Linford and Megill's New Paper on Two Underexplored Arguments Against Theism

Linford, Dan and Megill, Jason. "Idolatry, indifference, and the scientific study of religion: two new Humean arguments", Religious Studies (2018), doi:10.1017/S0034412518000653.


Here's the abstract:
We utilize contemporary cognitive and social science of religion to defend a controversial thesis: the human cognitive apparatus gratuitously inclines humans to religious activity oriented around entities other than the God of classical theism. Using this thesis, we update and defend two arguments drawn from David Hume: (i) the argument from idolatry, which argues that the God of classical theism does not exist, and (ii) the argument from indifference, which argues that if the God of classical theism exists, God is indifferent to our religious activity.

"The Will Not to Believe"

...is the title of an intriguing new paper (forthcoming in Sophia) by Joshua Cockayne and Jack Warman. Here's the abstract:
Is it permissible to believe that God does not exist if the evidence is inconclusive? In this paper, we give a new argument in support of atheistic belief modelled on William James’s The Will to Believe. According to James, if the evidence for a proposition, p, is ambiguous, and believing that p is a genuine option, then it can be permissible to let your passions decide. Typically, James’s argument has been used as a defence of passionally caused theistic belief. However, in the existing literature, little attention has been given to topic of passionally caused atheistic belief. Here, we give much needed attention to the issue of how areligious passions can justify atheistic belief. Following James, we argue that if atheism is a genuine option for an agent, it is permissible to believe that God does not exist based on her hopes, desires, wishes, or whatever passions incline her to disbelieve. After defending the coherence of passionally caused atheism, we go on to suggest why this position is a tenable one for the atheist to adopt.

McDaniel's New Critique of Grounding-Based Formulations of PSR

McDaniel, Kris. "The principle of sufficient reason and necessitarianism", Analysis (2018).

Here's the abstract:

Peter van Inwagen (1983: 202–4) presented a powerful argument against the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which I henceforth abbreviate as ‘PSR’. For decades, the consensus was that this argument successfully refuted PSR. However, now a growing consensus holds that van Inwagen’s argument is fatally flawed, at least when ‘sufficient reason’ is understood in terms of ground, for on this understanding, an ineliminable premiss of van Inwagen’s argument is demonstrably false and cannot be repaired. I will argue that this growing consensus is mistaken and that a powerful argument relevantly similar to van Inwagen’s should still concern us, even when we understand ‘sufficient reason’ in terms of ground.

The penultimate draft can be found here.

Ontological Arguments, Anselmianism, and Irony

*Quick thought. For kicks (sort of). In draft.*

Plantinga's modal ontological argument aims to demonstrate the existence of a modally ultimate being, upon which all else depends for its existence. But the argument seems to require an ontologically prior Platonic modal space, of which God's existence is a function (of its existence and structure).[1] To see this, just think about the way in which Plantinga's ontological argument proceeds, and its ontological underpinnings. On such a view, abstract objects are fundamental, and God is an intermediary, derivative layer of reality -- sandwiched between the layers of necessary abstracta and contingent concreta -- contrary to the aims of the argument (and to the Aseity-Sovereignty doctrine).

The theist might try to avoid this implication via theistic activism. But if the theist goes this route, then the bootstrapping problem rears its ugly head, in addition to other problems (e.g., the Benacerraf problem for God's knowledge of abstracta, etc.).  On the other hand, if the theist takes the theistic conceptualist route, then this also leads to the bootstrapping problem and other problems (e.g.,  concepts are concrete, non-repeatable entities, and therefore not suitable to play the role of abstracta).  On yet a third hand, if the theist goes the nominalist or fictionalist route, then the ontological argument fails. But this exhausts the relevant possibilities for the theist regarding abstracta: straight platonism, theistic activism, theistic conceptualism, nominalism, and fictionalism/pretense theory.[2], [3]

There is thus non-trivial pressure to think that Plantinga's ontological argument succeeds only if the being it proves to exist is not ontologically ultimate, but rather one that supervenes on an ontological foundation of platonic modal space.

[1] Rather like a modal analogue of the way in which (some argue that) our universe is a function of the nature and structure of relativistic quantum fields.

[2] Hybrid views tend to take on board the problems of pure views.

[3] Strictly speaking, other views are epistemic possibilities (e.g., structuralism) -- but seem to succumb to similar problems.

[4] Such a being would be what I have elsewhere called a necessary dependent being, and the platonic modal space on which it depends would be what I have elsewhere called a necessary independent being.

Wave Function Realism, The Unreliability of Perception, and Theism

According to a growing chorus of voices (see, e.g., a number of papers in this volume), (i) there are strong grounds for accepting a realist construal of quantum mechanics (QM), and (ii) the most plausible interpretations of QM entail that the wave function is a real entity that exists in a configuration space of very, very many dimensions (about 3x10 to the 80th, according to current estimates). But it's not at all clear how the ordinary three dimensions of our experience can be accounted for via this configuration space. In fact, some (e.g., Alyssa Ney) have argued that they probably can't, in which case there is non-trivial epistemic pressure to think the three dimensions of ordinary experience are, in an important sense, mirage-like (L.A. Paul has similar worries, but doesn't explicitly come down on the matter one way or the other. Jenann Ismael has stronger suspicions). But if so, then there is non-trivial epistemic pressure to think that ordinary perceptual experience is massively unreliable.

Now according to many theists, if God exists, then God designed us in such a way as to ensure that our perceptual faculties reliably track the truth about the world, where this includes beliefs about the ordinary objects of experience having extension in length, width, and depth. But if the above worry is at all on track, then ordinary perceptual experience is massively unreliable. And if that's right, then something has to give: either (i) theism is false, or (ii) the existence of the God of theism doesn't make it likely that our perceptual faculties are reliable. The first disjunct is of course fatal to theism. The second might well be equally so, given a few more premises concerning God's omni-attributes and a bridge principle from those attributes to the reliability of sense perception. However, even if this can't be done, the second disjunct still causes trouble for a number of theistic apologetic strategies. For example, it would be devastating to Plantinga's theory of warranted Christian belief. Either way, then, if the growing chorus is onto something, troubling epistemic consequences for theism follow.

Notes on Ruloff's Papers on Arguments from Propositions and Intentionality to God

“Divine Thoughts and Fregean Propositional Realism”, IJPoR 76:2 (2014): 41-51.

