Rev. Joe -- Gnostics

I read a few books on the Gnostic movement and reading a book (starts mainly mid-2nd Century) from the 1980s that expands things to the middle ages and the modern day (it was a companion to a British t.v. series). It starts okay but gets to be a trudge. Also, repeatedly, a complete account is strangely not provided in many books. A bit more on pre-Jesus Hellenistic/Jewish thought would be useful -- Ehrman in one book briefly covers the matter.

Grand Slam!!!! $6 for mini-pretzel ...

Went to Citifield (Mets) yesterday. Successful completion. Searched people's bags and patted them down. Major rip-off on the pretzels, dude. $12 for beer ... still so, but at least it was 24oz (on field). Congrats on the veggie dogs. Dinner downtown. Usual overpriced stuff ($12 for a drink?), but within the usual range. It also is across the street from a major train station, so location location location. Unlike at the stadium, was not carded.

Where's instant review when we need it?

A law student finds a particular problem with Mr. "balls and strikes" campaign finance opinion. Rick Hasen is a tad more scornful.

Instant Replay Helps Mets / Fans Wait For Karma

Didn't really see the play (these things occur so fast, you blink/miss even at home), but this account has there being doubt but Mets winning challenge -- shouldn't work that way, right? Did not know Recker was a good bunter. So few opportunities. Also, think if L. was out, Tejeda very well might not bunt & they had two pinch-hitters to use, one for Tejeda.

Rev. Joe -- Romans

As supplementary reading, reading a few Pauline epistles. Romans underlines the guy was a Jew -- might be an "apostle to the Gentiles," but still saw things through a Jewish mind-set, especially extended references to Jewish scriptures and focus on the "circumcised" that his Gentile readers probably often didn't find overall that interesting or maybe even understandable. This epistle, unlike some, also seems a bit too long -- a bit repetitive.

Exorcisms

I will use a specific example to add to my concern the other day that various analyses of Jesus et. al. appear to me to skip over certain things when providing neutral discussion of historical events. The issue here is not that accounts that Jesus "rose from the dead" are lies or that trying to determine what beliefs led being important, even if you do not think that what is believed actually happened.  We are fairly comfortable with that in various contexts, including when trying to consider the mentality of let's say a child who does not quite get the idea of item permanence.  It also is not a matter of scornfully rejecting beliefs and those who believe them.  It is a full understanding of things. 

Am re-reading Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend by Bart Ehrman, a person whose writings I have overall found quite worthwhile.  Reading some of this books -- he has some academic tomes and others (like this) geared to the educated amateur -- you notice various repeating themes. For instance, and it is somewhat controversial (e.g., it clashes with a text I was assigned for a class back in the day and the editor that introduces books in A New New Testament), he strongly states that when epistles are written in Peter or Paul's name, but not actually by them, it is a type of fraud. Many other scholars argue it was seen -- at least in many cases -- as an appropriate thing to do, a sort of "in the tradition of Paul" that if anything might be seen as a sort of sign of respect.

Calling the author(s) of the Pastoral Epistles something of a fraud is a serious matter, so Ehrman is not trying to be hyper-PC here and not give any offense. He and others also provide analysis that (if at times not being blunt about it) doesn't take what was written as scripture. For instance, Jesus says things that they basically state turns out to be wrong -- e.g., that the world was coming to an end and it will occur sometime in the lifetime of those alive at the time. Paul, e.g., thought he himself would be taken up along with the others while still alive:

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.  

Then, Paul died, etc., and others wrote Colossians and Ephesians where this "time coming that are near" tone suddenly becomes "the time is here" in significant part, plus a bunch of behavior regulations involving servants, women et. al. since we are going to be here for the long haul. Or, 2 Peter, where "God's time" is referenced, so "near" can mean that even today is nowhere near (in human time) to the end of days. This sort of thing helps show that Peter and Paul did not write these epistles, even (in Peter's case) through someone who could write Greek.

My point here is not to make fun of this sort of thing, but to note that Ehrman is in effect saying even Jesus himself was wrong, or at best, the evangelists, so worrying about the faithful being upset is not being used here to avoid secular analysis as would be done with any other work. Also, to get to the point, he talks in some detail about gender roles in First Century life to help us understand Mary Magdalene -- very little is written about her in the Bible, so generalizations about her "type" is helpful here.

