The Christian Crusades

Dispelling Prevalent Myths About the Crusades

Abstract: The term paper will cover some of the popular myths being used about the crusader era and will shed light on those myths. The popular myths are taken from recent atheist books and blogs along with some additional commonly held myths. The rebuttals I use for these myths are often taken from academic works that predate the use of these myths and yet the myths continue to be used.

Popular myths about the Crusades

Many popular myths about the Crusades pervade popular books and skeptics websites today even though many of the myths have been debunked.  The myths continue to grow and, in popular works, the myths are considered the gospel truth.  In this essay, I will first explore some of the popular myths.  Then, I will provide a brief response to those myths.

Recent articles on the Crusades claim that the goal of the crusades was a quest for new lands[1] and was the first round of European colonialism[2].   Popular atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, claim the motivation for the crusades was to convert the pagans or to kill them.  Hitchens, in his bestselling book God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything, claims that religion can’t help itself. “It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths.”[3] In The God Delusion, author Richard Dawkins makes the outrageous claim, “Christianity, too, was spread by the sword, wielded first by Roman hands after the Emperor Constantine raised it from eccentric cult to official religion, then by the Crusaders, and later by the conquistadores and other European invaders and colonists, with missionary accompaniment.”[4]

Another popular claim is that the crusades were much more barbaric than typical warfare at that time.  Hitchens cites one event, “However, this made no difference during the Crusades, when a papal army set out to recapture Bethlehem and Jerusalem from the Muslims, incidentally destroying many Jewish communities and sacking heretical Christian Byzantium along the way, and inflicted a massacre in the narrow streets of Jerusalem, where, according to the hysterical and gleeful chroniclers, the spilled blood reached up to the bridles of the horses.”[5]  Atheist blogger Austin Cline claims, “The Crusades were an incredibly violent undertaking, even by medieval standards.”[6]

The crusades are often cited as an example of religion being the cause of violence.  Sam Harris claims religion is a well-spring of violence[7] Cline claims the crusades were, “Hardly a noble quest in foreign lands, the Crusades represented the worst in religion generally and in Christianity specifically.”[8]  Atheist Massimo Pigliucci blogs that religion is the cause of violence and cites the crusades as an example, “Just look at the history of all three Abrahamic faiths: Jews used to go around pillaging, raping and merrily engaging in (god-sanctioned) genocide; we owe to Christians the invention of the words crusade and inquisition.”[9]  Sam Harris goes so far as to claim “There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East.”[10]

The crusades are often claimed to be the worst violence ever.  Hitchens questions, “When the worst has been said about the…Crusades…is it not true that secular and atheist regimes have committed crimes and massacres that are, in the scale of things, at least as bad if not worse?”[11]  The answer he gives to his question is no.  Pigliucci, goes further and claims that religions, other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are far more peaceful.[12]

These claims about the crusades have led the word ‘crusade’ to become taboo.  One helpful atheist advises, “Churches should not use the word Crusade because it turns people off because of it’s negative connotations.”[13]  Some Christians have accepted the claims and have tried to distance their friendlier version of Christianity from the, “…intolerant, politicized, ugly, right-wing…”[14] Christianity.  Anonymous atheist blogger “vjack” agrees with the negative connotations of the word ‘crusade’ and cautions other atheist not to forget the crusades or stop using the word.  His conspiracy laden fear is that if they forget the crusades happened they will happen again because, “The consolidation of political power, military strength, and massive wealth into Christian extremist hands is something that should terrify every atheist.”[15]

Dispelling myths about the Crusades

Words have meaning and some words have emotional baggage that gives them more persuasion power when used. Think about it; when you hear the word ‘crusade’ what images are conjured up in your mind?  Do you think of greedy nobles looking to grab lands from the peaceful Muslims and other Christians?  Do you think of an unprovoked and extraordinary brutal war?  Do you see another episode of Jewish genocide?  Do you imagine being given the choice to convert or die?  Do you think of the worst episode of violence in human history?  Misconceptions about the crusades have given this word the emotional baggage that is often used as a coercive rhetorical device for anti-Christian arguments.

There is a subtle and underlining claim with all of these statements against the Crusades that implies that Christianity is falsified somehow.  Christianity obviously can’t be true because of all the violence it causes is the unspoken claim.  No rational argument is now needed; one simply needs to remind the Christian of the crusades and that should be the end of the argument.  However, a word with emotional baggage and an implied refutation is not rational discourse.  It simply is coercive and vacuous rhetoric designed to influence rather than inform.

As with any investigation into history, we run the risk of oversimplifying the issues involved or looking at the events from one side only, either seeing only the good actions or only the bad actions.  The crusades are no different.  My attempt here is not to dismiss any of the wrongs committed by crusades and only look at what could be called the good.  I instead intend to look at both sides equitably.

Now, in order to dispel these myths, we need to start with a good definition of what exactly is a crusade.  Jonathan Riley-Smith defines the crusades as, “a…expedition authorized by the pope on Christ’s behalf, the leading participants in which took vows and consequently wore crosses and enjoyed the privileges of protection at home and the indulgence, which, when the campaign was not destined for the East, was equated with that granted to crusaders to the Holy Land.”[16] Knowing what the crusades were does not, necessarily, tell us anything about the motivations.  For that we must dig into history and the situations that were prevalent at the time. 

