Jesus 'didn't walk on water or turn water into wine'

And there were no 30 pieces of silver. This is gospel, according to Jeffrey Archer, latest champion for the Roman Catholic Church. Lord Archer launched his new book, The Gospel According to Judas, in Rome's foreign press club at a conference chaired by the Rector of the Biblical Institute in the Vatican. This is a video of an interview I did with him shortly before he went, reported in Timesonline and again today. (DogfightAtBankstown, one of the first to write about this earlier this year, has updated with a truly inspired analysis of it all. You might also enjoy Pertinacious Papist. And there is a good discussion at Catholic World News.)

Following the last post on this subject, I wanted to call this post 'God Finds Jeffrey Archer: Chapter Two'. I still think it funny that most fallen politicians who end up in prison end up finding God as a pathway to rehabilitation as well as salvation. But here we have Jeffrey Archer proclaiming his solid Anglican faith to be wholly unchanged by prison, but meanwhile God has happened on arguably the most gifted storyteller of our generation to write the 'fifth' gospel. So it's not Jeffrey finds God, but the other way around. Incidentally, Archer met his co-author for the first time in a restaurant in Rome called The Two Thieves. You can see a reference to this on his blog. Interesting comments also from Mark Goodacre. Archer has also managed to persuade Archbishop Desmond Tutu to to an audio CD of the book.

James Pressley has written an amusing piece for Bloomberg: 'And it came to pass that Jeffrey Archer, being an ennobled novelist and fallen politician, set forth to defend Judas Iscariot, the man who ratted out Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.' I still find it interesting that in cooperation with top theologian and friend-of-the-Pole Professor Francis Moloney, Lord Archer has written a gospel with the endorsement of the RC church that debunks Jesus' 'nature miracles'. In effect, the two authors say, the turning water into wine, the walking on water and the calming of the storm never happened. Of course, as we reported two years ago, the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible in any case. (Update: that last sentence is based on the headline on a story I wrote about The Gift of Scipture document.) Nor does any respectable Biblical scholar as a matter of fact. But I am still not sure that most or even many of the laity are aware this, never mind children in Sunday schools or faith schools. Here is one of the early stories starting to appear on the wires about today's launch. Entangled States is among those blogging on it.

Both Father Moloney and Lord Archer told me that they did not include Jesus’ three most famous “nature miracles”, beloved of Sunday School children worldwide, in The Gospel because they “never happened”.
Nor did they include the most famous Judas story of all, where he is reported in the Bible to have betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The betrayal took place, they say, but Judas thought he was acting as a double agent and that he was in fact saving Jesus’ life.  No cash changed hands and Judas did not commit suicide afterwareds.

The idea that some of Jesus’ miracles did not happen and were written to shore up Messianic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible has been common in academic circles for decades.  But for many of the faithful it will come as almost as much of a shock as the thought of Jeffrey Archer being the propagator of this new “truth”.

Father Moloney, believed by many to be the world’s greatest living Biblical scholar, drew on years of scholarship to make The Gospel According to Judas as close as possible to those passages thought to be genuine in the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of St John. But he insisted they leave out verses agreed by scholars to have been made up by the original authors of the Bible.

Old habit die hard, however, and the partnership with Lord Archer, which began in a Rome restaurant called The Two Thieves, almost collapsed when the best-selling author attempted to inject unbelievable elements of fiction into the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

Father Moloney agreed that the story-teller could invent a plausible ending to Judas’ life but drew the line at the Lord Archer’s fantasy of giving Judas a death-bed conversion to Christianity. Father Moloney told me that Jesus had been a ’miracle worker’. But he had studied the Bible all his life, and had become convinced that some of Jesus’ miracles were invented by the early Church.

Turning water into wine at a wedding feast came “out of a profound desire to show that Jesus, like the God of Israel, is the messianic giver of all good things.”  Walking on water and calming the seas stemmed from a desire to prove that Jesus had the same mastery over nature as the God of the Hebrew Bible.

Father Moloney said he had no doubts over the resurrection, however. That was not a miracle by Jesus, that was what God did for His son. “What is official Church teaching is that in the person of Jesus, the divine has entered history.”

Father Moloney said that when he started working with Lord Archer, although he knew he had been to jail, he was not aware of how he was regarded by many in Britain.  “I am certainly aware now.” He had read some of his novels, such as Kane and Abel, and “enjoyed them very much.” They worked together closely for a year. “I found him an incredibly hard-working man. There was intense collaboration. I always admire a man who really works hard and he does.”  He added: “I really admire his honesty and integrity. That is the exact opposite of what everybody says about Jeffrey Archer. And I am sure he is a bit of a villain. I would not doubt that. But my personal experience of him has been nothing but quality workmanship and a very high respect for me and my person and for who I am as a Roman Catholic priest.”

