Apologia Pro Ortho Doxa

For those who are interested, I am now posting daily scripture reflections six days a week on Substack and Patreon. Half of those posts are available to everyone, while half are exclusive to paid subscribers and patrons of all tiers ($5 per month). In the past two weeks, I've written about forty pages. If you've enjoyed my writing in the past, please consider subscribing. Please keep this project in your prayers. If you would pray Psalm 1 for me, I would very much appreciate that!

This is in answer to the question of how we can say that the betrayal of Judas is an objective evil, given that it is the very instrument by which God liberates mankind from sin. That betrayal launched the greatest thing that ever occurred- how could we say, objectively, that it is evil?

Thanks very much for the good question.

Here is the short version of the answer: whether an act is good or evil depends on the goal towards which an act is directed by a purposeful, intentional being. Only in the context of personhood do categories like "intention" as distinct from instinct make sense. persons have an articulate idea in their mind as to what they seek to accomplish by a given action- to the extent that we are just "doing stuff" for no disernible reason, we are drifting from our growth into personal beings destined for inclusion in the loving relation of Father, Son, and Spirit.) An evil act is an act done for a purpose that is opposed to the purpose for which we were made- it is dehumanizing in the fullest sense. But in God's providential order, even when the human will acts for the sake of evil, that intention is always thwarted: where God permits evil to occur (of course, by definition, those evil things that God prevents from happening are things that we don't see because they didn't happen! He is exercising constant and very powerful restraint on evil at every moment), the *movement* that is inherent in what it means to *act* will always lead to a final result that is in harmony with perfect goodness. God cuts the act from the intention for which it was carried out on the human level.

Here is the far longer and more developed version of this answer:

Deuteronomy 7:7 speaks of the election of Israel in the patriarchal period: the rest of the book is clear that their lack of numbers is a past reality. It was their multiplication which led to Pharaoh's fear.

(Deuteronomy 10:22) Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven.

(Deuteronomy 1:8-11) See, I have set the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them.' "At that time I said to you, 'I am not able to bear you by myself. The Lord your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. May the Lord, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you!

The other passage often suggested to support the smaller number is the number of firstborn sons in the Book of Numbers. This, however, misses details of the texts which make clear that the judgment was passed out not to every son who was the oldest, but to those firstborn children younger than five in a lex talionis judgment on Pharaoh's murder of Israel's children. Steven Wedgeworth summarizes James Jordan's work here:

Some commentators have tried to solve this dilemma by suggesting that the Israelites practiced some form of mass adoption, but this is an argument without textual basis. Upon closer inspection, however, the problem is actually resolvable without such appeals, and the key is found in the specifics of the redemption price given in Num. 3 and Leviticus 27. Num. 3:47 says that the redemption price for each of these firstborn sons was 5 shekels. Lev. 27:6 (which appears in my Bible’s interlinear notes at Num. 3:47) explains that the 5 shekel price was specific to sons between the ages of 1 month and 5 years. Therefore, the 22,273 figure from Num. 3:43 is not every firstborn son, but rather all firstborns between the ages of 1 month and 5 years. With this added perspective we are no longer limited to the 22,273 number as the total number of family units available, and thus our apparent contradiction ceases to be.

The obvious question is about the history- "Egypt didn't record their defeats" obviously won't do. This cannot be covered up. That requires a revised chronology, which I have discussed elsewhere. There is a moment in Egyptian history where the civilization utterly collapses and which is followed by an upheaval in Canaan, with appropriate destruction layers in Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and other cities. (on this, check the search function on the blog- a popular presentation, which is quite good though of course not perfect, is found in "Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus"- though I am not parroting this and was aware of this important data prior to the release of the film).

An excellent discussion of this issue, from which the above quotation comes, is here:

The doctrine of the energies is Christological in its core- and the word "energeia" is the Aristotelian word for "actuality" in contrast to potentiality. So the question at hand is the innate character of existent things according to the actuality proper to their nature (usually this feature of the concept is expressed in the language of propria or properties). At bottom, however, Palamite theology is an elucidation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Christ has two natures and two energeia. The controversy over the two energies of Christ was at least as important to the Council as was the controversy over the two wills of Christ. So the operation is both proper to the nature and not reducible to that nature.

While there is development in the history of Christian doctrine, such development is objectively identifiable in its continuity with the Apostolic profession of the Church in all ages. So Palamas and his theological heirs- Neilos and Nicholas Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, Gennadius of Constantinople, and so forth- carefully teased out a particular aspect of the Christian mystery according to the issues most important to their era.

