The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship

Albert Mohler, September 20, 2012
The whole world changed on Tuesday. At least, that is what many would have us to believe. Smithsonian magazine, published by the Smithsonian Institution, declares that the news released Tuesday was “apt to send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.” Really?

What was this news? Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced at a conference in Rome that she had identified an ancient papyrus fragment that includes the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” Within hours, headlines around the world advertised the announcement with headlines like “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife” (The Telegraph).

The Smithsonian article states that “the announcement at an academic conference in Rome is sure to send shock waves through the Christian world.” The magazine’s breathless enthusiasm for the news about the papyrus probably has more to do with advertising its upcoming television documentary than anything else, but the nation’s most prestigious museum can only injure its reputation with this kind of sensationalism.

What Karen King revealed on Tuesday was a tiny papyrus fragment with Coptic script on both sides. On one side the fragment includes about 30 words on eight fragmentary lines of script. The New York Times described the fragment as “smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.” The lines are all fragmentary, with the third line reading “deny. Mary is worthy of it,” and the next reading “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” The fifth states, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The papyrus fragment, believed to be from the fourth century, was delivered to Professor King by an anonymous source who secured the artifact from a German-American dealer, who had bought it years ago from a source in East Germany. As news reports made clear, the fragment is believed by many to be an authentic text from the fourth century, though two of three authorities originally consulted by the editors of the Harvard Theological Review expressed doubts. Such a find would be interesting, to be sure, but hardly worthy of the international headlines.

The little piece of ancient papyrus with its fragmentary lines of text is now, in the hands of the media, transformed into proof that Jesus had a wife, and that she was most likely Mary Magdalene. Professor King will bear personal responsibility for most of this over-reaching. She has called the fragment nothing less than “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”—a title The Boston Globe rightly deemed “provocative.” That same paper reported that Professor King decided to publicize her findings before additional tests could verify the fragment’s authenticity because she “feared word could leak out about its existence in a way that sensationalized its meaning.” Seriously? King was so concerned about avoiding sensationalism that she titled the fragment “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”?

This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. One British newspaper notes that the claims about a married Jesus seem more worthy of fans of Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code, than “real-life Harvard professors.”

Professor King claims that these few words and phrases present a different story of Jesus, a different gospel. She then argues that the words should be read as claiming that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was likely his wife. She argues further that this is evidence that the question of Jesus’s marital status, even as she asserts that this does not mean that Jesus was actually married. More than anything else, she is arguing against the claim that Christianity is a unified body of commonly-held truths.

Those familiar with Karen King’s research and writings will recognize the argument. Her 2003 book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, argued that another text from the era presented Mary Magdalene as the very model for apostleship.

The thread that ties all these texts and arguments together is the 1945 discovery of some 52 ancient texts near the town of Nag Hammadi in Egypt. These texts are known to scholars as Gnostic literature. The texts present heretical narratives and claims about Jesus and his message, and they have been a treasure trove for those seeking to replace orthodox Christianity with something very different. Several ambitions drive this effort. Feminists have sought to use the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that women have been sidelined by the orthodox tradition, and that these Gnostic texts prove that women were central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to the men. Others have used the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that Christianity was a diverse movement marked by few doctrinal concerns until it was hijacked by political and ecclesiastical leaders, who constructed theological orthodoxy as a way of establishing churchly power in the Roman Empire and then stifling dissent. Still others argue that Christianity’s moral prohibitions concerning sexuality, and especially homosexuality, were part of this forced orthodoxy which, they argue, was not the essence of true Christianity. More than anything else, many have used the Nag Hammadi texts as leverage for their argument that Christianity was originally a way of spirituality centered in the teachings of a merely human Christ—not a message of salvation through faith in a divine Jesus who saves sinners through the atonement he accomplished in his death and resurrection.

Karen King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels, has argued that the politically powerful leaders who established what became orthodox Christianity silenced other voices, but that these voices now speak through the Nag Hammadi texts and other Gnostic writings. Writing together, King and Pagels argue that “the traditional history of Christianity is written almost solely from the viewpoint of the side that won, which was remarkably successful in silencing or distorting other voices, destroying their writings, and suppressing any who disagreed with them as dangerous and obstinate ‘heretics.’”

King and Pagels have both rejected traditional Christianity, and they clearly prefer the voices of the heretics. They argue for the superiority of heterodoxy over orthodoxy. In the Smithsonian article, King’s scholarship is described as “a kind of sustained critique of what she called the ‘master story’ of Christianity: a narrative that casts the canonical texts of the New Testament as a divine revelation that passed through Jesus in ‘an unbroken chain’ to the apostles and their successors—church fathers, ministers, priests and bishops who carried these truths into the present day.”

King actually argues against the use of terms like “heresy” and even “Gnostic,” claiming that the very use of these terms gives power to the forces of orthodoxy and normative Christianity. Nevertheless, she cannot avoid using the terms herself (even in the titles of her own books). She told Ariel Sabar of Smithsonian, “You’re talking to someone who’s trying to integrate a whole set of ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history.”

Those who use Gnostic texts like those found at Nag Hammadi are attempting to redefine Christianity so that classic, biblical, orthodox Christianity is replaced with a very different religion. The Gnostic texts reduce Jesus to the status of a worldly teacher who instructs his followers to look within themselves for the truth. These texts promise salvation through enlightenment, not through faith and repentance. Their Jesus is not the fully human and fully divine Savior and there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Were these writings found at Nag Hammadi evidence of the fact that the early church opposed and attempted to eliminate what it understood to be false teachings? Of course. That is what the church said it was doing and what the Apostles called upon the church to do. The believing church did not see heresy as an irritation—it saw heterodoxy as spiritual death. Those arguing for the superiority of the Gnostic texts deny the divine inspiration of the New Testament and prefer the heterodox teachings of the Gnostic heretics. Hauntingly, the worldview of the ancient Gnostics is very similar, in many respects, to various worldviews and spiritualities around us today.

