Apologia Fall 2017

Fall 2017, Volume 12, Issue 1

from eve to mary: what "a woman's place" means in the bible cover feature by Hyemin Han '20: p. 24

p. 2 Interview: The Strange Persistence of Guilt with Wilfred McClay

p. 8 500 Years of Doing it By the Book: A Defense of Sola Scriptura Eddie Pyun '18

p. 38 Wonder Woman: Is Love Really All We Need?

Hailey Scherer '20

A Letter from the Editor

Society today looks drastically different from the society of our grandparents, let alone the society of biblical times. We have witnessed the emergence of dynamic social movements, from feminism to environmentalism, that have influenced our conceptions of rights and responsibilities. The technological revolution has transformed the ways in which we interact with each other and the world. Even over the past several years, political upheaval alone has redefined, in many ways, the contexts in which we live our lives. In the midst of this, it may seem as if religion has lost much of its influence as it is progressively relegated to private corners of individuals’ lives, if it is present at all. Christianity has been increasingly viewed as irrelevant, or often in opposition, to the causes which so many hold dear.

We, the staff of the Dartmouth Apologia, profess belief in a God who is intimately involved in both our personal lives and the wider scope of the human narrative. This conviction is diametrically opposed to the opinion that faith and religion are superfluous in modern civilizations. A God of such magnitude and care would be neither silent nor irrelevant in our lives, regardless of the time, issue, or place. We become accountable to the principles set forth

by God. This belief offers a new framework—one that encompasses all aspects of being. If it is true, it has far-reaching implications, necessitating radical changes in the way we interact with all facets of society.

The claims of Christianity should not be taken lightly, for—if they are true—they would require dramatic and widespread reconstructions of the way we perceive and relate to reality.

Here, we invite you first to consider some of the claims themselves. How does Christianity interact with the concepts of women’s rights, the environment, love, guilt, and humility? While these are only several of the many issues we explore today, we hope to offer a small window into the ways the Christian perspective redefines, expands on, and reinforces common modern beliefs.

The question then becomes: how do we examine the veracity of these claims? The stakes are high; for if these assertions are true, they have enormous implications for us. We would be accountable to and cared for by a God who is actively immersed in the proceedings of this world. If they are false, we would be operating under a faulty framework, deluded and constrained by irrational principles that have no basis or relevance. Like any good scholar, we must weigh the evidence, dissect the arguments and disagreements, and examine the content of the assertions made. What picture does Christianity paint? Is it viable? Is it defensible? Is it true?

As the issues plaguing us today continue to evolve, it is now of the utmost importance to examine both the veracity, the content, and the implications of the assertions made throughout Christian history. We invite you, the reader, to think critically with us about the historical basis for these claims and analyze how these claims should dictate how we act in modern society.

From Jesus to the Reformation to Wonder Woman, investigate and evaluate. While there is much more to examine and dissect than can be contained in this journal, we invite you to join us as we continue to seek to understand and live by truth.

Rachel Matsumoto Editor-in-Chief

Submissions We welcome the submission of any article, essay, or artwork for publication in The Dartmouth Apologia.

Submissions should seek to promote respectful, thoughtful discussion in the community. We will consider submissions from any member of the community but reserve the right to publish only those that align with our mission statement and quality rubric. Email: The.Dartmouth.Apologia@Dartmouth.Edu Front cover and back cover by Chenchen Li ’18

Letters to the Editor We value your opinions and encourage thoughtful submissions expressing support, dissent, or other views.

We will gladly consider any letter that is consistent with our mission statement’s focus on promoting intellectual discourse in the Dartmouth community.

Fall 2017, Volume 12, Issue 1

Editor-in-Chief Rachel Matsumoto ’19 Managing Editor India Perdue ’19 Executive Editor Luke Dickens ’18 Editorial Board Jake Casale ’17 Joshua Tseng-Tham ’17 Eddie Pyun ’18 Amanda Wang ’18 Keenan Wood ’18 Richard Williams ’18 Jeffrey Poomkudy ’20 Hailey Scherer ’20 Business Manager Peter O'Leary ’19 Production Manager Rachel Matsumoto ’19 Production Staff Sara Holston ’17 Amanda Wang ’18 Richard Williams ’18 Darley Sackitey ’21 Photography Joshua Tseng-Tham ’17 Contributors Eddie Pyun ’18 Peter O'Leary ’19 Ethan Shaw ’19 Hailey Scherer ’20 Advisory Board Gregg Fairbrothers Eric Hansen, Thayer James Murphy, Government Lindsay Whaley, Classics Special thanks to Council on Student Organizations The Eleazar Wheelock Society Apologia Online Subscription information for the journal or blog is available on our website at dartmouthapologia. org. Past issues of the journal are available online for archival viewing.

The opinions expressed in The Dartmouth Apologia are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the journal, its editors, or Dartmouth College. Copyright © 2017 The Dartmouth Apologia.

INTERVIEW: 2

The Strange Persistence of Guilt Wilfred M. McClay, Ph.D. University of Oklahoma

FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF 8 DOING IT BY THE BOOK:

A Defense of Sola Scriptura Eddie Pyun ’18

HISTORY'S JESUS: 18 An Exploration of Historical Analysis India Perdue ’19

FROM EVE TO MARY: 24

"A Woman's Place" in the Bible Debora Hyemin Han ’20

THE NUMINOUS AND 32 THE NATURAL:

Christianity and Enviornmentalism

Jeffrey Poomkudy ’20

WONDER WOMAN: 38

Is Love Really All We Need?

Hailey Scherer ’20

THE NEED FOR CHRISTIAN 44 HUMILITY IN A MODERN AMERICAN SOCIETY Maura Cahill ’20

T

he Dartmouth Apologia exists to articulate Christian perspectives in the academic community.

A JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

The Strange Persistence of Guilt

Pietà by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1876

with Wilfred McClay

2 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

conducted by Lynette Long

A Q&A with Wilfred McClay

Wilfred McClay (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) is an intellectual historian and noted public scholar. He has held the SunTrust Bank Chair of Excellence in Humanities and has taught at Georgetown, Tulane, the University of Dallas, and Johns Hopkins. McClay is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and at the Trinity Forum, and a member of the Philadelphia Society and the Society of Scholars at the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions of Princeton University. From 2002 to 2012, he served on the National Council on the Humanities, the advisory board for the National Endowment for the Humanities. He has published a number of articles in publications such as First Things, The New Atlantis, and the Jerusalem Review. He currently holds the G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty at the University of Oklahoma.

Q: In your article “The Strange Persistence of Guilt” that was published in the Hedgehog Review, you claim that more knowledge and power entail increased responsibility. What prompted you to write this article? Did you have a particular experience that made you feel responsible for atrocities in the world, or was the article a product of reflection and observation?

A: No, I didn’t have a personal or particular experience of my own, but I run across this issue with some of my students, and I would add that anyone with an active conscience realizes that it is not an easy thing to delimit the range of our responsibilities in the world. It’s especially difficult, I think, for morally sensitive young people today. They often are genuinely troubled about the ways in which even their most trivial and quotidian decisions may have larger moral implications. It is easy to make fun of this, but wrong. It represents the hypertrophy of an aspect of our human sensibility that is among our most admirable features.

the way that we are regarded by others, the ways in which we have violated or fallen short of generally accepted social norms. It’s especially operative in closeknit societies and in organizations like the military.

Guilt is much more individualized and protean in character. It can have both an emotional meaning and a forensic meaning; we feel guilt, a feeling that may or may not correspond to the reality of our being guilty of some crime or misdeed. One of the ways that guilt becomes a problem is when its emotional aspects become completely separated from the forensic ones— i.e., people feeling guilty even when they haven’t done anything wrong. (Sociopathy is the opposite condition: people feeling no guilt even for the most horrendous things for which they may be responsible.)

Q: You write: “Whatever donation I make to a charitable organization, it can never be as much as I could have given. I can never diminish my carbon footprint enough, or give to the poor enough… Colonialism, slavery, structural poverty,

Guilt is much more individualized and protean in character. It can have both an emotional meaning and a forensic meaning; we feel guilt, a feeling that may or may not correspond to the reality of our being guilty of some crime or misdeed.

Q: You identify the infinite extensibility of guilt as tied to increased understanding and control of the physical world. How precisely do you define guilt? How do you distinguish between shame and guilt?

A: There is a traditional distinction made between shame and guilt, and although it is not always a hard and fast distinction in real-life instances, it’s a very useful analytic distinction to make. Shame is understood as social in character; we feel shame over

water pollution, deforestation — there’s an endless list of items for which you and I can take the rap.” How can Christians strive for righteous stewardship without simply attributing these problems to the Fall and sinful human nature? Or without brushing off these issues because they know they are ultimately redeemed?

A: Excellent questions. They go to the question of what we are responsible for doing in a world that is not perfectible, and that is not easy to ascertain, especially if we live in such a way as to be cut loose to decide

[

Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia •

3

It is not given to us to solve the world’s problems in a grand and sweeping way. But there is something, or some things, that are there for us, often right in front of our faces—some mission of reconciliation or mercy or grace that we can perform, that we have it in our power to do. them all by ourselves. I think a beginning of an answer is that the Church, both in its institutional sense and as a body of believing individuals, has much more of a role to play that we allow it to in such matters. But there is also a simpler and more accessible answer; we are faithful in doing the things that God has put before us to do. This can often be something far more modest than the above causes, which may or may not be worthy causes but have the danger for even the best and most humble servants of placing our efforts in service to large abstractions rather than concrete individuals. It is not given to us to solve the world’s problems in a grand and sweeping way. But there is something, or some things, that are there for us, often right in front of our faces—some mission of reconciliation or mercy or grace that we can perform, that we have it in our power to do. God will give us such things, and it is up to us to be attentive in looking for them.

Q: You write that the phenomenon of rising guilt is a modern, paradoxical problem because societal advance produces guilt and, at the same time, is hindered by it. Some psychologists and biologists, who find that guilt (as an evolutionarily modulated emotion that developed to further the survival of the human species) has beneficial, adaptive functions, would say rising guilt is not necessarily bad. For instance, more guilt-prone people have been found to have more interpersonal empathy. What role does the demoralized, functional assessment of guilt on health play in relation to the Christian conception of guilt?

4 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

A: I agree with those who speak well of guilt! I am not against it, and in fact, I think one of the worst aspects of our modern, therapeutic approach to guilt is that we want to deconstruct it and eliminate it as a category of analysis. Guilt is a key aspect of what might be called our moral nervous system. It alerts us to our failures, and pushes us to make them right in some way. We should no more try to do without it than we should try to do without a nervous system because it causes us pain. That would be absurd. It’s essential that I be able to know, from the pain it causes, that putting my hand in a raging fire is not a good thing for my body. What we are not equipped to do, though, is dealing with the consequences of guilt. This is a problem that the post-Christian pseudo-secular environment that now

Deforestation from Wikimedia Commons, 2003

envelopes us in this culture is powerless to solve. We still have the reflexes of Judeo-Christian morality, but we do not have the transcendental faith that undergirded it. It’s like living in a house without a foundation.

Q: You write about how the secular world fails to address the persistence of guilt. How exactly does a Christian framework solve or alleviate the issue through the idea of unconditional redemption?

A: First of all, it recognizes that sin must be paid. That is central to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That tradition provides us a way to pay for our sins and be freed of the Slums built near a garbage dump in Jakarta by Jonathan McIntosh, 2003

But there is something grossly unseemly about the moral competition that goes on these days over who is the most victimized person or group. It begets a strange kind of moral complacency, an unwillingness to hear the voices of others, an easy resort to the language of “privilege” as a conversationstopper. power of guilt by being put back into right relation with the universe. The redemption of course is not unconditional; the one condition is acceptance of Jesus’ lordship, and through that, the appropriation of Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection as the payment for our sins. What we have in our general culture now, though, is a pseudo-secular world in which sin still exists—even if it is no longer called by that name—but there are no means of expiating, atoning, or otherwise breaking its power left to us.

Q: You write that, with no possibility of forgiveness and redemption in a world of sin, victimization becomes the only way to feel morally justified.

How does victimhood in one instance carry over to a general moral apathy in other areas?

To be clear, does the designation of victimhood lessen culpability for one person in her particular instance or generally for the social group to which she belongs as a whole?

A: Yes, I think it does lessen one’s perception of her or his culpability. And I don’t want to be cynical about this. There are genuine victims and acts of victimization in the world. Not every claim of victimization is manipulative or false. And as Christians, we are called to identify with the marginalized and the despised of the earth. But there is something grossly unseemly about the moral competition that goes on these days over who is the most victimized person or group.

It begets a strange kind of moral complacency, an unwillingness to hear the voices of others, an easy resort to the language of “privilege” as a conversationstopper. It begets a willingness to view other people as abstractions. In the Christian view, we all are sinners worthy of damnation; that’s the starting point.

It’s quite enough to do, to take in that thought and incorporate it into your view of reality, without setting out to win the victimization derby. For Christians, our deepest identity is in Christ. Period.

Q: Many Christians today wrestle with personal

[

Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia •

5

In the churches of which I’ve been a part, such things are almost always delegated by clergy to lay psychologists or psychiatrists.

We would be better off if we had churches and parishes and congregations that saw the act of confession as a central part of the work of reconciliation and healing that is central to the identity of the Church in the world. We know that confession is good for the soul, but it is more than a merely therapeutic requirement. “If we claim to be without sin,” in the words of 1 John 1:8, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (NIV). But, John continues, “if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (NIV). We need to restore an institutional mechanism whereby this process is realized on a regular and ongoing basis.

The Confession by Giuseppe Molteni, 1838

guilt that complicates and hinders their relationship with God. With the language of forgiveness, confession, and apology, how precisely was guilt better contained by Christianity in the past?

