Is the Bible Full of Fairy Tales?

[QuietMan1980]

I have heard it said that the Bible should looked upon as a book of ancient fairy tales. However, I would like to make the following comparisons between fairy tales and the books of the Bible (King James Bible, for example).

Fairy tales are usually very vague about the times and places of the events that take place. For example, most begin with "Once Upon a Time in a far away land" and then proceed with the remainder of the story. Based on what we would find in a fairy tale, it would be difficult to corroborate the story with any historical event because there is no specific time in history or specific geographical location mentioned.

By contrast, with a few exceptions (like the first few chapters of the book of Genesis), the authors of the bible took time to detail things like geographical references (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.), genealogies, population counts, livestock inventories, and the names of local rulers and nearby kingdoms.

Comparing the two, it should be clear that the books of the Bible were, at least in the minds of their human authors, detailed accounts of real events that were meant to be taken seriously, while fairy tales were meant to be entertaining stories (perhaps with a moral lesson).

My questions are:
1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?
2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't think anyone that knows the subject can won't admit the bible is impressive in its historical detail, the supernatural events have to be accepted or not.

The the suggetion of legend and fables is more problematic with the Christian Greek scripture because of how the circumstances of their compilation (they were written too close to the events, circulated while opposers who could have proved certain details false were still alive and their writers were willing to die in defense of what they had written) but still the supernatural elements are a matter of faith.

Of course for those that have rejected any possible existence of the supernatural, any record of such events are BY DEFINTION false, but for those that are open to the possiblity of the contrary, an examination must be made of the circumstances and content of the accounts. Generally, in that particular area, we find what we are looking for.

[fredonly]

I don't think anyone that knows the subject can won't admit the bible is impressive in its historical detail, the supernatural events have to be accepted or not.

Really? Anyone? Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail. I will grant that there are some Old Testament books that are intended to be something of a history of the Israelites (although mythologized), but the same cannot be said about the New Testament. The NT contains a few references to some events that were more or less contemporaneous (for example, the references to some historical characters such as Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist). However it also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

The suggetion of legend and fables is more problematic with the Christian Greek scripture because of how the circumstances of their compilation (they were written too close to the events, circulated while opposers who could have proved certain details false were still alive and their writers were willing to die in defense of what they had written) but still the supernatural elements are a matter of faith..

Your view of the circumstances of the writing and compilation of the New Testament is historically inaccurate.. All the books were written in Greek by educated Greeks outside of Palestine, decades after the events supposedly occurred. They were written by Christians, for Christians. Furthermore each was written within specific Christian Communities for their own use. They were not widely circulated until still more decades had passed.

The eyewitnesses of Jesus were illiterate, Aramaic speakers in Palestine. They werent in position to assess the accuracy of the writings " they couldnt read, couldnt understand Greek, and theres no evidence they were in the georgraphic proximity of where the writings were written and used. So it is incorrect to say that there was opportunity to identify errors.

Theres also no evidence anyone died defending what was written in the Gospels. There was some occasional, sporadic persecutions of Christians, but it is a mischaracterization to suggest this was because of the content of the NT books.

[WinePusher]

Hey fredonly, I can't keep up with the long posts in the Resurrection Contradictions thread, so unfortunately I'll have to exist. Great debate though, excellent points on your part, and it's a travesty for intellectual debate that more non-theists won't follow in your footsteps.

I don't think anyone that knows the subject can won't admit the bible is impressive in its historical detail, the supernatural events have to be accepted or not.

Really? Anyone? Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

And that isn't a fair request now is it. There's nothing that makes a secular scholar better than a religious scholar, what we should take into account is the level of personal bias a scholar may or may not possess, and whether that bias infuences is judgment and discernment. Here, you seem to be implying a sterotype that Christian Scholars are inferior to non-Christian Scholars. Well, are you also going to assert that someone like Robert Price and John Dominic Crossan are "good" scholars?

I will grant that there are some Old Testament books that are intended to be something of a history of the Israelites (although mythologized), but the same cannot be said about the New Testament. The NT contains a few references to some events that were more or less contemporaneous (for example, the references to some historical characters such as Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist). However it also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

Let's address the point raised by JehovahsWitness. Give me a source of information for Early Christianity just as detailed and informative as the New Testament.

