In this chapter Barker really (as Weird Al Yankovic would say) dives headfirst into the exegetical swimming pool of double-edged razor blades, and tries to demonstrate his hermeneutical sufficiency with the Biblical text. Here are answers to what is found in this chapter:
Material in Chapters 22 and 23 is answered in various places on this page, notably here; consult the Encyclopedia scripture index for citations. Chapter 24 is dealt with here. For Chapter 25, see the links for Is. 7:14 and Micah 5:2 above, plus here, plus Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. See here on Tyre.
|
All Crossed Up
Chapter 26 of Barker's book is entitled, "Cross Examination." Barker includes in this chapter a few salient points about the trivialization of the cross as a symbol of Christianity (i.e., its use as jewelry or as a social symbol). These are things that any serious Christian would find agreeable. Where Barker's inadequate investigation of his subject comes to the fore is in his treatment of two particular issues related to the fact of the cross of Christ itself.
After a few mild complaints about having to see the cross of a church outside his office windows, Barker begins with a form of "argument by outrage" - one that does more to reveal an aspect of his personal squeamishness than it does effect any serious argument against Christian faith. He writes [202]
:
A cross is not beautiful. It is an emblem of humiliation, agony and death. It represents a public execution, like a gallows, guillotine, or gas chamber. Approaching a cross is like walking into a firing squad. Try to picture a steeple supporting an electric chair; or imagine people wearing noose jewelry!
And after a few complaints of similar nature from one of his cohorts, he continues:
Suppose someone saved your life by blocking a terrorist's attack, but died from the bullets. Would you hang little gold machine guns on your ears?
Barker closes this aspect of his "argument by outrage" with citations from a few hymns about the blood of Jesus. Is this not offensive, he asks?
Aside from the admittedly excellent points about the trivialization of the cross, Barker here has missed the point badly - and would not have, had he consulted the excellent work of Martin Hengel [Heng.Cx] on this subject. The shame of the cross, so to speak, was just as much a problem in the first century as it is today from Barker's perspective. (See on this subject also our reply to Earl Doherty.) Hengel, whose work is recognized as the premier work on the subject of crucifixion in the ancient world, observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (22) The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions!
This being the case, we may fairly ask why Christianity succeeded at all. The ignominy of a crucified savior was as much a deterrent to Christian belief as it is today - indeed, it was far, far more so! Why, then, were there any Christians at all? There can be only one good explanation: Because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs! Fair enough to say that the cross has been misused as a symbol: But had a person in an electric chair been executed unrighteously, and risen from the dead after dying for our eternal salvation, well might some house of worship place an empty chair upon their steeple - with the clasps undone, to proclaim the victory over the conquered instrument of death!
Now to the second issue, one more connected to technical details, and quite astonishing in its baldness. Barker writes:
There is no cross in Christianity. No cross at all!
The enduring emblem of atonement is an impostor. There is no cross anywhere in the Bible...The words which have been translated 'cross' and 'crucify' in the New Testament are (Greek word) (pronounced 'stau-ross' or 'stav-ross') and (Greek word) ('stav-ro-oh'). All translators, even fundamentalists, agree that a (Greek word) is not a cross.
Barker goes on to cite Vine's and a couple of other works indicating that the word we translate "cross" actually means an upright pale or stake. He adds, citing another source, that a stauros was never in the shape of a cross or a T. He continues:
There is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the fifth century, where it (probably) appears on a coin in a painting. The first clear crucifix appears in the late seventh century.
Any Bible that contains the word 'cross' or 'crucify' is dishonest...
We may ask, of course: What scholarly works has Barker consulted to arrive at these conclusions, which run against the grain of the conclusions of literally thousands of Biblical scholars and historians of all persuasions? Raymond Brown's magisterial commentary, The Death of the Messiah, [Brow.DMh] perhaps? Hengel's comprehensive monograph on crucifixion in the ancient world, already alluded to?
Hardly. In fact, the one source that Barker lists, other than the original Greek texts of the NT and related translation aids like Vine's, is Herbert Cutner's, Jesus: God, Man or Myth! Had Barker consulted the works of Hengel, Brown, and perhaps a few others of a more academic bent, he would have discovered that his objections are way, way off base! (Cutner himself inspires little confidence: His only stated qualification is that he is "one of England's leading Freethought writers," and he is said to be the author of a book on sex worship (!). His work is a mix of badly outdated information [even in 1950 when he wrote!], focusing mainly on the ideas that Jesus did not exist and that pagan influence created Christianity. His own treatment of the evidence is scarcely more impressive than Barker's, and earned him an article of his own.)