Here is a piece of mine which tries to develop the theme of the doctrine of the essence-energies distinction in its appropriate- trinitarian and incarnational- setting:

Sometimes one misses the most obvious things in the Bible until they are pointed out. God describes the Torah in its literary conclusion (Deuteronomy 30:15) as *both* the Tree of Life *and* the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God has set before the nation "life" as well as "death", "good" as well as "evil."

The above is the obvious aspect. Some additional thoughts on its meaning and significance:

At the most concrete level, the Torah is literally written on plants- that's where paper comes from, ancient and modern. And we read in this very chapter that the Torah as the word of God shall be "in your mouth" and "in your heart" when the redemption takes place. Thus Ezekiel is described as eating a scroll in a vision. This is the basis for the symbolic importance of "chewing the cud" in Leviticus 11- and it literally provides the etymological foundation for our English definition of "ruminate" as pertaining to intellectual consideration of a matter repeatedly- the word and its Latin root literally refer to physical chewing of the cud.

The noun for "knowledge" used in Genesis 2-3 is not common- it appears precisely seven times- a couple times with reference to the Spirit's illumination of Bezalel of Judah so that he might creatively restructure the world into an image of the life of Heaven itself: the tabernacle. Then it is used in Numbers to refer to the revelation of the messianic word. As Eve's eyes were opened in partaking of the tree of knowledge- knowledge too exalted for her- so also Balaam gazes with "uncovered eyes" at the naked revelation of the inner significance of the whole Torah: it is the revelation of the Messiah, the King, He who is the Archetype for all creation and thus the tabernacle. Like Eve, Balaam's mistake is fatal.

Therein lies the significance of the way in which these threads are tied up. The Torah- and this holds true for the entirety of divine revelation- is both a Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge, but one must chew before one swallows. And that means that one will not only ruminate, but also walk on the way of God in obedience to His commandments. When Adam and Eve were exiled, we are told that the "way" into the garden was closed. Thereafter, the imagery of "walking" in a precisely specified path or road is used with increasing significance. Abraham is to "walk before" God and be perfect. God walks before Israel as He splits the Red Sea and they are bound by the wall of water on the "right" and "left." Obedience means to "turn neither to the right nor to the left." And Moses himself is transfigured in being placed in relation to God's walking *forwards.* Moses' face glows with God's face because Moses follows God's back. (see Exodus 33-34) Thus the word "halacha" meaning application of divine instruction is derived from this word: "halach" or "walk."

Like the point about rumination, this appears in the dietary code. A clean animal is one who has a hoof which is split. (equivalent properties are designated for birds and fish). The hoof separates the animal from the ground which bears the curse of death (Genesis 3) and the split allows for exactitude and precision of movement. "Look carefully then how you walk", says Paul, "not as unwise but as wise." (Ephesians 5:15ff) So just as Ezekiel is the image of the meaning of the dietary code in his consuming a scroll as food, so also here: filled with the Spirit which animates the wheels of God's Chariot, he becomes a chariot of God. He is separated from the death-dealing ground because the Spirit takes hold of him and he *flies* here there and everywhere. The exactitude and precision of motion is underscored in the right angles according to which the wheels are placed in mutual relation. And by the end of the book, Ezekiel is measuring to perfection the designs for the messianic city-temple which is the church. (Ezekiel 40-48, esp. 45:3-11).

Virtually no robust work has been done to extend and develop the hypothesis of Donovan Courville that the Middle and Old Kingdoms were not distinct periods of time, but must be integrated together as naming concurrent dynasties or the  same dynasty by different names. Because the exodus and conquest fits so beautifully into the end of both Old and Middle Kingdoms (both end in a dark age) and because this is the only conceivable way to understand the relation of Egypt to the short chronology of the Bible, I believe this to be true. But I wish there were more done on it.

But then when skimming the web on Egyptian history and archaeology, I find stuff like this:

the lower part of a statue of Pharaoh Nyuserre of the 5th Dynasty has been found in Karnak. Another statue which was dedicated by the 12th Dynasty king Senusret may have been usurped and re-used, since the statue bears a cartouche of Nyuserre on its belt.

Now, this is from wikipedia, so take that as you will. But I do find things like this fairly frequently. Little details and throwaway lines- repeated observations in Middle Kingdom sites that the pottery and architecture seems to “return to the style of the Old Kingdom” or texts from the Middle Kingdom which feature pharaohs alleged to be from centuries before as if they were in the recent past. This is particularly striking, as we see a demonstrably Middle Kingdom (Dynasty 12) statue with the royal seal (cartouche) of a pharaoh of the Old Kingdom! The explanation that this has been “usurped and re-used” is ad hoc and does not have anything (that is apparent to me- which isn’t saying all that much until I can dig out the details on this) to commend it compared to the hypothesis that the separation between these two periods is a phantasm- all things being equal. This is not to suggest bad will at all- I don’t think anyone has even remotely considered the idea that this might be a possibility to take into account in analyzing new data. 