The eyewitnesses of Jesus were illiterate, Aramaic speakers in Palestine. They werent in position to assess the accuracy of the writings " they couldnt read, couldnt understand Greek, and theres no evidence they were in the georgraphic proximity of where the writings were written and used. So it is incorrect to say that there was opportunity to identify errors.

I want to know, how strong and reliable do you think the oral tradition was? Also, you committ a classic historical fallacy. A person who is intent on writing a written account in the ancient world would dictate the material to a scribe, yet the text would bear the name of the dictator, not the scribe. It's how the ancient world operated, and it's how the Gospels came to be. When you apply classical historical thought and methodology to the Bible alot of these problems you mention vanish.

Theres also no evidence anyone died defending what was written in the Gospels. There was some occasional, sporadic persecutions of Christians, but it is a mischaracterization to suggest this was because of the content of the NT books.

Then give me a cause for why there were "occasional and sporadic" persecutions of Christians other than their unwillingness to renounce their adherence to the dogma found within the New Testament.

[Flail]

My questions are:
1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?
2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?[/quote]

It is impossible to know the intent of those who imagined the various God-myth stories that eventually found their collation in the Bible. Regardless of legend and authorial intent, mass indoctrination supported by communal thinking and ritual practice has engrained many of those tales as literal 'truth' for many....and in a land far far away, the Koran has done precisely the same for many others.

[fredonly]

I don't think anyone that knows the subject can won't admit the bible is impressive in its historical detail, the supernatural events have to be accepted or not.

Really? Anyone? Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail. I will grant that there are some Old Testament books that are intended to be something of a history of the Israelites (although mythologized), but the same cannot be said about the New Testament. The NT contains a few references to some events that were more or less contemporaneous (for example, the references to some historical characters such as Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist). However also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

I don't think anyone that knows the subject can won't admit the bible is impressive in its historical detail, the supernatural events have to be accepted or not.

Really? Anyone? Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

And that isn't a fair request now is it. There's nothing that makes a secular scholar better than a religious scholar, what we should take into account is the level of personal bias a scholar may or may not possess, and whether that bias infuences is judgment and discernment. Here, you seem to be implying a sterotype that Christian Scholars are inferior to non-Christian Scholars. Well, are you also going to assert that someone like Robert Price and John Dominic Crossan are "good" scholars?

Yes, I think its a pretty fair request. Its not that secular scholars are better than Christian scholars, but I was proposing an objective test of the accuracy of the statement that the bible is impressive in its historical detail. This was a simple, easily applied filter to remove the noise of Christian apologists who dont attempt to look at the Bible in a scholarly critical manner. These are the sort of people that many Christians read, and this very possibly includes Mr. JehovahsWitness. Of course there are plenty of good Christian scholars, and I dont think any of them would agree that the New Testament contains impressive historical detail. (I am taking "historical" to imply "it actually happened"). If the statement is true, then surely it should be a fact that is widely recognized, and I am open to letting you or JehovahsWitness cherry-pick your non-Christian scholars. Alternatively, we could once again debate the historicity of events that are narrated in the New Testament.

I will grant that there are some Old Testament books that are intended to be something of a history of the Israelites (although mythologized), but the same cannot be said about the New Testament. The NT contains a few references to some events that were more or less contemporaneous (for example, the references to some historical characters such as Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist). However it also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

Let's address the point raised by JehovahsWitness. Give me a source of information for Early Christianity just as detailed and informative as the New Testament.

If the point is that the Bible contains detail, irrespective of accuracy, about events that may or may not have happened " then you are right, the New Testament is a great source. Informative is subjective. It certainly contains information that has informed Christians " but that is, again, irrespective of its accuracy.

The New Testament does provide some information that can be analyzed to make historical guesses. In this respect, I agree it is the best single resource available of 1st century Christianity. My response was based on the assumption that JehovahsWitness was suggesting the Bible is historically accurate, and could be accepted at face value. Did I misinterprete him?

The eyewitnesses of Jesus were illiterate, Aramaic speakers in Palestine. They werent in position to assess the accuracy of the writings " they couldnt read, couldnt understand Greek, and theres no evidence they were in the georgraphic proximity of where the writings were written and used. So it is incorrect to say that there was opportunity to identify errors.

I want to know, how strong and reliable do you think the oral tradition was?

