Aquinas and Apologetics

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

Then why don’t you clarify, by telling us your beliefs about demons in the gospels?

I already have.

@Eddie

I read that work.

If you read it, then you’ll understand my hermeneutical method and how I apply it to the gospels.

@Eddie

It was primarily on the Apostolic Fathers’ understanding of the Gospel passages about demons, not on the text of the Gospels.

Irrelevant. It also illustrates my understanding of the Greek words, my hermeneutic and how I apply it, and my conclusions on satan and demons in the New Testament. You can also read my work on the wilderness temptation pericope for further information.

@Eddie

I don’t dismiss all historico-critical scholarship.

I haven’t yet seen you acknowledge this method should be followed.

@Eddie

But I don’t worship it, as you seem to.

I don’t worship it.

@Eddie

I couldn’t care less what is “de rigueur” in Biblical scholarship, evolutionary theory, climate change, or anything else. I demand convincing arguments.

You’re repeating what I have already said. However you are still missing the point. As many people have pointed out to you previously, the sheer fact of a consensus in a field is irrelevant. The issue is the manner in which the consensus has been formed. The consensus has been formed through a process of presenting and testing arguments which the majority of scholars find convincing precisely because they have persistently resisted falsification, and have been substantiated through evidence. If you personally find them unconvincing, that says nothing about the validity of the arguments themselves. The statement “I do not find them convincing” is not sufficient as a rebuttal.

@Eddie

As far as I can tell, your “hermeneutical method” to dispose of the clear claims of the Gospel writers regarding demons is (based on your statements on BioLogos, where you set forth your principles more clearly) to repeat “Second Temple Judaism” like a mantra, as if hoping that the authoritative, scholarly sound of the phrase will intimidate those who would rather talk about the text.

No. That’s a complete caricature. I have carried out original research in this field, which is why it was published.

@Eddie

…a trading back and forth of scholarly references is likely to be of less interest than a discussion of the relevant Biblical passages.

But I am not interested in a trading back and forth of scholarly references either. I haven’t been saying “Well X says this, and Y says this, and Z says that, so I’m right and you’re wrong”. I’ve presented a hermeneutic, demonstrated my application of it, and explained my conclusions. I have cited scholarship firstly on matters on which I don’t have expertise (such as lexicography), and secondly to demonstrate that my conclusions are in harmony with the conclusions of informed academics who are professionally qualified in the relevant field. Not that this proves me correct, but that it proves I’m not making up new ideas which are only the product of my apologetic concerns.

What you need to do is demonstrate that your “plain reading” of the gospels is correct. Mere assertion is insufficient. You need evidence. In order to do that, you’ll need to address the relevant scholarship sooner or later. You need to do the hard work that I’ve done.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

I already have.

I must have missed it. You’ve said the authors of the Synoptics meant the demon stories “historically.” Would you state in plain English whether that means:

The authors of the Synoptic Gospels personally believed in the reality of demons as independent spirit-beings, who possessed people and could be driven out by exorcism; and they personally believed that Jesus had in fact cast out such personal demons.

If that is not what you believe, then what do you mean by saying that they meant their accounts “historically”?

And please don’t keep referring to your article on the Apostolic Fathers; I’ve read it carefully, and it’s about what you believe that the Apostolic father believed about demons. I’m only interested in what you believe about the demon stories in the Synoptics. What do you think Matthew, Mark, and Luke believed about demons, exorcism, and possession? And were they right or wrong to believe what they believed?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

No. That’s a complete caricature.

I am sorry if I have misrepresented your view; but on BioLogos, whenever you were asked about the apparent plain sense of the Gospel accounts, you would speak of “Second Temple Judaism” and tell people to read up on scholarship on that subject. I don’t recall even one time where you said, “OK, let’s look at the passage about the Gadarene swine,” and then gave a classic expositio of the text. And I haven’t seen that here, either, or in your article on the Apostolic Fathers. I’ve seen discussions of the views of various Fathers, various modern scholars, etc. No connected exposition of Biblical passages. And in the absence of such exposition, it’s hard to tell what your position is.

I still don’t know (a) whether you think that Mark etc. are teaching the existence of demons, exorcism, etc.; (b) whether you think that their teaching is true. The questions I want answers to get smothered in a cloud of erudition. But this isn’t an academic journal or conference – it’s a conversation board peopled mostly by non-Biblical-scholars. It should be possible to get clearer answers about what people are asserting, without having to wade through so many references to secondary material.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

must have missed it.

Demythologization, as I said previously. You even acknowledged it. You didn’t miss it.

@Eddie

You’ve said the authors of the Synoptics meant the demon stories “historically.” Would you state in plain English whether that means:

I already told you this too; “I’m using it in the perfectly normal every day sense of a historical event”. I gave three examples of how I apply this to Bible narratives; Genesis 1-3, the Genesis flood, and the confrontation of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. As I said, in each case these pericope are describing historical events.

@Eddie

The authors of the Synoptic Gospels personally believed in the reality of demons as independent spirit-beings, who possessed people and could be driven out by exorcism; and they personally believed that Jesus had in fact cast out such personal demons.

No.

@Eddie

If that is not what you believe, then what do you mean by saying that they meant their accounts “historically”?

They are recording the historical events of Jesus healing people who were believed to be possessed by demons.

@Eddie

And please don’t keep referring to your article on the Apostolic Fathers; I’ve read it carefully, and it’s about what you believe that the Apostolic father believed about demons.

Please read it again. I’ve also already referred you to another paper of mine, which is specifically on the synoptics.

@Eddie

What do you think Matthew, Mark, and Luke believed about demons, exorcism, and possession?

