Tommy Tuberville is an embarrassment to all sane people. What on earth does his stupidity say about all the folks who voted for him?
Alabama deserves so much better. Alabamians can do so much better by reading and thinking for themselves and not being kowtowed by Tuberville and his ilk.
“The court calls The State of Illinois vs. Colton Lee Atwood.” The bailiff announced with a deep voice, scanning the courtroom, and registering four people present other than himself, the judge, and the court reporter. Three of the four were attorneys, two sitting to his right at the defense table, the other was the assistant district attorney, looming large at the prosecutor’s table to his left. The fourth was Andrew Spivey in the galley, the Chicago Tribune reporter who was always present for the criminal motions docket.
The bailiff handed the court file to the judge who started slowly reading the incident and offense reports, and the indictment.
Assistant District Attorney George Hooks stood from the prosecutor’s table. “Your honor, the State asks this case and the case of State of Illinois vs. J. Sanford Brown be heard together. They’re companion cases and are both set for today on the State’s motions to revoke bond. And, as the file indicates, Judge Stewart granted my office’s joinder motion.” Hooks was a giant, six foot seven, and had played center for the national champion Kentucky Wildcats in the late nineties; his weight now approached three-hundred pounds. His bald head, long neck, and appetite for devouring defendants, most of whom suffer from the delusion they are still alive, had earned him the nickname, the vulture. His eighty-six inch wingspan and octupus-like fingers intimidated the toughest defense attorney, not only when standing next to him before the bench, but also by teasing their heads with the metaphorical thought Hooks could secretly reach inside the inner pages of their files and strategies.
“I’ll allow it.” Judge Joe Rhodes, a thick man with a mass of thick gray curls hanging to his shoulders and concealing much of his face, was sitting on his perch fiddling with his glasses, and sucking on an unlit cigar.
The court reporter handed the Brown file to the bailiff who handed it to the judge.
Defense attorney Cliff Blackwell leaned toward Sandy’s attorney, Patrick Meyers, and whispered. “Where in hell are these bastards?” Earlier today, both defense attorneys had attempted to call their clients to remind them their appearance in court this morning was mandatory. The two calls had gone to voicemail. And, late Saturday afternoon, and three times yesterday, Blackwell had dialed Millie Anderson’s cell. These calls too had gone to voicemail. He had wanted her in court as a backup strategy, knowing she was the key to Atwood’s hope of surviving the indictment but also knowing that revealing her as an alibi at this stage would take away the benefit of surprise she would be at the actual trial, and give ADA Hooks and his investigative team ample time to microscopically inspect the truth or falseness of Millie’s statement.
The judge looked toward the defense table and saw two familiar faces, but not the defendants. Quickly, he asked the bailiff to summon the court clerk from her office, who, after appearing, assured the judge written notices had been mailed to both defendant’s. He dismissed her and said, “Mr. Hooks, I see we’re here today on your motion to revoke bond. What say you?” Rhodes was newly appointed and had spent the prior twenty-years as a prosecutor, often trying cases in this very courtroom.
Hooks stood. “Your Honor, it should be clear why the defendants aren’t here this morning. They know they’ve been skating on thin ice every since Judge Stewart granted their bond for $50,000. With no disrespect for your predecessor, the horror of these crimes mandates one response: jail, without bail.” Hooks paused, not wanting to get long-winded without Judge Rhoades permission.
The judge inhaled a long draw of his unlit cigar. “Continue.”
Hooks glanced at the defense table and then back to Judge Rhoades. “The defendants kidnapped and raped two University of Chicago students, and in an effort to destroy evidence torched the young ladies’ home. One victim, Ms. Ellen Heppner, died in the fire. The other, Ms. Gina Patton, barely escaped and still suffers greatly, including having to quit school. She’s now undergoing deep therapy and living with her parents. We ask this court to revoke the defendants’ bond and incarcerate them until trial.” The ADA sat, then quickly re-stood. “One final thing your honor, our investigation has revealed that defendant Atwood has on more than one occasion, one within the past six weeks, physically abused the woman he lives with. Plus, she has a twelve-year-old daughter living in the same household. The State contends Atwood is a threat to not only to his girlfriend, Ms. Millie Anderson, and her daughter, but potentially to Ms. Patton herself since her testimony is critical to this case. Thank you your honor.”
