Note 4/08: Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" brought two items to our attention. 1) J. B. McPherson died in 2003. 2) McPherson was a woman. So we've changed all the "he" references to "she".

After reading this one, the Cynic-sage theses of Mack and Crossan actually looked normal.

J. B. McPherson's Holey Bible - Old Testament (hereafter HBOT -- and according to OCLC's WorldCat, there has been no NT version; and incidentally, HBOT itself can only be found at three libraries in the entire US!!) foreshadows much of its content in its inability to impress the eye: The book is cheaply typeset, and is peppered with drawings that look freshly removed from Grandma's refrigerator. Inside, the librarian's signs portend disaster for McPherson's scholarly reputation. Oh, yes, there are many of the standard objections we've covered hundreds of times (and a few new to my eye which will warrant attention) but what makes HBOT unique is it's central thesis: "God" is neither god nor deity, but extraterrestrial; the Israelites "invented a personal 'God' from the astronauts who first came from other planets to colonize (Earth)." [i] And here's a line to make skeptics shiver with disgust: Mark Twain is listed in the bibliography with books like Chariots of the Gods. I can practically hear Clemens turning over in his grave.

By now I need hardly point out that McPherson is no Biblical scholar. What HBOT consists of is more than the mix of the usual bigotry regarding the Bible, OT society, and culture, though; it is also a poor attempt to be funny, like Mark Twain, but not at all like Mark Twain, not even Dave Barry Does the Bible. Instead, think Dennis McKinsey and Ken Smith all rolled into a package, and wearing Erich von Daniken's clothes.

How came this amalgamated product to be? It should come as no surprise that McPherson is an example of the bills of a negligent church coming due; which is not to say she is not responsible for his own fate. The twin themes of "fear and ignorance" are played up time and time again (as though courageous "ignorance" like McPherson's is any better off), apparently having had their roots in McPherson's Pentecostal/Church of God background, which was also apparently filled with preachers who rather than answer his questions just told her to have faith and believe. She did, all right: What she has now is a mix of Rosicrucianism, Unity, Erich von Daniken, and Edgar Cayce. But now would McPherson have us shed those "tired, shopworn and outdated dogmas of today's religious teachings" [4] -- and put in their place, what? Something else that will be tired and shopworn a little later, of course...

McPherson's inability manifests in ways both general and specific, of course. Oral tradition is regarded not as the reliable method of transmission that folklore experts have shown it can be, but is rather arbitrarily (and analogically, very incorrectly) compared to the modern "whisper around the room" game [ii]. Questions of translation are dealt with via the unschooled approach: "Considering the many translations and changes from one language to another, it is easy to see why much of the bible does not make sense." [iii] (Make sense to whom? McPherson? Why is it that I have no problem making sense of the things she can't?) The canon was put together by conspiracy, and many valuable works were purposefully excluded, though all of these (except, for example, one McPherson will look at -- insert ominous reverb here) are now lost to us. I have already shown enough that it will hardly be necessary to service McPherson's book point-by-point. Rather, we shall select from the bulk of McPherson's book (which is devoted to wisecracking commentary on the books of the OT -- commentary that attempts to sound like Mark Twain, but ends up sounding like Jim Nabors trying to sound like Jimmy Carter trying to sound like Mark Twain), some of the ringers I discovered that were new to my eye:

• A regularly-repeated theme of McPherson's, of a sort which she probably thinks is funny, runs like this, with specific reference here to the Exodus: "Why not just zap the whole kit and kaboodle over to the land where he wanted them and save all the time and trouble involved?" [23] Skeptics regularly ask questions of this sort, and there is a very simple answer: God does not take the high hand in these things because, first, it is coercive, and true love does not rely on coercion; second, and most importantly, we have shown every time we sin that we do not want God's personal guidance in such high-handed fashion. Skeptics and critics who believe that the God of the Bible, rather than punishing sin justly, ought to simply say, "Well, golly," pick us up, dust us off, and pat us on the head like a senile grandpa, show thereby exactly the God they want. A senile grandpa god would not just "zap the whole kit and kaboodle" over to Canaan because he would be too "out of it" and senseless to care. God is not like that, but in sinning, and in constantly rebelling against God and His direction, we show that we wish He were like that. He is not coercive, but rather patient, even in judgment: We will get exactly what we want -- and it will not be a "mail-order" deity tailored to McPherson's personal specifications as a dumbwaiter. (On the other hand, those who ask for God's interference had best watch out, because the first thing on the list to be zapped is most likely you, because before you ever got to the podium someone else who was wronged by you beat you to it! See more here.)