The energy behind all this is directed to the replacement of orthodox Christianity, its truth claims, its doctrines, its moral convictions, and its vision of both history and eternity with a secularized—indeed, Gnositicized—new version.

Just look at the attention this tiny fragment of papyrus. Its few words and broken phrases are supposed to cast doubt on the New Testament and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. A tiny little fragment which, even if authentic, dates from the fourth century, is placed over against the four New Testament gospels, all written within decades of Jesus’s earthy ministry.

“The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”? Not hardly. This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. Nevertheless, do not miss what all this really represents—an effort to replace biblical Christianity with an entirely new faith.

Read More

Catholic official worried about Israel attacks

By Josef Federman, AP, Sep 20, 2012
JERUSALEM (AP)—After a series of attacks by vandals on Christian holy sites in Israel, normally tight-lipped Roman Catholic officials are beginning to speak out, publicly appealing to authorities to take a stronger stand against the violence.

The Rev. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, one of the church’s top officials in the Holy Land, said he is worried about relations between Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. He believes the blame can go all around.

“I think the main atmosphere is ignorance,” Pizzaballa told The Associated Press in an interview.

Because the local Christian population is tiny, “we do not exist for the majority … They have other priorities,” he said. “On the other side, we as a minority maybe didn’t invest enough energy and initiatives” to reach out to Israeli Jews.

That may be changing following this month’s attack on a well-known Trappist Monastery in Latrun, outside Jerusalem. Vandals burned a door and spray-painted anti-Christian graffiti on the century-old building with the words “Jesus is a monkey.” Suspicion has fallen on extremist Jewish West Bank settlers or their supporters, who are believed to be behind a series of attacks in recent years on mosques, Christian sites and even Israeli army property to protest moves against settlements.

In response, the church’s top officials, including Pizzaballa, the “custos,” or custodian of Catholic holy sites, to issue a rare “declaration” calling on Israeli leaders to take action.

“Sadly, what happened in Latrun is only another in a long series of attacks against Christians and their places of worship,” the Catholic leaders said. “What is going on in Israeli society today that permits Christians to be scapegoated and targeted by these acts of violence?”

It said authorities should “put an end to this senseless violence and to ensure a ‘teaching of respect’ in schools for all those who call this land home.”

The monastery was targeted shortly after Israel evacuated an illegally built West Bank settler outpost. In recent months, two other monasteries and a Baptist church were vandalized. It is not clear why the vandals have targeted Christian sites. For years, Christian clergymen also have been spat at by ultra-Orthodox seminary students in Jerusalem’s Old City.

There are about 155,000 Christian citizens of Israel, less than 2 percent of its 7.9 million people. About three-quarters are Arabs, and the others arrived during waves of Russian immigration over the past 20 years. They are split between Catholicism and Orthodox steams of Christianity. Tens of thousands of Christian foreign workers and African migrants also reside in Israel.

Pizzaballa said Israelis have little understanding about modern Christianity or “the reality of the Christians in the country.”

The West Bank has seen its Christian population dwindle over the years to roughly 50,000 people today, less than 3 percent of the population, the result of a lower birthrate and increased emigration in search of a better quality of life. Just one third of Bethlehem, the traditional birthplace of Christ, is Christian today, down from 75 percent half a century ago.

Read More

Afghanistan: "It's Just Damage Limitation Now"

By Mark Thompson, TIME, September 19, 2012
Briton Ben Anderson is a documentary filmmaker (the BBC, HBO, the Discovery Channel), but he turns to the written word in No Worse Enemy: The Inside Story of the Chaotic Struggle for Afghanistan. The book offers a gritty—and grim—assessment of the war.

Anderson embedded with U.S. and British troops for months in the southern part of the country from 2007 to 2011. He details corruption, incompetence, fear—by both allied troops and Afghan civilians—and a Groundhog Day kind of existence., where a battle fought for days has to be fought again, later. Most distressingly, he argues that the American and British publics are getting a misleading picture of progress on the ground. Battleland conducted this email chat with Anderson last weekend.

Why did you write No Worse Enemy: The Inside Story of the Chaotic Struggle for Afghanistan?
I’d been travelling to Helmand for five years, first in 2007 with the Brits, then later mostly with the U.S. Marines, covering every major operation since the war in the south was taken seriously.

Despite new troops, extra resources and new polices, it kept getting worse.

It was more dangerous for me and the troops I was with, Afghan security forces didn’t seem to be improving, and perhaps most importantly, locals were not being won over but instead were complaining of civilian casualties, damage to their homes, being inconvenienced and disrespected, or preyed upon by the Afghan police.

Yet in the second half of 2010, statements from Kabul, Washington and London kept talking of progress, goals being met and the Taliban being on their last legs.

This was the exact opposite of what I had been seeing, so I felt that I had to write this book.

I felt compelled to create a simple, honest and accurate portrait of what the war really looks like, on the ground, on the frontlines, where the policy met the Afghan people. I wanted to show how vicious the fighting was—veterans of Fallujah told me it was worse in Helmand…

I also wanted to show that the troops weren’t the violent automatons they are often thought to be and that they are often the exact opposite. There were plenty of guys who just wanted to kill anyone that looked like Taliban, for sure, but I also met many men who were thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent and even hilarious no matter how bad the situation was. Most of the men I met were also willing to question what, if anything, they were actually achieving, which really impressed me.

What is the book’s bottom line?
Despite the incredible hard work, bravery and suffering of our troops, despite the massive Afghan civilian casualties, despite the hundreds of billions spent, we have not achieved our goals in Afghanistan.

Essentially, we’re supposed to be clearing an area of insurgents and then persuading locals to choose us and our Afghan allies over the Taliban. Most areas where we are based have not been cleared of the Taliban and even if they had been, we’re fighting to introduce a largely unwelcome government.

