What’s Wrong with the World

byzantine double eagle

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

July 12, 2018

Kavanaugh: I wish I had more to say

While the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court may be the most important recent event in U.S. politics from the perspective of social conservatives, the final evaluation of its significance will be possible only in hindsight.

As is so often the case, it is necessary for the confirmation of a justice that we know very little about what we are all most interested (not to say anxious) to know: Would he rule to overturn the judicial over-reaches of Roe and Obergefell if he were on SCOTUS? If the Republicans had a stronger Senate majority ("strong," including in the sense that there would not be defectors in the event of a close vote), perhaps we could afford to know more. As it is, we could very easily face an uphill battle for Kavanaugh's appointment simply because of kneejerk opposition by the left, only to discover that he is the new Kennedy or Souter. His record does not say.

Continue reading "Kavanaugh: I wish I had more to say" »

July 9, 2018

The voice of the Master--More evidence

In this post in my on-going John series, I'm going to talk about places where Jesus sounds distinctly "Johannine" in the synoptic Gospels or "synoptic" in the Gospel of John.

To be sure, there are differences of emphasis, but those differences are exaggerated by scholars, to such a point that Craig Evans says that "you have virtually nothing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that sounds like and looks like Jesus in the Gospel of John" and that, if we took John's portrait to be just as literally historical as that of the synoptics, we would have to wonder "is there just some other Jesus we just didn't know about?" Of course, all of the posts in this series on John contribute to a rebuttal of Evans's statements. See especially here, here, here, here, and here.

Michael Licona has used the alleged great difference between the way Jesus talks in John and the synoptics to support the idea that John "adapted" the "traditions about Jesus" to such an extent as to change "My God, why have you forsaken me?" to "I thirst" on the cross (Why Are There Differences in the Gospels, p. 166), when the latter was not uttered in an historically recognizable fashion at all.

Mere differences of emphasis are, of course, a completely different matter. John and the synoptics may have recorded different statements by Jesus for reasons of theme and saliency to a particular author. Showing crossovers in Jesus' speech at precisely the points where the Gospels have been alleged to be most different is therefore relevant to the historicity of the gospels and, since John comes under such special doubt, to John in particular.

Continue reading "The voice of the Master--More evidence" »

July 3, 2018

Only one Jesus: The voice of the Master--evidence

In this post I will be laying out some parallels between the way that Jesus speaks in the Gospel of John and in the synoptic Gospels. I am not trying to make an absolutely sharp distinction between verbal and conceptual parallels. When a conceptual parallel is close enough it becomes a type of verbal parallel, and a distinction between verbal and conceptual parallels can become artificial if pressed too hard. My examples will all be chosen, however, to represent at least very close conceptual parallels in Jesus' speech, and several are definitely verbal parallels.

I am not, of course, implying that, in all of the places where a word is translated by the same English word, the same Greek word is used. For example, the word Jesus uses for "Come" in Matt. 11:28 is different from the word he uses when he says that all that the Father gives him will come to him in John 6:37. On the other hand, the same Greek word is used for "believe" when he tells Jairus to believe (Mark 5:36) and when he tells Martha that she will see the glory of God if she believes (John 11:40). Whether or not the same Greek word is used varies, but the parallels are there nonetheless and often quite striking.

Most or all of these were taken from the pages beginning here of Stanley Leathes, The Witness of St. John to Christ, 1870, drawn to my attention by Esteemed Husband. I'm very privileged to bring back to the attention of modern apologists these treasures of the past.

Continue reading "Only one Jesus: The voice of the Master--evidence" »

July 2, 2018

Only one Jesus: The voice of the Master--the alleged problem

This post inaugurates a sub-series within my series on the Gospel of John. This sub-series will investigate and respond to the claim that there is something suspicious about the similarities between the way that Jesus talks in John and the way that John writes (as narrator and in I John), on the one hand, and, on the other, the differences between the way that Jesus talks in John and the way that he talks in the synoptic Gospels.

These twin comparisons are used to support some rather radical theses. Leon Morris (Studies in the Fourth Gospel, pp. 265ff) points out that some scholars have used these claims about the way that Jesus talks to argue against authorship of John by an eyewitness.

Others, such as Craig Evans, use the alleged problem of the way Jesus talks to support a general doubt about the historicity of John's portrait of Jesus. Here is a quotation (podcast here, searchable transcript here) from the second half of his recent debate with me on the Unbelievable show:

Continue reading "Only one Jesus: The voice of the Master--the alleged problem" »

June 26, 2018

Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Some quotations

At the repeated suggestion of reader "Joe Lightfoot," and upon being assured by Esteemed Husband that he owned a copy of the book and could locate it in his huge personal library, I began reading Leon Morris's Studies in the Fourth Gospel, Eerdmans, 1969.