You already know this; they didn’t believe in demons, exorcism or possession. You know this because you asked exactly this question months ago on Biologos, and I gave the same answer. I already told you that I don’t believe the gospel writers were in error. Here’s what I told you.

Firstly my argument is that actually identifying the “plain sense” requires reading the passage in its socio-historical context, in this case Second Temple Period Judaism. That’s fundamental to the historico-critical method. It has nothing to do with “a distinction between a purely Hebraic thought and a later, Greek-and-pagan-contaminated thought”. Secondly I do not believe the New Testament writers “misconceive the truth” at all, as I have told you before.

In another thread on demons I also stated my understanding perfectly clearly; “the Bible doesn’t actually teach the existence of demons, and demons don’t exist”.

@Eddie

And were they right or wrong to believe what they believed?

They were right.

@Eddie

I am sorry if I have misrepresented your view; but on BioLogos, whenever you were asked about the apparent plain sense of the Gospel accounts, you would speak of “Second Temple Judaism” and tell people to read up on scholarship on that subject.

No. I explained the relevance of Second Temple Judaism to the topic, I cited Second Temple sources, I cited scholarship on the relevance of Second Temple Judaism to the topic, and I linked to a paper of mine in which I cite Second Temple Period sources, explain how they are relevant to the topic, apply them to my understanding of the text, and demonstrate how they contribute to my conclusions.

Here’s an example of one such post on Biologos.

And since you’ve invited the discussion, here’s the abstract from a recent paper of mine on the wilderness temptation of Christ.

“Supportive of the observation that Second Temple Period Judaism lacked standardized terminology for a specific satan figure, this study contributes a lexicographical review demonstrating there is no evidence that the satanological terminology used in the Synoptic temptation pericope normatively referred to a specific supernatural evil being in Second Temple Period literature, casting doubt on the common assumption that the Synoptic writers used these terms to identify such a being in the temptation pericope. Early Tannaitic descriptions of disputation with a personified ‘evil inclination’ (yetzer ha ra), are shown to be more relevant analogs than later Talmudic accounts of rabbis tempted by Satan. This provides strong support for a reading of the wilderness temptation as an account of Jesus’ internal struggle with his own desires, rather than a battle of will against a supernatural evil being.”

That paper gives “a classic expositio of the text”.

@Eddie

It should be possible to get clearer answers about what people are asserting, without having to wade through so many references to secondary material.

I have been totally transparent on my views on this. No one else here has experienced the same kind of difficulty you seem to be having. In fact two people have even corrected your argument.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Originally, when I asked what you meant by historical, you said:

@Jonathan_Burke

“I’m using it in the perfectly normal every day sense of a historical event”.

But if we read the story in Mark 5 as “a historical event” – “in the perfectly normal every day sense”, we would understand Mark to be teaching what I suggested before:

@Jonathan_Burke

The authors of the Synoptic Gospels personally believed in the reality of demons as independent spirit-beings, who possessed people and could be driven out by exorcism; and they personally believed that Jesus had in fact cast out such personal demons.

That is what “every day” Christian believers (as opposed to specialist scholars in the field of Biblical studies) mean when they say that a Biblical passage is “meant historically.”

But when I asked you if that is what Mark meant, you said:

“No.”

So already it is evident that your “perfectly normal every day sense” is not the man on the street’s “perfectly normal every day sense.”

@Jonathan_Burke

They are recording the historical events of Jesus healing people who were believed to be possessed by demons.

Unfortunately for your thesis, the narratives in many places cannot sustain this interpretation. The narrator could easily have written up the accounts so as to distance himself from the views of the characters in the stories. For example, the narrator could write: “And he was foaming at the mouth and gnashing his teeth, and those standing by said, 'He has a demon.”’ But he doesn’t always write in that way. In many cases he vouches for the objectivity of the demonic interpretation. I’m not going to go through the entire Synoptic literature to prove this, but there are several cases in Mark 5 alone, of which I will mention only one:

“And they [the purported unclean spirits] begged him, ‘Send us to the swine; let us enter them.’ So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine, and the herd, numbering about 2,000, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned.”

It is the narrator who says “and the unclean spirits came out” – not the demoniac (whose belief in multiple spirits within himself could be explained in modern terms by a personality disorder), and not the bystanders (whose interpretation of events might be shaped by popular beliefs about demons). If Mark didn’t himself personally believe in demons, he would have no motive to write up the account in that way.

As I said, I can find many other passages which pose similar problems. I’m not going through them one by one. The principle is the same: an author who thought the popular belief in demons of his day was complete rubbish might well report such belief (in the words of the people in the story), but would have no motive to confirm that belief in his readers. And if the author is even modestly competent as a writer, he can word things so that no confirmation can be read into his narration.

So unless you are willing to go to the extreme of saying that the narrator, though himself not believing in demons, deliberately set out to confirm erroneous popular beliefs (i.e., was telling a “noble lie” about demons to help promote the faith), you can provide no coherent motivation for some of the statements in these narratives. Your thesis is narratologically implausible. But given that you are so completely given over to historical-critical and sociological approaches, it is not surprising that you would not give proper due to narratological ones.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

But if we read the story in Mark 5 as “a historical event” – “in the perfectly normal every day sense”, we would understand Mark to be teaching what I suggested before:

Wait a minute. I said that I am using the term “historical event” in the perfectly normal every day sense. You are talking about interpreting the passage “in the perfectly normal every day sense”. That’s a completely different subject, not least because the “perfectly normal every day sense” will differ according to linguistic, historical, and cultural context. The “perfectly normal every day interpretation” of the passage is not always the same for everyone.