• Confusion is alleged between Numbers 25 and 31 [34-6], in that in 25:1-5, Israel is influenced by "Moabite" women, yet later in 25 and in 31 it is the Midianites who are blamed and punished. A little social data goes a long way towards solving problems like this: The Midianites were the subjects of the Moabites (cf. Gen. 36:35). The Moabites stayed in their own land and the Israelites went to where the Moabites lived to participate in their ceremonies, as verses 1-5 indicate. Now as long as this was the case, God's determination was that the Moabites, who were passive in the situation, were to be left alone: It was Israel's fault. But in verse 6, a woman of the Midianites was brought into the Israelite camp. A situation like this, in the social context, indicates a marriage that was arranged by one of the Midianites. So now, rather than being passive participants like the Moabites, the Midianites were taking active steps towards infiltration and assimilation. That's the key difference. (Glenn Miller has now blown the lid off of this objection, using a much more developed form of my own argument, here.)

• 2 Chr. 17:5-6 The LORD established the kingdom under his control; and all Judah brought gifts to Jehoshaphat, so that he had great wealth and honor. His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.

  2 Chr 20:33-4 The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their fathers. The other events of Jehoshaphat's reign, from beginning to end, are written in the annals of Jehu son of Hanani, which are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel.

  Contradiction is alleged here for obvious reasons, but I think it hardly needs pointing out that Josiah's reign didn't last just ten minutes. The latter verse obviously reflects conditions at the end of Jehoshaphat's reign, for of course we may be sure, knowing human psychology as we do, that some were quite inclined to put the high places back whenever they thought they could get away with it!

• Ex 22:31 You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.

  Lev. 17:15 Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

  Dt. 14:21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.

  McPherson supposes that these three verses represent "changes of heart" on the subject of eating dead animals. But a careful reading tells us otherwise. The Exodus verse refers only to animals that are mauled by other animals and have died. Deuteronomy refers only to animals found dead of natural causes. Leviticus refers to both types and tells what to do if someone (whether native or stranger) consumes such an animal in spite of the rule against doing so. (The stranger of course would have to decide whether it would be worth it to have to do the washing ritual in order to eat the animal -- chances are, in this age before there was a supermarket on every corner, they wouldn't have minded.)

• There is another objection that McPherson brings up that I have seen elsewhere: Why did God choose people like Abraham, Saul, and David to do His bidding when they turned out to be such rotten eggs? May I just say that this objection is highly presumptuous in that it assumes without the least hint of proof that someone better must have been available. God chose Abraham -- who else was available? Perhaps if (allow me to be facetious here for a moment) unknown to divinity some large chunk of masonry had come crashing down on old Abe's head when he was 20, someone else would have been second choice, anyone from Farmer Nxlhtl in the Yucatan jungles to Sheepherder Wong in desert China. But unless someone can prove (and they obviously cannot) that there was another person in the world who would have been both more moral and better able to do God's bidding, then this objection is nothing but an attempt to sidestep faith. Indeed, the fact that this is something beyond proof proves that it is a sidestep.
• And, a welter of other confused assertions. The "angel of the Lord" is not recognized as a theophany, but is rather assumed to be a subject angel of God's; from that are other false conclusions drawn. [39] 2 Chron. 17:3 ("The LORD was with Jehoshaphat because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed. ") is read as saying that J-phat was David's physical son [57]; McPherson is obviously oblivious to the variable use of such familial terms in this period. (For the same reason, she supposes that the Song of Solomon describes incest, since it describes Solomon's lover as his "sister".[175-6]) Rhetorical inquiries made by God (such as the location of Abel), which are reflective of typical ANE interrogation methods, are taken as indications of God's lack of omniscience and made hash of for McPherson's "astronaut" thesis. Ps. 78:35 ("They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.") and 86:13 ("For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.") are taken not as emphasizing poetry, as ANE scholars understand it, but as meaning that David was "under the impression that there was a high God and a low God as well as a high and a low hell." [62-3] Amos 4:10-12 ---

  I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. Therefore thus will I do unto thee, O Israel: and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.

  -- is taken to mean that "God" and "the Lord" are two separate entities; McPherson of course fails to appreciate the theological distinction between "Yahweh" (the covenant name of the God of Israel) and "Elohim" (a power and majesty general name and noun). The command to have "no other gods before me" is taken (as Twain, as I recall, took it) to mean that there could be other gods in second and third place; on that, a surprise here. The Hebrew idiom (preserved in the KJV - cf. 1 Kings 14:10) referring to God destroying any who "pisseth against a wall" is taken as meaning that God is a fastidious fool who judges those who urinate in public [167]; scholars of the ANE recognize this as an idiom meaning simply "males". And of course there is plenty of chauvinism: Of the extensive descriptions of the construction of the Ark and the tabernacle, comments like these are made: "It would be difficult to believe that anyone who ever read the bible got pleasure from reading this rambling drivel, much less any who were spiritually inspired by it." And: "Now, could you imagine yourself entertaining any hope of attaining heaven's gates without reading those stirring verses to inspire you?" [196] Well, it's very sad that McPherson did not find herself sufficiently entertained and "inspired" by the Biblical text. Perhaps she feels that an infinitely Holy and Almighty God ought not to have had the Ark made, but rather should have settled for a wooden crate with a handle on the side that when turned played "Pop Goes the Weasel." Perhaps she wants a Bible that does the same thing. No one would argue, of course, that the detailed data in Leviticus has the same level of application for us today as do the Gospels: That is not the point. But we may still learn from these texts if our minds are open and questioning (see below) rather than tainted with an arrogant chauvinism that is more concerned with being entertained than actually appreciating and holding in awe the majesty of God.

