Authority

Some time ago I received an email from someone who had a few questions for me as a Baptist and as a theologian:

Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Where did he tell his apostles to write anything down?

Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

Where in the Bible is God’s word restricted only to what is written down?

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

Where, in the Bible, does it say that the Bible is our only rule of faith? (And don’t quote 2 Timothy 3:16, which does not say that ONLY Scripture is inspired of God.)

How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when the make no claim to be inspired?

If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt. 2:23; 23:2; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 3:19; Jude 9, Rev. 14:15)?

If the books of the NT are “self-authenticating through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual,” then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

How did the early church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Who in the church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the NT canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church concils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the NT canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the OT canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

Why do Protestants follow post-apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the OT canon (after the destruction of Jerusalem), rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1,500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the holy, catholic Church,” and not “we believe in the Bible alone?”

I believe that those are excellent questions and I so here are my rather random, incomplete, and scattered thoughts and answers to these questions:

The early creeds also fail to mention that the pope is supreme or that the church is the authority for faith and practice. Protestants (or at least Baptists) do not view creeds as authoritative, anyhow. What was the purpose of the creeds, anyhow? But to give a basic summary of what Christians believed in contrast to the paganism around them.

Underlying (and not clearly articulated) presupposition here by Catholic theology: church councils, pronouncements of the Pope ex cathedra, and the Bible are the triad on which authority for faith and practice rest. The authority of church councils and the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope rests on the presupposition that the authority wielded by the apostles was passed down through the church.

Yet, consider conflicting evidence:

The Council of Jerusalem forbade the eating of food sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:20, 29, and 21:25), yet Paul didn’t feel particularly constrained by what the Council of Jerusalem said (1 Corinthians 8).

Paul felt no compulsion about publicly disagreeing with Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles and following Jewish dietary regulations, and seemed not particularly enamored by the “pillars” of the church (Galatians 2:2-21).

Where does the New Testament tell us that the church, or church councils have the authority claimed for them in Catholic theology?

The practice of Jesus and the apostles demonstrates that the Bible was considered ultimately authoritative. Jesus’ interaction with the Jewish establishment centered on the issue of authority: their traditions, vs. the actual statements of scripture. Are we to say that Christian tradition is somehow authoritative, while the pronouncements of the Jewish tradition were automatically not? What is the fundamental difference?

What Jesus taught, and what the apostles taught is presented as authoritative. All we have left of them is what is contained in the New Testament. If they were authoritative in person, then their written correspondence should likewise be authoritative. But the issue is not the authority of the Bible. The issue is whether the councils, church, and pope are an equal authority. Where does the Bible, the known authority, add the church, its councils, and the pope as an authority equal to it?

Protestants point out that the church councils at Hippo and Carthage recognized the current New Testament cannon. Protestants do not suggest that such recognition is authoritative or binding. Protestants would argue that by their nature, the New Testament works are scripture, whether we recognize them or not. You as an individual are free to choose to accept or dispute any part of scripture you want. Your disputing has no effect on the nature of that scripture, however, one way or the other.

The church and the individuals in the church function without knowing well or having at their disposal the Bible. And that is certainly true and remains true. But that is not because of the authority and outer form and structure of the church. Rather, it is a consequence of the simple fact that Christians have the Holy Spirit of God living inside of them. That is how it is we become Christians and have been transformed. The special work of the Spirit began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and as Peter pointed out there, fulfills the promises of the Old Testament prophets.

Particularly, the New Testament or Covenant that we have in Christ was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah and became real for Christians on the day of Pentecost:

The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more. (Hebrews 8:8–12 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34)

The law of God is in our minds and hearts because God is there in our minds and hearts. We don’t need to teach our neighbor to “Know the Lord” because the Lord lives inside of him or her. Many Baptists and other protestants still have trouble coming to grips with just how transformative the coming of God’s Spirit is for individual Christians.

Nevertheless, ignorance of the Bible does not lessen the Bible’s authority. Besides, did the average Christian of the first centuries know all the pronouncements of all the councils, bishops and popes? Did they know any of them? And yet, the average Christian would have heard some of the words of scripture proclaimed every Sunday in their churches.

The issue is not the day-to-day functioning of the church or believers, but what their final authority might be. The rule, the guide, in Protestant thinking, is the Bible as the final arbiter. Even the church councils have a tendency to wind up quoting the Bible, as do the bishops and popes whenever they speak on matters of faith and doctrine..

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

The Name of God

God’s name is singular: he only has one: Yahweh. All the other words are designations or descriptions, like referring to myself as “theologian” or “author” or “annoying.” But neither of those is my name.

Some people have nick names. And in some respect, God’s name is a nick name. How so?

The reason we have names is because there are a lot of human beings. We need something to call each other by besides “hey you.” But there is only one God. He does not need a name, therefore.

But Moses was steeped in polytheism, as were the Israelites (and their ancestors); thus, the question Moses asks of God in Exodus is in the context of that polytheistic setting and mindset. He wants to know which God he’s talking to, so he can let the people know, since they will be curious about that.

The foundational passage for God’s name occurs in Exodus, at the burning bush, when God asks Moses to go back to Israel to lead his people to the Promised Land.

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’
“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:13-15)

God’s name is written with four letters (yod, he, vav, he) and thus God’s name is sometimes referred to as the tetragramaton (a four letter word).