It is important to note that, before the rise of Islam, the Christian world covered from Britton to the Middle East, along the North coast of Africa, along the Nile all the way to Axum, areas in the Arabian Peninsula, and from modern day Turkey to Baghdad. In 700 AD Christianity covered more area than the Roman Empire. By 850, over 100 years after the Death of Mohammad, the Muslims had conquered the Middle East from India to Turkey, and across North Africa and into most of Spain.  It is no small fact that over half of the Christian world was then under Muslim control.  The rapid rise of Islam would not have gone unnoticed and without concern.  Thomas Madden makes the point, “It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy and opulent. Europe was the Third World.”[17]

By the time of the first crusade the Seljuk Turks had made their way across Anatolian peninsula and threated Constantinople.  With no other alternative, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comneus, sent a letter to Pope Urban II requesting help from the Western Empire.[18]  Pope Urban II headed the call and preached the first crusade at the Council of Clermont on November 27, 1095.[19]  Urban II asked those there to come to the aid of their fellow Christians against the atrocities of the Turks. Concerning the Turks he spoke, “They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.”[20]  Clearly the concern was that if they did not push back the Turks they would continue on into Europe.  The impetus was to prevent further encroachment and to regain lost lands, not for themselves but for the Byzantines.  In short, the crusades were provoked.

The charge is often given that the crusades were the first round of European colonialism.  Again this charge is meritless.  Thomas F. Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department, crusade expert and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," agrees that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not intend profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land.  Some may suggest that it was the motivation of Bohemond I, Prince of Taranto, during the first crusade when he refused to relinquish Antioch to Byzantine control.  Bohemond refused to relinquish Antioch to Alexius and the Byzantines because he felt they had forfeited their rights to Antioch when they turned their back on it and did not assist the crusader army when they needed it most.[21]  Of course not all crusaders agreed with Bohemond.  Raymond IV of Count of Toulouse, stressed that “no crusader should be allowed to renounce that sacred vow for temporal gain.”[22] In fact, when the crusades were complete most of the crusades went home with very few remaining to govern their newly acquired lands.[23]

James Ludlow relates the required motivation that was adopted by the Council of Clermont, “As already indicated, one very important privilege is to be found in the list of canons adopted by the Council of Clermont, namely, that an indulgence was to be granted to all who should go to liberate Jerusalem, provided they were motivated not by desire for honor or money, but by devotion only.”[24]  Simply put, the motivation of a very small minority of crusaders may have been for temporal gain while most of them considered it a duty and devotion.

You might agree about the motivation but still take exception to the brutal means the crusaders used.  Often cited is the massacre of Jerusalem in 1099. Unfortunately a chronicler at the time used hyperbole to greatly exaggerate the claims of the bloodshed.  Often this account is read as literal gospel truth and not the exaggeration that it clearly is.  There wasn’t enough people in the entire Middle East to fill the City with blood up to the horses’ bridal. It is important to remember the use of hyperbole in warfare and the context of warfare in the period.     The exaggerated claim of blood up to a horse’s bridal, an obvious reference to Revelation 14:19-20, may have served as fodder for psychological warfare. 

Putting fear into the hearts of your enemy is a well-known psychological warfare tactic. Terrorizing and horrifying your enemy as a means of demoralizing them is part and parcel of any tactical warfare.  Grandiose claims of Spartan brutality would put such fear into any opposing army that often when the Spartans took the field the opposing forces would flee in fear leaving the Spartans with a victory without the need for further bloodshed.  One of the best examples in history was Vlad III Dracula that earned him the title Vlad the Impaler.  “According to historical accounts, when the Shah-in Shah's forces encountered the massive field of impaled soldiers captured from previous encounters with Vlad's army, he turned back.”[25]  This allowed the outnumbered forces of Vlad to withstand the overwhelming Turkish and Ottoman forces.  Exaggerated claims have been utilized in warfare as a means to inspire troops to continue on and to put fear into the hearts of the enemy in an attempt to limit further bloodshed.

The rules of war for the time would have seen it a justified if the whole city was put to death for resisting a besieging army.  Madden puts it this way,

“The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.  In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.”[26]

By today’s standards we may think of this tactic as being unnecessarily brutal.  Is it really more brutal than the warfare today?  One need not look farther than the justification of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As terrible as those events were, the number of casualties were far less than would have been had the United States had to invade mainland Japan.  As terrific as the bombs were the result was a speedy conclusion to the war.

Madden concludes, “It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.”[27]  Simply put, incentives for non-resistance were used to lower casualties in ancient times and this practice is still in use today. I t is also worthy to note that often a single atrocious act is often cited as an example of the normal behavior of the crusaders instead of for the abnormal behavior that it is.  For example, Atheist Austin Cline says, “When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants – no matter what their age – to be summarily killed.” [Emphasis added][28]  This was not the standard operating procedure for crusaders and irresponsible to make such an outrageous claim. 

These are common warfare tactics, not religious or secular practices.  Richard Dawkins rightly notes, “Cruel and evil people can be found in every century and of every persuasion.”[29]  If true, he has no legitimate reason to lay the charge of brutality because of religion at the feet of Christianity.  It wasn’t religious purposes for any so called brutal tactics, it was simply the accepted art of war.  William Cavanaugh has recently made the argument that the religious violence is a myth because it simplifies a complex set of social, economic and political factors that lead to violence.  Indeed it seems bias for an Atheist to claim all violence is caused by religion as if institutionalized atheism is innocent.  Cavanaugh theorizes that this is an attempt to perpetuate the myth that religion creates violence while making the atheists out to be the rational and peaceful people. Cavanaugh states, “The myth of religious violence helps to construct and marginalize a religious Other, prone to fanaticism, to contrast with the rational, peace-making, secular subject.”[30] Further he states, “These arguments are part of a broader Enlightenment narrative that has invented a dichotomy between the religious and the secular and constructed the former as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way in public to rational, secular forms of power.”[31]

It is also important to note that nowhere did Jesus Christ condone such actions.  If Christians did involve themselves in the practices of warfare that we think are not very Christian, like maybe it is precisely because they are not acting like Christians and not that secularism is more enlightened.  Cavanaugh makes the point that, “it may be the case that the Crusader has misappropriated the true message of Christ, but one cannot therefore excuse Christianity of all responsibility.”[32] It is one of the doctrines of Christianity that all people sin, even Christians.  Although Christians sinning is consistent with Christian doctrine it does not excuse or condone such behavior. 

