Attention Christopher Nolan

I went to see The Odyssey again. This time in the way that Christopher Nolan intended: on a 70mm IMAX screen. Thank god I watched it on a regular screen first. The 70mm version is loud as fuck. But I finally see what Nolan was trying to do. The Odyssey is like a spiritual sequel to Oppenheimer. The theme for both films is “man who sacrificed his soul and the future of humanity for temporary victory” or some shit like that. Presumably there will be a third installment to make a complete trilogy.

The question is what will the subject be of this hypothetical film. At this stage in Nolan’s career, he has carte blanche. There’s not a subject under the sun that he can’t make a film about. The only constraints are the ones that Nolan places on himself. So this third film will likely be about a historical or pseudo historical event. The theme has to be the same as the prior two films.

Oppenheimer was about the development of humanity’s most destructive weapon. The Odyssey was about placing the most important story in western literature within the context of the Bronze Age collapse. For the latter, Nolan clearly read Eric Cline’s 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Due to his research on this issue, Cline has reached the status of a celebrity scholar. Nolan knows all these pop scholars, whether they be in history or science. So the events of The Odyssey happened over 3000 years before Oppenheimer. Can anyone think of an event between 1177 BC and 1945 CE that would fit Nolan’s sensibilities?

If he doesn’t know him already, let me introduce the auteur to Bart D. Ehrman, the (retired) James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman might be the most famous biblical scholar to have ever lived. He brought textual criticism of the Bible to the mainstream and no doubt every New Testament scholar granted a Ph.D in the last 25 years was influenced by him. But thanks to Ehrman, biblical studies is a hot HOT topic on YouTube, Reddit, etc. But as far as the New Testament goes, perhaps the biggest debate is the one regarding the “Synoptic Problem” which dissects how the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are related to one another. It a subject that riles the passion of many scholars where having the wrong opinion might get you killed in some universities. And in part due to teaching skills and charisma of Ehrman, even armchair scholars like myself can explain their position on the Synoptic Problem in pedantic detail.

Not to say that Nolan should make a movie about the Synoptic Problem. But the contradicting details described by all the Gospels does sort of fit the director’s propensity for exploring time and memory. While another Jesus movie might not be worthwhile, even if it is directed by Nolan, the most interesting details about the development of early Christianity are the moments immediately after Jesus’s death. The “Christ” didn’t create Christianity. His followers did. And what the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, says is that none of Jesus’s followers understood his message.

This includes the apostle Peter, who many believe created the Church. Peter would be the main character in this hypothetical film. The story starts with him in hiding after the events of the crucifixion (which we only catch glimpses of through memory cuts). He wishes to live in obscurity before he’s dragged back into the mess by James, the brother of Jesus, who successfully kept “The Way” going in Jerusalem. We see the stoning of Stephen and the persecutions of Saul, played by Tom Hardy. Peter goes around “evangelizing” around Palestine before Saul reappears with a new “gospel” and the plot unfolds. Peter loses his way with James and the Jerusalem church and he finds himself in Rome with Saul where he experiences the great fire of 65 AD. Saul is mercifully beheaded. Peter is crucified in the garden of Nero. While on the cross, he remembers Jesus’s crucifixion and the “message” (whatever the fuck that is) becomes clear to him. The historical subtext is that even though “The Way” (Christianity) ultimately prevailed over Rome, it helped unleash religious hatred and persecution over the next 2000 years, which is (probably) antithetical to Jesus’s actual teachings.

Things like the resurrection and miracles of Jesus are handled with an air of indifference. Some people recall him performing them. Others like James say he was only doing good works. Only Saul (or Paul) believes in the total divinity of Jesus. During his “Road to Damascus” event (shown in quick memory cuts), Saul does seem to gain an inexplicable and mysterious insight into Peter which taps into his guilt over fleeing from Jerusalem during Jesus’s crucifixion. But unburdened by this guilt due to Saul’s “insights” and designation as an apostle, Peter feels “born anew” and is slowly torn from the Jerusalem church and towards Saul’s “gentile mission”.