His name is a third person imperfect of the verb to be; I AM in verse 14 is the same verb, to be, but it is the first person imperfect form.

The form of the third person imperfect used for God’s name is the archaic form, with a vav instead of what was used later (and is used elsewhere throughout the Bible), a yod.

In the ten commandments, in Exodus 20:7, God tells the people not to “misuse” his name (or to “use it in vain”). The Jewish people developed the habit of building hedges around the law; that is, in order to avoid breaking one of God’s commands, they added other commands that if followed, would prevent you from even getting in a position to violate God’s commandment. So for instance the command in Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21 to not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk is the basis for the kosher regulations that milk and meat products can never be mixed; some even use separate dishes, cooking pots, and utensils for milk and meat products and some even go the extreme of having entirely separate kitchens for the two products.

Thus, the Jewish people built a hedge around the commandment not to misuse God’s name by deciding that God’s name must never be pronounced.

Thus, whenever his name was seen in the biblical text, instead of saying God’s name, Yahweh, they said the word adonai, which in Hebrew meant “lord” or “master”. That then became a synonym for God and eventually came to be used exclusively for him; in Jewish thinking, that word was the same as the word “God.”

In the 600s AD, when the vowel system was developed in Tiberias by the Masoretes, they enshrined the no pronunciation rule by “mispointing” the divine name by putting the vowels for adonai in place of the vowels for Yahweh and putting two vowels upon one consonant, an impossibility by the rules of vowel pointing laid down by the Masoretes. Thus, not only was the rule that God’s name was not to be spoken, by doing this they made the name unpronounceable in fact.

But…

When gentiles first learned to read Hebrew, the rules for God’s name didn’t initially stick and so God’s name was transliterated, which is how the word “Jehovah” came to exist. It is a misreading by early translators, but it has stuck. And the tradition of never saying God’s name has passed on to gentile students of Hebrew in every seminary and Bible college in the United States. When I took Hebrew, I was taught—at a Baptist school—not to pronounce God’s name, but instead to say “adonai.”

And you’ll notice that all English translations, instead of putting God’s name in the OT, put the word LORD, all in capitals. Or, sometimes, the word GOD all in capitals, to signify that it is God’s name there.

When the Bible was translated into Greek in the 200s BC, the tradition was already firmly in place, so that every time God’s name appeared, it was transformed into the Greek word for Lord: kurios.

Some bad theology has grown from this. Although this word is a word that normally in Greek would mean “lord” or “boss” or “master”, when it is used in place of God’s name by Jewish people, it loses that sense and simply means “God”, just as for most English speakers it is simply another word for God. In New Testament usage, it has become a technical term with a specialized meaning: it just means “God.” Just as the Greek word “ecclesia” developed a technical meaning for Christians; although in Greek it meant a political assembly, among Christians it took on the meaning “church.”

Thus, by the time of the NT, Jewish people (and then Christians) refused the annual oath to Caesar, when all Romans were required to utter the phrase “Caesar is Lord.” Which, for Jews and Christians was the same as saying “Caesar is God.” They refused and the Roman Empire had given Jewish people an exemption (since the Romans didn’t want never ending rioting).

Thus, in the NT when Jesus is called “Lord” he is not being called master, or boss, he is simply being called God. The odd concept of “lordship salvation” is based on a misunderstanding of the Bible’s use of the term.

* * *

After Moses gets to Egypt and performs his first two signs, Pharoah rejects him and adds more work on the people, so that now the people are mad at him too. Moses complains to God about the situation and then God reassures Moses that everything will work out. During the comforting process, God comments:

In Exodus 6:2-3:

God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, l but by my name the LORD n I did not make myself fully known to them.

At first glance, this seems very odd, since we find God’s name appearing repeatedly in the book of Genesis from its first appearance at Genesis 2:4—and then on and on; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all use the word. But in Exodus 6:2-3, we are told they didn’t know the name.

What gives?

The author of Genesis, writing after the time of Exodus 6:2-3, wanted his readers to know that the God of their forefathers, the patriarchs, were worshipping the same God that had rescued them from Egypt. The God who created the world was the same God that had parted the Red Sea and fed them mana for 40 years. The God in whose image they had been created was the same God that the Levitical priests sacrificed their sin offerings to in the Tabernacle and then the Temple.

It is anachronistic and not “literal” in the mouths of the patriarchs; but putting the name back upon their lips serves and important theological purpose.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Culture, History, Language, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

Accident

Disasters arrive without warning. And they often arrive gently, like the merest tap on your shoulder. It’s only when you turn around, that you realize just how bad it is.

On the twentieth of June at 12:02 PM I got an odd text from my oldest daughter: “I broke the car.” My first thought was that something had gone wrong with it, such as a warning light popping on, or maybe a flat tire.

But soon, I discovered just what her text meant. About a mile from our house, as my daughter was driving along at about 45 miles per hour (which was the speed limit) she entered an intersection. The light was green.

But at the moment my daughter entered the intersection, a woman in another car decided to turn left right in front of her. The other driver failed to notice that someone—my daughter—was coming the other way.

My daughter stepped on her brake and swerved in a desperate attempt to miss the inattentive driver, doing exactly what she’d been taught to do in her driver’s education class. Unfortunately, despite her best effort, my daughter could not miss the other car completely, given the laws of physics.