In this paper, Ruloff critiques Anderson and Welty’s argument from intentionality to God. Ruloff expresses their argument as follows:
P1: The laws of logic are propositions.
P2: Propositions bear intrinsic intentionality.
P3: Therefore, the laws of logic are propositions that bear intrinsic intentionality. (From P1 and P2)
P4: x is intrinsically intentional only if x is mental (or mind-dependent).
P5: Therefore, the laws of logic are propositions that are mental (or mind-dependent). (From P3 and P4)
P6: The laws of logic exist necessarily.
P7: If the laws of logic exist necessarily and are mental, then the laws of logic are the contents of a necessarily existent mind.
P8: Therefore, the laws of logic are the contents of a necessarily existent mind. (From P5, P6, and P7)
P9: Therefore, a necessarily existent mind exists. (From P8)
Ruloff offers a defeater for P4, i.e., against the thesis that intentional entities must depend upon a mind. Toward that end, he sketches a standard account of propositions: Fregean Propositional Realism (FPR), according to which propositions are mind-independent abstract objects that are intrinsically and essentially intentional, and yet wholly independent of any and all minds. Officially:
Fregean propositional realism (FPR): Propositions are abstract, mind and language-independent, truth-bearing, representational entities, that function as the referents of propositional attitude reports and the meanings of declarative sentence-tokens.
Crucially, it is widely held that there is a straightforward argument for their intrinsic and essential intentionality, viz., propositions are the primary bearers of truth-values, and their truth-values are simply a function of their correspondence with the world (or lack thereof). Indeed, on FPR, the intentionality of thought is derivative of/dependent upon the intentionality of propositions, and not the other way around. 

Ruloff offers two main arguments for FPR that are commonly given and widely accepted. The first is the “singular term” argument (STA). According to STA, in sentences containing “that”-clauses e.g., “Joe believes that the ball is red.” – the “that”-clause is most naturally taken to be a singular term that is a referring expression. Prima facie, then, there is something to which “that”-clauses refer. But the most plausible candidates for such referents are mind-independent, abstract objects. 

The second argument is that the robust theoretical utility of FPR confers justification on the view. For example, it explains how (a) “the same semantic content can be expressed by different people uttering different sentence-tokens in different languages”; (b) “how the same semantic content can be believed by different people”; (c) “how mental states gain their representational content”; and (d) “makes intuitive sense of our ascriptions of truth and falsity”; etc.

Given that FPR is a well-motivated view and that it entails that propositions are essentially intentional entities and yet mind-independent, P4 is undercut.


“Against Mind-Dependence”, Philo 17:1 (2014):92-98.


In this paper, Ruloff evaluates Gould’s argument that propositions are caused by/grounded in a (divine) mind:
1. Propositions bear intrinsic intentionality.
2. X is intentional only if x is mental.
3. Therefore, propositions are mental (mental entities or mental states).
4. If propositions are mental, then they are thoughts.
5. Therefore, propositions are thoughts.
6. If propositions are thoughts, then they are effects of some mind.
7. Therefore, propositions are the effects of some mind.
Ruloff’s core claim is that (3) is subject to a reductio, entailing four assumptions that are widely rejected on grounds of implausibility: (i) had there never been any mental states, then there would be no true or false propositions; (ii) the total number of true and false propositions must equal the total number of mental states; (iii) it’s impossible for two people to believe the same proposition or share the same thought; and (iv) some propositions will fail to have contradictories. But if so, then there are grounds for rejecting (1) or (2) (or both).

(i) is implausible because it’s a prima facie false counterfactual or counterpossible: propositions would be true or false even if no one entertained them. (cf. McGrath (2012), Soames (1999), Jubien (1997), Swartz & Dowden (2004), etc.). The following counterfactual/counterpossible is even more salient: If there were no beings capable of mental states, “There are no beings capable of mental states” would’ve still been true ; (ii) is implausible because prima facie, there are many – infinitely many – more propositions than mental states; (iii) is implausible because propositions can be entertained by -- be “in” -- more than one mind at once, while mental states are concrete particulars, located in discrete regions of space and time, and no concrete particular can be in more than one region of space and time at once (cf. Frege); and (iv) is implausible because there seem to be propositions that at most one person has ever thought of. But if so, then if propositions are mental states, then no one will have thought of the contradictories of such propositions. But it’s absurd to think that some propositions don’t have contradictories. Therefore, propositions can’t be mental states. Until Gould addresses these implausibilities, his theistic conceptualism has undefeated defeaters.


“On Propositional Platonism, Representation, and Divine Conceptualism”, EJPR 8:4 (Winter 2016): 195-212.


In this paper, Ruloff critiques Gould & Davis’ critique of propositional platonism in favor of theistic conceptualism. In particular, Ruloff argues that their argument relies upon at least five implausible assumptions: (i) propositions must be representational in order to be the bearers of truth-values; (ii) propositions are abstract entities whose constituent components are properties, relations, and concrete individuals (i.e., that propositions are to be given a Russellian analysis); (iii) propositions are structured abstract entities; (iv) a proposition’s truth-conditions must be explained solely in terms of the representational properties of its constituent components; and (v) if the propositional platonist isn’t able to explain the representational properties of a proposition in terms of its constituents, a wholesale rejection of propositional platonism is justified. 

Against (i): Jeff Speaks’ account of propositions analyzes them in terms of properties. On Speaks’ account, “The ball is red” is true just in case the property being such that the ball is red is instantiated. But if so, then propositions can be bearers of truth-values without being inherently representational entities. Absent a successful critique of Speaks' account, (i) is undercut.

Against (ii): (a) Fregean accounts of propositions take the constituents to be structured senses, or modes of presentation, and not properties, relations, and individuals; and (b) Moorean accounts of propositions take them to be structured concepts/open sentences plus gap-filling expressions. Absent a successful critique of these accounts, (ii) is undercut.

Against (iii): (a) George Bealer has a well-developed and defended account of whole propositions as unstructured, metaphysically simple, ontologically primitive, sui generis abstracta. These simple entities are associated with a decomposition tree, and thus structure can be attributed to propositions in this derivative way; (b) Robert Stalnaker has a well-developed and defended account of propositions as sets of possible worlds, or functions from possible worlds to truth-values. Example: the proposition expressed by “Jen is a philosopher” is the set of worlds in which the referent of 'Jen'   is a member of the set of things that are philosophers. Equivalently, it’s the function f that maps a possible worlds w to the value True just in case Jen is a philosopher in w; (c) Keller & Keller have recently argued that the principle of compositionality is false, as it admits of counterexamples or rests on several very controversial assumptions. Absent a successful critique of these accounts and K & K's apparent counterexamples, (iii) is undercut.

Against (iv):  we've seen above that (a) Jeff Speaks has a well-developed and defended account of propositions as properties that entails that propositions are not representational at all, in which case they lack representational components; (b) Bealer’s and Stalnaker’s accounts of propositions entail that their truth-conditions don’t depend on simpler and structured parts; and (c) Keller & Keller’s arguments provide an undercutting defeater for the claim that propositions have internal components as constituents (cf. their arguments against the principle of compositionality). Absent a successful critique of these, (iv) is undercut.

