of truth then we can infer from it that there is a very common belief held about the nature and origin of religion which seems false.  Xenophanes is famous for his saying that if oxen could paint, they would depict their gods as oxen.  


Surely, it is true that man is often compelled to depict his gods with human characteristics simply because human beings are the highest expression of personality that we may look to as a reference in nature. But, in the sense that the statement implies humans created the gods, and later God, merely from a desire to project what was familiar to us, Xenophanes’s claim seems false. The gods do not emerge from the familiar but the Strange.

Probably the majority of gods in history are described, as intentionally uncanny (strange or mysterious in an unsettling way) to express this. I named examples in the last post, but it is worth considering more. In Hinduism this uncanniness is conveyed through the multiplying of heads, arms, strange colors, fascinating eyes, tongues and grafted animal parts.  Again, look at Arjuna’s encounter with the transfigured Krishna. The flavor may remind you of John's vision of Jesus in Revelation 1:14-17:

"Your great form of many mouths and eyes, oh great-armed one, of many arms, thighs and feet, of many bellies, terrible with many tusks—seeing it the worlds are shaken, and I too…seeing you my inner self is shaken, and I find no steadiness or peace…Oh Visnu,...of awful form, homage to you.” (source)

Some early explorers mistook the Meso-American gods as Indian in origin. They abound in ghastly skeletal chthonic deities, fantastically spliced animals with shadowy human visages.  The fascinating gaze of the serpent enchants heavily here and it is curiously difficult to find a culture in the world where serpents are not referenced in expressing the uncanny. 
Israelite seraph seals:  Benjamin Sommer points
out that number 273, shown with two serpents
 flanking the symbol for God, states it belonged to
Ashna in King Ahaz's court.  "It is inconceivable
that Isaiah and Ashna did not know each other."

In Egyptian religion our torch light flickers again on fantastic animal-headed deities cloaked in esoteric hieroglyphs; in Israelite religion we see the snake-bodied Seraphim and the four-headed Cherubim.  The Biblical authors usually appeal to anthropomorphic theophanies when describing visions of their God, but we are assured no man may behold His true glory and live.

Credit: מוזיאון ישראל ירושלים these 9,000 year old masks discovered in
Israel are the oldest in the world.  It is speculated they represent
spirits of the dead.
In the Ancient Near East we encounter the fish-man Dagan, the world's oldest masks--ten eerie faces exhumed from the Judean desert, the winged bull-men of Babylon and multiform deities star-sprayed in eyes.

I have read within Lafcadio Hearn’s accounts of old Japan that the Far East is no exception, but excels in pervasiveness of strangeness with its ancient gods, goblins and ghosts.

Though many citations in Greek literature would support a numinous experience, if the Greek, Norse or Roman gods were, for the most part, merely familiar projections of man, then they seem exceptions in the history of religions; but even this seems unlikely.  Otto argued that whenever the Greek gods became all too human in their familiarity belief in them waned, creating a vacuum quickly filled by the exotic deities of the East and Egypt in which Numinous strangeness was more palpable.[5]

Perhaps the domestication of the Greek pantheon was not the height of religious achievement it is classically interpreted to be, but the very indication of Greece’s waning religious vitality.

Conclusion: The Numinous and us

It appears to me this Numinous dread I have been describing is hidden from (or by) American Evangelicalism.  Gene Veith at Pathos agrees, and I strongly suspect this is obvious to others.  We have comparably little art or music, worship or interpretation which expresses it. I can even remember one of my first theology professors marking down one of my papers once for stating that the fear of God is something one ought to continue feeling post-justification.

Do you think, like the Greek pantheon, our angels are too Victorian, our demons too vestigial, our seraphim and the seventy בני האלהים (i.e. sons of God) too obscured from their Israelite origins? Do you suppose we demythologized our God too much when we were domesticating Him?


[1] This story is recounted by Moreland in his co-authored book In Search of a Confident Faith: Overcoming Barriers to Trusting in God (USA: InterVarsity, 2008), 155-6.
[2] Ibid., 156.
[3] Taken from this interview with Moreland:
[4] Lewis, The Problem of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable Intellectual Problems (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 20.
[5] Quoted by Todd A. Gooch, The Numinous and Modernity: An Interpretation of Rudolf Otto’s Philosophy of Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 116.

Monday, August 17, 2015

How Biblical Worship is like Hearing a Good Ghost Story - Part 1

  The Brown Lady of Raynham Hall first published
in 1936
What is the Worship-Dread Paradox?

Imagine you were a duckling raised your whole life without ever being allowed to see a body of water larger than a little drinking cup.  Imagine drinking then rolling around in the remaining teaspoons of water.  You occasionally look at your webbed feet and are struck by their strangeness. Also, you feel a deep but unknown longing for something beyond your ducky matrix.

There’s a colossal mystery of religion.  It’s not a mystery because it’s difficult to understand since most cultures and people in history have assumed it's a thing natural to humanity and self-evident.  It’s mysterious in the sense that our modern prejudices have hidden it from us, making us like the caged duck. 

The mystery is this: Certainly the Biblical authors felt love towards their God, but their experience of God was accompanied by other, seemingly contradictory emotions—terror and dread.

The Biblical Examples:

Jacob, arising from his night vision of celestial immortals calls the 'house of God' (נורא) ‘dreadful’; Moses ‘hid his face’ in fear before the ineffable desert flame; Ezekiel, at the shore of the Kebar, sees the wheels and cherubim star-sprayed with eyes and describes their height as 'frightful.'