I've found it especially refreshing to read an author who, writing as relatively recently as 1969, evokes the style of the authors of the 19th century. Morris writes without jargon or equivocation. It's always possible to tell what he is saying. And he does not take with undue seriousness highly complex theories of factual alteration. He is occasionally more concerned about something than I think he needs to be, but he has a balanced enough mind to recognize that there are always going to be things we don't know. For example, he seems (to my mind) unduly puzzled by Jesus' open statement to the Samaritan woman that he is the Messiah in John 4:26 in contrast with the alleged "messianic secret." But Morris, though not as satisfied by it as perhaps he should be, is open to the theory (which to my mind is correct) that the contrast between this clear statement and Jesus' attempted secrecy elsewhere (e.g., Matthew 16:20) is explicable in terms of attempting to keep his Messianic claims from raising the wrong idea in the minds of those likely to take them in a revolutionary direction.

I need to make more notes from Morris's book, as there is much useful information there, some of which was new to me. For this entry, I want to give my readers some beautiful quotations.

Continue reading "Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Some quotations" »

June 18, 2018

“I was the king of standing alone” -- Rateliff and the Night Sweats

by Nolan Cella and Paul Cella

If it sounds strange to talk of Rocky Mountain Soul, that’s because, until very recently, that sub-genre of music did not really exist; and it is only a slight exaggeration to say that a single band called it into existence.

The band we speak of, which made it fair to talk that way, only came to national prominence in 2015. Before that, the band’s frontman was reachable “for a curbside interview on any given day on South Broadway,” according to his hometown paper. I mean Nathaniel Rateliff (pronounced RATE-lif) and the Night Sweats, the R&B act out of the greatest city on the front range of the mighty Rocky Mountains.

The Queen City of the Rockies, the Mile High City: D-town stands unique. Sports-crazy, decadent, hard-Left on some things, she yet retains a distinct edge of the old granite don’t-tread-on-me attitude: the pioneer and mountain-man. For instance, marijuana decriminalization would have been impossible absent that strong strain: a lot of perfectly sober and respectable Republicans thought, “who the hell cares what those hippies waste their time on?”

By some measures one of the most secular cities in the country, Denver nevertheless boasts a vibrant Catholic diocese (the distinguished Charles Chaput, now Ninth Archbishop of Philadelphia, made a name for himself nationwide at his first archbishopric -- in Denver) and many strong biblical churches.

So the native of D-town, casting his gaze over the wide pastures of American Rhythm & Blues, and the supreme excellencies issuing forth therefrom, can only delight in the swelling pride which attends the news that Denver has its own R&B/soul genre.

“Go tell it on the mountains” holds musical as well as theological substance in Denver. Go tell it that Jesus Christ is born. Supreme king over all.

But also:

Go tell on the mountains that these dudes can play.

Continue reading "“I was the king of standing alone” -- Rateliff and the Night Sweats" »

June 17, 2018

Happy Father's Day

June 14, 2018

Does John "narrate theologically"? On the perils of theological theory in history

I have noted in other posts the unjustified rhetoric that is often leveled at the Gospel of John to the effect that he is less historical than the synoptic Gospels. (See also Craig Evans's extensive comments to this effect here.) John is the red-headed step-child of historical Jesus studies. He is always assumed to be a problem, frequently assumed to be historically dubious on the flimsiest grounds. When something (like the fact that Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry Jesus' cross) is found in the synoptic Gospels but not in John, the question is: What's historically wrong with John? When something (like the "I am" sayings) is found in John but not in the synoptic Gospels, the question is: What's historically wrong with John? Double standard duly noted.

In this post I want to examine some passages from the commentaries of eminent and learned New Testament scholar Craig Keener that illustrate the unwarranted bias against John and that also illustrate the negative effects of an undue mingling of theological interpretation with the attempt to answer the simple question, "Did this really happen?"

It goes without saying that my criticisms of Dr. Keener's ideas in these commentaries are in no way, shape, or form a personal attack but rather a part of our mutual search for truth concerning God's word.