The Afghan army cannot provide security on its own, the Afghan government is spectacularly corrupt and the police are feared and hated, for good reason.

So even if the military part of the strategy goes perfectly to plan (and it never does) the locals don’t want what we are offering.

It’s a hard pill to swallow, but I’ve been told countless times that locals prefer the Taliban to foreign forces and the Afghan government, particularly the police. I should point out that I’ve spent most of time in Afghanistan in Helmand and Kandahar, where the war has always been fiercest.

How different is what you saw on the front lines compared to what we’re being told back home?
It’s completely different.

Operation Mushtaraq in Marjah was a prime example.

General [Stanley] McChrystal’s claim that the operation was “Afghan-led” is one of the most ludicrous claims I’ve ever heard. It depressed me that the claim was accepted.

The same thing happened when Defense Secretary [Robert] Gates said that the Taliban had been routed from their homeland in Kandahar and Helmand. This claim was repeated by journalists I had once respected and followed. Again, it was the exact opposite of the truth.

You’re British: how does the mood about the war in the U.K. differ from that in the U.S., if it does (and if you’ve been in both places long enough to make a fair comparison)?
It’s the same in both countries. The vast majority of the public seems to have no idea how rough it is in southern Afghanistan, for our troops and the Afghan people.

People seem to want the troops home, and have no interest in anything beyond that. The last U.S. Marines I was with—3/5 in Sangin, suffered horrendous losses: 35 killed and 140 seriously injured, and I’m talking about double, triple and even quadruple amputees. Yet no one in the U.S. even seemed to know about it.

It’s the same in the U.K. now. I’d be surprised if one in 20 people here or in the U.S. could begin to explain why we are still there.

U.S. and allied generals tells us things are getting better inside Afghanistan, and they believe that by the time allied combat troops leave by the end of 2014, Afghanistan’s own security forces will be able to defend the nation. Do you believe them? Why or why not?
I’ve seen no evidence to suggest the ANSF are ready to take over.

You have to understand that it’s not a national security force. It’s the Northern Alliance, the historical enemies of the southern Pashtuns and the Taliban.

In the rush to get to Iraq, we handed control of the army, police and intelligence agency to the Northern Alliance, and the same old warlords whose behavior had led to the Taliban’s rise to power in 1996.

I think we were doomed to fail from that moment on. Southern Pashtuns often see the security forces we’re supporting as being almost as foreign as us and there for vengeance.

I was in the Arghandab valley in 2010 and the 101st Airborne were very nervous about clearing a village called NMK because they knew it would be laced with IEDs.

A few days before the operation, some Afghan soldiers ran into the village alone, and came back a few hours later, delighted. “How did you do it?” asked the American captain, astounded. “Did you offer the locals $50 for each IED they revealed, like we trained you?” “No,” said the ANA captain, excitedly, “we told them `show us the IEDs or start digging your own grave’.” That sums up the situation pretty well. Sadly I think that the phrase “transition” is a euphemism covering up our failures.

When were you last with US troops in Afghanistan? What was their general mood and morale?
January 2011, with 3/5 in Sangin. There were so many IEDs you had to watch every step and literally walk in the footprints of the guy in front of you.

The Marines were leaving trails of bottle tops or sweets to mark cleared paths. I didn’t see a bullet fired in anger, it was just IEDs.

Marines love to fight, but no one wants to go out on eight-hour patrols every day, through ice cold mud, when nothing ever happens apart from occasionally seeing one of their buddies get blown up.

Surprisingly though, morale wasn’t that low. I don’t think most troops in Afghanistan are fighting to achieve anything anymore. They’re just fighting for each other, trying to get themselves and their friends back in one piece, and maybe get some revenge against someone who may have killed or maimed one of their colleagues.

What was the worst thing you witnessed in Afghanistan?
I can still remember the exact expression on the faces of too many different families, either terrified of the fighting going on in and around their homes, or traumatized by the loss of their loved ones.

I’ve seen many Afghans who have lost almost their entire families to errant air strikes or rocket attacks. Some were given huge wads of cash as condolence payments, some actually showed me the corpses of their brothers, sisters or children.

You can only say “I’m sorry we killed your family, but we’re here to help you” so many times…

If you were in charge, what three changes would you make in Operation Enduring Freedom?
I think it’s just damage limitation now.

There is no silver bullet, there hasn’t been for at least five or six years.

People are worried about civil war after we leave. I think it’s already started.

I’d like to see some honesty used on the rare occasions when Afghanistan is discussed. And while the military effort draws down, I’d like to see a serious long-term commitment to the kind of development projects we should have started back in 2001.

What is going to happen to Afghanistan beginning in 2015?
I think the Taliban will be in control of many districts in the south almost immediately. I think that various warlords will once again have their fiefdoms and that this will be exacerbated by the reduction in foreign aid.

I think Afghanistan will disappear from our newspapers and will remain one of the poorest, most violent and corrupt countries on earth.

Paradoxically, the withdrawal gives me a tiny bit of hope that the insurgents in the south will stop fighting and laying IEDs once we’re no longer providing them with targets. But it’s a damning indictment of our efforts if the best thing we can do is leave.

Read More

A Question That Changes Everything

By Michael Hyatt, Sept. 17, 2012
In 2003, I was named President of Thomas Nelson. It was an extremely busy time. I made some major changes to my executive team and had two vacant positions. As a result, I essentially had three jobs.

One morning on my way to work, I grabbed my computer case in my right hand, a fresh cup of coffee in my left, and headed downstairs to the garage to leave to work. Four steps from the bottom, I slipped on the carpet. Without a free hand to grab the stair-rail, I tumbled forward. The next thing I knew, I was flat on my fanny on the landing.

