Knobheid Dick

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Already a subscriber?

An Open Letter to Boris Johnson

Dear Mr Johnson,

I am writing to inform you that I received my certificate of renunciation of my British citizenship yesterday (23^rd January), something I have to thank you for.

You may remember that during your campaign to become Party Leader (and therefore, Prime Minister – an office many believe you disgraced), you stated – rather smugly, I thought – that many people had threatened to leave if you were to be elected Mayor of London but that, when you were, nobody did.  Well, not quite nobody; I did.  Taking it as the writing on the wall, I started planning to leave, not just London, where I had lived for 16 years, but the UK, in which I had lived for all but two years of my life. It took me some six months to arrange my emigration, but it was at the earliest opportunity.

Then in 2016, you had your Damascus Road moment where you decided to back Brexit, not out of conviction but for blatant political opportunism, correctly predicting that that would be the best route to Number 10 Downing Street – and so it proved. Though my opposition to Brexit had an element of self-interest, it was primarily out of conviction that Brexit would neither be good for Britain nor for the EU.

Following your 2019 election victory, we had your rushed, half-baked Brexit deal that was a great deal worse than the one Theresa May had proposed and that you voted against, which negatively impacted on many Brits living in the EU and EU citizens living in Britain. Though Section 50 allowed both sides to apply for permanent residence status and a retention of rights within the host country, the system was so last minute that it left applicants confused and then scrambling to obtain it. 

I marked, not celebrated, Brexit Day by burning a Union Jack (which I only had for didactic purposes) as a sign of my disgust as it was not so much that I had forsaken the UK as the UK had abandoned me.

Yet, given my circumstances, it was always going to be a stopgap. My situation is that, having married a Spanish lady who is well-qualified and has lived in both Ireland and the UK, I could not return to Britain (even if either of us wanted to) as she no longer had the freedom of movement she had when we first met in London and, given my age and profession, I would be unable to earn the salary necessary to support her (though she would be able to earn considerably more than me with her MBA and MA in Marketing – she was formerly a Chartered Marketer). 

Thus, I was left with the stark choice of living in a kind of limbo, unable to vote in Spanish or EU elections but able to vote in British elections, which had little to no effect on my life or to become a Spanish national and regain the EU citizenship that Brexit had stripped me of. Naturally, I chose the latter, which required the renunciation of previous citizenship on acquiring the new one (not every country permits dual-nationality).  On the plus side, I will now never have to have one of the new, over-priced, shoddy, blue passports, which you, and other Brexiters, touted as a wonderful benefit!

I must say that the process of becoming Spanish, though bureaucratic, was a great deal easier than it is to become British (I used to teach citizenship in London) – the Spanish actually want the immigrant to become a citizen – and certainly far easier than the process of renunciation of British nationality, for which I had to turn to my MP for help (it was amazing how what the Home Office told me was a difficult case which would take longer than the regulation six months was resolved within just 10 days of their receiving a letter from my MP!).

Of course, I realise that my leaving the UK, is no great loss to the country (and certainly not to you or any other Brexiter), despite my upper second class BSc, my MSc and my MA (awarded with Distinction) – though none are from ancient universities, I paid for all three – as working with the long term unemployed and with speakers of other languages was never going to give me the kind of salary which would delight the taxman, allow me to spend extravagantly or amass substantial savings.  That said, I was never a drain on the economy as I always paid my way.

However, before I close, I do have a question for you, as a “one nation Tory”, to wit: why is it that, as a Scot, I feel more at home living in Spain than I ever did living in any part of England?  I was raised in a Tory household and taught that the United Kingdom was a single country but, on moving to England and despite trying to fit in, I very soon found out that what I had been taught was just a myth, unless one happened to be English, of course.

Well, once again, thank you for liberating me from the embarrassment of Brexit Britain.

Yours sincerely, etc.

A Considered Response to Dave Armstrong’s “A Quick Ten-step Refutation of Sola Scriptura”

Introduction

Armstrong (2004) argues from the outset that there are “No biblical passages teach that Scripture is the rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition”.  He then proceeds to try and validate the statement in 10 steps, each of which I will attempt to rebut. 

But before I begin, it is important to note that he uses “Protestants” as though it was identical to “Fundamentalists”, American Evangelicals being, I suspect, his real target.  However, European Evangelicals are very different from their American counterparts, and non-evangelical Protestants even more so, and, thus, he does himself the disservice of appearing uninformed.  However, following his suit, for ease, I will refer throughout to “Catholics” though I am aware of differences in praxis, if not doctrine, between US, Hispanic, European and Asian Catholics.

Furthermore, the piece, which has been approved by the sensor and received the imprimatur of an archbishop, is, as one would expect from a Catholic Apologist website, as fundamentalist in its own way as any American Evangelical.

1) Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

His first assertion is that Catholics and Protestants agree that “Scripture is a ‘standard of truth’—even the preeminent one – but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church”. 

There are three points which immediately need to be addressed here:

a) While both Catholics and Protestants may see Scripture (not forgetting that they do not agree as to what constitutes Scripture) as a standard of truth, my own experience and extensive research have clearly demonstrated to me that it is not preeminent for Catholics, for whom Catholic tradition trumps Biblical authority any and every time they potentially conflict. 

b) What Armstrong is describing here is not Sola Scriptura but Nuda Scriptura (i.e., nothing but Scripture) – and given that many American Evangelicals make the same mistake, his confusion is understandable.  However, it does somewhat destabilise his case.  Both Luther and Calvin, great proponents of Sola Scriptura, believed in human reason and accepted tradition in the form of creedal statements, confessions of faith and Church History, from which they quoted, but subjected all of them to the final authority of the Bible.  This is the position of mainstream Protestants, who also uphold the other two great affirmations of the Reformation, Sola Fide (only faith) and Sola Gracia (only grace), doctrines which were derived from Scripture in opposition to non-Biblical Catholic doctrines, most notably Indulgences.

c) What a Catholic means by “Apostolic” is very different from what any Protestant understands by the term.  For Protestants, Apostolic refers to the Apostles, the Primitive Church and the 4 Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis), whereas, for Catholics it refers to the Church Fathers up to John of Damascus, but even more importantly, to the authority derived by the Popes as the successors of Peter, “the first apostle” (questionable) and “first Bishop of Rome” (sic) and the Church of Rome’s supposed primacy (which like the counterclaim of Constantinople was political) over the more ancient churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Samaria that, along with Alexandria, contested it.  However, the claim, which is based primarily on tradition and supported by poor hermeneutics and outright deception, hangs on a very shoogly peg.

He continues, “Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction.”, before concluding that “Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages”.

Of course, he is trying to divert attention here as there most certainly are infallible Catholic Doctrines which cannot be deduced from any part of the Bible (e.g., The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary), but be that as it may, he is correct that there is no part of the Bible that expressly teaches the tenet.

