TRAINS OF THOUGHT IN END-TIMES.

'A Closer Look at the Logic of a Physical Second Coming.'
 

Following is a simple comparison between the two competing endtime views.  (Endtimes is the area of biblical thought that usually considers four things: the end of the world, the second coming, the resurrection, and the judgment.)
 
Failure of Prophecy in this generation.
The current way of thinking (paradigm) goes back 2,000 years. It holds that Jesus’ second coming is literal and physical, and always future to the reader. This has meant that every generation of Christian people for 2,000 years has believed that Jesus’ coming was ‘at hand, soon, quickly, shortly’ to them.  The first problem is, that although every generation for 2,000 years has been disappointed, yet the next generation claims the same thing.

Futurism has no time facts.
The second problem is that the future view lacks time evidence.  There is no single time fact in the bible to suggest the idea that Jesus’ second coming is 2,000 years in His future.

Futurism is contrary to Fact.
The third problem, (and a serious one) is that believers in a future coming must deny clear passages that Jesus would return in His own generation. (eg. Mtt 23:36, 24:34, 26:64, Mk 9:1, Lk 21:32)

Futurism cannot Unite the Field of End-times - Consider a Past Option
A fourth problem is that after 2,000 years of close study, Christianity is splintered into 20,000 different sects all divided over the interpretation of the bible. This means that after 2000 years of intense study, the ‘yet future to us’ paradigm has not only failed to offer one explanation to unite the field, but in 2000 years it has not even offered an agreed on methodology by which to approach the problem. While the field of endtimes remains thus divided, it is still  open to a competing theory that can offer one explanation and a methodology that is acceptable and reasonable. This short comparison will consider the reasoning of two views, the Yet Future to us’ view which (obviously) looks to our future to explain the first century documents, and it’s opposite, the Preterist (before, or past) view, which looks back to the first century to explain the first century documents.

The Analogy of a Train of Thought.
The idea of a ‘train of thought’ is suggestive of an analogy.  An explanatory ‘train-track’ of thought is a consistent, interconnected series of thought that moves from premise to conclusion -station to terminus- like a railroad.  For an idea to be biblical it must begin from biblical facts, and follow fact-by-biblical-fact to its conclusion.  In other words a biblical explanation should be accountable to bible facts consistent with its own statements.
 
Comparing Past and Future Views.
The next two pages compares two competing views of endtimes, a Preterist (past) view and a Yet Future to us (in 2010) view. The conclusion recommends a first century explanation to explain first century facts. Following each is a summary of the reasons that recommend a Preterist view, and tell strongly against a Yet Future view.

 
                                                                                       PART I.
             
                                       FIRST CENTURY 'TRAIN OF THOUGHT' COMPARED.
                                   
Q.1    Is a first century explanation consistent with biblical observation?

Q.2    Is there adirect observable relation in facts between premise and conclusion?

 
START TRAIN:             BIBLE WRITTEN BEFORE 100 A.D.
                                         
                                                       Claims.
 
  |         |_                     ALL BLOOD ON THIS GENERATION  IN C.1ST                 MTT 23:36
  |         |_

  |         |_                     ALL FULFILLED IN THIS GENERATION IN C.1ST            LK 21:32

_|_____|_

_|_____|_

_|         |_                     SOME OF YOU STANDING HERE IN C.1ST                          MK 9:1

_|         |_

_|         |_

_|         |_                     C.1STJERUSALEM TEMPLE COMING /AGE END AD 70     MTT 24:2

_|         |_

_|         |_                                

_|         |_                     C1ST HIGH PRIEST CAIAPHAS TO SEE SON OF MAN COMING CLOUDS
                                    THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM WOULD SEE HIM
_|         |_                                                                                                  MTT 26:64, REV 1:7

_|         |_

_|         |­­_                    THEY WERE IN THE LAST DAYS  IN C.1ST                              HEB 1:1

_|         |_

_|         |_                     

_|         |_                     EVENTS SHORTLY TO COME TO PASS IN C.1ST               REV 1:1

_|         |_

_|         |_

_|         |_                     END OF ALL THINGS AT HAND   IN C.1ST                          1 PET 4:7

 _|____|__

CONCLUSION:   THEREFORE JESUS’ COMING IN THAT C.1st GENERATION IN JERUSALEM.

 

ADVANTAGES OF THE FIRST CENTURY VIEW:

.    HAS FIRST MEANING TO PEOPLE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN TO

.    OBSERVABLE

.    SIMPLE PREMISE

.    SUGGESTED BY BIBLE FACTS

.    ANSWERS BIBLE FACTS

.    SAVES THE APPEARANCE OF THE BIBLE FACTS

.    NEEDS NO SPECIAL RULES

.    NEEDS NO DIVISIONS BETWEEN VERSES.

 
                                                         PART II
             
                                       TWENTY FIRST CENTURY 'TRAIN OF THOUGHT' COMPARED.

 
Q.1    Is a yet future to +2010 explanation consistent with biblical observation?

Q.2    Is there a direct observable relation in facts between premise and +2010 conclusion?

 
START TRAIN:                    BIBLE WRITTEN BEFORE 100 A.D.                                                                                                
                   
_|_____|_                                                                                    Claims.