He also admired Lord Archer’s willingness to capitulate over their “three or four major conflicts.” He said: “On one occasion the whole project nearly got dropped. We never had yelling matchings but he is a story-teller. I insisted that what was in this Gospel might not be probable, but it must be possible. He was really anxious to have some sort of final death bed conversion of Judas. I said that would make a wonderful ending, but it could never have happened.”

Lord Archer, who has given few interviews since he was released in 2003 after he served two years of a four year sentence for lying and cheating in a 1987 libel case against the Daily Star, told The Times that neither serving time in jail nor writing the book had affected his faith. Nor did he identify in any way with the character of Judas himself. He was attracted by the “mystery” of the story.

One of his biggest disputes with Father Moloney came over Lord Archer's preference for the King James Bible, which he is certainly able to quote, chapter and verse. Father Moloney preferred to describe God moving in "strange" ways, while Lord Archer found Him "mysterious".

He has been a practising Anglican since childhood and his wife Mary sings in the choir at Grantchester. “We are pretty normal,” he said. “A lot of it [Christianity] remains a mystery for me. Working with one of the world’s leading minds on the subject has not made it any easier.  When you are being taught on a daily basis for a year by such a clever person the mystery grows. Sometimes it is much easier to understand. Sometimes it is clear. But a lot of the time it becomes more complicated because you start thinking about things you have never thought about before. My own faith, my own beliefs - a lot of it is itself a mystery.”

He said that he had never had a religious experience in his life. “Meeting Mother Teresa was frightening enough. That was highly terrifying. She made Margaret Thatcher look like a wimp.”

He had wanted to write the Gospel of Judas for 15 years but was told he needed a good collaborator. He tried people but kept getting turned down. I know this, not because he told me, but because the stepmother of one of my colleagues at The Times is a noted professor of theology and she was approached ten years ago. She said no, and her stepson is now rueing the fortune she could have made.

Eventually an old friend, Father Michael Seed, famed for bringing high-profile converts known as “Seedlings”’ into the Roman Catholic Church, effected an introduction to Cardinal Martini who said he was too old to take it on but said the brightest student he had ever taught was Father Moloney. Moloney, who has recently returned to his home country having been made provincial, or head, of the Salesian order for the region, agreed to give it a go.

Lord Archer confessed that one gift prison had given him was an awareness of how fortunate he was. Speaking in his Penthouse on the Albert Embankment, overlooking the Thames, he said: “There is not a day I do not get up and look out of that window and think, you are a lucky boy.”

Comments

[simon]

Ruth: Of course, as we reported two years ago, the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible in any case.

Ruth I don't know why you say that again. I corrected you as a post to that article at the time, and it appears to have disappeared. It is however on the web along with other people also refuting the terrible headline you used there (e.g. search for Gledhill here )

The Catholic Church certainly does accept the bible as true. In this it means literally true - not true in a literalistic sense. When it rains cats and dogs, fluffy creatures do not fall out of the sky. When the creation of the universe is described through Gods inspiration as seven days - it was clearly not talking about 7 x 24hr earth days.

But this takes away nothing from the belief that the scriptures are true. This is from the Catechism;

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

(Simon, I have mentioned it again here because it keeps as you say getting picked up on the web. When I wrote it I didn't have a blog, so I've revisited it to give people the chance to comment on it on this blog if they wish. Thank you for your comment. As you know, we don't write our own headlines. Ruth)

[Timothy Edwards]

"Of course, as we reported two years ago, the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible in any case. Nor does any respectable Biblical scholar as a matter of fact."

(Somebody really should have told me that before I started my doctoral work on the New Testament.)

Of course, it depends entirely on how you define "respectable". In some circles, respectability and rejection of the truth of the Bible go hand in glove. But then those are the sort of circles that would not acknowledge, say, Tom Wright (or insert one of any number of equivalent names here) as a "respectable scholar" (which is to say that they are not the sort of circles to which it is worthwhile paying any attention.

[Alan Marsh]

Ruth, your quote above, "the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible" is not a headline. I think you need to check this out with a respectable Catholic theologian.
(ruth responds: the quote was the headline of the original story I did, based on a document published by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales which is not online but can be purchased. The report was written by a number of respectable Catholic theologians.)

[heredal]

The full 60-page document The Gift of Scripture can be downloaded here as a PDF:

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/publications/Gift%20of%20Scripture%20text.pdf

On page 20, it says about fundamentalism:

“Fundamentalist reading will often focus on a particular text or text, and disregard others which express different perspectives, thus making absolute what is a partial and incomplete understanding of scripture. Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others. The fundamentalist approach disregards the diversity of views and the development of understanding which is found in the bible and does not allow for the presence of “imperfect and time-conditioned elements’ within Scripture (Dei Verbum 15).”