However, he is incorrect in suggesting that there are no Biblical passages from which Sola Scriptura (rather than Nuda Scriptura) may be deduced.  It may be inferred from passages such as Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7: 1-50); Paul’s preaching in Pisidian Antioch (Acts13); Paul in Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17: 1-3, 11); Apollos in Achaia (Acts 18:28), all of which relied on the Old Testament (rather than Tradition) to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah; the verdict of James, the Brother of Jesus (Acts 15: 13-19) which, though it set new boundaries, was thoroughly grounded in the Old Testament rather than Talmud or Mishna; finally 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21, 3:15-17.

2) The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also

Most Protestants would accept this without hesitation, but with the caveat that Oral Tradition ended with the recognition of the New Testament Canon, which had been substantially agreed upon (the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, and 1 Peter) by prominent Church Fathers (both Eastern and Western) from as early as the 2nd century ad, though there continued to be some debate over whether some books (e.g., James, Jude, The Revelation of St. John) should be included (as there had been among Rabbis post-70ad over the inclusion of Daniel and Esther in the Ketuvim) and, ultimately, of the 9 disputed books, only two were rejected (The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas).

3) Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Again, most Protestants would agree. Nor would they disagree on the value of “True, apostolic Tradition”, though they would not accept the Catholic definition, which restricts “truth” to the Roman Catholic Church alone.  The problem for Protestants is that, all too often, Roman Catholic tradition is not, as claimed, “in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture” but is used to override Biblical teaching just as the Pharisees did the Torah (e.g., The Sacrament of Penance, which supplants Pauline theology).

4) Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Though the heading suggests that this is about Jesus and Paul, Armstrong chooses to start with a quote from Matthew, which is rather odd.  I suspect this is to throw fundamentalists off balance in the hope that they do not look at his other examples too closely.

a) No one knows what Matthew, who almost certainly was not the Apostle (despite the claims of Papias), meant.  Perhaps as Armstrong claims there was an oral tradition (the easy way out), but there are other equally valid possibilities.  Perhaps Matthew believed there was a prophecy of that nature, even though he did not know whence it came (he is unlikely to have had education beyond Bet Seder); perhaps, being a native Greek speaker, he was confusing Nazarite with Nazarene; perhaps he was anachronistically transferring the earliest name for Christians to the infancy of Jesus, etc.  Whatever was in Matthew’s mind, this focus misses the key point of the text, that it was God’s divine will that Jesus, although born in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth.

b) So, Jesus alludes to the Mishnah (Aboth 1.1) – yet, the phrase “on Moses Seat” does not appear anywhere in the text (nor in the Talmud) – but this is no more different from a Priest quoting from a contemporary Catholic writer or from a commentary (e.g., Sacra Pagina), which is what the Mishna in effect was.  Armstrong’s argument would be far stronger if this were not the sole example.

c) He is on stronger ground here as, yes, it was a tradition among Rabbis. However, though Paul alludes to the Haggadah to make a point, he deviates substantially from it by adding the word “spiritual” to distinguish it from the myth that the rock physically moved, which indicates that he did not intend it to be taken literally.  This is made clear when the verse is taken in context, the Israelites not being physically baptised by either cloud or the Red Sea (v2); the manna and water from the rock being “spiritual” in the sense of “not natural” (cf. Galatians 4:29), but of God’s gracious provision.  But let us note, that unlike Roman Catholic tradition, Paul could modify it to suit his own didactic purpose.

Armstrong moves on to cite 2 Timothy 3:8 and the legend of Jannes and Jambres, which he claims is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament.  This is not surprising as it is probably from one of the works of fiction that circulated in first century Judaism (the so-called “lost Book of Jashar”, which mentions them as being the sons of Balaam son of Beor (79:27), being an 18^th century forgery) and, hence, is a cultural reference, which no one would have taken any more seriously as “tradition” than modern Christians would a line from an iconic film or a quote from one of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia when used to illustrate a sermon.

5) The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

Of course, they did; they were apostles and the event occurred during the Apostolic Age, when there were not yet any New Testament Scriptures and ways of defining and being a Christian were being explored by eye witnesses to Jesus’ life and teaching.

Second, the whole reason for the Council was that Jewish believers were insisting that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised to be saved (i.e., become Jews), a stance with which Paul, also an Apostle, strongly disagreed.

This echoes the Jewish believers in Jerusalem demanding that Peter justify his staying with the centurion Cornelius and eating with them (Acts 11:2-3) in flagrant breach of Tradition.  In response, Peter related his experience of direct revelation through a) a vision (Acts 10:9-16), and b) God’s pouring out His Holy Spirit on the Gentiles (Acts 10:44).  Remember, up until this point the Primitive Church only consisted of Judean Jews, Hellenist Jews and proselytes: the Gentiles were excluded.  After Peter’s explanation, the matter, seemed resolved (Acts 11:18).

Yet, as noted above, it was not – there were still questions about how Jewish gentile Christians had to be.  Thus, Peter had to repeat his account of God’s blessing the Gentiles with salvation and the Holy Spirit.  Of course, he spoke with authority: the authority of personal experience (Acts 15:7-11).

His speech was followed by two other Apostles: Barnabas and Paul (having been recognised as such by Simon Peter, James the brother of Jesus and John (Galatians 2:9-10)).  They built on Peter’s experience by telling the assembly about the great works God was doing through them amongst the gentiles in the church at Antioch (Acts 15:12).  This was neither tradition nor revelation, but direct, personal experience of God at work.

Finally, James, the Brother of Jesus, who spoke with the authority of his position (i.e., the recognised head of the Jerusalem church), summed up and gave his verdict (Acts 15: 13-19) which, though it set new boundaries, remained thoroughly grounded in the Law of Moses but with the loosening granted by Jesus to his disciples (Matthew 18:18).

6) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extra Biblical Tradition

This section relies on oversimplification and stereotyping, and in the end his main point, as we will see, turns out to be specious. 

The Pharisees:

Jewish historians have identified at least 5 different types of Pharisees, all of whom, I concede, accepted the Talmud and the Mishnah in addition to the Tanakh.  All of them (at least pre-70ad) were laymen who held no official religious post and, thus, they had professions (cf. St. Paul (Acts 18:1-3)).  Most of them rejected Hellenization and Roman rule, some even becoming Zealots and taking part in the Jewish Revolt of 66-70ad (see Josephus).  However, those living in Judea were scrupulous in their fulfilment of the requirements of Temple worship (as were Jesus and Paul) and those of the diaspora who could afford to attended major festivals (Acts 2:5).

Some Pharisees were from noble families and their senior members (elders) along with respected rabbis (like Gamaliel) formed part of the Sanhedrin along with the Sadducees; however, the majority were simply, like members of Opus Dei, ordinary folk trying to sanctify their lives by living morally and in piety within the world, in the hope that this would lead to a renewal in Israel and bring about its restoration before God and vindicate Israel over her enemies, most especially Rome.    

The Sadducees:

First, it should be noted that not all Priests were Sadducees.  The majority of Priests lived outside of Jerusalem and were not wealthy as, like their assistants the Levites, they were entirely dependent upon tithes. Apart from their duties in the Temple on a rotational basis, they were the principal teachers of the Law in rural areas.