It is also important to note that the Crusader army was not made up of all Christians.  The reformer Martin Luther raises this objection in his work Vom Kriege wider die Türken (On War Against the Turk).   Luther claims, “It is against [Christ’s] name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ.”[33]  In a way Luther is objecting to the religious labeling for this war.  The crusades being a defensive war need not drag Christ’s name into it in order to justify the call to war.

What about Christians who sought to eliminate the enemy at home like Count Emicho Leiningen in the first crusade or Radulf during the second crusade?  Dan Cohn-Shebok author of The Crucified Jew, wrote, “The Crusades and their aftermath thus brought into focus Christian contempt for the Jews who stubbornly clung to their ancestral Faith.”[34]  The crusades are often viewed as part of an ongoing genocide of Jews by Christians.

First it is important to note that the crusade was never called against the Jew.  Jonathan Riley Smith notes, “No crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews, although crusade preaching unleashed feelings that the Church could not control.”[35]  Second they attempted to stop rogue crusaders from harming the Jews.  During the second crusade Bernard of Clairvaux set off to stop Radulf’s attacks against the Jews.  “Repeatedly, Barnard stressed that the Jews were not to be persecuted.”[36]  In short, the church never called for a crusade against the Jew and they sought to stop those who did.

Conclusion

In this essay I have examined some of the more popular myths about the crusades and have attempted to shed new light on the truth about the subject.  I think Stark sums up my conclusions best when he writes, “The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.”[37] I would add to his conclusion that the crusades were never called against the Jew.

As for Christian morality, Christians sometimes sin, and this in no way excuses any sinful actions.  And if a Christian does not follow the teachings of Christ then he/she may be a hypocrite but that does not mean Christianity causes violence or somehow falsify the Christian worldview.  If I were a smoker who smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day and I told you that smoking was harmful to your health it would make me a pretty big hypocrite.  My hypocrisy would in no way falsify my claim that smoking is harmful to your health.

It is my hope that I have shed some light on the issue of the crusades and some of the popular claims and implications that are taken for granted in our popular culture today.  With that I also hope people will evaluate explore those claims as they carefully consider and weigh multiple sides of this issue.

Endnotes

 

A Different Perspective on the 3 Wise Men

The 3 wise men, or Magi as they were called, were a priestly class that had existed in various empires in the Middle East. They were astrologers, magicians and king makers. They had been around throughout the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire.

The Roman Empire had been at war with the Parthians for some time and Judea was the buffer state between the two empires. Rome backed Herod as governor of Judea, a move the Jewish Sanhedrin did not like because Herod was not a Jew, he was an Edomite.

Herod and the Romans fled in 40 BC when Antigonus, with the help of the Parthians, took the throne as king. In Rome the Roman Senate elected him as king of Judea and in 37 BC he returned to claim the throne. Herod exiled his wife and child to take a new bride that was Jewish in order to gain favor amongst the Jews. After capturing Jerusalem Antigonus was put to death.

Herod did not gain much acceptance from the Jews as he claimed to be Jewish but lived a very decadent and hedonistic lifestyle. He even expanded the Temple complex in order to foster the lagging support of the Jewish population.

Herod was a foreign non-Jewish king, claiming to follow the Jewish law while living a sin filled lifestyle. He was appointed by Rome, an Empire Jews did not care one bit for. Add to that he had been sent packing by the Parthians once before. Add to that, at that time the Jews were looking for a Messiah savior who would over through Rome and Herod and restore the Davidic Kingdom.

Now image you were Herod and along comes a military envoy with Parthian Magi looking for the King of the Jews. Mind you, the enemies of the Romans, the ones who put you on the throne, are asking to see the legitimate king. The Bible records Herod’s reaction, Matthew records that he was “disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3). The Greek word translated “disturbed” is etarachtha which means “to shake violently.” I think I might react the same way.

Knowing this I think you will get a different appreciation for the historical context of the biblical account and perhaps see how historical context makes the story deeper and richer. I think we now have an idea of why Herod felt threatened enough to kill all the children under two in Bethlehem.

Note: Legend has it that there were 3 wise men, but there is not historical record of how many. It is often offered that the number of 3 comes from the number of gifts they brought.

Was Jesus a Historical Person?
An open letter to Stephen Van Eck

Introduction

There is a myth about a man named Francis Hester, who in 1650, supposedly took a trip from Southwart, England and landed in New Kent County, Virginia. The problem with this man is we really have no reliable historical evidence for his existence. Also, there are so many similar stories from that time period that one might conclude that his life is a complete fabrication. At most there are only two pieces of evidence for his existence. One is a religious document, a baptismal record, and the other a ship’s manifest listing him as a passenger. Since the baptismal record is a religious document, as good naturalists, we must reject it out of hand. As for the ship’s manifest, upon careful examination, the name on the manifest is Francis Hestor, not Francis Hester. Obviously this is a completely different person and not a misspelling or misreading of the original document. Without evidence, we must conclude that this man is a myth, even if he is my 16th great-grandfather. Similarly, some skeptics, such as yourself,[1] argue that Jesus did not exist because there is a lack of secular evidence. In this paper I will demonstrate that there is solid extrabiblical evidence that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

Non-Christian Evidence for the Person of Jesus

On CNN TV’s Larry King Live, Ellen Johnson, president of the American Atheists, limits permissible evidence to “secular” evidence. Further, she makes the grandiose claim that there are no such sources of evidence: “Well, I'm here to give the reality point of view, I guess. Because the reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion… There is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.”[2] This statement might excite the Atheist with exuberance, but it is completely fallacious. According to one scholar, there are over 20 ancient (from first to mid-second century) non-Christian witnesses to the public life of Jesus.[3] Limiting the debate to only non-Christian records does not strengthen the claim that Jesus was a myth. In this section we will examine three of the abundant secular evidences. In the next section we will address issues regarding this approach to historical research.

