Part 12 (1/2)

As discussed previously, the ascension of Christ is not mentioned by either of the two purported witnesses among the evangelists, Matthew and John, and the authenticity of the brief references in Mark and Luke is dubious. Rather than serving as a ”historical” event, perhaps the ascension was added to the gospel tale also to testify against the Docetists that Christ did in fact possess a physical body. In addition, when we factor into the equation the words of Justin Martyr concerning the ascensions of other G.o.ds of the Roman Empire at the time, we possess scientific and logical reasons to suggest that Christ's story was no more historical and no less mythical than theirs-and that their myths preceded the gospel tale.

As another example of the ascension to heaven in the tales of pre-Christian deities, Justin Martyr raises up certain ”messianic prophecies” that he contends influenced the story of the G.o.d Bacchus/Dionysus: The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: ”There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, was.h.i.+ng His robe in the blood of the grape.” The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the a.s.s] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.1 In addition to the ascension, the vine, wine and a.s.s also play prominent roles not only in the Dionysus myth but in Jesus's story as well, a fact that obviously did not escape Martyr's notice and that he felt compelled to address, in another stunning admission as to the unoriginality of the gospel tale. The fact cannot be denied that this theme of a divine Son of a heavenly Father whose emblems included the vine, wine, a.s.s and ascension existed before the Christian era, for a variety of reasons, including the standard excuse given by the early Church fathers and many apologists today that the devil antic.i.p.ated Christ's coming and imitated certain aspects of his life's story before his advent. Moreover, Martyr specifically a.s.sociates the myth of Dionysus as having come from the ”Mosaic prophecies” found at Genesis 49:10. Unlike various modern apologists, Justin does not deny that these correspondences between Jesus and Dionysus exist. Nor does he claim that the myth of Dionysus was based on that of Christ; he could not honestly do so, because the Dionysian myth preceded the Christian era. The same a.s.sertion can truthfully be made of the other correlations Martyr raised in his apology. Note that Martyr does not give a scriptural precedent here for Dionysus's ascension into heaven, which is nonetheless obviously pre-Christian.

Certain other apologists point to the Old Testament verses at Isaiah 14:12-14 in support of the notion that the ascensions of pre-Christian G.o.ds and heroes were based on the Jewish scriptures, rather than the other way around. Such a development would be very surprising, however, since the Jewish scriptures were zealously guarded from outsiders, who were not considered worthy of reading them. Nor is there any evidence of the Jewish stories being shared abundantly throughout the pre-Christian world, which was barely aware of the existence of Jews, Hebrews or Israelites until a few centuries prior to the Christian era. Moreover, today we know that Moses was not ”older than all writers,” as a.s.serted by Justin. In fact, mainstream, scientific scholars.h.i.+p does not attribute the writing of Genesis to the Jewish lawgiver, and modern archaeology has proved that the writings of the Sumerians, for one, are far older than the alleged time of Moses. Additionally, in the Greek poet Homer's Iliad, composed beginning around 800 bce, various G.o.ds are depicted with a number of the same characteristics as found in the much later Christianity, including the ascension of the immortal G.o.d Mars/Ares-who had been wounded in the stomach with a spear-into the ”broad heavens,” to reside with his father Jove/Zeus.1 It is in regard to these ”sons of Jove” that Justin Martyr also refers when he is admitting these all-important themes found within Christianity existed prior to the Christian era. In addition, this famous author, Homer, is likely among those to whom Dr. Moreland referred when he remarked that the New Testament writers utilized the works of the Jewish, Greek and Roman historians.