Against (v): Even if the propositional platonist can’t explain how an abstract proposition can get its representational features from its constituents, propositional platonism would still be rationally justified. This is because of the widely endorsed theoretical utility argument for propositional platonism. According to the argument, because the view “elegantly and powerfully simplifies, unifies, and systematizes our thinking about language and communication, a commitment to propositional platonism is warranted.” (p. 209). For example, it explains (a) how the same semantic content can be expressed by different people uttering the different sentence tokens of different languages; (b) how the same semantic content can be believed by different people; (c) how mental states gain their representational content; (d) alethic modality (possibility, necessity, contingency, etc.); and (e) our ascriptions of truth and falsity. As Michael Jubien argues, given the impressively strong theoretical utility argument, we should “try to get used to the mystery” of how propositions can be intrinsically representational entities (Jubien 1997, p. 103). She is therefore warranted in taking the representational properties of propositions to be a theoretical primitive. Absent a successful critique of this argument, (v) is undercut.

Checking In

Hi Gang,
Just wanted to check in and say that I hope your summer is going well. 

Also, this. (H/T: K.) You're welcome.
EA


A Weaker Version of the Principle of Material Causality Yields the Same Conclusion

Recent versions of the cosmological argument deploy weaker causal and explanatory principles to make them more plausible: Perhaps the evidence isn't strong enough to support the claim that, necessarily (or at least, actually), every object or state of affairs (or some proper subclass thereof) has a sufficient reason or efficient cause of their existence or obtaining. And perhaps such principles beg the question against the atheist by assuming the causal or explanatory structure of a theistic universe. But surely (so the thought goes) the atheist's intuitive evidence supports the weaker claim that everything can have an efficient cause or sufficient reason. Such arguments go on from there to argue that a theistic conclusion can be gotten from such weaker principles.

In the same spirit, I think the principle of material causality can be weakened so as to be adequately supported by even the theist's intuitive evidence:
Weak PMC: Possibly, every concrete object (and aggregate of such) that has an originating or sustaining efficient cause has an originating or sustaining material cause, respectively. 
In simple terms, Weak PMC says that it is possible that all made things are made from or out of other  things. A bit more carefully, it says that there is at least one possible world in which all concrete individuals and stuffs that are made are made from or out of other concrete individuals or stuffs.

Now my own view is that a much stronger version of PMC is true -- viz., that it holds of metaphysical necessity. However, I'd be willing to bet that most people believe that PMC is non-vacuously true in at least the actual world, and for good reason: it's intuitive, it has no uncontroversial exceptions, and it's encoded in the well-confirmed conservation laws of physics. A fortiori, then, I think that even the theist has enough intuitive evidence to warrant the claim that there is at least one possible world W in which such a principle is non-vacuously true. But if so, then in W, there are concrete objects that are made, and all concrete objects that are made are made out of other things or stuff. And if so, then no concrete objects in W that are made are made ex nihilo, in which case no god or gods made them ex nihilo in W. But on classical Anselmian theism, for any world that contains concrete objects or stuffs distinct from God, at least some of those objects or stuffs were made ex nihilo.  It follows that the god of classical Anselmian theism doesn't exist in W. But if so, then by (i) the fact that classical Anselmian theism entails that God is a metaphysically necessary being, and (ii) Axiom S5 of S5 modal logic, it follows that such a God doesn't exist in the actual world, either.

Therefore, one can generate a successful argument from material causality against theism with even  a very weak version of PMC. How powerful of an argument is it?

Very powerful, I'd say. To see this, consider the following line of reasoning. Leaving aside formal and final causes, there appear to be four possible scenarios for causal principles that govern a universe:

(i) Both an efficient cause principle and a material cause principle
(ii) An efficient cause principle without a material cause principle
(iii) A material cause principle without an efficient cause principle
(iv) Neither an efficient cause principle nor a material cause principle

Here's the rub: our grounds for a material cause principle are at least as strong as our grounds for an efficient cause principle (I would say they're stronger for a material cause, as there appear to be counterexamples to the efficient cause principle in cases of certain quantum phenomena). But if so, then starting from the neutral standpoint of agnosticism, there is a default presumption in favor of (i) as one's epistemic starting point. Rejecting it in favor of one of the other three options therefore requires adequate grounds for doing so. But it's unproblematic for the atheist to start at (i).  By contrast, the theist has their work cut out for them: They must find grounds to reject (i) in favor of (ii).  But prima facie, it looks like no such grounds can be forthcoming.  For prima facie, any argument for theism will run afoul of Weak PMC, as Weak PMC blocks cosmological, ontological, and design arguments, and arguments from substance dualism as arguments for theism (as opposed to arguments for, at best, pantheism, panentheism, and demiurgism). It therefore looks as though the argument from material causality holds out the promise (or peril) of constituting an intrinsic defeater-defeater against classical Anselmian theism.

By contrast, it's not obvious to me that the same can be said of the standard arguments for atheism. For such arguments seem to be resistible if the theist can provide other grounds for theism, such as those mentioned above. But the problem is that, unlike the argument from material causality, the arguments from evil and hiddenness can't hamstring those arguments. It therefore seems to me that the argument from material causality holds out the prospect of being the most powerful argument against theism.

The argument from material causality also has other epistemic functions that are slightly weaker, yet still important. First, it can show that the theist incurs a theoretical cost by rejecting Weak PMC, as it seems to be supported by just about anyone's intuitive evidence (at least prior to reflecting on its implications and revising one's web of beliefs). Second, it can function as an undercutting defeater for the newer versions of cosmological arguments mentioned at the beginning of our discussion. 

In at least these ways, then, it seems to me that the argument from material causality is very powerful indeed.

Notes on Morriston's "Creation Ex Nihilo and the Big Bang"

Notes on Morriston’s “Creation Ex Nihilo and the Big Bang”, Philo 5:1 (2002), pp. 23-33.

0. Introduction (fill in later)

1. Craig’s First Argument: Infinite Density = Nothing
1.1 According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began with a great explosion from an infinitely dense point-particle.
1.2 There can be no object having infinite density.
1.3 So, “infinite density” is synonymous with “nothing”.
1.4 Therefore, the Big Bang theory requires that the universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing.