Attorney Meyers continued to doodle on his yellow legal pad, thankful Blackwell had agreed to take the lead and speak on behalf of both defendants. It was good Colton hadn’t confessed, unlike Sandy. “I’m limited in what I can say on my client’s behalf,” is all Meyers had relayed to Blackwell when they’d received copies of the State’s motion to revoke bond. Now, drawing a hangman’s noose, he swore to himself he would never accept another murder case. And, it wasn’t for lack of financial resources. Both Sandy and his sister had signed promissory notes, and pledged their grandfather’s estate as collateral. Plus, the sister had paid twenty thousand dollars toward the fifty-thousand retainer. Meyers problem was the approaching storm. Blackwell was a good friend but that didn’t dissipate the duty to represent his client. At some point, Meyers knew he had to negotiate a deal on behalf of Brown. This meant offering Brown’s testimony of Colton’s guilt in exchange for a lesser sentence. This would have been so much easier if Brown hadn’t described in detail what had gone that horrible night. It would have been easier if he hadn’t revealed that he and Colton had no alibi, that he was forcing Millie Anderson to testify falsely. Meyers drew a larger noose underneath the small one at the top of the page, wondering if his client and Colton were now on the run, and, for the second time today, wondered if Colton was a physical threat to his client.
“I assume the defendants have something to say.” Judge Rhoades lay his unlit cigar aside and poured himself a cup of coffee from an old green thermos.
Attorney Cliff Blackwell stood, glancing down at the two nooses Meyers had drawn. Blackwell comes from a long line of lawyers. His grandfather had started the firm in 1925. His father had joined the firm in 1954, after Harvard law school, and a two-year stint in the Army. Cliff had become a partner in 1984 after graduating Harvard Law School, clerking at the U.S. Supreme Court, and five years as an FBI agent. “Thank you your Honor. I admit I do not know where the defendants are at the present moment but there are certain things in their favor we do know. First, there isn’t a shred of physical evidence tying my client or Mr. Meyers’ client to the charged crimes. We’re here because of the slender reed of Ms. Patton’s testimony. In that, she admits the perpetrators wore masks. At best, she contends her and Ms. Heffener’s attackers could have been the men they partied with at Mitchell’s Tab. As to Mr. Hooks’ allegation my client has abused his girlfriend, unsurprisingly, there’s no evidence for that either, no police reports, no eyewitness testimony. Further, the defendant’s are both gainfully employed and have deep ties to the community, both having lived in Chicago all their lives. They have no reason to avoid the workings of this court. In the event this Court grants the State’s motion I would ask on behalf of both defendants that it be a conditional order, that Mr. Meyers and I be given ten business days to present them to this court, and, in that event, the Court would void it’s order. Finally, Mr. Meyers and I need easy and frequent access to our clients to assist in the preparation of their defense. Thank you your Honor.”
Judge Rhoades used both hands to push back his gray curls from his narrow face. “Let’s take a fifteen minute break while I ponder my ruling.” The three attorneys stood while the judge and the court reporter retreated to chambers. Blackwell and Meyers stared at each other and shook their heads, knowing what was coming. ADA Hooks turned and raced outside the courtroom with iPhone to his ear, and motioning Reporter Spivey to join him.
After the courtroom emptied, Meyers decided there would be no better time than the present to tell Blackwell what he’d decided. “Cliff, I have no choice but to file a motion to sever.” Severance is a legal term and is used to separate defendants, giving them each their own trial, their own jury, their own opportunity to defend themselves without appearing as one with their co-defendant. For one less guilty, it provides a way to remove the taint of association with one more likely to be convicted.
Cliff took the news better than Patrick imagined. “Do what you got to do. As you know, my client has an alibi, he has never wavered from that.” Cliff personally believed his client had lied to him but since he didn’t have contradictory proof, he had a legal obligation to go forward with his client’s set of facts. “And, don’t worry about cutting a deal with the vulpine Hooks. Just remember, I’ll cross-examine your client if he testifies against mine.”
Meyers sat, picked up his pencil, and started writing something on his legal pad. “Vulpine?” How do you spell that. Blackwell responded, saying the letters slowly. “Never heard that word. What does it mean?”
“Relates to a fox. In our context, it means Hooks is clever, cunning, shrewd, wily. You know, wily as a fox.”
Just then Judge Rhoades, his court reporter, and the bailiff rushed back into the courtroom from chambers. Patrick joined Cliff in standing. “I have a family emergency so let’s make this quick. Where’s Hooks?”