_|_       |_                                                                     -#1> JESUS WILL RETURN LITERAL, PHYSICAL, VISIBLY

Break- NO FACTS
LITERAL, PHYSICAL, VISIBLY NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
_|_____|_

CAN'T EXPLAIN IT LITERALLY IN C.1ST ?         -#2>    INFER ITS FUTURE TO US   IN C.21ST
                                                                                    #3>    INSERT 2000 YR GAP BETWEEN VERSES
_|         |_                    

Break? -NO GAP FACTS

‘BUT COMING IN 'THIS' JESUS GENERATION’  #4>    ASSUME OUR GENERATION IN +2000

                                                                                    #5>     MAYBE TWO COMINGS?
_|         |_                    

Break- NO 'COMINGS' FACTS IN BIBLE.
(ONLY EZEK 43:11)

‘SOME OF YOU STANDING HERE WILL          -#6>      DENY MARK 9:1
 NOT SEE DEATH TILL KINGDOM COMES’
(MK 9:1)

_|         |_

_          |_

Break-

SOON, NEAR, QUICKLY, SHORTLY                   #7> EXPAND 'QUICKLY'  BY 2000

                                                                                     #8> MAYBE HE WAS DELAYED? HYPOTHESIS
            |_
FALSE.
HE WILL COME AND NOT DELAY.
(HEB 10:37)
_|         _                                 

Break-

END OF ALL THINGS AT HAND           
 (1 PET 4:7)                                                                  -#9>         MAYBE TWO ENDS?

            |_     
_|___              

Break-

COMING TO DESTROY JERUSALEM TEMPLE     #10*    BUT NO TEMPLE IN 2010?
(MTT 24:1-3)                                                     
     
                *For the above ten claims there exists no single, express piece of bible evidence.                             

iIMPOSSIBLE CONCLUSION:        "THEREFORE ITS 100% CERTAIN JESUS’ COMING IS FUTURE TO 2010."



 
                                         WEAKNESSES OF ‘YET FUTURE TO US’ VIEW:

.    SUGGESTED BY NO SINGLE BIBLICAL TIME FACT , BUT 100% CERTAIN.

.    DENIES FIRST MEANING TO PEOPLE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN TO , BUT 100% CERTAIN

.   FAILS TO SAVE THE APPEARANCES OF THE FACTS , BUT 100% CERTAIN

.   IS HELD UP BY SPECIAL RULES , BUT 100% CERTAIN

.  BEGINS BY ASSUMING TERMS ‘LITERAL AND PHYSICAL ARE BIBLICAL’  BUT 100% CERTAIN

                                                              CONCLUSION.
The idea of a ‘train of thought’ is suggestive an explanatory ‘train-track’ of thought, a consistent, interconnected series of thought that moves from premise to conclusion like a railroad - station to terminus. For any idea to be 'biblical' it must begin from biblical facts, and follow fact-by-biblical-fact to its conclusion.  In other words a biblical explanation should be accountable to bible facts consistent with its own statements.
 
After comparing the two competing views of endtimes, the conclusion recommends a first century explanation to explain first century facts. The comparison tells strongly against a Yet Future view. No doubt this seems unfamiliar and strange to many. In this regards Sherlock Holmes once gave some good advice to his friend Dr. Watson. "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is likely to be the truth. "



                                                                     -ooOOoo-


    

Seven Problems with Futurist Theology.

An Objective Measure of ‘Biblical’  Knowledge
 

Christianity cannot take the place of thinking, but it must be founded upon it.
                                                                                                Albert Schweitzer
 
In endtimes there are, most simply, three competing schemas of prophetic fulfillment, each with variations; firstly the Futurist view, secondly the Partial-Preterist view, and thirdly the Preterist (past) view.  Together they teach all, some and none respectively.

The Futurist view asserts all the biblical facts of the second coming point to our future. (All)

The compromise Partial (part past, part future) view asserts some facts are past, and some point to our future. (Some)

The Preterist view asserts no outstanding biblical prophecy remains to be fulfilled. (None)

 
The Issue:  Objectivity and the  Measure of a ‘Biblical’ view.

A great deal has been written on these three views and a multitude of verses quoted on each side, but as yet no common measure has arisen upon which a determination can be made.  Futurist and Partial-Preterists argue their own conclusions are ‘biblical,’ so the problem then is one of objectivity: what is the measure of ‘biblical?’ Is ‘biblical’ orthodoxy measured by traditional creeds? Is ‘biblical’ practical measured by usefulness? Is ‘biblical’measured by the quantity of verses quoted? Is it the evidence theory of truth: ‘known to be true?’ Or is ‘biblical’ the consistency theory of truth: if it is consistent with our beliefs it is true. How to measure, objectively which explanation is ‘biblical?’

The Facts of the case.

For simplicity of discussion both all future and some (partially) future are grouped together, both asserting a future second coming beyond the span of 2,000 years between the bible authors and now.

Q. What are the seven main assertions of  Futurist theology?

1. 2000 year period of time asserted.
2. Jesus’ coming Personally’ ‘Physically’ and ‘Visibly’ asserted.
   
3.  ‘Delay’ in coming asserted. 
4. ‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted.
5. Jesus coming asserted to be ‘literal.’
6. ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school.
7. Asserts Jerusalem temple to be destroyed future to 2008.  
   

 
Q. What are the seven main assertions of Preterist theology?

1. Things promised and written to that generation fulfilled to them.
2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation.             Mtt 23:36
3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation.                  Lk 21:32
4. [Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled. Mtt 24:34
5. Jerusalem temple and end of age occur coevally       Mtt 24:1-3
6. Jerusalem temple destroyed in AD70. History (Josephus. ‘Wars’)
7. 2,000 years not necessary because it is not attested  by any biblical fact
   

The Rule for Objective Biblical Knowledge is the Measure.

All knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, and all biblical knowledge is an acquaintance with biblical facts. A thing cannot be said to be ‘biblical’ unless there are biblical statements in the same terms to declare it so. The only objective measure of biblical-reality is this correspondence between statement with biblical fact in the same terms. This means that 2000 years can only be ‘biblical’ if a chronological term equal to 2000 years is observable in the bible, again a delay is only ‘biblical’ if a delay is observable in the bible. 'Known to be true,' 'Consistent with my creed,'  'it is practical to accept this view' are not objective theories of truth. The only objective rule applied here is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms. Which of the three explanations is ‘biblical’ by the measure of a correspondence between assertion and biblical fact in the same terms?
 