Continue reading "Does John "narrate theologically"? On the perils of theological theory in history" »

June 10, 2018

R.I.P. Tom Wolfe [updated]


As a writer, the late Tom Wolfe manifested a truly subversive idea: that humor is fundamentally conservative. It emphasizes -- subtly, implicitly, but nevertheless perceptibly -- the traditional picture of mankind and his place in the world. He is unique in dignity but given to proliferating folly. He takes himself way too seriously. His social nature produces absurdities that he often cannot see. For these and other reasons, he willingly submits to petty tyrannies which in retrospect seem almost inconceivable. The humorist need only (no easy task, of course) expose the absurdities, pierce the self-importance, illuminate the folly, and ridicule the willing submission to humbug and phoniness. Nor should we neglect how frequent a trope in good humor is the jape at flawed authority: the bumbling bureaucrat, the feckless father, the officious colonel, the dreary clergyman. In a sense, humor is conservative because it has proven to be one of the most powerful methods of demonstrating that oldest of all conservative precepts: original sin. The Fall of Man, among many deductions, inevitably renders him an object of mirth.

Tom Wolfe had mirth in superabundance, and he did not fail to delight his readers with it. Wolfe’s riotous send-ups of intellectual, artistic, political, literary, and social fashion, so superbly satirized progressive pomposity, that it actually took a couple decades for progressives to realize it. For instance, many readers (even to this day) appear to have taken The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test as a kind of celebration or endorsement of that early hippie lifestyle. La Wik will only allow, delicately, that Wolfe was, “in some key ways different from the Pranksters.” You think? Those key ways include, but are not limited to: (a) dressing normal, (b) abjuring narcotics, (c) observing common bourgeois proprieties, and (d) regularly punctuating his descriptions of their antics with rapier thrusts of satirical brilliance. The counterculture took itself quite seriously, on the level of philosophy; Wolfe did not. He only took it seriously on the level of curiosity. What a strange creature is man and his works, that he could produce such a spectacle as this!

In time (certainly by 1975’s The Painted Word, though one marvels that anyone failed to perceive it years earlier), even the dullest Manhattan critic abandoned all hope and conceded that, alas, Tom Wolfe was not one of them.

But by then he had already made a successful career out of gutting them with his lively pen. His position was secure; no amount of denunciation, sneering, sanctimony or churlishness could dislodge him now.

Next he plunged himself into a nearly decade-long study of American masculinity, especially of the military sort. This superlative (and still very funny) literary turn began with the unforgettable fighter-pilot essay, “The Truest Sport: Jousting with Sam and Charlie”; includes “The Tinkerings of Robert Noyce,” which, even 35 years on, is still reckoned the best short history of Silicon Valley available; and culminates in 1979’s The Right Stuff, which rendered the American test pilot and early space program in heroic and hilarious realism. We might say this period of Wolfe’s career did for middlebrow American writing what Reagan did for American politics: re-established it on a foundation of high-spirited patriotism.

(I will pass over his novels in silence, largely from a lack of sustained engagement with them -- except to advert to this fantastic essay from a few years back which examined a neglected aspect of their brilliance.)

Wolfe’s last book, The Kingdom of Speech -- while emphatically not the equal of his mid-career classics -- nevertheless features some uproarious humor directed at eminently deserving targets. Its core argument also rests on a very solid syllogism:

Evolutionary science cannot explain speech;
man cannot be understood in the absence of an understanding of speech;
therefore evolutionary science cannot fully explain man.

One need only read a few of the prominent reviews of this book to observe that it struck a nerve. Even into his 80s, Wolfe retained a sublime knack for puncturing fashionable pretensions.

Last month, America lost one of her finest chroniclers of that mysterious and wonderful creature called man. Tom Wolfe was a writer who grounded his work on diligent observation, and produced some of the funniest, most delightful and most illuminating books of the past half century. R.I.P.

UPDATE: below the fold is a video clip from the late 90s on The Late Show with David Letterman which nicely captures the spirit of Wolfe. No less than Donald Trump himself emerges as a topic of discussion.
Image credit: Hoover Institute/YouTube

Continue reading "R.I.P. Tom Wolfe [updated]" »

June 8, 2018

Only one Jesus: The man who loves his friends

JesusMaryMartha.png It is a theological doctrine that God the Father loves all men and that God the Son manifests the love of God by coming to the world to die for our sins (John 3:16). It is a fact of history, visible throughout all four of our historical sources, the gospels, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of strong affections who had special love for particular people.

While Jesus would go off alone to pray (e.g., Mark 1:35), he was not in general a "loner." He was a man who had friends, loved his friends, and wanted to be with them.