Instead of dismissing these pre-Christian themes or making irrational and unscientific excuses such as ”the devil got there first,” it would seem sensible to suggest that there is another reason for the ascension and other motifs in certain mythologies, based on visible natural phenomena, for example. The pertinent verses at Isaiah 14:12-14 that discuss ascending into heaven purport to represent the bragging of the character ”Heylel,” translated as Lucifer, the ”Light-Bearer.” Per Strong's (H1966), however, Heylel or Helel could also refer either to a king of Babylon or to the ”morning star,” i.e., the planet Venus. In fact, one of Venus's epithets in Greek was ”Phosphoros,” or ”Light bearer.” The RSV translates the term ”Helel” at Isaiah 14:12 as, ”O Day Star, son of Dawn!” In the Septuagint (3rd-1st cent. bce), the word ”Helel” is rendered as ”(H)eosphoros,” which just happens to be the name of a very old Greek G.o.d/t.i.tan who served as one aspect of the planet Venus. This G.o.d Eosphoros is mentioned in Homer's Iliad (23:226) and in Hesiod's Theogony (378), dating to the 9th and 8th centuries bce, respectively. In determining the origins of the ascension in Isaiah, then, we may be compelled to seek a meaning beyond its appearance within the Old Testament, as the ”morning star” was certainly known and visible to the ancient Gentiles aside and apart from the Jewish scriptures. In reality, it would appear that the Isaiah pa.s.sage regarding Heylel or Helel was influenced by Greek mythology concerning the planet Venus, rather than the other way around.

Even if, against reason, we ignore the evidence from Homer, Justin Martyr and others of the ascension theme in pre-Christian cultures, we may surmise, particularly in consideration of the sloppy and haphazard manner in which the motif is introduced into the gospel story, that this pericope was adopted from the Old Testament, from the ascension into heaven not only of Heylel but also of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), witnessed by his successor Elisha.1 This a.s.sertion would once again demonstrate that the Old Testament was used as a blueprint in the creation of the gospel tale, with the authors simply cutting and pasting relevant pa.s.sages, rather than recording actual historical events. Such an a.s.sumption ranks as far more logical than the improbability that Jesus's ascension represents a historical event.2

The Sayings of Jesus?

If the gospels truly represent the testimony of the advent of G.o.d on Earth, it would seem to be the epitome of blasphemy for a scribe decades and centuries later to change willfully not only the various pericopes but also the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ really said these words, what business is it of the later scribes and copyists to change them? Yet, we find this type of blasphemous alteration to be the case in numerous instances, after some political or propagandistic purpose. How can this fact be explained? If the gospels were written by the people whose names are appended to them, under the direction and guidance of G.o.d himself, via the Holy Spirit, why did they need to be changed by ”other ancient authorities?” Are all these later scribes likewise working under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit? And which version is correct? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong the first time when inspiring the evangelists? But, if Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit, why would he make mistakes in his words to begin with, such that he needed scribes down the road to alter or fix them?

Could all these seemingly sacrilegious and audacious alterations to Jesus's own words not be an indication that the story is allegorical and that the scribes were aware of this fact, such that they felt no fear or other factor that would prevent them from making such changes to ”G.o.d's Word?”

We have already seen the several examples of verses and ”prophecies” used in the creation of Christ's sayings and speeches, including the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, as the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states: ...there is hardly a word which has been handed down as coming from Jesus which was not spoken or could not also have been spoken by Jewish teachers.1 The sayings of Christ have been boiled down by various scholars as representing the one place where we may find a ”historical Jesus.” Yet, as demonstrated, there is little new or original in Jesus's sayings that indicates a single individual about whom we can create a scientific biography. In other words, the rehashed, pieced-together sayings and speeches found in the New Testament are more reflective of the politics of the day than of a man named Jesus.

Over the centuries, there were many other changes in the gospel ma.n.u.scripts based on doctrinal and political differences that developed within the church and its many branches, both orthodox and ”heretical.” For example, other verses tampered with to emphasize a political or doctrinal agenda include those which could be interpreted to indicate that Jesus was not always divine but had become ”christed” through his baptism or other means. This perspective of a human Jesus becoming a divine Christ not at birth but later in life has been deemed ”separationism.”2 Statements also seem to have been inserted in order to combat tendencies brought about by the apostle Paul, one such ”anti-Pauline commentary” evidently appearing in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is made to exhort his followers to adhere to the letter of the Mosaic Law, which Paul seems to abrogate on several occasions. The insistence of the immutability of the Mosaic Law at Matthew 5:19, for instance, seems to have been interpolated in order to combat Paul's laxity regarding the law.1 In consideration of all the various discrepancies, problems and patent propaganda, it can be logically wondered whether the New Testament represents a ”historical record” or ”factual biography” of a stunningly miraculous life, or simply a propaganda tool for the priesthood to lay down its doctrines and dogma as they developed over the centuries. If the latter is true, even if the priesthood was under divine guidance, could we honestly claim that the New Testament as it stands const.i.tutes a reliable biography of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who purportedly walked the Earth 2,000 years ago? At most, we could say that the NT represents an inaccurate portrayal based on the best or worst wishes of its composers. At the least, we would have to entertain the thought that the gospel story is fictional. Indeed, examining all these discrepancies, problems and errors in what is supposed to be an accurate and inerrant portrayal of actual historical events, one is prompted by honesty and logic to ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes were just making it up as they went along!