A: Well, I would never say that it was perfectly contained. But the Church has gradually shed its responsibilities in this area. Let’s consider the act of confession, something that used to be central to the liturgical and sacramental life of many churches but is increasingly rarely practiced, even in Catholic parishes.

Q: Could you expand a little more on Pascal Bruckner’s “Western masochism” as a cultural phenomenon arising out of vestigial moral reflexes?

What parallels or intersections does anti-Americanism have with the overall idea of guilt?

A: While I greatly admire Bruckner’s work, and he is very perceptive about the role of post-colonial guilt in guiding the self-destructive path of his Europe, I think he is too much of a Nietzschean for his own good.

A Christian is less likely to see guilt as a pathological phenomenon arising out of the death of God. Sometimes guilt is pathological, but not always, and we should be grateful for our capacity to feel guilt; the

A Christian is less likely to see guilt as a pathological phenomenon arising out of the death of God. Sometimes guilt is pathological, but not always, and we should be grateful for our capacity to feel guilt; the fact that we are able to do so is a measure of our moral stature.

6 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

That said, one way that the Christian faith allows us to live happy and harmonious lives in the face of a world that is filled with present and historical injustice and sin is that the Christian yields responsibility for the final accounting of things to a higher power. fact that we are able to do so is a measure of our moral stature.

Q: You contend that modern science cannot instruct us on how to live and cannot do anything to relieve guilt. How does Christianity provide practical answers or guidance, for instance, when determining the historical guilt of nations?

A: This is a hard question, partly because “the historical guilt of nations” is something very, very difficult to adjudicate. It is also important to point out that, while the Christian faith offers teaching about all things necessary to salvation, it does not offer a teaching about all things. There are issues of statesmanship and diplomacy involved in the settlement of treaties and agreements at the conclusion of wars, and these may draw in only the most general ways on the Christian faith. That said, one way that the Christian faith allows us to live happy and harmonious lives in the face of a world that is filled with present and historical injustice and sin is that the Christian yields responsibility for the final accounting of things to a higher power. All we can do is the task that God has put before us. The rest is His. Q: What are some concrete steps you would suggest that need to be taken to restore moral order and balance? How can competing pluralistic ideas realistically consolidate into one absolute morality in today’s secularized world?

Christ Pantocrator in St. Catherine’s Monastery by Anonymous, c. 500-600

Saint Peter's Basilica at night by Livio Andronico, 2015

A: I am open to all sorts of possibilities. It may be that hoping for a restoration of the cultural premises that would make repentance and atonement for sin into central features of our moral lives is not realistic. But that is what I would hope for.

[

Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia •

7

FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF DOING IT BY THE BOOK:

Old Book Bindings by Tom Murphy IV, 2005

A Defense of Sola Scriptura

By Eddie Pyun

8 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

O

n October 31 this year, a vast array of museum exhibitions, public lectures, scholarly conferences, and even poetry slams were held across Germany to celebrate the legacy of one certain German monk. The monk, of course, was Martin Luther, and these festivities were all to celebrate the 500 years since Martin Luther famously nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg in protest of abuses by the Catholic Church. Luther’s act of public protest sparked what would be perhaps the greatest schism in the history of the church­­—a divide whose effects are still acutely felt today. Luther’s most vocal grievances with Rome included certain Church leaders’ sale of indulgences, which claimed that people could pay their loved ones’ way out of purgatory, and the notion that one could contribute to one's own salvation with one's works.

These doctrines, Luther asserted, were not consistent with the biblical teaching that salvation was achieved by faith alone, not good works. Although the immediate subject of the theological debate concerned material issues, it was actually rooted in a disagreement about formal authority. While the Catholic Church claimed equal authority with Scripture in guiding faith and practice, Luther held that only Scripture could serve as an infallible authority: all church traditions and interpretations of the Bible, though helpful and often necessary for understanding the Bible, were fallible and subject to correction by Scripture. The notion that only the Bible had final and infallible authority was not new, as many of the early church fathers held a similar view, as well as predecessors to Protestantism like John Wycliffe (c. 1320-1384) and Jan Hus (13691415). During the Reformation, this view was for the first time articulated as sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), and it became the authoritative source of theology from which the rest of Reformed (Protestant) theology derives. According to this doctrine, the Bible alone held ultimate authority and clearly taught that salvation was by faith alone (sola fide)—not by faith and good works. To Luther, Scripture was unequivocal: the Church had to reform.

It is fair to say, then, that the whole of Reformed theology rests upon the truth of sola scriptura. Over the last half-millennium, numerous objections to sola scriptura have appeared, especially from Catholic apologists. The apparent strength of these objections has led many to be unconvinced by sola scriptura ever since the Reformation, and the Christian church remains sharply divided as a result. However, in light of the doctrine’s importance, it is apt—particularly given the occasion—to examine sola scriptura anew.

Although its meaning has unfortunately been distorted by some over the centuries, the doctrine as articulated

by the Reformers remains quite forceful even in the face of compelling opposition. All this is to demonstrate that the Reformation remains as relevant today as in Luther’s day.

Sola Scriptura: By Scripture Alone Luther famously articulated his view of Scripture’s supremacy at the Diet of Worms in 1521: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear rational argument (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”i According to this view, which came to be known as sola scriptura (Scripture alone), the Bible is the final and only infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice.

This means that Scripture is the highest authority in every matter on which it speaks, whether explicitly or implicitly, and it is sufficient of itself to provide the knowledge required for salvation and for following Christ. Other sources of doctrine or authority, such as church tradition, creeds and confessions, church councils, and preaching, may be helpful but are fallible (that is, able to err) and subject to correction by Scripture.

This doctrine is in contrast to other understandings of scriptural authority. The most notable one comes from the Catholic Church, and it is sometimes called the dual source theory or sola ecclesia (the Church alone).

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally authoritative as sources of doctrine, and are both subject to the infallible authority given to the Magisterium (especially the Pope) to interpret Scripture and Tradition.ii According to Catholic teaching, certain doctrines that are not taught (explicitly or implicitly) in Scripture but have been passed down via Sacred Tradition are equally legitimate as biblical doctrines; these include prayer to the saints, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because Scripture and Tradition are claimed by the Church to be of the same apostolic “deposit of faith,” the Catechism holds that the two can never be in conflict, despite any appearances to the contrary.iii This is because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. So, Scripture and Tradition hold equal authority concerning faith and practice, and the Church has final authority in interpreting them.

Although there are other understandings of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, I will focus my discussion here on objections from Catholic apologists, especially because they have provided the most forceful opposition to sola scriptura.

[

Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia •

9

If sola scriptura is true, then one must submit to the Bible's authority and reject any other claims to divine, infallible authority. But if it is false, then following it would require that one reject the authority that God himself has set up on Earth for our understanding of Scripture.

The implications of sola scriptura are enormous, as they directly concern how a person is to live out the faith and which authority to follow. If sola scriptura is true, then one must submit to the Bible’s authority and reject any other claims to divine, infallible authority.

But if it is false, then following it would require that one reject the authority that God himself has set up on Earth for our understanding of Scripture (i.e. the Catholic Church). In light of these last 500 years of Reformed theology, it is appropriate to examine whether this doctrine can withstand its many challenges.

Sola Scriptura: What it is—and What it is Not Before proceeding to the main objections to sola scriptura, it is necessary to first clarify what the doctrine claims and what it does not. As stated above, sola scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture alone has infallible authority to govern Christian faith and practice. The knowledge found in Scripture is sufficient to teach us the good news of our salvation and to

Luther at the Diet of Worms by Anton von Werner, 1877

10 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

rule our life of faith. All other sources of secondary authority, including tradition, preachers, the church, and catechisms, are fallible and subject to correction by the Bible. However, this definition has been distorted by some objectors (and even some proponents) over the centuries, resulting in confusion about what the doctrine actually says. As a result, opponents of sola scriptura sometimes focus their energies on refuting an incorrect distortion of the doctrine, while the doctrine as articulated by the Reformers remains intact.

Perhaps the most common misunderstanding of sola scriptura is the extreme view solo scriptura (or nuda scriptura), which holds that the Bible is the only thing needed for faith and practice—that it by itself is sufficient for all matters of Christian faith and practice.iv Instead of being the only infallible authority, the Bible is the only basis of authority according to this view. Adherents of solo scriptura reject all secondary authorities as misleading and useless—all you need to be a Christian is yourself and your Bible.

However, sola scriptura’s claim to sufficiency is only

a matter of ultimate authority; it acknowledges the need of secondary authorities, which are all fallible and subject to correction by Scripture.

The extreme view is obviously untrue and refuted

by Scripture—the Bible says Christians also need other things to live a life of faith, especially other Christians (the church). In 1 Corinthians 12, the apostle Paul says, “The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.”v And the New Testament is replete with exhortations for Christians to come together, as in Hebrews 10: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”vi Likewise, the Bible exhorts Christians to submit to other secondary authorities, like pastors and teachers,vii and biblical teaching traditions (which may often take the form of creeds and confessions).viii So while Scripture is the ultimate and only infallible authority over the Christian faith, it does not claim to be the only thing one needs to be a Christian. Therefore, solo scriptura is unbiblical and therefore self-defeating.

So that is the extreme view. Many objections against sola scriptura actually only defeat the extreme view, and since I have already demonstrated that the Bible does not support solo scriptura, I will not discuss those objections here (with one exception). Martin Luther by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, 1528 However, apologists continue to raise a number of “God-breathed”), not merely by men. In other words, noteworthy objections to sola scriptura. It is not possible Scripture is the Word of God. Since God’s authority in the scope of this article to respond to all of them, but is infallible and his Word is contained in Scripture, I will answer here to some of the most interesting and it follows that Scripture’s authority is also infallible. commonly raised responses, particularly by Catholics. Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible declares, The Debate 1. The most common objection to sola scriptura is that it is unbiblical and therefore self-refuting.

According to this objection, the Bible itself never claims, either explicitly or implicitly, to be the sole authority in spiritual matters; so it is incoherent to claim that it is.

It is true that the Bible never explicitly claims to be the only infallible authority. However, Scripture is actually replete with descriptions of God’s words as authoritative and supreme. Paul writes this in 2 Timothy: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”ix Here, Paul asserts the authority and inspiration of Scripture; it is “breathed out by God” himself (Gk. theópneustos, lit.

“Thus said the Lord,” and “God said,” several thousand times!x The New Testament recognizes itself as God’s Word as well; in 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.”xi And Scripture tells us that believers also accepted the New Testament as God’s Word: Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”xii But there is perhaps no greater argument in the Bible for sola scriptura than Jesus' own dedication to Scripture.

Throughout his entire ministry, Jesus quoted Scripture, demonstrated his belief in Scripture as spoken by God, and submitted himself to its authority. Whether in teaching, resisting Satan’s temptations, or rebuking the

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 11

So if God incarnate submits to unchanging, infallible Scripture, so too should the church. There cannot be a higher authority than what God himself has spoken, and he has spoken through his Word.

Pharisees, Jesus turned to Scripture—not to any Jewish teaching traditions—to guide his ministry. So if God incarnate submits to unchanging, infallible Scripture, so too should the church. There cannot be a higher authority than what God himself has spoken, and he has spoken through his Word. Scripture alone is God’s Word, and it alone has the final say on matters of faith and practice.

2. What about tradition? The Catholic apologist would certainly not deny that the Bible is God’s Word, but would perhaps deny the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture at this point, saying that the Church’s Sacred Tradition is also needed to understand what exactly God has commanded in Scripture.xiii So another

… But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.”xiv Jesus then quotes Isaiah to condemn the Pharisees: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”xv Jesus is clear: doctrines that come from tradition but do not accord with Scripture must be rejected. Tradition must serve Scripture.

3. Perhaps the Catholic apologist would now say that Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees’ doctrinal tradition does not apply to Catholic tradition because

Painting of Luther posting the 95 Theses

by Ferdinand Pauwels, 1872

objection to sola scriptura says that one must have an infallible authority to provide a singular correct understanding of Scripture. That authority, says the Catholic, is contained in the teaching tradition of the Catholic Church.

But Jesus himself teaches that even tradition must submit to the authority of Scripture, not the other way around. In Matthew 15, the Pharisees and scribes accuse Jesus' disciples of “breaking the tradition of the elders” for not washing their hands before eating. Jesus responds: “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother’

12 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

the latter was passed down by Christ via apostolic succession, whereas the Pharisees had no such Godgiven authority. Sacred Tradition, because it carries apostolic authority, is also God’s Word and is equally authoritative with Scripture. According to the Catholic Church, the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles and therefore had greatest authority; Jesus appointed Peter the first pope, and Peter’s supreme authority has been passed down to his successors via the papal office and Sacred Tradition.xvi But the doctrine of apostolic succession, too, is unsupported by Scripture. Catholic apologists frequently cite Matthew 16:18 as the basis for naming

Statue of Liberty by Will Hed

dington, 2006

Effigies praecipuorum illustrium atque praestantium aliquot theologorum by Hans Schwyzer, 1650

Peter the foundation of the Church: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”xvii However, the passage is ambiguous as to whether “this rock” refers to Peter himself or to the confession of faith he has just made in verse 16: “You are Christ, the Son of the living God.”xviii But Scripture offers little support for the first interpretation of Peter as the central authority of the Church, or for his primacy among the apostles. One text that is sometimes cited to argue for the primacy of Peter is found in Acts 15, when the apostles attend the Council of Jerusalem. xix Since Peter is the first to stand up and address the council after the debate on circumcision and the law, Catholic apologists ascribe to Peter authority over the council, including the other apostles. However, the apostle James is the one who delivers the final decision to the council on the matter of circumcision and the law, not Peter—so if anything, this passage would rather suggest that primacy belongs to James! Along similar lines, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul reports openly confronting Peter for eating only with Jewish Christians, accusing Peter of leading many astray.xx Catholic tradition does not question Paul’s status as an apostle, yet Paul speaks with apostolic authority as he rebukes Peter. Given these episodes, it is difficult to imagine how Peter could be supreme among the apostles. In contrast, there is abundant support for

faith in Christ as being the rock upon which the church is built.xxi All this is to say that Scripture designates no one outside of the original apostles as having special, infallible authority to interpret the Bible— Jesus' condemnation in Matthew 15 of the Pharisees’ tradition applies to all people who teach doctrine that conflicts with Scripture. The authority given to the apostles continues today not through human successors, but in the apostles’ writings in Scripture.

