Part 10 (1/2)
”It Doesn't Matter?”
Indeed, at some point the reconciliation or harmonization of the many contradictions and differences in the gospels has apparently become so overwhelming that apologists have thrown their arms up into the air, proffering the excuse-essentially the first principle of harmonization-that the gospel writers and others simply did not care about the details and/or were affected by an ”it doesn't matter” syndrome. This excuse begs the question as to why G.o.d would entrust his all-important appearance on Earth to people to whom ”it doesn't matter.” Why not choose individuals to whom it mattered greatly? And, would this ”don't bother me with the details” att.i.tude be appropriate in a modern workplace, for instance? Are these ”ethics” that we would like to emulate?
As we have seen, this apology for admitted inconsistencies-for, there would be no need to excuse the ancients for a disinterest in details, if there were no such problems in the first place-is refuted by the author of Luke's gospel himself when he states that many before him had made attempts at portraying the story ”in order.” One word Luke uses to describe what these others have done before him is -anataxasthai-from the verb meaning, per Strong's (G392): 1) to put together in order, arrange, compose Moreover, in Luke's pa.s.sage appears the word -akribos-which clearly means that Luke is striving for accuracy. Per Strong's the definition of akribos (G199) is: 1) exactly, accurately, diligently Hence, it is obvious from Luke's painstaking choice of words that he was very much interested in order and accuracy. As Christian scholar Dr. Blomberg a.s.serts, ”...Luke is clearly saying he intended to write accurately about the things he investigated and found to be well-supported by witnesses.”1 Moreover, Luke's alleged accuracy is emphasized and relied upon within Christian apologetics, to demonstrate the gospel story's historicity. Expressing the same a.s.sessment, F.F. Bruce remarks, ”Luke's record ent.i.tles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”1 In The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Christian apologist Josh McDowell includes a section ent.i.tled, ”The Incredible Accuracy of Luke,” complete with the much-publicized quote of Sir William Ramsay concerning Luke being a ”historian of first rank,” etc. Thus, the contradictory tactics within apologetics to preserve inerrancy include, on the one hand, putting forth the first principle of harmonization claiming that the ancients were not interested in details and accuracy, while, on the other hand, holding up Luke as an extremely accurate historian!
Then again, it has also been a.s.serted that Luke is not very accurate at all. As we have seen, in addition to relying on the accounts of others for the events of the gospels, Luke has been posited by a number of scholars to have used the works of Josephus as one basis for his own historical data, a claim that makes sense if we logically and scientifically a.s.sign a late date to the gospel. Nevertheless, Luke's version fails to depict events precisely the same as Josephus, leaving us to wonder who is correct and accurate.
Again, the apologist claim that the evangelists did not care about accuracy means that G.o.d/Holy Spirit/Jesus was also not concerned with accuracy. In fact, to suggest that the Lord himself-as the real author-composed the gospels in the ”it doesn't matter” manner is to attribute sloppiness and slovenliness to the perfect, all-knowing and infallible G.o.d of the cosmos! Yet, in infallibly inspiring the scribes to write his own biography in the gospel story, the Lord seems singularly disinterested in presenting it in a cohesive, rational and logical manner. Why would the omnipotent intelligent designer of the cosmos be incapable of coordinating four short books?
As to the apology that people back then ”saw things differently,” did the Lord too evolve in the last couple of thousand years such that his ability to portray events accurately and scientifically is now finally up to par with our own, since it is he, not ”people back then,” who supposedly auth.o.r.ed the gospels? Or must we go back to blaming all this New Testament messiness on the human authors, conveniently speaking out of both sides of the mouth in our a.s.sertions regarding the true authors.h.i.+p of the gospels?
”The Bible is a Human Book.”
Indeed, another apology contends that, while the Bible represents the inerrant Word of G.o.d, when discrepancies are noted one of the principles becomes that ”the Bible is a human book with human characteristics.” In fact, one of the first and most obvious concepts that strike us when we hear the apologetics for the diverging gospel accounts, is that, while believers claim these texts const.i.tute the inspired and inerrant Word of G.o.d-understood to mean that G.o.d himself wrote them-apologists must continually invoke the fallible human authors in order to explain discrepancies, contradictions, oddities and errors. Laying the responsibility upon the evangelists themselves leaves G.o.d and his alleged inspiration out of the picture and wholly unaccountable, even though the very selling point of the biblical texts is that they are different from all other doc.u.ments because they are infallibly inspired by G.o.d. With such a dichotomy of portraying the Bible as both the ”Word of G.o.d” and a ”human book,” Christian apologetics appears to employ ”sleight of hand” in its attempts at solving the myriad problems, activity that makes less credulous people skeptical, if not suspicious.
