Part 11 (2/2)
Regarding the number 12, in Antiquities of the Jews (III, VIII, 7), Jewish historian Josephus discusses in astrological terms Moses's setting of the tabernacle table and the 12 stones of the high priest's breastplate that correspond to the 12 Tribes of Israel: And when [Moses] ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number... And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning.3 Thus, not only is the number 12 significant in antiquity, but so too is 70 or 72, representing the ”dodecans” of the zodiac as well as the number of Christ's direct disciples.
Confirming Josephus's contention, Church father Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI) describes the Jewish breastplate in the same manner: The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast, describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the year.
Within pre-Christian mythology, ”the Twelve” represent G.o.ds, as described by Greek historian Herodotus (440 bce) concerning the Egyptian pantheon,4 or in the famed myths regarding the 12 Olympian G.o.ds, such as Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, et al. In view of the commonality and significance of ”the Twelve” in pre-Christian religion, it is possible that the Christian Twelve const.i.tute part of the same symbolic formula.5
The Sacred Meal
Continuing with the discrepancies between texts, conspicuously absent from the RSV are a phrase and verse at Luke 22:19-20, which appears in the KJV the scriptures as: ”And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
The RSV omits the phrase and sentence from ”which is given for you” onward to the end, through the cup and blood, ”which is shed for you.” In other words, this section about the Eucharist was appended to the gospel sometime later, possibly centuries afterward. The political reason for this interpolation could be that the communion became more of a central focus, doctrine and ritual of the Catholic Church in later decades or centuries. Moreover, Ehrman a.s.serts that the phrase ”for you” was interpolated to emphasize Christ's salvific role, stating that ”the verses appear not to have been part of Luke's Gospel” but were added to demonstrate Jesus's humanity.1 As previously noted, this sort of sacred meal was common in the pre-Christian world as well, which may be another reason for its emphasis within Christianity, such that it could compete with the rituals of other religions.
The b.l.o.o.d.y Sweat
In another evident political move to counter ”heretics” such as the Docetists-a Gnostic-Christian sect who claimed Jesus manifested only as a ”phantom”-or for some other reason to show Christ's humanity, two verses in Luke about the Lord sweating ”great drops of blood” (Lk 22:44) do not appear in several early authorities, including the Codices Alexandrinus and Vatica.n.u.s.2 This verse clearly breaks the narrative, and is an obvious interpolation into the original text. The presence of this b.l.o.o.d.y sweat motif in the work of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, CIII) has been used to suggest that Justin was aware of Luke's gospel. However, a scientific a.n.a.lysis of all the evidence suggests that any copying likely occurred in the opposite direction.
The Trial and Crucifixion
One more instance of scripture possibly altered for political purposes may be found in the pericope of the purported custom of releasing a prisoner during Pa.s.sover, which has never been shown to be historically accurate. This fact of non-existence for this alleged custom may have been noticed in ancient times, as at Luke 23:16, some ”ancient authorities,” RSV notes, add the line, ”Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the festival,” after the pericope with Pilate, Jesus and Barabbas. Why would some authorities include this important sentence, while others omitted it? And why would the translators feel that it was best omitted? Is it because someone at some point noted that such a claim was factually inaccurate? Such factual inaccuracy would indicate: a. The Bible is not the inerrant Word of G.o.d; and b. The gospel story was not being reported as it allegedly happened, casting doubt on parts of it, at least, as ever having taken place. The reality is that the gospels are riddled with so many such inconsistencies, inaccuracies, fallacies and contradictions as to bring into question the alleged historicity of the entire story.
As another example of how the politics of the day may have influenced the gospel writers or subsequent scribes, at Matthew 27:24 the word ”righteous” is omitted from the phrase ”righteous one's blood,” as found in ”other authorities” describing what Pontius Pilate said while he was was.h.i.+ng his hands of Jesus's death. This disparity between ma.n.u.scripts serves as a reflection, perhaps, of the ambiguous nature of Pilate, as he was perceived by different sects. As Pilate is viewed as alternately bad and good within the canonical gospels, the same debate was going on between early sects, with some actually esteeming the Roman ruler. Depicting him as calling Jesus ”righteous” would make Pilate seem more sympathetic and virtuous himself. The interpolation of the term ”righteous” would therefore const.i.tute a political move, not an actual, direct quotation. The same could be stated concerning many sayings and quotations in the New Testament, in fact.
