Women and Religion

Hello readers, apologies for it being so long since I last wrote. 

Right, so the religious text I'm most familiar with is the Bible, but I shall mention other sources in my argument. Recently, I've been increasingly active in researching and discussing women's issues on an international level. One discussion I had recently with some friends was the role of women in the Bible. There were, as with most arguments, two sides to it. There were some who said that women have been removed from the Bible, placed in minor roles, or in some cases, totally dismissed. Then, there were those who said that women featured prominently considering the context. For example, consider the Gospels and the way in which Jesus treats women with respect and equality. 

Since that discussion, I have thought about my conclusion to this and today, I finally came to it. First of all, both sides of the argument are valid. Today, women have advanced beyond imagination in last two thousand years. Therefore, to a modern women, the role of women in the Bible can be viewed as minor and insignificant. However, it's important not to take the writing out of its context. Often, you will hear people question the omni benevolence of God, and the clear patriarchy presented in the Bible, "How can this be 'the word of God' if Paul is telling wives to be "submissive to [their] husbands"? In my view, Paul's writings were ahead of his time. Although he tells wives to be submissive, he demands respect from both husband and wife. Therefore, Jesus' message was not the final word, but the word suitable for people at the time. Something that they could comprehend whilst at the same time, move forward in humanity. I like to think of it in levels. If you are playing at Level 1, you are not mentally/physically equipped to jump to Level 10. You have to take each level as it comes to you. Therefore Christ's message, for argument's sake, was Level 3, and that seems so simplistic for people several levels ahead in our day and age. A classic example is the phrase in the Old Testament "An eye for an eye". Nowadays, people claim that the God in the Old Testament is very different from the God in the New Testament. Indeed, it cannot be denied, but the phrase "an eye for an eye", although seeming vulgar and retributive to us, was once the way forward. People would take more than what had been stolen from them, so God called for exact retribution, to only take what has been taken from you. When people had morally developed, they were able to here "turn the other cheek." 

However, although we should definitely view the Bible within it's context, I feel it is undeniable that women have been downplayed in the Bible. I recently discovered a site that argued against this view:

http://www.womeninthebible.net/

This site covers countless stories of women in the Bible. However, just because there are many stories of women, does not mean that these women are presented in a positive or fair light. For example, simply because there are many villains in almost every fairy-tale doesn't mean that the villain is an admirable character. I read through many of these stories of women and there is a common theme. Women are often presented as either a saint or a sinner, which has resulted in the virgin/whore dichotomy that women suffer today. Consider, Samson and Delilah - Delilah has become the eponym of a 'Delilah'; a treacherous and cunning femme fatale. Many of the women are sexually promiscuous and consequently the downfall of men. Therefore, women nowadays are often either considered "sluts"/ "nymphomaniacs" or "prudes". There is often no middle-ground and if there is, it's a very fine line. 

I am currently reading a book called "The Angel's Game" by Carol Ruiz Zafon. I think this quote sheds light on what I'm trying to say.

"The main pillar of every organised religion, with few exceptions, is the subjugation, repression, even the annulment of women in the group. Woman must accept the role of an ethereal, passive and maternal presence, never of authority or independence, or she will have to take the consequences. She might have a place of honour in the symbolism, but not in the hierarchy. Religion and war are male pursuits. And anyhow, women sometimes end up becoming the accomplice in her own subjugation." 

I think this is the main point here, although to a minor extent women are presented, and perhaps considering the context of the time, have a more equal role than they had ever enjoyed before, this does not translate into real life. Indeed, "she might have place of honour in the symbolism, but not in the hierarchy." I think many women will, after reading the numerous ways in which Jesus helped women, agree to the general equality of them. I think this gives women a certain illusion that they have power that is not really there, or is at least very difficult to grab hold of. Indeed, women appear in the Bible, but a great deal less than men. It is likely that there were more female disciples than mentioned, and there are indeed gospels written by women that were totally ignored when the Early Church was deciding which books to put into the Bible. 

Once again, although the inequality is apparent to many, considering the time, the biblical texts were ahead of their time. 

Here are some quotes from Baha'u'llah (a modern prophet - C19 - from the Baha'i faith) to dwell on:

"Exalted, immensely exalted is He Who hath removed differences and established harmony...[T]he Pen of the Most High hath lifted distinctions from between His servants and handmaidens and ... hath conferred upon all a station and rank on the same plane."

"Women and men have been and will always be equal in the sight of God."

"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest."

And finally, a particularly good analogy about men and women:

The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female. So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly. Until womankind reaches the same degree as man, until she enjoys the same arena of activity, extraordinary attainment for humanity will not be realized; humanity cannot wing its way to heights of real attainment. When the two wings . . . become equivalent in strength, enjoying the same prerogatives, the flight of man will be exceedingly lofty and extraordinary.

Reasons for the decline of Anglo-Spanish relations under Elizabeth I

I've decided to have a look into some history for a change. Elizabeth I remains a fascinating topic, and this will cover events that led up to the Spanish Armada of 1588. 

Anglo-Spanish relations under Elizabeth I

England's relationship with Spain was complicated by four factors:

1) Philip was the leading Catholic monarch in Europe. Elizabeth could not expect that he would tolerate her Protestantism indefinitely.

2) Philip was the ruler of the Netherlands. The Netherlands had recently embraced Protestantism and was seeking independence from its Catholic master, and members of Elizabeth's privy council wanted to assist them in this quest. Philip would not tolerate this.

3) The possibility of a Catholic alliance between France and Spain worried Elizabeth. The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1559) had already shown Elizabeth that this was not impossible.