Apply Correspondence Rule to Assertions of Each.

Futurism. What occurs when we apply the rule – does the assertion correspond with bible facts in the same terms - to the futurist view?

#1 No 2,000 year facts are observable in the bible.
#2 ‘Personally’ ‘physically’ and ‘visibly’ asserted, but ‘personally’ ‘physically’ and‘visibly’ nowhere occur in an exhaustive concordance of the scriptures.(Strong’s).
#3‘Delay’ in coming asserted, but second coming ‘delay’ asserted by no bible author
#4‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted, but no ‘gaps’ stated by bible authors.
#5 Jesus coming ‘literal.’ ‘Literal’ occurs nowhere in the biblical datum.
#6 ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school. ‘Comings’ occurs only once in Ezek 43:11 with no observable relation to second coming.
#7.No Jerusalem temple exists in 2010 to be destroyed.  

Consideration of the Seven Points of Futurism
#1 In futurism the passing of 2000 years after the first coming is a necessary concept, yet no single biblical fact exists to prove #1. 2000 years because “it is  literal” is assumed, yet 2000 years is nowhere observable in the facts.

#2 The terms found in the statements of #2 are nowhere observable in Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the KJV bible. I challenge you to do the experiment with Strong’s concordance. For example futurism asserts Jesus will return ‘Physically.’ In Strongs’ the term ‘Physically’ should occur alphabetically between ‘Phylacteries’ and ‘Physician,’ correct? ‘Physically’ is not there, because no such term as ‘Physically’ occurs in the bible! Do the experiment: look it up - ‘Phylacteries’ in Strong’s is followed immediately by ‘Physician.’ It is not there because it is a human invention, and similarly ‘Personally’ and ‘Visibly’, yet these three terms lie at the foundation of futurism.

#3 Again the assertion of a ‘delay’ corresponds to no observable bible fact in the same terms, in fact the bible author of Hebrews asserts precisely the contrary of what is asserted in #3, that there would be no delay. Heb 10:37 - ‘For yet a little while and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry’ [delay] Statement #3 of futurism fails on two counts of objectivity: (i) it cannot justify itself on evidence and (ii) it actually denies the bible statement; ‘He shall not tarry’ [delay],  scarcely a ‘biblical’ proof to convince the candid enquirer, but essential to the ‘literal and therefore future’ theory.

#4 Here no objective division between passages is made by any biblical author, nor are any divisions suggested by biblical time facts at those places where a future division is supposed to occur. Lacking biblical statements for these claims, they must remain conjectural and merely mental constructs to prop up literalism.

#5 Figurative language is a common literary device of the Hebrew prophets. (eg. Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel). A literal Psalm 23 ‘thy rod and thy staff they comfort me’ demands the nonsensical idea  that God has a literal rod and staff in heaven, when a metaphorical explanation would answer the import sufficiently. Literalism is not a rule stated in the biblical datum, nor can the notion of only and always literal axiom work in practice. To quote the moderate position of Alexander Campbell: ‘Now while we agree that there is but one meaning in every passage, we are not prepared to say that meaning is always literal.’ (Campbell, A. 1831, p 431)

#6 Another error is the claim of a plurality of Jesus’ second 'comings.' The claim corresponds to no relevant statement in biblical observation. Comings is only found once in Ezek 43:11, and merely relates to the progress of priests and their goings out thereof and their comings in therefrom, a context disconnected entirely from a discussion of the second coming. Further, a plurality of comings makes the term a ‘second’ coming a meaningless nonsense. ‘Many second comings’; eg.a ‘third’ or ‘fourth’ second comings? It is another fact-less device to prop up a literalism absent from the facts it claims to present.

#7 In AD 70 the holy city of Mosaic Jerusalem was utterly destroyed when the Mosaic age ended,  and the people evicted from the land. (See Josephus’ Antiquities and Wars of the Jews). Futurism places more emphasis on reading the scuttlebutt of modern-doomsayers in daily newspapers than reading the history of Jesus’ own generation. What happens when we close the newspaper and look at first century history?
 
The First Century History of the Holy City Jerusalem
A sample Preterist synthesis of prophecy and history informs us that Vespasian’s Roman army under his son Titus surrounded a Jerusalem besieged by civil war, and a holy temple occupied by: a generation of villains so mad, that had the Romans made a longer delay the city would have been swallowed up by the earth, or destroyed as Sodom… (Josephus. Wars 5:13:566) a national event described by this eyewitness as the greatest [national] misery since its foundation, (Wars 6:8:408) in which the number of those which perished [over 1,100,000] exceeded all the destructions ..ever brought on the world (Wars 6:9:429), a time when false prophets abounded, (Wars 6:5:285) “the daily sacrifice” failed (Wars 6:2:94) when famine affected the estimated 3,000,000 people in the city, (Wars 5:12) a famine so bad  people searched the sewers for dung, (Wars 5:13:571) and one mother ate her own child for food (Wars 6:3:207 ) when a measure of wheat was sold for a talent of money (Wars 5:13:571)  when men sought by death [by sword over death by starvation], but found it not, (Wars 5:12:517) a context when fire and blood mingled together, the blood in the lanes in such quantities that the whole city ran with blood, to such a degree indeed that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood (Wars 6:8:406ff)  earthquakes (Wars 1:19:370 ) and signs in the heavens: (Antiquities 17:6:167 Eclipse, comet) a time when the sounds of trumpets (Wars 6:1:68) and the noise of horses (Wars 3:2:33) were sounds to inspire dread and torment, when the great plain in front of Jerusalem (Wars 5:2:67, 5:3:106ff) was leveled even wider by the four legions of the Roman army as numerous as locusts to make a greater plain for battle. The entire city was shut up, the national population captured in a kind of net. (Wars 6:1:160) The futurist cannot tell us anything of Jesus’ generation, but Preterism tells us it was an unsettled world revolved by wars, a world that saw the Roman government in great internal disorder by the continual changes of its rulers, and understood that every part of the habitable earth under them was in an unsettled and tottering condition.. (Wars 7:4:79)

To this near correspondence between biblical prophecy and fulfilled history futurism attaches no significance at all, revealing that historical ignorance is the true basis for futurism. The need to re-build a 1st century temple (so it may be re-destroyed  in the 21st century) to prop up a theory lacking facts is so silly as to be almost fabulous. It is further evidence of futurism’s inferior explanatory power: it cannot explain the deeper significance of bible facts. These seven topics are major tenets of the futurist theory of the second coming.