Had my daughter not reacted as quickly as she had—remarkable given how little time she had—she would have slammed straight into the side of that woman’s car. As it was, she smacked its back end, taking out the right front end of her own car, putting it into a spin, and deploying her airbag.

Thankfully, neither my daughter nor the other driver were injured significantly in the accident. My daughter sustained a small bruise on her right knee and strained the muscles in her abdomen. That was probably from her seatbelt locking up as it was designed to do.

The police arrived relatively quickly, along with other emergency vehicles. Neither my daughter’s car nor the other driver’s car were in drivable conditions.

The police officer who helped my daughter let her know that the other driver was the one that was at fault. He expressed surprise at how calm and collected my daughter was. She didn’t panic at all.

My daughter’s boyfriend picked her up and brought her home. I contacted our insurance company immediately and let them know what had happened.

And so the process of recovering from the accident began.

Most thankfully, the other driver had insurance. In fact, we were in contact with the other driver’s insurance within an hour—long before the other driver. In fact, for the next three days, the other insurance company could not get hold of their client. Despite that, and despite our description of the accident, and despite our insurance company’s efforts, the other insurance company was initially reluctant to accept any responsibility. However, once they got the police report—about a week after the accident—their reluctance evaporated. They accepted full liability.

Even when things go smoothly—and things did go remarkably smoothly—there are still annoyances when an accident happens.

There was the complexity of getting a rental car.

Despite the fact that our insurance company was paying for the rental car, we still had to put down a deposit of fifty dollars. Then, after my daughter went back to her grandmother’s house (where she is staying, since her college is near there) the rental car started having rather significant mechanical problems: the steering was wonky and it shimmied weirdly at freeway speeds. So my wife had to go down to Orange County and help my daughter exchange it for a different rental car; my daughter couldn’t do that on her own, since the insurance is in our names.

Thankfully, there was no additional expense in replacing the rental car, beyond that involved in my wife making a hundred mile round trip.

Then there was the complexity of our deductible. Since the other driver was at fault, we had been led to believe that we would not have to pay a deductible. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Instead, we had to pay it first. Then we got to wait for the other insurance company to pay our insurance company for everything that our insurance company was initially forking out, and the deductible we were forking out. Once the other insurance company paid up, then, and only then, would our deductible be reimbursed.

Still, that was mostly just an annoyance, since it took barely a month from the time we paid the deductible until the time it was reimbursed. Thus, in the end, we were out no money at all. Nevertheless, it was an unanticipated and unplanned expense that wrought havoc with our cash flow.

All in all, the process couldn’t have gone much smoother than it did. Certainly it would have been preferable had there been no accident at all. But our health insurance took care of my daughter’s examination after the accident and the pain killers that were prescribed to her. The other insurance company paid off on all of that. And happily, my daughter was essentially undamaged. Though she remains a bit nervous as she approaches intersections.

Her car was repaired perfectly within only two weeks’ time. One would never know, looking at her vehicle, that it ever sustained 7100 dollars’ worth of damage.
In the end, the only consequence of an accident that could have been far, far worse, was the temporary disruption: the attention it required, the time it required, the stress, and the temporary outlay of money, since recovered. Our insurance took care of things just as insurance companies are supposed to. Insurance is well worth the cost.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Three Blind Mice

One day when my middle daughter and I were sitting and waiting in her pediatrician’s office, she noticed a painting on the wall of a children’s nursery rhyme. And we wondered who had written it, what it might be about, and when might it have been composed. So I did a bit of research by way of Google and Wikipedia. The children’s song Three Blind Mice was first published four hundred years ago this year, in 1609. The song appeared in Deuteromelia or The Seconde part of Musicks Melodie. The words in 1609 were not exactly the same as those in the current version of the song:

Three Blinde Mice, three Blinde Mice,
Dame Iulian, Dame Iulian,
The Miller and his merry olde Wife,
she scrapte her tripe; licke thou the knife.
Three Blinde Mice, three Blinde Mice.

“Dame Iulian” is the Dame Julian also known as Julian of Norwich who lived from 1342 to 1416. She is best known for her book, Revelations of Divine Love (or Showings). She lived in times of turmoil and rejected the prevailing notion that suffering was a punishment from God. Instead, she believed that God loved people and wanted to save everyone. One of her best known quotations is the phrase, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well,” as an answer to the question some have about what God will do with those who have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel.

As to why she appears in this song? No one knows.

Why is her name spelled “Iulian” rather than “Julian” in the song? For that we do have an answer. It’s because the letter “J” was the last letter to be added to the alphabet. “J” was originally simply an alternative version of “I.” The first English-language book to make a clear distinction between “I” and “J” was published in 1634. Since the lyrics “Dame Iulian” appear in a book of 1609, obviously “J” had not, as yet, come into common use.

The word “scrapte” is equivalent to modern English “scraped.” “Tripe” means the “entrails” or “belly” and given the context in the song, most likely means “belly” there. Metaphorically it was sometimes used contemptuously of a person. “Licke” is simply an older spelling of “lick.” Thou, of course, is equivalent to “you.”

The modern lyrics of the tune are different, of course:

Three blind mice. Three blind mice
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?