Grab a modern translation of the Psalms and you'll see the translators themselves are often guilty of trying to protect you from the worship-dread paradox:  In Psalm 47, the translators tell us God is “awesome” or “wonderful” in his sanctuary. Awesome is an ok translation in its fossilized etymology, but not in its evolved modern connotation (expressed in such specimen phrases as, “That selfie was awesome”).  The real meaning of the term in passages like Psalm 47 is ‘terrible’ (ירא), signifying fear.

The Psalmists constantly praise God as ‘terrible’ (יהוה עליון נורא).

The paradox isn't just in those weird, Israelite-y Old Testament passages either. (Ok, so the New Testament is actually no less weird or Jewish, but I'm trying to work the "all things to all people" angle here.) John, witnessing the Lord on his throne writes, “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not.’”(--That's white Evangelical approved, post-Alexander, straight up New Covenant stuff!)

The Bible Slaps Down our Expectations

Why is it that men who were giants in their affection for God did not, as our contemporary music wants them to, dance, shout, or sing “I’m H-A-P-P-Y” in God’s immediate presence? Did the author of Revelation believe the gospel? Then why was he terrified of Jesus? Why was his reaction before the enthroned Christ practically the opposite of what we would have told him it should have been? The secret to unraveling this curiosity, I believe, can be discovered by taking a field trip to a haunted house for the night, so hop on board the magic school bus.

How Ghost Stories Solve the Paradox

I'm not here to discuss a Biblical view of ghosts.  If you want that here's the best series you'll ever read on the subject by a Biblical languages expert. (Turns out it's more complicated than your Sunday school teacher made it seem.) I'm interested strictly in the feelings ghost stories give us as a thought experiment.

Imagine your spouse has died.  In keeping with the grand, odd thing that is the western mortuary tradition, everyone lowers (let's go with 'her') expensive lacquer casket into the ground and heads back to the church for potato salad. You find yourself returning home, and soon, in your bed, alone.  Waking at 2:00 AM, with the smoke of dreams hanging in your mind, you leave the room for a glass of water. 

Returning to your bedroom, slowly, you open the door. But there, in the black window you see a flicker of pale contrast. Your eyes adjusting now, it is a hanging form, with hair falling and white-washed eyes spying languidly through the glass at the bed she has joined you in for so many years.  Slowly, the misty specter pivots her wan face towards the doorway—towards you.

Now, it cannot be doubted that you loved your wife and still do, as when Odysseus tried pitifully to hug the phantasmal shade of his dead mother. But, despite whatever pleasant feelings of affection this event would spark in you, what you would most heavily feel in this moment is fear (and maybe a moistness in your knickers).  Fear, but of a very strange sort.

Imagine you had returned to the room and found a silverback gorilla on your bed waving a loaded automatic assault rifle in the air instead of the ghost. You would experience what we will call natural fear.  Natural fear is the most common sort of fear.  It is that familiar concatenation of feeling which has as its object physical harm—like hearing a snake’s rattle, the half-second before you realize you are having a car wreck, or turning on the television and seeing Donald Trump's face. 

Sorry, you had to see that. Hold on to any creeped-out
feelings. You'll need them for the dissection
in a moment. (By the way, she's behind you.)

C. S. Lewis, who I'm shamelessly plundering here, observed that if anything is certain, it is that the fear of the spirit was something distinct from natural fear. “For, no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost will [physically] do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost[!]”—a being from the non-human realm.[1]

What is Creeping-Flesh Fear?

Your “fear” of a ghost is not of the natural sort, but of the creeping-flesh sort. Eliphaz’s description in Job of this dreadful awe is quaintly familiar despite having journeyed to us across thousands of years from an alien culture in a desert tongue:
“In thoughts from the vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me, and trembling . . . a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up (תסמר שערת בשרי).”
The truly curious thing is that these two distinct emotions of natural and creeping-flesh fear are not elaborations of the other in anyway.  That this is certain, your own experience will assure you.  Imagine you had stepped into your bedroom and found ten silverback gorillas dancing wildly with loaded assault rifles on your bed. (If you wish, multiply the terror even further by imagining they're all wearing Donald Trump masks.) Would your natural fear have gained or lost a single centimeter towards inspiring the goosebumps and awe-full dread of witnessing the ghost? Rudolf Otto, the creative German thinker and early explorer of religion  expressed it this way:

The distinction between such a ‘dread’ and natural fear is not simply one of degree and intensity.  The awe or ‘dread’ may indeed be so overwhelmingly great that it seems to penetrate to the very marrow, making the man’s hair bristle and his limbs quake.  But it may also steal upon him almost unobserved as the gentlest of agitations, a mere fleeting shadow passing across his mood. It has therefore nothing to do with intensity, and no natural fear passes over into it merely by being intensified.[2]

Though, both may occasionally be excited at the same time in your mind, the two principal objects which excite the two fears repel like oil and water.  The first has as its object physical danger, the second is produced only as a reaction to the perceived haunting of someone from a spiritual address.

I'm Actually Going Somewhere with this, really

No, I'm not saying that feeling a ghost is equivalent to feeling God. I'm saying feeling God stands in relation to feeling the ghost something like the feeling of a lake stands in relation to the duck's feeling its little drinking cup.

Encountering a mere ghost-spirit is terrifying simply because it is from the non-human realm, consider then that whatever religion is, it is agreed to involve the encountering of great spirits from that realm.

I’m implying that once you have grasped the ghost you are at the fringes of the temple veil whose dark passage leads into the uncanny emotion haunting and unifying all religions.  Its object is the Numinous, that lurking of divinity which invokes a trinity of terror, mystery and fascination.