It took less than a minute for the bailiff to retrieve Hooks from the hallway. “Sorry, your honor.” Cliff sighed to himself, and whispered, “the bastard is always sucking up to the judge.”
“Gentlemen, I’ve made my ruling. I hereby revoke the defendants’ bond and order warrants for their immediate arrest. They will be incarcerated until trial.” The bailiff walked up the steps toward the judge and handed him a note. He paused and read for ten seconds. “I have an update. The clerk has sent word that neither defendant showed for work today. But, I will say this. If either defense attorney can provide me a justifiable reason his client could not be here, for example, they were in a car wreck with injuries and taken to the hospital, I will rescind my order, at least temporarily. Now, I have to go. This hearing is adjourned.”
Cliff replayed in his head what the judge had just said. He couldn’t make sense of it. If good cause for not appearing was presented why not rescind the revocation order entirely. The only thing Cliff could figure was the judge believed the defendants were dangerous and belonged in jail. The damn judge was simply trying to placate, trying to appear fair to both sides. To Cliff, nothing was further from the truth. Judge Rhoades was a diehard pro-prosecution judge.
Reporter Spivey followed ADA Hooks outside the George N. Leighton Criminal Court Building. “Mr. Hooks, may I have a quick word?” The ADA was in a hurry to return to his office to meet with Todd Lacey his chief investigator.
“You have as long as it takes for me to hail a cab.” Hooks hated driving, always preferring to work on cases, either reading files or talking on his cell with investigators, witnesses, and associates.
Spivey stood beside Hooks on South California Avenue feeling like a midget. Although he was a little over six feet tall himself, the ADA’s height and heft flooded his mind with a wave of weakness. “Let’s deal. I get the inside scoop on the Atwood & Brown case and I’ll keep you up-to-date on Millie Anderson.”
“Who?” Hooks temporarily forgot the name of Defendant Atwood’s girlfriend.
“I guess you know she’s left town.” Spivey had interviewed Sandy Brown shortly after the indictments were released. He’d let it slip that he and Atwood had an alibi.
“How the hell do you know that?” Hooks waved a long arm toward a passing cab. To no avail.
“I’ve been stalking her. Legally. My sources say she was seen last Friday morning, along with her daughter, heading east on I-90. Plus, I’ve verified she wasn’t at work that day, nor has she been seen coming or going from her house on Princeton Avenue since early Friday morning. I suspect there’s a story there.”
A cab stopped and Hooks opened the door. Before contorting his huge frame into the back seat he looked down at Spivey. “You got a deal but I warn you. No bullshit.”
As the cab drove away, the reporter clinched his right hand into a fist and quickly pulled it to his side. “Yes.”
I recently read the above-titled essay in The End of Christianity (here’s the link to the book on Amazon).
Here’s the book’s Amazon abstract: In this successor to his critically acclaimed anthology, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, a former minister and now leading atheist spokesperson has assembled a stellar group of respected scholars to continue the critique of Christianity begun in the first volume. Contributors include Victor Stenger, Robert Price, Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, Keith Parsons, David Eller, and Taner Edis. Loftus is also the author of the best-selling Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity. Taken together, the Loftus trilogy poses formidable challenges to claims for the rationality of the Christian faith. Anyone with an interest in the philosophy of religion will find this compilation to be intellectually stimulating and deeply thought provoking.
Here’s how Stenger’s essay begins:
INTRODUCTION
Dinesh D’Souza is a well-known right-wing policy analyst and author who recently has taken on the role of Christian apologist. He has a degree in English from Dartmouth. From 1985 to 1987, he was editor of Policy Review, a conservative journal published by the Heritage Foundation, now part of the Hoover Institution. He served as a policy adviser to the Reagan administration until 1988 and followed this with stints as a fellow for the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution. D’Souza has summed up the cause of Christianity with books, speeches, and high-profile debates with famous atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Peter Singer, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, and John Loftus. His recent books include What’s So Great About Christianity1 and—the primary reference for this essay—Life After Death: The Evidence? In Life After Death, D’Souza insists that he is making the case for an afterlife purely on the basis of science and reason and not relying on any spooky stuff. He promises “no ghosts, no levitations, no exorcisms, no mediums, no conversations with the dead” and a case that “is entirely based on reasoned argument and mainstream scholarship.”3 Although he does not always stick to this promise, he does give a good summary of arguments for life after death, some of which I had not heard before. So the book provides a framework from which to discuss both evidentiary claims and claims that rely more on extrapolations from observed facts. D’Souza revels in his role as a “Christian cage fighter,” challenging “the honest and thoughtful atheist to consider the possibility of being wrong, and…open his mind to persuasion by rational argument.”4 I am perfectly happy to accept that challenge. Life after death can be identified with the ancient notion that the human mind is not purely a manifestation of material forces in the brain but has a separate, immaterial component called the soul that survives the death of the brain along with the rest of the body. This is a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested. Evidence for its validity could be provided by a verifiable glimpse of a world beyond obtained while communicating with the dead or during a religious experience. All the believer claiming such knowledge has to do is provide some knowledge that neither she nor anyone else could have previously known and have that information later confirmed. Let us investigate whether such evidence has been produced.
