With Due Respect: Is the Reformation just "German autism"?

 

Martin Luther, considered the person who kick started the Reformation

Recently, one of my Roman Catholic friends described how the Reformation is simply "German autistic response to Italian management".

His meme was direct. The Reformers were unnecessarily pedantic and idealistic to the more pragmatic and traditional Roman Catholic Church. So is his criticism valid?

A clash of two worlds
The Reformation did involve a collision between a more literal, text-obsessed, low-trust, high-conscientiousness Northern European mindset against a hierarchical, patronage-driven, Mediterranean ecclesiastical system centered on Rome.

Martin Luther’s obsessive focus on justification by faith, his demand that doctrine be tested against Scripture rather than tradition or papal decree, and the broader German/Swiss willingness to rupture institutional unity over principle all look, from a certain angle, like the theological equivalent of high-systemizing, low-agreeableness rigidity (commonly associated with our memetic view of autism).

The late-medieval papal court, with its Italian-dominated Curia, indulgences, simony, and Renaissance worldly pragmatism, can reasonably be caricatured as “management”—more concerned with cash flow, political alliances, and institutional continuity than with forensic theological purity.

Overly simplified
As with any catchphrase, this view of the history is overly abstracted. 

For one, the theological substance mattered. Sola scriptura and sola fide weren’t just German personality quirks; they addressed real late-medieval abuses and earlier reform currents such as Wycliff (English) and Hus (Czech). Even later Reformers like Calvin (French) and Zwingli (Swiss) expressed similar sentiments. Reducing it to national psychology erases the actual arguments.

Sure, Luther was confrontational, scrupulous, and sometimes pathological in his anxiety, but he was also a university professor, polemicist, and political operator who understood power.

Finally, the Roman Catholic side was not just simply corrupt Italian management. It contained its own reformers, mystics, and rigorous theologians; the Counter-Reformation later demonstrated considerable institutional seriousness.

Pope Leo X, the pope during the Reformation

Conclusion

Calling the core Reformation program "autistic" understates the situation they faced:

Late-medieval Western Christianity had accumulated practices and claims — the treasury of merits, the sale of indulgences as a revenue system, mandatory clerical celibacy amid widespread concubinage, the practical withholding of Scripture from the laity, and an increasingly monarchical papacy — that were not minor administrative quirks. Bear in mind that Rome's responses were rarely to seek clarification, but to condemn and suppress.

If you take the Bible as the final norm (the Reformers’ premise), then questions of how a person is justified before God, what constitutes the Church, and whether the pope has universal jurisdiction are not just fine print. The insistence on precision was closer to necessary clarity on the salvation of mankind.

With Due Respect: Did King David exist?

 

David, as depicted in the 2025 film David

King David was one of the central figures of the Old Testament in the Bible. He was a king who allegedly united Israel, conquered Jerusalem, and founded a dynasty. 

However, pre-1993 few scholars accepted David as a historical figure because there was no clear extra-biblical evidence for him. The general reception was that he was a legendary founding figure of Israel on the scale that King Arthur was the founder of Britain.

Unlike kings such as Omri (1 Kings 16), Ahab (1 Kings 16), or Hezekiah (2 Kings 16), David was not clearly mentioned in surviving inscriptions from neighboring civilizations. This led to the question:

If David was such a significant king, why has no contemporary source ever mentioned him?

Tel Dan Stele

In 1993, the Tel Dan Stele was excavated in Tel Dan, Northern Israel. Dated about 800s - 700s BC it explicitly stated the "House of David". The stele was mostly likely made by the Aramean king, Hazael, and celebrated his military victories over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

The crucial point was that it was written by an enemy kingdom, not by Jews.

This meant that a century and a half after David's lifetime, neighboring states recognized a dynasty named after David. Therefore, David was very unlikely to be a completely fictional invention of much later writers.

Conclusion
Today, few scholars doubt the existance of David. The historical questions have shifted to the nature of his kingship (e.g. how big was his kingdom).