The Sadducees, who were elitist, were as much a political party as a religious group, comprising a wealthy, priestly aristocracy led by the High Priest, which accepted Hellenization, supported the Herodian dynasty and collaborated with Rome.  Their whole raison d’être was the Temple and its ritual system of sacrifices, which had to be protected at all costs.  It is, therefore, not surprising that they rejected everything outside of the Pentateuch, and especially that (e.g., the prophets) which criticised them.

Armstrong is incorrect, however, in claiming that the Sadducees believed in Sola Scriptura. They did not; nor even in Nuda Scriptura, but only in the Pentateuch, just a portion of the Jewish canon, which had already been well-established by the time of Jesus, because it gave their priestly function its validity. 

So now to address Armstrong’s main contention that “Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees” with the unspoken implication that their failure to accept oral or written tradition led to their demise. 

First, the Bible never mentions Christian Essenes either, despite their acceptance of extra Biblical tradition, even more than the Pharisees did (cf. The Dead Sea Scrolls), and, who, like the Sadducees, vanished after 70ad. Furthermore, the Samaritans, who just like the Sadducees, only accepted the first five books of the Bible, did become Christians, first in response to Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well (John 4:39-42) and, after the resurrection, in response to the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:5-8) and through the laying on of hands by Peter and John, they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17).

Second, it is highly unlikely that, given their political views as much as their religious views, Sadducees would join the movement of a failed Messiah that they had manoeuvred to have executed as a revolutionary because, in their view, he was leading Israel astray and risking Roman wrath against the Temple. However, in Acts 6:7 we are told that “a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith”.  Now, Catholics are likely to respond that those were just Levites (like Barnabas in Acts 4:36).  However, Luke (cf. Luke 10:31,32) is careful to distinguish between Priests (ἱερέων – hiereōn) and Levites (Λευίτης – Leuitēs) and he does so here in Acts too. 

Third, Armstrong is anachronistically reading back into the time of Jesus a position that, which while it may have been true of the diaspora, did not take place in Judea until after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70ad, which was the principal cause of the demise of the Sadducees and the supremacy of the Pharisees, not how they defined Scripture or their rejection/acceptance of Tradition.

In short, this point, which is based on several false premises, fails to stand up to any serious scrutiny.

7) Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

Armstrong may well be right, but he fails to prove his assertion.

His first point is not supported by the verse he cites (Ezra 7:26) as he has isolated it from its literary and historical context.  When we replace it in context, it is crystal clear that it is not Ezra, but the King Artaxerxes who set the penalties for breaking the Law, which, nonetheless, do have a Biblical precedent in Deuteronomy 17:12.  Thus, it is not by tradition (oral or written) but by an extension of the Law of Moses by a Persian King.

His eisegesis of his second proof text (Nehemiah 8:7) is equally misleading, when it is put into its historic context, which is the return from exile in Babylon.

Notice how Ezra read the Law “before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand” (v2) and “in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand” (v3), i.e., those who could understand Hebrew. 

During the 70 years of exile, there had been no priests or Leviites in Jerusalem, so those Jews, descendants of the poorest who had not been taken into exile (2 Kings 24:14 & 25:12; Jeremiah 39:10), and very probably some of the returning Jews, could not understand Hebrew, which is why, in verse 7, the Law had to be translated by the Levites into Aramaic so that the people could understand it (echoed in v12).  This was not principally about exposition as he supposes, but about translating it into the common language.

It is clear that the verse Armstrong actually has in mind, but cannot use as even Catholics don’t consider it canonical, is 1 Esdras 9:48, which is indeed about “explaining what was read”.

He is, perhaps, on firmer ground with 2 Chronicles 17:7-9, except that it was “his officials Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel and Micaiah” that Jehoshaphat sent to teach in the towns, albeit accompanied by 9 Levites and 2 Priests to assist them.

No mainstream Protestant would deny that “the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself” and that is why, whether they be priests, ministers, pastors, or lay theologians, training in “biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc” is an essential requisite for Protestant ministry as much as it is for Catholics.  However, there are some excellent daily Bible reading notes, numerous commentaries and books that can help the person in the pew understand the Bible for themselves, none of which form “a binding Tradition”, unless he believes that everything ever written and every sermon ever preached fulfils that criterion.

Of his New Testament citations, only Acts 8:30-31 fulfils his stated purpose as the rest are taken out of context and do not mean what he wants them to – perhaps he himself would benefit from courses in exegesis and hermeneutics.

8) Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”

This is actually just a neat bit of sophistry.  But let us start with where there is agreement.

Mainstream Protestants do not believe, as Armstrong caricatures, that Scripture is sufficient for everything, but that it is materially sufficient for salvation by faith and sanctification by grace as has been demonstrated time and again over the centuries. Protestants accept the role of tradition, subject to Scripture (including oral tradition in the Apostolic Age), and the need for adequately trained ministers, evangelists, pastors and teachers to expound the Bible “so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).

But notice how selective Armstrong is in the ministries he chooses to highlight, excluding those (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, which as they are listed first suggest that Paul saw them as more important (cf. Romans 12:6-8)), that do not suit his purpose.

The problem with the Catholic “binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church” for most Protestants is, of course, that too often it distorts Scripture (e.g., Papal Infallibility) or departs entirely from it (e.g., The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary), while demanding blind, unquestioning adherence.  It sometimes appears as if doctrine, rather than being derived from explicit Biblical sources, has arisen from tradition and then been followed by a scouring of the Scriptures to try and find support for it.

Now to the sophistry. Observe how Armstrong surreptitiously substitutes “perfection” (τέλειος – teleios cf. Matthew 5:48) for “fullness” (πλήρωμα – plērōma) in Ephesians 4:13. Though he quotes the Revised Standard Version, he appears to be mentally working from the 1899 Douay-Rheims version, which has its basis in the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, who had a habit of making odd translations (e.g., “charity” for love, “do penance” for repent), chose to translate teleios as perfect (“perfectum”) despite it being abundantly clear that Paul was using it in the sense of “mature” (maturum), as demonstrated by his attaching it to the noun (ἀνήρ – anēr – a (male) person of full age and stature) and the following verse, which states “so that we may no longer be children”. Thus, it is for maturity and not perfection that the different gifts are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (v. 12).  And, thus, his whole argument topples like a house of cards.

Incidentally, whilst on the topic of ignoring earlier verses, 2 Timothy 3:2-5 might very aptly describe several Popes (inter alia John XII, Benedict IX, Julius II).

9) Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

Most Mainstream Protestants would agree with that statement – apart from the “casually” as Paul was clearly speaking apostolically – which as Armstrong demonstrates is Biblically supported.  Furthermore, he was not alone in this assumption, as Peter also regarded Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). However, Protestants assert that such infallible and binding tradition only applied during the Apostolic Age and not in perpetuity as claimed by the Catholic Church.

10) Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

This at first glance appears to be Armstrong’s strongest argument, which is maybe why he left it to last.