In this series, I continue to examine the unity of the personality of Jesus in the Gospel of John and the synoptic Gospels. In the previous entry I discussed several personality traits of Jesus that are constant across the gospels, including his being an emotional rather than a stoical person. This brings us to the particular way in which Jesus' affections were called out by his love for his friends. Here, too, we see that, pace the commonplaces of critical scholarship, the portrait of Jesus in John is not "very different" from the portrait in the synoptics. Rather, the documents present the same man, giving different instances of the same personality traits.

Continue reading "Only one Jesus: The man who loves his friends" »

June 6, 2018

The Eeyores are Right on Masterpiece Cake Shop

I must agree with Ben Shapiro and Andrew McCarthy as against (e.g.) David French's more positive take on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

It isn't an incremental step in the direction of anything. Obviously it's better that Sotomayor and Ginsberg didn't win. But the fact that Kagan and Breyer joined in the majority, writing a separate concurrence to make it absolutely explicit why they joined, and that Roberts (besides joining in the weak majority opinion) was MIA, show us where we really are. As McCarthy points out, this should have been a knock-down free speech case, given the massive and highly explicit first amendment jurisprudence on record, including jurisprudence that makes it absolutely clear that words are not required for "speech" in the legal sense. Both the opinions of Thomas/Gorsuch and Gorsuch/Alito make it clear that they would rule in Jack Philips's favor on straightforward first amendment grounds against compelled speech. (I haven't yet read both opinions in enough detail to know why those two opinions couldn't have been joined into one.) But Roberts was silent on that point, and Kennedy's written majority opinion is (to put it at its best) silent as well, noting that different cases may be decided differently, as long as the commission behaves itself more seemly. This raises the very real possibility that Jack Philips himself, if he returns to wedding cake baking tomorrow and refuses to bake wedding cakes to celebrate homosexual ceremonies, may be in hot water again.

David French tries to get something good out of the majority opinion's comments about other cases in which the Commission made different decisions concerning cakes with words opposing homosexuality. But the majority decision focused only on the fact that the commission found those words (which were anti-homosexual "marriage") to be "offensive." In other words, the commission was too blatant in its viewpoint bias. And what if no further such cases arise in the future to help Tomorrow Jack Philips when a new case comes up? How will that later commission be shown to be biased? Or what if that later commission takes its stand solely on the words/no words distinction, without any comments about offensiveness, which (one fears) is a place where Kennedy might be willing to agree with them, as against earlier SCOTUS precedents? And where would Roberts fall in that case?

Jack Philips needs some more good legal advice right about now concerning his future, and that advice should tell him that he isn't out of the woods. If he goes back to baking wedding cakes for the sake of his business's fiscal health, he may be back before a calmer, less rabid, more polished civil rights commission before you can say, "Kennedy."

June 3, 2018

Only one Jesus: Part 2 (plus) in a series

If this is part 2, you may ask, where is Part 1? And what in the world does the "plus" mean? I'm glad you asked!

Part 1 is here
, under the title of "Ecce Homo" with the subtitle "Only One Jesus." Take up and read! In it I discuss in more detail an example concerning Jesus and the Sabbath controversies and the wonderful way in which two completely different Sabbath controversies show the same man clearly speaking in John and Luke. I alluded to this example briefly in my recent debate with Craig Evans. And there's more in that entry besides, including Jesus' sarcastic and resigned way of speaking of his enemies.

The "plus" refers to this recent post on positive evidence for John's historicity and the similarity of the portrayal of Jesus in John and the synoptics that I did mention briefly in the debate with Evans. In the post I both list that evidence and draw some of it out in more detail. This includes, among many other things, the point that the author of John is actually scrupulous on several occasions to separate his own commentary from Jesus' words. There's a lot of good stuff there, so please have a look.

Continue reading "Only one Jesus: Part 2 (plus) in a series" »

May 28, 2018

On credentials

I have resisted for a long time the idea of entering into a discussion of my credentials. As reader John DePoe pointed out here, Dr. Licona has not-so-subtly tried to give the impression that I am some sort of unqualified hack. It's a little more difficult for him to do this with Tim (Esteemed Husband), who has a lengthy teaching career, is chairman of his department, and is an established, internationally known scholar with a specialty in the history of arguments for Christianity. So for the most part Licona has stuck to referring in public to my alleged lack of relevant credentials. But his recent outlining of the credentials that supposedly would be needed implicitly rules out Tim's being qualified either, though Tim has also criticized his approach.