The book that first had the tune in it, Deuteromelia, was one of three collections of folk music edited by one Thomas Ravescroft. He was an English composer and editor most well known for compiling collections of British folk tunes. Pammelia, the first volume, was also published in 1609. The third volume, Melismata didn’t come out until 1611. Some have suggested that Ravenscroft was the author of the original lyrics for Three Blind Mice which is certainly possible since he was a composer of music himself, though his own original works are mostly forgotten today. His known, but rarely performed, compositions include eleven anthems, three motets for five voices and four fantasias for viols.

The time of Ravenscroft’s birth is uncertain. Sources put it at either 1582 or 1592. Given that the later date would make him a teenager when Deuteromelia was published, I believe it is more likely that his real birth year is closer to 1582. He also wrote a treatise on music theory, A Briefe Discourse of the True (but Neglected) Use of Charact’ring the Degrees, published in London in 1614.

As for the best-known piece of music that Ravenscroft is associated with, Three Blind Mice, there has been a lot of speculation regarding the possible hidden meanings in the song. Some have suggested that the “farmer’s wife” is a veiled reference to Queen Mary I of England. She supposedly blinded and executed three Protestant bishops. Unfortunately for the theory, the three bishops, Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer were not, in fact, blinded. Instead they were burned at the stake. Beyond that, there’s the simple fact that the lyrics are dated a few years after Mary had died, so it’s hard to see why a song would have been made up about her at such a late date. Others have suggested that the song somehow references the beliefs of Julian of Norwich, since she is mentioned in the original lyrics.

The tune from the song Three Blind Mice has been adapted and reused by later composers. For instance, Joseph Haydn used the theme in the fourth movement of his Symphony 83 (La Poule) around 1785 or 86. More recently, Three Blind Mice was used as the theme song for The Three Stooges.

In both hockey and basketball, since there are three referees, the phrase “Three Blind Mice” is used sometimes as an insult against bad refs. At high school games, bands have occasionally been known to play the song whenever the referees make a call that is unpopular. Playing the song in such circumstances, of course, is frowned upon and considered unsportsmanlike behavior.

It used to be that there were only three umpires in baseball, instead of the four used today. In the first half of the twentieth century, the Brooklyn Dodgers had a band called the Ebbets Field “Sym-phony” led by Jack “Shorty” Laurice. It started playing “Three Blind Mice” whenever the umpires would walk out onto the field. Eventually, however, the baseball league ordered the team to stop doing that since it annoyed the umpires.

Send to Kindle
Posted in History, Language | Leave a comment

What If?

One of my favorite kinds of science fiction is a subgenre known as “alternate history.” The authors of this sort of science fiction ask the “what if” questions of history: what if the North had lost the battle at Gettysburg? What if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had failed? What if Hitler had developed the atomic bomb first? The science fiction author Harry Turtledove has built his career on asking such “what if” questions.

Turtledove was trained as a historian and received his PhD from UCLA in Byzantine History in 1977. He’s written such novels as Ruled Britannia, in which he assumed the Spanish Armada had not been destroyed in a storm and so had successfully invaded and conquered England. What would England be like after that? What might that have done to the kinds of plays that Shakespeare would write? Historians call these sort of “what if” questions that Turtledove turned into fiction as “counterfactual history.” That is, history that didn’t actually happen. The value of counterfactual history in the academic setting of working historians is that it allows them to think carefully and deeply about the turning points in history. There are many moments in our past, both recent and distant, where a minor change would have had profound repercussions.

Although science fiction writers enjoy writing alternate histories where the Nazis won, professional historians who have examined the realities of the Second World War, for instance in the 1997 book What If? Strategic Alternatives of WWII, conclude that there was really no possibility of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever winning the war in the long run. Certainly battles could have ended differently, the war might have taken longer to conclude, but in the end, the overwhelming industrial strength of the United States ensured America’s ultimate victory.

Likewise, any examination of the Civil War shows the southern states inevitably losing, usually much faster than they actually did in the real world. That the Civil War lasted as long as it did is primarily due to the combination of the superior talent of certain Southern generals combined with a string of incredibly incompetent Northern generals. The only hope the South had for victory was if England had joined the war on their side. Although England had no love for the United States and would not have minded seeing the union destroyed, England had even less love for the institution of slavery, making the southern cause very unpopular.

One of the most fertile fields for counterfactual history revolves around the American Revolution; a good book discussing some of the issues and possibilities is What If?: The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, edited by Robert Cowley. That book points out that the victory of the Americans over the British was so very unlikely that every battle, every turning point, if altered even slightly, results in a British victory. In point of fact, had not one very improbable event after another happened, the United States would have been stillborn. That our nation exists as an independent republic is one of the most remarkably unlikely events in all of human history.

To look at just one example from Cowley’s book: just as England was saved by the weather when an unexpected storm sent the Spanish invasion fleet to the bottom of the ocean, foggy weather saved the American Revolution. The first major battle of the American Revolution, the Battle of Long Island, occurred at the end of August, 1776. After defeating the British at the Siege of Boston on March 17, 1776, George Washington had brought the Continental Army to defend New York City. At the time, New York City was located only on the southern end of Manhattan Island. He established his defenses and then waited for the British to attack.