I wasn’t immediately aware of any pain. However, my dress shirt and tie were soaked in coffee. I remember thinking, Shoot! I’m going to have to completely change my clothes. This was particularly frustrating, because I was already running late, and I had a very busy day ahead of me.

My wife Gail heard me fall and came running. “Are you okay?” she asked as she raced down the stairs to help me up.

“I’m fine,” I assured her. “However, I’m afraid I’ve made a mess.”

“Don’t worry about it,” she offered as she helped me up. “I can clean this up while you get changed.”

When I put my weight down on my right foot, I let out a yelp. “Oh my gosh! I think my ankle is sprained.” As it turned out, it was more than sprained. It was broken.

My day was, of course, scuttled. In fact, the next ten days were scuttled. I had to have surgery, including a plate and six screws to repair the damage. In addition, for three months I had to wear a therapeutic boot (in lieu of a cast). This couldn’t have happened at a worse time.

At this point, I could have asked myself several questions:

Why am I so clumsy?
Why did I have both hands full?
Why does this have to happen now?
Why did I have to be in such a hurry?
What did I do to deserve this?

The problem with these questions is that they are completely unproductive and disempowering.

They are natural, of course, and probably even necessary. It’s all part of the process of grieving a loss. But ultimately there are better questions.

One of the best questions you can ask when something negative happens is this:

“What does this experience make possible?”

Do you see the subtle shift? Suddenly, your attention moves from the past—which you can’t do a thing about—to the future.

It is also an acknowledgment that nothing happens by chance. Everything has a purpose. Even the bad things can have a positive impact, when we open our hearts and accept them as “part of the plan.”

In my particular case, a broken ankle had several positive benefits:

I couldn’t go to work for a week, so I got some much-needed rest.

I had time to set up a new blog and start writing on a regular basis.

I got to board first when flying and usually got to upgrade to first-class—for free.

I learned first-hand about the challenges you face when you are in a wheel-chair or on crutches.

I was forced to slow down and “smell the roses.”

I saw my colleagues take more initiative and gained a new appreciation for them.

I got to meet several people I would have otherwise never met, including an amazing surgeon who gave me a whole new perspective on what it means to integrate your faith with your profession.

I had a ready-made conversation starter, when I met people I didn’t know.

The bottom line is this: you can’t always choose what happens to you. Accidents and tragedies happen. But you can choose how you respond to those situations. One of the best ways to begin is to ask yourself the right question.

Read More

Some Religious Leaders See a Threat as Europe Grows More Secular

Jack Ewing, NY Times, September 19, 2012
HOF, Germany—This sleepy town not far from the Czech border, in a hilly corner of Catholic Bavaria, is an unlikely place to find an active synagogue, and an even unlikelier focal point for a controversy that some see as a threat to religious tolerance in Europe and even the place of Jews in Germany.

Rabbi David Goldberg, a jovial 64-year-old Israeli who serves a community of about 400 Jews in Hof, has become an international cause célèbre after four German citizens filed criminal complaints against him with the local prosecutor. His alleged crime, which made headlines in Israel and elsewhere, was performing ritual circumcisions.

The dispute reflects the ever deeper secularization of European life that, in the eyes of some religious leaders, has mutated into a form of intolerance. This conflict between secular and religious values has most frequently involved Islam, with bans on minarets in Switzerland and veils that cover women’s faces in France. Elsewhere, a recent American-made anti-Islamic video has touched off violent demonstrations. And sensitivities were further inflamed Wednesday with the publication in a French magazine of unflattering caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, several of them showing him naked.

But the debate over ritual circumcision shows that the tensions extend even further.

Rabbi Goldberg does not seem especially worried. Anyone can file a complaint against anyone else in Germany, and he may never face formal charges. Rabbi Goldberg has not hired a lawyer and declined an offer from one who was willing to handle the case for free.

The more serious threat, in the eyes of Rabbi Goldberg and many Jews, Muslims and Christians in Europe, comes from what they see as an attack by secular society on religious ritual, on faith itself. A seemingly insignificant decision by a lower court in Cologne, against a doctor who circumcised a Muslim boy, has fed a rapidly spreading drive to criminalize a practice that is core to Jewish and Muslim belief.

In contrast to the United States, baby boys in Germany and other European countries are not routinely circumcised for health reasons. The World Health Organization recommends circumcision as a way to reduce the spread of AIDS, but many doctors in European countries regard the practice as harmful and even barbaric.

The line of demarcation between church and state in Germany is also different from that in the United States. Chancellor Angela Merkel leads the Christian Democratic party and is the daughter of a Protestant pastor. But, in contrast to the displays of piety expected of American politicians, she rarely mentions religion or is photographed attending church.

Nevertheless, Ms. Merkel is pushing for legislation to allow circumcision to continue, and she is winning praise from Jewish leaders. And Rabbi Goldberg says some of the most fervent letters of support he has received have come from Christians.

“They know the Bible,” he said, speaking in the renovated schoolhouse in a residential neighborhood in Hof that serves as synagogue, community center and residence for him and his family. “They are afraid for their religion as well.”

For the more than 100,000 Jews who live in Germany, the tenor of the circumcision debate has come as a shock, undercutting confidence that they had found a secure place in society after the horrors of the Holocaust. Only a few months ago, that confidence had seemed justified when voters in Frankfurt chose their first Jewish mayor since 1933.

But now, some Jewish leaders say, the circumcision debate has exposed how ignorant many Germans are about Jewish beliefs.

“This discussion has shown that we are foreigners in our own country, doing something that Germans are not supposed to do,” said Stephan J. Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. “We are accused of torturing our own children.”

Muslims express similar sentiments. “There are more than a few people who have something against Muslims and Jews, and they are taking advantage of this,” said Aiman A. Mazyek, chairman of the Central Committee of Muslims in Germany. “They can hide behind this discussion. They can say what they always wanted to say.”