Examples of the Paradox among the Gods of Ancient Religions

Anyone who is acquainted with the world’s religions will know that the awe inspired by the Numinous extends to those worshiped spirits. The “separateness” or “otherness” of these beings is retained in the iridescence of the original etymology of the Hebrew word we translate as holy, קדוש. They are that category of beings circumscribed by the ancient Hebrew word elohim.[3]

“Do not be afraid!” is often the obligatory introduction to an angel’s appearing before a mortal, and Lewis cites the feeling in its higher expression in Malory's tale of the holy grail--Galahad’s trembling when “[mortal] flesh began to behold the spiritual things”; we encounter it plainly in Virgil’s palace of Latinus, described as, “awful (horrendum) with woods and sanctity (religione) of elder days,” and a Geek fragment tells of the earth, sea, and mountains shaking beneath the “dread eye of their Master” [4].

The Asaro Mudmen dress as forest spirits and prowl their
boarders at night. By doing this, they convince their
neighboring enemies never to invade their land.
If one is interested in anthropological curiosities, it is the type of fear which the Asaro Mudmen of New Guinea have learned to channel against their enemies, and I am also reminded in Hindu literature of Arjuna standing before the terrible transfigured Krishna. We are told Arjuna begged him to return to his common form and “was overwhelmed with wonder, and every hair was raised on end.”

Musical Examples

I know of several examples of this feeling expressed in music. I’ve clipped two here into sound bites.  The first is from an album entitled Mystery of the Yeti.  The artists who created it were Hindu influenced mystics with strong penchants for hallucinogenic drugs.  As misguided as their approach was, we shouldn't be too proud to sympathize with what they were pursuing.

In the album, they tell of a legend that the Yeti is a numinous god accessible through trance then paint a divine encounter with the being through sound.  The second example is from the first track in Shai Linne’s album The Attributes of God.  After being read one of Moses’s encounters with God, one drifts to imagining the desert and a foreboding holy presence:

(If you know of other examples of the Numinous in music please share them in the comments.)


So, we have a distinct and unique category of feeling that corresponds with the supernatural.  This feeling is something different from natural fear and appears in most ancient religions and especially the Bible.  One might say that the world's religions are attempts to interface with this emotion in its higher form.

This is just where the fun begins.  In part 2 we'll see why the mere existence of this feeling is a powerful philosophical argument that the divine exists.  We will respond to the mainstream naturalistic explanation of religion and asks where the heck this emotion has gone within contemporary Evangelicalism(!).  If weather permits we may even share an angel story or two and saunter around in some Mayan temples.

[1] The Problem of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable Intellectual Problems (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 17.
[2] The Idea of the Holy (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 16
[3] Contrary to what is often said, the word elohim did not just refer to a god in Biblical literature.  There are five beings which are called Elohim in scripture: angels, demons, the disembodied human dead, the 70 sons of God and YHWH, the God of Israel.  Dr. Heiser has pointed out that what all these beings share in common is that they belong to the non-human realm.  An Elohim then is simply any being which has a spiritual address.
[4] Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 18-19.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Ancient Hebrew Audio

I made this video of myself reading the Genesis Dead Sea Scroll fragment if pixels and parchment tickle your fancy.

If you suffer from Indiana Jones envy like myself, you may want to check out my free online Aramaic language course.

As for my views on the meaning of Genesis, you can read some of that in my exchange with Answers in Genesis' creation museum.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

How Fact and Opinion Worksheets Corrupt Children: Plato Flunks Common Core

I'm uncaging the philosopher in me to let him prance around a bit.  I promise to tranq him in the neck and shove him back in his cage to return to the serious business of writing on something terribly importantly serious like Babylonian entrail extispicy for you dismal theology and history majors that usually read this blog.

What are “Fact and Opinion” worksheets?
If Plato, Socrates or Aristotle took these tests, they'd flunk. De facto, they’re epistemological catechisms enforced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core. They usually teach a street variety of positivism, a philosophy declared dead by philosophers since the late 1970s.  

What’s positivism?
The drill sheets affirm positivism to the extent that they assume the self-refuting claim that only those things accessible to mathematics and the five senses (i.e. science) can be known.  I say this is self-refuting because such a claim cannot itself be verified by the five senses or mathematics. You will never meet a living professional philosopher who holds the view.

A. J. Ayer, who I’m informed was the Ivan Drago of positivism, reflected after its funeral, "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." And, amusingly, if sociologists like the Jewish-German Edmund Husserl in his Crisis of European Sciences are correct, the philosophy, particularly an extreme form called scientism, happened to coincide with a certain early 1940s German political movement (bit more on that towards the end).

Ok, I’ll humor your dystopian sci-fi plot since you contributed the word extispicy to my vocabulary, but how exactly do these worksheets plunge a soul sucking iron proboscis into the minds of our children?

Students are given worksheets rowed with statements and are asked if those statements are matters of fact or opinion.  A top website, from which I will be drawing my examples, clarifies:
“…I teach students that a fact is any statement that can be proven: ‘there are 10,000 feet in a mile.’ Even though this is incorrect, I teach students that this is still a fact…define a fact as any statement that can be proven true or false…”
In other words, the truth content of the following examples is irrelevant.  Following are categories that educators are teaching yield no knowledge in any way constituting proof or fact—namely, art, human purpose, morality and beauty. (Basically, everything that really matters.)


OPINION: “Popular music today is not as good as it was in the past.”

The answer key informs us sentences of this nature, regardless of truth content, belong to the realm of opinion—that some music cannot in fact be deemed better that other music or, if we were to cite other examples like “The huger games will be a great movie,” that the quality of all art is subjective opinion.  Have the authors really ever considered what this means?