Hopefully, it’s obvious that my purpose here is to whet your appetite to dig deeper into this/these subjects, which means to ‘read-to-death’ any false positions you may hold.
Here’s the link to this article. Definitely worth your time!
Dougal Robertson (January 29, 1924–September 22, 1991) was still a teenager, the youngest of a Scottish music teacher’s eight children, when he joined the British Merchant Navy. After a Japanese attack on a steamship during WWII killed his wife and young son, he left the navy and moved to Hong Kong, where he eventually met and married a nurse.
Together, they began a new life as dairy farmers in the English countryside, on a farm without electricity or running water. Eventually, they had a daughter, then a son, then a pair of twins.
After nearly two decades on the farm, the family had an unorthodox idea for how to best educate their children, how to show them what a vast and wondrous place the world is, full of all kinds of different people and all kinds of different ways of living: They sold everything they had, bought a schooner, and set out to sail around the world, departing on January 27, 1971.
After more than a year at sea, just as they were rounding the tip of South America to begin their Pacific crossing, killer whales attacked the schooner 200 miles off the coast of Galapagos, sinking it in less than a minute. They piled into the inflatable life-raft, managed to grab a piece of sail from the water, and rigged it to the 9-foot dinghy they had on board to use it as a tugboat for the raft now housing six human beings.
Suddenly, they were a tiny speck in Earth’s largest ocean, enveloped by the vast open emptiness of infinite horizons. With no nautical instruments or charts, powered only by their makeshift sail, they had no hope of reaching land. Their only chance was rescue by a passing vessel. Given the immensity of the Pacific Ocean, it was an improbability bordering on a miracle.
Seventeen days into their life as castaways, the raft deflated. All they had now was the narrow fiberglass dinghy, its rim barely above the water’s edge with all the human cargo.
By that blind resilience life has of resisting non-life, they persisted, eating turtle meat and sweet flying fish that landed in the bottom of the boat, drinking rainwater and turtle blood. Storms lashed them. Whales menaced them. Thirst and hunger subsumed them. Their bodies were covered in salt-water sores. Enormous ships passed within sight, missing their cries for help. But they pressed on, hoping against hope, toiling in every conceivable way to keep the spark of life aflame.
After 37 days as castaways, chance smiled upon them — a Japanese fishing boat spotted their distress flare and came to their rescue. Their tongues were so swollen from dehydration that they could hardly thank their saviors.
Throughout it all, Dougal kept a journal in case they lived — an act itself emblematic of that touching and tenacious optimism by which they survived. He later drew on it to publish an account of the experience, then distilled his learnings in Sea Survival: A Manual (public library).
Nested amid the rigorously practical advice is a poetic sentiment that applies not only to survival at sea but to life itself — a soulful prescription for what it takes to live through those most trying periods when you feel like a castaway from life, beyond the reach of salvation, depleted of hope.
He writes:
I have no words to offer which may comfort the reader who is also a castaway, except that rescue may come at any time but not necessarily when you expect it; and that even if you give up hope, you must never give up trying, for, as the result of your efforts, hope may well return and with justification.
Echoing Einstein’s views on free will and personal responsibility, he adds:
You can expect good and bad luck, but good or bad judgment is your prerogative, as is good or bad management.
This simple advice reads like a Zen koan, to be rolled around the palate of the mind, releasing richer and richer meaning, deeper and deeper assurance each time.
Complement with John Steinbeck on the true meaning and purpose of hope, Jane Goodall on its deepest wellspring, and some thoughts on hope and the remedy for despair from Nick Cave and Gabriel Marcel, then zoom out to the civilizational scale and revisit Road to Survival — that wonderful packet of wisdom on resilience from the forgotten visionary who shaped the modern environmental movement.