He starts with the sweeping claim that “Often [Protestants] act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation”, which while it may be true of the average Protestant in the pew, it is rarely true of trained clergy or theologians.  He may want to remember Matthew 7:3-5 given that few Catholics have the first idea where, apart from the Church, their doctrines have emerged.

He then appeals to the analogy of disputes over the US Constitution, claiming that these can only be settled by judges and courts whose “decrees are legally binding”, and that Protestants, lacking tradition, have no such mechanisms to resolve doctrinal disagreements.

However, once again he is attacking Nuda Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura; fundamentalist Evangelicals, not Protestants.  Thus, starting from a false premise, his argument fails as many Protestant Churches do recognise tradition (albeit arising from different interpretations from Catholics) and/or have mechanisms (e.g., Synods, General Assemblies, Councils, etc.) similar to those in place for amending the US Constitution, without recourse to Law.

His next assertion that “Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply ‘going to the Bible’ hasn’t worked” ignores both the ecumenical relations between Protestant denominations, as many points of disagreement are minor, and their merging (most notably in the Church of South India).  As regards divisions, one might well add that Church & Tradition have equally failed given the schisms starting in 1054, the numerous anti-Popes between the 3rd and 15th centuries, not to mention the ruptures caused by both Vatican I (1869-70) and Vatican II (1962-5) – the latter leading to new anti-Popes! – which show no signs of healing.

Clearly, the Catholic system is no better than the Protestant one, and less akin to the US Constitution than to a dictatorship, as absolute loyalty to the Pope is demanded and dissent is not permitted, even from Karl Barth, who was arguably one of the 20th century’s greatest theologians.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic belief that the Church is divinely protected from error (always a dangerous stance), when combined with the infallibility of the Pope (which has even been selectively applied retrospectively), means that Tradition and Church from a circular argument at least as great as that of seeing the Bible as the pre-eminent authority.

Finally, Armstrong’s three-legged stool, is very wonky, given that the Biblical leg has been pared down to a sliver that merely provides little more than pretexts for Catholic “Tradition”, which is so interwoven with Church that, rather than being two legs, it forms a single intertwined leg with two feet. One is tempted to sum up his three-legged stool analogy by misquoting 1 Corinthians 13:13, “And now Scripture, Church, and Tradition abide, these three; and the greatest of these is Tradition.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have seen that Armstrong, using verses out of context, sophistry, and specious analogies, is attacking not Sola Scriptura and Protestantism per se, but Nuda Scriptura and fundamentalist Evangelicals who, while prominent in his native USA, make up only a small percentage of Protestants worldwide, and that there are sufficient Biblical passages from which the tenet can be deduced.

Reference:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

A Few Anecdotes

One of the perennial tasks in ESOL textbooks is to ask students to tell an anecdote. Favourite topics are “a famous person you have met”, “a surprise”, or “an accident you have had”. So here are some of the ones I tell in class.

AN ACCIDENT

When I was three, my Grannie used to let me ride from the kitchen to the dining room on the bottom of the tea trolley. I suspect she had done it with my older cousins, Jamie and Sim, when they were small. Anyway, it was something I loved but which was to come to an abrupt end.

On this particular November afternoon, Grannie had forgotten to put the tea in the teapot and so went back to the kitchen to get it. Seeing her leave, I tried to get off the trolley and stood up. That would have been all right had the trolley not been a folding one with removable trays. The result was that as I stood up the top tray lifted off and the whole teapot showered me with boiling water, scalding my left wrist and both legs.

Grannie took me upstairs to the bedroom where she removed my sodden trousers and applied the traditional remedy for burns from her childhood: rub the affected area with butter. I was in agony as I gently fried. She then told my mother that I’d had an accident, but without telling her any details, and asked her to come and take me home when she could.

When my mother arrived she was shocked and immediately called the doctor, who was horrified at my Grannie’s attempt at first aid. After he had carefully removed the butter, he placed me in a cool bath, and then sent me to hospital where they applied anti-burn cream and bandaged the damaged areas.

I was lucky, my 2º degree burns only left one scar, which I still bear today, from below the knee to the ankle on my left leg.

A FAMOUS PERSON

When I worked in Woolworth’s in Croydon, I was supervisor for a section in the middle of the store that had the cook shop, hardware, plants, greetings cards and, in the Festive Season, Christmas Decorations.

Anyway, one day the Saturday girl at the cash desk was really excited by the customer she was serving. “Ooh, you’re Dot Cotton from EastEnders,” (a character played by June Brown in a long-running BBC Soap) she gushed.

“I’m sorry, dear, but you’re mistaken,” the customer politely assured her.

“Yeah, you are,” the thrilled teen replied ignoring her customer’s discomfort.

At which point I intervened.

Seeing that the lady was paying by credit card, and knowing that the girl was not the sharpest and so wouldn’t know the name of the actress, I asked to see the card. When she passed it to me, I showed her the name on it, Mrs June Brown, saying, “See this lady isn’t Dot Cotton, she is June Brown. Now stop this nonsense and put Mrs Brown’s purchases in a bag for her.” Then, returning the credit card, I said, “Here’s your card, Mrs Brown. I hope you have a pleasant afternoon.”

The relieved actress shot me a look of gratitude as she fled the store. Once the actress had safely escaped, I did put the poor girl out of her misery by telling her she had, in fact, served “Dot Cotton”.

A PLEASANT SURPRISE

I did my CELTA at the Victoria centre of Westminster Kingsway College, which, uniquely, only employs ex-Gurkhas for security. They are lovely, friendly people but I wouldn’t cross them as they can be pretty fierce when necessary. I never had any bother though and within a week they were treating me like a member of staff rather than a student.

To get to college I had to take the Tube to St James’s Park and walk down Petty France. It was a pleasant stroll which passed the old Passport Office and the Scot’s Guards’ Wellington Barracks.

My course ran from 20th January to the 14th of February, which meant that Burns’ Night fell on one of my teaching days. So, I took a risk and planned a cultural lesson to mark the occasion, and wore my kilt to college. Fortunately, my class went better than I had hoped. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

So there I am, in my kilt, strolling down Petty France, thinking about my forthcoming lesson and so not really paying attention to anything else, when my reverie was broken by a voice loudly barking an order and a stamping of feet. Naturally, I looked towards the sound and found that I was alongside the Wellington Barracks, where the Sergeant, who was saluting me, had ordered the three guards to stand at attention while I passed.

I gave them a huge smile and a little bow and continued on my way to college. It really made my day.

The Origins of the Spanish Quotation on Gabriela Cunninghame Graham’s Memorial on Inchmahome

Memorial plaque for Gabriela Cunninghame Graham on Inchmahome (Photo: WRBCG)

The proverb Don Roberto placed at the bottom of his wife’s memorial, first appears in the 17th Scene of the Tragicomedia de Calisto y Melibea (Seville, 1502) by Fernando de Rojas, which was an expanded version of his very popular La Celestina (Burgos, 1499).  In this scene, two prostitutes who live in Celestina’s house, Areúsa and Elicia, are talking about her death.  The form “Por eso se dice” suggests that the proverb was already in common use in the XV century.