You may not have a personal taste for a band like the Bloodhound Gang and such immortal hit lyrics as “You and me baby ain’t noth’ but mammals So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel,” but according to this view, one cannot dare assert the lyrics of Keats, Homer or Solomon are in any objective (read: real) sense better than these.  Since music cannot be put in a beaker, you cannot assert the knuckle-dragging superstition that the soaring eternal stillness of John Tavner’s Funeral Canticle is in any real sense better in its aesthetics and artistic content than the stochastic, vomiting of Pierre Schaeffer's musique concrete.

My mind drifts to an account of Rudolf Otto during a stay in Morocco:

It is Sabbath.  You find yourself in a grimy small apartment within the ancient city, sacred night falling.  In the street outside you hear the lifting of uncanny, ancient tongues, cantillating in style resembling Islamic chant.  The voices heave and soar, weaving into a pulsing chaos.  It is impossible to distinguish individual words.  Building, like the desperation of Tiamat writhing in her final moments.  Then, in a supernova of terror, the babble crashes into explosive unity: “Qadosh! Qadosh! Qadosh! Adonai ztevaot; melo col ha’arezt kevodo!” (Holy! Holy! Holy! Is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!)

Immediately, you are obliterated into nothing.  If all the mountains of the earth were to consume you, they could not hide your feeling of nakedness, and your terror is not of the common iron-blood sort.  No, it is that rare feeling of creeping flesh that most of us primarily will know from hearing a good ghost story. In this moment your mind holds communion of understanding with those who speak of the gods haunting these antique desert lands, and you have understood Isaiah who cried out “Woe to me! I am undone!”

Thanks for that mawkish theological reverie Ben, but how exactly can a thing like music be objective?

I agree there is room for subjectivity to art, but truth is objective, and does not music aim to teach truth to our guts and chests?  If this is the case for even some music then there must be music that conveys truth accurately and some that does so poorly or lies about truth all together. To this extent, the quality of music and other art is objective.

If it is true all people listen to music from some desire to become unified with the things the music is about, and if music is philosophy felt, and philosophy the pursuit of success—the department of education would have us be unified with all things indiscriminately, since success also is blacklisted as an epistemological phantasm.

OPINION: “The more money someone has the more successful they are.”

We are informed judgments of success like this cannot be proven true or false.  Other examples are easy to find.  The American Library Association tells us the statement, “People should be able to watch as much TV as they want,” is only opinion. But then, this demands that there is no provable chief purpose or end to man by which the actions of his life may be compared in order to call one life objectively more successful or better lived than another.

I work at an airport.  Once my coworker who has five children made the mistake of mentioning to a cargo pilot that she has lots of kids.  The pilot responded by telling her, “That was a stupid choice.  I chose not to have kids, and now I’m a millionaire.” What would you say to this man?  The authors of these worksheets could not take an opinion in the matter.  If they did, their own drill sheets would cry out against them.  They can offer no proof he is less or more successful for aiming his life at acquiring comfort and toys rather than laboring over children because success for them is a standard we each must create subjectively.

Not only does this doctrine declare war against all religions (since religions exist to inform us what truly successful living is), will not the educational ouroboros turn and devour itself?  Why do we send children to school or have them read about Harriet Tubman if there is not some objective standard of greatness we believe they are obligated to strive for? Why should youth steeped in Latin be deemed more successful than youth steeped in Family Guy reruns? (I assure you the latter will be more sociable.) If the aim of government is to promote a successful society, what will become of the society which repudiates the possibility of knowing facts about what success is?


OPINION: “Drug dealers belong in prison.”
OPINION: “Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.”
OPINION: “It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism”

Dr. McBrayer has already spanked these worksheet authors here for teaching children there are no moral facts.  I fear it’s condescending to the reader’s intelligence to elaborate what happens when a nation accepts the idea that there are no knowable laws above men’s laws. It is no coincidence that the Nazis appealed to legal positivism (specifically John Austin’s Command Theory) throughout the Nuremberg trials.  If there exists no universal moral law above men’s laws by which to compare men’s laws then there is no such thing as just law or unjust law, and law can never be said to have improved.  There is only the capricious Athenian mob ladling hemlock-punch into dixy cups for the MLKs, Antigones and Nelson Mandelas it doesn’t like.


OPINION: “The Hudson River is the most beautiful river in New York.”(source)
OPINION: “The ugliest sea creature is the manatee”
OPINION: “Popular music today is not as good as it was in the past.”
OPINION: “The most beautiful state…[is] Missouri.”(source)

“In my young days,” confessed one Sung critic, “I praised the master whose pictures I liked, but as my judgment matured I praised myself for liking what the masters had chosen to have me like.”[1] 

Until modern times, most men treated beauty as if it were something objective.  When I say “objective” I mean that beauty was, for them, located outside of the mind in reality.  It was possible for our emotional reactions to be proper or improper when beholding beauty, and it was possible for us to be right or wrong about what was beautiful [2].  Plato and Plotinus believed beauty existed in the realm of the Forms; a thing was beautiful to the degree that it mimicked this ultimate and perfect standard. Augustine asks whether “things are beautiful because they give pleasure, or give pleasure because they are beautiful.”  He argues the second to be true [3]. For him beauty was ontologically grounded in God: “This is the unchangeable truth which is the law of all the arts…"[4]

On this view of reality, beauty was a target at which we aimed.  We could make bad shots and good shots because the bull’s-eye was the standard.  It is this understanding of beauty that drove Polykleitos to sculpt his ‘Canon’ of the ideal masculine form, and seems the impetus of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian man [5]. It was the reason Coleridge could agree with a tourist who called a waterfall sublime while being upset with the other who misidentified it as something closer to “pretty,"[6] and it is the reason I once witnessed a boy spanked by his parents for looking out at the Grand Canyon at sunset and retorting, “It’s just a big stupid hole in the ground!”  Much of our philosophically impoverished education system will have none of this.  It largely trains children to parrot their catechism, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Lewis, who indicted the educators of his day for also teaching beauty is relative, also believed it is the very subtlety of these sorts of exercises which are dangerous:
“The very power of [textbook authors] depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is ‘doing’ his ‘English prep’ and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake.  It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.”
Ah, invoking a guy who wrote overrated unicorn books.  Why are you throwing a tantrum over the idea beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