Oral traditions are strong in oral cultures, but theres no indication that the Gospel narratives are a transcription of an oral tradition.

On ther other hand, there is also evidence in 2nd temple Judaism, that teachers would expect their students to memorize their core teachings. This might be manifested in Matthew and Luke in the sayings of Jesus " perhaps Q began as oral tradition. Scholars believe many of these sayings of Jesus are indeed historical, and this likely corresponds to Jesus' actual teaching.

The narratives of the Gospels are another story entirely. There's certainly some sort of oral tradition at the core of the story. Paul relates a tradition he received in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Traditions like this could easily be the core of the Gospel. However, its not valid to assume the entire Gospel stories are factual because of this possibility of oral tradtion. We can only analyze the data we have. We dont have the original oral stories and we dont know what form or content they may have had.

Also, you commit a classic historical fallacy. A person who is intent on writing a written account in the ancient world would dictate the material to a scribe, yet the text would bear the name of the dictator, not the scribe. It's how the ancient world operated, and it's how the Gospels came to be. When you apply classical historical thought and methodology to the Bible alot of these problems you mention vanish.

The Gospels did not bear ANYONEs name, and they clearly arent dictation of an uneducated Aramaic speaker. They were originally written in Greek, and the narratives are coherent " indicating the author was educated. Regarding methodology, there are no other instances of such scribing taking place " in which an uneducated person related stories in one language, and the scribe translated them and turned them into coherent narratives in another language.

Theres also no evidence anyone died defending what was written in the Gospels. There was some occasional, sporadic persecutions of Christians, but it is a mischaracterization to suggest this was because of the content of the NT books.

Then give me a cause for why there were "occasional and sporadic" persecutions of Christians other than their unwillingness to renounce their adherence to the dogma found within the New Testament.

I was responding to JehovahsWitness comment, writers were willing to die in defense of what they had written. As I said, theres no evidence at all that a writer died defended his writings. If you have some evidence, tell me what it is.
In answer to your question, Christians were persecuted for arson and atheism. In Jerusalem, prior to the fall of the Temple, there appears to have been some persecution and ostracism by Jews for blasphemy. This was before the New Testament was written and not in the locale in which the New Testament books were composed.

[JehovahsWitness]

Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

**This [discovery in Negeb] is an indication of the remarkable historical memory recorded in the Bible, -- Archaeologist Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College

**Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient documents; the biographical and other historical narratives harmonize marvellously with the evidence afforded by extra-Biblical documents. -- Professor R. D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, page 213.

**The events themselves are historical facts and have been recorded with an accuracy that is nothing less than startling. . . . -- Werner Keller, The Bible as History p.21

** Striking vindications of biblical historiography have taught historians to respect the authority of both Old Testament and New, and to admire the accuracy, the deep concern for truth, and the inspired historical insight of the varied writers who gave the Bible its books of history. -- E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament, pub. 1970

**Now, all forty-seven of these [biblical monarchs] presumably fabulous characters have been transferred from the columns of mythology to the accepted records of established history."Dr. Harry Rimmer -- Page 22 of Dead Men Tell Tales

**It [refering to details Acts] It is one of the most searching tests of Lukes historical sense that he always manages to achieve perfect accuracy. . . . . Luke is equally happy, equally accurate, in his geography and his travel experiences. -- A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible about the book of Acts

** Archaeology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge. -- Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology

However it also contains inaccuracies and idealized embellishments of Christian History (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

Please provide specific examples (with biblical references) as well as documented historical proof of your statement. Thank you.

All the books were written in Greek ..

This is incorrect. Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis [60-130 AD] saying Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)

If you have proof to override this feel free to present it (Please note I have zero time or tolerance for opinion presented as proof. Historical documents only - thanks).

The rest of the statement in this regard is irrelevant and shall be ignored as such. I was not contending or presenting the target audience for the gospels nor is that relevant to the discussion at hand.

The eyewitnesses of Jesus were illiterate, Aramaic speakers in Palestine.

This is a presumption (and an unsubstantiated one at that). There would be no way to prove that every Aramaic speaker in Palestine in the first century that saw Jesus was illiterate. This is a proposterous claim.

Wouldn't the disciples of Jesus have been illiterate?