A German pediatricians’ association, as well as a children’s aid group, are helping lead a petition drive calling for a two-year moratorium on circumcision. For religious Jews, such a moratorium would be catastrophic. The Bible tells them to circumcise a baby boy eight days after birth, unless there is a medical reason to wait.

But Jews in Europe, not just in Germany, say that it is difficult to convince people who are not religious that circumcision is regarded as a command from God, and that without it a young man cannot enter Jewish society.

“It’s a secular society. People don’t have much sense about religion or much knowledge of religion,” said Ervin Kohn, a Jewish leader in Oslo, where a debate about circumcision is also under way. There are about 1,500 Jews in Norway, he said, out of a total population of 4.7 million.

“When people hear debate about circumcision, they have trouble connecting it with religious freedom,” Mr. Kohn said. “When I say that circumcision for us is an existential question, they don’t always understand it.”

The catalyst for the controversy and the complaints against Rabbi Goldberg in Hof was a State Court decision in Cologne in June that found that a doctor committed criminal bodily injury by performing a circumcision on a 4-year-old Muslim boy.

Under the German legal system, the decision had no binding effect on other judges or prosecutors, even in Cologne, said Jan F. Orth, a judge at the State Court there who serves as its spokesman.

A panel of three judges, two of whom were non-lawyers analogous to citizen jurors, did not impose a punishment on the doctor. More than a month went by before the decision was picked up by the German news media. The case is not being appealed and will not go to a higher court, Mr. Orth said.

Still, the Cologne case prompted hospitals as far away as Zurich to suspend circumcisions, and it emboldened an anticircumcision movement in Germany as well as in countries like Denmark that had gone little noticed until then.

Even though the court case involved a Muslim boy, the debate in Germany quickly pivoted to a discussion about Jewish religious practice—and then landed in Hof, a city of 45,000 that has been largely bypassed by the economic boom in the rest of Bavaria. Hof’s population has been declining for decades, but the Jewish population has grown.

Gerhard Schmitt, the chief prosecutor in Hof, said he has not yet decided whether to start a formal investigation against Rabbi Goldberg, much less file charges.

During 15 years in Hof, Rabbi Goldberg said, he has never encountered anti-Semitism. A handful of neo-Nazis staged a march in May, but local citizens organized a much larger counterdemonstration.

Local Christian leaders have rallied around Rabbi Goldberg. The Rev. Günter Saalfrank, a minister who oversees Protestant churches in Hof and the surrounding region, attributed the controversy to ignorance of Judaism and said it is unfortunate that the debate has revolved around the definition of criminal bodily injury.

There is not much demand for circumcision in Hof. But Rabbi Goldberg said he has been called to places like Prague and Budapest to perform the ritual, and he estimates that he has carried out 4,000 in a long career. He is puzzled by suggestions that circumcisions are harmful to babies.

“In Judaism, the health of the baby is more important than anything,” Rabbi Goldberg said.

Read More

The facts about the 'Jesus' wife' fragment

By Thomas White, Baptist Press, Sep 19, 2012
FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)—With all the media publicity over Karen King’s release of information about the fragment of “Jesus’ wife,” pastors likely will receive questions from members this weekend or in the near future.

The Facts About the Fragment:
— The fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side legible under a magnifying glass, with about four words per line.

— The fragment comes from the middle of a text, which means you lose context on all sides.

— They think the fragment comes from the fourth century. It is written in an Egyptian language—Coptic, and is thought to be a translation of a second-century document. This has not yet been verified.

The Facts About Karen King:
— The Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, her books include “The Secret Revelation of John;” “The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle;” “What Is Gnosticism?;” “Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity;” “Revelation of the Unknowable God;” “Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism” (editor); and “Women and Goddess Traditions in Antiquity and Today” (editor).

— King currently is teaching a class titled “Women, Sex, and Gender in Ancient Christianity.”

— For reference purposes, King has named the “gospel” of which this is a part the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.”

No matter how good a fish tale you weave, this fragment is small. Also, the document dates too late to have impact. The Gospels have authenticity because of the date of their writing, the connection to an eyewitness, and consistency with the rule of faith. Any fragment too far removed from Jesus’ time loses credibility because of the distance from Jesus’ life, and we can’t know who wrote it or what agenda that person may have had. At best, this document tells us what some people were thinking in the second or fourth century. Yes, it is interesting, but no, it does not change anything. Bottom line is that we have older and more reliable documents in our Bibles.

Check the sponsors. King has an agenda. The naming of the fragment and the naming of the gospel play into her research field of women’s roles and unknown gospel accounts. This is like a hunting show demonstrating how you can’t kill a deer without a Rage broadhead on your arrow. Then at the end of the show you find out the only sponsor is Rage. While King may be considered a fine academic scholar, she has an agenda.

Was Jesus married? The New Testament never says so. We would expect to find this information in the Gospels if Jesus had a wife. Furthermore, Paul, when discussing this issue of marriage, notes in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that Peter was married. He likely would have stated Jesus also married to make his point, but he doesn’t. Most theories of Jesus’ wife have him married to Mary Magdalene. Even King says it is unlikely that Mary was Jesus’ wife because she is known by the area of her birth, and if she was married, she would be known by her husband.

At the end of the day, this unverified fourth century Coptic fragment from an unknown source written by an unknown author doesn’t compare to the New Testament record in our Bibles.

Read More

Not just Romney: Many in Middle East are losing faith in a two-state solution, too

By Christa Case Bryant, CS Monitor, September 18, 2012
Jerusalem—A newly leaked video shows presidential hopeful Mitt Romney questioning the longstanding US road map for peace in the Middle East—and, in fact, if the Palestinians want peace at all.

“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way,” he said, according to Mother Jones, which publicized the video taken at a private fundraising event.