Moreover, the events of the pa.s.sion have been disputed over the centuries by Jewish scholars who have argued that the representation of the Jews and the Romans in the gospels is inaccurate and unhistorical, particularly as concerns Jesus's trial and the involvement of Jewish authorities. Regarding Christ's condemnation, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia remarks: The Gospel statements that Pilate was hesitant to put Jesus to death and did so only because of the fear of the people are contradicted by the contemporary historians (Josephus and Philo), who agree in representing the Roman governor as a cruel, inconsiderate and inflexible ruler, who did not hesitate to launch his cohorts against an unarmed crowd or to mingle the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1) and by the account in Tacitus, which plainly states (Annals 15:44) that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.1 As we have seen, in addition to those altering Pilate's role were other pa.s.sages added or changed either to emphasize or to reduce the Jewish role in the gospel story in general but in Christ's death in particular. Another such instance of stressing Jewish involvement in Jesus's death may be found at Matthew 27:26, where some scribes, including those who worked on the Codex Sinaiticus, interpolated the words ”to them” after the verse in which Pilate is depicted as handing over Christ to be crucified.1 At Luke 23:34, the first sentence is omitted in some early ma.n.u.scripts: ”And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.'” It is possible this act of forgiveness was interpolated in order to highlight a doctrine of the still-forming church or to increase tolerance and acceptance of Jews, who may have been perceived as ”Christ-killers.” Ehrman argues that the forgiveness prayer may have been original to Luke, in which case its deletion may serve as a sign of resentment towards Jews and towards the act itself of forgiving them. In either case, we would possess another example of a quote being manipulated for political reasons, casting doubt on its historicity.
In addition, the gospel account of the crucifixion was apparently designed to incorporate not only Old Testament ”messianic prophecies” but also Pagan mythology, as reflected by early Christian apologist Justin Martyr, who contended that, in declaring Christ to have been crucified, Christians were propounding nothing more than was said of the Pagan G.o.ds. In fact, early Church father Minucius Felix (c. 250 ad/ce) made similar comparisons-unfavorably, of course-between Christianity and pre-Christian religion, specifically as concerns the cross and the image of a man on a cross, or crucifix. Addressing the Romans in his apology Octavius, Felix remarked: You, indeed, who consecrate G.o.ds of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your G.o.ds. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.2 This astounding admission from an early Christian apologist regarding Roman crosses with a man on them emerges in the literary record centuries before Christ was ever likewise depicted as hanging on a cross. Indeed, the representation of Christ on a cross did not appear in art until the 6th century.3 In other words, the Romans bore images of a man affixed to a cross at least three centuries before the Christians created crucifixes of Jesus!
Also centuries before Christ himself was ever represented in art as crucified, Church father Tertullian (c. 160 to 230?) too discussed an image of a crucified Roman G.o.d: The body of your G.o.d is first consecrated on the gibbet...1 Again in his Apology (16), Tertullian raises the subject of Roman G.o.ds in the shape of a cross or in cruciform: We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also wors.h.i.+p victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a wors.h.i.+p of the standards, a setting the standards above all G.o.ds. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses.2 Hence, Tertullian attested that the Romans bore images of not only a man but also G.o.ds on crosses, that they additionally possessed G.o.ds themselves in cruciform and that these images were objects of wors.h.i.+p.
Furthermore, nowhere does Tertullian contend that the Romans with their crosses, crucifixes and G.o.ds in cruciform copied the Christians, which he surely would have impugned most vociferously, had it been true. The facts indicate the opposite: To wit, the image of a G.o.d in cruciform-or a crucifix-appears in non-Christian religion centuries before it does within Christianity.3
The Sun of Righteousness
In this same chapter 16 of his Apology, Tertullian also makes the stunning contention that Christians were said to be wors.h.i.+pping the sun! In denying this charge, Tertullian responds: Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our G.o.d. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not wors.h.i.+p the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of wors.h.i.+pping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-wors.h.i.+p, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant.
In its article on Tertullian, the Catholic Encyclopedia paraphrases the pertinent parts of the Church father's work thus: ...your G.o.ds are images made on a cross framework, so you wors.h.i.+p crosses. You say we wors.h.i.+p the sun; so do you.1 Hence, an early Christian apologist not only felt compelled to address what appears to be a frequent contention that Christians were sun-wors.h.i.+ppers and that Christ was the sun, but he also seems to be a.s.serting that such a contention is more accurate than other observations about his religion!
These contentions of Christian sun wors.h.i.+p persisted for centuries and remained prevalent enough by the time of St. Augustine (354-430 ad/ce) that he too was forced to protest them in his Tractates on the Gospel of John (x.x.xIV): I think that what the Lord says, ”I am the light of the world,” is clear to those that have eyes, by which they are made partakers of this light: but they who have not eyes except in the flesh alone, wonder at what is said by the Lord Jesus Christ, ”I am the light of the world.” And perhaps there may not be wanting some one too who says with himself: Whether perhaps the Lord Christ is that sun which by its rising and setting causes the day? For there have not been wanting heretics who thought this. The Manichaeans have supposed that the Lord Christ is that sun which is visible to carnal eyes, exposed and public to be seen, not only by men, but by the beasts. But the right faith of the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction, and perceives it to be a devilish doctrine: not only by believing acknowledges it to be such, but in the case of whom it can, proves it even by reasoning. Let us therefore reject this kind of error, which the Holy Church has anathematized from the beginning. Let us not suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ is this sun which we see rising from the east, setting in the west; to whose course succeeds night, whose rays are obscured by a cloud, which removes from place to place by a set motion: the Lord Christ is not such a thing as this. The Lord Christ is not the sun that was made, but He by whom the sun was made. For all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. (Emphasis added.) Thus, we have clear evidence that for centuries Christianity was perceived as sun wors.h.i.+p and Christ as the sun. This fact represents a major clue as to who Jesus was, demonstrating the environment into which the gospel tale was introduced and the prevailing religious concepts against which his priesthood was competing.