When I say “This sequoia forest is beautiful” I am not merely saying something about my subjective emotional state. In fact, the creation of my subjective emotional state itself is founded in my belief that the sequoia forest really is beautiful.  But the Common Core’s metaphysic teaches us the object our emotional state is grounded in is a delusion.  It is as when you believe a ghost is in the room with you and so, it produces the appropriate emotion of terror.  Once you have investigated to discover your belief in the ghost was a delusion, nothing demands your reaction of fear.  You cannot remove the heart and expect blood to keep pumping.  The forest really is not beautiful, and so, when I feel a thing is beautiful that feeling does not correspond with reality; the feeling is a crock! It has lied about what is there in reality.  We have a word for that which only exist “in the eye of the beholder” but not objectively in reality: Hallucination.

Conclusion (from a guy who hates writing conclusions):

These worksheets are, of course, gnomic of a larger problem: Our society, and so, our educational system, largely believes and propagates the idea there is no world beyond Plato’s cave. If art, human purpose, morality and beauty are matters of the heart, then society maniacally stands over us chanting “Kali ma! Kali ma!” as she rummages around in our chest cavity.  But your classroom doesn’t need to be a 1980s-Hollywood human sacrifice scene.  With just a toothpick of philosophy even your children can vanquish the majority of the world’s armies of lobotomized empiricist zombies and their slings and arrows of stupid party lines about opinions being armpits everyone is entitled to and beauty being a delusion in the eye of the beholder.

But most importantly…..

*pulls dart out of neck*


[1] Quoted by Kakuzo Okakura, “Art Appreciation” in The Book of Tea.
[2] See Lewis, The Abolition of Man: or Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 25.  See also, Crispin Sartwell, “Beauty.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014), [on-line], accessed 7 April 2014,

[3] Augustine, Earlier Writings, ed. J.H. Burleigh (New York: WJK Publishing, 1953), 255.
[4] Ibid., 254.
[5] Note on Vitruvian and canon sculpture
[6] This story is preserved originally in Dorothy Wordsworth, Recollection of a Tour Made in Scotland A.D. 1803. ed. J. C. Shairp, (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1874), 37.  My interpretation (and translation of the original term “beautiful” to “pretty” for clarification derives from Lewis, Ibid., 14ff.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Learn Aramaic Online Free

Link to the Aramaic course

This article by a best-selling memory researcher I found several months ago is the most beneficial I've ever read on language study, and less than two months after applying it my Hebrew vocabulary has increased by over 1,000 words.  (You can watch a video of my progress speaking modern Hebrew here.)

Joshua Foer, the author of Moonwalking with Einstein, found he would be spending the summer in the Congo with a tribe of pygmies and endeavored to learn their native language in a couple of months before his trip.  To accomplish this he consulted the world memory Grandmaster Ed Cooke.  Cooke, who himself has an MA in cognitive science from Paris Descartes University, shared with Foer his new free online learning company called Memrise that he co-founded with a Princeton neuroscientist.

Using the app for two and a half months Foer locked 1,100 African words into his long term memory. On average, he only spent four minutes at a time on the app during down time at his job. The total combined time it took him to memorize his 1,100 word dictionary was 22 hours. I’ve experienced very similar results with Hebrew.

By using weird (in this case a little creepy) and comical
visualizations, I've created the Aramaic memory course to help lock
vocabulary into your mind.  Here the 
the word for strength, 'Chaiyl'
is associated with high heels.  Users can
 contribute their own
memory tricks.
Users create memory courses in any subject, especially languages.  Everything on the website undergoes aggressive empirical testing to optimize memory.  Small variables on the site are changed and honed regularly to discover what variations contribute to learning.  For example, Foer mentions that it was discovered people learn 0.5% better when flash cards are in one font as opposed to another and that Memrise’s servers discovered averages for how well people tend to learn given the hour of the day.

The website also takes advantage of well-known studies on spaced repetition.  When you want to memorize something, there are well-documented optimal time intervals for reviewing it just before the memory slips from your mind.  Memrise's algorithms keep track of how well you are doing on each word and informs you of the optimal time for reinforcing each memory.

The most valuable feature of the site is its community database of memory devices.  When you take a course you can flip through a pile of memory tricks that other users have created for each word.  The memory devices that get the most votes ascend to the top of the pile.  The ones I've created for this course are informed by the mnemonic methods advocated by leading memory experts in international competitions and by the majority of polyglots.

I’m currently studying Aramaic with Mike Heiser’s online institute (can't more highly recommend it, by the way) so I rummaged around in Memrises' Aramaic courses and found none of them satisfying. (Apparently, Aramaic isn’t hot with the kids.)  I created this course over several months for my personal benefit and in the hopes that it may help some educators and students.
Some more examples of mnemonics from the course

The primary aim of the course is to give you the vocabulary fundamentals to access 90% of the texts in the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible.  Every word has a pronunciation audio and phrase translations are utilized to help get you reading. You can log into Memrise immediately if you already have a facebook.  The course is titled "Aramaic Frequent Vocab w/Audio and Mems (Van Pelt)."