In July, the British, commanded by General William Howe, landed a few miles across the harbor on Staten Island. Over the next month, they slowly reinforced until by August there were thirty-two thousand British troops in complete control of the entrance to New York Harbor.

On August 22, the British landed on Long Island, across The Narrows from Staten Island and across the East River from Manhattan. After five days of waiting, the British attacked the American defenses. The Americans were doomed if they tried to stand and fight, and so Washington decided to evacuate his army of nine thousand soldiers on the night of August 29-30.

Washington and his army were surrounded on Brooklyn Heights with the East River to their backs. If the wind shifted, the British ships could have sailed up the East River and destroyed the Americans.

By about 9 PM Washington had begun the evacuation. Artillery, supplies, and troops were all being evacuated across the river by boat but it did not go as fast as Washington had hoped. The night dragged on and with many troops left in danger, sunrise was fast approaching. But then, unexpectedly, just before the sun came up, a thick fog settled in. Thus, the rest of the evacuation from the British remained concealed.

As the morning wore on, the British became suspicious of the odd silence across the way. The British finally sent patrols to search the area. While they were arriving, Washington, hidden by the fog, stepped onto the last boat and sailed away. By 7 AM, he and all nine thousand of his troops had been evacuated without a single life lost.

It had not been foggy the night before. It was not foggy the night after. And it normally wasn’t foggy there that time of the year. But when they needed it most, the fog rolled in.

If not for the unexpected arrival of the fog, the American revolution would have ended that night and the Americas would have remained a part of the British Empire. But Washington and his army escaped, so they could fight again another day.

Send to Kindle
Posted in History, Science Fiction | Leave a comment

Vasquez Rocks

One of my favorite hiking spots is Vasquez Rocks, a 905 acre state park about half-way between Lancaster and Santa Clarita, just off the Antelope Valley Freeway. Crisscrossed with trails, the park sits right on top of the San Adreas Fault. The rocks of the name are gigantic jagged plates of sedimentary rock thrusting upward at about a 45 degree angle, like the sails of old clipper ships rising from the desert floor. Eroded by years of rains and sand, the rocks are made of multi-hued bands of parallel browns, yellows and reds. People climbing them look like ants scrambling upon their anthills.

My wife and I, sometimes alone, sometimes with our children and sometimes with our friends, will spend a few hours hiking around the park. We’ll pause at the babbling creek that runs in the gully, where we’ll sit beneath a shady tree and to eat our lunch. In the spring, the grass is green and flowers bloom; there are pepper trees, yucca bushes, and juniper trees everywhere. The aroma of flower and greenery fills the air, while birds twitter and butterflies flit.

On occasion, we’ll hike up to the top of those perilous rock outcroppings. One doesn’t need to know how to climb mountains to reach their peaks. No ropes or special shoes are required. It can be a bit intimidating for novices, but the view from the top is magnificent. It isn’t a spot for toddlers; there are no guardrails or fences to keep someone from falling.

In two weeks or so, we’re planning on hiking there again.

The Vasquez Rocks were named not for a famous explorer or politician. Instead, they were named after a notorious outlaw: Tiburcio Vasquez. He used the rocks to elude capture by the police—at least for a while—back around 1874.

Born in 1835, by 1852 Vasquez had fallen under the influence of Anastacio Garcia, one of California’s most dangerous bandits. He was there when Garcia killed the Monterey Constable, William Hardmount. And Hardmount would not be the last person Vasquez had something to do with killing.

Though Vasquez liked to claim he was a defender of Mexican-American rights, he was, in fact, far more of a bandit than a revolutionary. By 1856 he had been convicted as a horse rustler and spent five years behind bars at San Quentin, where he participated in four prison breaks that left twenty other convicts dead.

After his release from San Quentin, he soon returned to crime, committing numerous burglaries, cattle thefts, and highway robberies. At the same time, he was a notorious womanizer, having multiple affairs with women regardless of their marital status. After he and his gang stole 2200 dollars from Snyder’s Store in San Benito County—and after killing three bystanders in the process—his days were numbered. Posses began seriously hunting for him after a reward of a thousand dollar was posted for his capture. He continued robbing stores on a regular basis. He and his gang sacked the town of Kingston in Fresno County and robbed all the businesses there, making off without 2500 dollars in cash and jewelry. The governor of California, Newton Booth, was authorized by the California State Legislature to spend up to 15,000 dollars to bring Vasquez to justice. In January, 1874 Booth offered 3000 dollars if he was brought in alive and 2000 dollars if he was brought in dead. The rewards were increased to 8000 dollars and 6000 dollars respectively by February.

Vasquez was finally captured in late 1874. After a four day trial in January, 1875 he was sentenced to be hanged. Visitors flocked to his jail cell after his conviction, many of them women. He signed autographs and posed for photographs while he awaited his execution which took place barely three months later, in March 1875. He was only 39 years old.

