Part 7 (1/2)
Regarding this pericope, biblical scholar Meier casts doubt as to the inerrancy of Luke's gospel by arguing that the evangelist's a.s.sertion that Jesus was conceived six months after John (Lk 1:26-28), and is therefore a ”younger relative” than John, finds no support anywhere else in the New Testament and is ”of doubtful historicity.”1 The whole pericope has an air of cartoonish artifice about it, and logic and honesty dictate that we ask whether or not it is fiction.
The Events of the Baptism.
The descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove represents a highly implausible part of the tale, as does the booming voice of G.o.d. Rather than being a fact, the dove motif may have come from the prevalence of doves in pre-Christian religion around the same basic area, or from a combination of Isaiah 11:2 and Isaiah 42:1, regarding the ”Spirit of the Lord” resting upon G.o.d's ”Servant.”1 Concerning the dove motif, Meier notes: The debate over the precise meaning of the dove as the symbol of the spirit continues unresolved: allusion to the spirit of G.o.d over the waters in Gen. 1:2... [or] the dove as a symbol of a G.o.ddess in the ancient Near East or as a messenger of the G.o.ds... For supposed mythological parallels, see Bultmann, Geschichte, 264-69.2 In Paganism of the Roman Empire, scholar Ramsay MacMullen, PhD-deemed by the American Historical a.s.sociation ”the greatest historian of the Roman Empire alive today”-discusses the sacred doves in the holy city of Hierapolis, described by Jewish historian Philo (1st cent ad/ce) as possessing an ”enormous population of doves.”3 Indeed, dove wors.h.i.+p was a.s.sociated with several pre-Christian cults, including those found in Samaria/Palestine and elsewhere: ”Evidence for domestication extends back to 4500 BC in ancient Iraq, and the bird was sacred to the early Middle Eastern cultures, being a.s.sociated with Astarte, the G.o.ddess of love and fertility; later, in ancient Greece, it was sacred to Aphrodite and in Roman times to Venus.”4 In any event, rather than implausibly representing history, couldn't it be that the dove motif was ”borrowed” from the OT, Pagan religion or both?
Jesus's Temptation.
Implausibility occurs in the story of Jesus's temptation by the devil. In the first place, we are asked to believe that a cosmic and very powerful creature called ”the devil” can appear as a human being and was needed as such in the gospel story in order to ”tempt” Jesus, who himself is in reality G.o.d and who, therefore, created the devil in the first place! The Greek word for ”temptation,” peirasmos, is also translated as ”rebellion against G.o.d.” Hence, the all-powerful G.o.d causes and/or allows his own creation to rebel against him for dramatic and seemingly nonsensical purposes. It would appear to be a strange and one-sided battle, the outcome of which one would hope would have been obvious; for, if Satan had won, Satan would be G.o.d! Perhaps, it is argued, Jesus did not know himself fully as G.o.d, which seems bizarre if G.o.d is all powerful and omniscient-why separate himself out as Jesus, to forget who he is and then tempt himself? Yet, if G.o.d the Father is somewhere ”out there” directing the show, would he then not be in two places at once? If not, where is G.o.d physically in relation to Jesus? This tale is extremely illogical and irrational.
Turning Water into Wine.
Still one more miracle that is difficult to believe and that makes little sense even if it could happen occurs when Christ turns water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana-a pericope found only in John. The immense amount of wine created by Jesus equaled about 100 to 160 gallons! (Jn 2:6) The guests had apparently already drunk quite a bit of wine at the time when Jesus conjured up this mind-boggling amount. If this story is true, we must ask whether or not it is a righteous and moral act to supply so much alcohol to people who've already been drinking-what would be the point of creating such an excessive amount of wine?
Moreover, providing tangible physical and archaeological evidence of a ”Christian” motif in pre-Christian times, within the sanctuary of the Greek temple of Apollo at Corinth (c. 540 bce)-where Paul preached to the Corinthians-exists to this day a stone sluice used by the Corinthian Pagan priesthood to turn water into wine. At one end of this sluice water was poured in, while a priest in a hidden compartment diverted the water and poured wine out the other end. This water-to-wine contraption was created at least two centuries before the Christian era. Could it be that, rather than a ”true story,” the water-to-wine motif in John's gospel was based in part on this previously known ”miracle,” which was part of the priestly repertoire?
The Resurrection of Dead People.