Even if the evident disharmony that requires so much harmonization can be explained in terms of the Bible being a ”human book,” the question needs to be asked why it was so difficult to create an orderly account, particularly if the texts were infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, if the gospel writers and copyists were trying to depict actual historical events, it simply should not have been so difficult to get it right, concisely, linearly and so on. The events in Jesus's life depicted in the gospels supposedly took place over a period of a few years at most-although, again, these events are compressed into a timeframe that could have been just a couple of weeks or less. In reality, the gospels do not even agree on the length of Jesus's ministry before he died. While it is clear that biographers of people who lived decades or centuries previously are not going to be entirely accurate-in fact, they will likely make a number of mistakes-the evangelists were allegedly reporting shortly after the events happened, a belief fervently adhered to by Christian fundamentalists. Two of these reporters-Matthew and John-were supposed to have been eyewitnesses to the events; yet, they garble them up so badly it has taken two millennia to disentangle them even to this extent.
Four Camera Angles.
In fact, one apology sometimes submitted for the disparities between gospels is that Matthew was an eyewitness, so where the texts diverge, it is likely his version that is more accurate. Such an a.s.sertion, of course, would tend to impugn the other gospels as being inaccurate and, therefore, wrong. Thus, we come across another common apology for the problems and difficulties found in the gospels positing that they represent ”four different camera angles.” The camera-style argument goes as follows: The Gospels were written by different authors with varying styles. Each gives a different view of the action, emphasizing certain people and events while ignoring others.1 This reasoning-essentially the same as the biography and carelessness arguments above, in that it places the NT authors.h.i.+p upon its human writers-would be viable, if it too did not contradict the doctrine that G.o.d/Jesus as the Holy Spirit represents the true author of the gospels.
To reiterate, according to fundamentalist Christian doctrine, the Bible is the Word of G.o.d, and it was composed by the Lord himself, via the Holy Spirit. Hence, all four ”camera angles” would nonetheless be those of G.o.d. If this a.s.sertion of divine authors.h.i.+p is true, wouldn't it make more sense for the four canonical gospels to be named ”The Gospel According to G.o.d?” And, considering that Christianity is monotheistic, would it not make even greater sense for there to be only one Gospel according to G.o.d? What is the need for four gospels, if G.o.d is the author of them all? It is only by a serious bending of logic that an answer can be set forth for this paradox of insisting that fallible human beings are responsible for the difficulties, incongruities, inconsistencies and general disharmony of the Bible, which is nevertheless held up as inerrant because it was infallibly inspired by G.o.d!
Moreover, it is admitted by the author of Luke that he was not an eyewitness to the events; hence, he himself would not represent a ”camera angle” at all. Mark too is purportedly recording Peter's experiences, not his own, so he too is no camera angle. Furthermore, the synoptics used a large amount of the same material, which records only one camera angle. In consideration of these facts, it seems odd that the Lord would entrust the telling of his all-important tale to those who had not witnessed his advent, particularly when there were allegedly so many eyewitnesses. Hence, in the gospel accounts we do not possess the testimony of four different eyewitnesses, as a.s.serted by those who claim the gospel story represents ”reliable history” because we do have the testimony of four different evangelists.
Even so, if these texts const.i.tute the inerrant and inspired Word of G.o.d, it doesn't matter whether or not the writer was present as an eyewitness-he must have it right. As we have seen throughout this book, such contentions cannot be upheld, as the gospels are clearly full of difficulties and disparities that strongly suggest they are not inerrant.
Does The Bible Stack Up?