 
Consideration of the Seven points of Preterism
Preterist. What occurs when we ask for biblical correspondence with the seven Preterist assertions? In this case -

#1. Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them. Lk 21:20, 24 A standard principle of modern historiography.
Yes. Correspondence with statement and fact in the same terms.  
        
 #2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation.  Mtt 23:36
Yes. Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.

#3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation.   Lk 21:32     
Yes. Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms

#4. Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled.    Mtt 24:34   
Yes. Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms

#5.  Jerusalem temple and end of age occur coevally         Mtt 24:1-3     
Yes. Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms

#6. .Old covenant of Moses was located in the Mosaic Jerusalem temple.   1 Kgs 8-9    
Yes.  Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms

#7. Jerusalem temple destroyed in AD70                               Josephus. Wars of the Jews     
Yes. Correspondence between historical statement and biblical fact in nearly the same terms.

In Preterism tragic Jewish prophecy (Revelation) is explained by tragic Jewish history. (Josephus). Preterism has a very simple basis:

 #1  Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them. In thought the simplest view is always to be preferred. This principle is called Occam’s razor, where no more complexity is introduced than what the facts allow.

#2 Preterism simply accounts for genuine time facts relative to the time they were written, thus the generation spoken to is the same generation as ‘this generation’ to whom the things were promised. This is called ‘fact-for-fact’ correspondence’: it is express. The same also with statements #3 and #4.

#5 Asserts that the Jerusalem temple - which contained the institutions of Moses - also maintained them. This means that because the Mosaic covenant is in the Mosaic temple, the temple supports the Mosaic age. The conclusion is that when you end the temple you end the age. This is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms.

#6 Explains the reason for #5 - the temple and the age end together – the cause being that the covenant was located in the Jerusalem temple. 1 Kings 8 – 9:1-9. This is correspondence between temple and age is the smoking gun of Preterism..

#7 Asserts that Jesus’ divine revelations to His C.1st generation may be answered by a correspondence with the historical state of affairs in that C.1st generation. (Josephus. Antiquities, Wars) This restores the prophetic credibility futurism steals from Jesus.

Clearly a C.1st generation view has far more explanatory power of the temple’s historical and redemptive significance than futurism, and possesses the firmest foundation in fact.

 
Conclusion of Preterist and Futurist Comparison.

Where biblical objectivity is measured by a correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms, it must be concluded by the candid observer that the yet future premises are embarrassingly absent in every observable and causational particular, while first century (Preterist) assertions are, by observation, legitimate statements of biblical authors.

Futurism springs from a rigid literalism which conjures, as if by magic: a delay not observable in the datum, gaps which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, multiple and fictitious comings which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, and the magical reappearance and re-destruction of a temple destroyed 2000 years ago. The most disturbing particular is that none of this speculation matches observable biblical fact (in-the-same-terms) at any single point, yet its followers claim complete certainty for it. The basis for all this mental machinery is literalism. Proof of futurism’s entire structure is silence:  Jesus hasn’t come back yet has He?  The problem here is that the conclusion cannot be falsified or proven, even after 2000 years of failure.  For 2000 years futurism has ignored the past and gazed off into the dim future offering fictions instead of facts, conjecture for proof, and excuses for Christ’s ‘delay’. It reminds one of a wobbly shack on a loose foundation, propped up by buttresses and broken beams glued together and taped up, patched and screwed. The real problem of futurism is not the formwork but the foundation of Knowing, which is real solid fact.

Futurism may believe it is right, but one may believe anything. True observable facts are the only measure of objective Knowledge, and without biblical facts to measure statements there can be no objective Knowledge. I will close with a quote from Karl Popper who wrote about ‘knowing’ in the absence of real facts. He said without real facts there can be no rational defense, but rather in their absence; ‘Our ‘knowledge’ is unmasked as being not only in the nature of belief, but of rationally indefensible belief – of an irrational faith.’ (Popper 1972 p5)

While little known and unfamiliar at present, Preterism possesses the singular merit of objectivity as the basis for a more rational and biblical explanation of the end time facts. I recommend it to the impartial Christian.

                                                                                 
-ooOOoo-


Campbell, A.    The Millennial Harbinger. 1831 Reprinted College press 1987, Mo.
Popper, K.R.     Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, 5th ed revised 1989 UK.
Popper,K.R.      Objective Knowledge. Oxford Press, 1972. USA 
Strong, J.      Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nelson, 1990. USA

  The Natural Law Principle in Sherlock Holmes.