The expressions "imperfect and time-conditioned elements" and "diversity of views" expouned in the GoS seem to be at odds with "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" in the Catechism.

It seems to me that if as the Catechism claims, the inspired books teach "the truth", then the definition of "truth" is effectively being widely redrawn by the GoS and thus allows plenty room for sophistry.

As an example, Simon says that "When the creation of the universe is described through God's inspiration as seven days - it was clearly not talking about 7 x 24hr earth days." I doubt that is a view shraed by Young Earth Creationists (for example in ICR and AiG, and possibly in the Vardy academies) would dispute that view with the Day-Age Creationism you expound here. In an update on the Omphalos theory of Gosse in 1857, Whitcomb & Morris in "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications" (1961), argue that earth's original soils were simply created appearing 'old'. The 'truth' would seem to be pretty widely drawn

And I dare say, if there is a Gospel according to Lord Archer, any 'truth' expressed therein should be taken with the proverbial pillar of salt!

[Chris Gillibrand]

I too am writing a fantasy novel in which the founder of Father Maloney’s order, the Salesians, St John Bosco comes back from heaven to earth. Professor Maloney then tries and fails to explain to him his views on biblical inspiration and the truthfulness of Scripture. St John Bosco then tells him not to forget the children whose care is the first duty of the Salesians.

St John Bosco even has a quote especially for Lord Archer. “My political views are those of the Lord’s Prayer”.

Politicians doing biblical studies are liable to come unstuck. Enoch Powell comes to mind; a clever man whatever you think about him otherwise but his book on the Gospels was to put it mildly idiosyncratic, a product of one man's mind.

[simon]

Apologies Ruth - I thought you were endorsing the tabloid-like headline :)

Timothy Edwards - well said!

[Peter]

"Nor does any respectable Biblical scholar as a matter of fact."

Ruth you really must stop posting your own personal opinions as if they were irrefutable facts held by all sensible people. As Timothy posts, I doubt that I also would consider any of the repsectable scholars you hang around with (who I am sure are nice people) as worth listening to at all.

Peter

(rg writes: oh dear. I'll try and improve. sorry. I thought it was a fact but I'll reassess in the light of your and Timothy's comments.)

[David]

I'm sure Pope Benedict XVI has addressed the aforementioned miracles in his soon to be released book on Jesus.

[simon]

Heredal: "As an example, Simon says that "When the creation of the universe is described through God's inspiration as seven days - it was clearly not talking about 7 x 24hr earth days." I doubt that is a view shraed by Young Earth Creationists (for example in ICR and AiG, and possibly in the Vardy academies) would dispute that view with the Day-Age Creationism you expound here.

There are all kinds of strange views that all kinds of people have. I was just referring to what most of the Catholic Church believes. If you want something official from the Vatican try paragraphs 63 and 64 here

[Heredal]

"There are all kinds of strange views that all kinds of people have"

But these aren't the strange views of strange people - these are people like you, Simon, who base their views on the 'truth' of the Bible!

[simon]

Heredal:But these aren't the strange views of strange people - these are people like you, Simon, who base their views on the 'truth' of the Bible!

I would rather say that these people are more like you, they try to fly with one wing. I am of course referring to John Paul II's encyclical Faith and Reason which starts off;

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth...

There are some things in there for Ruth with regards 'method' theologians. But also some things for you to think about :)

For example;

In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature and even over the human being.

As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made, because everything is fleeting and provisional.

later he continues;

81. One of the most significant aspects of our current situation, it should be noted, is the “crisis of meaning”. Perspectives on life and the world, often of a scientific temper, have so proliferated that we face an increasing fragmentation of knowledge. This makes the search for meaning difficult and often fruitless. Indeed, still more dramatically, in this maelstrom of data and facts in which we live and which seem to comprise the very fabric of life, many people wonder whether it still makes sense to ask about meaning. The array of theories which vie to give an answer, and the different ways of viewing and of interpreting the world and human life, serve only to aggravate this radical doubt, which can easily lead to scepticism, indifference or to various forms of nihilism.

In consequence, the human spirit is often invaded by a kind of ambiguous thinking which leads it to an ever deepening introversion, locked within the confines of its own immanence without reference of any kind to the transcendent. A philosophy which no longer asks the question of the meaning of life would be in grave danger of reducing reason to merely accessory functions, with no real passion for the search for truth.

[Alice C. Linsley]

This is not Bible scholarship, but rather a rehashing of post-modern and higher critical speculation from the last 50 years. In reality, the Bible is being used today by scholars in many related fields as a reliable source of information about ancient peoples and the apostolic period.