4. So if there is no infallible authority to interpret the Bible, how is anyone to arrive at a common, correct understanding of what it says? Opponents of sola scriptura point to the highly splintered nature of Protestant churches, saying that divisions and disagreements about doctrine are inevitable without an authority to interpret Scripture, and are in violation of Scripture’s call for unity in the church.xxii With so many denominations each claiming to have the truest understanding of the Bible, the vast majority of them, if not all of them, can have at best only a partial understanding of biblical truth.

It is certainly regrettable that the church today remains so deeply divided—Christ himself prayed that his people on Earth would be one.xxiii Even (and perhaps especially) among Protestant churches, different attitudes toward particular doctrines have been enough to divide the church into a plurality of denominations.

By contrast, the Catholic Church, though it contains

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 13

groups and individuals who object to some of the Magisterium’s teachings, may claim absolute, infallible authority by virtue of being the one true Church. Catholics might say that if anyone is in disagreement with the Church’s teachings on particular matters, it is not because of any fault in the Church’s doctrines and practices; it is merely because that person or group is not submitting to the authority of the Church. So even though divisions may exist within the Catholic Church concerning interpretation of Scripture (or interpretation of Tradition), such divisions are overridden by Catholics’ unity under a shared name and confession, and are therefore unproblematic for the Church. So how do Wittenberg Church doors from Wikimedia Commons (AlterVista), 2006 Protestants respond to their lack of a unifying authority to interpret the Bible? authority in interpreting Scripture, no Catholic can Even if such an authority existed on Earth, it claim to have an infallible understanding of what he would not position us better in terms of epistemology. says.

In his famous proposition I think, therefore I am, René But it is not such a big problem—for Catholics Descartes expressed his skeptical view—that I cannot or for Protestants—that we lack absolute certainty hold onto any of my beliefs with absolute certainty, in our Christian beliefs. God does not call us to except that I exist. And even this basic proposition has infallible knowledge of him—he calls us to faith been rejected as being overambitious, of claiming more in him and obedience to what knowledge has been truth than can be known beyond doubt. If our reason revealed in Scripture. We are able to approach a truer is inadequate to provide absolute certainty of anything understanding of the object of our faith through beyond such elementary propositions, then absolute examining the available evidence (revelation, especially certainty about something as complex as Christian in Scripture) and allowing it to guide us where it may.

If our reason is inadequate to provide absolute certainty of anything beyond such elementary propositions, then absolute certainty about something as complex as Christian beliefs is surely far beyond any person’s reach. beliefs is surely far beyond any person’s reach. We are fallible beings, and the limits of our reason determine how we learn about God. It is true that Protestants do not and cannot claim to have an infallibly correct understanding of the infallible Bible. But Catholics are not any better off. Even if the Pope has infallible

14 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

So, Protestants’ lack of a unifying infallible authority to interpret Scripture is unproblematic—even relative to the Catholics who voice this objection.

5. Another objection somewhat resembles the previous one, and concerns the biblical canon. The Bible itself does not contain a list of the books that

ought to belong in it. But, if the Bible is the only infallible authority on matters concerning the faith, as sola scriptura claims, that means we cannot know with certainty which books actually belong in Scripture.

And if we cannot know what counts as Scripture, how can one claim to follow the Bible’s teachings or submit to its authority? Since sola scriptura is unable to declare a certain canon on its own, it is self-refuting.

Most Christian traditions would agree that because the books contained in Scripture are God’s Word, they are infallible. But when it comes to which books actually belong in the Bible (i.e. which books are God’s Word), Protestants are unable to say with absolute uncertainty that their canon is correct. The Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul writes that Protestants occupy the unenviable position of having “a fallible collection of infallible books.”xxiv By contrast, the Catholic Bible purports to be an infallible collection of infallible books, assembled by God’s infallible authority on Earth. Unlike in my discussion of the previous objection, the Catholic Magisterium’s claim to infallible authority is quite useful with regard to the canon: the list of books included in the Catholic Bible is abundantly clear and not vulnerable to the pitfalls of fallible interpretation. Protestants have no such authority to give them the canon.

Again we encounter an issue of epistemology, this time concerning the justification of our beliefs.

(Philosophers differ widely on what constitutes justification for a belief, and it is beyond the scope of this article to explore that issue fully). One theory of justification is called reliabilism, and it says that one has a justified belief if and only if that belief is the result of a reliable process.xxv This is in contrast to evidentialism, which says that one has a justified belief if and only if that belief fits the available evidence.

Evidentialists reject inductive beliefs, e.g., that the sun will rise tomorrow, purely on the basis that there is no proof that it will. Reliabilists, however, might say that their belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is justified, because it has every day in the known past and shows no signs of stopping anytime in the near future.

The reliabilist view, though not without significant detractors, is closer to how humans actually think, and I will assume that view here. It is possible, certainly, that the sun will not rise tomorrow; for example, a black hole could swallow the sun up before it can rise. But the fact that it is possible that the sun will not rise does not make it likely by any stretch of the imagination. In the same manner, Protestants acknowledge there is a possibility that their canon could be wrong. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to critically evaluate the

Photograph of Martin Luther's Bible from Wikimedia Commons (Torsten Schleese), 1999

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 15

methods by which books were determined to be canonical. So I will simply say that rigorous testing for theological soundness and consistency by the early church fathers (especially Athanasius, who fixed the New Testament canon in 367 ADxxvii) with the context of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) have made it strongly unlikely that the canon could be wrong.

For most people, the possibility of the sun not rising tomorrow does not shake their belief that it will—nor should the possibility that the Protestant canon is incorrect.

6. Lastly, I will address the claim that sola scriptura is false because it is unhistorical. It is sometimes said that innovation is the first sign of heresy. If one suddenly claims to have a new understanding of God or Scripture that runs counter to time-tested

alone which may be made to harmonize with the intent of those writings.”xxx And Augustine himself said, “The faith will totter if the authority of the Holy Scriptures loses its hold on men. We must surrender ourselves to the authority of Holy Scripture, for it can neither mislead nor be misled.”xxxi These quotes—though they are merely a few—demonstrate the high view of Scripture held by some of the early church fathers.

To them, tradition was not to compete with Scripture for ultimate authority, but to submit to it. The idea of final infallible authority belonging to Scripture alone was present even in the early church, and we may say that the articulation of sola scriptura by the Reformers was an attempt to bring the church back to a historical understanding of Scriptural authority—not to subvert it.

But sola scriptura (though it was not given that label until the Reformation) appears to have been a foundational belief of the early church fathers, who are revered by Catholics and Protestants alike. orthodoxy, that claim should be cause for suspicion.

According to the objection, sola scriptura was one of these heretical innovations; it did not appear until Luther’s outburst against the Church, and it conflicted brashly with generations of Church wisdom and authority. Therefore, sola scriptura is unhistorical and false.

This objection, however, appears to target not sola scriptura but the extreme and relatively new doctrine solo scriptura, which I refuted earlier. Although it is difficult to trace the exact origins of solo scriptura, a complete rejection of tradition in favor of isolated Scripture appears to have first appeared in the 16th century by the Radical Reformers. That movement arose in response to the Reformation, its adherents claiming that Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin did not go far enough in condemning tradition, which could only corrupt the church’s understanding of Scripture.xxviii So solo scriptura certainly appears to be unhistorical. But sola scriptura (though it was not given that label until the Reformation) appears to have been a foundational belief of the early church fathers, who are revered by Catholics and Protestants alike. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, “For containing the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by the mere probabilities and artifices of argument.”xxix Gregory of Nyssa urged, “I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that

16 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

Many other objections exist against sola scriptura, but they cannot all be addressed in the scope of this article. I have demonstrated, however, that the doctrine presents a strong defense against the most interesting ones. Similarly strong responses exist for other objections to sola scriptura, and I invite the reader to investigate these him- or herself.

Sola Scriptura and the Reformation Today In the end, the influence of Luther’s movement for reform grew such that the Catholic Church had to respond. The Catholic Church launched its own Counter-Reformation at the Council of Trent between 1545 and 1563, a few decades after Luther fatefully nailed his theses to that door in Wittenburg. And although it did not go nearly as far in submitting to Scripture as Luther had demanded, the Church did reform, as it was forced to clarify many of its contested doctrines and reform some practices that had gone obviously awry. Luther’s theology, flowing from the ultimate authority of the Bible, would influence a generation of Reformers like John Calvin, Huldrich Zwingli, and John Knox, who labored to reaffirm the gospel of justification by faith alone, and of salvation by grace alone. While the Reformation’s legacy included elements like translating the Bible into the vernacular, abandoning superstition, and increasing literacy across Europe, its greatest effect was to guide Christians to submit to the authority of God’s breathed-out Word, where they would surely find him.

Today, alternative gospels are disseminated and

threaten to undermine the authority of Scripture. The Reformation and its most important doctrine, sola scriptura, remain as relevant as ever for those who seek truth in the Bible. Christians everywhere would do well to heed Scripture’s call to do so.xxxii David says this of God’s Word in the Psalms: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.

Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.”xxxiii Robert Kolb. Martin Luther: Confessor of the Faith, 92. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ii.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed., 80, 82, 95. iii.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 97. iv.

Keith A. Mathison. The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 248-50. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004. v.

1 Corinthians 12:21-22 (ESV). vi.

Hebrews 10:24-25 (ESV). vii.

1 Corinthians 10:28 (ESV). viii.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (ESV). ix.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV). x.

Exodus 14:1, 20:1; Leviticus 4:1; Deuteronomy 4:2; 32:48; Isaiah 1:10, 24; Jeremiah 1:11; Ezekiel 1:3; and many more. xi.

1 Corinthians 14:37 (ESV). xii.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (ESV). xiii.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 82. xiv.

Matthew 15:1-7 (ESV). xv.

Matthew 15: 8-9, Isaiah 29:13 (ESV). xvi.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880. xvii.

Matthew 16:18 (ESV). xviii.

Matthew 16:16 (ESV). xix.

Acts 15:1-21 (ESV). xx.

Galatians 2:11-14 (ESV). xxi.

Galatians 2:16 (ESV). xxii.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 (ESV). xxiii.

John 17:20-23 (ESV). i.

R.C. Sproul."Questions Answered." Ligonier Ministries. July 14, 2009. Accessed September 26, 2017. <http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/we-talkbible-being-inspired-word-god-would-men-wh/>. xxv.

Alvin Goldman and Bob Beddor, "Reliabilist Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). xxvi.

For further reading on the debate between reliabilist and evidentialist epistemologies, the reader is encouraged to consult Alvin Goldman’s “Innate Knowledge” (1975), and Richard Feldman and Earl Conee’s “Evidentialism” (1985) as helpful starting points. xxvii.

"Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter." Early Church Texts. Accessed October 07, 2017. <http://www. earlychurchtexts.com/public/athanasius_39th_festal_ letter.htm>. xxviii.

Mathison, 123-157. xxix.

A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17. xxx.

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", 439. xxxi.

Martin H. Manser, The Westminster Collection of Christian Quotations, 19. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. xxxii.

The author is indebted to Jonathan Park, Richard Williams, Keenan Wood, and Soonsoo Park for their most insightful and helpful commentary. xxxiii.

Psalm 19:7-11 (ESV). xxiv.

Eddie Pyun ’18 hails from suburban Philadelphia. He is majoring in Philosophy and Music.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 17

HISTORY'S JESUS: An Exploration of Historical Analysis

By India Perdue

A

cademics use historical analysis to discern truth from the shroud of myth, distortion, and omission brought on by the passage of time. Historical analysis does not claim to provide a complete narrative of history but whittles whole stories and civilizations down to what we can know with some certainty. It is an important and evolving tool for the academy, but one that Christianity has not always comfortably engaged. Historical analysis adheres to a principle of plausibility that can appear incompatible with an analysis of the supernatural works of Jesus. I think it is possible and fruitful to use historical analysis to explore Jesus' life. In this essay, I will endeavor to claim the historical validity of a few specific events of Jesus' life and illuminate some of the key themes and assertions of his ministry using the methodologies of biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and Helen Bond.

of historical analysis and this article. In a search for truth no method of analysis should be employed in isolation; instead, they should be viewed as one of many tools at our disposal as we explore history and the present.

Bart Ehrman questions the preservation of accuracy within the New Testament, primarily because of the roles of oral traditions, writer biases, language barriers, and dubious claims about the supernatural events in retelling Jesus' ministry. Ehrman contends that oral traditions in early Christian communities were bound to modify the memory of events surrounding Jesus' life. Mark, the oldest gospel, was likely not penned until 65-70 CE, over 30 years after Jesus' death. In the meantime, the stories of Jesus spread primarily through word of mouth.i We will assume that even if the gospel writers had every intention of accurately

Panoramic View over Old City Jerusalem from the Austrian Hospice from Wikimedia Commons, 2009

Historical analysis adheres to a principle of plausibility that can appear incompatible with an analysis of the supernatural works of Jesus.

In a commitment to a pure historical analysis I will concede the indefensibility of many assertions of the Christian church. Historical analysis and church doctrine may differ on the authorship, dating, and reliability of the New Testament, and on its treatment of miraculous claims. These assertions may be defensible through other equally valid mechanisms for exploring truth; however, I believe them to be outside the scope

18 â&#x20AC;˘ The Dartmouth Apologia â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2017 ]

portraying Jesus, time and tradition were bound to take their effect. Historical analysis cannot assume the writers of the gospels were perfectly objective in their descriptions of Jesus either. As early followers and shapers of Christianity, gospel writers wrote with theological motivation possibly at the expense of historic acuity. In each gospel we can discern how the authors use particular issues in the life of Jesus to make

theological claims or send a pointed message to their readership.