4) The New World had created a cause for competition between England and Spain.

However, Philip was not openly hostile to England in 1558. He preferred Elizabeth to Mary Queen of Scots because of Mary's French connections.

Why did relations deteriorate?

Philip thought that he could convince Elizabeth to return to Catholicism. However, Elizabeth took a number of actions that proved she would not be easily swayed.

The Treaty of Berwick (1560)

Elizabeth supported to the Protestant Lords in Scotland who were trying to bring military action against the rule of the Guise family.

The French Wars of Religion: The Treaty of Hampton Court (1562-64)

Elizabeth intervened on behalf of the French Huguenots by promising them military aid. This offended Philip, who saw it as clear proof that she was heretic sponsoring Protestant rebels.

Elizabeth and the Relationship with the Netherlands, (1562-72).

Although Philip had opposed the excommunication of Elizabeth, there was a significant deterioration in their relationship during this period.  Cardinal  Granvelle told Philip that he believed  Elizabeth used English traders to foment Protestant rebellion in the Netherlands. In 1563 he used the outbreak of plague in London to ban the import of English cloth. Elizabeth retaliated by prohibiting all imports from the Netherlands. Although trade was eventually resumed, this did not reconcile the underlying differences.

In 1566 there was an outbreak of Calvinist revolts in Dutch towns. Philip despatched the Duke of Alba to the Netherlands to crush Protestantism there. The presence of such a large Spanish force across the channel presented a significant threat to England. The situation worsened when many Protestant refugees flooded into England, making it look as though she was harbouring rebels. Elizabeth's relationship with Philip went into sharp decline.

By 1568, the Duke of Alba was victorious. The Protestant leader William of Orange was defeated in battle and Elizabeth came under pressure from her Privy Council to intervene. Since Elizabeth could not openly assist intervention (she preferred Spanish control in the Netherlands to French control), she opted instead for the policy of harassment. This involved:

•          Seamen like Francis Drake attacking Spanish shipping in the New World
•          In November 1568, a storm drove Spanish ships to take refuge in English ports in Devon and Cornwall. The ships were carrying 400,000 gold florins, which were bound for the Netherlands to pay the Spanish army. Elizabeth seized the gold and in doing so struck a great blow against the Duke of Alba.

Philip was outraged by this seizure of gold. In both Spain and the Netherlands he ordered the seizure of English ships and property. Within weeks a full trade embargo existed between the two countries.

Although Philip did not support Elizabeth's excommunication in 1570, he was increasingly ready to support Catholic plots against Elizabeth in England. He sent financial aid to English Catholics and also promised 10,000 troops to support the Ridolfi Plot of 1571.

Elizabeth continued her policy of harassment and explored the possibility of a marriage alliance with the Duke of Anjou. Later, she negotiated marriage with the Duke of Alencon.

The Treaty of Blois (1572)

·         England and France established a league to defend themselves against Spanish aggression.

·         France abandoned the claims of Mary, Queen of Scots to the throne of England.

In 1572, Elizabeth expelled the Sea Beggars from English ports. At this point Elizabeth's motivation for her actions are unclear.

Did she want to improve relations?

Yes - Elizabeth may have believed that the expulsion of the Sea Beggars would be regarded favourably by Spain.

No - The Sea Beggars returned to the Netherlands and were instrumental in encouraging renewed revolt in the Port of Brill. Some historians suggest that this was a deliberate move to incite further rebellion in the Netherlands.

Although Anglo-Spanish relations had deteriorated the conflict of 1588 was by no means inevitable. Elizabeth wanted to preserve the cloth trade and maintain a secure frontier. None of these objectives would be achieved by open war.  Similarly, Philip was involved in a conflict with the Ottomans and another war would be expensive and too risky.

The deterioration of relations with Spain,  1573-85.

The conflict over the Netherlands:

It was the precarious position of the Netherlands that was the catalyst for collision.

There was a brief moment of peace between the countries with the Treaty of Bristol in1574:

·         the gold dispute was settled

·         English rebels were banished from the Netherlands

·         English Protestants in the Netherlands were permitted to practice their religion

·         Elizabeth closed her harbours to Dutch rebels and refused them assistance

The Convention of Nymegen:

·         Elizabeth agreed to withdraw support for raids on Spanish  shipping in the Indies.

However, this did not last long. It was the unstable condition of the Netherlands that led to the resurgence of hostility between England and Spain. The Spanish army in the Netherlands mutinied because they  hadn't been paid. This resulted in them sacking Antwerp (The Spanish Fury) and uniting the 17 provinces of the Netherlands in rebellion against their overlords.

The Pacification of Ghent (1577):

·         Spain was forced to accept that all foreign troops should be expelled from the Netherlands and all their traditional liberties should be restored (Elizabeth offered a loan of £100,000 to ensure this).

However, by 1578 Philip had disregarded the Treaty and appointed Don Juan of Austria as Governor General of the Netherlands.

Therefore, Elizabeth was forced to use a new version of harassment:

·         she sent a 6,000 mercenary force to the Netherlands

·         She financed Drake's circumnavigation of the globe, which included a voyage to the Spanish Indies where he was authorised to attack Spanish shipping. Elizabeth knighted Drake on his return, effectively giving her approval to piracy.

After Philip's acquisition of Portugal (1580), Elizabeth provided Alencon with £70,000 in an attempt to establish independence in the Netherlands. However, Elizabeth was still not prepared to give whole hearted support to the United Provinces in their struggle. (Alencon's mission failed because of the Duke of Parma)

The catholic assassination of William of Orange (1584):

This plunged the Netherlands into crisis and confirmed the significance of the threat posed to all Protestants from Catholicism. The Privy Council were convinced that Elizabeth herself was directly threatened and that the advance of Philip in the Netherlands had to be checked.