It has become so odd that Licona seems to think of me as just some "blogger on the Internet" with nothing in the way of credentials besides a PhD in English that I have seriously come to wonder if he literally does not know about my extensive professional publication record in analytic philosophy, spanning two decades and coming up to the present. My CV is easy enough to look up, and my professional standing as a philosopher is mentioned in the blurb on the cover of my most recent book and on my bios in various places. But perhaps he has just managed to avoid this information. Have all of his followers avoided knowing it as well, or do they excuse the implication that I am only an utterly unqualified blogger by silently telling themselves that mere philosophy doesn't matter to the whole thing anyway?

In any event, though I dislike going into the matter of my credentials, with the recent podcasts that Dr. Licona has made, in which he publicly brings up the credentialist meme again and again, I have finally decided to address the issue of credentials head-on. Instead of my taking the time to repost and put in all the links, etc., here at W4, please see the full post here.

May 25, 2018

Dancing with the distinguished professor--Post III--Back to the positive evidence

It was a notable feature of my recent debate with Craig Evans (podcast here) that I dealt in details and new information, whereas Evans dealt mostly in generalities, repeated over and over again, and occasionally false specific statements. (See my earlier posts on the debate here and here.)

Continue reading "Dancing with the distinguished professor--Post III--Back to the positive evidence" »

May 24, 2018

Dancing with the distinguished professor--Post II

"The Question" about "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the Father are one"

While preparing for this debate on Unbelievable (podcast here, previous analysis post on the debate here), I had hoped that it would be possible to get Dr. Evans to admit his views about Jesus' sayings and the incidents surrounding them, if not immediately then at least fairly early on, by means some carefully worded questioning, and that at that point we could move on as quickly as possible to having a forthright debate about the historicity of John.

I was wrong. During the entire first portion of the debate, Evans took extra time (at a certain point his time spent talking compared to mine was at nearly a 2 to 1 ratio) to talk in obscure, dodgy terms about his views, to say obfuscating things such as, "The Gospel of John is indeed historical, but it's a mixture," and to misrepresent his own statements in 2012.

I did attempt to pin him down and clarify some of the issues between us. At minute 12:30ff, I asked this:

I would like to get you to state clearly what your position is concerning the historicity of, for example, the dialogue where Jesus is talking to the Jewish people and ends it by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." And then they throw stones. And I just want to clarify before you answer that: I am not asking whether John quoted these things word-for-word or verbatim, but I am asking whether that incident occurred in addition to anything in the synoptics in an historically recognizable fashion.

Justin at this point (and I'm grateful to him for trying to get me more of an opportunity to speak), does not throw the ball back to Craig Evans but rather asks me why I think this is an important matter. What with my answer to that, more lengthy talk from Evans (in which he does not answer the question), and commercial breaks, etc., I do not return to pressing the question and getting Evans's answer until about minute 22:17. There I state what is obviously intended to be the same question like this:

And again, as I said before, I'm not asking whether you think that this is recorded verbatim. What I am asking, let's just take those two cases, and I'd kind of like to get a clear yes or no. Do you think that those two incidents, where Jesus was in these places, was having these discussions, these dialogues, and culminated by saying in the one case, "Before Abraham was, I am," and in the other case "I and the Father are one" and then they went to stone him. Do you think that those incidents, where he said those things, occurred in a recognizable way in history? What is your opinion on that?

And Evans answers, "I think they did." (Minute 22:53)

Continue reading "Dancing with the distinguished professor--Post II" »

May 21, 2018

Dancing with the distinguished professor--Post I

May 15, 2018

Transcript: Craig A. Evans--comments on the Gospel of John, 2012

May 12, 2018

12 Rules for Life – Some Preliminary Thoughts

May 7, 2018

On minimalism, the resurrection, and more: Response to Dr. Craig's podcast

May 4, 2018

Undesigned coincidences vs. Literary Devices on Bellator Christi [Updated]

guide business articles guide new business opportunities guide finance deposit guide money making art guide loan deposits guide make your home good guide income outcome issue guide medicine drugs guide marken money trends guide self roof repairing guide market online guide secure guide skin tools guide wedding jewellery guide newspaper for magazine guide geo places guide business design guide Car and Jips guide production business guide ladies cosmetics sector guide sport and fat burn guide vat insurance price guide fitness program guide furniture at home guide which insurance firms guide new devoloping technology guide healthy nutrition guide dress up company income guide insurance and life guide dream home guide create new business guide individual loan form guide cooking ingredients guide which firms is good guide choosing most efficient business guide comment on goods guide technology business guide secret of business guide company redirects guide credits in business guide guide for business guide cheap insurance tips guide selling abroad guide protein diets guide improve your home guide security importance