There's also a free Memrise smartphone app that I tend to do most of my studying on.  The app is great because it will give you non-invasive notifications whenever it is the optimal time to refresh your memories.  It also has replaced my meaningless impulse to constantly waste time on social media.  Below is a screen shot of what the app environment looks like.  The course covers 17 chapters.

Happy studying!

Monday, March 2, 2015

Seven Headed Plesiosaurs and Hebrew Grammar

I’ve shown in several posts like this why Leviathan is a supernatural west-Semitic chaos deity and can’t be a plesiosaur. Recent conversation with my Hebrew professor on some of the Semitic sources has got the subject in the back of my mind again. One issue I still get challenged on is my assertion the Hebrew grammar of Psalm 74 says that Leviathan has multiple heads like the Hydra of Greek myth.  (In Ancient Near Eastern drawings and texts Leviathan is characteristically depicted with seven.)  Exhibit A is a screen shot of some misinformed comments made on Ken Ham’s Facebook in response to some of my old writings:

Psalm 74:14 reads:

אַתָּ֣ה רִ֭צַּצְתָּ רָאשֵׁ֣י לִוְיָתָ֑ן תִּתְּנֶ֥נּוּ מַ֝אֲכָ֗ל לְעָ֣ם לְצִיִּֽים

“You crushed the heads of Leviathan.  You gave him for food to the people of the coast.”

In the construct package ראשי לויתן the term ראש appears in the plural state in conjunction with the singular noun לויתן.  This type of sere-yod plural noun construction to a following singular noun is extremely common in the Bible.  If you have taken a semester of Hebrew, you hardly need to be told this.*  If not, a very close grammatical phenomenon is visually apparent in a text like Micah 3.9: שִׁמְעוּ-נָא זֹאת, רָאשֵׁי בֵּית יַעֲקֹב.  Notice, the plural “heads” is joined by the same construct ending to the singular “house of Jacob.”   The laws of the grammar God’s words were inspired in demand that Leviathan has multiple heads in Psalm 74. 

Can we stop throwing millions of dollars into museums and speakers based on bad Hebrew grammar?

And stop speculating the physiological logistics of dinosaurs fire-breathing?

And stop singing songs like this:

Glad I got that out of my system one last time.

* For example, Russell T. Fuller, Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 61-7.'s Remarkably Stupid Historical Jesus Article

A Muslim friend showed me this  viral article about Jesus by Valerie Tarico entitled, “9 Things You Think You Know about Jesus that are Probably Wrong.”

In this post, I don't care about convincing anyone to be a conservative evangelical.  I’m mostly here to spank Salon for playing with the loaded gun of history like a 7 year old in a 3:00 AM government ad. Weather permitting, we may even cut a line or two about the importance of integrity in media.

No Historical Jesus scholar, ultra-liberal to conservative could read through the article without laughing, yet, it has blackened social media like an oil spill.  I'm also ticked these Da Vinci Code myths are eternally being slayed only to reincarnate for sequels like a mummy in a Brandon Fraser franchise.

The screenshots of Tarico's claims are followed by responses:

It would be sooo unusual if Jesus was celibate, he must have married:

Tarico’s source is a psychologist who wrote a Huffington piece. He gives no sources for his claim.  Bart D. Ehrman, the most famous American New Testament historian alive (and probably the most disliked by evangelical believers), ain't amused with this position:

Bart Ehrman: "Yes, my house does contain
many leather bound books and
smells of rich mahogany."
Sometimes it is argued—for example, in The Da Vinci Code—that Jesus must have been married... [T]his claim, as plausible as it sounds, is in fact wrong. We do know of Jewish men in the first century who were single and celibate. Strikingly, they are men who shared a religious perspective similar to that of the historical Jesus… The like-minded Essenes before Jesus and the like-minded Paul after him—all of them apocalyptic Jewish men—lived life as single and celibate. It is not at all implausible that Jesus did as well.  [1]

Ehrman also points out that Jesus taught there would be no marriage in the kingdom of heaven and regularly implied that we should seek to model the kingdom on earth: “On these grounds, my best guess as a historian is that Jesus was single and celibate.”[2]

I’m not just picking the view of one idiomatic scholar.  Anthony Le Donne has recently written the most significant study on the possibility of a Mrs. Jesus in the English language and concluded the same thing as Ehrman:  Jesus probably wasn’t married...Sorry if that's boring.

The gay Jesus tease:

No Salon article containing the word "Jesus" could exist without also containing the word "gay" at least once.  It's just one of those laws of nature. Since I’ve said Jesus likely wasn’t married, I’ll provide two reasons why it is utterly unlikely Jesus was gay:

1) Every source we have has him declaring the Hebrew Bible authoritative and it was the Hebrew Bible that every second-Temple Jewish text that makes a judgment on homosexuality was informed by when they monolithically pronounce homosexuality sinful. (That was a long sentence.) Second-Temple Jewish writings take a “univocal stance against homosexual conduct.”[3] Jesus never brings the specific subject up in the gospels for the same reason I rarely go around teaching people pedophilia is wrong in my 21st century American context.  It wasn’t a matter of moral controversy for the Jewish context of his ministry.

2) Galatians is an undisputed Pauline in which Paul swears he hung out with Peter fifteen days in Jerusalem and with Jesus’ brother James. Later, him and the muchachos (including John) met to bust theological kneecaps at the Jerusalem council. Weird his friends forgot to forward him the memo about Jesus being the only member of Judea’s rainbow initiative--especially since homo-sex had him constantly fighting off a room full of angry wet cats in his Corinth church plant. 

The Gospel of Philip *sigh*:

Ah! Yes! Those boring four Gospels composed within the 1st century with earlier independent sources and Aramaic allusions are pronounced by Tarico to be a hopeless historical mess.  "Only a set of hunches and traditions." Who cares about them anyways? Your grandmother? The kids want explosions!