Some say that this story would be too controversial for a studio to back. But I say if every one of your movies makes a billion dollars, then you have every right to make whatever the hell you want. And if Christopher Nolan wanted to make this story, he could. And should, goddamnit.

Mark chapter 1

I’ve always said that three things have influenced my writing the most: Cormac McCarthy, Columbian cocaine, and the Gospel of Mark. The first two are self explanatory. The last requires a college dissertation.

The Gospel According to Mark is my favorite ancient text. It’s weird. It’s esoteric. And I believe it caused a massive shitstorm when it reached the ears of early Christians. For those who don’t know, Mark is the oldest surviving Gospel. Matthew and Luke made liberal use of it. And it is thus seen as the first ancient “biography” of Yeshua aka Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus ‘H’ Christ. Sure, it is attributed to a guy named “Mark” but no one actually knows who wrote it and where and why it was written. At first glance, you might think it was composed poorly in Greek. Yet if you move through the text with that assumption, the author will make you look like a fool (which you are). But for ears willing to listen, Mark packs one thematic punch after another. It’s on par with any of the other shit floating around the Greco Roman world at the time.

But I think it was controversial. Like all good art, people weren’t ready for it. After all, there’s a reason why two other versions of the same story were composed 10 to 30 years later (Matthew and Luke. Plus John if you think there’s a synoptic relation). They had to explain some of the “problems” that Mark posed.

And the first problem is that of John the Baptist. John was apparently a real guy. The historian Josephus discusses him roughly 20 years after Mark. There’s a lot of academic speculation about what Jesus’s relationship to John was. Was Jesus a follower? Was he high up in John’s movement? Or was he merely passing by the Jordan River when he decided to get baptized by the preacher? It is common for scholars to declare Jesus’s baptism by John as an actual historical event. And why do they think this? The answer is something called the “criterion of embarrassment.” Mark states that John preached baptism for the repentance of sin, leading one to wonder what sins Jesus committed. Sounds like blasphemy, eh? It makes no sense. What’s funny is that Josephus states that this is specifically NOT the reason why John preached baptism. Nevertheless, John baptizes Jesus and, as Mark writes, he came up out of the water and “a Spirit” “descended” “upon” “him” “like” “a” “dove” and said “thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” (or something like that). A clear reading of this would lead one to believe that Jesus was “adopted” as God’s son and his powers only activated after John’s baptism. Keep in mind, there is no birth narrative in Mark. This is literally Jesus’s first appearance and I’m assuming that this was a big ass problem because “birth narratives” were subsequently added to later canonical gospels. Therefore, theoretically, you can read in Mark that Jesus was a normal living sinner before his encounter with John.

Hence the “embarrassment”. Mind you I don’t think that criterion of embarrassment is sufficient enough to establish the baptism as a historical fact. Through this reading, it’s possible that the author of Mark (or his sources) was using John’s movement as a way to legitimize his own nascent Jesus movement.

Nevertheless, I think it’s an odd story to include. As mentioned, Mark was written in Greek. Presumably this meant it was written for a mostly gentile audience abroad and not for the Aramaic-speaking followers of Judaism in Palestine. There’s a very low chance of a Greek speaker in Thessaloniki during the 1st century CE, for example, having ever heard of John the Baptist. If one wanted to extol Jesus’s authority as the son of god, I imagine it would behove one to excise the story altogether. In fact, if you recall, baptism plays no role in the rest of Mark. Jesus baptizes no one. In my view, the best possible reason to include this story is because John’s movement was interwoven, somehow, with Jesus’s ministry and it was too big of a fact to ignore. And Mark, without the development of higher Christology by later Proto-Orthadox churches, simply didn’t see this as an “embarrassment.” I think that this is a better argument for Jesus’s baptism by John as a historical fact.