So back to the actual issue under discussion, what I meant about my use of the term “historically”. I refer you to what I said previously about Genesis 1-3, the Genesis flood, Elijah, and Galileo’s comments. You are assuming the meaning of a particular reading, without justifying it hermeneutically. As you know, this is what Bellarmine and others did when reading what the Bible says about the earth; “the earth shall never be moved”, and “the sun rises”.

@Eddie

That is what “every day” Christian believers (as opposed to specialist scholars in the field of Biblical studies) mean when they say that a Biblical passage is “meant historically.”

And every day Christian believers also read the Genesis flood account and interpret it as global. So what?

@Eddie

So already it is evident that your “perfectly normal every day sense” is not the man on the street’s “perfectly normal every day sense.”

That is untrue. Remember, the term under discussion here is the word “historical”. In both cases we are using the same understanding of “historical”. By “historical” they mean an event which happened in history. By “historical” I mean an event which happened in history.

@Eddie

Unfortunately for your thesis, the narratives in many places cannot sustain this interpretation.

In your opinion. Bellarmine made the same argument.

But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.

And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.

I add that the words ’ the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

You’re using the exact same arguments.

1. Appeal to “most people read it this way”.
2. Appeal to a literal reading (as you understand it).
3. Appeal to the idea that if it was supposed to be interpreted differently to the way it reads to you, it would have been written differently.

Narratology isn’t a magic wand, and can’t turn a passage into whatever you want. Additionally, narratology can’t be used in isolation from other hermeneutical principles. This is why my narratological understanding of the passage is in agreement with the evidence from other hermeneutical tools, whereas yours is not. My narratological understanding of the passage follows the same narratological hermeneutic applied by Galileo and others. Meanwhile you’re championing the views of Bellarmine.

[Robert]

I expect that Ken Ham considers himself a literalist (even if that leads him into young earth hyperevolutionism); you can be an inerrantist without being a literalist.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Yes certainly. Some people, when they find out reality and scripture differ, say reality must be wrong. That’s the Henry Morris and Ken Hams of the world.

Other people when they experience this conflict, rationalize that their own reading of scripture must be wrong, because they too think that scripture just can’t be in error, so they become non-literalists.

And then there are the people who don’t come to the table with the assumption that scripture can’t be wrong.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

And then there are the people who don’t come to the table with the assumption that scripture can’t be wrong.

Exactly my point. As far as I can tell, J. Burke does come to the table with that assumption, and since he also holds that demons do not exist, he must find strained interpretations of passages which appear to strongly endorse the existence of demons. Otherwise, he would have to say that scripture is wrong, and he’s not prepared to do that.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

Exactly my point. As far as I can tell, J. Burke does come to the table with that assumption, and since he also holds that demons do not exist, he must find strained interpretations of passages which appear to strongly endorse the existence of demons. Otherwise, he would have to say that scripture is wrong, and he’s not prepared to do that.

Seems to me that is true for the both of you. You also don’t like to say scripture is wrong, but you also don’t like to say that you’re an inerrantist because it makes you look bad.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

As far as I can tell, J. Burke does come to the table with that assumption,

Well my view is a bit more nuanced than that. For example, the Bible refers to the heart as the organ of thought and the liver as the source of emotions. I believe that’s wrong.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

By “historical” they mean an event which happened in history. By “historical” I mean an event which happened in history.

But they think that a herd of swine, possessed by demons, rushed into the lake and drowned, whereas you think that the behavior of the pigs, whatever its cause, had nothing to do with demons – or you think the event never happened at all, but was fabricated by the writer of Mark. So when they say: “The events in Mark 5 were historical” and when you say “The events in Mark 5 were historical”, you don’t both mean the same thing.

@Jonathan_Burke

Bellarmine made the same argument.

Now you’ve switched from Galileo’s argument to Bellarmine’s argument. I haven’t defended Bellarmine’s argument. And I agree with Galileo’s argument regarding the motion of the earth. The Biblical writers use the language of appearances (as do even people trained in modern science, when they speak of sunrise without endorsing a stationary earth), and the sun appears to move. Galileo rightly says that we don’t have to take that language of appearances as describing the motion of the planets absolutely. But Galileo’s argument doesn’t transfer to most of the passages involving demon possession, because in using phenomenal language about the motion of the sun, the Bible isn’t trying to consciously endorse any scientific theory, but merely reflecting everyday observation, whereas the Gospel narrators at points clearly endorse the reality of demons. Otherwise, they would simply describe the phenomena – epileptic behavior, strange ways of talking, etc. – and refrain from confirming that demons were the cause. You’re avoiding all the statements by narrators which confirm the reality of demons. This is evidence that you have a desired conclusion that you want to reach at all costs.

@Jonathan_Burke

Narratology isn’t a magic wand,

Nor is “historical-critical method”. Any method can be misused. It was because of the frequent misuse of historical-critical method that many scholars became dissatisfied with it as the panacea it was touted to be.

I still await your statement on whether the pigs really rushed into the lake and drowned (pigs can swim, by the way), and on why the narrator endorses the claim that they did so because of demon possession.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

For example, the Bible refers to the heart as the organ of thought and the liver as the source of emotions. I believe that’s wrong.

Good. We agree that the Bible can contain error where the error is not material to the religious or theological point the particular passage is making. Now, is Mark wrong when he reports that demon-possessed pigs rushed into the Sea of Galilee?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Rumraket

You also don’t like to say scripture is wrong

Not quite. I say that if it’s true that demon’s don’t exist, then the passages in the Gospels which endorse their existence are wrong. I don’t try to evade that conclusion by offering forced, unconvincing exegesis to rescue the passages. On this point, I am actually closer to someone like Jerry Coyne than I am to Jonathan Burke. I think we should either say that demons exist (or might exist), or deny that they exist and endure the consequences for the truth of the Gospels on that point. I don’t want to have it both ways.