Even if you haven’t visited Southern California, you’ve seen Vasquez Rocks—assuming you’ve watched any TV or movies during the last seventy years. Some of the better-known movies in which the Vasquez Rocks have made an appearance include the film Dracula in 1931, Blazing Saddles in 1974, Star Trek IV in 1986, the Flinstones in 1994, and the latest Star Trek movie of 2009. Some of the television series that have used Vasquez Rocks as a set includes CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, The Twilight Zone, Mission Impossible, Have Gun—Will Travel, Maverick. And perhaps most frequently, the rocks have been used for alien planets in episodes from all the various versions of Star Trek: from the original series in the 1960s to Enterprise in the 2000s. In fact, the rocks have appeared in over seventy television series and over forty movies, serving as backdrops for various westerns, for the town of Bedrock in the Flintstone movies, and for Vulcan, the homeworld of Mr. Spock from Star Trek. Captain Kirk fought a lizard-like Gorn there, defeating him with a well-placed blast from a homemade gun.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Transister

A bit more than fifty years ago, in 1960, Sony introduced the first transistor radio. At the time, and for several years thereafter, claiming a new device had transistors was used as a marketing ploy, much as high definition is now. On the outside of the case, most new radios would boast how many transistors they had on the inside. I recall, back when I was a kid, my dad gave me such a transistor radio. I loved that thing. Besides picking up the normal AM and FM signals, it could also pick up short wave radio broadcasts. And on the outside of the case, in rather large letters, it announced that it had “8 Transistors.”

For those of us born a more comfortable distance from the apocalypse (to borrow a phrase from the comedian, Emo Philips), we may remember the old glowing vacuum tubes that used to fill radios and televisions. Periodically, when the TV or radio would stop working, we’d open up the back of our machine and peer inside for burned out tubes, which we’d then take down to the grocery store and plug into a big metal machine they had there to see if the tubes really were working or not. If we were lucky, we’d find the blown tube and then study the numbers on it so we could grab a replacement. What did those tubes do in our old TVs and radios? They were used to amplify, switch, or otherwise modify or create electrical signals by controlling the movement of electrons. More simply, they were what made our magic boxes work. At most, our old radio or televisions, that hummed and took minutes to warm up, might have a dozen tubes stuffed inside them. Computers from the era were rare, noisy, enormous and unreliable. The first computers, such as the Colossus from World War II ran on perhaps five hundred vacuum tubes that were constantly burning out and needing to be replaced. Operators were lucky if a computer could actually do anything useful between breakdowns.

Even so, vacuum tubes were critical to the development of electronic technology, which drove the expansion and commercialization of radio broadcasting, television, radar, sound reproduction, large telephone networks, analog and digital computers, and industrial process control. Some of those applications pre-dated electronics, but it was the vacuum tube that made them widespread and practical.

The introduction of transistors was transformative in the realm of all things electronic. Transistors manage to do the same job that all those old tubes did. Because they are smaller, use less electricity, cost far less to manufacture, they don’t hum, glow or need to warm up. More importantly, they don’t burn out. That’s why transistors very quickly replaced the vacuum tube in all electronic devices within just a few decades after their invention.

The transistor was invented by several people working together at AT&T’s Bell labs in 1947. John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley were instrumental in making them practical. The first silicon transistor was then produced by Texas Instruments in 1954, and commercialization of the device soon followed.

The transistor is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. Today, transistors are ubiquitous. No marketing department would ever think to emblazen the fact that a new device has transistors in it. We take them entirely for granted. If you were to open up an old transistor radio, you could see the transistors soldered onto the circuit board. But if you were to open up any modern gadget, you wouldn’t be able to locate the transistors unless you had a high powered electron microscope. And you would be hard pressed, even then, to count them all.

A modern computer has a central processing unit, made by either Intel or AMD. Intel’s first central processing unit for micro computers was released in 1971. It contained 2300 transistors. When Intel first released the Core i7 processors in 2007 they had 781 million transistors on them. And the processors containing those millions of transistors were only about an inch and a half by an inch and a half square, and maybe an eighth of an inch thick. The next generation Core i7 that followed had well over two billion transistors on it. And so it goes.

The number of transistors on a processor chip, packed into the same amount of space, doubles about every eighteen to twenty-four months. This is known as Moore’s Law, named after the cofounder of Intel, Gordon Moore. He had first made the observation in the April, 19, 1965 publication, Electronics Magazine. Intel has kept up that doubling of transistors on chips for the last forty years with no sign of slowing anytime soon.

As if that weren’t enough, the cost to the consumer for computer chips has dropped rapidly every year. In fact, if the price of automobiles followed the same pattern and percentages as the cost of transistors, cars would today cost less than the gasoline used to fill their tanks.

In 2008 about ten billion computer processor chips were manufactured. Every year, that number grows.

Every television, every cell phone, every microwave, and every automobile sold today has thousands, if not millions of transistors inside of them. In fact well over sixty million transistors are manufactured for each man, woman and child on Earth every single year. Our current civilization, as it functions today, simply could not exist without the transistor.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Science, Technology | Leave a comment

Titan

Titan is Saturn’s largest moon. If you go outside some evening now, you’ll be able to see Saturn, looking like a very bright yellow star. If you have a small telescope, you should have little trouble seeing its rings and its largest moon, which now, thanks to the space probe Cassini and its lander, Huygens, is just a little less mysterious than it used to be.

The sky and surface of Titan seems to be mostly colored in various shades of orange, at least based on the early photographs returned by Huygens, the lander that the space probe Cassini (still orbiting Saturn and still sending back data) dropped on Titan. By the clocks here in California, early on the morning of January 14, 2005 that Volkswagen sized spaceship blasted through the dense atmosphere of Titan, slowed to subsonic speed, dumped its heat shield, popped a parachute, and floated gently down onto mud.