[Hermann Burchard]

Ruth, for us Jesus freaks article, interview, blog are important news, here's an alternate headline: "Enlightenment w/o Atheism." Archer/ Moloney probably go farther on this than we've heard prelates for years more hint than explain (thanks to Simon for Vatican links pars 63 & 64). However, our shallow conception of religion shows up when Lord Archer, who says "he had never had a religious experience in his life," tells us: "There is not a day I do not get up and look out of that window and think, you are a lucky boy.” He doesn't know it, but he's actually meeting Jesus, by the Holy Ghost indwelling in him, spreading His Living Mercy. In my paper in Foundations of Science, June 2005, I attempt a new ontology that might help us to allow for religion a realistic, a fuller space and place. Myself, I have been on my J-"Way" to being a scientist and Christian since childhood, raised as a confirmed Lutheran. Also love the Z-Gathas which remain still true now as ever, quoting: "Angra Mainyuh sends his demons who seduce humans misleading them in order to rob them of the enjoyment of life". Today, we add "and of liberty and happiness." After my divorce, I have listened to Brother Kenneth "Dad" Hagin's teaching tapes for hundreds of hours or more (while driving my car or at night falling asleep), and attended his meetings. When at one meeting attendees tried to start a Toronto blessing (RG) he was tolerant but clearly more patient than thrilled.

[Joel]

...the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible in any case. Nor does any respectable Biblical scholar as a matter of fact.

Ruth, could you explain the last sentence? Do you mean respected Anglican scholar? British scholar? Do you mean ”respected by university elites“? (which might say more for changes in universities rather than Christian belief).

I don’t think it would be too hard to find a dozen or so American scholars who publish in peer-referreed journals or teach at accredited seminaries that would attest to the miracle at Cana.

(rg writes: You are right to pull me up, I should have put 'many respectable Biblical scholars'. I would change it now, except I don't want to be attacked for changing posts in the light of subsequent corrections as I have been in the past. So perhaps this will suffice. Ruth)

[Juliet]

That is so funny - especially the interviewing him in the hollow-sounding penthouse bit, and the long awkward pause after he says, no, that actually he does NOT identify with Judas...(why not, doesn't everyone have at least a tiny Judas streak?...)

Peter, it's perfectly reasonable to assert that biblical scholars don't have to find it necessary to swear by the truth of the Bible, which appears to be more or less what Ruth is saying, or over-saying. Swearing by anything is for the doubting and insecure, but faith gives people the confidence of knowing in whom they have believed, and the freedom to practice their faith without being slaves to certain ideas regarding the meaning of biblical 'truth'.

[David Kirwan]

But, Heredal, As Pontius Pilate said "What is 'truth'?".

The 'strange people' Simon refers to are those fundamentalists who define the 'truth of the Bible' as being the literal reading of their favourite selected texts. (They can't accept all of them or they would convert to Judaism since Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would be abolished from the Law.)

What Simon, and the Catholic Church in general, means by the 'truth of the Bible' is that each book of this collection of books expresses, in language and imagery appropriate to the time and place and cultural circumstances (etc) of composition, some aspect of the truth about God and the human race and the relation between the two.

Consequently, since we live in a time and cultural milieu far removed from that of any of the biblical authors, the truth of the Bible can only be found by interpretation in the the light of the best researches of textual criticism, anthropology, history, archaeology, biology and so on.

The same outlook used to be shared (maybe still is) by the Anglican Church - you can try C. H Dodd's 'the Authority of the Bible' for an Anglican view. Although it dates back two or three generations it represents the Anglican consensus at the time, and still, I think, represents a pretty accurate summary of the teaching of Rome on the subject.

Or look at paragraph 110 of the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church': "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current ...".

(The 7-day creationists might like to note that their interpretation was debunked as early as the late Roman Empire by St Jerome and St Augustine of Hippo, both of whom said and wrote quite firmly that the story of creation in seven days was a poetical presentation and not meant to be taken literally. And neither got into any trouble with the Church for saying so.)

[Marc E. Heine]

Is anyone aware of the novel, The Gospel According to Judas, by Henryk Panas, an award-winning Polish author, which first appeared in Polish in Warsaw in 1973, and was published in London in 1977 by Hutchinson in my English-language translation (ISBN: 9780091311407)?

[Maduka]

This is where many get it wrong.

Very few people are attracted to Christianity because it explains how the Earth was created or to verify the claims made the New Testament about the miracles of Jesus.