2. Criticisms of Craig’s First Argument
2.1 First, an infinitely dense point-universe is not nothing
2.1.1 the initial singularity is not nothing
2.1.2.1 Nothingness can’t begin expanding, since there is nothing there to expand. By contrast, the “point-universe” began expanding.
2.1.2.2 Even if the point-universe lacks spatial and temporal spread, it yet has other properties, e.g., being a point, being infinitely dense, being capable of expanding, etc.
2.2 Second, 'infinitely dense entity' is not synonymous with 'nothing'
2.2.1 Compare: (a) There can be no round squares; therefore, (b) 'round square'; is synonymous with 'nothing'. 
2.2.2 In general, from the fact that there can be no entity E, it doesn’t follow that ‘E’ is synonymous with ‘nothing’.
2.2.3 Therefore, even if there can be no infinitely dense point-universe, it doesn’t follow that ‘infinitely dense point-universe' is synonymous with ‘nothing’
2.3 Third, if nothing can be infinitely dense, then the universe was never infinitely dense
2.3.1 But if so, then premise 1 is false as stated
2.3.3 Craig’s argument is therefore subject to a dilemma:
2.3.1.1 Either we change Craig’s description of what the Big Bang theory says, so that it doesn’t involve a state of infinite density, or we don’t
2.3.1.2 if we do, then the argument loses its basis for inferring that the universe was created out of nothing
2.3.1.3 If we don’t, then the criticism above (viz., that if (2) is true, then (1) is false) goes through
2.3.1.4 either way, the argument is unsound
2.4 Fourth, few Big Bang cosmologists today think the universe was ever infinitely dense and point-sized
2.4.1 It’s true that, on the standard Big Bang model, the geometry of the universe’s expansion, when traced backward in time, continually decreases toward a limit of a diameter of zero
2.4.2 However, the limit diameter zero is thought of as an ideal, and not an actual, limit
2.4.3 Furthermore, we have no theory that allows us to infer the universe’s behavior  as we approach this limit
2.4.3.1 Relativity theory breaks down prior to Planck time (i.e., 10-43seconds), and quantum effects become dominant prior to that point
2.4.3.2 we need a quantum theory of gravity (which we don’t yet have) to accurately infer what happened prior to Planck time
2.4.3.3 Until then, any claim about the earliest stage of our universe’s history is “sheer speculation”

3. Craig’s Second Argument: No Time Prior to the Singularity Entails Creation Ex Nihilo
3.1 The initial singularity exists at the earliest point of space-time.
3.2 There is no time prior to the earliest point of space-time.
3.3 Therefore, there was nothing temporally prior to the initial singularity.
3.4 So, the initial singularity must have come into existence out of nothing.
3.5 If, therefore, the initial singularity was created, it must have been created out of nothing

4. Criticisms of Craig’s Second Argument
4.1 First, the Big Bang theory doesn’t entail that there was no time “prior” the singularity
4.1.1 Craig himself has argued that it’s possible that there is a more fundamental “metaphysical time” that can exist independently of the physical time of our universe.
4.1.2 Craig’s thought experiment: Suppose God led up to creation by counting “1, 2, 3, … fiat lux!” 
4.1.3 In this scenario, time is elapsing, and yet no physical objects exist.  Its moments are individuated by the succession of contents in God’s mind.
4.1.4 Craig thinks this thought experiment shows that a time “prior” to physical time is metaphysically possible.
4.1.5 In fact, given Craig’s theism, he thinks this metaphysical time is actual
4.1.6 According to Craig, metaphysical time is absolute, tensed, and dynamic
4.1.7 But if so, then Craig’s view of metaphysical time entails the metaphysical possibility of time prior to the Big Bang singularity
4.1.8 The epistemic possibility of metaphysical time prior to the singularity is thus an undercutting defeater for premise 2
4.2 Second, there being nothing temporally prior to the singularity doesn’t entail there being nothing causally or ontologically prior to the singularity
4.2.1 What follows from (3) is not (4), but rather the weaker claim that the universe didn’t come from something that existed  at an earlier time.  It's therefore compatible with the possibility of the universe created from timeless stuff
4.2.2 To close the logical gap between (3) and (4), then, we need another premise, viz.,
(3 ½) If there was nothing temporally prior to the initial singularity, then it must have come into existence out of nothing.
4.2.2 But it’s not clear that (3 ½) is true
4.2.2.1 Craig is already committed to saying that, ontologically prior to the singularity, God exists timelessly
4.2.2.2 It’s therefore not clear what principled grounds he could have to rule out the epistemic possibility that, causally and/or ontologically prior to the singularity, other things besides God exist timelessly (e.g., a timeless stuff from which the universe was made)
4.2.2.3 And if that’s right, it’s not clear how Craig can rule out the epistemic possibility that God created the universe out of a timeless stuff
4.2.2.4 Therefore, even if there was no time prior to the singularity, it doesn’t follow that God created the universe out of nothing
4.2.3 Anticipated reply: Craig thinks he can rule out the epistemic possibility of timeless stuff because he thinks: (a) the only possible stuff from which God could make the universe is matter/energy; (b) timeless stuff is quiescent; and (c) matter/energy is never quiescent.
4.2.4 Rejoinder: it’s not clear that (a) is true: it’s epistemically possible that God created the universe out of some timeless stuff that’s distinct from matter/energy
4.2.5 Third, the grounds for a requirement of a timeless efficient cause of the universe is on an epistemic par with the grounds for a requirement of a timeless material cause
4.2.5.1 The evidence for both causal principles is the same
4.2.5.1.1 Both are intuitive
4.2.5.1.2 Both enjoy strong empirical confirmation [N.B., actually, the case for material causes is stronger, given apparent counterexamples to the need for efficient causes in quantum mechanical phenomena. --EA]
4.2.5.2 The theoretical costs of both is the same
4.2.5.2.1 We’ve never observed timeless stuff, but we’ve never observed a timeless person, either. 
4.2.5.2.2 It’s odd to think that the material cause of the universe was timeless sans creation, and then entered time with its creation, but then Craig thinks the same is true of the efficient cause of the universe: God is timeless sans creation, but entered time at the moment of creation
4.2.5.3 Given epistemic parity, we have a dilemma: Either our commonsense intuitions about ordinary cases of causation can reasonably applied to the beginning of the universe or they can’t. If they can, then creation of the universe out of timeless stuff is more plausible than creation ex nihilo. If they can’t, then we can’t draw any conclusion whatever about the existence and nature of the cause of the universe. Either way, Craig’s argument fails


Important New Book

Here. Not quite on point for a philosophy of religion blog, but important nonetheless, and no doubt of interest to some readers of this blog. A nice review of the book can be found here.

Index: Notes on Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Below is a list of links to my recent series of posts on Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. The book provides a nice, clear summary of the case for the mainstream view among New Testament scholars that Jesus was fundamentally an apocalyptic prophet heralding an imminent eschaton, and not the Son of God.

(ch. 1 is omitted, as it can be summarized quickly as follows: Christians from the present all the way through the past have believed that the end of the world would occur in their generation. There is a good reason for this: Jesus thought so, too.)