But it was not ordinary mud made of dirt and water. Instead, it was mud made of a mixture of dirt and liquid methane and ethane: something like liquid natural gas. The temperatures outside were far from Earth normal, as well. The thermometer onboard registered a chilly 280 degrees below zero. That’s colder than the coldest recorded temperature in Antarctica at Vostok on July 21, 1983. By comparison, Antarctica was only a balmy 129 degrees below zero.

Near Huygens landing spot, a lake of methane gently sloshed in the chilly breeze. Apparently there are rivers of the stuff, too, washing down from nearby mountains.
And it’s not that Titan has no water. In fact, it has quite a lot. But it is all frozen solid, hard as granite. The “stones” visible in some of the early photographs are thus not made of rock at all. They’re just dusty ice cubes.

An airplane would have no trouble flying on Titan. Its air is about fifty percent thicker than the atmosphere on Earth at sea level, but it is all smog. So whereas a jet here carries fuel and then sucks oxygen in through its scoops to make the fuel burn, an airplane on Titan would have to carry oxygen and then suck in the fuel from the atmosphere!

The Huygens space probe that landed only had enough battery power to survive for about half an hour. But in that brief time, it relayed back close to 400 photographs, along with many other sensor readings of the surface. Meanwhile, its mother ship, the Cassini space probe, continued its orbit around Saturn, where it continues to take pictures of Saturn and its satellites, now more than eight years later.

The Huygens lander was named after Christaan Huygens, the Dutch astronomer who first discovered Titan. Built by the European Space Agency, it hitched a ride on Cassini for the last seven years. It was a billion mile trip. Huygens and Cassini are now so far away from Earth that it takes its radio transmissions over an hour to get here, even traveling at the speed of light. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. At that speed, it would take you less time than an eyelid flutter to go from Los Angeles to New York and back. Therefore, everything that Huygens did—the entry into the atmosphere, its landing, its sending of signals back to Earth—was fully automated. Its battery had in fact already gone dead by the time Earth received its first signals.

The mother ship Cassini, was named after the Italian-French astronomer Giovanni Cassini, who is also known as Jean Dominique Cassini. He watched the planet so much that he noticed a space inside Saturn’s rings. He discovered there were actually two main rings. This gap between them is still called the “Cassini Division.”

The Cassini spaceship is huge. In fact, it is one of the largest interplanetary spacecraft ever built, and the third heaviest unmanned spacecraft ever launched into space. It is about the same size as a thirty passenger school bus and weighs close to 6 tons. It’s way bigger than the Curiosity rover currently tooling about Mars.

Cassini has twelve high-tech instruments capable of twenty-seven different science investigations. To operate them, the spacecraft has an elaborate electronic system that consists of more than seven and a half miles of cabling, some 20,000 wire connections and 1,630 interconnect circuits. It was built by the wizards at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories in Pasadena, which is a part of NASA.

For constant updated information and some truly spectacular pictures, check out the official Cassini-Huygens home page at saturn.jpl.nasa.gov, operated by NASA. And don’t put www in front of that address; it won’t work if you do.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Science, Space, Technology | Leave a comment

Tipler

Back in 1994 Frank J. Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University in New Orleans published a book, The Physics of Immortality, in which he argued that immortality and the resurrection of the dead were consistent with the known laws of physics. He argued that intelligent species would come to fill the universe and would, at the end of time, become what he called the Omega Point, which he identified as God.

When he wrote The Physics of Immortality Tipler was an agnostic. But by 2007, he had converted to Christianity. He since then has published a book entitled The Physics of Christianity, in which he argues that Christian theology is consistent with the laws of physics and that everything from the virgin birth to Jesus’ resurrection can be proven scientifically.

As I read his latest book, I wondered who exactly it would appeal to. Certainly agnostics and atheists will not like it any more than most of them liked his first book. But most Christians will be made uncomfortable by what he says, too. The book begins with an overview of modern physics, which non-physicists may find hard to understand. Nevertheless, I found the book fascinating.

Regarding his first book, The Physics of Immortality, the physicist George Ellis didn’t like it at all. When he reviewed it in the journal Nature, he wrote that it was “a masterpiece of pseudoscience … the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline.” Another scientist, Michael Shermer, devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating the flaws he perceived in Tipler’s thesis.

On the other hand, the Oxford physicist David Deutsch, who pioneered the field of quantum computers, finds Tipler’s arguments compelling enough that he incorporated his Omega Point concept as a central feature of his “four strands” Theory of Everything that he outlined in his 1997 book, The Fabric of Reality.

Tipler is probably best known for a generally well-received book he wrote with John D. Barrow and John A. Wheeler in 1986 called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. In it, he and his co-authors review the intellectual history of teleology and the large number physical coincidences which allow sapient life to exist.

What is the anthropic principle? There are two basic forms of it, called the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle goes as follows (according to Tipler, Barrow and Wheeler): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.”

The strong anthropic priciple argues that “the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history” and “there exists one possible universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers.’” It implies, therefore, that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of physics and the fundamental constants set so as to ensure that life as we know it will emerge.