[Philip Ritchie]

'Father Moloney, believed by many to be the world’s greatest living Biblical scholar, drew on years of scholarship to make The Gospel According to Judas as close as possible to those passages thought to be genuine in the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of St John. But he insisted they leave out verses agreed by scholars to have been made up by the original authors of the Bible.'
Ruth, I'm afraid you will find that Biblical scholarship has moved on. There is no such agreement as you suggest over what has been 'made up' by the original authors. There is a wide range of opinion in what has become known as the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. You will find a good summary of the current state of play in chapters 2 & 3 of Tom Wright's 'Jesus and the Victory of God'. I spend a large amount of my time encouraging lay people to get to grips with biblical criticism and the issues raised. I find that the problem is not in accepting the assertions of many modern scholars (and they are assertions and arguments,not facts backed up by empirical evidence), rather the problem is in encouraging people to recognise that one needs to employ the same critical faculties when considering the arguments of biblical scholars. A good example of this is the approach to miracle, where the default position is that miracles can't take place so any miracle in the Gospels must have been created by the author to make a theological point. That assertion says as much about the cultural context of the scholar as it does about the material being considered.
Would you also refrain from slipping into the lazy assertion that no respectable biblical scholar believes in the truth of the Bible. What do you mean by truth and what do you mean by respectable? (rg writes: fair criticism, I have tried to respond to it in some earlier comments. It is not so much caused by laziness however - among my many faults that is not one! - as by hastiness.)

[Penny House]

I was fascinated by your article in today's Times since I had just yesterday finished reading a rather old (May 2006) National Geographic account of The Judas Gospel based on a 1700 papyrus manuscript. The comment which most stands out is that although, as Mr Archer also states, Judas did betray Christ he was actually following Jesus's request to do so in order to free his body from his soul.

I offer this information not because I am a highly qualified academic or frustrated author but because I think it begs the question of whether Mr Archer has in fact plagiarised a 1700 document authenticated by a team of experts who surely know more than he does.

[Philip Ritchie]

Ruth, I wasn't accusing you of laziness (no one who follows your blog could accuse you of that!) rather I was suggesting that it is a lazy asertion to make the statement without defining terms etc. More than happy to change it to generalised assertion/hasty assertion. Thanks for the grace with which you have conceded the point to those who raised it in their posts.
(thanks Philip, you are right about the statement, I guess it is a form of intellectual laziness brought on by haste. thanks anyway, I am glad to have had these opportunities to put thing straight.)

[Maduka]

Why this obsession with the miracles of Jesus? Jesus did not leave us with His miracles but with His words. Let us concentrate on his words.

[Philip Ritchie]

Yes Maduka, Jesus did leave us his words but these were conveyed through his followers. The miracles are of significance to his followers because they were signs of the kingdom breaking in to people's lives. John's gospel actually calls them signs not miracles and they point to who Jesus is. I'm sure the blind man given sight and the father restored to his once dead daughter thought them pretty significant as did his followers and those who decided to record them.
As we look forward to Easter we look to the greatest miracle, the resurection, and I tend to side with St Paul on that one when he comments 'If Christ has not been raised your faith is futile and you are still in your sins' 1 Cor 15:17 'If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied' 1 Cor 15:19
By the way, if anyone is interested in reading a good novel drawing on the gospels I recommend Anne Rice's 'Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt'. Her author's notes and her notes to the paper back edition are well worth reading particularly for what she says about her own engagement with biblical scholarship. Jeffrey Archer would do well to look and learn.

[Richard Lewis]

Since when is the pompous Jeffrey Archer a Biblical scholar?

[Steven Carr]

Biblical scholars have examined the New Testament, using the same methods whoch can be applied to the Koran or the Book of Mormon, and reached the same results.

Many stories are reworkings of older stories, rewritten to provide stories for the new religion.

I summarise the results at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

As for the Resurrection, it should not be forgotten that early converts to Jesus-worship accepted that Jesus was still alive, but scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

I call them Jesus-worshippers because they were so early that the name 'Christian' had not yet been invented.

Paul assures these Jesus-worshippers that Jesus became a life-giving spirit, with the implication that they too will become spirits.

[Chris Gillibrand]

John 2.11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

[Chris Gillibrand]

PS it is perhaps fortunate for Lord Archer's credibility that Cardinal Martini did not co-author the book, as he said:

"Many books bear my name, but I have neither written them nor read them. These are things I have said on some occasion, which others have transcribed. If a publisher wants to run the risk of publishing them, I won't say no, as long as he states that the test has not been reviewed by its author. If these books achieve something good, I am happy, because the reader is listening to God's word, not mine."

Real Martini or pseudo-apocryphal Martini, one can never be sure.

More seriously, Cardinal Martini retired to Jerusalem and such is his love for the land that he will be buried there, ending his days paying for the peace of Jerusalem.