The Secret Treaty of Joinville (Dec 1484) :

The death of Alencon had significant consequences in the internal affairs of France, as well as leaving a void in the leadership of the Dutch rebels. The heir to the throne was now the protestant Henry of Navarre. The Guise faction was alarmed and sought a Catholic league with Spain. Philip II pledged to assist the Guise party in its plan to disinherit Navarre. This carried the threat of a full Franco-Spanish alliance that posed the greatest danger of a Catholic attack on England from the continent. This fear was enhanced by Philip's seizure of English ships docked in Spanish ports. The Privy Council became convinced that decisive steps needed to be taken and that Elizabeth must prevaricate no longer.

The Treaty of Nonsuch (August 1485):

·         She promised to send 6,400 foot soldiers and 1,000 cavalry under the command of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

·         She received the ports of Flushing and Brill in return

Leicester accepted the title of Governor-General of the Estates General which was against Elizabeth's orders but nevertheless gave the impression that she had accepted sovereignty over their Netherlands, and that Leicester was acting as her viceroy.

The Catalyst to War: Mary, Queen of Scots

The Northern Rebellion demonstrated that there were already Catholics who were sympathetic to her cause and regarded her claim to the throne as more legitimate than that of Elizabeth's. Elizabeth and her councillors did not underestimate the threat that came from those Catholics who gave their loyalty to the Pope first, and whose opposition to Elizabeth was justified by the papal bull of excommunication (1570). The arrival of seminary priests from the Netherlands and the Jesuits further strengthened the threat, as their aim was to rekindle Catholicism in England.

The Throckmorton Plot (1583-86):

The Catholic Duke of Guise and the Spanish Ambassador Mendoza conspired to reassert Catholic control of Scotland and use it as a base for an invasion of England, with the intention of putting Mary on the throne. Throckmorton was an English Catholic who acted as an intermediary between Mary and Mendoza. When uncovered, Mendoza was expelled from England and the Privy Council drew up the Bond of Association.

The Act for the Preservation of the Queen's safety (1585)

 Mary Queen of Scots barred from the succession if Elizabeth were killed.

The Treaty of Berwick (1586):

England and Scotland signed a mutual defensive alliance pact to guarantee aid should an invasion of either homeland take place. James VI of Scotland was recognised as Elizabeth's heir.

The Babington Plot (1586-86):

A member of the Catholic gentry, Anthony Babington, was persuaded to lead an insurrection of English Catholics to coincide with an invasion led by the Catholic league. The plot had Spanish and Papal support and involved an assassin who had sworn to kill Elizabeth.  Due to Mary's involvement, she was executed in 1487. Mary had bequeathed her claim to the English throne to Philip II. He now had the justification he required to launch 'The Enterprise of England'. 

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationship between the first three gospels of the New Testament. They share a great number of parallel accounts, arranged in a similar order and often containing similar wording. This is even more striking when it is realised that Jesus would have spoken these words in Aramaic but the agreements are in Greek. What is the likelihood that all three evangelists wrote their accounts very similar without sharing some sources or even reading each other's Gospels? Very unlikely! Think about it in terms of a schoolteacher marking his or her student's work and noticing very similar work, as if one had copied another or they had worked together.

Equally, there are some marked differences. Order changes to suit the author's purpose and each gospel has material unique to itself (as expected - you wouldn't write an account exactly the same or else there would be little point in writing it).

Therefore, the synoptic problem is that of determining the inter-relationship between the first three gospels that explains both their similarities and differences.

You might wonder, what is the point of this? Isn't the message what is important?
The message is ultimately what's important but this is a useful process as it enables us to see how the gospels writers have manipulated their written sources. Their use of sources will have questions about authenticity, and ultimately what sort of message is being portrayed.

SO what theories have been suggested by theologians?

Oral Source: This is an early attempt at explaining the nature of the literary relationship focused on an oral rather than written source. This was proposed by J.G von Herder, who argued for a common oral tradition used by all three synoptic gospel-writers. However, this does not adequately explain the close wording, which implied there was some sort of written link between the gospels. Although this had been generally sidelined by scholars, it makes sense that there would have been common information circulating about Jesus and through conversation the evangelists would have acquired some information about Jesus. Herder goes some way to explain their relationship.

One-Source Solution: This theory was proposed by Griesbach in the 18th century. It claims that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Luke, then used Matthew, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke. This coincides with the traditional Church view which also claimed that Matthew's gospel was written first.  This view also follows the fact that where Matthew and Luke have different versions of a story, Mark uses both. Additionally, no other sources are needed to explain their literary interdependence. Finally, since Matthew's gospel is seen to be written for Jews much more explicitly than any other gospel, and given that it was Jews who formed the first bulk of the Early Church membership, it seems more likely that Matthew wrote his first.

Two-Source Solution: This is the most popular and widely accepted theory. This claims that Mark was written first, but also that there was another source called 'Q' that existed of the sayings and teachings of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke used this source.

What evidence supports Mark's priority?

- Mark is the shortest gospel it makes sense that he wrote his gospel first and the other gospels added to his information. It is hard to see why Mark would omit material.

- Mark has the poorest command of Greek, suggesting that Luke and Matthew improved on him.

- As far as order is concerned, Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark.

- Luke and Matthew rarely agree against Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke had independently relied on Mark.