Another concern is that language transition may have happened early on in the retellings of the story of Jesus. As a Galilean, Jesus most likely spoke with his disciples in Aramaic, yet the entire New Testament is written in Greek.ii Some scholars find this to be a minute point, but for Ehrman it fundamentally challenges the traditional Christian assumption that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It also challenges the accuracy of direct quotations attributed to Jesus.iii Given the multicultural environment facilitated by the Pax Romana and its widespread commercial empire, scholars like Eric Meyers believe that Jesus was likely bi- or trilingual. In order to be successful as a carpenter, Jesus likely needed proficiency in several languages, including Greek.iv In the same way, those following Jesus must have had varying degrees of exposure to Greek. Jesus was very likely in the presence of men who heard his words in one language and were capable of recording them in another. Nevertheless, none of the claims in this paper necessitate accepting that the New Testament was definitively written by eyewitnesses.

The most difficult factor in creating a historically accurate retelling of Jesus is the nature of the supernatural assertions in which he is embedded.

Responsible historical review must be skeptical of supernatural claims and events, relying on probability to direct its inclinations. Jesus, or at least many accounts of him, claims a special relationship with divinity and consequently performs the miraculous. By

nature historical analysis will not confirm supernatural events, but we may develop a valid understanding of what was experienced and interpreted by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Scholars have developed a number of criteria to inform an accurate reconstruction of the historical Jesus.

Among Ehrman’s preferred methods are independent attestation and the principle of dissimilarity.v Ehrman himself concedes that all methods have limitations, that none can provide us with full assurance of validity, and that no event is necessarily fictional just because these criteria cannot support it. Criteria have been developed to be used in conjunction to create a more cohesive narrative. I will also explore one of Helen Bond’s methods which provides a broader scope to discern what claims we may make about the life of Jesus.

Independent attestation, as Ehrman describes it, assumes that an account that is described “by several witnesses who independently agree on a point at issue” is credible.vi Independent attestation is an effective tool for historic reconstruction because it takes advantage of both the quantity and distinction of sources.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeat many of the same accounts, often word for word, but we will not treat the three as independent sources. Instead, we will assume, as does most biblical scholarship, that Mark and an independent Source Q informed the writing of both Matthew and Luke. Thus, I will not consider events only depicted in Marcan or Source Q material, even if they appear in two or all of three synoptic

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 19

New Testament manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew from University of Pennsylvania Library, c.250

gospels, as independently reported. Using this idea, I pay special attention to events that are recounted in some combination of the synoptic gospels, the gospel of John, Paul’s letters, and early non-Christian sources like the Jewish historian Josephus.vii Employing these parameters, we can establish some basic facts about Jesus. Independent attestation allows us to conclude that Jesus did have exactly twelve apostles. Every gospel and Paul reference the twelve.viii Luke even describes the process of replacing Judas in the twelve in the very first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.ix Most likely, the number—but not the names of the apostles— was so well-preserved for the allusion it makes to the twelve tribes of Israel. We might then say with historical credibility that Jesus, implicitly or otherwise, represented the establishment of a new nation for the Jews not just retrospectively but in his own historical moment.

Jesus almost certainly performed “surprising deeds” as Josephus called them, depicted as healings, miracles, or signs by the gospel writers.x The specific miracles are more difficult to definitively determine. The only miracle that appears in all four gospel accounts is the feeding of the 5,000.xi Nevertheless, recurring types of miracles appear, including Jesus' demonstration of his control over nature by walking on water and producing a plentiful catch of fish.xii We can also say

20 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

that the ministry of Jesus was closely associated with healings. While John does not describe any of exactly the same healing miracles as Mark or Source Q, all three sources attribute healings to Jesus. Four different accounts of Jesus healing blind people appear in the gospels: two men described in Matthew, an account of Bartimaeus in Mark’s tradition, one reported by Mark but not by Matthew or Luke, and a single account in John.xiii Where time and retelling may have conflated or repeated stories of healing, we can affirm with confidence that these accounts originated in the wake of real events of the historical Jesus.

The second of Ehrman’s methods is the criterion of dissimilarity, which highlights events that the reporter may have had less vested interest in retelling.

The criterion assumes accounts that provide a degree of contradiction are more likely true. It is a paradoxical but well-suited mechanism for an analysis of Jesus.

This criterion rises from the idea that eager evangelists of early Christianity may have constructed stories and parables of Jesus to elaborate on what they understood his teachings to be. But while some accounts of Jesus are palatable and attractive to wide audiences, many certainly are not. Stories that do not as easily conform to the basic themes of Jesus' teaching or those which challenge closely held values of the Jewish community yet remain integral to early Christian teachings intrigue scholars and speak to the early church’s commitment to truthful retellings.

Critics of this method argue that we only uncover the limitations of our understanding of early JudeoChristian thought, and thus highlight only our own

Healing of the blind man of Jericho from Wikimedia Commons, c. 985

Jesus Feeds the Multitudes

by Unkown, c. 1873

constraints.xiv I find the tension between Jewish doctrine and early Christian claims valid and fruitful in discerning the authenticity of Jesus' historic position.

Given that so many of the early church leaders were committed Jews, where their new doctrine contends with Jewish tradition was surely of acute significance to them and to the early church.

Ehrman examines dissimilarity to make a case for the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, the betrayal

by Judas, and the crucifixion.xv The baptism, which is also supported by independent attestation, creates discomfort for early Judeo-Christian communities because it suggests a backwards hierarchy between Jesus and John. We can sense within the telling of Jesus' baptism that the story evokes discomfort for both the scene’s characters and the authors. Amidst claims of Jesus' high status and divinity, the submission to baptism is hard to explain.xvi None of the gospels can clearly justify the dynamic between John the Baptist and Jesus.xvii For this very reason, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus' baptism did actually occur.

The criterion of dissimilarity can also affirm that Jesus was preaching as a Jewish teacher and challenging Jewish religious leaders. His teachings to and about Jewish leaders caused discord within the early church. xviii In the gospels and in early Christian texts, Jesus preaches redemption not only to the Jews, but to the entire world. He promotes the expansion of God’s

grace toward the Gentile people.xix Luke and Paul are particularly adamant that Jesus is the savior for the Gentiles as much as for the Jews. Even Luke and Peter acknowledge the Jewish heritage of Jesus, and also place him at the synagogue and declare that he was sent by the God of the Jews.xx Despite the formation of an independent religion in Jesus' name, the historical Jesus must have practiced and affirmed Judaism.

Nevertheless, Jesus is depicted challenging Jewish Sabbath laws both in the synoptic gospels and in John. xxi In the synoptic gospels, he begins to challenge the keeping and interpreting of Jewish law in other ways as well. He declares that there will be no marriage in heaven, he challenges conceptions of ritual cleanliness, and he excuses his disciples from fasting.xxii Paul also presents Jesus like this in his letters, attributing the fulfillment of Hebrew Bible law to Jesus and specifically releasing Christians from the obligation to maintain Sabbath and food laws in Colossians.xxiii It is reasonable to dispute the validity of the specifics of any one event where Jesus challenged Jewish authority, particularly events unique to the synoptic gospels, but as a general feature of his ministry, Jesus' posture towards Jewish law depicted in the New Testament passes the scrutiny of historical analysis.

In the first century, there was no cultural precedent for a morally blameless religious figure to associate with the likes of prostitutes and tax collectors—the

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 21

“unclean.” Particularly in a Jewish context in which food and purity laws were held in high esteem, a Jewish teacher touching defiled people would have been striking. Nevertheless, Jesus is depicted in this way throughout his ministry.xxiv The same moral teacher who is broadly characterized by his teachings against sexual immorality and corrupt behavior also reportedly held extended conversations with, ate meals with, and defended the worst of offenders; Jesus even took the tax collector Levi (Matthew) as an apostle. xxv In this way, the depiction of Jesus also deviates significantly from standard Jewish practice, but also from any other prominent regional precedents. Unlike the Roman gods, Jesus was chaste towards women; uncharacteristic of followers of the Hebrew law, Jesus was consistently compassionate toward Gentiles.

By including these acts of Jesus in their gospels, early Christians not only have to reckon with a Hebrew God who has extended his compassion to the righteous of every nation; it seems they are pushed further to accept even the outcasts as equals in Jesus' new religion.xxvi The betrayal of Judas and the crucifixion both expose a shameful defeat that is hard to reconcile

Resurrection of Christ and Women at the Tomb by Fra Angelico, c.1440-2

and defeat for the worst of defenders, and a gruesome reminder of Rome’s power. In John’s gospel, Jewish authorities ask for Jesus' label, “King of the Jews,” to be qualified, for they want nothing to do with Jesus and his shame.xxviii Despite the defeat depicted in a criminal’s death at the hands of Jewish oppressors, these events of Jesus become cornerstone to Christian

The same moral teacher who is broadly characterized by his teachings against sexual immorality and corrupt behavior also reportedly held extended conversations with, ate meals with, and defended the worst of offenders. with a traditional Jewish conception of the victorious Messiah. The suggestion that one among them would betray the Savior is particularly jarring.xxvii It illustrates that it was possible to be in close relationship with Jesus, and still ultimately turn away from him. This had to be uncomfortable and disappointing for the early church. In modern rhetoric the depth of the shame of crucifixion goes unappreciated. In the Roman empire this was a form of public humiliation

22 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

tradition. The crucifixion story within Christian tradition was completely unprecedented. Had it not actually occurred, the budding religion would have adamantly denied the repugnant death of their savior rather than champion the event.

Bond provides a method of assessing the life of Jesus that I have dubbed the “footprint method.” She indicates that we can learn something of the historical Jesus by the wake he left behind. We cannot deny

We cannot deny that the personhood of Jesus evoked a radical new doctrine within and growing out from Judaism. that the personhood of Jesus evoked a radical new doctrine within and growing out from Judaism.xxix We are at the furthest bounds of historical analysis, but I suggest that we can be confident that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty because of the unconventional nature of the claim, the centuries-delayed grave veneration, the plethora of early Christian references to Jesus' resurrection—over 30 in the New Testament—and the extent to which orthodox Christian doctrine from the first moments was wholly contingent on it.xxx Whether we conclude that there was a divine resurrection or not, we can also say with scholarly confidence that the apostles were not involved in removing the body from the tomb. Their commitment, to the point of martyrdom, to a religion without benefits under the Roman empire and persecution by Nero, speaks to unwavering faith.xxxi If we, two thousand years later, know with confidence that Jesus did in fact die a criminal’s death at the hands of Roman authorities, yet his followers continued to proclaim him a victorious Lord, even to the point of their own deaths, something “of enormous magnitude” must have occurred.xxxii Many scholars have tried to isolate the historical Jesus from the religious Christ, as if the conception of deity on earth was little more than inspired by the moral teacher. Yet when we assess the dramatic conviction of Jesus' early followers and the rapid and persistent growth of the Christian community, it seems most likely that they were influenced by something much greater than grand legends. From the strength of their conviction, a global religion was born.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. (New York: Oxford UP, 1997), 40-44. ii.

Ehrman, 8. iii.

Ehrman, 193. iv.

From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. Video.

Directed by Marilyn Mellowes. 1998. 16:28-16:40. v.

Ehrman, 192-195. vi.

Ehrman, 192. vii.

Ehrman, 189. viii.

Matthew 10:1-5 (ESV); Mark 3:14-16 (ESV); Luke 6:13 (ESV); John 6:70 (ESV); Colossians 15:5 (ESV). ix.

Acts 1:12-26 (ESV). x.

Ehrman, 198. xi.

Matthew 14:13-21 (ESV); Mark 6:30-34 (ESV); Luke 9:10-17 (ESV); John 6:1-14 (ESV). i.

Mark 6:47-52 (ESV); John 6:16-21 (ESV); Luke 5:4-11 (ESV); John 21:1-11 (ESV). xiii.

Matthew 9:27-31 (ESV); Matthew 20:29-34 (ESV); Mark 10:46-52 (ESV); Luke 18:35-43 (ESV); Mark 8:22-26 (ESV); John 9:1-41 (ESV). xiv.

Ehrman, 193-194. xv.

Ehrman, 194-195. xvi.

Helen Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed. (London: Bloomsbury, 2013.) 84. xvii.

Matthew 3:13-16 (ESV); Mark 1:9 (ESV); Luke 3:21 (ESV); John 1:32-34 (ESV). xviii.

Acts 15 (ESV), Galatians 2:12-14 (ESV). xix.

Matthew 24:14 (ESV); John 3:16-17 (ESV); Romans 3:29 (ESV). xx.

Luke 4:15 (ESV); Romans 9:1-5 (ESV). xxi.

Matthew 12:1-14 (ESV); Mark 2:23-28 (ESV); Luke 6:1-11 (ESV); Luke 13:10-17 (ESV); John 5:118 (ESV). xxii.

Matthew 22:30 (ESV); Matthew 23:25 (ESV); Luke 11:39 (ESV), Mark 2:19 (ESV). xxiii.

Colossians 2:16-18 (ESV). xxiv.

Luke 5:12-13 (ESV). xv.

John 4:1-29 (ESV), Luke 19:1-7 (ESV), Luke 7:36-50 (ESV); Mark 2:13-17 (ESV). xvi.

Isaiah 56:6-8 (ESV). xxvii.

Mark 14 (ESV), John 18 (ESV). xxviii.

John 19:21(ESV). xxix.

Bond, 174. xxx.

Bond, 170; 1 Corinthians 15 (ESV). xxxi.

Tacitus, “The Annals.” The Internet Classics Archive | The Annals by Tacitus. xxxii.