Etienne Trocme’s “The formation of the Gospel According to Mark” again

The most goddamnedest thing happened to me the other day. So I was minding my own business walking along the Korean DMZ when suddenly I was captured, tortured, and subjected to Steven Soderbergh’s The Informant! on repeat by Kim Jung Un’s thugs. I don’t want to get bogged down in the details about why I was the there. The important thing is that I escaped by impaling the guards with a long makeshift shiv. Before killing the last one, he informed me that the plan was to clone me, brainwash my clone, then send him back to the US to infiltrate the government in some elaborate plan or some bullshit. I didn’t listen that closely because it was all very boring. So I killed the last guard by drowning him in the sink.

Thankfully I caught up with my clone at the top of Pyongyang Hotel. Before strangling him and throwing his body off the roof, he said that there are many clones of me that are fully brainwashed and are preparing to infiltrate governments around the world. So long story short, I’ll be globetrotting for awhile to seek and kill all my clones.

“Isn’t that murder? 😭😭😭” you might ask.

You’re goddamn right it is!

So if you see any posts where I tell my readers to “vote for Trump” or “invest in Ethereum” or “the moon landings are faked”, just know that wasn’t me (probably) and I’ll keep you updated on my whereabouts.

So in the meantime, here’s a post from last year where I discuss Etienne Trocme’s The formation of the Gospel According to Mark. I forgot how excited I was to find a copy of this rarity only to discover that an academic work translated from French makes poor reading. Additionally it kinda goes off the rails about halfway. I haven’t finished reading it to this day.

From June of last year, here Etienne Trocme’s “The formation of the Gospel According to Mark”

“Aren’t you an atheist?”

“Don’t you have anything better to do?”

“Have you considered professional counseling?”

These are just some of the questions I receive when others learn of my obsession with the Gospel According to Mark. Indeed, it’s hard to this passion of mine into words. In short, it’s one of the great mysteries of history. We don’t know who wrote it. And while we have some pretty safe assumptions about why it was written, even that is debated. Hell, we can’t even agree what genre Mark is.

Moreover, there’s an aspect to it that I almost find comical. While Mark clearly has some artistic intentions behind it, it is not particularly well written. Additionally, due to the politics of its era, there is likely a polemical aspect to it that has been largely lost on modern audiences. So I find it funny that one of the most important texts in ancient history was written by some moderately educated dude trying to piss off his opponents over petty theological differences. Because in doing so, the author basically invented the story of Jesus which is the most important story in Western civilization.

While I think the Gospel has kernels of historical truth regarding Jesus the man, it’s almost impossible to tell which one of them are facts which further confounds modern scholars. But honestly, I find the Gospel of Mark to be far more interesting than the historical Jesus due to its impact. So Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was nailed to the cross by the Romans. Big whoop. But, according to “Mark”, what if Jesus was the Son of God who died on the cross and rose again to save us from our sins? Now that’s show business!

But regarding the political dimensions of the early Jesus Movement, I find this aspect to be largely ignored by modern scholars. I think Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a bit more accurate than we care to admit. While this analogy is far from perfect, the Jesus Movement…specifically the one prior to Paul’s prevalence…was, in part, a response to the dominant Pax-Romana. In sum, this movement could be deemed a “left-populist” one in modern eyes. And if you’ve spent any amount of time with political radicals, you quickly learn that they HATE each other. While the main thrust behind Mark is to provide an unknown (but likely Greek-influenced) early church a coherent theological message, it’s who it’s aimed against that I find interesting.

This matter caught my attention while reading Etienne Trocme’s The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark. It’s a tough read, largely because it was written in French and doesn’t translate well into English, so I haven’t gotten very far. Additionally, I believe that Trocme’s controversial assertion in the work is that Mark originally ended at chapter 13. I do not accept that conclusion and it has been almost universally rejected by all scholars. Nevertheless, I picked up the book hoping to find some insight into Mark’s intentions.