This all is helpful, including the discussion as applied to same sex marriage (this was written in 2006, but it all the more topical now) in that opposition then to homosexual practice was largely a matter of it violating proper gender roles. So, it is appropriate to see it partially as a matter of sex discrimination (to be clear, I'm adding this point). Still, one of the few things we know about Mary (other than her sex and probable hometown unless that isn't a place name but meant to associate her in some way with "tower") -- at least are told -- is that she was possessed by demons. It is fairly clear that Jesus was famous for his exorcisms.

So, it would be useful to understand just what this meant. Ehrman, for some reason, doesn't tell us. He makes sure to let us know that the reference to "seven" demons might be symbolic, but doesn't discuss what being possessed and exorcised itself meant. People today, including many Christians, simply do not take demons seriously.  Many would be more upset to know that half of Paul's epistles actually wasn't written by him probably than to be told that "exorcism" is really symbolic (e.g., Mary was a troubled sinner and Jesus "drove out" her sin) or was in effect is how the people at the time understood certain psychiatric diseases. At any rate, it is appropriate to examine the question, since it is fundamental to understanding Jesus' ministry.

A bit of this is hinted at -- the overall concern was that evil forces (something of a late day development, since it somewhat takes things out of God's hands .. the path to Gnostic thought where there are a bunch of forces out there, including a "creator god" that is in effect bad guy was far from illogical) infested the world. A savior had to come to deliver us from them in some fashion. Exorcisms were a clear sign deliverance was at hand. The symbolism is apparent but there was also a belief that something tangible was going on. Exorcism is also in no way limited to this specific context.  It is something pretty well studied.

But, unlike fraudulent authorship or roles of women, Ehrman does not provide general analysis, even when it is one of the few things the gospels tell us about Mary Magdalene. We get pages of  analysis of two film portrayals even though the book is particularly concerned with the first few centuries.  Why not some pages about exorcism and what specifically it was about at the time?  I referenced a textbook earlier -- by Howard Clark Kee. It is somewhat academic in nature, but looking at it, it is a fairly good work overall. Still, again, only a few brief references to exorcism. Exorcism is a major aspect of the historical Jesus. It simply is hard to completely understand with at least a brief overview on the subject.

Just taking for granted (even if they are wrong) people believed it occurred and going from there is incomplete. I think the overall "real story" here is pretty fascinating and we can learn a lot even without knowing all of it. But, a full account is that much more helpful and why Ehrman does not do so here is unclear to me. To be blunt, I think it is to avoid a bit of controversy, the idea he is just some atheist who is rejecting Christian teachings. But, sorry, he's half gone on that level as is. And, a literal belief in exorcism et. al. is not even necessary for many Christians.

Anyway, the book is quite good, even with this issue. 

McCutcheon

Update: There will be a lot of discussion online etc. on this case and Scotusblog as usual is a good place to get various perspective. See, e.g., here. Note how two quite different p.o.v.s are involved in the two opinions, a full accounting probably not likely given the limitations of opinion writing.

Back in October, when the Court heard oral argument in a challenge to the overall caps – known as “aggregate limits” – on how much an individual can contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees, there wasn’t a whole lot of suspense.  Given the Court’s recent campaign finance rulings, it seemed clear that a majority of the Justices would vote to strike down at least some of the caps; the only real question was whether they would strike down them all.

A few more words for yesterday's campaign finance ruling and my brief comments on the matter. My first thought is wariness about campaign finance laws. The overall mentality of the five justices here is that such laws hit to the core of free speech and freedom of association, donating money to promote one's own views and causes a basic First Amendment principle. I respect this though it is part of my broader largely libertarian views that go further than the likes of Scalia that uses tradition to allow obscenity laws.  Still, the First Amendment in practice balances various things. Breyer:

What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the  people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point. That is one reason why the Court has stressed the constitutional importance of Congress’ concern that a few large donations not drown out the voices of the many. 

IOW, it is more than simple "quid pro quo" corruption akin to bribery. I provided a link to one of various articles by Prof. Teachout (yes, that is her name) promoting such a more complex view of "corruption" and the interests behind the laws here. Justice Breyer* is particularly concerned here (he read his dissent from the bench) given his overall constitutional vision, including as expressed in two books.

The majority is more wary of this "communitarian" vision, but as noted by the professor, there is a historical and originalist argument to be made for it, likewise overall principle.  Since money is not directly speech, that too factors in here. would not only reduce your rights here, but are passed by self-interested parties, particularly incumbents. This was cited by Scalia during the oral argument (rebroadcast on C-SPAN last night).