"There is hope, and there is continual prayer for peace. I know that my intercession and prayer are worth little, but I add them like a drop to the immense river of the Church's prayer". As he is reported saying, (hopefully accurately!) on the chiesa website.

[Philip Ritchie]

Chris, I don't wish to be pedantic but the greek word used in John 2:11 is 'semeion' which should be translated 'sign' rather than 'miracle'.
Steven, before making such sweeping claims about what early Jesus-worshippers believed about the resurrection it would be worth reading N.T Wright's 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' which covers in great detail (800 pages)resurrection in Paul and in early Christianity as well as exploring the wider understanding of resurrection in second temple Judaism. Wright argues that the Jesus-followers did believe in a bodily resurrection and it was this astonishing experience which convinced them that he really was the son of God.

[Nigel]

'Zadok the Roman' on his always enlightening blog http://www.zadokromanus.blogspot.com/ puts the view of this from Rome very clearly.

[Steven Carr]

Ritchie should know that I have read Wright's book.

It is wrong in the important places.

Wright wrote a 800-plus book and never once found space to quote in full , Paul writing 'The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit'.

Not once quoted in full! How's that for scholarship!

Perhaps if he had quoted it in full (if even once), even Wright's readers might have noticed the typology, with the implication that Paul believed all Christians would become life-giving spirits.

And it remains a historical fact that early converts to Jesus-worship scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The perils of using translations- even the Douai-Rheims!

The Latin Vulgate agrees with the Greek.

John 2. 11 hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae et manifestavit gloriam suam et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius

[David Keen]

Does Jeffrey Archer actually exist? The more I hear about him, the more unbelievable his life and teaching sounds.

[Alan Marsh]

"a historical fact that early converts to Jesus-worship scoffed at the idea"

Which people does Steven Carr have in mind, please?

[Philip Ritchie]

Steven, 2 comments.
Wright deals very clearly with the passage you refer to (1 Cor 15:42-49) on pages 347-356. I find Wright's sustained and detailed argument more convincing than the brief jottings on your website.
I had a look at your website. Pretty predictable stuff apart from your thesis that Peter lied about the resurrection because it secured him a safe job and good wage after the dangers of living as a fisherman, that was very funny. He must have been a bit hacked off when it didn't quite turn out to be the cushy numbered he'd hoped. Strange he didn't just deny the whole thing when his life was on the line. You ought to have a word with Archer and see if he is willing to write another book about Peter based on your assumptions. He's the man for the job, no doubt about it.
Thanks for brightening up my day.

[Heredal]

"Does Jeffrey Archer actually exist? The more I hear about him, the more unbelievable his life and teaching sounds."

I have heard it said that he has been resurrected.

[Steven Carr]

It would appear from Philip Ritchie's comments that he has conceded that Wright never quotes the important verse in full, not once in a 700-plus page book.

And Ritchie has also coneded that early Jesus-worshippers scoffed at the idea of God raising a corpse.

Now he is resorting to fantasies about what Peter believed, when Peter never wrote anywhere what he believed. (I'm sure Jeffrey Archer will fill in that gap in history. Just give him time)

If Philip Ritchie wants to debate the resurrection , I can easily set up a blog for him where he can write to his heart's content that NT Wright has written a book on it.

In response, I shall merely quote what Paul said.

He will find that there is a very good reason why Wright never quoted Paul in full, if Ritchie attempts to defend the resurrection using Wright's arguments.

But that would be for a different blog.

And I agree that it is a miracle that Jeffery Archer's career has been resurrected.

[Steven Carr]

In response to Alan Marsh's comments, some Jesus-worshippers in Corinth were refusing to take part in baptism for the dead, implying that they thought that the dead were lost.

Paul also makes clear that they thought the dead were lost because they regarded the idea of God raising a corpse ridiculous.

However, they clearly believed Jesus was still alive, or else they would not have converted to Jesus-worship.

If they had believed Jesus was still dead, Paul would not have praised them they way he did in 1 Corinthians 1, calling them 'enriched in speech and knowledge of every kind'.

So they believed a god like Jesus could live on after death, but presumably they wondered how ordinary mortals could do that, when they were not gods and had a body which would perish and rot.

Paul assuages these doubts by telling them they will be resurrected to be like Jesus, and so become 'life-giving spirits'.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Catholic RSV
"First of his signs"

New Jerusalem
"First of Jesus' signs

Ronald Knox's version in theory although not in practice translated not from the Greek but the Vulgate, (as the authorative Catholic text of the Bible).
"Jesus began his miracles"

I once did a translation of a text into German with my wife. The English Bible quote used bore no relation to any text, Latin, Greek or German in any version but sadly I can't find which verse was.