What evidence supports the 'Q' hypothesis?

- The source explains the similar wording between Matthew and Luke

- It accounts for the existence of doublets (sayings that occur twice in Matthew and Luke). It is argued that one is from Mark and one is from Q.

Four-source Solution: This hypothesis is accredited to Streeter. He simply extends the two source theory but adds two additional sources, M (Matthew's Source) + L (Luke's Source). These two sources, according to Streeter, represent the traditions of the Christian communities in Caesarea  (L) and Jerusalem (M). Luke was influenced by traditions in Caesarea while Matthew used those in Jerusalem. This theory explains the unique material in Matthew and Luke, that 'Q' doesn't account for. (I.e. there are more similarities than can be taken from a 'sayings of Jesus' source).

----------------------------

It is impossible to know which theory is the correct one, if any. Perhaps the answer is a more fluid inter-relationship between the gospels. Within a short space of time after Jesus' death, there would have been a multitude of information circulating about him, and therefore it may be impossible to disentangle the sources of any of the synoptic gospels as they were collected from a vast array of data.

Evaluating Hume's claim that miracles are the least likely of events.

For Hume a miracles is 'A transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular violation of Deity.'
Hume was an empiricist and believed that it was more likely the report of a miracle was mistaken than the laws of nature were violated. Hume is arguing inductively from observation that the laws of nature cannot be violated. He is not directly saying that miracles do not happen but that the probability of a miracle actually happening is so low that is is illogical to believe that they do occur.

Hume emphasises the fixed and universal nature of natural laws. According to Hume, laws of nature appear to be fixed and unvarying (e.g the law of gravity.) Since Miracles appear to violate the laws of nature, it is more likely that the report of miracle happening is incorrect than the laws of nature were violated.

Consider the story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead. (John 11) According to the Bible, people witnessed the event. However, our experience of nature is that people do not come back to life. So there is a conflict between a law of nature and the miracle. Hume's question is: Which is more likely? - That the laws of nature has been violated or the eyewitness account is mistaken? Hume's conclusion is that miracles do not happen because there is so much clearly testable evidence in favour of the laws of science.

Hume's argument has been very influential amongst philosophers. However, Richard Swinburne has recently defended the idea of God acting and performing miracles.

Swinburne points out a problem with Hume arguing inductively from observation. The only way to challenge his argument would be to find new empirical evidence. From our experience, the fact that something is not probably is not on its own proof that a miracle does not happen. Let's consider the Lottery. The likelihood that you or I would win the National Lottery in our lifetimes is improbable but that does not mean that people never win the lottery. Thousands of people have won the lottery and will continue to win it.

Swinburne's defence of miracles considers first what it is meant by natural laws.
He argues:
1. Laws of nature are generalisations i.e. they communicate a general picture of how things work as simply as possible.
2. Swinburne says that all nature laws are 'corrigible', meaning that a law of nature is the best description of how the world works at this moment in time, but a new discovery may mean that a law of nature has to be modified or changed.

This leads Swinburne to define a miracle as 'an occurence of a non-repeatable counter instance to a law of nature'. By this Swinburne means that a miracle is an event that does not fit in with the laws of nature as we understand them, but equally you could not define a new law from an instance which does not fit into the normal laws.

Swinburne also adds that the more evidence there is for a miracle for a miracle, the stronger the possibility that it happened, providing that the sources of evidence support one another.

So...are miracles the least likely of events?

Of course, by definition a miracle is the least likely of events but this does not mean, as Hume argues, that miracles cannot happen. The occurrence of miracles must be a very rare event, however not impossible.

Pharisees - Unfairly depicted by the Evangelists?

It cannot be the denied that the Pharisees are negatively portrayed in the Gospels. Whether this is an accurate portrayal of the Jewish sect is debatable. As with any text, the Gospels are likely to contain at least an element of bias (especially considering the aims of the evangelists in promoting Christianity)  The Pharisees may have been  misrepresented in at least some degree in the Gospels, especially in Matthew and John, which reflect the growing antagonism between Christianity and Judaism after 70 A.D (Destruction of the Temple). 

Before we begin, you might be wondering:

Who were the Pharisees?

The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect during Jesus' time. In the New Testament, they appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation  by Jesus; countless times he calls them "hypocrites". They are portrayed as plotting to destroy Jesus and pressure Pilate to "crucify him". Although Pilate, as the Roman Procurator, had the ultimate authority to pass the death sentence, the Evangelists do not present him in the negative light that the Pharisees are presented. 

SO...

Is it any wonder the Pharisees were depicted in this way? 

It was in fact the Pharisees of all the Jews that most resisted the influence and ideology of early Christianity. For Jews, the idea of the trinity was irrational in the view of the Pharisees, since it seemed to violate the sacred Jewish teaching that God is 'One'. The Christians ignored many of the ritual observances that the Pharisees felt would bring the Kingdom of God, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.Jews very much believed that God would protect them from foreign intervention in the Holy Land if they followed His law (The Covenant). What the Pharisees attempted to do was bring every area of life into subjection to the law. They had a longing for a righteous Israel and the hope for the Messianic Kingdom in the imminent future. They sought to save people by turning back to the law. This is why they were so harsh with Jesus when he heals on the Sabbath, subsequently breaking the Sabbath law. 

What were they really like? 