Thanks, Nina
Your character finds an odd wooden cube in an antique store, which she obtains at a good price because the owner is unable to open it. Something rattles inside, and after some time studying the box’s markings, your heroine finds the catch that opens the box.
One Stop for Writers
Write the scene of discovery (i.e., tell a story), or brainstorm and create a list of related ideas.
Here’s five story elements to consider:
Never forget, writing is a process. The first draft is always a mess.
The first draft of anything is shit.
Ernest Hemingway
Biking is something else I both love and hate. It takes a lot of effort but does provide good exercise and most days over an hour to listen to a good book or podcast. I especially like having ridden.
Here’s my bike, a Rockhopper by Specialized. I purchased it November 2021 from Venture Out in Guntersville; Mike is top notch! So is the bike, and the ‘old’ man seat I salvaged from an old Walmart bike.
Here’s a link to today’s bike ride. This is my pistol ride.
Sanders was a tremendously talented writer.
When a Manhattan psychiatrist is murdered, a retired detective returns to the job, in a thriller by the #1 New York Times–bestselling “master of suspense” (The Washington Post).
On a rainy November night, Dr. Simon Ellerbee stares out the window of his Upper East Side psychiatry office, miserably wishing he could seek counseling for the problems in his seemingly perfect life. He hears the door buzzer and goes to answer it, but flinches when he sees his unexpected guest. Minutes later, he’s dead, his skull crushed by repeated blows from a ball-peen hammer. Once the doctor was down, the killer turned over the body and smashed in Ellerbee’s eyes. With no leads and a case getting colder by the hour, the New York Police Department calls in former chief Edward Delaney. His search for the truth raises more questions than answers: Who had Ellerbee let into his office? Why were there two sets of wet footprints on the carpeting of the doctor’s townhouse? What caused Ellerbee’s odd personality transformation over the past year? And who murdered, then symbolically mutilated, the prominent Manhattan psychiatrist?
5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Bubble Gum Ever!
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2017
If you’re tired of streaming or cleaning for the moment and need to pass some time, you won’t go wrong with the four Deadly Sins series from Lawrence Sanders. I zip through all of them every other year, in sequence. They’re great reads, and I’ve always pictured George C. Scott as Edward X. Delaney (Frank Sinatra in the movie version of the First in pretty insipid, but apparently he owned the rights).
The Fourth is the murder is Dr Simon Ellerbee, you get the usual palette of suspects, and retired Chief of Detectives gets his crew and does his stuff. If Hemingway wrote crime suspense set in NYC, it’d be like this. I love short descriptive sentences. Not sure I recall seeing “ears like slabs of veal” in this one. If you love New York, Mr Sanders captures its essence like a great musical conductor. The “Sins” series is the best, followed by the “Commandments.” The Arch McNally stuff which followed that is okay, even though they kept the series going after Mr Sanders died in 1998. I just find that disrespectful. I only regret there wasn’t a Fifth Deadly Sin.
Here’s the link to this article by David Madison.
03/03/2023
Fueled by scripture’s biggest mistakes
In the second chapter of Acts we find the story of Peter preaching about Jesus, with dramatic results: “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added” (v. 41). Most New Testament scholars grant that the Book of Acts was written decades after events depicted, all but conceding that authentic history is hard to find here; sources are not mentioned, and the case for Jesus is made primarily by quoting from the Old Testament. Moreover, the fantasy factor is pretty high, e.g., an angel helps Peter escape from prison: “Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared. A light shone in the prison cell. The angel struck Peter on his side. Peter woke up. ‘Quick!’ the angel said. ‘Get up!’ The chains fell off Peter’s wrists” (Acts 12:7).
The early Christians were a small breakaway Jewish sect, but there’s an attempt here to exaggerate its success: three thousand were baptized when they heard Peter speak. How would an author writing decades after the “event” have been able to verify that figure? And are modern readers supposed to be impressed that three thousand people signed up because they heard the words of a preacher? Throughout the ages many cults have gathered the gullible in exactly this way.
Scripture’s First Big Mistake
But catastrophic damage has been done by this text—and many others—by positioning the Jews as the bad guys, the enemies of God and Christ. Verse 23: “…this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” The Christians set themselves apart from Judaism by claiming that Jesus was the messiah, and it was but a small step to assume that evil was behind the denial of this status to Jesus.