[Philip Ritchie]

Stephen, can you point to where I concede your claims about the early followers of Jesus not believing that he was physically raised from the dead. My contention would be that only a physical, bodily resurrection would convince them that he was the son of God and worthy of their worship.
Regarding Peter, my comments are based on what you wrote on your website about Peter, where you speculate about why Peter might promulgate belief in the resurrection. Though you provide no evidence for this claim.
Regarding Wright, I think he deals very effectively with the passage you quote and puts forward a clear explanation of the language used by Paul in this verse and what it might mean.
By the way, why does your website come up with the title 'The UK's Leading Atheist Page' in the tab using Firefox? Have you claimed this accolade or has someone else conferred it upon you.

[Timothy Edwards]

Steven Carr complains that Wright never quotes in full 1Cor 15:45 "The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit".

But, of course, nor does Steven: What Paul wrote was "the first man Adam became a living soul/being (psyche) the last Adam a life-giving spirit (pneuma)". (So it becomes slightly harder to find any denial of the physicality of Jesus' resurrection in that comparison).

(And that is leaving aside the slightly foolish assumption that one has to quote a text in full in order properly to discuss it (as if no-one had access to a copy of the New Testament).)

[Steven Carr]

Timothy Edwards is correct in his quote 'What Paul wrote was "the first man Adam became a living soul/being (psyche) the last Adam a life-giving spirit (pneuma)".'

Wright splits that verse into two, so that readers cannot see the typology that Paul intends.

Just as we shared in the nature of the first Adam, so we shall share in the nature of the second Adam, and also become a life-giving spirit.

Paul makes the typology even clearer in his letters

Presumably the Christians in Corinth knew that corpses dissolved into dust. Paul also knew that and is clear to him that resurrected beings are not reformed from the dust of the dead.

'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.'

The Jesus-worshippers in Corinth denied resurrection (except for Jesus), because they thought it involved the impossible idea of a corpse being raised.

Paul is stressing that they will be resurrected like Jesus, and this will not involve being made of the dust of the earth that corpses dissolve into.

Instead, people will be made of heavenly materials.

As I said earlier, he had to write again to the Corinthians to make it even clearer, which is what he does in 2 Corinthians 5.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Breaking Paul's typology is wrongly "dividing the word of Truth." Adam is a type of Christ, as Eve is a type of Mary, the Theotokos. There are many other types of Christ in the Bible, given so we wouldn't miss HIS coming in the flesh.

[rgrey]

"When the creation of the universe is described through Gods inspiration as seven days - it was clearly not talking about 7 x 24hr earth days."

I have come late to this discussion, but the above remark made by Simon at the very beginning requires some analysis. Perhaps as he says it is "clearly" the case that the timeframe in question here is not 7 x 24hr days. Presumably it is also the case that when the bible tells us that Abraham lived to be 175 and Moses 120, or indeed that Noah lived to be 950, that "clearly" it is not talking about normal years.

I assume Simon is referring to the various recordings and translations of the original oral traditions about the Genesis myths and the problems of mistranslations by generations of scribes confusing Septuagint and Sumerian numbering systems. Nevertheless it appears that these ancient texts can be and are being "interpreted" however people want them to be, in order to fit their beliefs. And what other mistakes and mistranslations persist to this day?

If it's as clear as Simon says that Genesis creation does not mean "7 x 24hr earth days", then it must be a worry that our Prime Minister is happy to sell off bits our school estate - and our children's science education - to some cranky zealots who do indeed think the world was made in seven 24-hour earth days, and is less than 10,000 years old, and he is doing so in the name of celebrating 'diversity'.

On that basis, an evidently unholy alliance between Archer and a representative of the Roman Catholic church seems the least of our national concerns. Wouldn't it be a more productive use of time and effort, and a much better PR exercise, if the religious authorities were demonstrating outside the Department of Education and the Vardy academies to put an end to this perversion of the scriptures, rather than constantly obsessing about people's bedroom activities?

[Simon]

Rgrey:I assume Simon is referring to the various recordings and translations of the original oral traditions about the Genesis myths and the problems of mistranslations by generations of scribes confusing Septuagint and Sumerian numbering systems. Nevertheless it appears that these ancient texts can be and are being "interpreted" however people want them to be, in order to fit their beliefs.

No I'm not suggesting 'confusion in translating numbering systems'. I'm suggesting that, for the creator of the universe, a day would surely mean something different to our 24 hour earth day. Even more, if you look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis for 'day', you can see that its not as literal as our english version;

יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

(From Strongs Hebrew dictionary via e-sword)

Rgrey:If it's as clear as Simon says that Genesis creation does not mean "7 x 24hr earth days", then it must be a worry that our Prime Minister is happy to sell off bits our school estate - and our children's science education - to some cranky zealots who do indeed think the world was made in seven 24-hour earth days, and is less than 10,000 years old, and he is doing so in the name of celebrating 'diversity'.