By

Morrison  Lee
 
Holmes: Just man or just a felon?
“I shall have to compound a felony, as usual.”  
                                                                                                Sherlock Holmes

Definition. Felony:  ME. Wickedness, baseness – 1489 wrath, Guile perfidy, 1533. A crime, misdeed, sin..any class of crimes regarded by the law as of a graver character than misdemeanors .
                                                                              Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

 

An inductive study of the outcomes of the career of Sherlock Holmes over the sixty recorded cases, (roughly classified) reveals:

1. Arrests  /Captures     - Due process of law observed. 19 cases out of 60 cases
   

Jefferson Hope of  A Study in Scarlet arrested
Jonathan Small of Agra arrested
John Clay of Redheaded League arrested
Beddington the forger arrested
Cunningham father and son arrested for Reigate murder
                  Sebastian Moran caught
                  Oldacre arrested for murder
                  Slaney arrested for murder in the Dancing Men
                  Woodley caught, Carruthers defended
                  Patrick Cairns arrested for murder of Black Peter
                  Beppo arrested in Six Napoleons
                  Browner arrested for murder
                  Valentine Walter and Oberstein arrested for murder and treason/espionage
                  Peters arrested for kidnapping/attempted murder of Lady Frances Carfax
                  Culverton Smith arrested for the murder of Victor Savage
                  Von Bork arrested for espionage
                  Count Sylvius arrested for theft
                  Evans arrested for attempted murder
                  Retired Color-man Amberley arrested for twin murder   
31.7%

1. Outwitted.       Holmes clearly defeated by a Woman. 1 out of 60 cases
   

                            Irene Adler                           
 1.6%

3        No result but villain dealt just outcome - ‘karmic’ justice. 8 of 60 cases

Roylott dies of snake bite
Stapleton dies on the moor
Black Georgiano killed by Gennaro Luca
                  Tiger of San Pedro Don Murillo murdered in Madrid
Wilder dies from fall in cave
Resident Patient’s murderers die in sinking
KKK die in Lone Star sinking
                  Hudson dies by the hand of Beddoes
               13.3% 

Successful other. (Successful miscellaneous outcomes. 18 of 60 cases

Neville St Clair identified
Wood vindicated
Greek interpreter Melas rescued
Douglas acquitted (self defence)
Miss Dunbar vindicated at Thor Bridge
Ms Ronder saved from suicide
Lion’s Mane organism identified
Illustrious client’s secret preserved
Blanched Elmsworth found
Creeping professor exposed
Rucastle exposed
St Simon’s bride found
Daughter identified
Butler Brunton’s body found
Stark escapes Holmes, barely
Straker’s killer as a horse identified
Anna Coram discovered in her husband’s room
 Missing ¾ found30.0%

Now to the most interesting category.....
4        ‘Holmesian/ personal ‘justice.’ 14 out of 60 cases.

John Turner                  -           freed from homicide
James Ryder                 -           freed from theft
Joseph Harrison            -           freed deliberately
        Woman protected - “my sympathies are with the criminal, not the victim.” (ie. Milverton)
Professor Moriarty       -           killed by Holmes
                                         Captain Crocker           -           freed to marry after committing homicide
Hilda Trelawny Hope    -           protected from theft
Dr Leon Sterndale        -           freed from murder
Young Jack Ferguson (15 yrs old) sent to sea -  attempted murder
Isadora Klein                -           let off from homicide
                Windibank                    -           freed from attempt to defraud
Mary Holder                -           protected from theft
                            Gilchrist                        -           let off from charge of cheating/ theft
                                                                Sir Robert Norberton       -        let off attempt to pursue personal advantage                            
  23.5%

Thus in an analysis of Holmes’ sixty cases we find the following classification:
            1. Arrests /captures; due process          -           31.7% of cases
            2. Outwitted  (bungled)             -             1.6%
3. No definite results (natural justice)     -           13.3%
4. Successful – other                              -           30.0%
5. ‘Holmesian’ justice                           -           23.4%
                                                                        ______
                                                                        100%
                                                                         ______

The issue.

It is the last and most curious ‘felonious’ category, (23.5% nearly ¼  of outcomes ‘Holmesian’ justice, where he does not follow due process) that I would like to query here. That is he failed to take due process and follow legal protocols mandatory to all citizens. The two issues are these:

1.      on what basis does Holmes make these ‘felonious’ calls?
2.      is this basis personally capricious or objective?

Material facts.

Consider a sample of felonies against Holmes. He is guilty (upon normal interpretation of British law) of:
            . obstruction of justice                       -           Charles Aug. Milverton shooting
            . denial of due process                          -           Sir Eustace Brackenstall homicide
            . homicide                    -           Professor Moriarty
            . allowing known felons to escape          -           Dr Leon Sterndale; Captain Crocker,
                                                                                      James Ryder, Joseph  Harrison.
            . non-disclosure of information        -          Mary Holder, Hilda Trelawny Hope,
                                           Isadora Klein.
            . tampering with evidence                      -           Devil’s Foot Root
There is no doubt that upon a literal and just interpretation of modern legal statute, Holmes has committed numerous felonies, which he admits as ‘usual’ by his self confession, as reported in the case of the three Gables:

“I shall have to compound a felony, as usual.”

It is the quixotic nature of his judgments that demands our full attention here, as in the homicide of Sir Eustace Brackenstall of Abbey Grange. Was there a more bizarre scene in fiction?

Holmes.           “See here Captain Crocker, we’ll do this in due form of law. You are the prisoner. Watson you are a British jury,
                               and I never met a man who was more eminently fitted to represent one. I am the judge. Now gentleman of the jury, you have heard the evidence. Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?
Watson.           “Not guilty my lord,” I said.
Holmes.           “Vox populi vox dei. You are acquitted Captain Crocker.”

Here a nobleman was brutally killed and his killer apprehended by Holmes, and yet despite clear evidence of the crime and a confession, the killer was allowed to go free upon his private judgment and the dead denied due process, but upon what justification? The same in the case of Mortimer Tregennis and his killer Dr Leon Sterndale

Sterndale.        “My soul cried out for revenge…I have spent so much of my life outside the law, that I have come at last to be a law unto myself.”
Holmes.           “What were your plans?”
Sterndale.        “I had intended to bury myself in Central Africa. My work there is but half finished.”
Holmes.           “Go and do the other half,” said Holmes. “I, at least for one, am not prepared to prevent you.”