If I were sure that demons didn’t exist, I’d say without hesitation that the Gospels are guilty of teaching an error. Since I’m not sure whether or not demons exist, I can’t say the Gospels are guilty of error. But J. Burke is sure that demons don’t exist, and that’s what creates his problem.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

So when they say: “The events in Mark 5 were historical” and when you say “The events in Mark 5 were historical”, you don’t both mean the same thing.

No. We both mean the same thing when we say the event was historical. We interpret the text differently, so we have different conclusions on the details of the event, but we agree on the same understanding of “historical”. We both believe the pigs rushed into the lake and drowned.

There’s an easy way to assess this; ask them if they think “historical” means “an event which happened in history”. If they say yes then they agree with me. Do you think they’ll say no? Also I am not sure why you’re using all this “they” language. You share their view, so the correct pronoun for you to use here is “we”.

Here’s another case in point.

1. Hugh Ross believes the Genesis flood was local.

2. Ken Ham believes the Genesis flood was global.

Which of them believes the flood was historical? Ross? Ham? Both? Neither?

@Eddie

Now you’ve switched from Galileo’s argument to Bellarmine’s argument.

I’m addressing a different point, so of course I’m using a different example.

@Eddie

And I agree with Galileo’s argument regarding the motion of the earth .

But why do you agree with him? Look at what Bellarmine says about agreeing with Galileo.

• injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false
• not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue… all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram)
• the words… were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God

Why is Bellarmine wrong? Why is Galileo right?

@Eddie

But Galileo’s argument doesn’t transfer to most of the passages involving demon possession, because in using phenomenal language about the motion of the sun, the Bible isn’t trying to consciously endorse any scientific theory, but merely reflecting everyday observation, whereas the Gospel narrators at points clearly endorse the reality of demons

It’s the same issue. In its description of the motion of the sun the Bible is accommodating a common belief and representing an event the way people perceived it. In the case of the gospels, it’s doing the same. However, unlike the issue of the sun, in the case of the demons there’s also inter-textual witness against the early church believe in literal demons.

@Eddie

Otherwise, they would simply describe the phenomena – epileptic behavior, strange ways of talking, etc. – and refrain from confirming that demons were the cause.

You’re forgetting the point that to them the phenomena were diabolical. They were seeing what they believed were specifically diabolical phenomena. They didn’t talk about “epileptics who have a brain disorder” and differentiate them from “people who aren’t epileptics but look like epileptics because they are possessed by demons”.

@Eddie

You’re avoiding all the statements by narrators which confirm the reality of demons.

That’s like saying “You’re avoiding all the statements by narrators that the Genesis flood was global”, or “You’re ignoring all the statements by narrators that the earth has a solid crystal ceiling”. You still haven’t explained how you arrive at the conclusion that Galileo was right and Bellarmine was wrong. This is particularly important given that you keep using the same arguments as Bellarmine.

@Eddie

Now, is Mark wrong when he reports that demon-possessed pigs rushed into the Sea of Galilee?

No. I have already explained my view on this several times. I also refer you again to the examples I’ve given previously.

@Eddie

Nor is “historical-critical method”.

Correct. But the historical-critical method and narratology are not at odds; they can and should be used together. You still haven’t provided any narratological basis for your case. In fact you can’t even build a narratological case until you’ve conducted the necessary historico-critical research.

@Eddie

I say that if it’s true that demon’s don’t exist, then the passages in the Gospels which endorse their existence are wrong.

In other words “If my interpretation of the Bible is wrong, then the Bible is wrong”. That’s what YECs say.

@Eddie

But J. Burke is sure that demons don’t exist, and that’s what creates his problem.

I don’t have a problem. Remember I am happy with the idea that the Bible says the heart is the organ of thought and the liver is the organ of emotions, even though that isn’t true. I could easily dismiss the case of demons as “Well they just didn’t know better, that’s what they thought at the time”. But I believe the facts are otherwise.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

We both believe the pigs rushed into the lake and drowned.

But they also believe that the pigs that rushed into the lake were possessed by demons. And they think that the possession is just as much a “historical fact” as the fact that the pigs rushed into the lake and drowned. You don’t agree with them that the possession by demons is a historical fact. So you and they give different histories of what happened that day.

@Jonathan_Burke

Which of them believes the flood was historical? Ross? Ham? Both? Neither?

Obviously both. But we are not dealing with a case like that here. The Genesis narrator never says, directly, “the Flood was global” or “the Flood was local”, so the reader is left to interpret the text – the various remarks about the extent of the Flood – and decide. But the narrator of Mark has decided for the reader; the reader is left with no option. Mark attests that the the pigs really were possessed by demons. You either believe Mark when he says that, or you don’t. He is either lying / in error / on drugs, or the pigs really were possessed by demons. You’re not facing this squarely, because you want modern psychology and the Bible both to be true, and you’re trying desperately to carve out an option that Mark has denied to you. Neither Ken Ham nor Jerry Coyne would have this problem, which is of your own making.

@Jonathan_Burke

In the case of the gospels, it’s doing the same.