Areúsa a Elicia: “Por eso se dice que los muertos abren los ojos a los que viven: a unos con hacienda; a otros con libertad como a ti.”

Areúsa to Elicia: “That’s why it is said that the dead open the eyes of those who live: some with property; others like you with freedom.”

It is unclear whether Sebastián Horozco (1510-80) took the proverb from de Rojas’ play or whether he already knew it through popular usage.  He certainly would have been very familiar with the play, which is now considered the most important work in Spanish Literature after Don Quixote.  Whichever way he came across it, he wrote a rhyme for it and included it in his collection of Spanish proverbs, which was republished in 1986 as Teatro Universal de Proverbios.

1667. Los muertos abren/los ojos a los que viven

1667. The dead open/ the eyes of those who live

Grande advertencia nos da

ver a los otros morir

para ver quanto nos va

que aunque nos dexan aca

dicen que hemos alla de yr

Todos advierten y aviven

y de los vicios se priben

porque no los descalabren

assi que los muertos abren

los ojos a los que viven.

Great warning it gives us

to watch others die

to see how far it goes ourselves

that although they leave us here

they say that we have to go there

All warn and enliven

and of vices are deprived

because they don’t harm them

thus the dead open

the eyes of those who live.

Translated by WRBCG, May 2022

Both Don Roberto and Gabriela would have read La Celestina but may have also have been familiar with Horozco’s proverbs.  Whether the proverb had any special meaning to Gabriela or whether it became special to Don Roberto after her death, must remain moot. 

The Scottish poet, Hugh MacDiarmid, having read it in Tschiffely’s Don Roberto, used the proverb (in the original Spanish) as a subheading for his poem Perfect.

Perfect

(On the Western Seaboard of South Uist)
(Los muertos abren los ojos a los que viven)

I found a pigeon’s skull on the machair,
All the bones pure white and dry, and chalky,
But perfect,
Without a crack or a flaw anywhere

At the back, rising out of the beak,
Were twin domes like bubbles of thin bone,
Almost transparent, where the brain had been
That fixed the tilt of the wings.

Artistic licence

I’m very honoured to have featured in Chris Dolan’s delightful account of his epic busking, cycle ride across Spain, Everything Passes, Everything Remains, which he and two sexagenarian friends accomplished last year.

In the book, he has been most generous in his portrayal of me and his depiction of our scintillating “crack” over copas y pinchos. Yet, his description of my attire left me bemused.

Chris writes that I looked “every inch the English gentleman. Tie, americano (sic), loafers, bespectacled.” Tie and specs, I grant him, but I never wear a jacket when I’m teaching and, though I have a blazer, I don’t have an americana, let alone a pair of loafers!

Because the weather was unseasonably cool and showery, it is true I was wearing a jacket when I met them: a light blue, zipped, raincoat with a hood – surely impossible to confound with an americana. When I removed my coat in the bar, what I was actually wearing was shirt and tie, dark grey chinos with black leather belt, black socks and black leather, lace-up, Derby shoes. Yes, indubitably more British than Spanish; but essentially English?

Now, I’m pretty certain from when I met Chris that there is nothing wrong with his memory or his eyesight. So, what could account for such a lapse?

Well, to give Chris his due, he does claim in his introduction that he “has a tendency to mythologise” and issues the disclaimer that the book “is not a reliable record” (p1). It would appear that his mythology of me is that I am “every inch the English gentleman” (p130), though he does later add “but a Scot too” and finishes the section with the great compliment of calling me “a Segoviano auténtico” (p135), which my Segovian wife thinks “muy chulo” but for which I thank him.

However, although I lived in England for many years (almost two and a half times as long as I lived in Scotland), it is a country in which I never felt I belonged and, thus, always felt a stranger who was just passing through. But I willingly concede that the length of time I spent there may well have tainted me. So, perhaps, based on this perception, in a spurt of creativity, he outfitted me in what he imagines the typical English gentleman abroad might wear. Another explanation might be that he was just trying to amplify the contrast between me and my famous forebear, Don Roberto, who was, inter alia, very much “an English gentleman”.

Whatever his reasoning, I forgive him his artistic licence and hope he will forgive me my “chuzpah” in daring to question such an eminent author as him.

A Grave Myth

My aunt Jean, of whom I was extremely fond, was probably her granduncle Don Roberto’s most ardent devotee; quite a feat given the many who admired him.   She would hear no ill of him; he was her hero.  When she died aged 90, she was indeed one of the last people who had actually known him, though, as Munro points out in his doctoral thesis, she was only 7 when he died, and as she did not live in Scotland, actual contact with him would have been sporadic; much like my contact with my great-aunt Olave (known as Grannie Purr) who died when I was a similar age.

Aunt Jean devoted much of her adult life to promoting him, succeeding her father as his literary executor, and dedicating years to writing an idiosyncratic hagiography, Gaucho Laird, based on family papers and letters.  Due to the difficulty in finding a publisher, her book was finally published when she was 79.  It is a beautifully written blend of fact and imagination, though the latter has a tendency to transcend the former.

That her imagination could get the better of her is perhaps illustrated by her assertion that her great-grandmother, Anne Elizabeth, had lived in the Queen’s House in Greenwich when she was child.  This error was included in Gaucho Laird (p 27), despite there being clear evidence that the house had been converted into a nautical training school in 1807, more than three decades before Anne Elizabeth’s father’s appointment as Governor of the Royal Naval Hospital in 1839 (an institution of which her own Cunninghame Graham grandfather (Don Roberto’s younger brother) was briefly to become Commodore some 80 years later).

If Aunt Jean had a flaw (and which of us doesn’t), it was her absolute certainty that her version of events was correct, come what may, as in her insistence that her great-great-grandmother, Doña Catalina, was buried in Winchester.  So it was in 1986, armed with this information, that I went on a day trip to Winchester, in search of the church where my great-granduncle Malise (who was the youngest of the famous Don Roberto’s  brothers) had been curate in the 1880s, and to look for the graves of Malise, his mother and especially of his grandmother, Doña Catalina.  I knew the church was called St John’s but nothing more.

Having enquired at the Tourist Information, I discovered that there was only one church named for St John in the city of Winchester.  So, following the map, I set off and, after walking up the hilly St John’s Street, reached a beautiful 12th century church which, not unnaturally, used to be known as St John’s on the Hill.  Of course, the church wasn’t open so I traipsed round the graveyard looking for family tombstones, but to no avail.

Fortunately, the Rectory was next door to the church and so I rang the bell.  The then Rector, Robert Teare, who was speaking on a cordless phone, opened the door and greeted me with “Ah, Mr Cunninghame Graham”, which very much surprised me as we had never met.

Once he had finished his phone call, he explained that he instantly recognised me as he gazed on my great-granduncle every time he entered the church.  Malise’s mother (my great-great-grandmother) had commissioned a stained-glass window in his memory, which was installed in the east window behind the main altar.  The scene, which she chose, depicts the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, with the lad’s face being that of the late Malise.

