USian fundamentalist-evangelical Christianity, however, is … exceptionally bad at reading their supposedly all-important sacred text, though. And, indeed, facts in general. We’re talking about the movement that came up with and is still pushing “creationism”, here.
Historically that isn’t quite true to credit anything there to the US. Pre-Darwin insistence on a literal global flood could be found in locations all over Europe. But more relevant to the point, I don’t see how this is a good example: if anything this is one where the fundamentalists are actually reading the text closer to what a naive reading means, without any stretched attempts to claim a metaphorical intent that is hard to see in the text. The problem of trying to read the Genesis text in a way that is consistent with the evidence is something that smart people have been trying for a very long time now, so that leads to a lot of very well done apologetics to choose from, but that doesn’t mean it is actually what the text intended. It is true that the more, for lack of a better term, sophisticated creationists due stretch the text massive (claims about mats of vegetation to help preserve life during the flood and claims of rapid post-deluge speciation both fall into that category), but they A) aren’t that common claims and B) aren’t any more stretches than what liberal interpretations of the text are doing.
I don’t see how this is a good example: if anything this is one where the fundamentalists are actually reading the text closer to what a naive reading means, without any stretched attempts to claim a metaphorical intent that is hard to see in the text. The problem of trying to read the Genesis text in a way that is consistent with the evidence is something that smart people have been trying for a very long time now, so that leads to a lot of very well done apologetics to choose from, but that doesn’t mean it is actually what the text intended.
Well, I’m a Christian, so I might be biased in favour of interpretations that make that seem reasonable. But even so, I find it hard to believe a text that includes two mutually-contradictory creation stories (right next to each other in the text, at that) intended them to be interpreted literally.
I find it hard to believe a text that includes two mutually-contradictory creation stories (right next to each other in the text, at that) intended them to be interpreted literally.
I find it easy to believe. Someone put together two stories in an inconsistent way.
You are basically saying “since it’s inconsistent if interpreted literally, it couldn’t have been meant to be interpreted literally”. The other possibility, of course, is that it;’s inconsistent because it contains a mistake. Using inconsistency as a reason to decide that it’s not literal makes you incapable of recognizing mistakes.
I think the claim isn’t quite “it has a mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value” but “it has a really glaringly obvious mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value”.
That’s a lot more sensible, and using this principle doesn’t make you incapable of recognizing mistakes. It does make you incapable of recognizing when the people who put together your sacred text did something incredibly stupid, but maybe that’s OK.
Except that I think another reasonable interpretation is: whoever edited the text into a form that contains both stories did notice that they are inconsistent, didn’t imagine that somehow they are both simultaneously correct, but did intend them to be taken at face value—the implicit thinking being something like “obviously at least one of these is wrong somewhere, but both of them are here in our tradition; probably one is right and the other wrong; I’ll preserve them both, so that at least the truth is in here somewhere”.
If this sort of thing is possible—and I think it’s very plausible—then the inference from “glaring inconsistency” to “intended metaphorically or something like that” no longer works. On the other hand, in that case you at least have some precedent for it being OK not to assume that everything in the text is literally correct.
I think the claim isn’t quite “it has a mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value” but “it has a really glaringly obvious mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value”.
The trouble with this is that the Bible contains a number of other really glaringly obvious mistakes that believers do have to explain away, but which they explain away in some manner other than “that’s a metaphor”.
The Bible also contains examples where believers say “well, it’s literally wrong, so it has to be a metaphor” even when the above reasoning doesn’t really apply (such as cases where the apparent mistake is glaringly obvious to us now, but would not have been glaringly obvious to the people who put the Bible together).
the Bible contains a number of other really glaringly obvious mistakes [...] which they explain away in some [other manner]
Few that are quite as glaring as this one, I think.
even when the above reasoning doesn’t really apply
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not attempting any general defence of the thinking and behaviour of religious believers in general or Christians in particular. (I’m an atheist myself—though I was a pretty serious Christian for many years, and have quite a good idea of how they think.)
There’s also the problem of people taking things meant to be metaphorical as literal, simply because, well, it’s right there, right?
For example (just ran into this today):
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV
This is pretty clearly an illustration. “Like this tree, you’d better actually give results, not just give the appearance of being moral”. (In fact, I believe Jesus uses this exact illustration in a sermon later.)