The Sacred Spear and the Side-Wounding
Another related clue that may have been the result of a propaganda move occurs at Matthew 27:49, in which the RSV omits the phrase about the soldier taking a spear and piercing Jesus's side, with water and blood pouring out. Why was this scripture included or omitted in different versions, if the incident really happened? Like so much of the gospels, this part also seems to have been added for a specific purpose, rather than as a reflection of actual ”history.” In some of the cultures of the Roman Empire at the time, there evidently were other G.o.ds and sacrificial victims who were likewise portrayed as having been ”side-wounded,” including the Norse Father-G.o.d Odin, who was hung on a tree and wounded with a spear.1 The political reasons for this interpolation, then, may include an attempt to integrate these other cultures of the empire into what would become the state religion.
The Empty Tomb Redux
We have already seen that in the raising of Lazarus we possess an old resurrection motif. In the verses concerning Christ's own resurrection, we find a plethora of alterations and interpolations between various copies of the gospels, evidently committed for a variety of doctrinal and political reasons. For example, missing from the RSV but present in other ancient texts is the phrase ”of the Lord Jesus” appended to the end of Luke 24:3: ”but when they went in they did not find the body.” Leaving the phrase as is could give rise to the suspicion that the women had entered the wrong tomb, where there had never had a body in the first place, hence explaining the emptiness.
In the same vein, in the pericope at Luke 24:10-11 of Mary Magdalene and the other women telling the apostles about the empty tomb, the RSV ends with ”but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.” Other ancient authorities append this verse with, ”He is not here, but has risen,” as if to emphasize that not only was the tomb empty but that Christ was resurrected, rather than having his body stolen, as was charged beginning in the second century.
Another verse found in ”other ancient authorities” but absent from the RSV occurs at Luke 24:12, in the pericope of the Marys, et al., appearing at the empty tomb. The omitted verse has Peter running to the tomb, seeing empty cloths, and returning home wondering what had happened. Why does this verse appear in some ancient authorities but not others? And, if it actually reflected real history, how could Peter be unsure of what had transpired, since Christ had told him repeatedly that he would rise from the dead? Could Peter-who had witnessed so many miracles, including Christ's transfiguration-truly be so thickheaded as not to understand or accept what had occurred? If Peter is that dense, why would G.o.d/Jesus choose him as the ”rock” upon which to build his kingdom of heaven? Perhaps this verse is a response to the charge that the disciples had stolen Jesus's body: If Peter is the ringleader of the church, chances are he would have been behind the plot to steal Christ's body. Hence, an interpolation causing the apostle to investigate and ”wonder” at the empty tomb would make it seem as if he knew nothing about such a plot and certainly did not partic.i.p.ate in it. The unique language in this verse, not found anywhere else in Luke-Acts but apparently copied from John or a source that John also used, validates the idea that this pa.s.sage is an interpolation.
Indeed, the patent absurdity of Peter wondering what had happened occurs also at John 20:9, in which Peter and his companion disciple (John?) find the cloths in the empty tomb and are perplexed, ”for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” This a.s.sertion that the disciples did not know the pertinent scripture (Hos 6:2) is ludicrous, in that Christ himself mentioned several times that he would rise again after his death, as at Matthew 16:21, 17:23 and 20:19. At Matthew 16:22, in fact, Peter himself is even portrayed as reacting to Jesus's prediction of his death and resurrection, so how could he possibly not know about it? The Pharisees too are portrayed at Matthew 27:63 as knowing that Christ claimed he would rise from the dead after three days-why wouldn't Jesus's closest disciples know this scripture? Rather than representing a ”historical” event, it seems this illogical pericope concerning the empty tomb was added for one or more political purposes.
In this regard, in mocking so-called Pagan religion and comparing it to Christianity, apologist Minucius Felix declared the Egyptians also incorporated an empty tomb in their wors.h.i.+p of the risen Osiris or Serapis. Said Felix: And you behold...and the tomb of your Serapis or Osiris empty....1 This comment refers to the myth of Osiris in which he is killed and dismembered, with his body parts ”scattered about.” Nevertheless, with the help of his wife, Isis, Osiris is restored to life for all eternity, again, as the Lord of the Resurrection. These facts suggest that the biblical empty tomb is no less mythical than that of Osiris/Serapis, and was inserted for a ”political” reason, in order to incorporate this theme found within non-Christian religion.
Another ”political” verse omitted from the RSV occurs at Luke 24:40, depicting the risen Christ as showing his hands and feet to the disciples, which may have been added in order to combat the Docetic heresy that Jesus existed only as a ”phantom” and to emphasize that Christ did indeed undergo an actual physical resurrection.
The Ascension into Heaven
<script>