Not necessarily. Certainly his Apostles wouldn't have been. Of the 27 books of the Christian Greek scriptures 13 were written by Paul, a highly educated roman citizen and lawyer. Matthew* was a civil servant and Luke (who also wrote the Acts of the apostles) a doctor and historian. Of all the *New Testament* writers, only two (Peter and John) were to my knowledge fishermen by trade and the gospel narrative suggest they owned and ran a family business, so while they were clearly working men - not privy to the higher schools of rabbonical education, they were clearly literate and intelligent men. There is therefore nothing "fishy" (by which I presume you mean suspect) that they were able to express themselves in the written greek of the time.

As a footnote Johns Gospel, letters and revelation were written very late in the first century and even if he were unschooled in Greek and/or illiterate (which is EXTREMELY unlikely for reasons outlined above) would have had plenty of time to learn.

Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic languages:

• "[In first centry society] Writing in Greek, Aramaic and hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society" regarding the assertion that the Gospel texts arose from an engirely illiterate society he continues "That is an unlikely picture, [as] writing would have been known about everywhere... Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written [what] they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others".

...couldnt understand Greek,...

Please do some research, Greek was the common language of the time and had dominated the known world for hundreds of years before the gospels; the hellenization of hebrew culture was widespread.

According to historian Emil Schrer

• Into this stream of Hellenistic culture the Jews were also drawn, slowly and with reluctance, but irresistibly, Greek was the language of government and commerce And Schuer notes the small Jewish territory was surrounded on almost all sides by Hellenistic regions with which, for the sake of trade, it was obliged to be in constant contact.

And the Jewish Encylopedia refers to

• "...The Christian Church, which was first founded among Greek-speaking peoples"
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 7&letter=H
  
  "The spoken languages among the Jews of that period were Hebrew, Aramaic, AND to an extent Greek -- Jewish scholar David Flusser [CAPs mine]. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (Tel Aviv: Mod, 1989), p. 11.

Given the above it seem likely that people in the region where Jesus and his disciples originated would have spoken common Greek as well as their own native Aramaic (and at least understood, if not spoken Hebrew, the language of the Temple). This was epitomized by the need to translate the sacred Jewish text into Greek (septuguint) in about 280 BC.

It seems more than likely then that Jesus and his disciples spoke both their native Aramaic, Hebrew dialect AND Greek (Jesus himself may well have also spoken Latin since at his trial it seems that Jesus conversed with Pilate without any mention of a translator) and not at all unusual that the gospel writers chose Koine Greek to document and spread their message.

As an aside

" perhaps Q began as oral tradition. .

Please provide physical evidence that Q existed. (not presumption/assumption and supposition, actual early copies or 1st 2nd documentation of this text and where these documents can presently be viewed)

INVENTING MYTHOLOLOGICAL CHARACTERS

My reference to the difficulties presented by the relatively rapid recording of the gospel events was that of how problematic the logistics would be of presenting eyewitness testimony of events and individuals within living memory of those that could debunk the details. The Christian message was propagated while enemies of that message were alive. The logistics of inventing a man from Nazareth (when the inhabitants of Nazarath at the time he was supposed to have been living there) were still alive and recounting (as the first century Christians did) about his trial and execution in a capital when the High Priest, religious and secular authorities were in a position to prove he never existed, would have necessarily given rise to a counter-tradition both oral and written that debunked the existence of the figure central to the Christian message.

[McCulloch]

Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

Archaeologist Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College
Professor R. D. Wilson,

Would that be Robert D Wilson, American linguist and Presbyterian scholar?

Werner Keller, The Bible as History

Non-Christian? You're joking, right?

E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament,

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock (1903"1983) was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature in New Zealand from the 1950s until his death in 1983.

Dr. Harry Rimmer

Harry Rimmer (1890-1952) was an American creationist, itinerant evangelist and writer of anti-evolution pamphlets. Rimmer had very limited training in science, though he tried to use science to prove the veracity of the Bible. He is most prominent as an early pioneer in the creationist movement in the United States.

A. Rendle Short,

A member of the Open Brethren christian movement.

Sir Frederic Kenyon,

Christian Scholar

However it also contains inaccuracies [...] (compare Acts to Pauls accounts of the same events, as mentioned in his letters).

Please provide specific examples (with biblical references) as well as documented historical proof of your statement. Thank you.