All government funded schools are required to teach the theory of evolution in science, and I'm sure anyone using Noahs flood as an explanation for why there are sea shells at the top of the Himalayas will loose marks in any exam touching on geology.

Whilst I do think people teaching a literalist interpretation of Genesis are indeed "cranky zealots", I think the situation in the UK gets blown out of proportion a bit by the media. Its needs to be dealt with, but in reality most of these schools with a 'Christian ethos' get good results in subjects that require an understanding of modern science.

[jim, sydney]

As the Catholic document The Gift of Scripture states: "We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical accuracy". "Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide". To be fair to the document, it encourages readers of the scripture to take into account the literary genre of the author. It suggests the oral traditions were recorded faithfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but also stresses the authors who recorded traditions, or wrote outright, did so as humans, but again guided by God's grace, and that scripture may not all be literal fact. It therefore stresses that the intention of the author is important to for readers to assess and discern, and all should be taken in context, and needs to be interpreted today in light of the total scriptural message, and not in isolation. Decisions made by the characters which may be considered morally repugnant today, it states in other words, should be taken within historical context, such as the sacrifice of his daughter in Judges 11 by Jephthah. I presume this is extrapolated to all passages in which those of ancient times concluded that God had a hand in immoral acts such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. It cautions against isolated over-interpretation of Revelation, and says that it should not be interpreted literally. It says Mark's gospel was likely written first, and that the 3 synoptics contain much similar material, and that John's had a distinct process of composition. Variations amongst accounts are interpreted as variations in structure and intent. Paul's attitude to slaves and women is explained away within the historical context and his overall message.

I welcomed the above, and have known Christians for many years who do take a mature, modern view. Unfortunately not all believers are as enlightened. Fundamentalism is still rampant. As well, the above still leaves considerable doubt as to what are core, no-negotiable events (with the resurrection obviously being the most important of this group), and which can be put in a "take it or leave it, doesn't really matter, may not have happened" grouping.

Medical miracles from ancient times are uninterpretable, for no definitive diagnosis or pathology can be identified. Diseases were misclassified and misdiagnosed all the time. Ignorance reigned. Micro-organisms were unknown, as were all diseases with exacerbations and remissions like multiple sclerosis that can cause temporary paralysis or blindness. A host of conditions would have been called leprosy. The walking on water miracle is not core to some respected scholars, nor the water into wine story, nor the feeding of the multitude. It is hard to know what was definitely a bible miracle. I don't know which miraculous ones can be claimed to be definite historical events, and doubt them all.

Sure I'm a skeptic, and believers see that as a pejorative term in the extreme, but I see it as a healthy need for hard evidence. An empty tomb with a supposed angel or two outside doesn't carry much weight.

[David Smith]

Jim, Sydney:
'Sure I'm a skeptic, and believers see that as a pejorative term in the extreme, but I see it as a healthy need for hard evidence. An empty tomb with a supposed angel or two outside doesn't carry much weight.'

A bit like you, Jim, I too took a long hard lawyer's look at the historic and scientific proofs for Christianity. I believe that to do this is very important, but the hard evidence that really clinched it for me was the life-changing experience that I had once I had got to the 'if-you're-really-there-then-please-show-yourself, because my-mind-alone-can't-find-you' stage.

I was myself 'christened' into the Church of England, and told by the men in dog collars that this made me a Christian. Because of them I believed that if I attended their churches, underwent their ceremonies or ‘services’, and tried to lead a good life in the way that they taught me, I would go to heaven. I had a faith in the sense that I accepted the ideas that they believed and taught me to believe. When someone told me at 25 that I wasn’t a Christian, I was furiously offended. And it wasn’t until I read what God says a Christian is in the Bible itself that I could see that they were right, and decide if I wanted to really be one or not, and how I could. I’m so glad that I was given this opportunity, otherwise I would never have come to really know God personally as I then did. Jesus said that eternal life means ‘knowing’ Him. (John 17:3) He defines faith as the leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness. He says that to believe is to adhere to, to trust, and to rely on Him, and that this requires being supernaturally spiritually born again.

If you think that what happened to me might interest you, then have a look at my post of 30th Nov 2006 at 1.34am on Ruth's thread: Archbishop Meets Pope of 24th Nov 2006.

[Adrian Peirson]

Yet more Subversive attacks on Europes Christian Roots by the EU.
Secret agreement to allow Islam to Dominate Europe.
http://balder.org/avisartikler/Barcelona-Declaration-Euro-Mediterranean-English.php