According to tradition, “Mark” was an interpreter of the Peter, arguably the most important of Jesus’s apostles. But unless you’re a Christian, there’s absolutely no reason to believe this is true. Not only that, but Mark kinda portrays Jesus’s inner-circle as a bunch of idiots that have no understanding what their leader is trying to say and do. Because of this portrayal, preachers today want us to believe that the Apostles were a bunch of well-meaning knuckleheads, but it is possible (in fact, more likely) that Mark had polemical angle here: he was undermining Apostolic authority. In fact, in Mark, the only people that seem to understand Jesus’s mission are just randos. If memory serves, the only person (other than the author and some demons) in the narrative to identify Jesus as “the Son of God” is a Roman centurion after Jesus died on the cross. Additionally, Mark ends at 16:8, when Mary Magdalene, Jesus’s mother Mary (simply referred to as “mother of James”) and Salome find Jesus’s tomb empty with a stranger inside telling them Jesus has risen. Instead of rejoicing at the news, the women fled in terror and told no one.

In short, according to Mark, Jesus’s followers during his time on earth didn’t understand his message and when confronted with the truth, they fled.

As Trocme indicates, Mark doesn’t downplay Peter’s significance to Jesus but his authority is more or less stripped away. And James the brother of Jesus, who along with Paul and Peter was one of the most important figures in early church history, is essentially non-existent in the text.

Using my understanding of radical movements, a different interpretation of Mark comes clear: the author was asserting his own theology (possibly influenced by Paul who had his own run-ins with the Apostles) while simultaneously extending the middle finger to Apostolic authority.

Dennis R. “Old” McDonald

Every now and then an academic comes along with some wild ass theories that don’t find wide acceptance. They’re either ridiculed or ignored and sometimes, sadly, die in obscurity. Yet later they are found to be totally vindicated.

Dr. Dennis R. McDonald of the Claremont School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University feels like a candidate for this distinction. He’s been making his rounds recently discussing his solution to “Synoptic Problem”…or how the first three canonical gospels are related…which he calls the “Q+\Papias” hypothesis. My interest in this supposed “lost gospel” theory, referred by historians as “Q”, has waned. There’s just too many unknowns to say anything definitive about it. But the most widely accepted theory is the “two source solution” to the “synoptic problem”: where Matthew and Luke relied on two sources, Mark and “Q”, to compose their gospels. McDonald’s “Q+\Papias Hypothesis” muddies the waters a bit (and is WAY too complicated to go into detail here), but it has been positively received, though not widely accepted.

But that’s not what makes McDonald controversial. He has argued, at times vehemently, that the gospels…most notably Mark…are heavily influenced by Homer. And I must admit, I find that some of his explanations stretch credulity. BUT, McDonald poses an interesting question and solution: no serious academic would mistake the gospels as accurate history even if there are REAL historical kernels contained within them. So where did Mark and others find the inspiration to rearrange the story to fit their needs? Homer seems as good of a candidate as any given his wide influence over the Greek-speaking world. If Mark was written for a Gentile audience, it would make sense to add themes and motifs that are recognizable to the reader/listener.

So while I might not find McDonald’s specific examples all that convincing, I think he’s touching on something important here. As he explained, if we can identify these Homeric influences, it adds another layer that can be stripped away from the text. In doing so, we come closer to what this “Q source” looked like, and as a result, we have a much greater understanding of the historical Jesus (at least in theory).

A few thoughts

Rest in peace Ryan Mallet. I hope that this is a reminder to kids that nothing good happens in Destin, Florida. But I’d like to take this opportunity to do what I do best: shit on Razorback fans.