The resurrection of dead people is a theme found within the Old Testament, in the story of Elijah raising the widow's son at 1 Kings 17:22, and in that of Elisha with a comparable resurrection miracle of his own at 2 Kings 4:34. In the New Testament, Christ's own resurrection is preceded by that of Jairus's daughter. In addition to these implausible tales appears that of Jesus raising a man named ”Lazarus” from the dead. Not only is it difficult to believe the Lazarus-resurrection pericope in itself, but also the fact that it appears only in the gospel of John-by most accounts the latest of the gospels-makes one wonder why the first three evangelists would overlook such a momentous event! The logical suggestion may be that the raising of Lazarus did not really happen but was an afterthought by either the writer of John or a later scribe. Since the idea of the resurrection of the dead is so important to Christian doctrine, it is crucial to investigate this oversight by the synoptists more fully and not simply wave it away. Could it be that Christ's implausible resurrection was not ”historical” at all but, like the water-to-wine miracle, based on a motif found in other religions within the Roman Empire?
The Raising of the Saints.
In addition to the improbable Lazarus resurrection, it also seems inconceivable that if, upon Jesus' death, the saints rose up out of their graves and went into Jerusalem, appearing to many people, the Jewish scribes-who are everywhere present in the gospel story-would not have chronicled such a supernatural phenomenon somewhere in their books. Jewish scribes were known to record practically everything significant that affected them, especially purported supernatural events. They often wrote long screeds against individuals, however minor, who may have irritated them. Surely, if Jesus had caused such a ruckus throughout their country, overturning tables in their sacrosanct temple, threatening to throw the temple itself to the ground, and then having their dead rise and walk through their holy city, the Jewish scribes would have recorded Christ somewhere! But they did not, as if Jesus never existed, and they had never heard of the story.
This bizarre and grotesque episode remains more logically explained not as a real, historical event that was somehow overlooked by everyone of the day, but as a reworking of Old Testament ”messianic” scriptures: Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!... (Is 26:19) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life... (Dan 12:2) Indeed, it is evident that the gospel writers were once more using OT scriptures as a blueprint in their creation.
The Ascension into Heaven.
Another detail that makes the gospel story difficult to swallow is that the ascension-one of the most miraculous events to happen to Jesus-is not even mentioned by Matthew or John. It is stunning to consider that only the non-eyewitnesses Mark and Luke report the ascension-and, as noted earlier, both of those brief pa.s.sages are widely considered later interpolations by unknown scribes! How could Christ's faithful apostles possibly fail to relate such a momentous occurrence, if it really happened? It is clear that Matthew is very concerned about recording the major, miraculous events of Christ's life, some of which he allegedly witnessed, and that John is quite obviously interested in showing everything that could possibly be considered an indication of Christ's divinity-and the ascension is surely one of the biggest qualifications-yet, no word of it? People today become all excited and agog by alleged images of Jesus Christ in stains on a sidewalk, but Christ's ascension-the floating up into the air and disappearance of a man-somehow failed to make enough of an impression on Matthew and John for them to write about it in their gospels! This glaring omission seems very odd to the logical mind, to say the least.
To reiterate, even the accounts of the ascension in Mark and Luke are doubtful and are missing in some early ma.n.u.scripts, causing these verses to be omitted in some translations. We have seen that the pertinent verses in Mark (16:9-20) are not included in the earliest ma.n.u.scripts. In addition, Christ's ascension is absent in the RSV translation of Luke 24:51, which notes that ”[o]ther ancient authorities add and was carried up into heaven.” Which version is correct, and what is the original? It is sensible and honest to ask, did the ascension really happen, or was it an afterthought? Could it not be that the ascension was added later in order to explain what happened to Jesus after he was resurrected, since he was obviously not still on Earth, walking around in a state of immortality? It is not only possible but probable that any hearer of the story, being convinced of it, would excitedly want to meet the living Christ-maybe the scribes who later interpolated the ascension were basing it on traditions created by Christian preachers in response to requests to meet the Lord, in essence giving an excuse for why they could not produce him? Or perhaps there was another political reason for its inclusion?