This finds expression in the nasty verse in John’s gospel (8:44)—which John presents as Jesus-script, addressed to the Jews: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” This is pretty bad: “You Jews, your god is the devil.”
In Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (called I Thessalonians; II Thessalonians is widely regarded as a forgery), in chapter 2 we find these verses, 14-16:
“For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyoneby hindering us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins, but wrath has overtaken them at last.”
There was been debate among scholars about this text—is it an interpolation? —but there it is in the New Testament, with plenty of devout Christians over the centuries willing to help overtake Jews with wrath. This has to be counted as one of Christianity’s biggest sins, which resulted in the Holocaust. Hector Avalos makes the case for this in his essay, “Atheism Was Not the Cause of the Holocaust,” in John Loftus’ 2010 anthology, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.
He quotes Catholic historian, José M. Sánchez: “There is little question that the Holocaust had its origins in the centuries-long hostility felt by Christians against Jews.” (p. 70, in Sánchez’s 2002 book, Pious XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy)
For more on this, see the Wikipedia article, Anti-Semitism and the New Testament.
Centuries-long hostility. In his essay, Avalos provides details of Martin Luther’s ferocious hatred of Jews, and William Shirer, in his classic work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, notes that “…in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarseness and brutality of language unequaled in German history until the Nazi time” (p. 236). This is the holy hero so revered for launching the Reformation, and for whom a major denomination is named. It would seem that far too many Christians have failed to study church history. They fail to see this horribly ugly impact of verses in the New Testament. The willing, and in many cases, enthusiastic embrace of anti-Semitism is one of Christianity’s biggest sins.
Scripture’s Second Big Mistake
Another one is just as grotesque. A few days ago PBS broadcast the 2000 documentary, From Swastika to Jim Crow—which describes the expulsion of Jewish scholars from Nazi Germany, many of whom ended up in the United States. But they faced heavy anti-Jewish sentiment, anti-German prejudice here as well; most of them were shunned by major universities in northern states. They were hired by Black colleges in southern states, with largely positive outcomes. The Jewish professors could identify with their Black students who faced the brutal reality of segregation. The South lost the Civil War, slavery was ended, but the loathing of Black people did not diminish; if not loathing, then keeping them in their place away from white people. Generations of southern white folks have preserved and nurtured these attitudes, resentful that their way of life—founded on slavery—had been shattered.
And, of course, they could look to the Bible for support. There are no Bible texts at all that prohibit slavery, or call for its abolition. Many serious thinkers have noted that this in one of major flaws of the Ten Commandments, and it would take a long time for ethical sensibilities to evolve to the point of seeing the horrors of slavery. The movement to end slavery gradually gathered strength. Those fighting to end this brutal form of human oppression encountered stiff resistance from those found their world view in the Bible.
Is this the way Christianity is supposed to work?
From Swastika to Jim Crow draws dramatic attention to how “Christian” nations fail to notice the poisonous hatreds they embrace. Love your neighbor and love your enemies have no appeal, no traction at all. The Christian advocates fail to see the dangers of relying on an ancient book that champions a vengeful god. Jesus-script includes mention of punishment by eternal fire, a coming kingdom of god that will see millions of humans killed. One of the constant themes in the apostle Paul’s letter is god’s wrath. This kind of we’ll-get-revenge thinking encourages devout people to take a severe approach toward their perceived enemies. Hence Christians in Germany and the U.S. could justify hatred of Jews, and those in the U.S. could justify hatred of Black people—were lynchings anything other than this? Laws were enacted to keep the races separate, and were enforced ruthlessly. Yes, in, of all places, the Bible Belt. What does that tell us about Bible Values? How can this not be an example of failed Christian theology?
Moreover, it certainly shows the incompetence of the Christian god. How could a powerful, wise, all-knowing god not have noticed—not have foreseen—the consequences of the dreadful Bible verses mentioned above? When this god inspired the author of John’s gospel, surely verse 8:44 would have been erased from John’s brain before he wrote it down. Surely this wise god would have added “you shall not enslave other human beings” to the Big Ten list given to Moses—and have realized that the first two or three on the list were about the divine ego, reflecting this tribal god’s jealousy, and were not all that necessary for human happiness and well-being.