1 Corinthians 15:54-57 (ESV); Acts 7:54-60 (ESV); Ehrman, 390; Bond, 174. xii.

India Perdue ’19 is from Springfield, Virginia. She is a prospective double major in Government and Sociology.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 23

From Eve to Mary:

What “A Woman’s Place” Means in the Bible

Centre light of the triple window in the northwest gable, depicting the Immaculata from Wikimedia Commons (Andreas F. Borchert)

24 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

By Debora Hyemin Han

T

hough not always in the same ways, religion and oppression of women have gone hand in hand across centuries and cultures.

Christianity has experienced this issue in the past— and continues to do so today, to an extent. Thus, as society seeks out a more equitable form of gender equality, more and more women find it necessary to defend their faith to others and to themselves. The kind of inequality women experience today, however, is less overt than may have been experienced in the past. While women may not find themselves forced to perform certain tasks or prevented from taking part in activities simply because of their gender, the attitudes inculcated about women through biblical

Eve and Mary are two principal figures that show the extent to which women play some of the most crucial roles in, and are actually essential to, the realization of God’s plan for salvation. In this article, their narratives, both as their own entities and as connected accounts, are used to examine God’s esteem of women as well as how he uses these women to reveal himself to humans.

I. Eve as the First Sinner Eve is an archetype of sorts for feminist criticism of the Bible and of the Christian religion. Believers and non-believers alike point to her as the case which proves that in God’s story, women are portrayed as

How can a self-aware, “intelligent” woman who demands gender equality also believe in a religion and a God that appears to favor male dominance? teachings create a nuanced issue for the modern Christian woman.i That is, these attitudes give rise to the question: How can a self-aware, “intelligent” woman who demands gender equality also believe in a religion and a God that appears to favor male dominance?

For both the believer and non-believer, it may be instinctual to question why God acted in the way he did in the Bible. Miriam Kessler once satirized,

lesser and weaker, if not simply more evil, than men, for bringing sin into the world.

Where at that Last Supper was a woman?

Someone to pour the wine, A cautionary voice that might have said Take it easy, boys.

This kind of thing could get a fellow killed A Seder without women, kids?

I’d edit the entire script.ii In similar spirit, we may wonder why it seems that the “heroes” of the Old Testament were all men or why there are no women among Jesus’ disciples. iii We may ask why women played secondary roles in many instances, if even appearing at all. In asking such questions, however, we find only fruitless exercises in hypotheticals.

We might better determine God’s stance on women by examining the passages he gives in the Bible. As we do so, we may do well to avoid the word “misogynistic” in our thinking, because we are not considering whether the claims that God hates women are true or not, but rather we are asking whether it is true that women do not play an equally important role in achieving God’s will and providence.

"Eve and the Serpent" by Henri Rousseau, ca.

1905-07

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 25

"Chora Anastasis"

by Gunnar Bach Pedersen

To assert that women are somehow the creators of sin is not evident, given the origin of temptation through the serpent. While it is true that woman was the first to sin, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she was the “creator” of it; we could instead say that she was a participant in it. In fact, Ester Sowernam says that the serpent, which displays "male" qualities, can actually be taken to represent man’s first temptation of woman through the form of the snake.iv Thus, no gendered interpretation of the Fall ends up victorious for either sex.

More importantly, a close analysis of the text describing the Fall reveals a different narrative than one that blames Eve. Before God even enters into

and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.v If we assume that all of these verses occurred during the same period of time (that is, Eve decided to eat the fruit right after she and the serpent finish their discussion), we see that Adam was present during the conversation between Eve and the serpent, and seemed to have no objections to the subject. If we assume that

While it is true that woman was the first to sin, it doesn’t necessarily follow that she was the “creator” of it; we could instead say that she was a participant in it. the Garden, the text establishes an equal share of responsibility between Adam and Eve. In the first five verses of Genesis 3, Eve and the serpent discuss the possible repercussions that may or may not follow the act of eating the forbidden fruit. In the verses that follow, the act is committed: When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye,

26 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

the verses occurred in separated periods of time (that is, Eve decided to eat the fruit at a time separate from the conversation with the serpent) , we still see that he willingly partook in the same act she did.vi Importantly, we see no record of any sort of prompting from Eve for Adam to do so. Despite the fact that women are so often typecast into the role of a temptress in reference to this occurrence, Eve’s lack of request shows that she never acted in this capacity: Adam followed Eve

The TheWorld WorldTrade TradeCenter Centerininthe th September September11 11Attacks Attacksby byPre Pr

In God’s eyes, both Eve and Adam are seen as broken; neither more so than the other.

e Aftermath he Aftermathofofthe the eston restonKeres, Keres,2001 2001

in sin according to his own free will. Accordingly, the repetition of the pronoun “they” in the text reinforces this idea of equal responsibility, signaling joint action.

We might maintain, however, that Eve did play a catalyst role in sinning—that even though she may not have forced the act upon Adam, by sinning first, she encouraged Adam to do the same. This is the argument that Adam himself tries to pursue when God asks what has happened. Genesis 3:12 says, “The man said, ‘The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.’” God then goes on to say to Eve, “What is this you have done?”vii However, God does not stop with this question that seems to principally accuse Eve of wrongdoing: he goes on to punish both Adam and Eve for their freely made choices. God does not allow Adam to blame Eve entirely, nor does he allocate full responsibility of sin’s entering into the world to Eve. In God’s eyes, both Eve and Adam are broken; neither more so than the other.

hence no need of a Savior… Here is the reason why in all the Biblical researches and higher criticisms the scholars never touch the position of woman.viii While her remarks no doubt reflect a level of bitterness, it also reveals a truth that readers may also overlook: that God used woman as the first actor in carrying out his redemptive will.

Humans, being fallible and imperfect, were always given the free will to sin or not; that woman was the first to use this free will to sin need not be deterministic of woman’s status as seen in the Bible.

In fact, through Eve, God shows humans’ need for Jesus Christ and salvation—a need that comes from sin. Adam, who was also imperfect and unable to withstand temptation, likewise demonstrates that

II. Eve as the First to Fall Eve’s case not only illustrates God’s equal treatment of man and woman in the first fall of mankind into sin, but also shows how woman is a key component of the road to salvation. In order to need redemption, one must first fall. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton once asserted, without Eve and without the Fall, God’s plan to reveal His glory through Jesus would not have come to fruition: Take the snake, the fruit tree and the woman from the tableau, and we have no fall, no frowning Judge, no Inferno, no everlasting punishment—

"Panel 16 - God warning Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge" from Cathedral Notre-Dame de Chartres

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 27

The promise that God gives to Eve even at the moment of the Fall shows that God never once forsook woman or relegated her to be the lesser. humans are not able to exist in righteousness through our own ability. Without their transgression—the first, but certainly not the last of its kind—the rest of the plot of the Bible would be unnecessary. Without sin, we would not need Jesus.

Most importantly, through the punishment God gives to Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit, we see how God reverses sinful nature and rectifies humans through his divine plans. Adam’s punishment is to cultivate the land that is cursed through “painful toil” and to continue to live until he returns from the ground, “since from it you were taken.”ix To Eve, however, God gives the punishment of pain in childbirth, but he still gives her the role of giving birth nonetheless.x Sowernam asserts that this role is not actually a punishment, but rather a “work of mercy” that is the most joyful of all.xi Sowernam’s assertion is best exemplified through another woman’s role in the Bible—Mary and her role as mother of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world.

III. Mary as the Vessel of Salvation The promise that God gives to Eve even at the moment of the Fall shows that God never once forsook woman or relegated her to be the lesser. In fact, we might conjecture that God had always had it in his plan to glorify woman, as the prophecy-like verse in

regards to the serpent’s punishment reads: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”xii Her offspring, in this case, is Jesus Christ. According to author Scott Hahn, this is God’s way of “elevating” woman to a position that resolves the initial fall.xiii Sowernam, in her Answer to a Lewd Pamphlet, also supports the view that woman’s role in giving life is of far greater weight than her sin in the world. She writes, “Of all the works of mercy which mankind may hope for the greatest, the most blessed and the most joyful is promised to woman.”xiv Further, she says, “Though she lost Paradise, ‘she is, by this, made a means to recover heaven.’”xv Genesis foreshadows this coming salvation and rectification during God’s condemnation of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, woman’s “offspring” in this verse being Jesus Christ.

It is also interesting to notice the complete reversal of woman’s status through Mary, a virgin who has done everything in the appropriate manner before marriage to Joseph. The portrayal of woman and her virtue as to be able to give birth to the Savior of the world is quite contrary to the initial Fall narrative. This change might mirror the kind of transformation all humans undergo before and after receiving salvation. Further, woman’s ability to give birth reflects the gift of creation that

"Cristo y la mujer adultera" by Pieter van Lint

28 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

"Miriams Tanz, Miniatur aus dem bulgarischen" Tomić Psalter by Tarnovo literary and art school

God gives to humans through other means as well, such as art, writing, engineering, etc. Giving birth is one of the most powerful ways that this gift of creation is demonstrated, as it is a process in which one being gives life to another human being.

Here, some may object that even if woman, Mary, was exalted, it was under the restriction of being a virgin, and that this undermines her exaltation.

This objection spills into the modern question of expectations for “sexual purity” that apply to women, but perhaps not necessarily to men. While the Mary narrative indeed may have been used to put pressure women to be sexually conservative and reserved, especially in comparison to men, there is nothing in the Bible that supports this standard being exclusive

We see also that God’s use of women as key actors in actualizing salvation continues after Mary, through Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women who were with them after Jesus' resurrection. The Bible records that they were the first to seek Jesus’ tomb with prepared spices—an admirable act that shows their devotion and dedication to Jesus, and their faith in his holiness. While some might question this duty of women to do such work as tending after dead bodies or performing more servile acts such as bringing spices, what should be of greater interest here is that the women were the ones who came to Jesus' tomb while the disciples fled after his death. Because of their dedication, the women were the ones who discovered that the tomb was empty.xvii

Giving birth is one of the most powerful ways that this gift of creation is demonstrated, as it is a process in which one being gives life to another human being. to women. This reading of Scripture is simply another misuse of Bible text for the systematic oppression of women. There are various verses in the Bible that warn against sexual “impureness” for men as well, such as in Matthew 5, which says that a man who even looks at another woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.xvi While one may not agree with the need for strict sexual purity, we find that this purity used to describe Mary is no different from the standard used to describe the purity of a man.

John recorded Mary Magdalene as reporting to the disciples that the tomb was empty—and it was her testimony that prompted Simon Peter to investigate for himself.xviii Afterwards, Jesus appears in the flesh to Mary Magdalene, telling her not to weep, but to tell others—specifically, his disciples—that he had risen.xix This effectively made Mary, a woman, the first witness of the resurrection and the first to spread the good news. While Luke records the disciples as not believing this testimony at first, we see that women were the

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 29

first chosen deliverers of the good news, which is at the foundation of the Christian belief.xx Even if one does not believe in the resurrection, when looking at the narrative as simply a narrative or story, one cannot deny that women play a critical role in actualizing salvation.

women in knowing that God’s treatment of Eve and Mary—the two most well-known and foundational instances of women in the Bible and in both the Old and New Testaments—shows the equal esteem and attention God grants to women as he does men.

Through these two women, we can avoid the supposed

...we are reminded that there is nothing that might qualify or justify humans’ participation in God’s will: regardless of the aspects that define mankind, it is purely God’s grace that invites each individual into him.

V. Conclusion There is still much to unpack about woman’s place in God’s providence and the Bible, including women’s gender roles, expectations in or implications of marriage, and women in leadership positions, to name a few. However, there is encouragement for modern

barrier of inequality, which could prevent a selfrespecting woman with expectations of full equality with man from totally following the Christian religion.

These narratives not only show that God does not view woman as “lesser” or “more evil” than man, but also serve to demonstrate humans’ crucial progression from sinfulness to forgiveness. Woman plays a pivotal role in displaying God’s love and plan for humans.

The aim of this article was not to assert that women are more important in the salvation narrative than men, or to point out flaws that males have exhibited in the Bible. Rather, we see that it is not true that man is the primary vehicle in the story of salvation—which might suggest that God favors men—but rather that, in God’s eyes, gender does not play a factor in whom he decides to use to carry out his will. In fact, we are reminded that there is nothing that might qualify or justify humans’ participation in God’s will: regardless of the aspects that define mankind, it is purely God’s grace that invites each individual into him.xxi There are exceptions to this, certainly outside the Christian faith as well as within it, such as the prevention of women from becoming priests in certain religious denominations. However, these are derivative from the main purpose of this article and as such will not be addressed. ii.

Miriam Kessler in Ostriker 1997: 186, as it appears in Jacobs, Maretha M. “Feminist Scholarship, Biblical Scholarship and the Bible.” Neotestamentica 35, no. 1/2 (2001): 81-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43048417. iii.

Here, we might note some heroines of the Old Testament, such as Deborah (Judges), Ruth (Ruth), Tamar (Genesis), etc. iv.

Jacobs, Maretha M. “Feminist Scholarship, Biblical Scholarship and the Bible.” Neotestamentica 35, no. 1/2 (2001): 81-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43048417. v.

Genesis 3:6-7. vi.

In fact, there is discussion about the significance of the phrase “with her” and its implications on equal i.

"Maria Verkündigung" by Lorenzo Costa

30 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

"Christ and the Adulteress detail"

by Lucas Cranach Tbe Younger

participation of sin. See Parker, Julie Faith. “Blaming Eve Alone: Translation, Omission, and Implications of ['With Her'] in Genesis 3:6b.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013): 729-47 for further reading on debate on the translation of this phrase and its effect on interpretation. vii.

Genesis 3:13. viii.

Jacobs, Maretha M. “Feminist Scholarship, Biblical Scholarship and the Bible.” Neotestamentica 35, no. 1/2 (2001): 81-94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43048417. ix.

Genesis 3:17-19. x.

