Why Not Jesus?

A response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's "Why Jesus?" Non-Tract

Part 10

Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php.

Addendum - 3/10/2002

I received a response from Dan Barker, the author of the non-tract, and we exchanged a few more e-mails on the subject. In respect of his wishes, I will leave most of his responses unpublished, but the following excerpt is critical and was pretty much the final word on the matter:

I wrote:

Before you respond, if you would choose to respond to someone as obviously lost as I am :-), I would again urge you to read the entire set of pages, and then answer the following questions:

Do you honestly believe that the final sentence of your online caveat is still true?

Do you honestly believe that *none* of my "comments" are credible responses to the nontract?

In light of that answer, do you honestly believe that everything in the nontract (especially noting the comments on Matthew 8:32, Mark 14:3-7, Luke 19:23-36, Mark 2:23, and Matthew 21) accurately represents the Biblical text to the best of your skill and knowledge?

If you answer "Yes" to all of these, maybe even just two of them, it would probably be best for you not to respond at all, because it is doubtful we could move the discussion forward. Indeed, it is unlikely we could even agree on what "forward" means. :-)

He did respond, but all three of these questions were answered with a succinct "Yes." I want to thank him for his time and the gracious tone of his e-mails but, as indicated, I do not feel that any further exchange would be useful. He is apparently content to let the non-tract stand as it is, even after I pointed out what I felt were five of the most blatant inaccuracies contained therein. To save you the trouble of searching around, I will summarize those items here:

Matthew 8:32 clearly states that the pigs drowned themselves or, at most, that they were drowned by demons, not Jesus.
Mark 14:3-7 clearly states the ointment was owned by the woman who poured it out. If anyone was guilty of waste, and I don't think anyone was, it was the woman, not Jesus.
Luke 19:23-26 is part of a parable that isn't trying to say anything about savings, wealth, or investing one's own money.
In Mark 2:23, the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of Sabbath-breaking, not stealing.
Every translation of Matthew 21 I can find says Jesus sent his disciples after an "ass" or "donkey" and its colt, not a horse.

According to Mr. Barker himself, he has accurately represented the biblical text to the best of his skill and knowledge. As much as I may appreciate his candor with me, and his commitment to his position, it is difficult to maintain respect for his abilities if his "best" does not include knowing the difference between the words "horse" and "ass". He also apparently believes that I have not accused him of taking things out of context, or that I have failed to provide a specific example, failed to explain the context to which I refer, failed to explain how the meaning of the words may differ from their "face value", and failed to produce any credible response to the non-tract's points. You, of course, are free to agree with him, but if so, please send me an e-mail (rjtraff@charter.net) describing how I have completely failed in all these things and how I could make my points more clearly.

Back to R.J.'s Writings | Previous Section