Finally, the "cure" might be worse than the decision -- limit certain types of contributions, the money will flow in some other way.  The power of PACs, including "independent" organizations, vastly increased pursuant to modern day campaign laws. Reduce the money sent to political parties, the money still will be sent, and these recipients aren't people voters can vote out of office. Realistically, this makes me somewhat cynical about the net value of these regulations.

Cynicism is warranted on both ends though.  Rick Hasen (linked last tiem) in his piece is a tad bit scornful about CJ Roberts' faux minimalism. Breyer was particularly upset that there wasn't a factual hearing in the lower court.  Roberts: "We take the case as it comes to us." As if they had no ability to send it back ... they went out of the way to re-hear Citizens United and expand what was originally a much narrower case.  Also, disclosure laws were cited as a possible solution. Ha ha. How is that disclosure reform legislation going in Congress? As Hasen noted here  and in his analysis of Shelby, Roberts has to know realistically that in this environment, major such legislative changes are not likely to occur. This doesn't justify unconstitutional legislation, but it's still something adults can take into consideration, especially given his faux minimalism.

I did not closely read the various opinions to weigh if this specific regulation should have been struck down.  Breyer, e.g., has found specific campaign finance legislation unconstitutional.  There is room for a middle path here.  But, as with the Arizona case with the Kagan dissent, there doesn't seem to be a desire for someone to work the middle here. This makes it somewhat pointless to determine, in a vacuum, if this specific case is correct.

There is an ongoing trend that finds fault with campaign finance reform and by now -- as noted by SCOTUSBLOG -- there is not much suspense. Some find the majority opinion here just plain horrible, helping our political system be sold to the highest bidder. I don't think the campaign laws at issue in these cases are that essential in a do or die matter.  I don't know -- the facts are probably pretty complicated with all the factors involved. For instance, some note how much money is spend on advertising generally to put how much money is spend in campaigns in perspective. The laws it probably is right to say do various degree of good, including to help public trust**

But, there is a reason for concern when self-interested parties pass laws that limit our ability to donate and so forth. Justice Breyer noted this during the oral argument.  Again, things have to be put in a balance, and each side have something to say.  So, the net result to be is somewhat more tragic than simply aggravating.  It's that too.  We will get more that soon enough.

---

 * To continue his theme and tie it directly to the text:

It is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. And it is an interest rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself. ...  Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action. A politically oriented “marketplace of ideas” seeks to form a public opinion that can and will influence elected representatives. 

And, disclaimer and disclosure laws are deemed acceptable under Citizens United etc. in part to promote such ends, even if it provides some real burden (including cost) on individuals and groups.  There are things balanced here.

** This is one reason given for having voter id laws, but they aren't cost-free, obliviously. And, some desire to satisfy public fears, in this context misguided in many ways, is not a reason to violate the right to vote. Something like this, somewhat inconsistently, is noted by opponents of campaign finance laws.

More $$$ allowed ... 5-4

Rick Hasen discusses today's campaign finance "minimalist" (scare quotes intentional) ruling. I'm wary about campaign finance laws at times, but there should be some middle ground. And, to the degree there is room to debate as to "corruption," real minimalism should be used when striking down laws. And, the full flavor of the term understood. That is, e.g., Citizen United might have been right as to result somewhat, but not how it went.

Mets have first off day ... and "here we go again" moment

Every dog has their day alert: Astros beat Yanks on Opening Day. Got to win those 62 games somehow. "It begins" - Mets closer hurt, out for some undetermined period. MAKE AN IMPACT SIGNING -- at SS, reliever or 1B. Bringing up some old scrap heap guy from the minors? Not going to do it. Fans have a reason to be peeved. Without this. Don't just "do something," obviously, but there are possible things to do. If even .500 is your goal.

Hobby Lobby's Inconvenient Investments

In "abortifacients."  Maybe, this is like covering contraception until PPACA is passed and suddenly is a big problem, or something.  Or, a reminder that you have to draw a line somewhere, that indirect support often is not enough to warrant exemptions. At least, it is a reminder about the perils of trying to sin no more.

#cancelcolbert

I don't know how serious Stephen Colbert himself REALLY took this, but it got a lot of play in the media. Two worthwhile discussions of the matter.

Happy Poetry Month!