I had long contended that we Cunninghame Graham men have very similar faces, change a wig or hairstyle, add or remove a beard, and the portraits could be of any one of us.  As I was bearded and Malise clean shaven, the Rector’s unexpected greeting seemed to confirm my theory.

The Revd Teare apologised that he didn’t have time to show me the church but gave me a set of keys so that I could let myself in to have a look around.  He also very kindly gave me newspaper clippings of Malise’s funeral and obituaries that he had garnered for a centenary celebration of Malise’s life and work in the parish, which had been held the previous year.  Reading these on the train home, I learned much about why he had been so admired and later discovered that the two charities founded from his bequest of £2,000 had run until 2018.

The Revd Teare also explained that the churchyard was already full by the time Malise came to the Parish, which is why I hadn’t been able to find his grave.  There was a newer cemetery further up the hill, to which he gave me directions, where I could find Malise’s grave, along with that of his mother, Anne Elizabeth, and the Vicar under whom Malise had served as curate, a Revd Dickins, who had insisted, from the time of Malise’s funeral, that he should be buried next to his “best friend”.  He was uncertain, however, as to whether Catalina had been buried there.

Once I’d finished looking round the church, whose most famous rector was the 17th century hymn writer Thomas Ken, I dropped the keys back through the Rectory letter box as instructed, and set off up the hill in search of the other graveyard.  Following Mr Teare’s directions, I easily found Malise’s grave, with his mother, Anne Elizabeth, buried to his right and the Revd Dickins to his left.  However, there was no sign of Catalina’s grave, which I duly reported to Aunt Jean.

Nonetheless, Aunt Jean was insistent that it had to be there and sent me a photocopy of a picture of the grave, though she conceded that it was perhaps, not as she had thought, near the graves of Malise and Anne Elizabeth.  I duly sent a copy of the photo to the Reverend Teare asking If he could locate the grave.  He replied in September 1987 that he had personally looked for it without success and further informed me that a recent cataloguing of the 900 graves in the parish had proven that Catalina was not buried in any of the three burial grounds pertaining to St John’s.

Accordingly, I sent a photocopy of the letter to Aunt Jean arguing that I could see no grounds for Catalina to have been buried in Winchester as, when she died, Malise, though a Wykehamist, had already gone up to Oxford two years earlier, and it wasn’t until three years later that he was appointed to the “cure of souls” in the parish.  I further argued there was no evidence, unless she knew otherwise, that Catalina, or either of her husbands, had any link to Winchester, let alone to the parish of St John the Baptist.  As I heard no more from her, I assumed she had been convinced.

Yet, on page 361 of Gaucho Laird, we read of Anne Elizabeth, “…her second wish was to be buried beside her beloved youngest son, Malise, at Winchester…in the Churchyard at St John’s, where her mother was also buried.” (emphasis mine).  While it is true, according to both Faulkner West and Tschiffely, that Anne Elizabeth wanted to be buried next to Malise – as indeed she was – neither mentions Catalina’s being buried there.  Moreover, she would have known that the Churchyard had been closed for burials for some time before Malise’s arrival in the Parish, as she had seen him laid rest in the new burial ground.

Further evidence against Catalina’s being buried in Winchester can be found in Anne Taylor’s scholarly biography, The People’s Laird, which was published a few months after Aunt Jean’s Gaucho Laird. Taylor cites correspondence between Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham (Jean’s father) who, as Don Roberto’s literary executor, was taking issue with some of the assertions made by Herbert Faulkner West (Don Roberto’s first biographer).  In response to West’s claim that Don Roberto had learnt Spanish from his grandmother, Catalina and her family in Spain (a myth which still persists today), he somewhat testily stated that, as far as he knew, she had lived on the Isle of Wight, died there and was buried in the Anglican churchyard in Ryde (p 327).  Thus, Aunt Jean’s unshakeable belief that Catalina was buried in Winchester was contradicted by her own father, though, in fairness, she may have been unaware of the correspondence as it is held in the Rauner Special Collections Library at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and not in the Scottish National Library or National Archives where most of the family papers are stored.

Moreover, in Gaucho Laird, Aunt Jean herself has Catalina and her second husband James Katon (known in the family as the two Khats) living in Ryde, Isle of Wight (c.f. Don Roberto’s sketch A Sailor (Old Style) which is a pen portrait of his step-grandfather, Vice-Admiral J E Katon).  Indeed, she goes on to record Doña Catalina’s death at Ryde (p 238), and, astonishingly, just a few pages further on she quotes from a letter Anne Elizabeth wrote to Don Roberto about her staying at Ryde to help Khat sort everything out: “As long as I remained in Ryde I kept the grave covered with flowers” (p 241).   This surely must be a reference to Catalina’s grave.

There is one possible, though highly improbable, solution to the contradiction, which would be that Catalina was first buried in Ryde and then exhumed and reburied in Winchester.  But for the life of me, I cannot imagine any logical reason for such a costly and pointless exercise.  Therefore, I blame the contradiction on poor editing, as a good editor would surely have spotted it and asked for clarification from the author as they did elsewhere (one of their questions being accidentally printed with the book).

Finally, though I am convinced that Catalina is buried in Ryde and not Winchester, I have to admit that when, I visited Ryde on another day trip some years later (2005), I was unable to find the graves of Catalina or Khat.  However, I believe my failure owes more to the size of the cemetery, which must hold 2 to 3 times as many graves as the three burial grounds of St John’s combined, and the briefness of the time I had available to search for them.   The journey was not entirely wasted, though, as it yielded a doggerel verse, with which I’ll leave you:

Elegiac Reflections

Walk soft, sir, amongst the sleepers;

let your tread be light over where they lie,

in slumber awaiting the angelic alarum,

God’s last trump, their call to arise.

Tarry a while, sir, amongst these stones,

sun-warmed and weather-worn monuments,

standing silent sentinel over worthies,

forgotten for an age, in their deep repose.

Stop, sir, and peruse these headlines,

scant remnants of stories long mislaid;

reflect upon their faded glories and pause,

just pause a moment, in silent prayer.                               ©  WRBCG    2005

Brexit Day

Well the dreadful day has finally arrived – that johnson having signed his deep frozen and anything but oven ready deal – and I have been deprived of my EU citizenship, which had been my privilege for almost 30 years (almost half my life).

I marked the occasion by burning a Union Jack and will now start the process of obtaining Spanish nationality, which will automatically restore my EU citizenship. I look forward to fulfilling the obligation to renounce British citizenship, when I am successful.

And as for the Brexit bunch, they can take their shoddy, blue passport and shove it! Hell mend them!

The Sins of Sodom

I suspect that were I to ask you what the sin of Sodom was, most of you would reply homosexuality.  However, that answer would be biblically incorrect.  Let me try to explain why.

Like most of you, I have heard sermons about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) – but oddly, I cannot recall ever hearing one about the parallel story of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) – in which the preacher gives homosexuality as the reason for the cities’ destruction.  Yet such an interpretation ignores the context of the narrative and multiple other references in scripture, which we will examine later.  