While the Gospels portray the Pharisees as pretentious, they were actually the most egalitarian sect. They allowed anyone to become a Pharisee, provided they studied and knew the Law well. It can be argued that rather than recognising the devout nature of the Pharisees to the Law, the New Testament condemns them as taking part in the Jewish rituals without being spiritually involved. A classic example of this is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Pharisee ignores the suffering of a man attacked by bandits, because he would become unclean by touching him. Although this may be true of many Pharisees, the evangelists often make sweeping generalisations condemning all Pharisees to a stereotype (there were in fact two types of Pharisee - each deriving from Shammai or Hillel - Shammai being more strict).Other Jewish sects, less passionate about preserving Judaism, are not indicted in this manner. The Sadducees for example, were far more open to Hellenistic influence and disagreed with any notion of the afterlife, yet are not portrayed nearly as negatively. 

Do the Gospels really present them SO negatively that it is impossible to believe the depiction of them?

They Gospels do present the Pharisees very negatively, but this is not to say that it is all bad. As with any person/group/ideology, there are always positive and negative aspects. The Gospels present some positive aspects of Pharisaism, that does suggest the view of the Pharisees in the New Testament is an accurate one. For instance the Pharisee Nicodemus features positively. He says, "for no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." There are also various occasions when Pharisees showed Jesus hospitality. In fact, the apostle Paul is meant to have been a Pharisee. 


How do the Gospels compare with other sources on the Pharisees?

To discover whether the picture painted by the evangelists of the Pharisees is an accurate one, it will be necessary to cite other sources which mention the Pharisees, including the works of Flavius Josephus and the various compilations of the Rabbis. 

Of the three sects that Josephus lists (Pharisees, Essenes & Sadducees), the Pharisees appeal to him most. Josephus presents them generally positively, however the Rabbinic traditions do not. The Talmud lists seven categories of Pharisees, and only the seventh is laudable: there is the shouldering Pharisee, who parades good deeds; there is the delaying Pharisee, who lets business wait in order to do a good deed; there is the bruised Pharisee, who walks into a wall to keep from looking at a woman; there is the pestle Pharisee, who with false humility walks with his head down like a pestle on a mortar; there is the ever-reckoning Pharisee, who asks what good deeds he might do that would be reckoned as canceling out his neglects; there is the fearful Pharisee, who is in terror of God; and there is the loving Pharisee, who like Abraham loves God--he is admirable. Two other expressions are used in the Mishnah to describe the Pharisees: "destroyers of the world" and "Pharisaic plagues," which certainly portray them very critically. 

It should be noted here, however, that even the use of the explicit sources is problematic. The Rabbinic traditions are shaped by polemical forces are often anachronistic. The value of Josephus' information, which has traditionally been regarded as the most reliable, is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before all the other sects died out (A.D. 70) and that his eventual conversion to the sect was motivated by political realities. 

Overall, it seems that the Pharisees are not wrong identified in the Gospels but are used to support their case. It is one thing to say that the Gospel writers selected cases that best illustrated the Jewish opposition to Jesus; but it is quite another to say that they misrepresented facts or invented stories. The negative depiction of the Pharisees cannot come from no-where, but it is likely that the evangelists exaggerated them.  It is conceivable of humans to become self-righteous and proud of their law-keeping, getting too caught up in its minute detail. Whether this was true of all Pharisees, is unlikely. 

A problem with the record of genealogy of the Messiah

First, let us have a look at Matthew 1: 

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,

Hezron the father of Ram,

4 Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,

Obed the father of Jesse,

6 and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

St.Luke goes further and relates Jesus to Adam, The Son of God. 

Interestingly, in both gospels, Jesus is connected to David through Joseph. However, before Joseph and Mary were married, Mary was pregnant "through the Holy Spirit". Matthew makes it clear that "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." So Joseph, according to the gospels, is not Jesus' father. Jesus, since he had no earthly father, cannot be a direct male descendant of David, and therefore cannot be the Messiah. Is this a valid objection?

In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah) 

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary. However: 

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. Both Matthew and Luke show Jesus' claim through Joseph. If Mary had a claim, then surely they would have used her genealogy, as this was more likely to be accepted as authentic. 

b) Some scholars have argued that Jesus cannot be related to David through Mary because even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. (Numbers 1:18)  

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14)  The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31) 

d) Luke 3;27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

If we have a look at Luke's genealogy, he begins by saying, "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph."

 Some scholars have pointed out that Luke was suggesting Jesus was actually the son [i.e. descendant] of Eli. Since Jesus' actual physical descent was through Mary, his closest male ancestor (Eli) would be Mary's father. The word "son" in Hebrew can be used of multi-generational descent, as in the English word "descendant."This makes Luke's genealogy a record of Mary's ancestry.That Eli was Mary’s father may also be confirmed by the rabbis in the Jerusalem Talmud, which mentions a Mary the daughter of Eli/

So, in that case, we can fall back on Luke's genealogy of the Messiah. Although Jesus hasn't descended through His father, Genesis' requirement of the Messiah is only that he will be of the tribe of Judah.  Isaiah says only that he will be a descendant of Jesse (the father of King David). Jeremiah says only that he will be a descendant of David himself. So there is no reason why the Messiah cannot be descended from David on his mother's side.

The objection that tribal affiliation is only through the father is not always true. If a man has only daughters, the tribal inheritance is through the daughters (Numbers 27;7). This might well have been the case with Mary, since only her sister is mentioned in John 19 and not a brother. But even so, since Mary was still living at home and Joseph was not the father of her child, there would be no one else to trace the child’s heritage through other than Mary and her father. This is exactly the implication of Luke: that Jesus was a descendant of Eli.

So there is no serious objection to accepting Luke’s genealogy as the actual physical genealogy of Jesus through his grandfather Eli and his mother, Mary. He was a physical descendant of King David, and therefore eligible to fulfill the prophecies pointing to the Messiah.