Amid claims that ”it doesn't matter” emerges another common apology that, when stacked up against other texts, the New Testament is a ”remarkably accurate source book.” This argument also presupposes the first principle of harmonization that the ancients were not interested in, and were incapable of, accuracy and correct details in their records. This sweeping statement is false, of course, as many ancient writers have proved themselves very competent and accurate-and they did not have the benefit of a quorum of people who could peer-review their texts, as happened with the biblical texts and translations. Nor, according to Christian doctrine, did these authors have the benefit of the Holy Spirit as their ghostwriter. These ancient writers included Herodotus (464 bce-447 bce) and Thucydides (c. 471? bce-c. 400? bce), centuries prior to the common era, as well as Pausanias (2nd cent. ad/ce), all of whom have been found to be surprisingly accurate in their comparatively large amount of detail encompa.s.sing a significant period of history. There is thus little reality to the generalization that the ancients as a whole were not interested in or capable of accuracy and detailed accounts.
Even Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey demonstrate enough factual material as to be confirmable to a degree by science. According to the lax standards by which the Bible is judged, these texts could be deemed ”historical,” and it could be argued in an apologetics manner that the Iliad and Odyssey ”prove” the existence of the Greek G.o.ds Hercules, Achilles and Ares, to name a few. Does the discovery of the site of Troy prove Homer's Trojan War to be factual? In more modern times, Gulliver's Travels is set in a specific time and place-does this fact mean Gulliver and the Lilliputians were real people? In reality, the gospels appear to be more of this fantastic genre than of the historical type.
What Jesus Felt or Thought.
A number of the apologies for biblical difficulties outlined herein include discussions of what Jesus ”thought,” ”expected,” ”intended,” ”meant” or ”felt,” as if the apologist knows the mind and heart of Christ. While they may be sincere in attempting to smooth out several sticky wickets, these efforts at determining what Jesus intended or meant often remain unsatisfactory and speculative, dependent on what the apologist values most and considers to be ethical. Such interpretations by apologists frequently represent their own psyches, rather than what Christ may have really thought or felt.
For example, all sorts of twisted logic and wishful thinking are applied to Jesus's disturbing remark that he came not with peace but with a sword (Mt 10:34), a prediction unfortunately borne out by the b.l.o.o.d.y history of the Christian church. In his defense of this saying, Dr. Geisler posits that what Christ ”really meant” was that he came with peace but that violence would erupt around him: We must distinguish between the purpose of Christ's coming to earth and the result of it. His design was to bring peace-peace with G.o.d for unbelievers...and eventually, the peace of G.o.d for believers.... However, the immediate consequences of Christ's coming was to divide those who were for Him and those who were against Him-the children of G.o.d from the children of this world. But, just as the goal of an amputation is to relieve pain, so the immediate effect is to inflict pain. Likewise, Christ's ultimate mission is to bring peace, both to the human heart and to earth. Nonetheless, the immediate effect of His message was to divide those in the kingdom of G.o.d from those in the kingdom of Satan.1 In the first place, the presumption that those who have not been ”for Christ” are therefore satanic and need to be ”amputated” represents an extremely arrogant and judgmental position, reflecting megalomania and tyranny on the part of Jesus. Furthermore, it is not honest or logical to interpret Christ's words as the opposite of what he said-”I have not come to bring peace”-especially since Jesus is alleged to be the omniscient Lord of the universe who ostensibly knew exactly what he was doing in his plan for delivering the ”good news” and salvation to mankind. Being all-powerful, Christ could thus have come up with a better plan whereby peace was immediately implemented merely by his presence, rather than bringing with him a ma.s.sive, millennia-long trail of death and destruction. If Jesus's advent brings with it such violence, how could we call his coming ”good news?” And why the heck would we want his Second Coming? In such a scenario, what is the difference between the reign of Christ and that of an earthly despot?
As another example of apologist impracticality, in the pericope in Matthew where Christ admonishes us not to pray in public, Geisler's apology depends on what he himself believes Christ intended or felt, a.s.serting that Jesus meant to convey an objection to ”ostentatious prayer,” rather than simply public prayer in general. Geisler even goes so far as to say, ”He was not opposed to people praying in appropriate public places, but in conspicuous ones.”2 Unfortunately, this contention of what Jesus did or did not oppose remains based on speculation of Christ's character and intentions. Indeed, this type of apology ranks as highly speculative and relies on the interpretation of the reader for the many difficulties found in the Bible. As we have seen, some of these interpretations are definitely not literal.