True enough: The word stauros does refer to an upright stake. But stauros was used in the Gospels by synecdoche to refer to the entirety of the cross! [ibid., 913] This was a known literary practice when describing a crucifixion, and perhaps a signal of how revolting it was thought to be: Single parts of the cross, like the crossbar (patibulum), could be referred to as a "cross," and the entire cross could be referred to by the names of individual pieces like the stauros - as was the case with the Gospels. (Brown cites parallels to this practice in the works of Seneca and Tacitus.) This bit of information, along with information from Plautus indicating standard practice for crucifixion, tells us what we know today: That what Jesus carried was the crossbeam, and the actual stauros was embedded at the site of the crucifixion. (The stauros itself, Brown adds, could refer to a stake which "people could be attached to in various ways: Impaling, hanging, nailing, and tying." To this we can also add Josephus' confirmation of Jesus' fate, although Barker considers those references to be interpolations.)
So there is no foundation here for Barker's stauros argument; what about the rest? Again, not digging further than Cutner and a few base reference works makes for some poor judgments: Brown reports that the cross symbol itself appears in catacombs in the third century, and becomes common by the fourth. There are also about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century.
Also, what of the actual shape of the historical cross? The descriptions we have, indicating that Jesus carried a crossbeam, mean that the cross was either shaped like a capital T or a lower case t. The latter was favored by Ireneaus and Tertullian, and was supposed from Matt. 27:37, which indicates room for the printed charge against Jesus above his head. The former was favored by Justin (though for reasons of supposed prophetic fulfillment) and is indicated by Barnabas 9:8, an apocryphal work from near the end of the first century.
So what does it boil down to? Barker's objections are not the product of serious scholarship. They are, rather, the product of his own personal squeamishness over the shed blood of Christ (one hopes that Barker does not cut himself while shaving), and his personal animosity towards a church steeple and cross that he happens to find annoying. Here, then, is quite incontrovertible proof that Barker was no objective convert to atheism. His appeals are reflective only of an axe to grind.
Tekton research assistant "Punkish" adds some thoughts:
...from Vine's Complete Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words p138
CROSS, CRUCIFY A. Noun stauros (4716 Strong's #) denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or
stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun
and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale," are originally
to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed
"cross". The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea,
and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being the shape of
the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in
adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D.
the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain
doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige
of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the
churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely
to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its
most frequent form, with the crosspiece lowered, was adopted to stand
for the "cross" of Christ.
I note that my full quote from Vine's refutes Barker's misquote, in which he removes key phrases like "apostate ecclesiastical system" and that pagans were received into churches "apart from regeneration"! Here's another: he misses out a phrase in Cutner, who actually notes a social piece of data (that tells you how close to the mark Barker is in historical study!) The phrase is "..it was used in the cruelest fashion to execute criminals and other persons obnoxious to the governing classes" (JGMM, 60)
As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a
vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, the letter was
the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the
Cross" (for xulon, "a timber beam, a tree" as used for the stauros,
see under TREE)
I'm a little frustrated to see that no references are given to support the
claims of ecclesiastical compromise, but in any case Tertullian answers that one:
His hands and feet were fastened with nails to
the cross-beam and stake (Tertullian, "Adv. Judæos," 10)
(Tertullian definitely being prior to mid 3rd century contra Vine's claim)
...From the Epistle of Barnabas 12:2, "The Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a type of the cross and of Him that was to suffer, that unless, saith he, they shall set their hope on Him, war shall be waged against them for ever. Moses therefore pileth arms one upon another in the midst of the encounter, and standing on higher ground than any he stretched out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious." This passage from Exodus (17:11) is also cited by Tertullian (Against Marcion III.18) while discussing crucifixion. Also Clarke's commentary on this verse tells us that the Church fathers considered this a figure of Christ on the cross. So I think Vine's is incorrect over the introduction of a cross-beam in
the church and its date (and therefore Barker for using this source), while respecting the man's training and status as a scholar.
Schaff history vol 2 sect.77 "The cross was despised by the heathen Romans on account of the crucifixion, the disgraceful punishment of slaves and the worst criminals; but the Apologists reminded them of the unconscious recognition of the salutary sign in the form of their standards and triumphal symbols, and of the analogies in nature, as the form of man with the outstretched arm, the flying bird, and the sailing ship..."
Justin Martyr - dialogue with Trypho chap 91 (before 165 AD) After quoting Joseph's blessings in Genesis (mentions a unicorn?) then says the cross is a like-figure, giving the following description: "For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is
raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear
on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed
in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands
out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the
other horns." Now I don't really know what is meant by "unicorn" here, whether it means the
mythical horse of not, but you surely cannot say that the two-beamed cross
was unknown ...Barker says "There is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the fifth century, where it (probably) appears on a coin in a painting. The first clear
crucifix appears in the late seventh century." Having read Schaff's history of the Church on crucifixion I now realise what he's on about. The above paragraph refers to the crafted
figure of Jesus on a cross (note the ref to "art"!) rather than the empty two-beamed execution implement. Schaff says this is as late as Barker relates, but ALSO that the empty cross (in terms of execution) gets mentioned much earlier in church history. Schaff also says: "The CRUCIFIX, that is the sculptured or carved representation of our Saviour
attached to the cross, is of much later date, and cannot be clearly traced
beyond the middle of the sixth century. It is not mentioned by any writer of the
Nicene and Chalcedonian age. One of the oldest known crucifixes, if not the
very oldest, is found in a richly illuminated Syrian copy of the Gospels in
Florence from the year 586.475 Gregory of Tours (d. 595) describes a crucifix in
the church of St. Genesius, in Narbonne, which presented the crucified One
almost entirely naked.476 But this gave offence, and was veiled, by order of the
bishop, with a curtain, and only at times exposed to the people. The
Venerable Bede relates that a crucifix, bearing on one side the Crucified, on the
other the serpent lifted up by Moses, was brought from Rome to the British
cloister of Weremouth in 686.