And yet, I saw this on a list of “God’s Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention”, presumably interpreted as “Jesus zapped a tree because it annoyed him.”
Except that I think another reasonable interpretation is: whoever edited the text into a form that contains both stories did notice that they are inconsistent, didn’t imagine that somehow they are both simultaneously correct, but did intend them to be taken at face value—the implicit thinking being something like “obviously at least one of these is wrong somewhere, but both of them are here in our tradition; probably one is right and the other wrong; I’ll preserve them both, so that at least the truth is in here somewhere”.
And yet, I saw this on a list of “God’s Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention”, presumably interpreted as “Jesus zapped a tree because it annoyed him.”
When a metaphor uses words describing situation A in order to make a comparison to situation B, that still requires belief in A. If the Bible said “following God is like eating ice cream”, that’s a statement about following God being good, but it also carries the assumption that eating ice cream is good—if you don’t think eating ice cream is good, using it as a metaphor for something else being good would fail.
In order to use “Jesus zaps a tree” as a metaphor for “Jesus hates putting on appearances”, you still need to believe that it’s okay to zap a tree. If zapping a tree is not okay, then the metaphor makes no sense. So it is, in fact, legitimate to criticize this on the basis that zapping a tree is a temper tantrum.
Furthermore, part of atheists’ objection is to the story’s metaphorical meaning. The full story is that Jesus zapped a tree for not providing figs even though it was not the season for figs. The metaphor, then, becomes “Jesus hates it when people aren’t really moral even when it’s impossible for them to follow Jesus’ standards of morality”. And a lot of people have good reason to object to that.
In order to use “Jesus zaps a tree” as a metaphor for “Jesus hates putting on appearances”, you still need to believe that it’s okay to zap a tree. If zapping a tree is not okay, then the metaphor makes no sense.
People frequently use phrases describing morally objectionable actions as metaphors for morally acceptable (and prudential) actions. For example, “eviscerate” is sometimes used as a metaphor for achieving a decisive victory in a debate or a sporting event. While actually eviscerating one’s debate opponent would be morally objectionable, winning a debate is not morally objectionable. There are many other examples of this sort of thing, particularly in sports journalism.
We generally do that when there is an unobjectionable version of the action and it can be exaggerated into the objectionable one. It would be wrong to eviscerate an opponent in an actual violent fight, but it would be okay to hurt an opponent in one.
Jesus zapping the tree is not just objectionable because it is too extreme; Jesus shouting at the tree or even politely condemning it wouldn’t be acceptable.
It’s unacceptable in the sense that he has no reason to condemn it and that doing so with serious intent is a sign of a personality flaw, even if such behavior wouldn’t be enough to get him thrown out of a restaurant.
What? Of course it’s metaphorical for something (my guess would be the destruction of the Temple). I’ve used this as an example showing that Mark did not try to accurately describe history and therefore his Gospel does not tell us that Jesus rose from the dead or was the son of God. What do you think people are disagreeing about here?
I think Jesus probably existed (though I haven’t read Carrier’s book on the subject). But Mark seems like poor evidence even for that.
I would not generally expect clear thinking and intellectual rigour from a list of “God’s Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention”, any more than I would in a list of “10 Ways Atheists Are Just Rebelling Against God”. I would expect it to be a list of everything the author thought of that could fit that description, the more the merrier.
Accordingly, the presence of an unconvincing entry in such a list doesn’t seem to me to be much evidence for anything.
I have to say, though, that “obviously this is metaphorical” makes an unsatisfactory answer to complaints that something’s inconsistent / contradicted by more recent discoveries / silly / immoral, unless there is actually a good reason why the metaphor in question should be there. In this particular case, I think it’s fair enough; zapping a fig tree as a vivid illustration of the danger of not “bearing fruit” seems like just the sort of thing someone with his head full of, e.g., the doings of Ezekiel might think of. (Though it’s curious that no explanation of the context accompanies the description of the zapping; it looks as if the author hasn’t really understood what Jesus had in mind. Which brings up problems of its own. But I digress.)
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV
This is pretty clearly an illustration. “Like this tree, you’d better actually give results, not just give the appearance of being moral”. (In fact, I believe Jesus uses this exact illustration in a sermon later.)
Why does this need to be an illustration?