We will discuss three historians from the corresponding periods: Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 120 AD), Flavius Josephus (37 – 97 AD), and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (69/75 – 130 AD). It is first worth noting a few common observations of these men before addressing them individually. They were educated, professional historians, and they all worked for the government. For example, Suetonius was the chief secretary for Emperor Hadrian and had access to the imperial records.[4] Josephus was educated in Rome and his benefactor was Titus.[5] Finally, Tacitus is considered to be the greatest historian of ancient Rome.[6] None of these men show any indication of bias toward Christianity. In fact, it is safe to say any bias would have likely been against Christians because they were writing during the time when Christians where being persecuted.[7] In addition, each account was written within 100 years of the life of Jesus.

First, Tacitus relates a story of the burning of Rome by Nero. In his account he explains that Nero places blame on the Christians for the burning of Rome. In that report he adds details about Christus, the founder, who was from Judaea and was crucified, “the extreme penalty,” by Pontius Pilatus:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular…[8]

This quote may seem like it does not provide us much information about the life of Christ. Certainly this is true; there is not much said here. One would not expect a Roman historian to elaborate on the life of a peasant who was executed. However, Cambridge lecturer Markus Bockmuehl states the importance of this quotation: “That might not seem like much, but it is actually surprisingly useful in discounting two different theories which are still sometimes advanced: first, that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; and secondly, that he did not die by the duly administered Roman death penalty.”[9]

You can raise the objection that Tacitus did not write this section, that it was a later addition of Christians. However, simply raising an objection is not sufficient grounds to discount the authenticity of the quotation. What evidence is there of tampering? None. Even the highly skeptical non-Christian New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman commenting on this issue states, “But surely the best way to deal with evidence is not simply to dismiss it when it happens to be inconvenient.”[10]

Suetonius’ comments provide fewer details of Jesus’ life than Tacitus, yet they are revealing. First, his accounts demonstrate Christians were in Rome and expelled in 49 AD during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD). “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.”[11] This is within 16 years of the death of Christ, and far too short a time span for a mythical person to develop. Some scholars may take issue with Suetonius’ spelling of Christ casting doubt on who Suetonius was writing about. However, spelling mistakes of this kind are common.[12] In addition, there is an interesting corroboration in Acts 18:2. “And he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” The most likely explanation of these references seems to reference Christians in Rome by 49 AD.

Another account by Suetonius demonstrates that Christians were punished by Nero. “He [Nero] likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition.”[13] Suetonius corroborates Tacitus’ accounts of Christian persecution although Tacitus gives us far more information on Nero’s punishments and executions for the alleged fire on July 18, 64 AD [14]. Suetonius gives us very little details, but what he does give us are extremely early references to Christians. His latest reference is within 30 years of the death of Jesus Christ which is still far too short a time for a myth to have developed.

Of the three historians, Josephus’ comments give us the most detailed information about Jesus Christ. Josephus, a Jewish historian for the imperial family, wrote four different works detailing Jewish history from Genesis to his lifetime. In these works, Josephus mentions many people who are also discussed in the gospels, including James, the brother of Jesus, Annas, Caiaphas, Herod the Great, Pontius Pilate, Felix and Festus.[15] Of Jesus he writes:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. He gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.[16]

He [Ananus] convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus – the one called “Christ”- whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging him to order Ananus to take such actions no longer.[17]

In these quotations Josephus confirms that Jesus was called Christ and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus and Josephus are in agreement that Jesus Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Skeptics once claimed that there was no evidence that Pontius Pilate ever existed. However, in 1961, archaeologists led by Dr. Frova discovered a limestone block with Pontius Pilate’s name inscribed on it. "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."[18] This archaeological evidence further corroborates the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus.

Critics often raise the issue that the quotations of Josephus were either added or tampered with by later Christians. However, a majority of scholars agree that the majority of the text is genuine.[19] In fact, the quote from Josephus above was taken to be the most likely rendition by the skeptic Bart Ehrman.

Scholars have also examined an Arabic translation of Josephus, found by Shlomo Pines,[20] that further corroborates that the majority of the text is genuine. You can see from this version of Josephus there appears to be no interpolation of the text that seems to be in the versions in the West.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.[21]

James Charlesworth sums it up like this, “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” providing “corroboration of the gospel account.”[22]

Ellen Johnson’s position that there is no “secular” evidence for Jesus is patently false. We have seen a number of secular sources for Jesus’ life. In particular, we have three accounts of historians who wrote within 100 years of the life of Jesus. Further, Josephus was born within a decade of Jesus. I grant that these are not primary sources of Jesus life. There are no secular primary sources of his life. This is true about 99.99% of people alive at the time.[23] However, these secular secondary accounts do corroborate the primary eyewitness accounts of the gospels.