I’m sure there will be a bevy of obituaries in the coming days naming Mallet as one of the greatest Razorbacks to play for the program. And I agree with that statement. But none of y’all can fool me. I would know. I was there during the thick of things. I was a student at the University of Arkansas while he was the starting quarterback, plus we shared the same major. It’s odd that we never crossed paths considering I had classes with plenty of football players, but I know what all ya’ll said about him. And you know what? You guys didn’t deserve Ryan Mallet.

And I’m proud to say I was his biggest fan. It was just too bad his receivers couldn’t hold on to his passes. So shame on you Razorback fans and the entire state of Arkansas. I hope your losing ways continue forever and ever.

RIP

Now thanks to Bart Ehrman and James Tabor, the Gospel of Mark is HOT right now. I mean SIZZLING. I guess the Bible as a whole is assumed to be a part of the great literature canon, but it’s refreshing to see Mark being independently recognized for the genius that it is, despite its flaws.

There’s no shortage of lectures regarding the text on YouTube, especially from Tabor and Ehrman. There’s also a large selection of scholarly articles and books on the subject. But what I’d like to see is a secular commentary on Mark.

I’m sure one exists, but it probably costs $900,000,000 and you have to purchase it from some secondhand dealer in Bosnia. One needs to be written for the common man, and I believe I’m halfway up for the task. I’m not going to do it because there’s obvious problems with me writing it: 1) I’m not a scholar 2) I don’t want to cite my work 3) I hardly know Koine Greek 4) Do I have to get permission to use a certain translation? If so, fuck that. And 5) Who would want to read something from a guy who’s essentially a troll with a blog (and ONE published book, I might add)?

So someone else, PLEASE write this commentary for me.

Was the Gospel of Mark written in Alexandria? (Or Rome? Or Antioch? Or Thessalonica? Or Crete? Or…)

I wasted the entire day yesterday going through Gospel of Mark and a bunch of scholarly texts trying to figure out where the Gospel could have been written. I learned a bunch of not shit. Well, that’s not entirely true. I did learn some things. But I ended up with more questions, which is usually the case when anyone reads Mark.

According to “scholarly consensus”, the Gospel was probably composed in Rome. Why do they think this? Because it was likely addressed to a gentile audience and, according to tradition, “Mark” was a companion to Peter who is presumed to have died in Rome. But as I discussed in my last post regarding the subject, Peter is portrayed as kinda a moron and a coward in Mark, which even if Peter portrayed himself in that light (for whatever reasons) I find it highly unlikely that an author who knew the Apostle would write about him that way. But that’s just one reason (among many) on why I’m not convinced that Mark is based on Peter’s DIRECT recollections. Therefore the Roman/Peter tradition is highly dubious.

Antioch is another serious candidate. Paul was heavily involved in the early church there and Mark, in my view, is heavily influenced by Pauline theology. Because Mark was likely widely distributed to Christian communities around the Mediterranean, and Antioch was the center for a lot of missionary work, this church should probably be considered the leading candidate.

The only issue I found with this is that Antioch is also considered the location where the Gospel of Matthew was written. I suppose it’s possible that both could have been composed there and it’s clear that Matthew was VERY influenced by Mark; apparently over 90% of Mark is in Matthew. But because Matthew seems at odds with Pauline theology, it appears as though his Gospel is a response to Mark’s, which would be odd if they hailed from the same church (unless Christians found Mark to be lacking and/or Pauline theology advanced to such a point in the ten or so years between the writing of these two Gospels that they felt Mark needed amending). With this under consideration, it actually appears as though Mark would have been more likely to have been written in Antioch as opposed to Matthew, but that’s a different story.

Another interesting candidate is North Africa, specifically Alexandria. This thought occurred to me while reading chapter 15, when Mark addresses Simon the Cyrene, who was the father of “Rufus and Alexander”. Who the fuck is Rufus and Alexander and why bring them up at all? There’s been attempts by scholars to link these names to others mentioned in the New Testament, but I should point out that unless you were rich or of nobility, you didn’t have a last name in those days. So just because the name “Rufus” appears in one of Paul’s epistles or in the Book of Acts, that doesn’t mean it’s the same Rufus son of Simon. I find Helen Bond’s explanation far more plausible, that Rufus and Alexander were members of the church that Mark was addressing. And where was Cyrene? That’s in modern day Libya.