a.s.suming we accept that miracles can and do happen, we must nevertheless ask ourselves why the miracles of Jesus are more significant and truthful than those of other individuals throughout history. As Dr. Meier remarks: In the ancient Mediterranean world, most people readily granted the possibility and reality of miracles. But precisely because of this, sociology and anthropology raise a question many believers may find uncomfortable: is there any justification for seeing a significant distinction between the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and the magical practices widely reflected in Greco-Roman writings, including magical papyri and popular novels? Are these magical practices anything more than the ”bad” miracles of pagans, while the Gospel miracles are simply the ”good” magical practices of Jesus? In other words, is there any real difference between magic and miracle? Or is the only difference in the eye of the beholder who happens to be a Christian apologist?1 In further discussing the miracles of Jesus as reflections of the ”literary forms, themes, and motifs found in the Pagan and Jewish miracles stories circulating in the Mediterranean world around the turn of the era,” Meier states that there is a ”great deal of truth to this claim,” although he follows this remark with a caution that ”distinctions are in order” and ”respect for the differences” must be kept in mind.1 Yet, Meier also comments that ”the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories.”2 In reality, if all these miracles were true, and Jesus displayed numerous such wonders and signs of divinity, as well as fulfilling so many characteristics and prophecies of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures, it is impossible to fathom how Christ could possibly be rejected by the Jews in the end. Rather than serving as an exhibition of Jewish folly in rejecting Christ, the lack of notice by the ”chosen people” and the many difficulties surrounding the gospel story must make one wonder-based on honesty and logic-whether or not the story is fiction, explaining precisely why the Jews did not believe it: They could not, obviously, if it didn't happen! In fact, the Jews of ”this generation,” i.e., the time of Jesus's purported advent, would not have been aware of the existence of the story even as fiction, since, in such a scenario, the tale would not have been composed yet. In all fairness to the Jewish culture, and with an eye to the honesty and integrity claimed to be hallmarks of religion, we must inspect these beliefs scientifically and not take them simply on faith.
When scrutinized scientifically, the entire gospel story demonstrates a profoundly artificial feel about it, including the fact that the whole tale could be compressed into a timeframe of a week or two, coming across more as a play than a factual biography or history. Even removing the natural-law-bending miracles, the tale reads not as if it were ”history” or ”biography” but as if it were fiction. Instead of engaging in illogical machinations involving supernatural events that go against the laws of physics, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes were writing fictional, and not historical, accounts.
Failed Prophecies.
Continuing with the miraculous events, when the material is a.n.a.lyzed, it becomes difficult to claim that any of the purported ”prophecies” in the gospels have been fulfilled, including the destruction of the temple, which is accepted by numerous mainstream scholars as having occurred before it was discussed in the New Testament. As one more glaring example of failed prophecy, many people point to Christ's a.s.sertions that he would be coming back ”soon” and that certain other incredible events would take place, before ”this generation” would pa.s.s away. Jesus said that there were some present who ”will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.” (Mt 10:23) He also stated that they would not ”taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Mt 16:28) So far, there has been no ”Second Coming,” if ever there was a first. Indeed, none of these things have happened yet, and these people are all long dead. Certainly, one could argue that, per Christ's ”predictions” at Matthew 24:7, etc., nation has risen up against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there have been famines and earthquakes, as well as wars, ”rumors of wars” and the rest supposedly prophesied in the New Testament. Such vague predictions about the already obvious nature of this world and of mankind would be about as earth- shattering as ”prophesying” that tomorrow someone's car will break down somewhere.
Contradictions and Inconsistencies.
Like the miracles and failed prophecies, there are enough contradictions and inconsistencies in the gospels to warrant questioning their historical value. Yet, in the frantic effort to maintain the tale as credible and inerrant history, we are asked to subscribe to some irrational and illogical gyrations in order to harmonize or reconcile these many problems. For example, the names in the genealogies differ between gospels: In his genealogy, Matthew lists 28 generations from King David to Jesus Christ, while in Luke (3:23-38) the number is 43 generations. Also, if Jesus is not related to Joseph, who is not his real father, he cannot be considered a genetic ”son of David,” one of the main qualifications for messiahs.h.i.+p. Apologists attempt to reconcile these difficulties by tracing Jesus through Mary to King David, although the genealogy lists in Matthew and Luke clearly trace Christ to David through Joseph-in fact, in Matthew (1:7) Joseph descends from David's son Solomon, while in Luke (3:31) Joseph is descended from David's son Nathan! In addition to this contradiction of the evangelists' claims, there is no precedent in the Bible for a female genealogy. In this manner, a significant amount of ink has been spilled in order to reconcile these lists, but a simpler and more logical solution would be to ask, perhaps somebody made mistakes? Or, maybe these lists are not historical in the first place but contrived to show that Jesus fulfilled prophecy?