In conclusion, using early non-Christian sources, I have shown that there is solid historical evidence to prove that Jesus was an historical figure. Furthermore, the sources cited were historians who were writing within 100 years of Jesus Christ. Also, aspects of their testimony have been corroborated by recent archaeological finds. Finally, the majority of scholars, including Bart Ehrman, agree that Jesus Christ was a historical person.

Interpreting Evidence

Mr. Van Eck, in your article you claim there is a lack of historical evidence. However, the gospels are historical documents and date closer to the events in question than any other records of Jesus. I assume that what you mean by the lack of historical evidence is closer to Ellen Johnson’s or Jim Walker’s comments. Johnson carefully limits the debate to secular evidence,[24] while Walker cleverly dismisses any secondary sources as hearsay. However, historians do not limit evidence to just secular or eyewitness accounts.

One of the problems with historical research is that we have no direct evidence to anything historical,[25] nor can we conduct experiments. Bart Ehrman put the problem in perspective: “This makes historical evidence different from the kinds of evidence used in the hard sciences.”[26] Historians like to have primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, whenever possible. Even with primary sources, historians gather as many sources as possible, weigh each individually and develop theories based on all of the available evidence, giving preference to primary, then secondary, sources, all the while taking into account any known biases of the sources.[27]

Walker wishes us to limit our knowledge to direct evidence such as eyewitness accounts. However, he does not allow for the gospels. This is not a practice used by historians as they piece together the past. Historians rely upon all the available evidence, including secondary sources. Each piece of evidence is weighed based upon its proximity to the actual events. Greater weight is given to primary sources, taking any extraneous circumstances such as bias into account. Less weight is given to secondary sources, and even less the further the author is from the events.

Setting a standard of interpretation for historical events based upon this hyper-skeptical criticism is unwarranted. It sets the bar so high that it cannot be attained. We cannot prove anything happened in history given this high standard. Academic scholars understand the unique science of putting the past into perspective by using all available evidence. There is no reason for requiring evidence for Jesus to meet a higher standard than we do to any other historical figure. To do so is revealingly disingenuous. It does not portray intellectual rigor; rather, it sacrifices intellectual integrity for a naïve approach to history.

Conclusion

“But for us the conclusion is inescapable. Jesus never existed.”[28] This is a bold claim, indeed, but it is not supported by the recommended reading you cite. You recommend Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms to help support your bold assertion. However, his thesis is that Jesus is an historical figure. Helms writes, “my thesis – [is the gospels] are largely fictional accounts concerning an historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth…”[29] Your argument that Jesus never existed because there is no historical evidence is betrayed by the very sources you cite.

Gary Habermas states, “The Claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history,”[30] and according to Clay Jones “…the notion that Jesus never existed is preached only by the loony fringe.”[31] Even the highly skeptical Bart Erhman agrees the evidence shows that Jesus was a real person. And finally, atheist historian Michael Grant sums it up nicely, “…modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”[32]

Endnotes

1. This paper is an open letter to Stephen Van Eck and his position in: Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
2. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
3. Gary R. Habermas. “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
4. Robert Graves, “Introduction” to Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars, transl. by Robert Graves (Baltimore. Penguin, 1957) 7 as quoted in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. (Joplin, MO, College Press, 1999) 190.
5. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 158.
6. Tacitus, Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579997/Tacitus (accessed March 22, 2012).
7. “Persecution in the Early Church” ReligionFacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm (accessed March 22, 2012).
8. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html (accessed March 26, 2012).
9. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. (Edinburgh. T & T Clark Ltd. 1994) 10-11 as quoted in Josh McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Nashville. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1999) 121.
10. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 55.
11. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 05: Claudius. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Locations 292-293.
12. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 52.
13. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Volume 06: Nero. Kindle Edition. (Public Domain Books) Kindle Location 151.
14. "The Burning of Rome, 64 AD," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1999). http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).
15. Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 159.
16. Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3. Quoted by Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 61.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 20.200-201 as quoted by Craig A. Evens. Fabricating Jesus, How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2006) 161.
18. Pontius Pilate Inscription. Great Archaeology. http://www.greatarchaeology.com/Pontius.php (accessed March 28, 2012).
19. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 193.
20. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
21. James D. Tabor. Josephus on Jesus. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
22. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries. (SPCK Publishing, 1989) 96-97 as quoted by Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO, College Press Publishing Company, 1996) 195.
23. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 43.
24. Ellen Johnson and Larry King, “What Happens After We Die?” Larry King Live, CNN, April 14, 2005, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
25. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
26. Bart D. Erhman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, (New York, HarperOne, 2012) 37.
27. Ruth A. Palmquist, The Historical Approach to Research. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).
28. Stephen Van Eck. Was Jesus Real? World Union of Deists. http://www.deism.com/jesusexist.htm (accessed March 12, 2012).
29. Randel McCraw Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, 1988) 10.
30. Habermas, Gary R., “Was Jesus Real,” InterVarsity.org, August 8, 2008. http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real (accessed March 13, 2012).
31. Clay Jones. Jesus Wasn’t a Real Person? That’s Dumb! Clay Jones’ Blog (August 24, 2010). http://www.clayjones.net/2010/08/jesus-wasnt-a-real-person-thats-dumb/ (accessed March 20, 2012).
32. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004) 200 as quoted by Born Identity: Was Jesus a real person?. Y-Jesus.com. http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php (accessed March 2012).

 

Was Jefferson a Christian, Atheist, or Deist?

Email from a student:

Sorry to bother you with yet another article, but I have come across several over the last few days that I think are germane to things that have been discussed in your Tuesday night class.