Please refer to the debate about The Jerusalem Conference & Apostolic Decree

[JehovahsWitness]

Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

Archaeologist Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College
Professor R. D. Wilson,

Would that be Robert D Wilson, American linguist and Presbyterian scholar?

Werner Keller, The Bible as History

Non-Christian? You're joking, right?

E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament,

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock (1903"1983) was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature in New Zealand from the 1950s until his death in 1983.

Dr. Harry Rimmer

Harry Rimmer (1890-1952) was an American creationist, itinerant evangelist and writer of anti-evolution pamphlets. Rimmer had very limited training in science, though he tried to use science to prove the veracity of the Bible. He is most prominent as an early pioneer in the creationist movement in the United States.

A. Rendle Short,

A member of the Open Brethren christian movement.

Sir Frederic Kenyon,

Christian Scholar

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first be classified as "fitting for serious consideration = atheist" "sub-standard=Christian" and after having been "cleared" be viewed seriously, independent of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant, sub-educated, of armchair wikipedia levying atheist fundamentalists.

Until all scientists, historicans, archaeologist and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs (McCarthy hunt style) before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly proposterous view of study as will anyone with more than a shred of intellectual capacity. The assumption that only an atheists (or one must presume buddist or Muslim) can examine the "Bible in a scholarly critical manner" in short that the current system of PEER REVIEW is insufficient to "weed out those pesky theists", is a sad consequence of this eras proliferation of internet *experts".

Obviously I am happy to consider any educated and well informed critique of their work but the lazy, cherry picking, extremism reflected in the above "request" is unworthy of the time those of us that have an education.

Best Regards,
JW

[McCulloch]

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first go through the filter of his personal beliefs and after having been "cleared" of any will be examined on the basis of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant of armchair Wikipedia levying fundamentalists.

Until all scientists, historians and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly preposterous view of study.

I believe that the request was made, not as an implication that Christian scholars are not to be taken seriously, but in order to remove bias. If, for example, you were reviewing the test results about the safety of drugs, would you want to see if any of the studies were done by researchers not in the pay of the big pharmaceutical firms? Not because the scientists working for big pharma are any less qualified, but you want to get an unbiased review. The same applies here. If the only scholars that support the historical validity of the biblical texts are those who are Christian, then that claim cannot be taken as being an unbiased consensus of the scholars in that field.

[I AM ALL I AM]

Please name 3 non-Christian scholars who have said they are impressed with the historical detail.

Archaeologist Nelson Glueck, president of Hebrew Union College
Professor R. D. Wilson,

Would that be Robert D Wilson, American linguist and Presbyterian scholar?

Werner Keller, The Bible as History

Non-Christian? You're joking, right?

E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament,

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock (1903"1983) was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature in New Zealand from the 1950s until his death in 1983.

Dr. Harry Rimmer

Harry Rimmer (1890-1952) was an American creationist, itinerant evangelist and writer of anti-evolution pamphlets. Rimmer had very limited training in science, though he tried to use science to prove the veracity of the Bible. He is most prominent as an early pioneer in the creationist movement in the United States.

A. Rendle Short,

A member of the Open Brethren christian movement.

Sir Frederic Kenyon,

Christian Scholar

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first be classified as "fitting for serious consideration = atheist" "sub-standard=Christian" and after having been "cleared" be viewed seriously, independent of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant, sub-educated, of armchair wikipedia levying fundamentalists.

Until all scientists, historicans and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly proposterous view of study as will anyone with more than a shred of intellectual capacity. Obviously I am happy to consider any educated and well informed critique of their work but the lazy, cherry picking, extremism reflected in the above "request" is unworthy of the time those of us that have an educated.

Best Regards,
JW

G'day Jehovah's Witness.

When a pharmaceutical company does clinical trials, would you consider the scientists that they employ to be biased or free of bias ?

Having a predetermined world view based upon the christian religion definitely presents itself as a bias when attempting to scientifically describe something. Attributing reality to a supernatural being that has never been evidenced scientifically, destroys the credibility of the (pseudo) scientist making such attributions.

Would you accept a scientist as being rational and unbiased if he/she attributed parts of reality to 'Zeus' ?

How about 'Dionysus' ?

Or 'Shiva' ?

Or does that only apply to 'christian scientists' ?