Hey .. You Were in Carolene in the City

Web episodes is the thing these days ... not bad with a good lead.

161 To Go ... Nails Bitten To A Quick Yet?

Paternity leave, aches and flu leads to ailing and key players not playing, but up 4-2. Gee runs out of gas at usual time (7th) and one after another, except once, the pen blows. Takes to 10th, but Game One is a depressing loss. It's but one game, but without more the team is going to be open to this sort of thing day after day. Sorry ... story is already old.

Miracles etc.

The St. Peter book brings up the miracles in historical accounts issue. That is, how do we deal with that sort of thing? Just worry about the mind-set behind them and their influence on history or worry about what actually happened? Bart Ehrman in his books, e.g., appears to mostly do the former. Miracles are subjective faith experiences that a historian cannot objectively determine akin to "natural" facts.

Michael Grant does this mostly, noting that the reader can not believe the miracles or visions happened, of course, that they were delusions or something. But, I recall someone else noting that for many, the "supernatural" is also the "natural." In fact, they can follow certain set rules. Sort of like the rules of horror movies in Scary Movie or something. And, historians do not always look past what "really happened" when mysterious events of a non-religious (or even religion different from one of the main ones) happens in other contexts. So, seems sort of cheating.

To be fair, Grant does somewhat focus on what might have happened here, including that people of the time expected miraculous things to happen. And, often miraculous language was not to be taken literally. And, he offers some suggestions, e.g., how the "empty tomb" might be explained. There is so much that must have seen mysterious to the age in question that use of supernatural explanations would seem almost logical to many people. We should be upfront about this, since it helps understand the works in question. But, and this sort of explains various things, many don't really think things through that much.

A major example is all this demon talk, including them actually talking (in one case, asking Jesus to send them into some swine!). A major aspect of the historical Jesus was likely his supported exorcist skills, so this is no trivial matter. Still, including many who are otherwise believing Christians, it is not really something we like to think about. Exorcism seems um fairy tale, horror movie stuff. It is not like healing leprosy or something. Another thing that is often not known is that Jesus is not truly unique here though from the source material we have it might be the case that he was particularly famous and/or skilled at doing such things. That is, there were others who were believed to have done miracles.

This underlines my sentiments that it would be a good idea to determine what "really" might have been happening. It's a balance of probability, but it is how we deal with other historical events. The psychosomatic possibilities of demon possession is fairly easy to contemplate. Healing some ailments too. Immediate healing, at times using such tricks like putting mud on the eyes? Less so. I take there were some studies on this subject, so why not be address it? Like the recent biography by what's his name of Jesus did not -- is it in bad form, something only for Sam Harris/Hitchens types to do to talk about? Like ruining a magician's tricks?

Now, mind you, some might have done so, particularly in one of the less well known scholarly works. Still, I have read a decent number of books about Jesus and the like, and it seems not to be a thing. In fact, would like to find a good article that in depth covers the topic. Since, again, miracles are not only something Jesus "did." There is also an easier time of it when it happened a long time back in some degree of dimness of time and place. Peter, e.g., is a major figure in Christianity, but we really know very little about the guy. The book, e.g., basically once mentioned his wife and that he was by some accounts said to have a daughter. It determined it happened, but even his martyrdom in Rome is not 100% assured. "Quo vadis?" indeed! People are much less able handle something like the creation stories of the Church of Latter Day Saints. 1820s New York ... "burnt over" district or not, not quite as easy to believe mysterious happenings there.

One more thing for now. I noted yesterday that the Gospel of Matthew, listening it, seems too long. After a good beginning and the Sermon on the Mount (Luke has it on a plain!), it gets pretty tedious. This includes long discourses after you thought the climax was here -- that is, after they reach Jerusalem. But, it does end quickly -- the Passover meal etc. moves almost as fast as things in Mark. The ending also is not much more than the original Markian ending. It also is pretty interesting, especially as you compare the four gospels. The endings clearly developed thusly: Mark-Matthew-Luke-John (Thomas is a sayings gospel, so is a special case; the fraction of the Gospel of Peter is an interesting case -- one can read and decide). It is striking when you look at them closely.

Mark appears to end with the women finding an empty tomb and being told by a man in white to tell the apostles that Jesus is going to meet them in Galilee. Michael Grant notes that it appears that the apostles actually did go back there, thinking Jesus' death was the end of the line. John has them fishing again and then Jesus appears -- there seems to be various "endings" to that gospel, the final version combining them ala the two creation myths in Genesis. Then, when is unclear, Peter et. al. (the earliest account we have is Paul, who "saw" Jesus too, a vision of some sort) believed that they saw the risen Jesus, that he didn't just die -- and so it began.