Appearing later in his gospel than in Matthew's, Luke's genealogy, in fact, plainly breaks the narrative and was interpolated into the text in the midst of the pericope about Jesus at the Jordan. Oddly enough, Luke's mundane genealogical digression directly follows the astounding events of the baptism by John, during which the Holy Spirit descends on Christ, the heavens open up, and the voice of G.o.d p.r.o.nounces Jesus his own Son. The insertion at this point of Jesus's earthly pedigree appears to have been done to abrogate G.o.d's genealogy, instead demonstrating that Christ nevertheless possesses the divine right to rule by being a descendant of King David. This situation is unrealistic, evidently reflecting not actual ”history” but political propaganda and a deliberate attempt at depicting Christ as having ”fulfilled prophecy.”
Another apparent contradiction warranting commentary emerges at John 1:18, where it is said, ”No one has ever seen G.o.d”; yet, in the same chapter (Jn 1:32) John the Baptist is depicted as seeing ”the Spirit” as a dove descending upon Jesus. The original Greek word for ”Spirit” is -pneuma-for which Strong's gives the first definition as: 1) the third person of the triune G.o.d, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son Hence, despite earlier declaring that no one has ever seen G.o.d, the evangelist then claims that John the Baptist has seen G.o.d. It has been proposed that this pericope serves to impress that only John had seen G.o.d, by emphasizing that, previously, no one else had ever seen G.o.d. John also portrays Jesus as saying that, because he and the Father are one, by knowing Christ his disciples to ”have seen” the Father. Even so, one would think that such a mind-boggling bending of biblical doctrine and natural law would merit more than one brief mention, if it really happened!
In the temptation accounts, Matthew depicts the temptation as occurring at the end of the 40-day fast, while Luke portrays the devil as tempting Jesus throughout the period. Oddly enough, Mark doesn't portray Jesus as fasting at all during the 40 days when he is in the desert, and John does not even report on this all-important event in Christ's life! Bizarrely, the battle between Jesus and the devil is composed of quotes from the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and Psalms 91.1 If this strange and incredible occurrence really happened, why would the characters involved be recorded as quoting little else but the Old Testament? Is this story realistic? Regarding this peculiar pericope, Dr. Meier remarks, ”Granted the paucity of sources and their conflicting presentations of the temptation of Jesus, any judgment about a historical event is extremely difficult.”1 Rather than serving as a ”historical event,” is it not more plausible that this episode represents a fictional account cobbled together from scriptures and mythical motifs?2 At John 3:13, Christ says, ”No man has ascended into heaven...” This a.s.sertion appears to contradict the claim in the Old Testament that Elijah had ascended into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). The apology for this apparent contradiction speculates that Jesus is saying that he is the only one who has ever come back from heaven to speak of it from ”firsthand knowledge.”3 The calling by Jesus of his disciples is also portrayed in various manners in the different gospels. The variances are such that it is impossible to insist that all of the evangelists recorded the scene correctly, if they are indeed depicting an historical event. Therefore, one or more of the accounts must be incorrect.
Moreover, in Matthew 5 and 6, Christ first advises his followers to ”let their light s.h.i.+ne before men”-i.e., in public-so that others can see their ”good works.” Later, Jesus admonishes that we should pray and give alms in secret. Which are we to do? Why do we pray aloud in church, when Christ makes much ado about praying in secret in a room with the door shut?
At one point (Mt 5:22), Jesus admonishes us not be angry with our brother, but he also says that our foes will be those of our own household, including our brothers. Christ later states that we should confront our brother for sinning against us. Can we do both of these things? Is it rational and compa.s.sionate to force us to forgive our brother, no matter what he has done? This verse provides yet another ill.u.s.tration of how biblical texts have been changed, as some ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament insert ”without cause” or ”without a cause” into the admonition that we should not be angry with our brother, making this scripture more sensible.
At Matthew 5:34, Christ admonishes his followers not to swear oaths, but he himself repeatedly states, ”Amen, I say to you,” which const.i.tutes an utterance of an oath.1 In fact, the word ”amen,” usually translated as ”verily,” appears over 100 times in the gospels alone, while the oath ”verily I say unto you” occurs almost 70 times in quotes by Jesus! Isn't that quite a bit of oath-swearing by Jesus?
Jesus also tells us at Matthew 5:44 to ”love our enemies,” which sounds utopian but impossible, and which also contradicts Christ's own sentiments when he angrily excoriates the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Mt 11:21, 23). As an ill.u.s.tration of the difficulty in following this command, are Christians supposed to love those who are not Christian and who therefore deny Christ? Should we love Satan as well, since he is our biggest enemy?