Mr. Romney is not alone in his pessimism; many Israelis and Palestinians have also lost hope in the two-state solution outlined in the 1993 Oslo Accords. But Palestinians warn that blaming the stalemate squarely on their people risks damaging what little credibility the US has left in the Middle East.

“[Romney] has done everything possible in order to show himself not only [in support] of Israel but also of the most right-wing extremist parties in Israel,” says Qais Abdul-Karim, a veteran politician and a leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. “I think that this tendency to stand in the camp of the right-wing … plays with the future of the United States and its position in the region, which is already fragile and shaky. Such a policy will completely be devastating to whatever credibility the States still have in the eyes of the public in the Middle East.”

Israeli faith in negotiations to deliver a peace deal is now at the lowest level since 2003, according to the Negotiations Index, part of a monthly public opinion survey published by the Israeli Democracy Institute in Jerusalem. The August index stands at 40.7, a significant drop even since April, when it stood at 49.5.

And even in April, 58 percent of Jewish respondents and 51 percent of Israeli Arab interviewees “saw no chance of ending the conflict in accordance with the ‘two states for two peoples’ formula at the present time,” according to the monthly survey, known as the Peace Index.

Hopes are also flagging on the Palestinian side, with well over half a million Israelis now living over the 1967 borders that are widely seen as the basis for any eventual peace deal. The evacuation of the West Bank outpost of Migron last month underscores the enormous, if not insurmountable, challenge posed by the settlements to an eventual peace deal. The Israeli government, armed with a Supreme Court ruling and promises to build the residents new homes to the tune of some 33 million shekels ($8.7 million, or $187,000 per family), still faced stiff resistance in uprooting the tiny community.

Many Israelis and their leaders see the settlements as providing a security buffer for Israel and as fulfilling biblical claims to the land.

But Palestinians argue that the spread of settlements, and the roads connecting them, are whittling away at the land that could feasibly become a Palestinian state—already divided between the landlocked West Bank and the coastal Gaza Strip.

“If you look at the West Bank now, it’s like Swiss cheese,” says Hamas official Ghazi Hamad, who is deputy foreign minister in Gaza. “I don’t know what is left for negotiation.”

Now Palestinians and Israel’s 20 percent Arab minority are becoming increasingly vocal about giving up the two-state solution in favor of a “one-state solution”—in which higher Arab birth rates and the absorption of Palestinians would tip the demographic scale in their favor.

But Mr. Abdul-Karim says that is a bad idea.

“The situation is either a two-state solution or an apartheid state that controls all the lands of historical Palestine and in this case there will be … a more ferocious conflict that may go on for more decades and that this is not a solution in actual fact,” he says. “This is a recipe for prolonged and protracted war.”

According to Hamad, it’s now up to Israel.

“The solution is in the hand of Israel—settlements, borders, refugees, Jerusalem—everything is in the hand of Israel.”

But he says the winds of change in the Arab world can benefit Palestinians, who are already enjoying more support from Egypt. It’s a trend the US would do well to heed, instead of seeing everything through the prism of Israeli security, he says.

“I think we have to put forth a new strategy and US should understand that time has changed,” says Hamad. “They should take off the glasses of Israel from their eyes.”

Read More

European army backed

Bruno Waterfield, Brussels, The Age, Sept. 20, 2012
GERMANY, France and nine of Europe’s most powerful countries have called for an elected European Union president and an end to Britain’s veto over defence policy, in a radical blueprint for the continent’s future.

In a document released following a meeting between 11 foreign ministers in Warsaw, the bloc charted a vision for the “future of Europe”.

As well as calling for a single, elected head of state for Europe, the bloc demanded a new defence policy, under the control of a pan-EU foreign ministry commanded by Baroness Ashton, which “could eventually involve a European army”.

In order to “prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives”, a reference to British opposition to a European army, the German-led group demanded an end to existing national vetoes over foreign and defence policy. This would give the EU the power to impose a decision on Britain if it was supported by a majority of other countries.

The bloc also called for a new European police force patrolling the external borders of the Schengen passport-free zone and a single European visa.

The plan, which has the backing of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal, is likely to increase calls for a British referendum on EU membership.

The document also proposed powers for the European Parliament and further splitting of the EU, by creating a new parliamentary sub-chamber for the 17 countries of the eurozone.

In a joint statement, Guido Westerwelle and Radek Sikorski, the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland, called for the creation of a single EU president, running the commission and overseeing regular summits, and directly elected by voters in a pan-European vote “on the same day in all member states”.

“For Europe to be a truly strong actor and global leader it needs a strong institutional set-up,” said Mr Westerwelle and Mr Sikorski. “It needs a directly elected president who personally appoints the members of his ‘European government’.”

The 11 countries also said changes to European treaties should in future be adopted and implemented “by a super-qualified majority of the EU member states” instead of by unanimity, meaning treaties could no longer be blocked by “No” votes in referendums.

The document follows last week’s call by the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, for the EU to become a “federation” and growing calls in Britain for a referendum on any new European treaty or constitution.

Read More

Blasphemy and Empire

By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, September 16, 2012
Americans are baffled: why oh why are Muslims up in arms over a YouTube video, one which no one in America even knew about prior to the attack on our Libyan consulate and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens? Having abandoned their own religion sometime in the last century or so, they just don’t understand why someone would get all hopped up over a little thing like blasphemy—after all, all one has to do is turn on the TV or view the latest Madonna music video and you’ll get a full dose of it.

Of course, this isn’t true for everyone: in Flyover Country; the rubes still persist in the faith of their fathers, and our elites pander to that whenever they must. However, the Georgetown cocktail party circuit and the world of the Washington power brokers isn’t a notably devout milieu: it is instead decidedly secular, and tinged with more than a little contempt for those Flyover Folks who must be pandered to around election time.