Thus upon his own authority Holmes released a confessed killer. (This was after he tampered with crime-scene evidence found in the sitting-room lamp of the Tregennis family.)
 
In the case of Moriarty, Holmes pitched him headlong to his death over the Reichenbach Falls, and then conspicuously failed to notify the authorities of his part in the death. Similarly Sir Robert Norberton was let off from the charge of failing to notify the authorities of the death of his sister.
 
Other examples of Holmesian ‘justice’ are found in the release of James Ryder and Mary Holder, both of whom stole jewelry worth vast sums of money, (Blue Carbuncle and Beryl Coronet) and Joseph Harrison and Lady Hilda Trelawny Hope, who both abstracted highly important state papers that could have altered the course of European history. Likewise Gilchrist was allowed to skip off to Rhodesia without punishment after it was discovered the young man stole examination proofs from his university.  All these were discovered by Holmes, yet all were allowed impunity in due process of law. Only in Holmes does the law ‘bear the sword in vain,’ in contradistinction to St. Paul in Romans 13.  Perhaps Holmes was serious when he said; “I’d rather play tricks with the law than with my own conscience.” echoing the rather injudicious remark;
“my sympathies are with the criminal, not the victim.”
On the face of it Holmes judgments appear capricious, subjective and contrary to law.

Law.

I take it as axiomatic that in any society laws must be obeyed by those who live under them. Laws enjoin upon the members of a society the requirement to submit criminal actions to a forum for the objective consideration of evidence: due process of law. These fora we know as courts of law. Courts of law were established to realize justice by an impartial consideration of evidence. Clearly these private acts of Sherlock Holmes are at variance with the letter of British law. Here I take the object of all law (Stammler 1856-1938) to be the realization of Justice, that is the most perfect harmony of social life possible under the conditions of time and place. (Bodenheimer p.136. The Philosophy and Method of Law)
 
Apply law to fact.

The real object of law is the realization of Justice. Has justice been served by Holmes? The ancient Greeks proposed that right action is defensible by right reason. In the classical formulation of Classical Natural Law, where an action stood on undefeated reasons, the action was allowed to be justified. What is seen when we apply the rule - justice as undefeated reasons - to the facts?  In the shooting of Charles Augustus Milverton the official police knew some facts:
. Milverton was a known blackmailer
. He held papers for blackmailing
. These papers were burned by the blackmailed person /murderer
. No other item was stolen
. The sole object seemed to be the prevention of social exposure
But Holmes knew much more:
. the motive of the murderess
            . that Milverton was one of the most dangerous men in London
            . substantive evidence against him was unobtainable or unconvincing
            . the private act of revenge elicited Holmes’ sympathies.

 Knowing the true circumstances behind the shooting, Holmes declined the invitation to ‘step down to Appledore Towers’ to benefit the official police investigation. 

His reasoning was:
            Milverton was guilty of gross criminal actions
Evidence against Milverton’s criminality was  unobtainable legally
   Criminal ends came upon a criminal by persons to whom crime was exceptional
Therefore his sympathies were with the person to whom crime was exceptional and acted under duress.

This ‘Holmesian’ principle of the realization of Justice – Natural Law - is seen in other cases also.  Holmes’ deliberations outside due process are not capricous, but he follows a pattern of Natural Law in three scenarios. Holmes used private judgment:

1.      where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional to their character.
2.      where the guilty party executes proper Justice
3.      where the guilty party is part of a greater scheme, and a greater good to be served
 
We will consider these three points in turn.
1. For example in the case where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional
    to their character.

Holmes considered the out-of-character commission of crime as an opportunity to extend leniency. In the case of the theft of the Blue Carbuncle the facts show James Ryder:
                        . was tempted to theft by Catherine Cusack
                        . showed contrition toward his misdeed
                       . gained nothing by the theft
                        . was sensibly aware of his good character
                        . was acutely aware of the pain to his parents
                        . possessed not a criminal character

The jewel was recovered and the case against John Horner,  (falsely accused) fell over and he was freed. Further prosecution of Ryder would have meant jail for a weak man and shame for a decent family, without a better guarantee of repentance than he had already demonstrated.

In the case of the Beryl Coronet Mary Holder was protected by Holmes’ silence after the Coronet and jewels were recovered. Her crime was suggested and planned by the criminal machinations of Sir George Burnwell. Exposing Mary would have meant a public scandal for a noble family with no opportunity for he return after a predictable rejection by the callous Burnwell.

In the case of Hilda Trelawny Hope Holmes perceived she was a naïve and defenseless woman tempted to act out of character in reaction to the threats of a villain. The main object of his investigation was to recover a diplomatic letter and the preservation of national security.  This accomplished no necessity compelled him to expose the agent.

But Isadora Klein had less claim to Holmes’ kindness after she brought about the premature (but unpremeditated) death of Douglas Maberley of the Three Gables. Her desire to protect herself against exposure resulted in her use of violent men to achieve her ends. (Douglas was believed to have died by self-inflicted grief after an assault). Holmes seems to have realized the difficulties in realizing her prosecution, and settled for a stern warning to the imperious lady, and a one thousand pound cheque to compensate Maberley's grandmother.