Notes: Assessing The Case for an Apocalyptic Jesus in Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Assessing The Case for an Apocalyptic Jesus in Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium


Review


-Scholars use criteria of authenticity to sift the earliest sources with eyewitness testimony to reconstruct the historical Jesus

-Applying these results yields seven general lines of evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet:
  • #1: The earliest sources portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet
  • #2 The later sources tone down the apocalyptic language in the earlier sources
  • #3: Those connected to Jesus and his message before and after his earthly ministry were apocalypticists
  • #4: The apocalyptic prophet hypothesis makes best sense of his core teachings
  • #5 The apocalyptic prophet hypothesis makes best sense of his ethical teachings
  • #6: The apocalyptic prophet hypothesis makes best sense of his actions
  • #7: The apocalyptic prophet hypothesis makes best sense of his last days 
On the Nature of Ehrman’s Argument

-Ehrman’s argument is best construed as an inference to the best explanation
  • Inferences to the best explanation proceed by listing a range of data, and arguing that one competing hypothesis best explains that data
  • A hypothesis is the best explanation of the data to the extent that it exemplifies the theoretical virtues (simplicity, scope, conservatism, predictive power, etc.) better than any competing theory
Reconstructing Ehrman's Argument
-Call the hypothesis that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, Apocalyptic Prophet
-Ehrman’s argument can then be stated as follows: 

1. If Apocalyptic Prophet is the best explanation of the relevant data, then Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet.
2. Apocalyptic Prophet is the best explanation of the relevant data (cf. 1-7 above)
---------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet


Evaluating Ehrman’s Argument

-The key premise is (2): the Apocalyptic Prophet hypothesis is the best explanation of the relevant data.

-But is it?

-To answer that, we’ll need to answer two other questions:
  • What standards does an explanation have to meet to be the best? 
  • Does the Apocalyptic Jesus hypothesis meet those standards better than any competing hypothesis?
Step 1: What Makes an Explanation the Best?
-In the type of case at hand, predictive power and related theoretical virtues aren't all that relevant, as we're evaluating hypotheses that explain past facts, and not future phenomena.  Determining which hypothesis is the best explanation therefore largely boils down to the following three:
  • 1. Simplicity: One hypothesis is simpler than another if the former adds fewer new assumptions than the latter to explain the data.
  • 2. Scope: One hypothesis has wider explanatory scope than another if the former explains more data than the latter.
  • 3. Conservatism: One hypothesis is more conservative than another if the former requires throwing out fewer of our prior beliefs than the other that are already well-justified.
-In short, then: the simplest, most conservative hypothesis that has the widest explanatory scope is the best explanation of the historical Jesus, and is thus the most probable one.

-The consensus view: The Apocalyptic Jesus hypothesis best explains the relevant data, viz., at least the seven discussed in Ehrman’s book (cf. Sanders, Vermes, Fredriksen, et al.)

-However, some scholars deny this and reject premise 2

-If they are better explainations, then they must meet the criteria above (and perhaps others) better than The Apocalyptic Prophet hypothesis.

-The main obstacle with such approaches is that they have trouble explaining all the early, multiply-attested data for this hypothesis discussed in Ehrman’s book. Let’s briefly look at how they aim to do so:

1. Responses from Conservatives:
A. Divide and Conquer (Craig Blomberg, et al.): the strategy is to take the group of passages that seem to have Jesus saying the apocalypse is imminent (i.e., that it would occur within his generation), and provide an alternative interpretation for each one (e.g., when Jesus said that his generation wouldn't pass away before the apocalypse happened, what he really meant was that the Jews wouldn't pass away before it happened. When Jesus said that his earliest disciples wouldn't finish preaching to the surrounding cities of Israel before the end happened, he was really referring to the perennially incomplete task of evangelism to the Jews; etc., etc..)

B. Destruction of the Temple (NT Wright, et al.): the strategy is to argue that, yes, Jesus really did predict the end within his generation, i.e., we should take those passages at face-value. However, all the end-time passages were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

C. Possible End Only (Ben Witherington, et al.): the strategy is to assert that what Jesus really meant in all those passages is that the End *might* be at hand, not that it *is* at hand.

2. Responses from Moderates
A. Jesus Didn't Say That: (Raymond Brown et al.): the strategy is to say that all the passages that have Jesus preach the imminent coming of the apocalypse are inauthentic -- i.e., Jesus didn't say those things; they were attributed to Jesus by the early church. However, Jesus is the Son of God.

B. Jesus Said it, and He Was Wrong. But So What! (Dale Allison, C.S. Lewis et al.): the strategy is to admit that the passages where Jesus predicts an imminent end are authentic, and to admit that he was wrong -- the End didn't happen -- but to say that it has no serious implications for the truth of Christianity. Jesus is still the Son of God.

3. Responses from Liberals: 
Jesus Wasn't an Apocalypticist (Crossan, Mack, et al.): the strategy is a variation on the Jesus Didn't Say That response of the Moderates. The strategy is to argue that all those passages that have Jesus preach the imminent coming of the apocalypse are inauthentic -- i.e., Jesus didn't say those things; they were attributed to Jesus by the early church. However, Jesus wasn't the Son of God, either -- at least not in any literal sense. Rather, he was a social reformer, a revolutionary, a sage philosopher, or some variant of thereof.

Evaluation: Which Hypothesis Is the Best Explanation?

-To evaluate Ehrman’s Apocalyptic Jesus argument, then, we need to:
  • Examine each hypothesis
  • Determine which hypothesis is the simplest, most conservative hypothesis with the widest explanatory scope
-The consensus view: hypothesis that Jesus was primarily an apocalyptic prophet (cf. Sanders, Vermes, Fredriksen, Ehrman, etc.)

-Why? The other proposals mentioned above seem to be more complex (i.e., they add new assumptions to explain the same data), have less explanatory scope (i.e., they can’t explain all seven lines of data as well, and sometimes not at all), and/or less conservative (i.e., they require that we throw out some of the seven lines of data discussed in Ehrman’s book).

Conclusion: It therefore looks as though Ehrman is correct: the most probable hypothesis is that Jesus was primarily an apocalyptic prophet of an imminent eschaton.

Notes: Chapter 12 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Ch. 12 of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Thesis: Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem, and his subsequent arrest, trial, and execution, are best explained in terms of his acocalyptic message and actions.

1. Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem for the Passover Celebration, and his subsequent activities there, are best explained in terms of his apocalyptic message and his perceived role in proclaiming it.

2. Jesus went to the temple during the Passover Festival, and spent many days teaching about his apocalyptic message of the imminent coming kingdom of God. -The apocalyptic message included the idea that the temple in Jerusalem would also be destroyed.

3. Jesus’ also caused a disturbance in the temple itself, which appears to have been a symbolic enactment of his apocalyptic teaching about the temple’s destruction.

4. Jesus’ teaching and disturbance in the temple during the Passover put Jesus on the Sadducee’s radar. They were ready to have him arrested, as they thought he might tip the scales of high political tension that regularly exists during the Passover due to silent protests (see ch. 7).

5. Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot, and Jesus’ subsequent arrest, is best explained in terms of Judas’ betraying to the religious authorities (the Sadducees and the chief priests) Jesus’ teaching (to his inner circle of disciples) that he would be the King of the Jews in the coming Kingdom of God.

6. Jesus was executed on the charge of political sedition, due to his claim that he was the King of the Jews. His execution was therefore directly related to his apocalyptic message of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God.

Notes: Chapter 11 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Ch. 11 of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium


Thesis: Jesus’ actions prior to his execution were apocalyptic


1. Jesus’ baptism and discipleship, and his ringing endorsement of John and his message throughout Jesus’ ministry, indicates that he accepted his apocalyptic message. In fact, Jesus’ message was virtually the same as John’s.

2. Jesus’ calling of twelve disciples is apocalyptic. They represented the twelve tribes of Israel that would be restored with the coming kingdom of God. Jesus said that they would be rulers and judges of the twelve tribes when the kingdom of God came to Earth.

3. Jesus’ base followers were all considered to represent the “bottom” of society in his day: the poor, sinners, prostitutes, outcasts, tax collectors, lepers, and the demon-possessed. This is perfectly in line with the standard apocalyptic doctrine of the reversal of fortunes when the kingdom of God comes: “the first shall be last, and the last shall be first”.

4. Jesus performed many exorcisms, which he claimed marked the inbreaking of the kingdom of God on Earth. They were thus signs of the imminent apocalypse. Satan and his minions were being cast out of power, and God’s power was taking its place.

Notes: Chapter 10 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Chs. 10 of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
Thesis: Jesus’ Other Teachings Are Apocalyptic

1. Keeping the Jewish law by loving God and neighbor as necessary preparation to enter the kingdom


2. “Seek first the Kingdom”: Jesus’ teachings on the supreme value of the kingdom

  • Everything else pales in comparison 
  • All else should be sacrificed to enter it (possessions, standing, job) 
  • Thus, the present world has no real attractions 
  • Thus, daily matters in the present world should be a matter of indifference. 
3. Jesus’ anti-family teachings are apocalyptic
  • Hating father, mother, brothers, and sisters (Lk 14:26)
  • Jesus has come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. (Mtt 10:34-39)
  • Etc.
4. Jesus’ other ethical teachings are best seen as corollaries of living life in light of entering the  kingdom about to come: radicalization of the law:
  • Don’t divorce 
  • Forgiveness 
  • Don’t judge others 
  • Love one’s enemies 
  • Care for the underprivileged and the oppressed

Notes: Chapter 9 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium


Notes: Ch. 9 of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Key Thesis: The apocalyptic prophet hypothesis makes best sense of Jesus’ core teachings.


1. Jesus message to repent and prepare for the imminent coming of the kingdom of God is apocalyptic 
  • Imminent 
  • Comes in power 
  • On Earth 
  • People enter into it 
  • The righteous will enter and the wicked will be cast out into Gehenna 
  • There will be eating and drinking within it 
  • The twelve disciples will sit on twelve thrones and judge/rule the twelve tribes of Israel. -God will extend his heavenly rule to Earth by means of it 
  • Eternal utopian existence 
2. Jesus’ message of coming judgment is apocalyptic
  • Judgment is imminent 
  • People need to repent to avoid it 
  • It will be meted out by the Son of Man, who is a cosmic judge sent from God (cf. the Book of Daniel in the OT). 
  • The Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven with God’s holy angels. 
  • It will be accompanied with signs in heaven and on Earth (sun darkened, moon turned to blood, etc.) 
3. Jesus’ frequent references to the Son of Man are commonly referring to the cosmic figure in Daniel, who was an apocalyptic figure
  • Context: Daniel ch. 7 
  • Jesus doesn’t seem to be referring to himself in the earliest units of tradition (Mark) -This is embarrassing to the later church 
  • Passes the criteria of early strata, multiple attestation, embarrassment, and contextual credibility 
4. Jesus’ teachings about reversals/inversions in the Kingdom of God ("the first shall be last, and the last, first") are apocalyptic (see ch. 7 notes, near bottom)
  • servanthood 
  • becoming like children 
  • salvation offered to sinners (i.e., people who make no attempt to follow God’s law) 
  • the Beatitudes/Sermon on the Mount: the lowly who get lifted 
5. Jesus’ teachings of a coming day of destruction are apocalyptic

6. Jesus’ assertions about the destruction of the temple are apocalyptic


7. Jesus’ teaching about judgment being universal (i.e., to both Israel and to non-Jews far outside Israel) is apocalyptic


8. Jesus’ teachings about judgment being imminent are apocalyptic.

Notes: Chapter 8 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Chapter 8 of Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
Topic: The Core Case for an Apocalyptic Jesus

Review: Sources and Methods for Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
-Historical Jesus scholars reconstruct the most probable account of who Jesus was by (i) finding the earliest sources with eyewitness information, and then (ii) using objective criteria to determine which units of material within these sources are probably authentic.

  • The earliest sources are Paul’s letters, Q, Mark, M, and L.
  • Later, less reliable sources that may have some eyewitness information are the canonical gospel of John, and the non-canonical gospels of Peter and of Thomas.

-The criteria applied to these sources are (i) early strata, (ii) lack of theological adornment, (iii) absence of author bias, (iv) multiple attestation, (v) dissimilarity, and (vi)contextual credibility

-The material from these sources that can be verified by these criteria are then used to reconstruct an account of who Jesus probably was, and what he probably said and did

Overview: Three Main Lines of Evidence for an Apocalyptic Jesus

  • #1: The earliest sources portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet
  • #2 The later sources tone down the apocalyptic language in the earlier sources
  • #3: Those connected to Jesus and his message before and after his earthly ministry were apocalypticists

First Line of Evidence: The earliest sources portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet

  • Multiple attestation: Attested in Mark, Q, M, L (also: Paul’s letters)
  • Embarrassment: Jesus’s false prediction of the apocalypse within his generation goes against the aims of the early church
  • Contextual credibility: there were a number of apocalyptic prophets in Jesus’s time, and it was a popular view among Jews at the time

Second Line of Evidence: The later sources tone down the apocalyptic language in the earlier sources

  • Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas progressively change, remove, or repudiate Jesus’ prediction of an imminent apocalypse in Mark and Q (128-132)
  •  Lk 9:27 mutes Jesus prediction of imminence in Mk 9:1; see also Lk 11:20, 17:21
  •  Lk 22:69 mutes Jesus prediction of imminence in Mk 14:62
  • Jn almost completely eliminates Jesus’s message of an imminent arrival of the kingdom of God through the Son of Man and replaces it with talk of eternal life through belief in Jesus
  • Thomas repudiates Jesus’s message of an imminent apocalypse (saying 113)
  • This pattern of progressively watering down Jesus’ prediction of an imminent apocalypse makes perfect sense if Jesus really did predict it, and his followers muted the message when his predictions didn’t come true