But fear not reader! You need a gospel more spiritually auuuthentic--like those Sanskrit tattoos Angelina Jolie has.  And preferably one allegedly suppressed by a male Catholic conspiracy. The uber-sexy 3rd century, spiritually abstruse, Gnostic Gospel of Phillip--written by someone with no historical contact with Jesus or his followers--has donned his tights and will deliver the Historical Jesus to us like a damsel in his rippling biceps; This Jesus has a Hollywood crush on, get this, Mary Magdalene (who I assure you was a pale, redhead fox).  Is there no end to the sexiness of this formulaic forbidden-love movie pitch?

Unfortunately, reality is much more boring.  The big name New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg writes, “Philip is dependent primarily on Matthew’s Gospel for his information about Jesus...he reveals next to nothing about the pre-Synoptic stages of the Gospel tradition.” [4]

I should point out, the Philip manuscript doesn’t read Jesus used to kiss Mary "on her mouth."  That reading must be supplied by the imagination because there is a physical hole in the manuscript.[5] We can’t be certain the original read “kiss her on her mouth” unless we discover more textual-critical evidence.  Tarico is aware of this complicating factor but has omitted the detail in this article.

We as modern readers immediately associate the kissing in this text with sex, but there are good reasons to believe Philip’s ancient audience wouldn’t. Christian kissing has a long history in the early church and Philip has an entire mystical interpretation of it that is applied to all the disciples.[6]

In Ehrman's opinion, “When Jesus kisses Mary, then, it is not a prelude to sex. It is a symbolic statement that she received the revelation of truth that he conveyed to his disciples.”

A wedding? 

Tarico's evidence from the canonical gospels that Jesus and Mary were hitched is exegetical voodoo. These are literally “clues” we must “decode.”  She holds a seance with the dead ghost of the Da Vinci Code then channels its moldy words into pixels so it can haunt a fresh audience again. She speculates John 2’s report of a wedding is actually Jesus’ wedding to Mary.  If this is true can someone please explain to me why Jesus had to be “invited” (ἐκλήθη) to his own wedding (2:2)?  Also, who goes immediately to stay with momma after their wedding ceremony (2:12)? And why is Mary always distinguished from the other Marys in the gospels by the fact that she was from Magdala?  Why didn’t the gospel writers just say Jesus’ wife (or at least the ancient Greek equivalent for Boo Thang?)  I’m sure it’s all just part of the international Catholic misogynistic conspiracy.

Jesus' Celestial Posse:

Odd Tarico thinks it’s an open case whether Jesus had 12 disciples.  I specifically recall the specialist in Christian origins John Dickson at Macquarie University listing the 12 disciples as a point most historians agree on during an interview.  Professor of New Testament Scott McKnight confirms, “that Jesus associated himself especially with twelve of his followers is a datum firmly established by good arguments across a broad spectrum of modern Jesus studies.”[8] In 1994 J. P. Meier concluded in the Journal of Biblical literature: “When one draws together the position emerges as clearly the more probable: the circle of the Twelve did exist during Jesus’ public ministry.[9]

Tarico's anachronistic astrological claims:

The gospels imply Jesus was making a theological statement about renewing the twelve tribes of Israel.  Why does Tarico think this is astrology and not history? If you follow her link for this source it takes you to an interview on her blog by a Dr. Tony Nugent.  In that interview Nugent includes the twelve tribes of Israel and 12 disciples in a list of things that “have their roots in [the]…twelve signs of the zodiac…”

This thesis is impossible because the zodiac wasn’t reduced into the twelve constellations until the 5th century BC by the Babylonians.[10]  The twelve tribes of Israel are reported far earlier.  Secular dating of the Genesis sources have the twelve tribes mentioned earlier than the ninth century BC.[11]  It's tremendously anachronistic to say allusions to the number twelve in the Hebrew Bible are taken from the zodiac.

 Off topic, but believe it or not, it’s actually true that the origin of eggs being sold by the dozen goes back to astrology.

Actually, no. It’s not.  I lied.

Hunches shrouded in the fog of history?

Tarico’s attitude is that our historical grasp of Jesus is the epistemological equivalent of chasing a greased, ghost pig naked in a skating rink. (I'm bad with metaphors lately.)  Every time we extend our noetic clutches, the greasy, ectoplasmal sow of history flits through our grapples leaving us with little more than a haze of hunches. (That was an elegant sentence.  I think I'll make it into one of those cursive, sidebar-quote things.)  In reality, it's extremely popular for scholars to date the history-bursting creed in 1 Corinthians 15 to the mid-to-late 30’s. Just to be obnoxious I'll plunder 13 big-name examples from Habermas' doctoral dissertation.

I'm told lists like this bore readers, but it's full of German umlaut dots that are supposed to impress you.

Oscar Cullmann (University of Paris); Reginald Fuller (Virginia Seminary); Pannenberg (University of Munich); Wilckens (Berlin Theological College); Hengel (University Tübingen); Marxsen (Westfälische Wilhelms University); Conzelmann (University of Göttingen); Hans-Ruedi Weber; A.M. Hunter (University Aberdeen, Scotland) Raymond E. Brown (Union Theological Seminary); Norman Perrin (University Chicago); George E. Ladd (Fuller Theological); Neufeld (‎University of Waterloo).

We have a written record of a crucified, risen, messianic figure who was believed to have appeared to great numbers after his death within less than a decade after his execution.  Ehrman’s book on Jesus’ Existence illustrates how the synoptic sources can be grounded in sufficiently early Aramaic culture.  The celebrated scholar Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses argues the gospel sources link us with eyewitness testimony.  There are huge doubts about certain elements and logions of Jesus’ career, and I’m not interested in regurgitating the banal apologetics party lines here.