No, it’s not the same. The belief that the sun moved through the sky was as you say a common belief, and the Biblical authors were writing in accord with that common belief (and very likely shared that common belief themselves, though even if they didn’t, i.e., even if God revealed to the writers the real geometry of the universe, they would be justified in using the phenomenal language of everyday life), so there is no reason to say that the Bible consciously teaches geocentrism and a stationary earth; but in the case of Mark, the narrator consciously confirms the reality of the demons. He clearly wants his reader to believe that the reason the pigs behaved in that strange way, committing mass suicide, was that they were possessed by demons. He is treating demonic possession as a vera causa of an unusual physical event, not merely acknowledging that some people in his era believed in demons.

Your reading is forced, and is being done for concordist reasons. (Further, it wouldn’t make sense even if we grant that in the human case all apparent demonic possessions are all cases of mental illness; why, because one madman thinks he is possessed by a legion of demons, would thousands of pigs go wild? Even on the most reductionist and mechanistic human psychology, you can get rid of the demons but you can’t explain the pigs.)

@Jonathan_Burke

They were seeing what they believed were specifically diabolical phenomena.

Of course. But the point you keep evading is that Mark confirms that their belief was correct.

@Jonathan_Burke

In fact you can’t even build a narratological case until you’ve conducted the necessary historico-critical research.

A dogmatic, doctrinaire statement. You’ve been well programmed by the historical-critical school, I see. In my graduate program, we were much more inclined to see its overclaims.

@Jonathan_Burke

I could easily dismiss the case of demons as “Well they just didn’t know better, that’s what they thought at the time”

Which is exactly what you are doing. You think the people of that time were ignorant, scientifically untrained, and did not know that what they thought were demonic possessions could be explained by psychological science. And you think the author merely played along with their ignorance. The flaw in the argument is that he confirms their hypothesis. You can’t get around that, wriggle though you may.

And as I said before, the Mark passage is just one of many that could be summoned. Even if you could find some tiny loophole in Mark’s phrasing, you still have to deal with all kinds of other passages in the Synoptics about demons, and some passages elsewhere in the NT as well. You’re fighting a losing battle. Nobody is going to agree with you about the plain meaning of the text except for Christadelphians and liberal Biblical scholars.

We’ve covered this thoroughly. We aren’t going to agree on either the substantive point (what the Gospels teach about demons) or the methodological points. So I’m going.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

So you and they give different histories of what happened that day.

Irrelevant. We both agree the account is historical.

@Eddie

Obviously both.

Exactly. Both agree the account is historical, they just give different histories of what happened. It’s the same in the case of my interpretation of the pigs in Mark.

@Eddie

The Genesis narrator never says, directly, “the Flood was global” or “the Flood was local”, so the reader is left to interpret the text…

Well that’s just your assertion. In contrast, global flood interpreters believe the text does say directly “The flood was global”, and local flood interpreters believe the text does say directly “The flood was local”. Like it or not, all texts must be interpreted, and that includes interpreting texts which speak of demons.

@Eddie

The belief that the sun moved through the sky was as you say a common belief, and the Biblical authors were writing in accord with that common belief (and very likely shared that common belief themselves, though even if they didn’t, i.e., even if God revealed to the writers the real geometry of the universe, they would be justified in using the phenomenal language of everyday life), so there is no reason to say that the Bible consciously teaches geocentrism and a stationary earth; but in the case of Mark, the narrator consciously confirms the reality of the demons.

This is just special pleading. There is no difference in language between the Old Testament accounts of the description of the sun and the earth, and the New Testament accounts of the demons. There is nothing to indicate that one is “consciously teaching” and the other is not “consciously teaching”. Both are reporting observations. Mark is reporting an observation just as the Old Testament texts are reporting observations.

There are no passages in any of the gospels whatsoever, in which the writers speak of demons as existing, as opposed to reporting what other people said about demons, or reporting observations. None of the synoptic gospels makes any references to their own beliefs about demons, and John of course doesn’t mention demonic possession even when writing of people suffering from the kinds of ailments attributed to demonic or satanic affliction. Paul likewise makes no reference to demonic possession, and says nothing of exorcism or the role of an exorcist.

You claim my view is forced, but naturally you avoid the fact that there are mainstream non-Christadelphian scholars who provide support for my conclusions.

1. According to Högskolan, there is “some disagreement as to how real the devil was for John”,[1] with some commentators believing the devil in John is “a literary personification of sin rather than as an independently acting being". [2]

2. Thomas notes John never uses satan and demons as an etiology of illness, and “shows no real interest in the topic”;[3] he also says “Neither James nor John give any hint that the Devil or demons have a role to play in the infliction of infirmity”. [4]

3. Caird says “it is a matter of some delicacy to determine how far the New Testament writers took their language literally”,[5] and proposes satan may have been a personification to some in the early church (including Paul), rather than a person. [6]

4. Wahlen notes that in Luke “illness is never described as the result of demonic activity”. [7]

5. Ferngren concludes “The evidence, however, does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries”. [8]

As always I emphasise that just because these scholars say these things does not mean they are correct, but it does mean that these conclusions are not merely my own apologetic inventions.

@Eddie

A dogmatic, doctrinaire statement. You’ve been well programmed by the historical-critical school, I see.

You say you don’t reject the historical-critical method, then you come out with statements like this. You really are on the fringe with these views. Next you’ll be telling me you can interpret the text without lexicography.

@Eddie

In my graduate program, we were much more inclined to see its overclaims.

Your “graduate program” sounds like it was taught by Liberty College.

---

[1] Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” Svensk Exegetisk AArsbok 74 (2009): 55–79, 54.

[2] Torsten Löfstedt, “The Ruler of This World,” Svensk Exegetisk AArsbok 74 (2009): 55–79, 58.

[3] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought , Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 162.

[4] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought , Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 301.

[5] George Bradford Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110.

[6] George Bradford Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford University Press, 1995), 110.

[7] Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels , Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2 Reihe 185 (Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 173.