But let us start with context.  There is a reason why the destruction of Sodom is in chapter 19, other than Abraham’s pleading for the city (so as to save his nephew Lot?), and that reason is to contrast the behaviour expected from the righteous with the evil of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a technique commonly used in the Bible.

In Genesis 18 we read about how Abraham welcomed three strangers:

“²Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

³ He said, “If I have found favour in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. ⁴ Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. ⁵ Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”

⁶ So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”

⁷ Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. ⁸ He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.”  (Genesis 18:2-8).

But when we look at how the two angels, who had been entertained by Abraham, were received in Sodom, it was left to a foreigner (Lot) to show them the hospitality that was expected.  The men of Sodom were clearly less than happy that this outsider had given shelter to strangers and, thus, we read:

“⁴ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. ⁵ They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’ ⁶ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁷ and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. ⁸ Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”  (Genesis 19:4-8)

Even though the offer by Lot of his virgin daughters suggests a sexual motive, the earliest Jewish commentators make no mention of homosexuality. According to the Talmud, the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality.  But, as we shall see later, that was not their only sin.

The Talmud teaches that where there are two similar verses or parallel stories each should be used to interpret the other.  And in the case of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we have a remarkably similar story, that of the Levite’s Concubine, in Judges Chapter 19.  For those of you unfamiliar with the story, let me give a brief summary. 

A stranger – a Levite – who has deliberately avoided staying in a Gentile town for fear of abuse, is given lodging by an elderly man who, though not a Benjaminite, is living in the town of Gibeah of Benjamin.  The men of the town come and demand that the visitor is turned over to them for sexual abuse and are offered the host’s virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine, the latter whom they abuse all night causing her death.  

Despite the similarities, I have been unable to find any commentary suggesting that the reason for the outrage perpetuated at Gibeah was due to homosexuality.  According to the Talmud, their sins were twofold: the first, as in Sodom, was inhospitality; the second was defiling the marriage bed, which made them adulterers. 

Of course, there are some fundamental differences between the stories. 

First, in the case of Sodom (which was not of the Covenant people anyway), the Law had not yet been given, so appealing to passages such as Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 would be anachronistic, whereas, they most certainly applied to the men of Gibeah of Benjamin, as did Leviticus 20:10 which sets out the penalty for adultery.  However, Gibeah was not destroyed as Sodom was, although surely they, as part of God’s chosen people under the Law, were more culpable.

Second, God had already decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, long before the men of Sodom had their encounter with the visiting angels (Genesis 18:17), whereas it was an outraged Israel which demanded that the men from Gibeah be “put to death, and purge the evil from Israel” (Judges 20:13) in fulfilment of the Law of Moses.  The Benjaminites refusal to comply with the request that the malfeasants be handed over led to their near annihilation by the other tribes who had only decided to seek God’s will just before going into battle (Judges 20:18).  

But did these two crimes really arise from homosexual desire and practice? 

In the first case, it is usually assumed that the answer is ‘yes’, even though the intended gang rape did not actually take place and it is unknown whether the men of Sodom would have been satisfied with Lot’s daughters, in the way the men of Gibeah were with the Levite’s concubine, as the angels made them blind.  Furthermore, it does seem implausible that true homosexuals would be satisfied by the offer of a woman (in Gibeah) or women (in Sodom). What is clear is that interpreting the sin of Sodom to be homosexual lust relies on reading more into the text than is actually there.

So what was going on? 

For many modern readers, living in an age in which almost everything is sexualized, sexual sins are deemed much more important in our culture than a lack of hospitality, something which, to the modern mind doesn’t warrant total destruction, not the way that homosexuality does.  But such a stance ignores the historical-cultural context of the passages.  While inhospitality is pretty unimportant in 21^st century Western culture, it was immensely important in the time of Abraham and the Judges, and well beyond.  God specifically commands the Israelites not to “wrong or oppress a resident alien” (Exodus 22:21) and to “love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19).

Let me, if I may, draw a parallel to these two Bible stories from recent history. 

During the Bosnian Conflict of the 1990s, many imprisoned Bosnian Muslim men (and women) were raped by their Serbian captors.  Was this erotic behaviour because the Serbian army was full of homosexuals?  Or maybe because the soldiers had been deprived of sex for many months?  Or was it quite simply gang rape?  If it was the last, rape, whether of men or women, is less about sexual gratification than about dominating and humiliating the victim.  And that, I suggest, was intention of the evil men in both Sodom and Gibeah.  The more usual interpretation requires that the percentage of homosexuals in the population of Sodom (and Gibeah) was far greater than it is in our own day, which is, to say the least, improbable.

So, now let us turn to the rest of Scripture to see how the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is portrayed. 

Though Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently mentioned by the prophets, nowhere do they associate the cities with homosexuality. 

Isaiah uses Sodom as a metaphor for Israel and their shameless sinning (Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9) and as a warning of destruction for Babylon (Isaiah 13: 19-22).  Amos, echoing Isaiah, tells Israel that, despite overthrowing some of them like Sodom, they had not repented (Amos 4:11).

Jeremiah associates Sodom with adultery and lies (Jeremiah 23:14) and the destruction of Edom and Babylon (Jeremiah 49:17-18; 50:39-40).  Zephaniah uses similar comparisons for the destruction of Moab and the Ammonites (Zephaniah 2:9).

Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to Sodom saying,

“⁴⁸ As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

⁴⁹ “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. ⁵⁰ They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:48-50). 

If verse 49 details the true sin of Sodom, it should surely strike fear in the hearts of many of our politicians and wealth creators, who, all too often, are arrogantly indifferent to the poor and needy.  How much more comfortable it is to reduce the sin of Sodom to the minority of the population who are homosexual rather than confront our own failings!

Now, some have argued that the “detestable things” in verse 50 must refer to homosexuality because the Hebrew word used, ‘עשׂה (toebah), is the same as is used to describe homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and, therefore, that must be the sin of Sodom.  However, their case would be much more convincing if the word ‘toebah’ (which usually has a ritual connotation) had been used in Genesis 18-19 or Judges 19-20, which, of course, it is not.   This begs the question, “How common is the word ‘toebah’ in the Bible?” 

If one looks at where and when the word ‘toebah’ is used in the Old Testament (it isn’t used in the New Testament), one finds that it occurs 112 times, of which 42 are in the book of Ezekiel, who used it 8 times alone in chapter 16 (verses 2, 22 , 36, 43, 47, 50, 51 and 58). Thus, by lifting verse 50 from the wider context of the rest of the chapter, so as to link it to homosexual sin on the basis of a single word (toebah), they ignore that which does not suit their agenda, namely that all the other references to ‘toebah’ in the chapter are to do with Jerusalem’s ritual idolatry and spiritual adultery.  In verse 50, it is clear that it refers back to “they did not help the poor and needy” in the previous verse, which was contrary to God’s clear command (eg Exodus 22:21-23; Exodus 23:6; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 15:11) and a recurrent theme in the psalms and the prophets (eg Psalm 72:12-13; Psalm 82:3-4; Isaiah 58:6-7; Jeremiah 22:16; Ezekiel 22:29; Amos 8:4).