Third Line of Evidence: Those connected to Jesus and his message before and after his earthly ministry were apocalypticists

  • Before his ministry, Jesus associated with and was baptized by an apocalyptic prophet: John the Baptist (multiple independent attestation, embarrassment)
  • After his death, his earliest followers and the early church were apocalypticists (multiple independent attestation, early strata: Paul’s letters: I Thess. 4:13-18; I Cor. 15:51-57)
  • The apocalyptic teachings associated with Jesus both before and after his ministry are best explained if he himself was an apocalypticist

Bringing it All Together: The Core Case for an Apocalyptic Jesus
-Scholars use criteria of authenticity to sift the earliest sources with eyewitness testimony to reconstruct the historical Jesus

-Applying these results yields three main lines of evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet:

  • #1: The earliest sources portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet
  • #2 The later sources tone down the apocalyptic language in the earlier sources
  • #3: Those connected to Jesus and his message before and after his earthly ministry were apocalypticists

Notes: Chapter 7 of Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Notes: Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Chapter 7

The aim of the chapter is to provide sufficient historical context of 1st century Palestine to help interpret the words and deeds of Jesus. This, in turn, will help us apply the criterion of contextual credibility discussed in ch. 6.

I. Political Crises in Palestine and Their Consequences

-The Israelites believed that God delivered them from the Egyptians and gave them their land. Yahweh was their God, and he was taken to have made a covenant with them: to protect and defend them, in the land that he had given them, in exchange for their devotion.

-Problem: Israel was subsequently dominated by foreign rulers for 800 years.
  • The Northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BCE. 
  • The Southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians in 587-586 BCE. Jerusalem was leveled, the Temple was destroyed, and the leaders were taken into exile. 
  • About 50 years later, the Babylonians were overthrown by the Persians. The Persians ended the forced exile and allowed the leaders of Judea to return home. The Temple was then rebuilt, and the High Priest was given jurisdiction as a local ruler. Still, the Persian king had final authority. The Persians ruled over the kingdom of Judah for about 200 years. 
  • Then, Alexander the Great, ruler of Macedonia, overthrew the Persians and took control of the land, and much of the surrounding area. He spread the Greek language, religion, and culture throughout his new empire, including Israel. 
  • Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE. His generals then divided up his realm, and Palestine came to be ruled by Ptolemy, the general in charge of Egypt. 
  • In 198 CE, the ruler of Syria wrested control of Palestine from Ptolemy. 
  • A subsequent Persian ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes, sought to bring a stronger unity to his empire. Part of his plan involved requiring his subjects to adopt many aspects of Greek culture. While many Jews embraced this move for Hellenization, many Jews found this to be a deep offense to their religious life. In response, Antiochus imposed strict enforcement of his plan, banning the practice of circumcision (a crucial component of Jewish identity). He also had the Jewish temple converted into a pagan sanctuary, and required Jews to sacrifice to the pagan gods. 
  • This led to a Jewish revolt and armed rebellion, which started in 167 BCE. The rebellion was led by a family of Jewish priests – the Maccabeans (aka the Hasmoneans). The campaign was successful. They drove out the Syrian army and resumed full control of the land, reestablishing the Jewish state for the first time in 400 years. They rededicated the Temple to Yahweh, and appointed a high priest as ruler of the land. (Some pious Jews didn’t recognize the new priest’s legitimacy, as was not a descendant of the priest Zadok. This will prove an important point in a moment.) The Hasmoneans ruled the land for about 80 years – up until 63 BCE. 
  • They were conquered by Roman general Pompey. The Romans allowed the high priest to remain in office, and he acted as mediator between the Jews and the Romans. However, the Romans had ultimate authority. 
  • In 40 BCE, Rome appointed Herod the Great to rule Palestine. Herod was from a family from the neighboring land of Idumea. They were forced to convert to Judaism. Because of this, native Israelites considered Herod as half-Jewish at best. 
  • After Herod the Great’s death, his son, Herod Antipas, became the ruler of Galilee (the northern region of the land). He ruled this region during Jesus’ lifetime. (30s CE) 
  • The southern region was ruled by Roman prefects (administrators). Pontius Pilate was prefect during Jesus lifetime. (30s CE)
-This brief historical sketch of the 800 years of nearly unbroken foreign domination of the Jews -- in the land they believed was given to them by their god, Yahweh -- provides the contextual framework for understanding the historical background of the social, political, and religious tensions and crises in Palestine during the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, and his own response to them.

II. A Consequence of the Unorthodox Hasmonean Rule: The Formation of Jewish Sects
-Various sects emerged in reaction to the rule of Hasmoneans:

The Pharisees: To preserve their faith and culture and to prevent corruption from
Hellenization, these devout Jews were intent to follow the will of God through obeying the Law of Moses. Unfortunately, the Law of Moses is ambiguous in many places. Because of this, they developed the Mishnah, a set of rules that aimed to clarify the Law of Moses, and thereby to help ensure that they obeyed it. The Pharisees are important for understanding the historical Jesus in part because it helps us understand his own teaching: He opposed theirs. He didn’t think adherence to the Law was the most important aspect worshipping God. He also disagreed with their way of following the Law by following the Mishnah.

The Sadducees: Among the four groups listed here, they had the most power in Palestine in Jesus’ day. They were mainly members of the Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem, and were closely connected to the Jewish priesthood (who, in turn was in charge of the Temple cult). Indeed, many Sadducees were themselves priests. They were given some political power from the Romans, although they had to defer to them. They were part of the local council (the Sanhedrin), which was called upon to settle local matters. The Sadducees seemed to seek peaceful relations with the Romans, and were thus very accommodating to the Roman governor. As priests of the Temple who only accepted the Torah (the five books of Moses), their religious mode of life emphasized proper involvement in the worship of God as prescribed by the Torah. Although popular beliefs among the Jews of Jesus’ day, the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees are important for understanding the historical Jesus in part because Jesus’ roused their anger by proclaiming that their Temple – the focal point of their status and political power -- would be destroyed in an imminent act of divine judgment.


The Essenes: The one Jewish sect from Jesus’ time not mentioned in the New Testament. We know of them through the writings of Josephus, and from the fact that they seemed to have been the ones who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. They lived as an isolated community in the wilderness area east of Jerusalem, near the western shore of the Dead Sea (the area is now known as Qumran). Their sect appears to have been formed around 150 BCE, during the Maccabean period. Their sect seemed to have originated as a reaction to their belief that their authority was usurped by the appointment of a non-Zadokite priest during that period. They were apocalypticists, as they were convinced that the end of time was imminent. They believed this would be accomplished by a final battle between the children of light and the children of darkness, in which God would triumph and his children would enter into his kingdom. Some believed the apocalypse would involve two messiahs – a king and a priest. The kingly messiah would rule the kingdom in righteousness, and the priestly messiah would lead God’s people in worship in the purified Temple. In the meantime, as preparation for the apocalypse, they isolated themselves in their community and devoted themselves to ritual purity and the keeping of the Law of Moses. Entrance into the community required giving up all of one’s worldly possessions to the benefit of the community, and sharing in a common meal with all the other members. The Essenes are important for understanding the historical Jesus in part because he seemed to have shared many of their views: belief in an imminent apocalypse, the need to prepare for the coming kingdom of God, giving up all one’s possessions, and sharing a common meal with the separated community.