The Tel Dan Stele provided the first widely accepted external reference to David's dynasty and significantly changed the debate

Theology 1.0: Who else wrote about Jesus?

 

The Gospels of the New Testament are often regarded as a trustworthy account of Jesus's life. Yet there are many doubters who rejected that this reliability of the Gospels as they see it as Christians attempting to claim political power. The most sincere of them want non-Christian testimony that corroborates with Jesus's life.

Such testimonies do exists.

Such sources collectively confirm Jesus’ existence, his crucifixion under Pilate, and the early spread of his followers. They align with the broad outline of Christian accounts but offer little detail on his teachings or miracles (as Jesus was seen as a marginal figure in the hugeness of the Roman Empire).

Let us examine a few.

Josephus Flavius (Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93–94 CE)

Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus, describes Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It mentions his followers and suggests he was believed to be the Messiah by some. 

Josephus was a well-regarded Jewish historian, so many scholars regard his descriptions as authentic and factual.

Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 CE) 

Roman historian Tacitus describes Emperor Nero blaming Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. He mentions "Christus," executed under Pontius Pilate, as the origin of the Christian movement. 

Tacitus is a reliable Roman source, and this passage confirms Jesus’ execution and the spread of Christianity shortly after. He had no apparent agenda to promote Christianity.

Pliny the Younger (Letters, c. 112 CE)  

Pliny, a Roman governor, describes Christians worshiping Christ "as a god" and their practices, based on interrogations in Bithynia. 

This showed that the divinity of Jesus was held by Christians from the start.

Conclusion

Non-Christian sources are not the bedrock of Christian faith, which rests on scripture and tradition, but they provide historical grounding that strengthens the case for Jesus as a real figure who lived, taught, and died in 1st-century Judea. For believers, this external validation complements the spiritual and theological truths of Christianity, showing that Jesus’ impact was recognized beyond his immediate followers. For skeptics or scholars, these sources offer a bridge between faith-based accounts and secular history.

For more information:

Be Thinking

With due respect: Later Christians invented a divine Jesus!

One of the common accusations is that Jesus was just a person who became a legend and eventually God. In other words, Jesus was retconned as God by later Christians.

1 Corinthians 15

However, a reading of Paul's writings will disprove that notion. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites the earliest Christian creed (1 Cor 5: 3–8). 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. -- 1 Corinthians 5: 3–8

Paul states that more than 500 hundred people saw Jesus die and came back to life (in fulfillment of the Scriptures; which showed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, i.e. God.).

Note that 1 Corinthians is estimated to be written around 54 AD, about 20 years after Jesus’s execution. Thus Paul’s claim could have been easily challenged by other Christians. As his record of events is backed by eyewitnesses and other apostles, it showed that Christians had regarded Jesus as God from the start.

Pliny the Younger
In 112 AD, Pliny the Younger (a Roman governer) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor on the policy towards Christians (i.e. how to persecute Christians). In it, he described the religious practices of the Christians. He mentioned that Christians worshiped Jesus and even practised the a ritual of communal eating (i.e. the Holy Communion).

Other sources of early Christian worship are recorded by historians Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Conclusion

Early Christians did worship Jesus as God.

With due respect: Name one thing that Christianity has done for us?

Recently, I watched a conversation between historian Tom Holland (not the actor) and atheist philosopher AC Grayling. During the respectful debate, Grayling challenged Holland to name "one thing" that Christianity had done for humanity.

To put it in context, Grayling argued that the societal contributions of Christianity came from other ancient sources and therefore Christianity was not unique in its contributions. In other words, the world would not have been affected much if Christianity had not existed.

While Holland countered eloquently, I listed briefly some unique societal contributions by Christianity.

1) Philosophy of science

While ancient India, China and Greece came up with scientific discoveries, the scientific philosophy (that included major ideas of experimentation and formal logic) was developed with the background of Christian theology. China, India and Greece did not even come close to uncovering that philosophy.

It had been argued that without Christianity establishing that a logical God would create an understandable world, science as a philosophy would not be thought about.