2. In the case where the guilty party is a good person and executes Justice, Holmes
    accepts the Justice

The three cases in which this principle is seen clearly are; The Abbey Grange, the Devils Foot and the Final Solution. The three characters; Captain Crocker, Dr Leon Sterndale and Sherlock Holmes himself, are under scrutiny for content and motive. The facts appertaining to Captain Crocker, master of the vessel The Bass Rock:
                        . responsible sea captain endorsed on all hands
                        . Brackenstall (victim) had a history of violence
                        . Crocker acted under provocation and
                        . was first attacked by Brackenstall (under influence of liquor)
                        . acted in self defence
                        . on behalf of a wronged woman
                        . honorably and in character at all times
. without regard for personal advantage.
Also,
            Dr Leon Sterndale
                        . Adventurer in a lawless land
                        . knew of Tregennis’ theft of poison and its toxic effects
                        . of his questions for its use
                        . and his character and motive
but in a court of law this would be;
                        . reduced to circumstantial evidence
                        . defense based on hearsay from the accused

In this matter Sterndale acted in character without advantage by his act but the administration of justice:-  the application of the poison that the murderer applied to his own family. Sterndale's ‘defense’ to Holmes was the simple truth told with an honest and real sense of justice prompted by the willful murder of his beloved. (Under French law crimes of passion are mitigated.) After assisting the official police force Holmes announces: “It’s not a case in which we are called upon to interfere. Our investigation has been independent, and our action shall be also.”  Holmes saw clearly no greater good could come of condemning a just man to penal servitude and depriving society of the good he might yet do. He believed Justice had been served on the murderer. It was enough. This is evident.

It might be argued that Holmes obstructed justice in taking the powder, but this does not stand up to close factual scrutiny.
. Holmes took but a sample of the evidence leaving half “so as not to
   stand in the way of an official police force.”) 
. additionally he left two hints with Vicar Roundhay to communicate to
   them:  the open window, and the talc on the sitting room lamp

In the homicide of Professor Moriarty Holmes had a duty to confess to his death, but he chose not to. 
Firstly consider the character content of Holmes. He is;
                        . a good man actively opposed to evil, who
                        . assisted the police force to alleviate crime and
                        . acted as a private police force, and
                        . acts on strictly rational principles from force of constrained habit.

Secondly consider Holmes' motive:
                        . he acted against the criminality of Moriarty
                        . whose criminality was known to the police
                        . but the evidence against whom was not substantive
                        . Moriarty set out to destroy Holmes and
                        . Holmes accepted his own death if it negated Moriarty.
                        . Holmes acted in self defense at the Falls
                        . in the interest of others and
                        . would have been hunted if it was known he had survived.

To Holmes, Moriarty’s destruction was justice for those he killed, robbed and ruined in the past, (and prospectively in the future had he survived.) With nothing to gain but the good of others Holmes had no personal advantage nor motive for the death of Moriarty. 

In these three cases rationality and circumstance dictated Holmes’ judgments, judgments in accord with right reason and therefore morally defensible. These actions would have been appropriate had there been no formal legal system at all.
 

3. In the case where the guilty party was part of a greater scheme, and a greater good to
   be served

Holmes acted arbitrarily in a number of cases, but two cases (where he extended the Nelson-eye to crime) bear particular notice. In the Naval Treaty Holmes ‘let his man go,’ and again in the case of the case of the Second Stain, Holmes’ main object was the recovery of vital documents and the preservation of secrecy in the interest of national security. It was in this context of the higher good that he necessarily sought to avoid due process, though in Naval Treaty he notified the authority in charge, one, Forbes.
“If he is quick enough to catch his bird well and good. But if, as I shrewdly suspect, he finds the nest empty before he gets there, why, all the better for the government.”

This avoidance of due process preserved a higher good - national interest - even at the cost of a criminal’s freedom

In the case of Shoscombe Old Place Sir Robert Norberton pleaded with Holmes not to denounce him for failing to register his sister’s death. His defense was:
                        . she died of natural causes
                        . of a known illness and
                        . was interred in a family crypt and
                        . buried with reverence and respect and
                        . sincerely mourned.

but practically to expose Norberton to due process meant:

                        . declaring his sister's death immediately and certain financial ruin and shame
                        . where a short delay meant a probable chance of financial security.

While Holmes rightly saw this conduct as “inexcusable,” he was moved by compassion at seeing the entire destiny of a highborn aristocrat reduced to a single wager, and allowed the delay warning him with a caution:
“..this matter must of course, be referred to the police. It was my duty to bring the facts to light, and there I must leave it. As to the decency or morality of your conduct, it is not for me to express an opinion.”

The happy ending was that Shoscombe Prince won the Derby, Sir Robert recovered enough to pay his debts and gain financial security, and was only mildly censured by the police and coroner for the delay in registering his sister’s death. Holmes’ compassion was vindicated and certain ruin was avoided. This all-encompassing scope of deliberation is the object of Natural Law, the basis of justice according to undefeated reasons.

Conclusion.

In this brief survey of Holmes’ cases it may be observed that Holmes had a definite Natural Law rationale for all the decisions he made. While committed to due process in the main (31.7% of his cases) it is found that independent ‘Holmesian’ justice (no formal process involved) accounts for a substantial 23.4% of all his outcomes; nearly 1/4 of all his cases

While the letter of due process was not observed in these cases, ‘Holmesian’ justice is not at all entirely arbitrary or capricious, but rather Holmes’ rationale accords with the Just spirit of the Natural Law tradition applied on a case-by-case basis according to three principles:

1.      where the party was a good person and the crime exceptional to their character.
2.      where the guilty party executed proper Justice
3.      where the guilty party was part of a greater scheme with a greater good to be served

Justice precedes law. In Holmes'  actions  we discover no felony; ie. No wickedness, baseness or perfidy, no misdeed, sin or any class of crimes regarded by the law as of a graver character than misdemeanors. In each case Holmes personally administered both justice and compassion, exercising reason and compassion. Law without reason is no law. Law without compassion is vicious. These are principles of Natural Law.

Natural Law consists in both heart and mind, - thinking and feeling.its scope both cognitive and affective. It requires a preeminent love of justice, a strictly rational mind, a truly compassionate heart, and a robust courage independent of the safety nets of peer approval and social consensus. Natural Law plucks corn for the hungry, tends to drowning oxen on the sabbath, and in wartime surrenders its own life preserver to an non-swimmer enemy, even on the Sabbath.
 