So you might wonder then, what is the purpose of Matthew's genealogy? 

Jesus was born into the betrothed relationship of Joseph and Mary, which was legally a family unit ( among the Jewish people, betrothal was a legal marriage, though not yet consummated). If accepted by the husband, the child became legally part of the family, which Joseph did when he “took” Mary as his wife. That he “took” her means that they proceeded to the second stage of marriage where they began living together. In this way, Jesus could also legally restore the royal line from Solomon through Jeconiah without being a physical descendant of Jeconiah and running afoul of Jeremiah’s prophecy. In other words, a miraculous birth was exactly what was needed both to fulfill prophecy and to reestablish the royal line of David. As Amos prophesied: “In that day, I will raise up the booth of David which is fallen and I will close up their breaches and his ruins I will raise up; and I will build it as in the days of old” (Amos (9:11). One final point. It is noteworthy that neither the Pharisees nor Sadducees, bitter enemies of Christianity, never challenged these genealogies. The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognised by the Jews at that time as authentic.

Resurrection or Reincarnation?

Hi there.

I haven't been writing as frequently lately, so I thought I'd get back to it. This question came to mind when I skimmed through A2 Philosophy Past-paper questions earlier today, and realised I'd never really put these two wide-spread beliefs together in a critical comparison.

For those who don't know much about either, I thought I'd start with a brief explanation.

Resurrection 

Resurrection is the belief of Christians, Jews and Muslims. It is the belief that God will raise the dead back to life on Judgement day. The righteous will form an eternal kingdom of God from which all sinners will be excluded. This life is often understood as a testing ground for the next. It is traditionally a monist view i.e body and mind are inseparable. However, some do take a more dualistic approach:

“The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body.  All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things.” {Baha'i writings}

Therefore, the resurrection and ascension of Christ are both spiritual and symbolic, but not material.   

Reincarnation 

Reincarnation literally means 'to take on flesh again'. Sikhs and Hindus believe in this. Belief in reincarnation also depends upon belief in an immortal and eternal soul, called an Atman, that passes from body to body depending on the life it has lived. In every person there is an Atman which animates the body and is the essence of the person. Hindus use reincarnation to explain the presence of physical, social and financial inequalities among humans and believe that the goal of life is to escape the cycle of reincarnation (samsara) and achieve unity with Brahma - the ultimate reality.

People say that there is evidence for reincarnation in past-life memories i.e. the sense of deja-vu, and in hypnosis. Some have taken on new characters and even spoken in different languages.

Now, the main problem with disembodied existence is the issue of body and mind/soul identity. Are you really yourself without your body? I didn't find it difficult to think I could be myself without by body, but after having a look at these questions, I had to think again:

1) Are you the same person that you were when you were seven? If you had scribbled on the wall when you were seven and it was only discovered today, would it be fair for you to be punished for it now?
2) If someone committed a war crime forty years ago, but then lead a charitable life, would it be fair for them to be punished today?
3) Is someone who has suffered a total memory loss still the same person? This relates to problems with Reincarnation quite well...As Peter Geach points out, "How is the new body YOU if it lacks your body, memories, and feelings?"
3)Is someone who suffered both physical and mental changes still the same person? E.g. Someone who is confined to a wheelchair and brain damaged by an accident, so that the body is changed, the memory is impaired and the personality is altered? Try to think of a way in which they are the same.
4) Suppose scientists made an exact replica of you, with your exact DNA produced in another being  who is cloned to be the same age as you. Would you and the clone be the same person?
5) Imagine someone who had been a recipient of of every organ donation possible - skin, grafts, face transplant, heart and lungs, corneas, new kidneys. Say a brain transplant was possible too. Person A had the organs, and Person B was the donor. Is Person A now Person B?
6) Person C dies. What aspects of person C must continue to exist so that he/she is in fact the same person?

Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." So therefore, we are primarily a "thinking thing". Basic knowledge of the self is independent from the body; the immortal soul is the source of conscious life. This thesis is called “mind-body dualism.” He reaches this conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body (that is, an extended, non-thinking thing), and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other. 
This argument gives rise to the famous problem of mind-body causal interaction still debated today: how can the mind cause some of our bodily limbs to move (for example, raising one’s hand to ask a question), and how can the body’s sense organs cause sensations in the mind when their natures are completely different?

St.Paul & Resurrection

St Paul's explanation of Resurrection is what I like to call 'Theology in the Making'. You'll see why. 

When Paul went to Athens to share the good news, he received a terrible response to resurrection from the Athenians. The Athenians had a history of philosophical thought through Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum. Paul clearly hadn't done his research, he hadn't thought about the philosophical problems that are implicated in a resurrected body. Although there aren't letters to the Athenians in the New Testament, we can imagine it went something like this: 

Followers of Plato were dualist, and since Resurrection is a monist theory, would have argued that the body could be seen as the source of flaws and limitations i.e. desire and disease and if Life after Death was really perfect, we couldn't live in our bodies. The Aristotelian, being monist, argued that the soul cannot be separated from the body.  Aristotle used the analogy of the eye. If the eye were an animal, sight would be its soul. When the eye no longer sees it is an eye in name only. Likewise a dead animal is only an animal in name only. It has the same body but it has lost its soul. What is important for Aristotle is the purpose of something. The soul is simply the form of the body and is not capable of existing without it, when we die, our body and soul cease to exist together. Clearly, Resurrection was alien to Greek thought, they didn't believe it possible that Jesus rose again. Paul had no answers , he left, embarrassed.