One more thing to be said about the Holocaust. Religious indoctrination can play evil tricks on the human brain. Events that undermine or shatter faith can be ignored and denied, especially episodes of inexplicable suffering and death. Theologians and clergy try their best to explain what obviously seems like god’s indifference or incompetence: he works in mysterious ways, or has a bigger plan that we can’t know about or understand. This is actually an appeal to stop thinking about it, because there are no rational explanations. But still the games go on.
The argument goes that a good god could not possibly have let six million of his people be killed—intentionally murdered—during World War II. Some make this argument to protect their theologies, their conception of god; for some it is an extension of anti-Semitism. Hence we see Holocaust denialism.
Hitler’s anti-Semitism was part of public policy, and his obsession to rid Germany and the world of Jews was clear from the mid-1930s on. The bureaucracy for mass killing was put into place. Hitler hired those who were fiercely committed to this goal. They thought they were doing a great service to the world, hence kept careful records, documenting their accomplishments. Twitter is actually one way to access what we know, through the presence there of Holocaust Education, Auschwitz Memorial, Majdanek Memorial, US Holocaust Museum, Auschwitz Exhibition. The website of the US Holocaust Museum is especially helpful, including its treatment of denialism, here and here. Also, do a Google search for Holocaust memoirs. There are so many of them; those who survived or escaped felt the need to tell their stories of loss, grief, and trauma—and courage. Holocaust deniers would have us believe they’re all liars.
When we closely examine slavery and anti-Semitism, there is simply no way to let Christianity and the New Testament off the hook for these huge sins. In his essay, Hector Avalos argues that “Hitler’s holocaust…is actually the most tragic consequence of a long history of Christian anti-Judaism and racism. Nazism follows principles of killing people for their ethnicity or religion annunciated in the Bible” (p. 369).
And shame on Jesus too—for those who believe that John quoted him correctly. Hector Avalos: “It is in the Gospel of John (8:44) where Jesus himself says that the Jews are liars fathered by the devil. That verse later shows up on Nazi road signs…” (p. 378)
David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of two books, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith (2016; 2018 Foreword by John Loftus) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also now available.
His YouTube channel is here. He has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.
The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here.
Here’s the link to this article by Bart Ehrman.
March 4, 2023
Can we trust a source such as Papias on the question of whether our Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew and that our Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, the companion of the disciple Peter?
It is interesting that Papias tells a story that is recorded in our Matthew but tells it so completely differently that it appears he doesn’t know Matthew’s version. And so when he says Matthew wrote Matthew, is he referring to *our* Matthew, or to some other book? (Recall, the Gospel he refers to is a collection of Jesus’ sayings in Hebrew; the Gospel of Matthew that *we* have is a narrative, not a collection of sayings, and was written in Greek.) If he *is* referring to our Matthew, why doesn’t he see it as an authoritative account?
Here’s the conflicting story. It involves the death of Judas. And it’s quite a story! Here is my translation of it from my edition, The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Classical Library, vol. 1; 2004).
But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon – not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame shame, he emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body.
And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding their nose. This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.” [Apollinaris of Laodicea]
You gotta love it. But, well, what does one make of it? Matthew’s Gospel – the one we have in the New Testament – also describes the death of Judas. But it is not like this at all. According to Matthew, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5). If Papias saw Matthew’s Gospel as an eyewitness authority to the life of Jesus and those around him, why didn’t he accept its version of Judas’s death?
Another alternative is that when Papias describes a Gospel written by Matthew, he isn’t actually referring to the Matthew that we now have. Recall: Papias says two things about the “Matthew” he is familiar with: it consists only of sayings of Jesus and it was composed in Hebrew. Neither is true of our Matthew, which does have sayings of Jesus, but is mainly composed of stories about Jesus. Moreover, it was not composed in Hebrew but in Greek.[1]
It is possible, of course, that like other early Christian scholars, Papias thought Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew when it was not. But it is also possible that these later writers thought Matthew was written in Hebrew because they knew about Papias’s comment and thought he was referring to our Gospel. But he appears not to be: Matthew is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings; and in the only place that Papias’s comments overlap with (our) Matthew’s account (the death of Judas), he doesn’t appear to know (our) Matthew.
If Papias was not talking about our Matthew, was he talking about our Mark? As Papias’s quotation about Mark that I cited yesterday indicates, he considered “his” Mark to be problematic because of its disorderly arrangement: that’s why he says that the preaching of Peter was not given “in order.” But that somewhat negative remark in itself is odd, because he doesn’t make the same comment about Matthew, even though the narrative outline of our Matthew is pretty much the same as our Mark – with additional materials added in.