Now that doesn’t mean shit in the whole scheme of things, but it did get me to consider the possibility that Mark was written in Alexandria, another center of early Christian activity. So with that hypothesis, it’s my obligation to disprove it. Therefore the obvious question should be: “if Mark was written in Egypt, why wasn’t it written in Coptic like the Gospel of Thomas, which was **possibly** written around the same time?”. Come to find out, Koine Greek (the language Mark was composed in) was widely used in Alexandria. For example, Philo, a first century Jewish philosopher based in Alexandria, wrote in Koine Greek. So the fact that Mark was written in Greek does not pose a problem to my Alexandrian theory. But I ran into another problem: Mark’s Jesus addresses the Pharisees a lot, which, according to Burton Mack, were only located in Judea and nowhere else. Philo, again a contemporary of Jesus, didn’t appear to know that they existed. I don’t find this argument from Mack convincing, but there it is.

Honestly, the best “evidence” for the Alexandrian theory is that the churches in Egypt claim Mark as their founder. Again, this historical Mark didn’t actually write the Gospel of Mark, but…if we squint our eyes…it might be easy to see how early church leaders attributed this gospel to Mark, especially if it came out of Alexandria.

Etienne Trocme’s ‘The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark’

“Aren’t you an atheist?”

“Don’t you have anything better to do?”

“Have you considered professional counseling?”

In short, according to Mark, Jesus’s followers during his time on earth didn’t understand his message and when confronted with the truth, they fled.

Whatnot n’ what-have-you

My obsession with the Gospel of Mark might seem odd at first glance. But consider this: it’s the most basic of the four canonical gospels, no one knows who wrote it, we don’t know why it was written, it is the oldest known narrative of Jesus, all other Gospels are based on it or are in some ways responding to it. Therefore, this Gospel essentially invented the story of Jesus, making it one of the most important documents of all time, literarily and/or historically.

This document is a mystery; a mystery that will almost certainly never be solved. But that doesn’t mean certain quack scholars like myself won’t give it a shot.

Unfortunately, when you spend an inordinate amount of time researching a specific topic, people tend to read more into it than what’s actually there. I try to keep that in mind while reading Mark. I don’t find this gospel to be a particularly brilliant document and whatever “themes” are there, I think, is just a reflection on the reader.

Case in point is the abrupt ending at 16:8 (the original ending, after Jesus’s death, when the women enter his tomb only to find a man in there telling them to go to Galilee):

“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16‬:‭8‬ ‭NIV‬‬

What a weird way to end a story eh?

And maybe the author of Mark did have an “artistic” purpose for ending his or her story in that way. I just think he (or she) ended it there because why the hell not? I’m not saying it was a GOOD decision, just A decision.

So never read more into Mark than what’s actually there. But there does seem to be a growing consensus amongst scholars regarding its genre: it’s a Greco-Roman biography.

I think Helen K. Bond, in her book The First Biography of Jesus, makes a pretty good case for this. While Mark doesn’t fit perfectly with the biographical genre, it does share enough of its characteristics to possibly shed some light on the meaning behind this strange document.

But whatever Mark’s intention was, as Bond summarizes in her book, the story of Jesus IS, essentially, the Gospel of Mark. So whatever your beliefs are, there is a great deal of historical worth in that.

***

Personal update: my career at the toilet factory might be coming to a close. New management is taking over and, although they can’t fire me, they can make my life difficult which is how they treat veterans whenever they want a clean slate.

I don’t understand why new managers feel the need to do this, but so it goes.

So again, might be extremely busy for the next month while I find a new career. I may be writing A LOT or writing very little. Sucks, but life goes on.

“Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament” by Jonathan Bernier

New Testament scholarship has plenty of quacks. Not only from Christian apologists who argue that everything in the Bible is literal and true, but also from atheists who argue that Paul pulled the entirety of Christianity and Jesus out of his ass. Some argue that there’s no harm in arguing for such outrageous claims (which usually rely on mere conjecture) but that’s simply bad scholarship.

And bad scholarship is just that: bad scholarship. (And honestly, atheists, of which I consider myself, should know better)

Unfortunately there’s just too many holes in New Testament history, and given the nature of its study, it’s understandable that people are going to have some strong opinions. Moreover, new evidence is few and far in between, so scholars sometimes let their imaginations run wild with what scant data there is.

Nevertheless, MOST academics, ranging from the secular to the devoutly fundamental, can agree on a few things: 1st Thessalonians is probably the first Pauline epistle (likely written in 52AD) and the Gospel of Mark is the oldest gospel (likely written just after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD). In fact, I’d argue, from the perspective of academia, these dates could almost be deemed ironclad.

Few, if any, from the hardline atheist side (especially the “mythicist” school) would move these dates forward, largely to put as much distance between the (“alleged”) death of Jesus and the first written accounts. In fact, from this perspective, only the most ardent apologist would attempt to do so.

Then there’s Jonathon Bernier’s Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament.

The book was released this year, so I don’t know what it’s academic reception is. But a few armchair scholars are already labeling it a work of apologetics. And that’s a bit too harsh, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, when one pushes the dates of the gospels up by nearly 30 years, it should raise a few eyebrows. Much of this argument hinges on the dates of Luke (and by extension, the Book of Acts), which is largely agreed to be the last synoptic gospel written. I agree with Bernier that the “we” passages in Acts have been a difficult thing for scholars to explain, especially if we want to date Luke/Acts post 90AD. Additionally, Bernier makes a compelling (although not fully convincing) argument that the ending to Acts wouldn’t quite make sense to readers had it been completed sometime after Paul’s death.

Yes, Bernier is a professor at a theology school attached to the University of Toronto (but honestly, those are the only places you can find a job teaching about history of early Christianity and the New Testament). But he certainly doesn’t rely on “apologetics” to make his arguments. You may not find it compelling, but I think the importance of Bernier’s work is to highlight that an earlier dating for the New Testament is not entirely unfounded.

This book may not be a “paradigm shift” in New Testament studies, but the author does ask important questions and the knee jerk reaction shouldn’t be to label it apologetics.

Besides, doubt in god and Christianity shouldn’t hinge on Jesus’s existence or the dating of the New Testament. That’s a weird argument to make. So atheists, particularly ones like myself who can appreciate the New Testament for its historical and (at times) artistic value (as opposed to misusing it by believing it to be some holy document), should be open to reading Jonathon Bernier’s work.

The first coming (part II)

For the record, I feel disgusted for writing this.

Enjoy.

Meeting John was a welcome distraction for Alyssa. She managed to get close to him for a brief, fleeting moment. As she introduced herself, John held her hand firmly yet gently while their eyes locked. “It’s a pleasure to meet you, Alyssa,” he said.

Her heart fluttered.

That night, Alyssa treated herself to a bath. She prayed and thanked God for bringing John into her life. She needed something else to think about other than her parents, who were probably being waterboarded in some cold North Korean dungeon at that very moment. While laying in the warm water, Alyssa let her mind wander.

As she thought about John, she began exploring herself, starting with her bosom on down to her excitable parts below. Though almost 30, Alyssa had only been with one other man…a premarital mistake she hoped would never happen again. She was saving herself; saving herself for a man like John.

She was both relaxed yet enraptured by thoughts of John moving up and down her body with his large, steady hands. As she was nearing climax, Geoff slid in through the bathroom door.

“Don’t mind me,” he said, “I’m just grabbing my toothbrush.”