Genesis 3:16. xii.

See Ester Hath Hang’d Haman: Or an Answere to a Lewd Pamphlet Entituled, “The Arraignment of Women” 1617, written by Ester Sowernam in response to Joseph Swetnam’s The Arraignment of Women two years prior, as it appears in Harvey, Richard. “Early English Feminism and the Creation Myth.” The Historian 54, no. 1 (1991): 35-48. http://www.jstor. org/stable/24447931. xii.

Genesis 3:15. xiii.

Hahn, Scott. “Scott Hahn on Our Lady.”

Catholic-Pages.com, www.catholic-pages.com/ bvm/hahn.asp. xiv.

Sowerman, Ester. Ester Hath Hang’d Haman as it appears in Harvey, Richard. “Early English Feminism and the Creation Myth.” The Historian 54, no. 1 (1991): 35-48. http://www.jstor. org/stable/24447931. xv.

Sowerman. xvi.

Matthew 5:28. xvii.

See Luke 24, for example. xviii.

See John 20 for the full account. xix.

See Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20 for the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection. xx.

Luke 24:11. xxi.

I am much indebted to Jake Casale, the editor of this article, whose unwavering mentorship,

feedback, and vast biblical knowledge filled in gaps in the piece and helped me consider questions formative to my spiritual growth. I also extend my thanks to my copy editor, Hailey Scherer, whose meticulous suggestions honed the clarity of the writing as well as the argument. Finally, I thank my family and friends, both Christian and nonChristian, who constantly push me to refine my faith and the reasons for holding it.

Debora Hyemin Han ’20 is from Syracuse, New York.

She is a prospective major in Government with a double minor in Philosophy and Chinese.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 31

The Numinous

Sunlight Streaming through Trees from Pixabay, (“Couleur”)

32 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

and the

Natural:

Christianity and Environmentalism

A

professor at the University of Maryland offered the following extra credit question to his social psychology class:

“You can each earn some extra credit on your term paper. You get to choose whether you want 2 points added to your grade, or 6 points. But there’s a catch: if more than 10% of the class selects 6 points, then no one gets any points. All selections are anonymous, and the course grades are not curved.”i

Students at UMD wrestled with the question: Was it better to choose two points, thereby increasing the chances that all students would benefit? Or was it better to choose six points and try to get ahead? In this exercise, the psychology professor demonstrated the Tragedy of the Commons.

The Tragedy of the Commons, a concept in game theory and psychology, is the idea that a publicly available resource, if used by each person in moderation, would allow a system to thrive.ii The tragedy, however, is that we most often try to take more for ourselves, harming the common good. As a result, the group is left with an unfavorable outcome as the resource disappears.iii The Tragedy of the Commons, aside from being an interesting psychological test, is the paradigm through which the abuse of the natural world occurs.

At UMD, the resource was socially constructed grade points. In the real world, we vie for natural resources such as water, food, and land. They are within the domain of the public, but individuals or

By Jeffrey Poomkudy The nature of our environmental problem, caused both by our relation to one another and by our relationship to nature, is quite dire. Rampant pollution and extensive waste resulting from technological obsolescence, both planned and unplanned, create massive landfills.iv Throwaway culture dominates the world, driven by an insatiable consumerism.v Thirty to forty percent of the food supply in the United States goes to waste.vi Pollution has resulted in a dearth of safe drinking water, and drought plagues regions of the world.vii There is an alarming loss of biodiversity; humans destroy tropical rainforests, which have come into existence over the course of 60 million years, at a rate of 80,000 acres per day. viii We lose 135 species of plants and animals daily.ix The Great Barrier Reef is dying.x And, perhaps most notably, the climate is rapidly changing as the world is seeing an unprecedented rise in CO2. Right now, the atmospheric CO2 is approximately 400 ppm (parts per million) by volume, and it had never exceeded 300 ppm in the Earth’s long history until 1950.xi Because of this rise in CO2, sea levels and global temperatures are rising, the oceans are warming, Arctic ice sheets are melting, extreme weather events are becoming commonplace, and oceans are acidifying.xii As the world faces the consequences of humancaused climate change, the evidence for which is highly conclusive, Christianity has been largely silent.

Lynn White Jr., a medieval scholar at Princeton in the 1930s, wrote that “…Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.”xiii Lynn

The Tragedy shows us that the destruction of the environment is an issue regarding not only how people relate to one another, but also how we relate to nature. corporations will try to maximize yield. The result is the depletion of invaluable resources and numerous negative externalities. The Tragedy shows us that the destruction of the environment is an issue regarding not only how people relate to one another, but also how we relate to nature. There is a popular understanding of nature as being nothing but a stock of resources, like points, which can be allocated to individuals.

Humans as a whole behave as if we are the masters of nature, allocating resources like chips in political and economic dealings.

argues that Christian thought had allowed human beings to be put on a pedestal. It is indeed pernicious both to nature and to humankind to think that humans are vastly superior to nature and that nature is just a collection of resources. Unfortunately, the idea has been common in Christian intellectual circles since medieval times and has shaped much of the modern era. In early Christianity, however, this was not always the case.

Early Christians respected nature deeply. The liturgical calendar was arranged to reflect the seasons.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 33

Saint Francis in the Desert by Giovanni Bellini, c.1480

The Easter season, a period of renewal and rebirth, reflects the blooming perennials and the new beginnings of springtime.xiv Christmas takes place days after the winter solstice, the longest night of the year. Liturgical celebrations, too, make use of important natural symbols. For example, in baptism, water cleanses and purifies. Theologians throughout early Christianity also recognized the wisdom of nature, seeing nature as a teacher and a source of knowledge of God. Learning from nature has a deeply biblical basis: “But now ask the beasts to teach you, the birds of the air to tell you; Or speak to the earth to instruct you, and the fish of the sea to inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of God has done this? In his hand is the soul of every living thing, and the life breath of all mortal flesh.”xv Theologians like Thomas Berry, a Jesuit priest, argue that for early Christians, divine revelation came from both the Bible (revealed theology) and the natural world (natural theology). Thomas Aquinas, a prominent thirteenth-century Scholastic, used nature to ground many arguments about God, perhaps most notably the teleological argument in his quinque viae for the existence of God.xvi Aquinas often grounded his analyses in the generalities of the physical world. xvii John Ray, the Protestant naturalist who wrote The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Creation in 1691, demonstrated how we can learn about God through the form and function of the natural world. John

34 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

Duns Scotus, a medieval philosopher, argued that our knowledge of the world begins with our interaction with God’s creation.xviii In his book Spiritual Meadow, seventh-century Byzantine monk and ascetic John Moschus describes the vernal beauty of a meadow and compares its botanical diversity to the virtues needed in a godly soul.xix To early Christians, nature was a path to God. Thomas Berry attributes a more radical change in humans’ attitudes toward nature to the outbreak of the bubonic plague, when nature became a more distant, antagonistic character.xx When a third of Europe died in the plague, people thought God was punishing them. The result was repentance and withdrawal from the world as Christian spirituality became more inwardly focused.xxi Christians began to neglect the glorification of God through nature and saw nature as a tool for sustenance. In the Industrial Revolution that followed, “…technology took over and exploited the planet because religious persons had abandoned it.”xxii The results have been deeply detrimental to the environment.

The answer to human-caused climate change lies in radical change. It must be a change in the hearts and minds of individuals. Pope Benedict XVI said, “The external deserts are growing because the internal deserts have become so vast.”xxiii We have become numb to the destruction of the world and

When experiencing the numinous, we can feel God as an entity transcending phenomenal existence. seek out quick policy solutions. Policy and action initiatives, including increasing funding for research into renewable energies, are very important, but they can only delay an inevitable process. Christianity, however, offers a holistic understanding of the natural world that can change how we approach the natural world in our daily lives. A Christian understanding of nature, grounded in the spiritual and enriched by the scientific, can allow us to see God more clearly in nature and can compel us to save our natural world.

A spiritual understanding, or a numinous consciousness, is necessary to understand the transcendent nature of the natural world. “Spiritual,” here, refers to an understanding of nature that is grounded in an abstract sense of connection to the transcendent. It is not fully emotional or fully intellectual, but it reflects our deep human desire to be connected to something larger than ourselves.

Numerous historical figures have commented on the human desire to interact with nature in this manner. In his Philosophical Enquiry in 1757, Edmund Burke defined interactions with nature associated with strong emotion or awe as the sublime. Kant, in his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, held that the sublime was either terrifying, noble, or splendid.xxiv It is through this epic, largerthan-life emotional understanding of nature that we are able to see the greatness of God’s creation. Icelandic philosopher Páll Skúlason understood that contact with the numinous was necessary to understand one’s place in the world. After experiencing the numinous in front of the volcano Askja in Iceland, he wrote, “Coming to Askja was for me like coming to earth for the first time and discovering myself as an earthling: a being whose very existence depends on the earth, a being who can only be itself by relating to this strange, overwhelming and fascinating totality, which is already there and forms an independent, objective, natural world…”xxv The “sublime” was central in the works of Romantic painters like Caspar David Friedrich, whose Wanderer above the Sea of Fog shows the interface between humans and nature.

The American Transcendentalist movement, spearheaded by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, also recognized the role of nature in spirituality. There seems to be a transcendent quality in nature that humans yearn to experience.

The transcendent quality of nature is properly contextualized within the Christian framework.

Christianity offers a spiritual understanding of the sublime that is rooted in Christ. When experiencing the numinous, we can feel God as an entity transcending phenomenal existence. If we are made in God’s image, then the world is God’s reflection. Every chirping bird, gushing brook, mighty tree, and growing plant sings God’s praises. Saint Francis of Assisi knew it well as he sung the Canticle of the Sun: Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars; in the heavens you have made them, precious and beautiful. Be praised, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air, and clouds and storms, and all the weather, through which you give your creatures sustenance.

Be praised, my Lord, through SisterWater; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure...xxvi Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Freidrich, 1818

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 35

Smokestacks by Alfred T. Palmer, 1942

All the creatures of the earth and the earth itself were created to glorify God. Every single ant to the mightiest whale is immensely beautiful and purposive, driven toward survival. The universe itself is a “secular cathedral.”xxvii The immense beauty of the earth evokes such a deep response that it requires “the respect and submission of man’s intellect and will.”xxviii Every time we experience the sublime, we are able to experience God more fully.

Scientific considerations can also deepen our spiritual response to the natural world. We are connected to the incredible plants and creatures around us: we are connected to everything by a common ancestor. Understanding that billions of years of developing along with creatures of the earth is truly humbling. Berry states, “We are what we are because

on and responsible for them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other.xxx

A scientific understanding of nature then provides the lens through which we may acknowledge our interconnectedness with each other and with Creation, and therefore reaffirm our responsibilities to both. By acknowledging our interconnectedness in the world, we are able to develop a more coherent spiritual

We are connected to every single living thing in this world through our membership as entities in the fabric of the universe. everything is what it is.”xxix When we harm one thing, we harm everything because all creatures are caught up in a complex web of ecological relationships. We are connected to every single living thing in this world through our membership as entities in the fabric of the universe. As much as we are connected to the other living creatures around us, we are also both dependent

36 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

understanding of the world.

In a world in which the movie Wall-E seems prophetic, the demands on Christians and all of humanity are quite serious. Love for the earth is in turn love for God and his handiwork. A lack of this love would have dire consequences for all creatures. The Book of Revelation says the time will come when God will “destroy those who destroy the earth.”xxxi Similarly,

the Book of Isaiah says, “The earth is polluted because of its inhabitants… Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants pay for their guilt.”xxxii Because of our immense output of greenhouse gases, humans may soon face the tragic results of our cumulative actions. xxxiii Christianity, however, can change the posture with which we approach the natural world by giving us a deeply spiritual understanding of nature. Nature can become a source of spiritual edification; we can view nature as a teacher of the Divine, a holy cathedral, and a link to all of creation. The environment, when seen through a Christian lens, becomes an insurmountable force in our everyday lives—a force to be respected and cherished.

Dylan Selterman, “Why I give my students a ‘tragedy of the commons’ extra credit challenge,” The Washington Post (Washington DC), July 20, 2015, 1. ii.

Selterman, 2. iii.

Selterman, 2. iv.

Syed Faraz Ahmed, “The Global Cost of Electronic Waste,” The Atlantic, September 29, 2016, 1-2. v.

Letter by Pope Francis, “Laudato si,’” May 24, 2015, Rome, 17. vi.

“Office of the Chief Economist,” United States Department of Agriculture. vii.

Carl Ganter, “Water crises are a top global risk,” World Economic Forum. viii.

Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World’s Rainforests,” Scientific American, 1. ix.

“Measuring the Daily Destruction…,” 1. x.

Editorial Board, “The Great Barrier Reef is dying,” The Washington Post (Washington DC), March 19, 2017, 1. xi.

NASA, “Climate change: How do we know?,” Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. xii.

NASA, «Climate change,» Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. xiii.

Lynn White, Jr, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155, no. 3767 (March 10, 1967): 1205, digital file. xiv.

Thomas Berry, The Christian Future and the Fate of Earth, ed. Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009), 13. xv.

Job 12:7-10 (NABRE). xvi.

Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.2.3. xvii.

Berry, 86. xviii.

Berry, 87. xix.

Doru Costache, “John Moschus on Asceticism and the Environment,” Colloquium 48, no. 1 (May 2016): 26. xx.

Berry, 63. xxi.

Berry, 61. i.

Berry, 62.

Letter by Pope Francis, “Laudato si.’” 158. xxiv.

Immanuel Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965), 48. xxv.

Páll Skúlason, “On the Spiritual Understanding of Nature” (lecture, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH, April 15, 2008). xxvi.

St. Francis of Assisi, «The Canticle of the Sun,» Webster University. xxvii.

Ross Andersen, “Nature Has Lost Its Meaning,” The Atlantic, November 30, 2015, 12. xxviii.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 341. xxix.