Assuming that such a person as Jesus existed, and assuming that said person had the ability to cause a fig tree to wither as described, is it so unbelievable that such a thing could be done? The incident may, indeed, have inspired the later use in a sermon.
Morally, this is no worse than chopping the tree down in a fit of anger; since it was a tree “by the road”, and thus presumably had no owner but rather grew wild, I don’t think it would have been wrong to cut it down, or otherwise prevent it bearing fruit.
So… I’m not quite sure why you think it’s clearly an illustration. I mean, it can be used as an illustration… but so can virtually any incident, ever. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?
I’m not MugaSofer, nor am I a Christian (though I was for a long time), but:
Supposing for the moment that the incident, or something like it, really occurred, it seems like there are three obvious explanations.
Jesus zapped the tree because it was a sensible response to the fact that the tree didn’t have any figs on it.
Jesus zapped the tree because of some kind of flash of anger; he wasn’t really in control of his actions.
Jesus zapped the tree in order to make a point to other people who were there (e.g., as MugaSofer describes).
The first of these seems obviously not the case. (You want figs, the tree has no figs, fair enough; killing it doesn’t make anything better for anyone.)
The second is hard to reconcile with the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians. (He was supposed to be superhumanly wise and morally perfect, and not getting carried away by anger is hard to reconcile with that.)
That leaves the third in a fairly strong position.
On top of this, there is a bit of a tradition in (what Christians call) the Old Testament, of prophets “acting out” the (allegedly divine) messages they are trying to convey. What MugaSofer proposes fits neatly into that tradition.
None of that proves anything, even if we take the rightness of Christianity as axiomatic. But it does give Christians a pretty good reason for thinking that Jesus’s action was meant (by him, or by the author of Matthew if it didn’t actually happen) primarily as making a point for the benefit of other people, rather than because Jesus really wanted the fig tree to be dead.
Supposing for the moment that the incident, or something like it, really occurred, it seems like there are three obvious explanations.
Your three options seem sensible.
The first of these seems obviously not the case. (You want figs, the tree has no figs, fair enough; killing it doesn’t make anything better for anyone.)
Agreed.
The second is hard to reconcile with the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians. (He was supposed to be superhumanly wise and morally perfect, and not getting carried away by anger is hard to reconcile with that.)
Disagreed.
We’re talking here about a man who made a whip out of cords and drove some merchants away from where they were selling stuff, overturning their tables and scattering coins everywhere and chasing away the livestock and generally causing a riot. One might quibble about whether this was “out of control” or not, but Jesus clearly had a temper and occasionally lost it.
(In an interesting coincidence, just yesterday the priest gave a sermon involving that marketplace incident; as he put it, Jesus wasn’t always a nice person. Nice people don’t get nailed onto a wooden cross and left to die. That only happens to people who manage to seriously annoy certain other people.)
I’m not saying that the third possibility is impossible; but I think the second is also in a fairly strong position.
On top of this, there is a bit of a tradition in (what Christians call) the Old Testament, of prophets “acting out” the (allegedly divine) messages they are trying to convey. What MugaSofer proposes fits neatly into that tradition.
Hmmm. That is a good point, which I had not previously considered.
I don’t think it’s clear that the Incident In The Temple With The Whip was (or: was meant to be understood as) a matter of temper-losing. It could, again, be read as a deliberate statement, an invocation of (e.g.) the old prophecy about “purifying the sons of Levi”, done deliberately to make a point.
(Incidentally, an earlier edit of my paragraph about “the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians” said explicitly something like “Of course being good isn’t quite the same as being nice, and I’m not claiming otherwise”. Though, as it happens, my own conception of goodness does involve being nicer than Jesus is shown as being in many stories in the gospels, and also nicer than I find it plausible to believe any super-powerful being actually is, given the state of the world. I mention this not in order to start an argument about the credibility of Christianity, but to calibrate the extent to which I agree with you that Christians needn’t regard Jesus as “nice”.)
I don’t think it’s clear that the Incident In The Temple With The Whip was (or: was meant to be understood as) a matter of temper-losing. It could, again, be read as a deliberate statement, an invocation of (e.g.) the old prophecy about “purifying the sons of Levi”, done deliberately to make a point.
I’m beginning to wonder if we don’t perhaps ascribe subtly different definitions to the phrase “losing one’s temper”.
I wonder that because I don’t think that the two options that you present here—that of temper-losing, and that of deliberate action—are necessarily contradictory.