See here for Chapter 27.
|
Hardly Charitable
In Chapter 37, "Age of Unaccountability," Barker addresses the matter of charitable giving. Again we willingly concede that in certain places Barker makes salient points, regarding misuse of funds and the need for accountability. However, as before, the force of these salient points is lost on the fact that they are bookended by personal anecdotes from Barker's own life (which hardly reflect on anything, other than of course his own personal and familial issues), and by what can only "charitably" be called outright misrepresentation.
Let's begin with the most blatant error. Seeking to answer his own question, "(H)ow much does the average church actually contribute to the needy?", Barker cites an article by George Gallup, Jr. and Jim Castelli that records the results of a 1988 study of almost 300,000 churches - indicating "the percentage of all congregations that have selected charity services." [Bark.LFIF, 257] Statistics are given for the percent of such churches that selected services for homeless shelters, meal services, and the environment, with churches being in the categories of liberal, moderate, conservative, and very conservative. In each case, the liberals score the best, in the 40th percent rank, and the numbers get lower as we get more "conservative." Barker then notes similar numbers for other areas: "family planning, day care, civil rights, and the arts". [ibid.] He concludes that "This shows that considerably less than half of all churches are involved in any kind of charity." [ibid., 258]
There are several problems with this analysis:
- First, one wonders why there is no "very liberal" category!
- Second, while we may observe that shelters and meals are certainly part of a church's mission, and day care and environment might be, since when is a church obliged to contribute to "family planning" (which many find objectionable, especially when the words are a euphemism for "abortion") and "the arts"????? How many starving children has that ballet troupe fed today?
- Third, and the most important point of all: The study does NOT tell how many churches are involved in ANY kind of charity. It tells how many have SELECTED CHARITY SERVICES! (In this regard it is not surprising to see that liberal churches, generally associated also with liberal politics and the "government solves all" mentality, prefer to use some sort of organization for their charity!) This says NOTHING about the level of charity that individual churches are involved in, or the personal contributions that individual members make privately; it says nothing about churches that fund their own soup kitchens, or give within their own membership to members in need, or about contributions that churchgoers make outside of their church, but because of their religious beliefs. Nor does it make any distinction for people who have little or no money to give in the first place (many of whom are in religiously conservative, poor, and rural areas - whereas the liberal churches tend to be attended by wealthy urbanites who prefer the lack of demand for personal commitment)! In fact, what does the mere selection of a charity service say about amounts and percentages of income actually given to charity? NOTHING! This reflects an extremely unscientific use of data by Barker!
He does seem aware of this incongruity, for he does address private giving - anecdotally! "Well, sure. A few churches feed the poor," he writes, and "Some churches (I remember) once or twice a year will pass a plastic 'Bread for the Hungry' loaf-bank around Sunday school classes..." [257-8] What's this? To prove that churches are not involved in charity, we get precise statistics; but where is this same precision when it comes to contributions made on a lower level? Are Barker's memories the same level of data as George Gallup's polls?
Thus, Barker relies on misrepresentation to make his points. This is simply his way of stumping for what he really wants: Direct taxation of churches. (If Barker had really wanted to reduce the federal deficit, he should have checked into cutting spending on wasteful government projects! The suggestion to tax churches sounds more like sour grapes than sound economic sense!)
|
Moral Miscues: Chapter 50
In this chapter, Barker lays out his hill of beans on morality. Much of this chapter is merely preaching to the humanist choir; to wit, "We humans deserve respect," blah blah blah. Our concern will only be with the section in which Barker accuses God of being immoral, since we, unlike Barker, recognize that this is a subject that isn't dealt with in a mere 10-15 pages by someone who is merely copying what he has read from writers like Ingersoll. Here are responses to some specific charges (other than general "argument by outrage, no punishment is ever deserved" complaints):
On the Ten Commandments: Most of Barker's complaints simply beg the question of God's existence and authority (i.e., the third commandment violates free speech!). Otherwise: On the Sabbath; not killing, the alleged second version; and on these and the Beatitudes, an attitude like Michael Martin's.
|
Conclusion
Dan Barker should not be taken seriously. His arguments are more shock than substance, and there is almost no depth to his research. If you have read his book and been bothered by it, fear not - it's Bark is worse than its bite!
|
Sources
- Bark.LFIF - Barker, Dan. Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist. Madison WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1992.
Go Home! 