Berry, The Christian Future, 53. xxx.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 341. xxxi.

Revelation 11:18 (NABRE). xxxii.

Isaiah 24: 5-6 (NABRE). xxxiii.

Michael Mann, “Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036,” Scientific American, April 1, 2014, 1. xxii.

xxiii.

Jeffrey Poomkudy ’20 is from Old Westbury, New York. He is a prospective double major in Biology and Philosophy.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 37

Wonder Woman Is Love Really

By Hailey Scherer t the climax of the 2017 film Wonder Woman, the eponymous superheroine must decide whether humanity deserves to be saved.

Ares, the Greek god of war, encourages mankind to destroy themselves by tempting them to violence, orchestrating the brutalities of World War I. Wonder Woman has the opportunity to save humanity, but, especially in light of the human cruelty she witnesses in battle, she struggles with the fact that humans freely choose to commit such atrocities to each other. However, when Ares tells her to let humans destroy each other because they do not deserve to be saved, she shifts her focus from the original question. She responds, “It’s not about deserving. It’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.” With these words, she takes up her sword and fights to save humanity.

Wonder Woman’s conclusion is the latest in a long line of popular assertions that all the most important aspects of a meaningful life point back to love. Love is the motivation, the happy ending. Love is, as the Beatles famously sang, “all we need.”i Love is so often depicted as both the end and the means. These claims are usually accepted as simply as they are presented: audiences take as self-evident the notions that love can motivate people through the most difficult of situations and that love is a pleasant and desired ending. No further reasoning is offered because most recognize the centrality of love in human life without much thought.

This article will show that the assertions regarding the importance of love that appear so frequently in

A

38 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

All We Need? popular culture ring truest when viewed through a Christian lens: one that explains true love as unconditional and self-giving, reveals love’s intimate relationship with freedom and joy, and shows that all we need is love simply because “God is love.”ii I. Classical Terminological Distinctions Since the time of the Ancient Greeks, the discussion of the philosophy of love has considered three separate notions of love: eros, philia, and agape.

Though usually eros refers to passionate desire, philia to friendship, and agape to God’s love, contemporary discussions frequently blur the distinctions.iii For the purposes of this article, I will discuss the notion of love most typically termed agape, or charity, in its theological sense, meaning God’s love for us, our love for God, and, by extension, our love for each other in the most fraternal or spiritual sense.

II. The Doctrine of Mercy: “It’s not about deserving.”

Wonder Woman shifts her focus from the question of whether or not humans deserve to be saved to a declaration of her belief in love. This belief moves her to fight for humanity despite its infractions against her and against itself. The shift proves consistent with a Christian understanding of love.

Her original deliberations are relatable: for most, the tendency to act in accordance with the notion of justice, of what is deserved, comes most easily.

Christianity, however, considers most significantly not

on the just and the unjust.”ix Wonder Woman’s decision to shift her focus from a question of deserving to a declaration of love resembles the Christian call to mercy. Christians believe that Jesus so loves us that he saved us despite our sin and that he asks us to show this same unconditional love to others while on Earth. In a similar way, despite the atrocities humans committed against themselves, despite the fact that they perhaps did not deserve to be saved, Wonder Woman chooses to fight for them.

The Face of Jesus from Pixabay (Sunpath)

the question of deserving, but the constant certainty of love. According to scripture, we have all sinned, and therefore all deserve death. iv,v Instead of condemning all humans to die, as we deserve, Jesus chose to die for us—an act of his infinite love and mercy. As the Apostle Paul writes, “God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.”vi For sinners, Jesus’s act was not a just one but a merciful one: the act was not an answer to a question of deserving, but a declaration of love. Deserving implies a reward contingent upon action, but Christ gave us his love with no action necessary on humanity’s part; giving love because the recipient earned it based on some action would be conditional love, but true love—Christ’s love—is unconditional. Though humans struggle with sin, commit atrocities daily, and do not deserve to be saved because of this sin, Christians believe that Jesus saved us from death through his infinite love, so that we might have eternal life.vii According to Christian theology, not only did God grant us the chance for life in Heaven through Christ’s ultimate act of love, but he also instilled in us the capacity to show love to others unconditionally while on Earth. In loving our neighbor, Christ also teaches us that “it’s not about deserving.”viii Just as he shows us unconditional love, Jesus commands that we love all of our neighbors, regardless of whether we feel they deserve that love. He tells us to love even our enemies, and in that way to reflect God’s love for us, who in his consideration for each one of us as his child “makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall

III. Freedom and Faith: “It’s about what you believe.”

Though God loves us despite our sin and calls us also to love others unconditionally, Catholic theology holds that people freely choose to accept God’s merciful gift, offered on his part through love and accepted on our part through love. Though Wonder Woman asserts that “it’s about what you believe,” more accurately, according to Catholic thought, our paths depend on the freely chosen action that follows the belief. As Wonder Woman learns, all humans simultaneously possess the capacity for both good and evil, and their actions’ accordance with one or the other is, as she phrases it, “A choice each must make for themselves.”x Through our actions, which express our choice, we turn toward God in love, or turn away from him in arrogance, hate, or apathy. Freely choosing to turn toward God, to believe and to act in love, increases our capacity for love as well as for freedom.

Writing from a secular perspective, philosopher

Poster for Wonder Woman, 2017

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 39

Erich Fromm, MüllerMay and Rainer Funk, 1974

Erich Fromm proposes in his book The Art of Loving that love is “the answer to the problem of human existence.”xi Because man has reason, Fromm argues, he is aware of himself as in individual and separate mortal entity, and the human awareness of the “unbearable prison” of our separateness from each other is the source of all human misery.xii He asserts, “The deepest need of man, then, is the need to overcome his separateness, to leave the prison of his aloneness,” arguing that “the full answer lies…in love.”xiii,xiv Love is the answer in the search for meaning.

Fromm’s concept of love is “an active power in man” that can be exercised only in freedom.xv According to Fromm, love and freedom have an interdependent and mutually increasing relationship: a person cannot truly love if she is not free in the choice and act to love, and a person’s love provides the means of liberating herself from the prison of her aloneness, leading in turn to more freedom and a greater capacity to love. Freedom used to pursue love leads to a positive feedback loop that increases both one’s freedom and capacity for love.

Fromm’s account of love is compatible with a Christian understanding of love. By God’s mercy, we already have the blessing of sharing in “the glorious freedom of the children of God.”xvi By Fromm’s account, this freedom is the prerequisite for love in its

40 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

proper sense; because we have this freedom, we are able to make the free decision to love. Furthermore, just as Fromm asserts we are motivated to find meaning in love, Paul writes that we are called to use our freedom for love: “For you were called for freedom, brothers.

But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love.”xvii Christ granted us freedom, and Christians are called to use this freedom to serve one another in love. Moreover, just as Fromm suggests, the Bible shows that in loving others, we attain greater freedom. John writes, “God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.”xviii We unite ourselves more closely with God through loving others, and in doing so, we find more freedom: “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”xix The Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly states that the more one aligns with God, “the freer one becomes.”xx Importantly, both scripture and the Catechism associate love with “service” to others, which may seem paradoxical to the many who associate freedom with a lack of obligations to others.xxi Christianity calls into question that understanding of freedom. Instead of a negative freedom—freedom from obligations or servitude—Christianity challenges people to consider positive freedom: freedom to love, to turn toward God,

and to pursue the joy found in helping others. Rather than restricting us through its obligations, self-giving love furthers spiritual freedom.

Acts based on deserving are conditional, restricted, reactionary. Ares justifies his pursuit of power with the assertion that humans do not deserve to rule the planet; any human struggling for power in this way makes an idol of power and yokes himself to it, forcing himself to rely only on conditional notions such as deserving rather than the unconditional notions like

existence.”xxii Unconditional love is the answer because God is the answer: people find meaning through love only because the free choice to love brings them closer to God. IV. The Example of Jesus: “And I believe in love.”

Wonder Woman declares her belief in love after Steve Trevor sacrifices himself to ensure the survival of his comrades. This sequence suggests that she discovers what love truly means only after witnessing Steve’s

Unconditional love is the answer because God is the answer: people find meaning through love only because the free choice to love brings them closer to God. the love that comes from God alone. Such a person act of sacrifice, an act consistent with the Christian who prioritizes a campaign for power turns away from understanding of love. Jesus tells us, “No one has greater God, from unconditional love, and therein decreases love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”xxiii her freedom and limits herself to reactionary notions This sentiment calls to mind Christ’s own ultimate such as deserving. Conversely, those people who sacrifice to redeem all of humankind. Of course, it is consider only whether others deserve their assistance also restrict themselves: they turn away from God’s call to unconditional love and leave their path to be determined by the actions of others, as all their actions depend on whether or not others earn their consideration.

Whether a person first turns from God and must therefore rely on conditional notions such as deserving, or else first freely chooses to only consider deserving and to turn from God in that way, the result is decreased freedom for the individual.

Wonder Woman, on the other hand, freely chooses to act in unconditional love, to fight for others in spite of their injustices to her and to each other. She thereby increases her freedom: her realization releases her from her inner turmoil regarding the conditional worthiness of humanity, she stops entertaining Ares’s tempting words, and she finds herself able to defeat him. She is then literally freer to love humanity, as Ares is gone and humans are still alive. From a Christian perspective, she is also then spiritually freer to love humanity once she freely chooses to act out of love.

We freely choose to believe and act in love, which increases our freedom and, in turn, our capacity to love more greatly, leading us to greater freedom and a still greater capacity for love. Progressing in this positive feedback cycle, we find ourselves closer to God, a fact Christ Crucified by Diego Velázquez, 1632 that solidifies the meaning associated with Fromm’s solution to “the problem of human

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 41

Love, a gift from God and perfectly exemplified in Christ’s life, enables people to find a greater joy than they could otherwise ever attain. important to recognize the differences: to start, Steve’s sacrifice redeemed humanity’s reputation in the eyes of Wonder Woman, inspiring her to also show that love in risking herself to fight for humans’ safety, while Christ’s act of love in enduring humiliation and pain until death atoned for the sins of all humanity so that we may have eternal life. That said, the comparison exists in that both Christianity and the conclusion of the film support an understanding of love that is selfgiving.

Christians strive to reflect Jesus’ self-giving love. According to Scripture, Jesus “emptied” and “humbled” himself to better allow the perfect love of God to flow through him to those around him, and to enable him to better serve others.xxiv His disciples are likewise called to follow this example.xxv Not only does giving of the self in love actually increase the self in God’s eyes, but such love also allows for greater freedom, as previously discussed, and for joy.xxvi In John 15, Jesus tells his disciples that he loves them and that they will remain in his love if they keep his commandments. He then continues, “I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.”xxvii Thomas Aquinas reasons

in Summa Theologica that man can reach incomplete happiness on his own by cultivating the limited measure of virtue available through natural human aptitude; however, man can reach complete happiness only through God. According to Aquinas, complete happiness is “a happiness surpassing man’s nature, and which man can obtain by the power of God alone…it is necessary for man to receive from God some additional principles whereby he may be directed to supernatural happiness.”xxviii These additional principles, according to Aquinas, are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, and, according to the Apostle Paul, “The greatest of these is love.”xxviii Love, a gift from God and perfectly exemplified in Christ’s life, enables people to find a greater joy than they could otherwise ever attain.

Love is the summit of human life. Jesus tells us that love is the most important of his commandments. Loving God is “the greatest and the first” commandment, loving neighbor is the second, and “the whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”xxix Paul writes that everything, even the pursuit of virtue and obedience to the other commandments, is meaningless without love.xxx From this perspective, in everything that God’s law demands, the most important aspect is that his law is followed with the intention of and by means consistent with love for God and for others. Not only does Christian love better enable us to find eternal life with God after death, but it also allows us to grow closer to God—and to find more freedom and joy as a result—during life on Earth.

Jesus also commands, “Love one another as I love you.”xxxi He asks that we do more than love each other as we would love ourselves in asking us to love each other as he loves us—that is, to love each other perfectly: God asks us to strive for perfection so that we might find perfection through his love. John writes, “If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.”xxxii The more perfectly we love others—the more we follow Jesus’ example in loving others unconditionally and through giving of ourselves—the more our ability to love improves, and the more freedom and joy we find.

V. Choosing Love Wonder Woman not only gives the impression that love is the center of a meaningful life, but the film also portrays an understanding of love that parallels the basic Gospel message. Wonder Woman’s decision to save humanity is not conditional on whether humanity deserves to be saved: it is unconditional,

St. Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, 15th century

42 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

like Christian love. She recognizes the true nature of love when Steve Trevor sacrifices himself to ensure the survival of his comrades: it is self-giving, like Christian love. She freely makes her decision to love, increasing her freedom and ability to love in turn, in accordance with the Catholic perspective on love. The ending is understood as a happy one: she realizes the importance of love, finds herself more able to love, and therein finds some measure of joy. The film is one of many examples in popular culture that concludes with a message asserting the centrality of love, but the message solidifies even more when grounded in a recognition of the centrality of God. Christians believe that God granted humanity’s ultimate redemption not because we deserved it, but rather because he is all-merciful. God’s love is not contingent upon our acts; rather, it is unconditional.

That said, in accordance with the Catholic perspective, we freely choose to accept or reject God’s love. As he offers the gift through love, we accept the gift through love: first through unconditional love of God, shown by following his commandments no matter the circumstances, and second through unconditional love of and service to others, regardless of whether we feel they deserve it.xxxiii Christians believe that God calls each and every person to, most of all, “love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” Jesus’ words emphasize the idea that love is an intentional, freely made choice that requires the mind as well as the heart and soul. No matter the frustration felt toward our fellow humans, no matter the injustices we face, Jesus asks us to choose to accept the gift of his infinite, unconditional love and allow it to flow through us to others. If we freely choose to love, we increase our freedom and ability to love in a positive feedback loop. Through love, Christians unite themselves more closely with God, and therein find greater freedom and joy. In the end, “love is all we need” because “God is love.” xxxiv,xxxv

John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “All You Need is Love” (London: Olympic Sound Studios, 1967) John 4:16 (NABRE). ii.