Thinking about it, I am defining having lost one’s temper as a state wherein one sounds audibly angry, has a tendency to select sweeping, destructive actions when attempting to reach one’s goals, has very little patience with others and is likely to shout at people, but retains full control over one’s actions and can do things quite deliberately.
It may be that you are thinking of a yet angrier state, where one loses control and just lashes out at random. While that would also be losing one’s temper, that wasn’t what I’d meant by the phrase earlier...
In other words, yes, I agree that the Incident In The Temple With The Whip was most likely a deliberate statement. I just don’t think that that invalidates anything I said in my previous comment.
(Incidentally, an earlier edit of my paragraph about “the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians” said explicitly something like “Of course being good isn’t quite the same as being nice, and I’m not claiming otherwise”. Though, as it happens, my own conception of goodness does involve being nicer than Jesus is shown as being in many stories in the gospels, and also nicer than I find it plausible to believe any super-powerful being actually is, given the state of the world. I mention this not in order to start an argument about the credibility of Christianity, but to calibrate the extent to which I agree with you that Christians needn’t regard Jesus as “nice”.)
Noted.
While we could try to narrow down exactly to what extent each of us considers “good” and “nice” to overlap, I think we’re more-or-less in agreement on the main point here; that Jesus, as presented in the Bible, could be good all the time without necessarily being nice all the time (and sometimes, indeed, could be good at the expense of being nice).
Historically that isn’t quite true to credit anything there to the US. Pre-Darwin insistence on a literal global flood could be found in locations all over Europe. But more relevant to the point, I don’t see how this is a good example: if anything this is one where the fundamentalists are actually reading the text closer to what a naive reading means, without any stretched attempts to claim a metaphorical intent that is hard to see in the text. The problem of trying to read the Genesis text in a way that is consistent with the evidence is something that smart people have been trying for a very long time now, so that leads to a lot of very well done apologetics to choose from, but that doesn’t mean it is actually what the text intended. It is true that the more, for lack of a better term, sophisticated creationists due stretch the text massive (claims about mats of vegetation to help preserve life during the flood and claims of rapid post-deluge speciation both fall into that category), but they A) aren’t that common claims and B) aren’t any more stretches than what liberal interpretations of the text are doing.
Well, I’m a Christian, so I might be biased in favour of interpretations that make that seem reasonable. But even so, I find it hard to believe a text that includes two mutually-contradictory creation stories (right next to each other in the text, at that) intended them to be interpreted literally.
I find it easy to believe. Someone put together two stories in an inconsistent way.
You are basically saying “since it’s inconsistent if interpreted literally, it couldn’t have been meant to be interpreted literally”. The other possibility, of course, is that it;’s inconsistent because it contains a mistake. Using inconsistency as a reason to decide that it’s not literal makes you incapable of recognizing mistakes.
I think the claim isn’t quite “it has a mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value” but “it has a really glaringly obvious mistake, therefore it can’t be meant to be interpreted at face value”.
That’s a lot more sensible, and using this principle doesn’t make you incapable of recognizing mistakes. It does make you incapable of recognizing when the people who put together your sacred text did something incredibly stupid, but maybe that’s OK.
Except that I think another reasonable interpretation is: whoever edited the text into a form that contains both stories did notice that they are inconsistent, didn’t imagine that somehow they are both simultaneously correct, but did intend them to be taken at face value—the implicit thinking being something like “obviously at least one of these is wrong somewhere, but both of them are here in our tradition; probably one is right and the other wrong; I’ll preserve them both, so that at least the truth is in here somewhere”.
If this sort of thing is possible—and I think it’s very plausible—then the inference from “glaring inconsistency” to “intended metaphorically or something like that” no longer works. On the other hand, in that case you at least have some precedent for it being OK not to assume that everything in the text is literally correct.
The trouble with this is that the Bible contains a number of other really glaringly obvious mistakes that believers do have to explain away, but which they explain away in some manner other than “that’s a metaphor”.
The Bible also contains examples where believers say “well, it’s literally wrong, so it has to be a metaphor” even when the above reasoning doesn’t really apply (such as cases where the apparent mistake is glaringly obvious to us now, but would not have been glaringly obvious to the people who put the Bible together).