This is one major reason for Washington’s incomprehension when it comes to understanding the wave of hatred for the US currently sweeping the Middle East. That complete cluelessness is endemic, too, in the US media, where reporters are no different than the elites they cover in their militantly secular outlook. So when a deliberately insulting video depicting the prophet Mohammed goes out over the internet, after its makers made a determined effort to get Muslims to view it, they scratch their heads and say they just don’t get it.

Even as the protests spread, they insist it just can’t be about what Muslim protesters say it’s about: it’s all just a “flimsy” excuse, as Reason magazine editor Matt Welch told “national security Democrat” Heather Hurlburt. The US response, he went on to aver, was “not a robust statement of American values.” It was, instead, “kick me, please” rhetoric from a spineless Obama administration. This is a fair summation of the general right-wing response to the crisis, limning the Romney campaign, and over at the Weekly Standard the neocons concur:

“What we have seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what distinguishes the region’s societies from our own. The protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab political sphere, but mainly against the United States.”

Like Welch, the Standard claims the protests are about something other than what the protesters themselves say they’re about. Forget the video, we’re told: it’s not about that. It was all a pre-planned carefully-thought-out al-Qaeda operation, in effect another 9/11—maybe not as spectacular, but hey it happened on the same day.

In any case, the Standard is right about one thing: the riots now threatening the security of US diplomats throughout the Muslim world do indeed dramatize what distinguishes the region’s societies from our own, and it’s all about the role of religion in society.

Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe: how could any civilized person take seriously the impulse to achieve transcendence and find meaning in the universe besides the pursuit of pleasure, fame, and money? I mean, really! How primitive can you get? Didn’t that kind of superstition go out with corsets, free silver, and the horse and buggy?

A society in which blasphemy is impermissible is inconceivable to the warlords of Washington, who, after all, live in the same society you and I do: one in which religion is increasingly pushed to the margins and regarded by the country’s elites with ill-concealed contempt. It’s a culture in which gays want to get married, straights are setting records for divorce, and the way to appeal to women in an election year is to make it easier for them to kill their unwanted babies. It is, in short, a culture so far removed from the “medieval” world of our recently conquered Middle Eastern satraps that the distance can only be measured in centuries rather than mere miles.

In the modern world, physical distance is no barrier to empire-building on the other side of the globe: however, this only exacerbates the problems created by the incalculable cultural distance between Washington, D.C., and the somewhat run-down suburb of Benghazi, in Libya, where a mob took the lives of four Americans.

The Romans never had this problem. Although they were just as decadent as we aspire to be, and soon abandoned the pagan faith of their fathers, they understood the mindset of their less “advanced” subjects: the German barbarians, who worshipped their violent and storm-driven gods, the Jews who prayed to a single G-d and awaited the arrival of His Messenger, the mystic cultists who performed their secrets rites in honor of Isis, Demeter, and Bacchus, the Greek deities who quarreled like spoiled children and started wars to amuse themselves at mankind’s expense. Religion of one sort or another permeated every province and client state of the Roman Empire, and in the Imperial City there was little division between the religious and the political spheres: the Roman emperor was himself considered a god, or at least divine in the formal sense, and was often given a religious title to buttress his legitimacy in the eyes of the populace.

In the modern West, where the only god is Mammon, the riots over those Danish cartoons were “a round of silliness,” as Welch described them. Hardly a surprising opinion from the editor of a magazine that has always been hostile to religion, but it’s fair to say this about sums up the general opinion of most Americans, which is why Welch is perfectly within his rights to advocate “a more American response” from Washington—and, although he doesn’t say so, it isn’t hard to imagine what the spirit if not the exact text of that oh-so-American response might be.

No, it’s not just about the video: there’s America’s relationship with the Arab world to consider, and specifically with Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and many of the other countries where rioters are burning our flag and assaulting our embassies. In Libya, we installed their present government and are keeping them on life support through “foreign aid” and “democracy promotion” grants. In Yemen, we’re bombing them: in Egypt, we’re trying to influence their elections, and they’re on the take from us to the tune of over a billion every year. We are, in short, at the center of their world—and yet not of it, indeed distinctly alien to it.

Murray Rothbard was one of the few libertarians who understood the major role religion has played in human societies, and his History of Economic Thought is a monument to that centrality: his analysis furthers an understanding not only of economic history but of all human history. Libertarians, plagued by a militant atheism from the very outset, have stoutly ignored a key aspect of what motivates humans to act as they do, and this has crippled our ability to not only understand but to change the world.

Read More

Natural Immune-Boosting Foods

OffTheGrid News, Sept. 2012
As we enter the cooler months, we also enter the time of year when we encounter more illness. This is especially true as school comes back in session. Kids are regularly exposed to new illnesses that they then bring home and share while we simultaneously close up our houses to keep the cold (and fresh air) out.

Considering this increased exposure, it might be a good idea to examine your diet. Some simple tweaks and additions can help to get your body prepared for the upcoming health challenges and boost your family’s immune systems so that their bodies can fight back effectively when the inevitable exposure to illness occurs.

Here are some natural immune-boosting foods you might want to consider incorporating into your menu plan. Most are easy to work in, whether for breakfast, lunch, snacks, or dinner.

Probiotic Foods. Eating a cup of yogurt a day that contains live and active cultures is a wise investment in your health. The cultures (beneficial probiotic bacteria) in the yogurt help to keep a balance of good bacteria in your gut, allowing it to function at its optimal level. Much of the body’s immune system is located in the gut, so keeping the gut happy should help to maintain good overall health.

If an illness has already gotten you down and you are on antibiotics, it is even more important to include probiotics in your diet. Antibiotics not only kill the bad bacteria that made you sick; they also kill the good bacteria in your body. This leaves you more susceptible to illness later in the season if you do not repopulate your gut with good bacteria.