Conclusion

”For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

2 Peter 1:16 There are many millions of people today who believe as they have been taught that the gospels are historical texts, infallibly inspired and inerrant, containing the sayings and deeds of the Son of G.o.d, who came to Earth 2,000 years ago in order to provide redemption and salvation. Because of the difficulties in believing all the miracles ascribed to Jesus, there are also many millions of people who do not believe Jesus is the Son of G.o.d who supernaturally confers anything upon anyone. This latter category of people usually perceives the gospel story as containing some history, including a general outline of the life of a man called Jesus, with the addition of a number of fables and fairytales.

There is a third school of thought, however, that sees no evidence for either of the first two premises: In fact, this group apprehends that the story of Christ as recorded in the disparate and divergent gospels has so many difficulties, inconsistencies and fallacies that it cannot be taken literally. This faction avers that the gospels are works of fiction, much like Gulliver's Travels or any other clearly fict.i.tious tale placed within a historical setting, and, shocking as it may sound, that no such historical person as Jesus Christ ever existed in the first place. This thesis evinces that the evidence shows most of the sayings, personality characteristics and biographical details found in the New Testament were cobbled together from earlier, pre-existing texts and traditions surrounding a variety of individuals, including both men and G.o.ds, both Jewish and Gentile, found widespread around the Roman Empire of the time.

Fingerprints of the Christ?

To begin with, while alike to the point where the synoptics largely const.i.tute unoriginal copies of each other or common source-texts, the canonical gospels nevertheless diverge so widely in a variety of places, even in the same pericope, as to cast doubt upon the historicity of the tale and the inerrancy of the texts. In fact, so many problems and difficulties are presented by the four differing accounts-reflecting the obvious disharmony of the gospels-that a complex process of textual harmonization has been developed over a period of centuries. Hence, the gospels as they are represent a disharmonious mess that hardly appears to be ”infallibly inspired” and ”inerrant.”

Moreover, the argument comparing the abundance of New Testament ma.n.u.scripts with the relative lack thereof for other books of antiquity const.i.tutes a logical fallacy. First, there was no concerted effort to proselytize these other books and to spread them around the world. Secondly, when Christians gained in power, they frequently destroyed whatever texts they could find, especially the writings of competing sects and religions. Thirdly, book industry statistics have demonstrated a tendency for fiction to vastly outsell non-fiction, meaning that the most abundantly printed texts have been fictional. If a concerted effort to publish a book and the abundance of its copies serve as indications of its veracity, then The Da Vinci Code-which contradicts the gospel story-would also need to be considered ”true and historical fact.” Moreover, there are thousands of ancient texts revolving around Egyptian religion as well, which would mean, by the abundance argument, that it too represented the ”true religion.” In reality, the abundance of ma.n.u.scripts testifies to the power of religion but it does nothing to prove the veracity of the New Testament.

Furthermore, not only are the gospels anonymous but also the dates at which they unmistakably emerge in the historical record are far too late for them to serve as the writings of ”eyewitnesses” or even companions to eyewitnesses. When scientifically scrutinized, the historical record clearly demonstrates the emergence of the gospels at the end of the second century.

Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value. Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ. Despite this utter lack of evidence, Christian apologists and authorities make erroneous and misleading claims that there are ”considerable reports” and ”a surprisingly large amount of detail” regarding the life of Jesus and early Christianity.