Turning to the New Testament, we see that, with the possible exception of one verse, it is not homosexuality that Sodom is condemned for.

Jesus is only recorded as referring to Sodom three times.  First, for those who are inhospitable to the twelve disciples (Matthew 10:14-15) or the 72 (Luke 10:10-12) whom Jesus has sent out ahead of him; second for Jewish cities that are impenitent (Matthew 11:20-24); and, third, in describing the end times (Luke 17:28-30).

When Peter describes the fate of false prophets, rather than focusing on the sin of Sodom, he emphasises the rescue of Lot – whom he calls a righteous man (2Peter 2:7-8) – which he sees as evidence of God’s protection and justice for the godly (2 Peter 2:9).

That leaves just one verse, Jude 7, which could possibly be interpreted as referring to homosexual lust.  However, such an interpretation, which relies on a superficial reading, becomes far from obvious when subjected to serious scrutiny.

First, interpreting the verse as a reference to homosexual lust relies on a circular argument.  The reason given for interpreting it this way is that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and the sin of Sodom was homosexuality because that is what Jude says in verse 7 (often with the supposed support of Ezekiel 16:50, which, as we have seen, says nothing of the sort).  Such circularity in the argument obviously renders it deeply flawed.

Second, when we turn to the original Greek, we find that Jude did not use the common word for homosexual, ἀρσενοκοῖται  (arsenokoitai) which was used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.  Surely, had Jude meant homosexual, he would have clearly said so.  Instead the phrase used in verse 7 is ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (apelthousai opisō sarkos heteras) – literally “having gone beyond the different flesh” – which is not nearly as clear as the translation “pursued unnatural lust” suggests.  In fact, the Greek word heteras, which comes from the same root as the “hetero” in heterosexual, only appears twice in the New Testament; here in Jude 7 and in Hebrews 7:13 and has the meaning of different or strange – the exact opposite of  the Greek word “homo” (same).

Third, interpreting the verse as referring to homosexual lust requires isolating it from the rest of the letter.  The fact that the verse begins with the words ὅμοιον  τρόπον (homoion tropon) “in like manner”, indicates a link to the preceding verse, which refers to the fate of fallen angels.  Similarly, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is linked to the following verse which begins with Ὁμοίως  (Homoiōs ) “Likewise” and returns us to the theme of the errors of false teachers and God’s judgement on them which began in verse 5.

Given Jude’s use of the Jewish apocrypha (verse 9), the juxtaposition of fallen angels with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a logical progression (and is similar to the verses in 2 Peter 2).  According to Genesis 6:1-4, “the sons of God”, a phrase which is only used in the Old Testament to describe angels, married human women and it was the evil committed by their offspring which led to the Flood (Genesis 7-8).   It is easy to see how Jude might understand Sodom as a reverse of Genesis 6, in which evil men lusted after good angels, even though their intentions were ultimately thwarted.

Thus, the most logical interpretation of Jude 7, when read in context and in parallel with 2 Peter 2, is his stress on the destruction of Sodom for its sexual immorality rather than homosexuality. 

Of course, none of what I have said rules out the possibility that homosexual lust was one, among many, of the sins committed by the Sodomites.   However, once the whole of the Bible is taken into account, it does discount homosexual lust being the principal sin for which the cities of the plain were destroyed.

So, to conclude, what are we to learn from these two passages of scripture?

What is clear from the Biblical texts is, irrespective of what their sins were, that the price paid for their sins by Sodom and Gomorrah was complete destruction, while the tribe of Benjamin suffered near annihilation rendering them the “smallest of the tribes of Israel” (1 Samuel 9:21).  For me, the most important lesson of both these stories is that God takes all sin very seriously and so should we.

A Considered Response to Mark Francois

Oh dear, Mark Francois. Your little tirade on Channel 4 News reminds me of one of my students. He also has a full-scale strop, throwing the toys around, when he doesn’t get his own way. The difference is he is just 3 years old and not 53!

I completely understand that you are an out and out Europhobe, who represents a Leave voting constituency, but you seem to have let your prejudices blind you to the simple fact that it is your own party leader that is keeping you in the EU against your will and not the 27 EU leaders. This situation arose from and the Prime Minister’s indecisive leadership, failure to seek consensus, and incompetence in handling the negotiations. The blame clearly lies, not with the EU whom you wish to scapegoat, but with your own fractured and disintegrating Tory Party.

I know that you Tories don’t do irony, so it must be your famed hypocrisy that you are flaunting when you ask to “pursue our respective destinies in a spirit of mutual respect”. I’ve not seen any Brexiteer give an ounce of respect to those in the EU who are bending over backwards to help the UK leave without the chaotic “No Deal”, which UK Parliament has repeatedly voted against and has now legislated against.  So much for parliamentary democracy!

While I have no doubt that you and Boris Johnson believe the English to be “the chosen people”, the analogy with Pharaoh and the Israelites is inappropriate, given that we are not in this mess because the EU wants to keep us as vassals, but because the Leave Campaigners failed to define what Brexit meant beyond “leaving the EU” and all ran away and hid once the result was announced. You then left it to the Prime Minister, who committed us to leave by 29th March without any plan (let alone strategy) to achieve her pledge.

I wonder, Mr Francois, whether your claim about “not holding a country against its will” in the 21st century applies to Scotland – in which case, we look forward to your support in seeking Scottish independence from the UK – or whether it is just more of the hypocrisy that you Tories so cherish. Sadly, I suspect, from long experience, that it is the latter.

I’m sorry to have to inform you that there is no longer any such thing as “the democratic will of the British people” (if indeed it ever existed) – Brexit has put paid to that. I think you must be using British as a euphemism for English as so many unionist politicians unconsciously do.

Next, having set up your straw man argument, you threaten the EU, with whom, presumably, post-Brexit, you wish to forge a trade deal.  Obviously, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we, Mark? Your ill-advised remarks remind me of another of my students, who like you, has little concept of consequences; but he at least has the excuse of only being 10 years old!

I suspect, were you, as you threaten, to deliberately disrupt EU business during the extension, which, let us remember, was begged from the EU by your Party Leader and Prime Minister, a number of EU member states would reciprocate by vetoing any and every trade deal Britain proposed.  This would be far more damaging to the UK’s export market, of which 44% goes to the EU, than to the EU whose exports to the UK are a mere 10%.

You talk about a Tory Party led by Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab, but I’m not sure how you think you can bring about such change, when you squandered your chance to oust Theresa May back in December.  If you and the rest of your No Deal Brexiteers had had the courage of your convictions and had voted against the government, you could have had a new leader, but the fear of a General Election was greater than your loathing of Theresa May.  May will go as and when she is ready and no amount of indicative voting will influence her one jot (any more than the indicative votes on Brexit did).

Finally, if you consider yourself a good example of what it is to be British, let me tell you that you make me utterly ashamed to be identified as such.