In other speculative attempts at explaining oddities and inconsistencies, in their speculations apologists seem to reduce Christ to a rather petty and puerile character. As one more instance, in the apparent contradiction that occurs between Matthew and Mark regarding whether or not the disciples should take with them a staff, Geisler claims that Jesus was advising them not to take an extra staff with them, because at Matthew, where Jesus says to take ”no staffs,” he is not saying not to take ”a staff.”1 This excuse seems to be sophistic and indicts Christ with a peculiar and eccentric way of expressing himself. Is it not more logical to conclude that one or the other evangelists is depicting the event incorrectly? Or that, perhaps, the story is fictional, which readily explains all of the discrepancies and difficulties?
Regarding the attempts at determining what Jesus thought or felt, in ”What Would Jesus Think or Do?” conservative Christian scholar Dr. James Porter Moreland concludes: People, myself included, tend to distort things to agree with their own predilections, and nowhere is this more obvious or dangerous, than in representing Jesus' views.2 Indeed, as noted, many of the apologies proffered for the disharmony and other problems of the Bible represent little more than speculative interpretation of the apologist, based on his or her own morals, values and education, or lack thereof. The same must be said of the efforts in determining who Jesus was.
The argument is further made that G.o.d's mind is not man's mind, so we cannot expect him to behave in the same way, i.e., ”G.o.d works in mysterious ways.” According to the ideology, however, ”G.o.d made man in his own image,” so our minds should function the same. Moreover, if we can't know G.o.d's mind, and Jesus is G.o.d, how can we pretend to know what Jesus thought, intended, meant or felt?
Literal or Figurative?
At certain times when confronted with bizarre and grotesque Christian doctrines such as the cannibalistic eucharist, or the sharing of Jesus's body and blood, in order to maintain the belief that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, apologists must come up with schemes which play so fast and loose with terms that they begin to lose all meaning. For example, concerning the repulsive ritual of the eucharist, Dr. Geisler remarks (412): The literal (i.e., actual) meaning of a text is the correct one, but the literal meaning does not mean that everything should be taken literally....
There are many indications in John 6 that Jesus literally meant that the command to ”eat His flesh” should be taken in a figurative way.1 Even if we accept this sophistic explanation that this pericope is ”literally to be taken figuratively,” what does it mean? Why is Christ comparing his body and blood to something we should eat and drink? Why is empathetic spirituality being couched in terms of barbaric cannibalism?
In discussing whether or not Jesus meant the bread of the communion as his literal body (Lk 22:19), Geisler also states: ...common sense is opposed to taking this literally. G.o.d created the senses, and all of life depends on our trusting the information they give us about the world. But those who believe in transubstantiation admit that the consecrated bread (host) looks, smells, and tastes like real bread. Why then would G.o.d call on us to distrust the very senses that He created and asks us to trust continually for our very life.2 As has been evidenced throughout this book, numerous instances in the gospel story ask us to suspend our common sense; hence, Geisler's question could likewise be applied to the entire tale itself. Why indeed would G.o.d ask us to suspend our senses in accepting the bulk of the gospel story of Jesus Christ in the first place?
If, as proclaimed by conservative Christian scholar and minister Matthew Henry, we err grossly ”by understanding that literally which the scripture speaks figuratively,” how are we to know when to take something literally and when to understand it figuratively? In the New Testament, Jesus is depicted as a lamb, lion, vine, door or cornerstone-should we take these designations literally in order to satisfy the literalist dogma? No, we should not, as they are meant figuratively.
Hence, it is clear that there exists figurative speech in the Bible and that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally. In this regard, we may ask just how much of the New Testament story is figurative and how much literal? Could it not be that the whole tale is meant figuratively and allegorically?
While reading certain apologies and apologetics texts, one may frequently receive the impression of desperation to reconcile and harmonize at any and all costs, because fundamentalists are compelled through conditioning to believe in the evidently irrational and indefensible position that the gospels represent the inerrant and literal Word of G.o.d. Once we discard this indefensible position, however, we may be able to make more sense of the Bible as a ”human book,” i.e., manmade and containing allegory, rather than serving as literal and inerrant Holy Writ.