Startled, Alyssa sat up in the bathtub and covered herself. “Geoff!” she screamed, “do you mind?!”

“What’s the big deal?” he asked. “I’ve definitely seen a naked woman before. No need to sneak a peek of my sister in the bath.”

“Get out!”

“Were you masturbating?” Geoff asked. “You know that the Bible says we shouldn’t spill our seed.”

“I don’t have ‘seed’ you dolt!”

“Well God says we shouldn’t take pleasures in the body. So you better get out of the tub and get to bed. And never mind my erection. It’s a side effect of my blood pressure medication.”

“I’m a grown woman Geoff. You don’t have to tell me what to do.”

Geoff sighed and scratched his forehead. “Look Alyssa,” he said, “before mom and dad went to North Korea, they wanted me to look after you until God provided you with a husband. I’m sorry if I come across as a little protective. I hope you understand.”

“I do understand,” Alyssa said as she wrapped herself in a towel, “but I’m fine. We’re both grown adults. God will release mom and dad soon. I know He will. I know that none of this has been easy for you.”

“Indeed it hasn’t,” Geoff replied, then he extended out his arms. “Hug?”

“No. I’m good.”

***

Alyssa attended Wednesday Bible study in hopes that John would be there. She arrived 30 minutes early to help set up chairs and tables. As she took her seat, Brother Ted laid his hand on her shoulder. “I’m glad you’re here,” he said.

She gave him a faint smile then opened her Bible. As the clock struck 7pm, Brother Ted began the study. “Please turn to Mark chapter 4,” he said.

John was nowhere to be found.

Alyssa’s heart started to sink. Although she was ashamed to admit it, she began to regret coming to the meeting. Then, as Brother Ted was reading through the passage, a handsome figure walked through the door.

“Sorry I’m late,” John said, “a madman hijacked a school bus and threatened to kill everyone on board. So I had to storm the bus and strangle the man with my barehands in front of all of the children.”

“Amen Brother John,” Ted said, “glad you could make it.”

Alyssa breathed a sigh of relief and blushed a little when he gave her a glance. Brother Ted read Mark 4:30-32:

“Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade,” Brother Ted read. “What does this passage mean to you?”

The room was silent for a few moments before John raised his hand. “What it means to me,” he began, “is that even though individually we are unimportant, collectively, if we are fruitful and multiply, we are powerful.”

The room nodded in agreement.

“Additionally,” John continued, “this is why it’s essential to preserve your seed. The more we waste, the less we can spread. That’s why I’m saving mine. So that one day I can plant mine into a fertile garden and have many offspring.”

He then looked over to Alyssa, who quickly looked away. But she knew. She knew right then that John was a part of God’s plan for her. As the study dragged on, Alyssa prayed for God to give her the strength to approach him.

When the study concluded, Alyssa started gathering her belongings. Then she heard a voice behind her. “Alyssa, right?” it asked. She turned around and there was John towering over her.

She nervously chuckled. “Yes,” she said.

“I heard about your parents, maybe I could fly to North Korea, take out my Bowie knife, and cut out the hearts of every commie bastard over there,” John joked.

“I’m sure you could,” Alyssa smiled, but the thought of him slaughtering millions made her loins quiver.

“I know that this is a difficult time for you,” John said, “Last night I prayed for God to return your parents home safely. So I’m sure that God will magically drop that $10.8 million into your lap at any moment. Either that, or the United States will nuke that godforsaken country right off the map. God Bless President Donald Trump, the REAL elected President. But until then, to get your mind off things, I want to invite you to a camping trip next week that I’ve organized with the church. Brother Ted will be there. And you can invite Geoff.”

“That sounds wonderful,” Alyssa replied.

A warm smile came over John’s face. “I guess I’ll see you then,” he said. She returned the smile.

Alyssa slowly walked out to her vehicle. When she climbed in, she turned up the radio and screamed for joy.

TO BE CONTINUED…

‭‭