Nevertheless, Tarico’s position ain't reflective of modern Historical Jesus studies. Michael Bird, who has written a survey of the state and direction of the current situation, writes: “The dominant view today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”[12]  Craig Evan’s assessment of our current place in historical Jesus studies concludes the same, “the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable.” 

Jesus...If He Even Existed:

You know that hopeless frustration you get when a creationist tells you there isn’t a shred of evidence for evolution?  Now you know how New Testament scholars feel when your friends parrot the idea that Jesus may not have even existed.

This is not something the field considers itself uncertain of.  Thanks to the ubiquity of this internet myth, I happen to have several dozen quotes by New Testament scholars on hand refuting it.  I’ve narrowed them down to seven for brevity:

William Lane Craig who did his dissertation in historical Jesus studies under the celebrity German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg states:“[The position that Jesus never existed ]…this is a position which is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement.  It doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.”[13]

Before he went on to write his book explaining why we know Jesus existed, Bart Ehrman once said in interview, “I don’t think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus...we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”[14]

Paul Maier professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan states in interview: “Anyone who uses that argument [that Jesus never existed] is simply flaunting his ignorance. I hate to say it but it’s about that bad.”[15]

Gary Habermas who I reference because his dissertation surveyed the positions of critical historical Jesus scholars among a variety of topics states, “With very, very, few exceptions virtually no scholar doubts or denies that Jesus existed.”[16]

Graeme Clarke Senior Lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia has been quoted stating, “Frankly, I know of no ancient historian who would ever twinge with doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.”[17]

John Dickson Senior Research Fellow with the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University has become so annoyed with this claim that he wrote:
[It] is simply wrong to refer to "many professional historians" who doubt the existence of Jesus… To repeat a challenge I've put out on social media several times before, I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university somewhere in the world (there are thousands of names to choose from) who thinks Jesus never lived. I don't deny that there are substantial questions that could be raised about the Christian faith, but the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth isn't one of them.[18]
Head of New Testament Studies at the Swedish University of Gothenburg Gunnar Samuelsson writes:
I see no reason to doubt that Jesus existed. In comparison to other ancient individuals he is well represented by the ancient sources.[19]
(Someone is going to get mad after reading the above quotes and ask why I haven't even mentioned Carrier and Price.  So there, I mentioned them.)

I'm tempted to continue my tantrum over the link in the article that leads to Tarico’s website.  It claims most scholars hold certain positions that most scholars emphatically reject. For example, Tarico says the gospel story about the women at the tomb is believed by most scholars to be a mythological fiction based in earlier myths.  In reality, this element of the gospel sources is considered one of our most reliable according to Gary Habermas who surveyed more than 1,400 scholarly publications on the historical Jesus in German, French and English. (The testimony of women was so repudiated in the first century that this embarrassing element in the sources wouldn't have been contrived by Christians.) [20]  Modern scholars don't interpret the mystery religions into the gospels because there was little footing for them in 1st century Judea unlike Alexandrian Judaism.


 Some of Tarico’s points in her click-bait article are generally accurate.[21]  Despite these, the article contains so much historical puerility and so many allusions idiomatic to sensationalist conspiracy writers that I would rather it not be read at all. I'm aware my words have been harsh, but I deem them appropriate considering Tarico's ideas have been spotlighted by Salon, Huffington and Alternet.  I'd like to think Salon and Alternet would update corrections to this article they are "proud to feature."

Update: and Alternet made no significant corrections to the article (7/15/2015)

[1] Ehrman, Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (USA: Oxford University Press, 2006), 249-50.
[2] Ibid., 250-1.
[3] See chapter two and three of Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics Nashville: Abington Press, 2001).
[4] Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2 ed. (USA: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 270.
[5] Paul, Foster, The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009),47.
[6]  For example, Ehrman (Peter, Paul & Mary, 216.) cites this earlier passage from Philip for contextual consideration:
It is from being promised to the heavenly place that man receives nourishment.
[Gap in the manuscript] him from the mouth. And had the word gone out from
that place it would be nourished from the mouth and it would become perfect.
For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also
kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace that is in one another.
[7] Ehrman 215.
[8] McKnight, "Jesus and the Twelve,"
[9] Meier, J. P. "The Circle of the Twelve : Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?." Journal Of Biblical Literature 116, no. 4 (1997): 635-672. New Testament Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2015).
[10] Ulla Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (Museum Tusculanum Press: Coppenhagen, 1995), 163.

The most significant innovation was perhaps the zodiac, the division of
the ecliptic into twelve equal parts or signs. It replaced the earlier series
of 17 constellations on the "Path of the Moon." The zodiac
was first used in Babylonian astronomy in the fifth century B.C.

[11]  Ronald Hendel, The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception and Interpretation, ed. Evans et. al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 80.
[12] Bird, “Shouldn’t Evangelicals Participate in the ‘Third Quest for the Historical Jesus’?”
Themelios 29.2 (Spring 2004): 5-14.
[13] The following quotes are taken from a video and audio compilation “Do Historians Believe Jesus Existed.” YouTube video, 6:05. Dec 27, 2010.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] John Dickson, “I’ll Eat a Page from my Bible if Jesus didn’t Exist,” The Drum (blog).
[19] Samuelsson. "Questions and Answers."
[20] Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?” Gary
[21] Eg. We know from osteological reconstructions what early Judeans looked like; textual data on crucifixion is complex and ambiguous; the gospel writers sought typological parallels between Jesus and other Hebrew figures; the passage about the woman caught in adultery is in fact the late conflation of two traditions.