2) Universality of rights

Another unique thing that Christianity brought was the universality of rights. God revealed to Apostle Peter in Acts 10 that the idea of being God's children was not a matter of genetics (i.e. being Jews) but a matter of belief. 

In doing so, Christianity laid the foundation of Universal Human Rights, since all humans are seen to be children of God.

3) Presumption of innocence

Another great contribution that Christianity laid was the idea of the presumption of innocence: that one was considered innocent till proven guilty.

Formally formulated during the Inquisition, the presumption of innocence drew inspiration from Abraham's negotiation with God over the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18). From the Inquition came many modern systems of law and order, one of which is English Common Law.

Recommended readings:

James Hannam (2009) God's Philosophers

Rodney Stark (2005) The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success

For reference to the video:

With Due Respect-- The Bible is not history!

You can't trust the Bible because it is not history

Well, it depends on what you mean. The Bible is a collection of books, inclusive of differing genres. For example, Psalms is poetry, while Proverbs contains advice and Isaiah is regarded as prophecy. Some like Daniel is a mixture of history (Daniel 1-6) and imagery/prophecy (Daniel 7-12).

Even among certain" historical" books like 1 Kings and 2 Kings, the books only present a theological relationship of the kings of Israel and Judah with God. The books emphasis this by saying that other events of the kings' reign were written elsewhere (namely the annals of the kings of Israel or Judah).

But some parts of the Bible are intended to be literal history

Of course, we cannot expect Biblical history to be exactly like how modern history is written, as the concept of history (as a academic subject) was formalised much later (Lewis, 1946).

That said there are parts of the Bible intended to be literal history. For instance in Mark 14, it is recorded that there was man who was almost caught by the Romans.

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. -- Mark 14: 51-52

This naked youth played no further role (literal or metaphorical) in the narrative. Thus the only reason for including this part was that the events actually happened.

Conclusion

While some parts of the Bible was not meant to be literal history, it does not mean the other parts are not.

References

Lewis, CS (1946) Mere Christianity

For further reading
Bethinking resources 

With Due Respect: The Bible is so misunderstood, it is a sin.

Recently, a Newsweek post by Kurt Eichenwald was brought to my attention. He argued that the idea that Christians rely on Biblical beliefs is totally flawed because the actual Bible does not exists.

Although Eichenwald stated that he does not intend to "advance a particular theology", he begins his first point by writing,

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

He also claims that his arguments are supported by "scores of theologians and scholars".

In this post, I will be exploring a few of his points. I will largely not address most of his points, especially those regarding textual criticism of the Bible. For a full rebuttal, check textual critic James White's video.

Playing telephone with the Word of God
1) No punctuation and no spacing

Eichenwald writes that the original New Testament manuscripts were written in common Greek which had "no spaces between words and no punctuation", and therefore it could lead to misunderstanding of the text. He emphasised the need for such things via his example, "weshouldgoeatmum" could mean "we should go eat mum" or "we should go eat, mum".

What he fails to understand is that the meaning of the sentences can be easily understood if you read the whole passage in context. To press his example-- if the passage was talking about a nearby eatery where they served burgers and fries, then it would be obvious which interpretation would make more sense.

2) More variants than words in the New Testament

Eichenwald writes,

And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,

This gives the impression that there are so many variants in the New Testament copies, it is difficult to know what was said originally. Eichenwald draws support from New Testament scholar Erhman (2005) who stated that there are 200,000 to 400,000 variants in the New Testament manuscripts.

But let's put it in perspectives. We have about 2,000 copies of the Gospels which have 64,766 words in the original Greek (according to this site). If every copyist made 1 mistake every 1,000 words, there will be about 65 variants per copy. Hence there will be a total of 130,000 variants. That sounds like a huge number of variants. However, this number is due to the large number of manuscripts, rather than the inefficiency of the copyists.

In fact by comparing between the variants, it is possible to reconstruct the original manuscript.