[8] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine & Health Care in Early Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 45.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

This being Sunday, I like to do some Bible textual study or discussion, so I will return one more time, in the form of commentary on selected points:

@Jonathan_Burke

Both agree the account is historical, they just give different histories of what happened.

Yes, that’s in accord with one meaning of the word “historical”, and I have no quarrel with it, but conservative evangelicals, when they say something is historical, often mean something more precise than that. They often mean that “this event happened just as the Biblical narrator described it” – and in this case, the description includes the unclean spirits as the vera causa of the behavior of the pigs. When they say that this account is “historically true” they mean that both the action of the pigs and its demonic cause are historical facts – the pigs really did rush into the water, and their action really was caused by demonic possession. The fact that the one thing is observable and the other isn’t, is not relevant, in their usage, to whether or not the possession was historical. They would say that by denying the demonic cause you are saying that the Biblical author made a false historical statement. And though I quite often disagree with the readings of the Bible of such people, in this case I think they have a point.

What you are calling the “interpretation” of the event is, as far as the Biblical narrator is concerned, part of the event; the narrator doesn’t say: “You must believe me when I tell you that the pigs rushed into the water, but I leave you free to ignore me when I tell you that the cause was demonic possession.” It’s a package deal. If you can’t trust the narrator when he directly tells you the cause of the event, there is no reason to believe the narrator that the event ever even happened. (Unless we also had some non-partisan historical sources for the same event – which we don’t.) When people say that the Bible is inspired, they don’t mean that it’s inspired only when it reports externally observable events, but merely a human book when it interprets those events. The interpretation provided by the narrator (note: by the narrator, not by Augustine, Calvin, Ken Ham, etc.) is, from a traditional point of view, as inspired, as revealed, and as true as the events themselves.

@Jonathan_Burke

There is no difference in language between the Old Testament accounts of the description of the sun and the earth, and the New Testament accounts of the demons.

If you mean, there is no difference in the prose style or vocabulary, that is usually correct. However, there is clearly a difference in intentionality. The story in Mark intends to communicate the reality of demons; that’s one of its points. In the handful of scattered references to the sun’s movement and the earth’s fixity in the Bible, the description is not central to the point of the story, but is only incidental background. The author of some line in a Psalm about the rising of the sun is not thinking: “I’ve got to teach these people that the sun moves and the earth stands still”; whereas the author of Mark is trying to teach the reader that demons exist, that Jesus exorcised them, and that they are capable of possessing even non-human animals. (Even the story in Joshua is not an exception to the distinction I’m making. The writer may well believe, and the original readers may well suppose, that the sun moves and the earth stands still; but whatever the cosmography (heliocentric with moving earth, or geocentric with static earth), the lengthening of the day is still due to a miraculous intervention. So the cosmography is in the end incidental to the point being taught.)

@Jonathan_Burke

There are no passages in any of the gospels whatsoever, in which the writers speak of demons as existing,

I just gave you one, and there are many more.

@Jonathan_Burke

None of the synoptic gospels makes any references to their own beliefs about demons,

An awkward statement. I’m not sure what it means. If I say, “Mt. McKinley is the highest mountain in North America,” I’m not “making any reference to my own beliefs” about Mt. McKinley – rather, I’m directly stating my belief about Mt. McKinley. The writer of Mark directly states that demons did something, and whether he talks self-reflexively about his own beliefs is irrelevant.

@Jonathan_Burke

John of course doesn’t mention demonic possession even when writing of people suffering from the kinds of ailments attributed to demonic or satanic affliction. Paul likewise makes no reference to demonic possession, and says nothing of exorcism or the role of an exorcist.

Since I wasn’t making any claim about John or Paul, these observations aren’t relevant. And last I heard, Christians still regarded the Synoptics as part of the Bible, and hence revealed, inspired, and true. A teaching doesn’t have to be in every book of the Bible to count as a Biblical teaching.

Regarding your sources:

1 – I made no claims about John, so there is no rebuttal of my view here.

2 – I made no claims about either John or James, so there is no rebuttal. But by the way, James refers to the daimonia as real and personal (2:19), so even if he says nothing at all about infirmities or exorcisms, his remark is still incompatible with your own view.

3 – I have no disagreement, but again, the remark is a non-rebuttal. It may be that some NT writers took their language literally, and others didn’t.

4 – Irrelevant, as I didn’t claim that all the Synoptics describe illness as the result of demonic activity. I do claim that all the Synoptics treat demons as real personal beings.

5 – Unfortunately for Ferngren, in the Mark episode I was discussing, Jesus is quoted as speaking to the unclean spirit(s): he uses the second person when he tells it/them to “come out of the man”), so it sure looks as if he thought it/they were real and personal. Or would Ferngren claim that Jesus never said this, i.e., would he claim that Mark invented those words of Jesus? And if so, what other words of Jesus might he have invented?

In general, I think you will find that “mainstream non-Christadelphian scholars” who deny that the Synoptics vouch for the reality of demons are either (a) secular humanists or (b) very liberal Christians. I doubt you will find very many traditional, orthodox Christians (which includes far more than “fundamentalists” or “conservative evangelicals”) who deny that the Synoptics vouch for the existence of demons.

Of course, Enlightenment-shaped scholars have a vested interest in defending a spiritually denuded cosmos, and most “mainstream” Biblical scholarship (i.e., scholarship taking place outside of denominational circles and/or aimed at a transdenominational and not necessarily Christian audience) is heavily influenced by modernity, so this is not at all surprising. Most Christians in the modern world, except perhaps in certain parts of the USA, are at heart 3/4 modern and only 1/4 Christian in their world view, and university professors are even more tilted toward modernity than the rank and file Christians in the pews.