I take everything with a grain of salt these days and am admittedly not a Glenn Beck groupie. However, I do believe that much of his information regarding the Founding Fathers has been fairly accurate.

But to cut to the chase ... I have heard for years the story about Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible to accommodate his own beliefs and I heard you again mention it in class the other night.

The following article seems to shed new light (at least for me) on that story:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-the-real-story-behind-the-jefferson-bible-david-barton-shared-it-with-beck/

I'd like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,

My return email:

For a period of time, Thomas Jefferson was known as a Deist. Not because he had affiliation with any Deist organization, but because his Theology was Deist. Deism is, in reality, a catch-all for many beliefs of God. Recently, Atheists have claimed that Jefferson was an Atheist. This theory is making-the-rounds online. I just debated with an Atheist on Facebook about this. Finally, some Christians claim Jefferson was a protestant Christian. What we do know for sure is that Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian/Anglican. Later in life, he wrote that he would like to join a Unitarian church, but he could not because there were none in Virginia at the time.

I think it is import to make a distinction between attendance or membership in an organization and what a person actually holds or believes. People can often claim to be one thing while holding a different worldview or theology. Certainly, we would not put it past a politician to “be all things to all men.”

David Burton has recently claimed that he is a Christian in an attempt to bolster or recover the view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. His comments, however, have sparked some sharp criticism. I think it would be a good idea to look up David Barton. Check out the controversy over his misquotations to see it the criticism is legit.

You can find references to most of it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
Look under Criticism and Unconfirmed Quotations.

The question is whether or not the criticism of Burton is correct and if it is material to his assertions.

So what do we think were Jefferson’s actual beliefs? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Sounds Christian, for sure. To take a lesson from Greg Koukl, I would ask, what did Jefferson mean by Jesus? That is, who would Jefferson say He is?

Here are some quotes from Jefferson that might shed some light on this:

About Science and Religion
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

About the Gospels
We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

About the God of the Old Testament
That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

It would appear that Jefferson thought Science trumps religion, that the gospel accounts were lies and the god of the Old Testament we cruel and capricious.

In addition, I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible and in the forward there are comments about Jefferson’s dislike of the supernatural references.

With comments like this, one would think he is in the New Atheist crowd other than the fact he did believe in a god. We just aren’t certain which version of god (theology) that would be. But who can really know the heart of a man? I think it is safe to say he was a Deist or Unitarian. To say he was a Bible believing Christian or an atheist, while certainly possible, I don’t think it is probable.

Either way, what does his worldview have to do with anything today?

As for Burton, I don’t know if the criticism is sound or not, or whether it was intentional or unintentional. If he has misrepresented the facts, then he has done a great disservice to the Christian community (Body of Christ). Even if our intentions are noble, we should never misrepresent or bare false witness to anyone.

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu

“Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible,” by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, caught my eye after I had seen some interesting websites that made a connection between the Genesis flood account and Chines pictographic characters (logograms).

Thesis
The thesis of the book is, “we will show that there is sufficient light peeking through the windows of general revelation in Chinese history, records, literature, and practices to convince one to take the next step, into the sunlight of God’s special revelation.”(40)

What this book is not saying
This book is not making the claim that there is more than one way to God. The claim is that the ancient Chinese had a rudimentary knowledge of the one true God that would have come from the revelation up to the point of their migration to the steps of China.

Chapter 1
The book starts with an explanation of the differences between myths, legends, and history. The book transitions into an explanation of general and special revelation of God. These become key points and a foundation for moving forward with their thesis. The book then promises to review the “signposts” that point to their thesis.

Chapter 2
Chapter two gives us a brief overview of the pictographic and ideographic nature of the Chinese written language. Further, the authors show how some of these characters correlate to the Genesis record and the basic tenants of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. The authors rightfully acknowledge that this can be dismissed as circumstantial evidence, however, “these characters should, however, compel us to seek further evidence within the Chinese culture to see if, in fact, the ancient Chinese worshipped the One True God.”(71)

Chapter 3
Chapter three addresses the name and concept of God for the ancient Chinese. The name given to God in Chinese is 皇天上帝 (Huang Tian Shang Di) which translates to Supreme Lord of the Great Heaven. Often, He is referred to only as 上帝 (Shang Di). For the ancient Chinese, this is the Creator God who is above and distinct from all other lesser gods (shen or spirits). The chapter continues with parallels between Shang Di and the Creator God of the Hebrews and Christians.

“We saw an abundance of references that strikingly show how the attributes of Shang Di (Tian) match those of the One True God of the Bible, leading us to the conclusion that Shang Di (Tian) is the general revelation to the Chinese people of the same God worshipped by the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament.”(105) The author finally laments “It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Chinese have not worshipped this God alone; they have also worshipped a multitude of other beings. …many Chinese around the world have fallen under the power of a host of fearful superstitions and syncretistic religious beliefs.”(105)

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 compares the Great Border Sacrifice at the Temple of Heaven (which should actually be translated “Alter of Heaven”) with the Old Testament sacrifices to God. They conclude this chapter with this thought, “I found striking similarities in the ceremonies associated with sacrifices performed by the ancient Chinese and the ancient Hebrews. These very discoveries, though, raised further questions. Where did the concepts of substitutionary death – that is, an innocent dying for the guilty –and of atoning death – the requirement of death to pay for sin – originate?”(151)

Chapter 5
Chapter five covers the next “signpost” which is the blood covenant. The chapter explores the parallels in the covenants in the Bible and the rituals performed by the ancient Chinese. They conclude “The parallels between China’s practice of covenants and God’s perfect revelation of covenants in the Holy Scriptures are vivid and eloquent. God uses these dramatic ceremonies to teach eternal principles that were finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”(179)

Chapter 6
In chapter six, the authors explore the actions and discoveries of some of the first missionaries to China. In particular, they explore the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1550-1610) and his missional approach. Ricci’s approach was to demonstrate respect for the Chinese people and culture by such things as learning the native language. This was not common-place for most missionaries of the time. Ricci’s approach was not to convert the Chinese to a Western Culture Christianity but to a Chinese Christianity. (I have a past post on Christianity and the fact that it is culturally agnostic to a point). Ricci’s work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is in part, a basis for this book.