The sociopath Emperor

1) Jesus's divinity

The majority of the time at Nicaea was spent debating whether Jesus was a man who was the son of God, as Arius proclaimed, or God himself, as the church hierarchy maintained.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the issue of Jesus's divinity was never in question. Bishop Arius (the dissenter) argued that Jesus did not share the same substance as the Father (and that the Father allowed Jesus to achieve godhood), while Bishop Alexander of Alexandria asserted that Jesus did share the same substance as the Father and therefore was existed eternally with God. Even a cursory check of wikipedia would reveal that.

2) Emperor Constantine I

But Constantine sided with those who believed Jesus was both God and man, so a statement of belief, called the Nicene Creed, was composed to proclaim that. Those who refused to sign the statement were banished.

Eichenwald argued that Emperor Constantine I enforced Trinitarian views on the followers of Arian. This does not wash as 

A) Emperor Constantine I had an Arian tutor (and was probably an Arian himself)

B) It were the Trinitarian Christians who were persecuted by the Arians in the political realm.

No three kings

1) Different accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection

The stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’s death and resurrection differ as well. When brought before Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks only two words and is never declared innocent. In the Gospel of John, Jesus engages in extended conversations with Pilate, who repeatedly proclaims this Jewish prisoner to be innocent and deserving of release.

Eichenwald argued that the four Gospels differ from each other. This is to be expected as they came from different eyewitnesses accounts. How can he expect them to be exactly the same?

Furthermore, the Gospels agreed on the important points-- Jesus died and rose again.

Conclusion

There are many more issues that I do not have the time nor expertise to deal with. However, I felt that as a reputable online magazine, Newsweek had a responsibility to be accurate and fair in its reporting. Despite Eichenwald's claim that his article was not to attack the "Bible or Christianity", I fear that this article was very judging.

References

Erhman, B. (2005) Misquoting Jesus

For further understanding

Alpha and Omega

Theology 1.0: How does the principle of embarrassment support the historicity of the Gospels?

The central message of Christianity is that a man called Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, physically died for the sins of mankind and bodily rose from the dead. One of the factors of whether or not we should accept these assertions depends on the historical reliability of the New Testament. The aim of this post is to explore the the reliability and accuracy of the Gospels using one of the historical methods-- the principle of embarrassment.

What is the "Principle of Embarrassment"?

According to law professor Annette Gordon-Reed, this principle states that "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves."

In other words, this principle surfaces itself when an author makes negative remarks against the cause he is supporting; this adds weight to the author's testimony as the author would not write against his intentions, unless the "negative" alleged events really did occur.

1) Women as the first witnesses of the resurrection
In all four of the gospels, women were reported to be the first witnesses of Jesus's resurrection. To the modern reader, nothing seems to be wrong or embarrassing about this. But in the ancient world, an woman's testimony is worth less than a man. If one wanted to advance the story of a risen Christ, one would certainly not want to include women as the chief witnesses to the resurrection (Habermas, 2003). The only plausible reason to include women is that it really happened; that the first eyewitnesses to the Jesus's rising were female.

2) The disciples' portrayal in the Gospels
The disciples were portrayed as cowardly. For instance, Peter denied Jesus three times under pressure (Mark 16:66-72) and the Jesus's followers fled when he was arrested (Mark 16:50). Even Jesus's own brother, James was described as unbelieveing (Mark 3:20-25; John 7:5). Why would the authors placed the people close to Jesus in such a negative light, to the extent that some of them doubted his divinity (eg: John 20: 24-29; Mark 16:14)?

This seems to suggest the events really did happen, and the authors were concerned about reporting as factually as possible.

The counter-argument
I suppose opponents (people who believed that the Gospels are fiction) might argue that the Gospel writers might have included such negative things make the Gospels more convincing to unbelievers. However, this would not have worked in the Roman Empire, especially to pull the people away from their strong array of gods.

Conclusion
Based on the principle of embarrassment, the Gospels show a strong likelihood to be first-hand, factual accounts on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. (I'll explore other historical methods and arguments in another post.) So why not come and see what makes Jesus so compelling?

References

Gordon-Reed, A. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy

Habermas, G.R. (2003). The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.

For further reading

Bethinking