“Love,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9 July 2017, <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/> See Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, and 1 John 1:8 (NABRE). iii.

See Romans 6:23 (NABRE). iv.

Romans 5:8 (NABRE). v.

John 3:16 (NABRE). vi.

Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins (Burbank: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 2017). i.

Matthew 5:43-45 (NABRE).

Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins (Burbank: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 2017). ix, Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 7. x.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 7. xi.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 9. xii.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 18. xiii.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 19. xiv.

Romans 8:21 (NABRE); see also CCC 1741 xv.

Galatians 5:13 (NABRE). xvi.

John 4:16 (NABRE). xvii.

2 Corinthians 3:17. xviii.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1733, accessed 9 July 2017, <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm>. xix.

See Galatians 5:13 (NABRE) and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1733, accessed 9 July 2017, <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/ catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm>. xx.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: Harper & Row, 1956), 7. xxi.

John 15:13 (NABRE). xxii.

Philippians 2:7-8. xxiii.

Matthew 20:26-28 (NABRE). xxiv.

Matthew 20:26-28 (NABRE). xxv.

John 15:11 (NABRE). xxvi.

Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.62.1. xxvii.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (NABRE). xxviii.

Matthew 22:37-40 (NABRE). xxix.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (NABRE). xxx.

John 15:12 (NABRE). xxxi.

1 John 4:12 (NABRE). xxxii.

See John 14:15, 1 John 5:2, and John 15:9-10 xxxiii.

Matthew 22:37 (NABRE). xxxiv.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “All You Need is Love” (London: Olympic Sound Studios, 1967) xxxv.

John 4:16 (NABRE). vii,

viii,

Hailey Scherer ’20 is from Potomac Falls, Virginia. She is a prospective major in Cognitive Science with a double minor in Philosophy and HumanCentered Design.

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 43

The Need for Christian Humility in a Modern American Society

By Maura Cahill

“Crucifix" by Cellini (El Escorial). "Left Arm” from Wikimedia Commons

W

ith the advent of social media and the Information Age, the importance of individual identity has become paramount.

From Facebook to Snapchat, every day we are inundated with images and words revolving around a projected image of the self. We mask our insecurities by displaying gilded images of our lives. Constant social attention through technology produces the illusion of our own grand importance. Most individuals acknowledge the negative effects of social media; however, the twenty-first century obsession is only a symptom of a larger epidemic of modern society: pride.

How is the “essential vice” and “utmost evil” manifested in the twenty-first century?i An individualist

44 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

culture reigns supreme in the United States. Society advances a distorted perspective of the role and expectations of the individual: it glorifies personal happiness as the end goal while presenting contribution to others as secondary. A consumerist culture founded on instant gratification exacerbates this philosophy of selfishness. Pride infiltrates every corner of society, creating problems like intellectual elitism in the academic world and ruthless financial practices in the economic sphere. As last year’s election demonstrated, pride is particularly rampant in the political arena with the popularization of arrogant political figures, divisive identity politics, partisan polarization, and political echo chambers. Even in Christian circles, pride can

set denominations against each other and encourage ingroup-outgroup mentality. In pop culture, superficiality and obsession with self-image stimulates vanity.

And constantly in the background, adding fuel to the fire, is the existence of social media, the concrete offspring of this toxic vortex of pride.

Pride is undoubtedly detrimental to the human condition. The school of thought that promotes personal happiness as the ultimate good is illogical and counterproductive; the type of personal happiness rooted in materialism, vanity, arrogance, intolerance, and self-absorption is not lasting joy. When we see ourselves and our immediate interests as the be-all and end-all, we abandon the search for a higher meaning.

We are unable to advance past our own wants and opinions to search for truth. We promote competition instead of harmony and close-mindedness instead of tolerance. Pride, particularly as it is manifested in the

worship? In order to address the implications of pride in contemporary secular society, we must look to the past and explore its theological connotations.

In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas summarizes Augustine’s definition of pride, calling it “an inordinate desire of one’s own excellence.”ii Unlike the modern understanding, Aquinas’s definition hints that pride is unwarranted and inherently untruthful. Pride, argues Aquinas, is a defect of reason in which man believes he is better than he is; it oversteps the bounds of both morality and reason. In his explanation of pride, C.S. Lewis adds that pride is the source of division among men. Pride not only means enmity—“it is enmity. And not only between man and man, but enmity to God.”iii Jewish and Christian theology have always emphasized the insidious effects of pride; in fact, pride is the first sin according to Scripture. In Genesis, Adam and Eve commit the sin of disobedience because, rather

Individualism is arguably the most cherished of all Western values, but what happens when a society glorifies it to the point of selfworship? secular post-modern world, promotes animalistic selfinterest and breeds contention.

But what is pride? Pride is a multifaceted word with a plethora of connotations and interpretations.

In the traditional Christian sense of the word, pride is a grave fault. In popular understanding, however, pride can positively refer to taking satisfaction in one’s talents, works, and contributions; the world only balks at pride when it borders on outward arrogance. Pride is a particularly loaded term in modern American society, where individualism is the foundation of government, economy, and culture. Individualism is arguably the most cherished of all Western values, but what happens when a society glorifies it to the point of self-

“Social Media” from Wikimedia Commons (kropekk_ pl), 2014.

than recognizing their real value as human beings, they wish to become like God by eating the forbidden fruit.

Christian tradition teaches that Satan himself became a fallen angel because of his pride. Both Jewish and Christian doctrine preach against pride and proclaim God’s love for the lowly and rejection of the haughty.

According to Christianity, pride is problematic because it separates man from God and, as a capital sin, commonly known as one of the seven deadly sins, it is an inclination that produces countless other vices. Pride refers to an attitude resulting in, among other evils: self-absorption, arrogance, conceit, selfishness, vanity, an inflated sense of importance, greed, ruthless ambition, and refusal to rely on God. C.S. Lewis responded to the issue of pride in the modern world in his twentieth-century books Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. In a Mere Christianity chapter entitled “The Great Sin,” he notes, “There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which everyone loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves.”iv By its very nature, pride is the most difficult fault to recognize in ourselves because acknowledging it requires conquering it. Yet, Lewis argues, pride is the most ubiquitous and destructive part of humanity. Almost all

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 45

“American Flag, San Francisco” by Harvey Barrison, 2007.

evils in the world are products of pride. It is a vice that compels human beings to constantly compete for power, status, social recognition, dominance, money, and fame. “The Christians are right,” he says, “it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.”v Because pride is almost exclusively a religious focus, the secularization of the Western world has led to an increase in its resultant evils. Pride in the secular world constitutes a peculiar type of idolatry as self-worship

weakness of man. Early Christians wholly embraced Christian humility because its radical demands swore to break the chains of pride and enmity that had always shackled humanity. Christian humility essentially facilitates strong, truthful relationships between man and God, man and man, and man and himself.

Christ, the model of humility in his actions, words, and nature, illustrated the awesome promises of this bold new way of life. Paul highlights the significance of the Incarnation to Christian humility in Philippi-

Pride in the secular world constitutes a peculiar type of idolatry as self-worship attempts to fill the void formerly filled by the Christian God. attempts to fill the void formerly filled by the Christian God. When Lewis wrote Mere Christianity shortly after the end of World War II, he was witness to the beginning of a dramatic shift from Christian to secular morals in Europe and North America accompanied by an increasing surplus of leisure time and money to spend on vanity and ego. When the popularization of computers was later added to this dangerous concoction, the modern world became fertile ground for the growth and acceptance of pride in the average person’s lifestyle. Although humanity has reached unprecedented heights in science, medicine, technology, and every other field imaginable, if we fall prey to pride we will begin to slide backwards. Pride poisons humanity, and only a true manifestation of Christian humility can heal it.

Thomas Aquinas says humility, the virtue directly opposing pride, is “the subjection of man to God, for Whose sake he humbles himself by subjecting himself to others.”vi Church Father St. Bernard argues that humility is at its core defined as truth: “It is the virtue which enables a man to see himself in his true colors and thereby to discover his worthlessness.”vii By worthlessness, of course, Bernard seeks to contrast the incomprehensible power of God with the comparative

46 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

ans, saying, “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”viii Christian humility demands the radical tolerance and acceptance exemplified by Christ’s ministry to sinners, the poor, the degraded, and the outcast. Loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, rejecting wealth, embracing suffering, and even dying for others—these require the novel Christian humility underlying unconditional love.

According to Lewis, Christian humility is fundamentally different from its perceived modern definition. In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis explains how self-degradation is not humility, but a manifestation of false humility. True humility consists not in denying one’s positive attributes, like a beautiful woman trying to convince herself that she is ugly, but rather in recognizing one’s positive attributes as gifts. Lewis says of God, He wants each man, in the long run, to be able to recognise all creatures (even himself ) as glorious and excellent things. He wants to kill their animal self-love as soon as possible; but it is His long-term policy … to restore to them a

new kind of selflove—a charity and gratitude for all selves, including their own; when they have really learned to love their neighbours as themselves, they will be allowed to love themselves as their neighbours.ix

Lewis offers a crucial explanation of the benefits humility has for today’s society.

Christian humility is nothing more than the acknowledgement of “St. Francis of Assisi” by Cigoli, c. 1598. truth. Understanding much the world thirsts for a radical Christian humility. oneself, recognizing both positive and negative attributes of identity, is vital for In a world dominated by the kind of self-absorption understanding and loving others. As Jesus says, we exhibited by social media addiction, we must take bold must become like children, innocent and meek. Hu- steps towards a humbler lifestyle. Christian humility mility will foster understanding and compassion and can heal the wounds of pride by fostering understanddrive us to search for meaning in our lives rather than ing, tolerance, and forgiveness. Only when we abanidolizing ourselves and shutting out the truth. It will don pride will we be able to see ourselves as we truly enable us to bear suffering with patience and turn away are: equal and united under God, and searching for a from a culture of vanity. Adopting humility is the only higher purpose than ourselves. way to curb the looming threat of pride in American i.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 121. New York: society.

Harper Collins, 1980.

If we are searching for a model of daily humility, ii.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.162.3. we can look to St. Francis of Assisi. Francis abandoned iii.

Lewis, 121. a life of mindless dissolution, luxury, and pride and iv.

Lewis, 121. dedicated himself wholly to God. Like Jesus, he tended v.

Lewis, 121. to the poor and sick; he clothed himself in humility, vi. begging for food and sharing his possessions, living Aquinas, 2.161.1. vii. in kinship with all. His approach towards humility Bernard of Clairvaux, The Twelve Degrees was radical, but simple; it was based on the equality of Humility and Pride, 11. trans. Barton R.V. Mills. London: Society for Promoting Christian of all men in God’s eyes. In his Admonitions, he says, Knowledge, 1929.

“Blessed is the servant who does not regard himself as viii.

Philippians 2:7-8 (NASB). better when he is esteemed and extolled by men than ix.

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 28. Samizdat when he is reputed as (worthless and) simple...for what Ebooks, 2016. a man is in the sight of God, so much he is, and no x.

St. Francis of Assisi, “Admonitions,” in Writings of more.”x If we could adopt the attitude of Francis, one St. Francis of Assisi, trans. Paschal Robinson. 1905. that recognizes the inherent and unchangeable dignity of all, we could foster respect and love among all.

One might say that Francis of Assisi’s humility is impossible to replicate in the modern world, but in fact it is not only possible, but necessary. In 2013, Maura Cahill is a ’20 from Pope Francis recognized the need for Christian humilManasquan, New Jersey. ity in the modern world by taking the papal name of She is a prospective English Francis. The pope’s strong emphasis on humble mermajor. cy took the world by storm, demonstrating just how

[ Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia • 47

A Prayer for Dartmouth This prayer by professor of religion Lucius Waterman appears on a plaque hanging outside Parkhurst Hall.

O Lord God Almighty, well-spring of wisdom, master of power, guide of all growth, giver of all gain. We make our prayer to thee, this day, for Dartmouth College. Earnestly entreating thy favour for its people. For its work, and for all its life. Let thy hand be upon its officers of administration to make them strong and wise, and let thy word make known to them the hiding-place of power. Give to its teachers the gift of teaching, and make them to be men right-minded and high-hearted. Give to its students the spirit of vision, and fill them with a just ambition to be strong and well-furnished, and to have understanding of the times in which they live. Save the men of Dartmouth from the allurements of self-indulgence, from the assaults of evil foes, from pride of success, from false ambitions, from hardness, from shallowness, from laziness, from heedlessness, from carelessness of opportunity, and from ingratitude for sacrifices out of which their opportunity has grown.

Make, we beseech thee, this society of scholars to be a fountain of true knowledge, a temple of sacred service, a fortress for the defense of things just and right, and fill the Dartmouth spirit with thy spirit, to make it a name and a praise that shall not fail, but stand before thee forever. We ask in the name in which alone is salvation, even through Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.

The Reverend Lucius Waterman, D.D.

The Nicene Creed The Dartmouth Apologia invites people from all intellectual, philosophical, religious, and spiritual backgrounds to join in our discussion as we search for truth and authenticity. We do, however, reserve the right to publish only that which aligns with our statement of belief.

We, the members of The Dartmouth Apologia, affirm that the Bible is inspired by God, that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, and that God has called us to live by the moral principles of the New Testament. We also affirm the Nicene Creed, with the understanding that views may differ on baptism and the meaning of the word “catholic.”

We [I] believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We [I] believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We [I] believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

48 • The Dartmouth Apologia • Fall 2017 ]

Image by Joshua Tseng-Tham ’17

[

Fall 2017 • The Dartmouth Apologia •

3

[1 Peter 3:15] a journal of christian thought