@Jonathan_Burke

Next you’ll be telling me you can interpret the text without lexicography.

Nope. I love talking about the details of the language. My library is crammed with lexicons and other works about the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages.

@Jonathan_Burke

Your “graduate program” sounds like it was taught by Liberty College

Nope. The profs in the Bible area (though not in some other areas) were mostly agnostics, Jews, or very liberal Christians, trained at places like Columbia, Yale, Stanford, etc., and the department was a secular department in a secular university. Very high-ranked, too – well into the top 10 by North American grad school rankings at the time I was there. Among the grad students there were very few “conservative” Christians, almost none in the Hebrew Bible area; and while in the New Testament area, a few “conservative” Christians occasionally entered the program, with very few exceptions they either never finished the Ph.D., or finished it but abandoned their Christian faith during the process (in one sad case, leading to the divorce of a formerly conservative Christian from his still-conservative Christian wife) or else became very liberal Christians, believing that what they had learned from their historical studies of the New Testament made traditional, conservative Christianity impossible. Ken Ham would never have been accepted in the grad program in Bible, and wouldn’t have been able to complete it if he had (without abandoning most of what he believed), but Bart Ehrman would have fit right in. In fact, at least in the New Testament area, the program seemed to specialize in producing Barth Ehrmans. Doesn’t sound like a fundamentalist place to me. But oh, how they loved their historical-critical scholarship! It seems to me that you would have enjoyed the place – at least, in the New Testament area.

How interesting it is that in the places where “scientific Biblical scholarship” (including historical-critical method, employed without restraint) is held up as the academic ideal, so many Christians lose their faith as a result of higher education! I don’t agree with the typical fundamentalist rejection of higher education, but I do understand why the fundamentalists feel the way they do. I’ve watched as several formerly fundamentalist, conservative evangelical, Pentecostal, etc. Christians – and mainline Church Christians – lost their faith as a direct result of the attitudes of modern professors of Biblical studies. The answer, of course, is not to reject higher education but to reform it; but fat chance of doing that in the current academic ethos, especially in state-funded universities where the faculty in humanities and social sciences (including religious studies) is overwhelmingly liberal if it has any religious belief at all, and more often just straight secular humanist.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

Yes, that’s in accord with one meaning of the word “historical”, and I have no quarrel with it, but conservative evangelicals, when they say something is historical, often mean something more precise than that.

It’s not a matter of them having a more precise definition, it’s a matter of them believing that only a “literal” definition is historical. They use the same definition of “historical”, they only differ as to which interpretations are historical. We saw that previously when I gave the example of Ham’s interpretation of the flood and Ross’ interpretation of the flood. You agreed that both interpretations are historical, though Ham would say only his is historical. Why? Not because he has a different definition of “historical” to Ross, but because he believes that only a “literal” interpretation is historical.

@Eddie

What you are calling the “interpretation” of the event is, as far as the Biblical narrator is concerned, part of the event; the narrator doesn’t say: “You must believe me when I tell you that the pigs rushed into the water, but I leave you free to ignore me when I tell you that the cause was demonic possession.” It’s a package deal.

This is just the same argument that Ken Ham makes with regard to the flood and other passages. He would say this.

What you are calling the “interpretation” of the event is, as far as the Biblical narrator is concerned, part of the event; the narrator doesn’t say: “You must believe me when I tell you that God sent the flood, but I leave you free to ignore me when I tell you that the flood was global.” It’s a package deal.

It fails in both his case and yours.

@Eddie

The interpretation provided by the narrator (note: by the narrator , not by Augustine, Calvin, Ken Ham, etc.) is, from a traditional point of view, as inspired, as revealed, and as true as the events themselves.

This is again the same kind of argument Ham makes. You’re not doing a good job of differentiating yourself from him.

@Eddie

The story in Mark intends to communicate the reality of demons;

Assertion.

@Eddie

…whereas the author of Mark is trying to teach the reader that demons exist…

Oh, so he was writing to people who didn’t believe that demons exist?

@Eddie

I just gave you one, and there are many more.

You deliberately quote mined my sentence, cutting off its qualification. The original sentence was “There are no passages in any of the gospels whatsoever, in which the writers speak of demons as existing, as opposed to reporting what other people said about demons, or reporting observations”. You didn’t address that.

@Eddie

An awkward statement. I’m not sure what it means.

How convenient.

@Eddie

The writer of Mark directly states that demons did something, and whether he talks self-reflexively about his own beliefs is irrelevant.

So when Eljiah or Isaiah directly states Baal did something, whether he talks self-reflexively about his own beliefs is irrelevant?

@Eddie

Since I wasn’t making any claim about John or Paul, these observations aren’t relevant.

They are relevant, because they place the Synoptics in a specific socio-historical context. They inform us about the community in which the Synoptics participated.

@Eddie

And last I heard, Christians still regarded the Synoptics as part of the Bible, and hence revealed, inspired, and true. A teaching doesn’t have to be in every book of the Bible to count as a Biblical teaching.

This isn’t in dispute.

@Eddie

Regarding your sources:

Again you avoid addressing them. They place the Synoptics in a specific socio-historical context. They inform us about the community in which the Synoptics participated. They are therefore data points which help us interpret the Synoptics.

@Eddie

Or would Ferngren claim that Jesus never said this, i.e., would he claim that Mark invented those words of Jesus? And if so, what other words of Jesus might he have invented?

No he wouldn’t. Again you simply put up a straw man and make empty assertions instead of addressing the point under discussion.