“Therefore, having leafed through a great number of ancient books, it is quite clear to me that the Sovereign on High and the Lord of Heaven are different only in name.” “He who is called Lord of Heaven in my humble country is He who is called Shang-Di in Chinese.” - Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Others such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), and James Legge (1815-1897) built on the goodwill built by Ricci. Particular for Legge, the key to understanding Chinese thought was by reading the classic works.

“I maintain that the Chinese do know the true God, and have a word in their language answering to our word God, to the Hebrew Elohim, and the Greek Theos.” - James Legge

Chapter 7
In this chapter the authors explore how the ancient Chinese understanding of God played a role in politics. In fact, I think this was one of my favorite chapters. The ancient Chinese had a concept they called the Mandate of Heaven 天命 (Tian Ming). This concept was that the ruler was given power by God to rule. This, however, did not mean that the emperor was free to do whatever he wanted. The concept included Tian Xia Wei Gong (Righteousness Rules), which meant that he was to be a righteous and virtuous ruler. If the emperor was not righteous in his rule, he was seen as having lost the Mandate of Heaven. This form of meritocracy is quite appealing to me. The person who was to be the next ruler was based upon that person’s merit, 禪讓 (Shan Rang), not their genealogy, wealth, or even popularity. The concept of 禪讓 (Shan Rang) is that the emperor was above all else, a servant, albeit the servant-leader.(241)

I have to admit, my biased libertarian bent, leads me to an affinity for the Mandate of Heaven.

Chapter 8
In this chapter, aptly entitled ‘Enter the Dragon,’ the authors show how the original worship of Shang Di was corrupted by the dragon cults. As you might bet, they show there are many parallels between the dragon in the Bible and those of ancient China. Much of China’s original heritage has been lost to the dragon and today, you see the principle of the dragon prominent in Chinese culture, government, and business. “Power, pleasure, and position are very enticing. But, they do not last. Like the dragon, they do not serve us; we end up serving them when we pursue them.”(291)

Chapter 9
The book finishes with a discussion of the parallel in the concepts of truth and some astronomy. The author relates a story of a doctoral student who made the statement, “The Chinese Shang Di cannot be the same as the God of the Bible because the latter is a Western deity.” The author, then, offers an illustration of two cups. If he made the claim that both cups are made up of the same material and you objected, how would you resolve the difference? The answer is, you break-down the composition of both cups and, if they prove to be similar or identical, then the two cups are the same. This is to say that you perform careful observation, critically examine the facts, and arrive at a logical conclusion.

“That is what we have sought to do in this chapter and indeed throughout this book. We have presented facts from China’s ancient historical records, records that secular scholars and experts agree are reliable and true, and we have arrived at our conclusions, which we have presented in this book. These facts are now before you, for you to draw your own conclusions.”(321)

My thoughts
I think this book is a primer for any apologetic, evangelistic or missionary work to people in the Chinese culture. The book is especially useful for contextualizing your message. I have to admit that I have a deeper appreciation for the richness of Chinese culture. I have to admit I find Chinese culture fascinating and I want to learn more about their culture.

Further, I find it absolutely fascinating how God works and leaves his fingerprints everywhere around the world. I think God is much like an artist; He loves the different cultures and expressions. It is amazing that, in each of the cultures around the world, God has “set them up” for the truth.

Other books have been written on this subject, however, this is the best treatment of the subject that I have found.

http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/news/index.php?topic=9987.0

http://cosmicx.blogspot.com/2009/06/ethiopian-church-leader-to-announce.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132067

 

I was watching Digging for the Truth: Neanderthal! Episode 48.  Here are a few notes I took during the program.  The program was about the end of Neanderthal.

• (1% of the genome mapped)
• Used tools
• Larger brain (not smarter)
• Humans did not descend from them
• Used fire

• Used tools
• Cave painting
• Jewelry and beads
• Smaller brain (smarter)
• Humans descended from them
• Used fire

"Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." - Genesis 2:7 HCSB

Strong's Hebrew 5397 נְשָׁמָה [nâshamah /nesh·aw·maw/] n f. From 5395; TWOT 1433a; GK 5972; 24 occurrences; AV translates as “breath” 17 times, “blast” three times, “spirit” twice, “inspiration” once, and “souls” once. 1 breath, spirit. 1a breath (of God). 1b breath (of man). 1c every breathing thing. 1d spirit (of man).