True Justice sees deeper than the letter of the law, and looks to preserve the spirit of the same. Justice, (and its commensurate Natural Justice) is based on Natural Law, and synonymous with Divine Law;
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.              
Leviticus 19:15 (KJV)

In this vignette of Holmesian justice we see, as in a glass darkly, the complexity of the supreme regulatory principle of human conduct, the law of the heart and mind, Natural Law – the dharmony of right thought and right feeling with right action.  Natural Law is seen here in the head-and-heart-judgments of Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective.

                                                                                                                Morrison Lee
                                                                                                                Holmes’ Clay Pipe
                                                                                                                Seoul, South Korea 2010

           -ooOOoo-

A FRIEND ONCE TOLD ME:  "You are a really positive person Morry!" "What makes you so optimistic?"  I replied by saying; "Well, I tried pessimism once ..... but .........well, I only got depressed  .. so I gave it up and never tried it again." :-)

The Problem.
I tell people that story because I think it's funny, but also to remind myself that Self-Pity is:
      . totally unproductive
     . self conceived and self-centered
     . based on emotionalism
     . destructive to good mental habits
    .  mother and father to unhappiness, self-doubt, depression, despair, and finally destruction
    .  the other side of Purpose.

Self-Pity: commits to no higher purpose than sentimentality, takes no courage, makes no efforts, thinks weak thoughts, runs away from problems, pulls others down, and gives up too soon. To the contrary Purpose: sets goals, girds itself for a fight, tries, thinks strong thoughts, attacks problems, inspires others, keeps trying, and never gives up.

A Picture of Purpose.
To people with self-reliance Self-Pity is a destructive distraction from the straight track of planning and effort. Picture in your mind this scene. The sun is shining brilliant yellow in the heavens on blue-skyed day. Fluffy white cumulus clouds float like fluffy white pillows high overhead of blue hills in the distance. You look down at your feet and the lift them up to see rows of wooden sleepers carrying two straight silver lines of railway track all the way to the distant blue hills directly in front of you.  Beyond those hills, just out of sight - but not out of reach - are your hopes and dreams. The same sun shining on you now is shining on your goals and hopes in your Valley of Dreams...just out of sight. They are there waiting for you now. All you have to do is keep on the tracks.

A Picture of Pity.
However, before the hills there is a left turn in the track that loops off and away from Purpose, and goes down a steep decline downhill to a forest. The name of the station is called 'Self-Pity Siding.'  Do you know it? Have you stopped there before? I have. Let me describe it for you. The tracks go past the old broken-down, dilapidated station, and going further down the slope the track disappears into a very dark forest of trees so thick overhead there is no light. Finally the track submerges entirely directl into and under a thick, ugly quagmire. Pity the passenger who arrives at Self-Pity Siding.

When we leave the straight track of Purpose we surrender our hopes and Dreams and loop toward: disappointment, depression, despair, and destruction. This is Suicide. It is Self -Pity's Second Prize to those who indulge its company.

The Logic of Pity and the Logic of Purpose.
I believe Self-Pity is the default of Hope, and Hope is related to Purpose - Despair is the other side of Hope's coin. Keep to the straight track of Purpose and you defeat Despair. The reasoning is that:
             Self-Pity is the default of Hope,
             Hope is related to Purpose,
      Therefore Purpose defeats Self-Pity by restoring our Hope. 

How to Defeat Depression and Despair?
"We borrow happiness from Hope, and Hope is probably the chief happiness that life affords." wrote the wise Samuel Johnson. (1709-1784). How to find Hope? To build Hope you must find a meaningful Purpose? How to find a Purpose? By asking yourself these three questions every time you feel depressed:
                                               WHAT do I want?
                                              WHEN do I want it by?
                                              HOW am I going to get it?

WHAT  is your target?  What would you like to do? like to become? like to make? like to achieve? like to leave behind?
WHEN  do you want it?  will give you a time frame of achievement, a schedule for your Hopes.
HOW  will you get it?  is your plan to get what you want, it is the ladder to achievement, the straight track to your Dreams and Hopes  that lie straight ahead of you but just out of sight. The same sun is shining on your dreams right now on the other side of those hills. Can you see them? Can you visualize yourself standing on the hill looking down on your Valley of Dreams? They are waiting for you. You can do it! You can get there by keeping to the straight track of Purpose and avoiding the emotional distractions of Self-Pity Siding.

Next time the emotions of Self-Pity Siding sings their siren song of; "Poor me Poor me" , "Look at what is going wrong!" silence the emotions by asking yourself the three questions winners ask themselves:
                         WHAT do I want?
                         WHEN do I want it by?
                         HOW am I going to get it?
This will shift your mind from Feeling to the area of Thinking. These three questions put Thinking back in your drivers seat. Your rational guide will then enlist his two friends to your cause. Imagination listens to Thinking, and he in turn will whistle up his partner Hope, and together Thinking, Imagination and Hope will deliver you enough power to propel your Dream Train without intermission on the straight track of Purpose to the Valley of your Hopes and Dreams.

The Habit of Hope - The Habit of asking Three Questions.
If you wish for the happiness that comes from Hope and Purpose, make it your unflinching habit  to ask these three questions;
                         WHAT do I want?
                         WHEN do I want it by?
                         HOW am I going to get it?
 People ask me why I'm an optimist. I reply I've seen what lies on that sharp left-looping turn away from the straight track.  I read about the passengers on Despair's train in the suicide columns of the newspaper. It is not pretty. There are only responsible people on the straight track of Purpose. The Pity track passengers follow the steep incline that goes down, down to Despair. For me Self-Pity is not an option. Those three questions keep me on Purpose. They can keep you on Purpose too.
Morrison