@Eddie

In general, I think you will find that “mainstream non-Christadelphian scholars” who deny that the Synoptics vouch for the reality of demons are either (a) secular humanists or (b) very liberal Christians.

But your definition of “very liberal Christians” is almost as broad as Ken Ham’s. Even if this were true, so what?

@Eddie

I doubt you will find very many traditional, orthodox Christians (which includes far more than “fundamentalists” or “conservative evangelicals”) who deny that the Synoptics vouch for the existence of demons.

How many traditional, orthodox Christians do you think would say that the wilderness temptation of Jesus is to be read non-literally, as a midrash, vision, metaphor, or some other kind of symbolic narrative?

@Eddie

Of course, Enlightenment-shaped scholars have a vested interest…

Here we go with the predictable attempt to dismiss scholarship you don’t like, on the basis of the unsubstantiated assertion that it’s simply the product of anti-Christian Enlightenment or modernist thinking. Do you understand that repeatedly making the same claims and arguments as fundamentalists makes you look like one of them?

@Eddie

My library is crammed with lexicons and other works about the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages.

Oh yes, of course it is.

@Eddie

The profs in the Bible area (though not in some other areas) were mostly agnostics, Jews, or very liberal Christians, trained at places like Columbia, Yale, Stanford, etc., and the department was a secular department in a secular university.

And yet another massive screed about your supposedly illustrious academic career. If you spent more time doing research and writing coherent, fact based arguments, instead of writing pages exalting your personal achievements and academic credentials, maybe your arguments would be more robust.

I note you finish with another classic fundamentalist trope, that “modern professors of Bible studies” cause Christians to lose their faith due to their evil Enlightenment and modernist teaching. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the real issue is fundamentalists being taught a wildly inaccurate view of the Bible with the message “If the Bible doesn’t really say this, then the Bible must be totally wrong!”, and then finding out that indeed the Bible doesn’t really say this. There are many examples of ex-fundamentalists explaining this problem, and identifying their fundamentalist upbringing as the real cause of their disbelief, not the teaching of “modern professors”.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Jonathan_Burke

The original sentence was “There are no passages in any of the gospels whatsoever, in which the writers speak of demons as existing, as opposed to reporting what other people said about demons, or reporting observations”. You didn’t address that.

Yes, I did. Mark’s account of what happened to the pigs has nothing to do with what anyone in the story says about demons, and it goes beyond reporting observations. Mark’s narrative clearly “speaks of demons as existing.” But you won’t concede this, because it runs against your preconceived theology.

@Jonathan_Burke

They are relevant, because they place the Synoptics in a specific socio-historical context.

It isn’t necessarily the case that using a book by one author to provide “context” for a book by another author will bring more clarity. The application of one text to another could in some cases mislead. Often one learns more from (at least initially) immersing oneself in one text and mastering its internal relationships.

@Jonathan_Burke

They inform us about the community in which the Synoptics participated.

Not necessarily. John has often been dated considerably later than the Synoptics, and as reflecting a very different social situation, including being after the irrevocable separation of Church and Synagogue. And Paul has often been dated considerably earlier, and his writing often reflects very different concerns.

@Jonathan_Burke

No he wouldn’t.

I was trying to give him an “out” so that he wouldn’t be dead wrong. If he grants that Mark has correctly reported the words of Jesus, then the text of Mark shows that the statement he made is wrong. But it’s not surprising that a historian of science – if this is the Ferngren who does history of science – would be a little shaky on Gospel exegesis.

@Jonathan_Burke

How many traditional, orthodox Christians do you think would say that the wilderness temptation of Jesus is to be read non-literally, as a midrash, vision, metaphor, or some other kind of symbolic narrative?

I don’t know. If you have statistics, you can provide them. But I never disputed the possibility that particular episodes might be intended as midrash, vision, etc. But we are not talking about particular self-contained literary units such as the temptation in the wilderness story. We are talking about appearances of demons, exorcism, etc. that are recurrent throughout the Synoptics. The appearances are integrated into narratives that appear to be not symbolic, midrashic, etc., but straightforward tellings of what Jesus did, when, where, etc. If you think these stories are somehow different from the historical narrative with which they are closely intertwined, the onus is on you to provide the literary analysis that shows this.

@Jonathan_Burke

Do you understand that repeatedly making the same claims and arguments as fundamentalists makes you look like one of them?

The only people on this site who have accused me of being a fundamentalist, or treated me as one, are some of the atheist/agnostic crowd, and you. Most people here don’t persist in engaging in mischaracterization of someone who explicitly and repeatedly says he isn’t a fundamentalist, and further, attacks the leading fundamentalist of today, Ken Ham, frequently and harshly.

@Jonathan_Burke

And yet another massive screed about your supposedly illustrious academic career.

Nothing I said about my graduate program had the slightest direct or even indirect reference to how “illustrious” I might be. I was describing the program to show you how different it was from the fundamentalist place you compared it to. But I can tell, from your repeated failures to understand my description of my educational background, that when it comes to graduate education in religious studies programs, you are an outsider looking in. Those who have been in such programs will recognize many of the features I describe from their own experience.

@Jonathan_Burke

There are many examples of ex-fundamentalists explaining this problem, and identifying their fundamentalist upbringing as the real cause of their disbelief, not the teaching of “modern professors”.

No doubt the fundamentalists make things much worse than they need be, by insisting on peripheral matters as important. But it isn’t just fundamentalists who lose their faith from doing a Ph.D. (or sometimes less) in Biblical studies. The ethos of religious studies departments is, with very rare exceptions, corrosive to faith. This is especially the case in the Biblical studies subsection of religious studies departments. This is a widely observed social fact.