Although it is widely believed that the character of Jesus Christ is unique and original, the fact is that many of the details of his life and virtually all of the sayings can be found in the Old Testament as concerns other ”types of Christ” and a.s.sorted scenarios. In this manner, it can be logically suggested that the Old Testament served as a blueprint for the New. Indeed, even though apologists raise the issue of Old Testament prophecies as having been fulfilled in Jesus's life, what is more probable is that the writers of the New Testament constructed Christ's life precisely in order to follow these scriptures. It is a fact that the gospel writers refer repeatedly to certain events and sayings as ”fulfillment of prophecy” found in one Old Testament book or another. It would be more rational to suggest that, rather than G.o.d descending on Earth to fulfill these supposed prophecies-and many of them certainly are not in reality prophecies at all-the authors of the gospels cut and paste the most germane scriptures that they considered to be characteristics of the coming messiah, weaving them together to create a fictional figure called ”Jesus the Christ.”

In addition, a scientific a.n.a.lysis and forensic investigation of the content of the gospels reveals a plethora of questions, impossibilities, difficulties, inconsistencies, illogic, fallacies, errors and repulsive doctrines. These numerous difficulties in turn cast doubt upon both the historicity and inerrancy of the New Testament. Moreover, the excuses proffered by apologists in maintaining biblical inerrancy at any cost frequently appear illogical and disreputable. For example, it is a.s.serted that only the originals or autographs of the gospels were absolutely inerrant but that the copies are ”adequate.” In response to the query as to why the originals no longer exist, it is claimed that G.o.d destroyed the originals or autographs of the gospels in order not to tempt people to ”tamper” with them. The fact remains, however, that the copies were tampered with, so destroying the originals made no difference, which the omniscient G.o.d surely would have known. In reality, the earliest extant ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament const.i.tute some of the most flawed, riddled with errors-how could this be, and why would G.o.d allow such a development? Logically, honestly and with an eye to integrity, perhaps a better suggestion would be that the autographs were destroyed because they would prove not to be the inerrant products of infallibly inspired apostles and eyewitnesses to Christ's alleged advent. The main problem with the doctrine of inerrancy is that in order for it to work, we must constantly avoid serious issues that strongly suggest it to be false-and these confidence-destroying instances are not inconsequential. They are, in fact, numerous and significant.

After investigating this subject thoroughly, it becomes surprising that scholars and others can study biblical criticism yet still resolutely cling to their beliefs, which are frequently founded upon highly tenuous premises, as we have seen throughout this present work. The less ”conservative” scholars will incorporate more of the logical and scientific criticisms into their a.s.sessment, while the conservatives obstinately defend the indefensible, including nonsensical tales, obvious inconsistencies, and puerile and deleterious interpretations of reality. This phenomenon can be explained not as a result of rational, scientific thought but by euphoria and childlike glee at the idea of miracles and magic: Blind believers become giddy with the supernatural and lose their natural sense.

To emphasize, the compulsion to view the gospels as inerrant and every detail therein as fact leaves the believer in a compromising position, because, as we have seen, there is so much obvious disharmony within the Bible that, again, over the centuries it has been necessary to develop an entire field of scholars.h.i.+p specifically designed to harmonize the texts. Some of this effort has been successful, while the rest will never be resolved to the satisfaction of those who demand greater evidence and practicality. As an example of needing to compromise integrity, honesty and rationality in order to adhere to the doctrines of inerrancy and literalism, while many Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ”there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity”1 and that ”the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,”2 they have also been compelled to come up with the most tortured and specious reasoning to separate out their own faith as ”true” and ”unique.” Others simply deny the correspondences by waving them away.

In this manner, in a section called ”The Gospels Are Vastly Different from Folklore and Myth,” Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler argues against the idea that the gospels largely represent fictional accounts. Says he, ”According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact.” He then compares the canonical texts to the ”apocryphal Gospels of the 2nd and third centuries,” with their ”fanciful tales of Jesus' alleged childhood miracles...”3 In other words, unlike these other texts and stories, the gospels are not ”fanciful.” In consideration of the following aspects of the gospel story, it is difficult to see where Geisler and other apologists are able honestly to differentiate the story of Jesus from the myths and folklore of other cultures. Which of the following implausibilities of the gospel tale do not fall into the ”myth and folklore” category?