When Paul arrives in Corinth he explains resurrection again. Most of the  Corinthian converts denied resurrection. They thought the spiritual gifts they had received from Jesus' message constituted the new life: already they were 'kings'. Paul didn't agree, he emphasised that what was most important lay ahead. They will all be transformed:

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 

(1 Corinthians. 15: 51-2) 

Paul had difficulty in saying precisely what the transformed body would be like. He knew the body would be both visible and identifiable but he also believed "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." He realised that flesh and blood was perishable, and the body in the kingdom was imperishable. 

He came to the conclusion that we would become a 'spiritual body'. (Isn't that a contradiction of terms?) There would be continuity of sorts between the ordinary and the resurrected person. To express this, Paul used the simile of the seed, which, when planted, is in one form, but, when grown, in another. Or as I like to think, a caterpillar that is transformed into a butterfly. He also said it was like 'putting on' immortality (like a cloak). "The living...would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

The problem when Paul goes to Thessalonica is that some members of the Christian community had died, and the survivors worried about their fate. You might wonder, why? If they were good Christians, they would go to heaven, surely? Actually, no. Paul's original message was that the return of the Lord would be in their lifetimes, and that they would live to be saved. Death was not expected and so when people died before the second coming, the Christians considered this unfair. The idea that people go to heaven when they die is not a scriptural teaching from Jesus, but rather a teaching that Paul came up with to solve this problem. Paul wrote to reassure the survivors that the dead would not miss the return of the Lord:

We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep...And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive; who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians. 4:15-18) 

Paul began to worry. The Christ had not returned. He was imprisoned and facing death at the time he wrote Philippians. Paul began to envisage the ascent of each person's soul at death, rather than the transformation of the entire group of believers, whether living or dead, at Christ's return. So Paul put two ideas together. If he died, he would immediately be with Christ, and at the end of time the Lord would return and resurrect everyone. 

General arguments for Reincarnation 

As a caterpillar, having come to the end of one blade of grass, draws itself together and reaches out for the next, so the Self, having come together at the end of one life and shed all ignorance, gathers in all its faculties and reaches out from the old body to a new. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III.) 

I thought people that claim to have been reincarnated was a good argument. Unlike Resurrection, you might say there is more evidence for Reincarnation. I particularly like this example from 'Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation' written by Ian Stevenson. Stevenson took examples mainly from India, Ceylon and Brazil, of children who had 'memories' of past lives, and whose memories bore an unusual resemblance to the lives of deceased people they had never met. He chose to confine his study to children rather than adults, because he thought they were less likely to be motivated by attention-seeking desires. 

Swarnlata, a child in India, was taken at the age of three to a town called Katni 170 miles away from the place she had lived all her life. When she arrived in Katni, she pointed out the road where 'my house' was. She described how she had lived there as a member of a family called Pathak, and she commented on the ways in which the place had changed. She performed songs and dances for her family that she claimed she had learned when she was a member of the Pathak family. The language of these songs were Bengali, but she had grown up only knowing Hindi. The Pathaks' daughter Biya had lived to adulthood, learned Bengali songs and dances, married and then died. Swarnlata recognised Biya's brothers and sisters when she was introduced to them, greeting them as if she knew them. 

Stevenson looked at the ways in which this could be explained. He considered the possibility of fraud, but thought this unlikely; the child had little to gain from sharing this experience. There was no money or favourable publicity for them, and they found the media attention (if any) to be a nuisance. Swarnlata was actually offered an education from the more wealthy Pathak family but her father refused it. The experience would also have a negative effect in that a young girl talking about having previously married, would not be advantageous when it was her time to marry. He also considered the possibility where a person thinks they remember something but in fact they heard it from another source. There was no link between the two families however. Another idea he considered was genetic memory: i.e. birds that remember how to build nests even though they've never been taught. However there was not a genetic link between the remembering child and the deceased

Hick argued that the case comes from a country where reincarnation is an accepted belief. Why doesn't cases suggestive of reincarnation happen in Europe etc? Similarly, why don't people see Resurrected bodies in the East like Paul claims to have saw Christ?

SO. Resurrection or Reincarnation?

Well that's for you to decide. Perhaps you'd like to put both together like Peter Novak has suggested.

Basically, Novak's theory states that the soul body and spirit body separate after death. The soul body is discarded and the spirit ultimately reincarnates with a new soul body. After a large number of reincarnations, the spirit has discarded a large number of soul bodies. At the time of the "Final Judgment," a doctrine held by all Middle Eastern religions, the so-called "resurrection" will occur. Novak theorizes that at this time, all the discarded soul bodies will reunited with the spirit body. The result will be a world of highly enlightened people knowing all their past lives and their associated life experience and knowledge. Thus, reincarnation and resurrection are not mutually exclusive concepts according to Novak's theory.

Or perhaps you're a Dawkins follower i.e. Neither! 

"There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information." 

With all this in mind, it seems more difficult to choose. That's because we don't tend to think as much about the philosophical implications, and when we do, we have to re-assess everything. I don't particularly like the idea of suffering in this life because of a previous mistakes that I in no way remember. However, it does seem to me to be more logically coherent than a resurrection. Where is this heaven when we die? & If the end time is on earth, how can we live as a spiritual entity on a physical one? I quite like Novak's theory to be honest. But none the less, the theory of dreams holds strong. (see a few posts below) 

Bye for now. 

Feeling Alive

“I don’t believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive.” 

Of course, we are all alive, but are we really living? Are you alive or just breathing? What makes you feel alive? What does it mean to feel alive? 