Few that are quite as glaring as this one, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not attempting any general defence of the thinking and behaviour of religious believers in general or Christians in particular. (I’m an atheist myself—though I was a pretty serious Christian for many years, and have quite a good idea of how they think.)
There’s also the problem of people taking things meant to be metaphorical as literal, simply because, well, it’s right there, right?
For example (just ran into this today):
This is pretty clearly an illustration. “Like this tree, you’d better actually give results, not just give the appearance of being moral”. (In fact, I believe Jesus uses this exact illustration in a sermon later.)
And yet, I saw this on a list of “God’s Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention”, presumably interpreted as “Jesus zapped a tree because it annoyed him.”
Ooh, I hadn’t thought of that.
This is one of the standard scholarly explanations May I suggest this shows that you should maybe read more on this subject?
Yup, definitely. Interested amateur here.
When a metaphor uses words describing situation A in order to make a comparison to situation B, that still requires belief in A. If the Bible said “following God is like eating ice cream”, that’s a statement about following God being good, but it also carries the assumption that eating ice cream is good—if you don’t think eating ice cream is good, using it as a metaphor for something else being good would fail.
In order to use “Jesus zaps a tree” as a metaphor for “Jesus hates putting on appearances”, you still need to believe that it’s okay to zap a tree. If zapping a tree is not okay, then the metaphor makes no sense. So it is, in fact, legitimate to criticize this on the basis that zapping a tree is a temper tantrum.
Furthermore, part of atheists’ objection is to the story’s metaphorical meaning. The full story is that Jesus zapped a tree for not providing figs even though it was not the season for figs. The metaphor, then, becomes “Jesus hates it when people aren’t really moral even when it’s impossible for them to follow Jesus’ standards of morality”. And a lot of people have good reason to object to that.
People frequently use phrases describing morally objectionable actions as metaphors for morally acceptable (and prudential) actions. For example, “eviscerate” is sometimes used as a metaphor for achieving a decisive victory in a debate or a sporting event. While actually eviscerating one’s debate opponent would be morally objectionable, winning a debate is not morally objectionable. There are many other examples of this sort of thing, particularly in sports journalism.
We generally do that when there is an unobjectionable version of the action and it can be exaggerated into the objectionable one. It would be wrong to eviscerate an opponent in an actual violent fight, but it would be okay to hurt an opponent in one.
Jesus zapping the tree is not just objectionable because it is too extreme; Jesus shouting at the tree or even politely condemning it wouldn’t be acceptable.
Politely condemning a tree is not acceptable? You have a pretty strict ethic! :)
It’s unacceptable in the sense that he has no reason to condemn it and that doing so with serious intent is a sign of a personality flaw, even if such behavior wouldn’t be enough to get him thrown out of a restaurant.
And just look at His dysfunctional family and His daddy issues! X-D
What? Of course it’s metaphorical for something (my guess would be the destruction of the Temple). I’ve used this as an example showing that Mark did not try to accurately describe history and therefore his Gospel does not tell us that Jesus rose from the dead or was the son of God. What do you think people are disagreeing about here?
I think Jesus probably existed (though I haven’t read Carrier’s book on the subject). But Mark seems like poor evidence even for that.
I would not generally expect clear thinking and intellectual rigour from a list of “God’s Temper Tantrums that Christians Never Mention”, any more than I would in a list of “10 Ways Atheists Are Just Rebelling Against God”. I would expect it to be a list of everything the author thought of that could fit that description, the more the merrier.
Accordingly, the presence of an unconvincing entry in such a list doesn’t seem to me to be much evidence for anything.
I have to say, though, that “obviously this is metaphorical” makes an unsatisfactory answer to complaints that something’s inconsistent / contradicted by more recent discoveries / silly / immoral, unless there is actually a good reason why the metaphor in question should be there. In this particular case, I think it’s fair enough; zapping a fig tree as a vivid illustration of the danger of not “bearing fruit” seems like just the sort of thing someone with his head full of, e.g., the doings of Ezekiel might think of. (Though it’s curious that no explanation of the context accompanies the description of the zapping; it looks as if the author hasn’t really understood what Jesus had in mind. Which brings up problems of its own. But I digress.)
Why does this need to be an illustration?
Assuming that such a person as Jesus existed, and assuming that said person had the ability to cause a fig tree to wither as described, is it so unbelievable that such a thing could be done? The incident may, indeed, have inspired the later use in a sermon.