  Now after an entire half-chapter spent on parts of the Bible she found boring, McPherson suggests that other books should have been included instead (no thanks to those conspiratorial church councils, who kicked them out). And she does have a candidate for inclusion that she says is the "most valuable" [203] of the excluded works: The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18). This book runs the same territory as Genesis through Judges, McPherson tells us, and she gives us a long summary of this work showing how much it improves upon the Biblical record -- it proves that Moses was a teller of tall tales, and fits much better with her "ancient astronaut" thesis.

  If you've read my canon article section on excluded books by now, you are probably asking this question: "I thought the Book of Jasher was lost except for fragments preserved in the OT. Where did McPherson get a copy from?" Simple -- as she says, it is "easy to obtain a copy" of this work, which is "fully documented for authenticity" [221] -- just write to the nice folks over at the Rosicrucian Supply Bureau, an ever-reliable source of distribution for authentic ancient documents that all of those scholars, archaeologists, classicists, paleographers, and so on have unfortunately missed. Write in also for a copy of Hezekiah's grocery list -- see the actual order for a poultice of figs! To put it in a nutshell: This "Book of Jasher" from the people of the rosy cross is without a semblance of authenticity. It provides evidence of nothing other than McPherson's will to believe anything that relieves her embarrassment of having once been on our side of the tracks.

I have purposely saved the worst for last -- McPherson's central and wildest thesis, that the God of Israel (as well as pagan deities like Chemosh and Ishtar) were actually advanced extraterrestrial beings who came to colonize our planet and took sections of it for themselves. I think such ideas hardly need refuting in detail; suffice to say that no respectable sociologist, historian, or archaeologist believes this sort of thing, but we can add that McPherson's "evidence" for this from the Bible (which he says "overwhelmingly confirms" [237] her thesis) is extremely thin and relies entirely on imagination and not at all on scholarship or an understanding of Ancient Near Eastern language, literature and society. To wit: The vision of God in Ex. 24:9-10 by the elders of Israel is best seen as "an excellent description of a spaceship landing module...or a helicopter with a semi-transparent blue plastic beneath the operator's feet and a clear plastic bubble over his head." [239] Descriptions of Gabriel in the Book of Daniel bringing messages to and fro "brings to mind a picture of a man wearing a one-man backpack flying unit". Moses' rod is thought to have been a super-space weapon provided by Yahweh the astronaut. Jonah's whale was a submarine; God's spaceship caused the sea to rage, and when he saw the men throw Jonah overboard, he radioed the sub to pick him up. [244] Elijah's "whirlwind" was a helicopter. The sanitation and exclusion rules in Leviticus were made because God the astronaut was worried that the conditions like dwarfism might be contagious. Do we need to go any further? This fantastic fantasy is what McPherson gobbled up after giving up Christian faith. You should be laughing aloud by now. If you are not, if you are actually taking McPherson seriously now or ever -- you are beyond normal help.

Here is the conclusion to the matter. We see once again, as I have said, a case of the church's bills of neglect coming due. The educational system can take some blame for this as well, since it has obviously failed to teach people like McPherson to think critically. But in reading McPherson, I am sadly reminded of a meeting I had with a group of 10 pastors to whom I offered my services, without any obligation, as a teacher of apologetics for their church training classes. One of the pastors actually asked before the others if I really felt there was a need for such instruction. I say, take one look at McPherson and tell me that there isn't a need. It just isn't recognized until the apostasy occurs and it is almost too late to do anything about it.

McPherson tells us that "if one reads (the Bible) with an open and questioning mind, free from fear of blasphemy for daring to question 'God's Holy Word,'" then all of the contradictions therein become obvious. Well, an open mind is one thing; a mind so open that one's brains fall out is another. As for "fear of blasphemy", I have none. Glenn Miller's banner verse from Thessalonians, "test everything," and the example of the Bereans, is what leads me forward, and I am not and have never been, willingly or otherwise, in thrall to some churchman as McPherson apparently was; so what does this mean for her implied thesis that someone with an "open and questioning mind, not in fear of blasphemy" will not believe in the inerrancy and divine origin of the Bible? McPherson thinks she has become free of her shackles; in fact she has simply traded one master for another -- and both masters came from the same slave-owning family with the surname she chose herself to describe Christians: Ignorance. They only live in different neighborhoods.