We live in a world where we are constrained by walls, that ironically, we have built ourselves. It's the norm to spend 5/7 days a week working at your school or your job, and 2/7 days studying, cleaning and doing the tedious chores you were unable to do when you were at work. We go about life doing things everyday that are nearly always unnecessary. We've lost the magic of life, that you only had when you were a child. Everything important is lost in the piles of responsibility and hustle of our everyday lives.

What makes you feel alive?

So many people don't know the answer to this question. We don't know our own self. We don't know what matters.The key is appreciation. I feel alive... when I pour water in the soil of a dying flower, and hours later, like magic, see that flower revived and beautiful. I feel alive when I ride a bicycle, or poke my head out the window of a car....when the wind blows in my face ferociously. When I dance in the rain, when I laugh, when I sing, when I love. Blast my favourite song. Smile at a tree. When I watch the sun rise or set. Screaming at the top of my lungs. Spontaneity! 

“Grown-ups love figures... When you tell them you've made a new friend they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies? " Instead they demand "How old is he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make? " Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.”       

This quote from "The Little Prince" sums up what I'm trying to say. Ask the right questions. See the beautiful. Forget, forgive. The life we've made for ourselves, it isn't real. Paint the canvas that is your life. Life is about creating yourself. 

Who cares if you forgot the homework? Who cares if they don't love you? Who cares?

These things are important because we've made them important. Yes, they're partially important because that's the society we live in and those are the rules we abide by, but sometimes, FORGET. Remember nature. Society isn't real. A man-made creation that will not get the better of you. 

Ignite the passion. 

Beauty and Perception

There are several reasons why I feel it has become necessary for myself  to write about beauty and perception. Firstly, probably the most obvious reason, that I experience the day-to-day pressures of a woman who is unwillingly and unfortunately conscious of how I look and how I am perceived physically. This is not to say that I feel physical beauty is of value in my life, just in that it is something that feels impossible to escape from. Secondly, that I am studying Feminist Literature for my A2 Coursework and these topics are frequently observed. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, that I have recently subscribed to a channel on YouTube called "Soul Pancake" that discusses all sorts of topics including religion, children's perspective of the world, love, happiness...etc. There is a particular programme called "That's What She Said", which discusses things like "Beauty and Self-image", "Perception and Confidence", or "Ageing and Death." It reminded me of how subjective beauty is, and how we are perceived, actually is.... and because this is such a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In the videos, particularly the first two, the women discuss several things that I'd like you to think about (men and women alike).

How do you want to be perceived?

I've thought about this myself and also made a point of asking others my age, both male and female. There were all sorts of responses, for women, the most popular were "strong-willed" and "nice", amongst others such as "unique", "a mystery" and even "a teacher." What surprised me most was how most of the responses were non-physical. Although I'm sure we'd all like to be seen as "pretty", "beautiful" or "sexy", this doesn't seem to be priority when we think about how we would like others to view us. For men, there were no responses that suggested the importance of physical perception in themselves. Like women, the most popular answer was "nice", with a close second being "himself". A man wants to be viewed as he is. Perhaps in this way, men are less complicated than women, with less men trying to be something that they are not. It is undeniable that the importance of physical beauty in society is paramount, however, I get the feeling it is also unwelcome a lot more than we might think.

When do you feel most beautiful?

This is the more difficult question to answer it seems. After a lot of thought on this, I decided that I feel most beautiful when I realise I am one with nature, when I smile or when I laugh...when I catch someone looking at me. The most popular answer in women was "when complimented" (be that physically or in any other way). Simply being complimented wasn't enough for some women though, they wanted to know "why he thought she was beautiful" or "why he loved her". Some women felt most beautiful when "natural" or "after a shower", and this also appeared in some men's answers. Interestingly, one male said "I feel most beautiful when it is clear that I am viewed in the way I wanted to be perceived." Another interesting response was "When I have a surge of energy or adrenalin...like a personal revelation."  I honestly preferred the men's responses, because when comparing, it is clear that men feel best in a way that we could say is more "natural" and less "physical". Ironically, the man has set the criteria of beauty for women, and a woman simply aggravates this physical importance by not only accepting this idea of beauty but also encouraging it in the way she dresses and changes herself. Perhaps this is because a man's image is not as important as a woman's in society. (I am not denying that men have a tough time too)

Now I'd like to discuss a film that deals with perception and beauty. It's a comedy I watched the other day called "Shallow Hal". It's not a great film but not bad either...Jack Black stars. Hal is, as the title suggests, a shallow male who only seeks women's looks. His life contains a series of brief and meaningless relationships, until one day he is trapped in a lift with a self-help guru who hypnotises him to only look for the inner beauty in women. Soon, Hal begins to have extra-ordinary success with women, in particular a woman named Rosemary. The film plays with point of view shots to show us that Rosemary's actual weight is 140 Kg, but to Hal, all he can see is a slender woman, who is also a lovely person. The trailer prattles on about how Hal now sees only the inner beauty in women. No he doesn't. When he looks at an overweight woman and instead sees her as thin women, he's not seeing her inner beauty. What he is seeing however, is a typical tall, thin model type woman....which in some ways is more insulting than if he saw her as she really is and instantly rejected her.

Lastly, I'd just like to remind you that what we want to be seen in ourselves, many others will also want to see in themselves. Before you "judge a book by its cover", think about how that person wants to be viewed, and also think about what you think should be valued more in society. We forget that we make society, and the more people that change ideas of perception and beauty in their minds, the more likely these important things will be valued.

Until next time,

Goodbye.