This movies starts off with a very happy beginning. Back dropped in the heydays of the 1940 as seen by children. "Set during World War II, a story seen through the innocent eyes of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the commandant at a concentration camp, whose forbidden friendship with a Jewish boy on the other side of the camp fence has startling and unexpected consequences." Pasted from <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/> 

 

"As the story goes, the Queen of Sheba, one of Ethiopia's first rulers, traveled to Jerusalem to partake of King Solomon's wisdom. On her way home, she bore the king's son, Menelik. After Menelik went to Jerusalem to visit his father, Solomon gave him a copy of the Ark and commanded that officials of his kingdom travel back to Ethiopia to settle there. But the royal entourage that was traveling to Ethiopia could not bear to be away from the Ark, so they switched the copy with the original and smuggled the real thing out of the country. Menelik learned of this only on his way home and reasoned that since the Ark's powers hadn't destroyed his entourage, it must be God's will that it remain in Ethiopia. " Pasted from <http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080705/news_1c05ark.html>

"Hezekiah prayed before the Lord and said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, who are enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth." NASB (2 Kings 19:15)

President’s day is a day where we honor our Presidents. However, some people don’t like certain Presidents. Here is one of the greatest speeches given by what some say was the greatest president while other say he was the worst president.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

 

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free... It will become all one thing, or all the other." Lincoln in his acceptance speech as 1858 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Illinois

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan."

—Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

I came across this very intriguing book about the evidence of a very ancient lost civilization. A very intriguing speculation and hypothesis. Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock is a fascinating exploration of what he believes is a lost prehistoric civilization that was destroyed by a flood. He concludes that our civilization will be destroyed by fire some time soon. (Maybe 23 Dec 2012). In his book he discusses such monuments as the pyramids of Giza as if they are calendrical devices that declare ancient science and mystical secrets. These monuments were built to preserve and transmit the knowledge and inscribe secrets in hidden texts within these monuments. He talks about the grand precessional cycle and how it relates to past disasters. In particular an ancient disaster that led to a worldwide flood.

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (Unabridged) by Gordon S. Wood. This book was a great listen. It covered the founding fathers in a way I haven't heard or read yet. It was balanced. They were not portrayed as demigods or vilified as demons. They were portrayed in a manner that was balanced and informational. It is far better than one of my history books that vilifies them for what was then a social norm because now it is considered unconscionable. Other, mostly older books, portray them as some type of titanic individuals who were always noble and unblemished. It is refreshing to read something that does not try to convert the readers to their point of view.

I listened to a series of lectures titled "Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues" which was given by Professor Michael Surgrue of Princeton University.   There are 16 lectures, each lasting 45 minutes. 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=463&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History 

“After Tripoli declared war on the United States in 1801, Barbary pirates captured 300 U.S. sailors and marines. President Jefferson sent navy squadrons to the Mediterranean, but he also authorized a secret mission to overthrow the government of Tripoli. He chose an unlikely diplomat, William Eaton, to lead the mission, but before Eaton departed, Jefferson grew wary of the affair and withdrew his support. Astoundingly, Eaton persevered, gathering a ragtag army, including eight U.S. Marines, and leading them on a brutal march across 500 miles of desert. After surviving sandstorms, treachery, and near death from thirst, Eaton achieved a remarkable victory on "the shores of Tripoli", as commemorated in the Marine Corps Hymn. His triumph gained freedom for the American hostages and newfound respect for the young United States, but for Eaton, the aftermath wasn't sweet. When he dared to reveal that the president had abandoned him, Jefferson set out to crush him.”  – Audible.com

Audio book review of the unabridged version of “The Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius  (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus circa A.D. 69-circa 140).  I have to say this one is very long and yet I find I like listening to the stories.  For an ancient work, it is really quite good.  I also have to say that the lives of the first 12 Caesars are more like the people in Dynasty or daytime soap operas.  The book is really quite graphic and is not suitable for younger children.  I found when I was driving the kids to their grandparents in the morning I had to turn it off a few times.  The Audio book is 13 hours long and I think I could actually sit and listen to the whole thing at one time.  Trust me there are some things I had to look up like what the Equestrians: were and what a Praetorian is.  Then there is the place names that are all but meaningless to me, well I do know where Greece is and where the Germans were.  All of that aside, the gossip is crazy, who is sleeping with who and are they related.  Who killed who, and on it goes.   

I just finished the book “Alexander the Great” by the Roman historian Arrian.

I just finished reading (listening – audio book) “How the Irish Saved Civilization” by Thomas Cahill.  After completing the book, 1/16 of me was proud to be Irish.  The book recounts the fall of civilized Rome with insights on to the Roman thought at that time.  During this fall of Rome you can see that as civilization became less and less educated, or less civilized, the more barbaric they became.  This seems to be true for most of the continent of Europe.  While this was happening on continental Europe, a strange and barbaric band of Celts, on the most remote and western part of the known world, where becoming more and more educated and civilized. 

 

Key things I learned or found interesting.

 

Before Christianity

• Celts spanned from Galatia to Gal and all the way to Ireland.
• Celts ran around naked a lot.
• Sex was casual
• Marriage was not lifelong but had to be renewal annually on Feb 1.
• Irish women were very strong willed back then, as they seem to be today.

 

After Christianity (Patrick Introduced)

• St Patrick was a Roman citizen
• Sex was still casual (compared to Roman Catholic)
• They still ran around naked a lot?  (It is not very warm up in those parts)
• There have been differences in the past between Irish Catholic and Roman Catholic.
• Women where in positions of authority in the church until the Pope put a stop to it.
• I learned about the red, green and white martyrdom (you can read the book if you want to learn about it, or cheat and use Google)
• The Irish where some of the first to send out missions to the unsaved
• Their monastic way of life was unique in the world at that time
• They liked to copy books (OOOHHH! copyright infringement)

 

You get this picture of a bunch of naked drunks who are making copies without consent.  Does that sound familiar?  Seriously, the Irish are heroes and I am proud to be 1/16th.

 

There are so many other precious gems in the book.  I would suggest you read it.  St. Patrick’s Breastplate is a very good prayer.  You should check it out.  Here is a link (What do I have to do, don’t you know how to use Google?) http://prayerfoundation.org/st_patricks_breastplate_prayer.htm