How important it is to simply notice the words of the biblical text- consider, for example, the word "know." We read of the tree of "knowledge." The serpent says that God "knows" a truth He is concealing for His own benefit and to their loss. But then Adam and Eve "knew" they were naked. Then Adam "knew" his wife. Cain lies to God and says he does not "know" where Abel is.

We trace this thread down to the flood- and again there is a reference to knowledge in connection to a tree- an olive tree. The olive tree produces oil- liquid light which illumines the creation. As Eve extended her hand to grasp what God had forbidden, Noah put out his hand to receive the dove he had sent forth. And he does what Adam did not: he *waited.* He waited "another seven days", and the dove returns with an olive leaf. And as before, knowledge is involved: "So Noah knew the waters had subsided from the earth." (Genesis 8:11) The word is used one final time in Genesis 9, where it is Noah issuing a judgment: he "knew" what his son had done to him.

It is only that piece of information about which he expresses uncertainty, and the very fact that he does express uncertainty specifically about this information undermines the attempt to dismiss the text as unreliable in its whole! Even here, however, it would be a mistake to call this “uncertainty.” Papias is reporting what "some claim”, but he does not agree with this claim. Papias describes these women as “these four.” That makes it obvious that he did not agree with those who identified Salome and Mary the wife of Clopas. He qualifies nothing else here, which attests to the degree of confidence in his source- confidence which comes from the fact that the relatives of Jesus were still in authority in the church of Jerusalem in Papias' day, and Papias was a student of the caretaker of the Virgin Mary. Papias' testimony on this point is corroborated by a host of undesigned coincidences I mentioned in my last post.

Papias’ care in identifying sources and views which he does not hold demonstrates precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting- it tells us that Papias will inform us of any alternative view or tradition! That he does not do so in his identification of the relatives of the Lord tells us that there was no alternative tradition known to him.

I want to begin by stating directly the most important facts on this matter- as they are actually quite clear- clearer than even many Catholic and Orthodox scholars have recognized.

Matthew tells us explicitly that Jesus' adelphoi have a different mother than the Virgin Mary. Here is their first appearance:

(Matthew 13:55) Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

(Matthew 27:55-56) There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Were this the mother of Jesus, she undoubtedly would have been identified as such. So in the very gospel which introduces to us James and Joseph as relatives of Jesus, their mother is explicitly identified as someone other than Jesus' mother. Are we really to believe that Matthew, having already introduced a "James and Joseph" in that order, later identifies a Mary as "mother of James and Joseph" in the same order while intending us to recognize that this is a completely different James and Joseph?! We know that this Mary, mother of James and Joseph, was at the cross of Jesus. John 19 identifies her from another perspective:

(John 19:25) but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

The puzzle fits together very neatly in a way that is very unlikely to be accidental. Where one gospel identifies a Mary, "the mother of James and Joseph" at the cross- having identified a James and Joseph earlier as relatives of Jesus- another gospel identifies a Mary at the cross of Jesus who is a relative of the Virgin Mary!

The identification of these relatives as children of this other Mary- and thus cousins- is made not by late Christian theologians subject to legendary influences, but by Papias of Hieropolis, one of our most esteemed witnesses to early Christian history. To be clear, Papias had proactively sought out the witnesses of Jesus' ministry, had engaged extensively with the apostle John, and provides us our earliest explicit testimony of the authorship of at least the first two gospels (while no fragment on the other two gospels has been quoted, there is much circumstantial evidence that he also attested to the Lukan and Johannine authorship of these gospels). Papias is writing based on firsthand knowledge, and he is writing while Jesus' family is still managing the church of Jerusalem! [Though it should be noted that some scholars have sought to attribute this fragment to a different, medieval Papias. I find the argument for this to be very weak- basically that Jerome should have cited it if it were available.]

The same is possibly true for Hesegippus, who identifies a certain "Symeon" (cf. Mark 6:3- "James and Joses and Judas [i.e. Jude] and Simon] as a cousin of Jesus and successor to the episcopate of James- while the phrase has been variously interpreted, Hesegippus seems to refer to Symeon as another cousin- in context, then, James is also established as cousin.