Apart from that, Papias indicates that Mark’s Gospel gives an exhaustive account of everything Peter preached and that it gives it without changing a thing. The reality is that there is no way that anyone could think that the Gospel of Mark in our Bibles today gives a full account of Peter’s knowledge of Jesus. Our Gospel of Mark takes about two hours to read. Are we to think that after spending months (years?) with Jesus, Peter had no more than two hours’ worth of memories?
Of course it may be that Papias is exaggerating for effect. But even so, since he does not appear to be referring to the book we call Matthew, why should we think that he is referring to the book we call Mark? And that, therefore (as Papias indicates) Mark’s Gospel is actually a transcription of Peter’s version of what Jesus said and did?
Despite repeated attempts over the centuries by readers to show that Mark’s Gospel is “Peter’s perspective,” the reality is that if you simply read it without any preconceptions, there is nothing about the book that would make you think, “Oh, this is how Peter saw it all.” Quite the contrary – not only does Peter come off as a bumbling, foot-in-the-mouth, and unfaithful follower of Jesus in Mark (see Mark 8:27-32; 9:5-6; 14:27-31), but there are all sorts of stories – the vast majority – that have nothing to do with Peter or that betray anything like a Petrine voice.
There is, though, a still further and even more compelling reason for doubting that we can trust Papias on the authorship of the Gospels. It is that that we cannot really trust him on much of anything. That may sound harsh, but remember that even the early Christians did not appreciate his work very much and the one comment we have about him personally from an educated church father is that he was remarkably unintelligent.
It is striking that some modern authors want to latch on to Papias for his claims that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels, assuming, as Bauckham does, that he must be historically accurate, when they completely overlook the other things that Papias says, things that even these authors admit are not and cannot be accurate. If Papias is not reliable about anything else he says, why does anyone think he is reliable about our Gospels of Matthew and Mark? The reason is obvious. It is because readers want him to be accurate about Matthew and Mark, even though they know that otherwise you can’t rely on him for a second.
Does anyone think that Judas really bloated up larger than a house, emitted worms from his genitals, and then burst on his own land, creating a stench that lasted a century? No, not really. But it’s one of the two Gospel traditions that Papias narrates. Here is the only other one. This is the only saying of Jesus that is preserved from the writing of Papias. Papias claims that it comes from those who knew the elders who knew what the disciple John the Son of Zebedee said that Jesus taught:
Thus the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered hearing him say how the Lord used to teach about those times, saying:
The days are coming when vines will come forth, each with ten thousand boughs; and on a single bough will be ten thousand branches. And indeed, on a single branch will be ten thousand shoots and on every shoot ten thousand clusters; and in ever cluster will be ten thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when any of the saints grabs hold of a cluster, another will cry out, ‘I am better, take me, bless the lord through me.” (Eusebius, Church History, 3.39.1)
Really? Jesus taught that? Does anyone really think so? No one I know. Does Papias think Jesus said this? Yes, he absolutely does. Here is what Papias himself says about the traditions of Jesus he records in his five-volume book, in Bauckham’s own translation:
I will not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations everything I carefully learned from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth.”
So, can we rest assured about the truth of what Papias says, since he can provide guarantees based on his careful memory? It doesn’t look like it. The only traditions about Jesus we have from his pen are clearly not accurate. Why should we think that what he says about Matthew and Mark are accurate? My hunch is that the only reason readers have done so is because they would like him to be accurate when he says things they agree with, even when they know he is not accurate when he says things they disagree with.
However one evaluates the overall trustworthiness of Papias, in my view he does not provide us with clear evidence that the books that eventually became the first two Gospels of the New Testament were called Matthew and Mark in his time.
[1] That is obvious If Matthew was based in large part on the Gospel of Mark, as is almost everywhere conceded. Matthew agrees with the Greek text of Mark verbatim throughout his account. The only way that would be possible is if he was copying the Greek text into his Greek text.
Your character is inspecting his recently purchased property when he falls through a rotten well cover. While he’s unhurt save for cuts and scrapes, no one knows he’s there, so he must get out on his own. Write his escape.
One Stop for Writers
Write the scene of discovery (i.e., tell a story), or brainstorm and create a list of related ideas.
Here’s five story elements to consider:
Never forget, writing is a process. The first draft is always a mess.
The first draft of anything is shit.
Ernest Hemingway
Richard L. Fricks 