What are the fundamental constants in question? The nuclear strong force holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the nuclear force were only a percentage or two stronger or weaker the universe wouldn’t have the heavier elements in it, such as iron or carbon necessary for life. Likewise, if the nuclear weak force were slightly stronger or weaker, the heavier elements wouldn’t exist. The force of gravity is another constant that affects the interaction of particles and again, if its strength were more or less than it is, the universe would not be condusive to life. The same can be said of electromagnetism.

These and other examples are often given as evidence of the universe being fine-tuned.

Paul Davies discussed the universe’s fine-tuning at length in his book The Goldilocks Enigma (published in 2006). He summarises the current state of the debate over how fine-tuned the universe must be in detail and discusses the question of how this fine tuning is to be understood. He gives several possible interpretations of what we see in nature. First, it could be that the universe is absurd: it just happens to be this way. We were lucky. Second, it could be that there is something in the laws of physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is: that simply having a universe means the strenghths and ratios of the various underlying constants can be only the way they are and no other way. Third, perhaps there are many universes which have any and all possible characteristics, so that we just naturally find ourselves in one of the ones that supports life and consciousness. Or fourth, perhaps an intelligent creator designed the universe specifically to support life and the emergence of intelligence.

These four understandings of the nature of the fine-tuning of our universe are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Although Frank J. Tipler concludes that the fourth possiblility is the true one, he also accepts both the second and third intepretations as being valid as well.

Tipler’s books (and the others) are thought provoking. If you don’t mind having your mind stretched you might enjoy reading them whether you fully—or even at all—accept any of the conclusions.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Science | Leave a comment

Time

We’re more than ten years past our fears of Y2K and more than ten percent of the twenty-first century is now history.

As long as there have been human beings, they have kept track of the time. Through most of human history, that meant paying attention to the passage of the seasons so that crops could be put into the ground at the right time. Paying attention to months and days were secondary to that, and certainly paying attention to smaller fragments of a day came rather late in human history. The concept of punctuality as a virtue arrived only after the invention of the clock in the late 1200s. It wasn’t until the late 1400s that it became common for clocks to indicate minutes and even later for them to commonly keep track of seconds. The stimulus for accurate clocks was their value in navigation. The position of a ship at sea could be determined with reasonable accuracy if a navigator could refer to a clock that lost or gained less than about ten seconds per day. Such a level of accuracy was not achieved until 1761.

Only as timepieces became common—and really, only with the introduction of the industrial revolution, with factories and hourly wages and the like—did the concept of punctuality really take hold in western thought.

For most of human history, keeping track of the years was done by calculating them from the time the current king had taken the throne. So a date would be given as, “In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month.” Such a date would have meaning only within the lands ruled by that king. The dates for a neighboring kingdom would be given in terms of that monarch’s reign. For historians, trying to figure out when something happened according to the calendar we use today is not easy, and the further back in time, the harder it becomes, with some dates, even of important, well-known events, having margin of error that can be measured in decades, if not in centuries.

Our current method of keeping track of time, with a twelve month calendar, seven day week, and counting from the approximate date of Jesus’ birth goes back to when Dionysius Exiguus came up with our current method of counting the year. At that time, the Diocletian Era was used for devising when Easter should be celebrated. But Diocletian had persecuted Christians, and so Dionysius Exiguus wanted to replace that calendar system for calculating when Easter should be celebrated.

The last year of the old system for determining when to celebrate Easter was Diocletian 247. The first year of Dionysius Exiguus’ new system started the next year, AD 532. AD is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase, Anno Domini, short for Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, “In the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” Dionysius Exiguus’ new system of dating was only very slowly adopted. The Anglo Saxon historian known as the Venerable Bede used the AD system for his Ecclesiastical History of the English People which he finished in 731.

The AD system of dating was then endorsed by the Emperor Chalemagne (reigned 768-814) and his successors, which popularized the use of the dating system, at least within the Carolingian Empire (roughly corresponding to modern France and Germany). The popes in Rome continued to date documents according to their regnal years for quite some time, though the use of AD gradually become more common in Roman Catholic countries between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. Portugal was the last Catholic nation to switch to the AD system of dating; they did so in 1422. Eastern Orthodox countries only began to adopt AD in place of the old Byzantine calendar in 1700, when Russia switched to the AD system of dating. The old Byzantine calendar had dated things from the supposed date of the creation of the world on September 1, 5509 BC.

By the nineteenth century, most nations on earth were using the AD system, though many continue to use alternate systems in addition to it. So, for instance, all Moslem nations date things according to the standard Moslem calendar which dates years from the Hijra, the emigration of Muhammed from Mecca to Medina. Thus, the current Islamic year is 1434 AH (After Hijra) which goes from the evening of November 14, 2012 to the evening of November 14, 2013. The Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar system, in contrast to the AD system which is a solar calendar. Likewise, the Hebrew calendar, used today in Israel alongside the standard AD system, is a lunar calendar and like the old Byzantine Calendar dates from the supposed date for the creation of the world—which is placed later than that of the Byzantine system. According to the Hebrew calendar, this is the year 5773, which began at sundown on the evening of September 16, 2012 and will last until sundown on September 4, 2013. Both the Moslem and Hebrew lunar calendars are brought back into sync with the solar calendar every four years or so by adding an extra month.

Send to Kindle
Posted in History, Science, Technology | Leave a comment