Papias alone is an extraordinary witness- do we really think that Papias, having learned at the feet of the apostle to whom Mary was entrusted, committed such an extraordinary blunder?

Now, to the meaning of the word and the reason that it is used in the NT.

The reference to Abraham and Lot is certainly more than figurative: the bond of mutual obligation was rooted in their kinship: i.e. they were of the same household and family. The kind of sharp distinction made between a sibling and cousin implied in your question makes sense only if the nuclear family alone has significance. But the significant organism, in scripture, is the household. And the household exists in a series of gradations. The house of David, the house of Judah, the house of Israel. Each of these is a family name, under whose umbrella all members would be considered "brothers" in the respective context. In the New Testament, we see that the family of Jesus held a special place. Acts opens:

(Acts 1:13-15) And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120)

Notice the relationship between the blood relations and the adoptive relation of the Church. The church is a microcosmic society, sending out its tendrils of life for the first time from a single household: Twelve Apostles in an extended family of 120, matching the twelve tribes. This is why the physical household (again, we are about to find that the Spirit descends to make the church His household or temple) is mentioned along with Mary the mother of Jesus. Notice how the brothers of Jesus are mentioned as His kin relations immediately before Peter addresses the disciples of Jesus as "brothers." This will continue throughout Acts. We see in 1 Corinthians 9 how the "Brothers of the Lord" are a distinct group- next in significance to the Apostles:

(1 Corinthians 9:5) Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Observe the use of the Aramaic Cephas here. "Brothers of the Lord" is a title for a special group within the apostolic church, just as "the Twelve" is used in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 despite the actual appearance being referred to only involving eleven disciples. The Aramaic background helps answer your question as there is no Aramaic word for cousin- it would need to be stated in clunky terms like "son of my uncle."

An interesting little detail in the ending of Mark when read in light of the other Gospels. John was known to the family of the high priest according to the Fourth Gospel and appears to have some connections with Jerusalem. He also was at the foot of the cross with the women as Jesus died. We also know that Peter followed Jesus into Jerusalem for much of the Passion while the other nine of the eleven disciples fled. This helps us understand the way the resurrection narratives hang together. Mary Magdalene and the other women go to the tomb- Mary Magdalene runs first and goes to see Peter and John, who then run to the tomb. All involved parties then regather to debrief in Bethany, where the other nine of the eleven had fled and were staying. Clues in the text of the gospels indicate this broader narrative that tends towards harmonization: Mary Magdalene, talking to Peter and John, uses the first person plural to describe her experience at the tomb- we know there were multiple women involved from John alone. Likewise, in Luke, the two disciples on the Emmaus road refer to Peter's running to confirm the emptiness of the Tomb- but refers to it with a third person plural: again confirming what John tells us, that Peter was with at least one other person.

The road between Jerusalem and Bethany provides the appropriate location for the appearance of Jesus to some of the women described in Matthew's Gospel.

I'm a fairly new convert to Christianity from atheism. I was enjoying reading the blog-like posts of a really intelligent Christian on the early days of my conversion. Unfortunately, he apostatised a while ago.

According to him, secular biblical scholars are more reliable at evaluating the Biblical texts than Christian scholars and Church history. How would you respond to this claim?

That depends of course on the subtopic- please feel free to send me an email at [email protected] . I would like to talk to you and help you find good resources for the intellectual aspect of your journey with Christ.

The most important thing you can do in this respect is read the entirety of Leonard Brand's Faith, Reason, and Earth History. The third edition is around 600 pages and is free on Kindle. It is utterly unlike any other creationist book.

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Reason-Earth-Historky-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B06XR6SSYW/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=faith+reason+and+earth+history&qid=1636227115&sr=8-1

In my collection of articles on creationism, I have grouped articles by subtopic:

https://kabane52.tumblr.com/creationism

Recommended reading grouped by subtopic:

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/148323780160/recommended-works-on-creationintelligent-design

And on specific creationist figures, which are recommended and which are not (of those I've encountered):

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/149017505575/the-good-and-the-bad-of-creationist-scientists

Sketching out my reason for thinking the scientific data as it stands and develops is very promising:

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/148730598810/the-big-picture-on-creation

Alastair Roberts last year participated in a series of articles discussing Peter Leithart’s robust argument for an unabashedly trinitarian reading of Genesis 1. Alastair is one of the most clear-minded and exacting Christian scholars of whom I am aware- and his deep knowledge of the Bible combined with a keen sense for its literary artistry makes his work a delight to read. That said, I fundamentally disagreed with a number of the things he stated in his piece on the Trinity and the Old Testament. I especially wanted to critique his use of analogical predication as a yardstick to measure correspondence with the historic Christian faith. 