The Fourth Philosophy: Several different sects adhered to a basic set of beliefs of the Fourth Philosophy. The core beliefs among them were that: (i) since God gave them their land, all foreign rule of it was illegitimate; (ii) the appropriate response to foreign rule of their God-given land is resistance, including violent resistance if necessary. Two of these groups were (i) the “Sicarii” (Latin for “dagger”), and the “Zealots”. The Sicarii assassinated and kidnapped many high- ranking Jewish officials because they were thought to have been on the side of the Romans. The Zealots were Galilean Jews who engaged in armed rebellion to take back their God-given land. In 67 CE, They overthrew the priestly aristocracy in a bloody coup, and encouraged violent opposition to the Roman army, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. The Fourth Philosophy is important for understanding the historical Jesus in part because he likewise thought Romans should be kicked out of Israel. However, he didn’t think it was to be achieved by violent revolt, but by God’s work in the events of the apocalypse.


III. Popular Modes of Resistance to Oppression 

-Many Jews resented Roman rule:
  • They believed their god Yahweh gave them their land, in which they could live autonomously and worship him according to their laws and customs. 
  • They resented paying a tax that left many Jews at a subsistence level of living. 
  • In fact, many saw it as blasphemous to have to be forced to support an empire that dominated the very land that God had given them. 
-Many Jews therefore expressed their resentment, although not all in the same way:
  • Some expressed it in silent protest through their celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem. Through celebration of this religious holiday, they were not merely celebrating their ancestor’s deliverance from Egypt many centuries in the past, but were also looking forward to their deliverance from their current Roman oppressors. The Romans were well aware of this symbolic form of protest, and thus stationed guards throughout Jerusalem during the Passover to prevent violent uprisings. 
  • Others expressed it in nonviolent uprisings. Occasionally, Roman political officials would do something that the Jews found offensive. Example. Pilate had Roman standards erected throughout Jerusalem that bore the image of Caesar. They voiced their disapproval by asking them to be removed. Pilate refused, and in response, many Jews a sit-in at his residence in Caesarea. 
  • Yet others expressed it in prophetic proclamations of God’s imminent intervention against the Romans on behalf of his people. Examples: Theudas, the Egyptian, etc. 
  • Finally, some expressed it in terms of violent insurrections. These were premeditated armed revolts. Example 1: Judas the son of Hezekiah (circa 6 CE). Example 2: The Zealot uprising in the 60s CE, which led to their defeat and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. 
IV. An Ideology of Resistance
-A very popular worldview among 1st century Palestinian Jews was apocalypticism. Those who held this view believed that God revealed to them the near future, according to which God would soon intervene in history and overthrow the forces of evil (esp. their foreign oppressors) and establish his kingdom on earth.

-Written apocalyptic sources include the Old Testament book of Daniel (probably written around the time of the Maccabean revolt), many writings of the Essene community (preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls), and “apocalypses” that were written in the inter-testamental period.

-The apocalyptic worldview originated around the time of the Maccabbean Revolt. It was developed as a new explanation as to why God’s chosen people were not able to enjoy an autonomous existence, without foreign domination, in the Land their God had promised to them.

-Prior to apocalypticism, the explanation was that the Jews had sinned, or otherwise were unfaithful to their God Yahweh, and that foreign oppression was a punishment for this. This explanation can be found in many books of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Hosea).

-However, many Jews became dissatisfied with this answer because it didn’t explain the Jewish experience very well.
  • The righteous, obedient Jews suffered as well. 
  • The Jews remained oppressed by foreign domination even after collectively repenting and recommitting themselves to Yahweh. 
-As a result, a new explanation for these facts arose: apocalypticism. Apocalypticism includes the following defining features:


(i) Cosmic dualism:
  • There are two cosmic forces at work in the universe: the forces of good and the forces of evil. 
  • The forces of good were headed by Yahweh, and the forces of evil were headed by God’s enemy, Satan. 
  • On God’s side were the good angels and life, and on Satan’s side where the demons and death. There is no middle ground: everyone is either with God or with Satan. You had to be aligned with one or the other. 
  • World history is split into two ages: the present age and the age to come. The present age is the age of sin and the devil. All in the present age are destined to suffer under the forces of evil. 
  • For some reason, God has allowed the forces of evil to reign during this age, but in the age to come, God will overcome the forces of darkness and the forces of good will rule forever. During this time, God will eliminate the forces of evil. This will include God overthrowing the foreign occupiers of the land of the Jews, and establishing the Kingdom of God on earth forever. 
(ii) Historical pessimism:
  • All creation has become corrupt from human sin and from Satan’s activity. 
  • Until the new age arrives, things will not improve. 
  • In fact, things will only get worse. This will be so even if God’s people are obedient and faithful to him. 
(iii) Ultimate vindication:
  • At the end, in the age to come, God will intervene on behalf of his people and vindicate his name. 
  • This victory is certain, as God is the creator and ruler of the universe, and even Satan and his minions are his creation. 
  • The universal corruption of God’s creation will be overcome with God’s universal redemption of his creation. 
  • God will permanently destroy the forces of evil and establish an everlasting kingdom of righteousness. 
  • The destruction of the forces of evil will involve a final judgment from which no one can escape. He will even raise from the dead those who died without punishment during their earthly lives. 
(iv) Imminence:
  • Those who look for God’s victory should hold on and stay faithful to him, 
  • for the age to come is going to happen very soon. 
  • People should repent and prepare for this imminent event. 
Key quote: “Some of the earliest traditions about Jesus portray him as a Jewish apocalypticist who responded to the political and social crises of his day, including the domination of his nation by a foreign power, by proclaiming that his generation was living at the end of the age, that God would soon intervene on behalf of his people, sending a cosmic judge from heaven, the Son of Man who would destroy the forces of evil and set up God’s kingdom. In preparation for his coming, the people of Israel needed to turn to God, trusting him as a kindly parent and loving one another as his special children. Those who refused to accept his message would be liable to the judgment of God, soon to arrive with the coming Son of Man.” (p. 123)



Linford and Megill's New Paper on Two Underexplored Arguments Against Theism

Linford, Dan and Megill, Jason. "I dolatry, indifference, and the scientific study of religion: two new Humean arguments ", Relig...