Yogurt is not the only option when it comes to probiotic foods. Other foods you may want to consider trying are milk kefir, water kefir, kimchi, and fermented sauerkraut and veggies (such as old-fashioned pickles). Check out your local health food store for real, fermented foods or try making your own for even more benefits.

Oats. Oats contain beta-glucans, which have an even stronger ability to fight off illness than the oft-recommended immune-boosting herb, echinacea. In addition to their immune-boosting benefits, oats also help to encourage wounds to heal more quickly and potentially enhance the effectiveness of antibiotics. So, a bowl of oatmeal, granola, or O’s might be just the ticket for breakfast this fall and winter! This might even be your justification for eating that oatmeal cookie!

Berries. Berries contain both vitamin C and bioflavonoids, which work together to help the body to rid itself of toxins, boost the immune system, and to maintain healthy collagen levels in the skin. These are all things you want to have going for you in the winter season. Try putting berries in a yogurt smoothie, use them to top your oatmeal or cereal, or add them to salads or desserts.

Tea. True teas from the Camellia sinensis plant species have been shown in studies to contain high levels of antioxidants, which attack free radicals that contribute to disease. White tea contains the most antioxidants, followed by green tea, oolong, and black tea (including pu-erh). All of these teas have at least some benefit to the immune system and many additional benefits to the body as a whole.

Garlic. Garlic has potent antimicrobial properties that help the body to fight off illness. It aids in killing harmful bacteria in the gut, where much of the immune system resides. In addition, the volatile oils in garlic are beneficial to the lungs as a decongestant.

Garlic is most potent when chopped, allowed to sit a few minutes undisturbed, and eaten raw, but it is also beneficial when cooked. If you and your household are fighting illness, put generous amounts of it in everything you can think of to get it into your systems. I like to make hummus with extra garlic, pasta tossed with ten cloves of garlic sauteed in olive oil and with added herbs, and dill pickles with coarsely chopped garlic added (the garlic flavor is not as strong and I find it easier to eat the garlic raw in this way).

Garlic too strong for you? Try onions, which are in the same family as garlic, have many of the same properties, and may be a more palatable choice.

Eggs. Or more specifically, the egg yolks. Egg yolks contain zinc and selenium, which kick-start the immune system. What better reason to add an egg or two a day? Try them boiled for a snack or scrambled with some garlic, onions, and/or peppers for a light lunch.

If you have high cholesterol and have been told by your doctor to avoid eggs, please take that into consideration. Eggs from free-range or pastured chickens might be a better choice in this case, since they tend to be lower in cholesterol and higher in beneficial omega-3 fatty acids.

Ginger. Ginger has the ability to fight off illness on many fronts. It is an antimicrobial that can be taken internally as well as used topically, and it also acts as a natural antibiotic. It kills cold viruses, helps combat fever and chills, gets rid of congestion, and helps with nausea and vomiting, headaches, and indigestion, just to name a few. Ginger is also a beneficial food that has the power to help prevent and treat or kill many types of cancer.

Use ginger in your muffin and sweet bread recipes, slice fresh ginger and make a tea out of it, or add fresh or dried ginger to smoothies and to your meals. Chew on a piece of dried ginger as an afternoon snack. Stir-fries are delicious with ginger added, but expand your use of ginger and try it in other applications such as soup.

Mushrooms. Recent studies have shown that even the most common button mushrooms have beneficial properties—perhaps even more than the shiitaki and other exotic mushrooms that have been touted as health foods. In a study done on rats by Tufts University, white button mushrooms were shown to cause the body to develop significantly increased levels of natural killer cells, ready to attack whatever invader comes into the body. To get the best effect (and to decrease or eliminate the pre-carcinogenic compounds in mushrooms), it is best to cook the mushrooms rather than eating them raw.

Mushrooms are one of the few natural food sources of vitamin D, a vitamin in which many people are deficient in, and that has been shown in recent studies to be beneficial in preventing disease and illness. Mushrooms are also an excellent source of zinc.

Consider eating more mushrooms during the months of the year that you do not get sufficient sun exposure to allow your body to make enough vitamin D for itself. Add them to soups, salads, and stir-fries; saute them with onions to add to steak, burgers, or eggs; or include them in your shish kebabs on the grill.

Sweet and Hot Peppers. All peppers contain high levels of beta-carotene, which the body transforms into vitamin A, an antioxidant that also has the ability to protect the mucus membranes from getting infected. They also contain a healthy dose of vitamin C.

Hot peppers contain capsaicin as an additional asset. Capsaicin has the ability to clear sinuses, encourage movement/excretion of mucus, encourage the release of toxins through sweating, and is a general antimicrobial.

Beef. Beef is another source of zinc, which is very important in the production of white blood cells, which work to fight off bacteria, viruses, and other illness-inducing culprits. Many people are zinc deficient, and even a slight deficiency can seriously slow down the production of white blood cells and lessen the body’s ability to fight off illness.

Put beef on the menu and incorporate some of the other foods in this list: saute with peppers, garlic, onions, and mushrooms; add to your shish kebabs; or use ground beef in soups and sauces.

Chicken Soup. No list of immune-boosting foods would be complete without chicken soup. It may be the warm broth that is comforting; it may be the noodles reminiscent of what mom used to make; or it may be the vitamins present in the vegetables that cause us to feel better when eating this soup.

Homemade chicken soup has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties. In addition, in one lab test, chicken soup was shown to help stop the movement of neutrophils, white blood cells that feast on bacteria and cellular debris that the body produces when it is affected by a virus such as a cold. These neutrophils have the ability to increase mucus production and may be one of the causes of stuffy noses and coughs when one has a cold. Prevention of this process may be one of the main reasons chicken soup helps us to feel better.

One main component of homemade chicken soup is the homemade broth itself. Homemade broth is most nutritious when both bones and meat are included in the pot. The marrow from the bones, when cooked into broth, has the ability to help the immune system by carrying oxygen to the cells of the body.

Read More