A substantial number of theologians are under the impression that criticism of the account of the doctrine of simplicity articulated by Aquinas (and the doctrine of analogical predication implied thereby- excluding the use of univocal predicates for God) is of recent origin and associated with so-called “theistic personalism” which posits a passible God. Whatever our theological commitments, from an historical point of view this is simply not the case. The pedigree of this doctrine historically is nowhere near what is sometimes suggested or taken for granted. 

Alastair’s piece is linked above. My response- basically in four parts:

1. I agree that the divine council is relevant to the text in Genesis 1, but I think the trinitarian reality is distinctly present as the basis for that council- after all, that God's creative self-extension into contingent being should take conciliar form is itself an aspect of natural revelation in creation. The typical language used to describe the council is also suggestive: "sons" of God being the most clearly trinitarian. Proverbs 8:22ff summarizes the narrative of the creation week through the lens of "Wisdom" - the word in 8:22 means, I think, "begotten" and thus links the beginning of Proverbs (addressed to a son who is called to become wise) and the end (asking whether the reader has the wisdom to know the Name of God and of His Son). Within Genesis itself, God's first-person speech is often used explicitly where God is addressing Himself. Most clearly is Genesis 8:21-22 where God addresses Himself "in His heart." That the text narrates a divine verdict sets it in the context of the heavenly court (especially in view of the judgment-scene in Genesis 6, where God "sees", pronounces the world "not good", and decrees judgment) confirms this intuition. That God alone is specified as the active agent of man's creation seems to me to suggest that this is to be taken according to a trinitarian nuance. God speaks in His own trinitarian life, creating Man as a corporate organism (the name belongs, through Genesis 5:1-2) to the single image which is the human family which is a plural unity- male, female, and begetting children. Genesis 4:1-2 shows God as the divine Begetter, a major theme in Genesis that is again stated explicitly in Genesis 14 where He is the "Begetter of Heaven and Earth."

Why does Mark add the note that the stone which was rolled away was "very large"? Of course it was large! The text is (in my view) echoing Genesis 29, where we are told that the "stone on the well's mouth was large" (same words in the LXX), that the shepherds would "roll away" (same word in the LXX) the stone to water the flock, and that Jacob came and rolled away the stone to water the flock of Laban and his family. Jacob encounters Rachel in this setting, and she rushes immediately to tell Laban as the women rush from the tomb in Mark.

This is part of a theme in Genesis developing systematically the symbolic imagery of the well and spring. In relation to Jesus, this is developed into the story of Joseph. Joseph is thrown by his brothers into a pit- Moses explicitly informs us that "the pit was empty; there was no water in it." (37:24) This is a rather odd thing to specifically note for no reason: it echoes Genesis 2 where God plants the spring in the center of Eden to resolve the initial framing of the story: there was neither water nor man, and so the ground was uncultivated.

From the dry pit in Genesis 37, Joseph is drawn up and his garment of many colors is dipped in the blood of a goat (this feeds into the later ritual of the Day of Atonement, which features two goats- one for the LORD and one for destruction and exile). Joseph is the living spring: he gives fertility to all the world and harvests the nations unto God. Genesis 49 gives the prophetic word about the Messiah from Judah's family in words taken from Joseph's dream.

All three persons are always present in any theophany, according to the distinctness of their hypostasis. "No one has ever seen God; God the Only-Begotten, being in the bosom of the Father, He has disclosed [exegesato, from which we get "exegete"] Him." (John 1:18) In Genesis 18-19, God visits Abraham to render the judgment pronounced from on high, accompanied by two angelic witnesses. When He carries out the sentence, we are told that the LORD rained fire from the LORD out of heaven. God's personal, concrete, identifiable presence is always associated with the Son- the Word, the Angel of the LORD. He is the one who personally visits Israel in Judges to speak to them about their infidelity. He is called by the prophet Malachi the "Messenger of the covenant." In Exodus 14, the Angel of the LORD is described as dwelling at the heart of the Glory-Cloud. It is this same Glory-Cloud which indwells the Tabernacle and Temple.

In the New Testament, "God" tends to be associated with the Father while "Lord" tends to be associated with the Son (e.g. 1 Corinthians 8:6). While both titles are appropriate for both hypostases, there is a special relationship that "God" and "Lord" have with these specific persons. This is exactly the relationship that "El/Elohim" and the Tetragrammaton have with the Father and Son in the Old Testament- the NT is continuing the tradition. I have discussed this here:

https://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/136589157785/el-and-yahweh-father-and-son