Mark, written c. 70, ends with the women being told to have the apostles go to Galilee -- so they went back not because were crestfallen that their leader was executed before the kingdom of God came, but because they were told. Problem is that Mark has the women afraid and not telling anyone ... and then it ends! Another ending is tacked on later, but what gives here? Was the original ending lost? Was the ending a sort of hint that you were supposed to now refer back to the beginning (Galilee) where Jesus' true purpose is cited (including at the baptism?). It's something of a mystery.

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.

Matthew slightly alters this. We are talking like half a chapter, part of it to insert the story of the bribing of the guards. Now, the women actually do go to tell the apostles, but soon meet Jesus on the way. He greets them, tells them to go to the apostles, who will "see" him. And, there is a very brief account of this, without even that little note of a clearly physical Jesus (i.e., the women "clasped his feet"). This involved a brief commission to them "to go and make disciples of all nations," a vaguely universalist message for a gospel that is particularly Jewish in character (e.g., a lot of "as it was written" ... every other thing apparently was prophesied in the Jewish scriptures). No ascension to heaven ala Luke. And, even there, some "doubted" it was him. The commission is a nice touch, but very brief.

Luke provides us with more, including the road to Emmaus (about seven miles from Jerusalem) account and specific emphasis that this was not a true flesh and blood person (he even ate a piece of bread). This was no mere vision that could have been a delusion! But, perhaps more importantly, Luke is the first one to have Peter himself going to the tomb.* This is basically how many picture it. He also has the apostles stay in Jerusalem until the ascension to heaven. John adds details, but it is generally similar. These are Jerusalem accounts though John ends with a chapter generally thought to be tacked on involving the Sea of Galilee.

No more "appearances" ala Paul, but clear physical events are occurring. This in a fashion brings us back to the beginning -- one reason for such accounts appears to be that there was a felt need for a more "objective" statement of events. Not mere visions, though Jesus in the gospels is reported to have taught that we lose our corporal form in heaven -- e.g., when asked what husband a woman married multiple times (husbands kept on dying on her!) would take in heaven. Other reasons too, partially having to do with beliefs of the nature of resurrection of the dead. Plus, the Galilee to Jerusalem shift of the community of believers. And, probably other things.  Close readings yet again provide interesting insights.

---

* Update: Bart Ehrman in his book on Peter/Paul/Mary (Magdalene) states that Peter going to the tomb was not in early copies of Luke.  Basically, early accounts have women (not trusted at the time to testify) seeing an empty tomb and somewhat curious "appearances," while later ones made them more physical (eating etc.) in nature.  If we are trying to do the best we can, imperfectly, to figure out what we have here, that's interesting.

U.S. MLB Opener

Dodgers already played a game (in Australia), so you'd think one of the teams that went to the World Series or something would play the Sunday Night ESPN opener.

Okay ... Matthew really needs an editor ...

He who made us has so willed, that in mathematics indeed we should arrive at certitude by rigid demonstration, but in religious inquiry we should arrive at certitude by accumulated probabilities.

-- quoted in Michael Grant's biography of St. Peter.

Matter of degree, Cardinal. Anyway, "accumulated probabilities" is also what a historical inquiry of such figures often amounts to, as is the point of Grant's quote. The book is a bit thin (almost an extended essay on other sources), but interesting.

"Reply to McConnell on Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause"

It is surprising that Professor McConnell does not address any of these authorities in his post.

By now, it is not, though I respect that reply here is being polite, perhaps to further a point. As noted there, the op-ed basically is trying to push the law, while claiming to be conservative (with a certain holier than thou tone about "those" people concerned about non-legal issues). This is how law develops often, so it's a familiar tactic, but let's be aware of it.

"What’s the Best Way to Execute Someone?"

A Slate piece linked here; I provided a comment.

NSA Proposal -- Significant Step

Geoffrey Stone, a liberal leaning professor that was appointed to be on the panel to investigate the NSA policies, praises Obama's proposals for reform. Congress has to pass them, and on executive power over national security, they have overall wanted to give the executive more power. But, knowing a need to be wary, I am somewhat optimistic. The public concern, helped by reporting and leaks, were of some value.