Morally, this is no worse than chopping the tree down in a fit of anger; since it was a tree “by the road”, and thus presumably had no owner but rather grew wild, I don’t think it would have been wrong to cut it down, or otherwise prevent it bearing fruit.
So… I’m not quite sure why you think it’s clearly an illustration. I mean, it can be used as an illustration… but so can virtually any incident, ever. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?
I’m not MugaSofer, nor am I a Christian (though I was for a long time), but:
Supposing for the moment that the incident, or something like it, really occurred, it seems like there are three obvious explanations.
Jesus zapped the tree because it was a sensible response to the fact that the tree didn’t have any figs on it.
Jesus zapped the tree because of some kind of flash of anger; he wasn’t really in control of his actions.
Jesus zapped the tree in order to make a point to other people who were there (e.g., as MugaSofer describes).
The first of these seems obviously not the case. (You want figs, the tree has no figs, fair enough; killing it doesn’t make anything better for anyone.)
The second is hard to reconcile with the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians. (He was supposed to be superhumanly wise and morally perfect, and not getting carried away by anger is hard to reconcile with that.)
That leaves the third in a fairly strong position.
On top of this, there is a bit of a tradition in (what Christians call) the Old Testament, of prophets “acting out” the (allegedly divine) messages they are trying to convey. What MugaSofer proposes fits neatly into that tradition.
None of that proves anything, even if we take the rightness of Christianity as axiomatic. But it does give Christians a pretty good reason for thinking that Jesus’s action was meant (by him, or by the author of Matthew if it didn’t actually happen) primarily as making a point for the benefit of other people, rather than because Jesus really wanted the fig tree to be dead.
Your three options seem sensible.
Agreed.
Disagreed.
We’re talking here about a man who made a whip out of cords and drove some merchants away from where they were selling stuff, overturning their tables and scattering coins everywhere and chasing away the livestock and generally causing a riot. One might quibble about whether this was “out of control” or not, but Jesus clearly had a temper and occasionally lost it.
(In an interesting coincidence, just yesterday the priest gave a sermon involving that marketplace incident; as he put it, Jesus wasn’t always a nice person. Nice people don’t get nailed onto a wooden cross and left to die. That only happens to people who manage to seriously annoy certain other people.)
I’m not saying that the third possibility is impossible; but I think the second is also in a fairly strong position.
Hmmm. That is a good point, which I had not previously considered.
I don’t think it’s clear that the Incident In The Temple With The Whip was (or: was meant to be understood as) a matter of temper-losing. It could, again, be read as a deliberate statement, an invocation of (e.g.) the old prophecy about “purifying the sons of Levi”, done deliberately to make a point.
(Incidentally, an earlier edit of my paragraph about “the character of Jesus as generally understood by Christians” said explicitly something like “Of course being good isn’t quite the same as being nice, and I’m not claiming otherwise”. Though, as it happens, my own conception of goodness does involve being nicer than Jesus is shown as being in many stories in the gospels, and also nicer than I find it plausible to believe any super-powerful being actually is, given the state of the world. I mention this not in order to start an argument about the credibility of Christianity, but to calibrate the extent to which I agree with you that Christians needn’t regard Jesus as “nice”.)
I’m beginning to wonder if we don’t perhaps ascribe subtly different definitions to the phrase “losing one’s temper”.
I wonder that because I don’t think that the two options that you present here—that of temper-losing, and that of deliberate action—are necessarily contradictory.
Thinking about it, I am defining having lost one’s temper as a state wherein one sounds audibly angry, has a tendency to select sweeping, destructive actions when attempting to reach one’s goals, has very little patience with others and is likely to shout at people, but retains full control over one’s actions and can do things quite deliberately.
It may be that you are thinking of a yet angrier state, where one loses control and just lashes out at random. While that would also be losing one’s temper, that wasn’t what I’d meant by the phrase earlier...
In other words, yes, I agree that the Incident In The Temple With The Whip was most likely a deliberate statement. I just don’t think that that invalidates anything I said in my previous comment.
Noted.
While we could try to narrow down exactly to what extent each of us considers “good” and “nice” to overlap, I think we’re more-or-less in agreement on the main point here; that Jesus, as presented in the Bible, could be good all the time without necessarily being nice all the time (and sometimes, indeed, could be good at the expense of being nice).