“In the beginning was the word,” Dr. Richard Scott announced, fumbling with the switch and pressing it twice by mistake. The digital projector raced through a sequence of images so fast it was impossible to pick out the detail. Scott muffled a groan and tried in vain to cue the slide up once more, but couldn't find the number to punch in. He looked to the audience. Letting his shoulders sag. “And that word is currently not repeatable in public,” he said.
The audience gave a louder than expected note of amusement but somehow Scott couldn't trust their motives. They were academics for the most part, with a sprinkling of students. They had come to listen to the man whose little tour had caused quite a stir in some circles. Even the President, a devout and notable Baptist, had felt the urge to come out and actively question his work. One tiny professor from U-Dub. It was ridiculous. Where was the religious freedom in this country anymore? Had it all been a myth to begin with?
Scott glanced down exasperated at the equipment and caught a glimpse of his own reflection. Neatly trimmed hair. Square jaw. He fiddled with switches, but it was no use. Forlornly, he glanced over to the student research assistant they had assigned to him for just this kind of emergency. “Uh, could youâuh? Hello?”
A guy from Federal Express was getting her to sign for a package. Scott was amazed. “Uh, excuse me, sir? I'm trying to lecture here.”
“When we promise ten-thirty, sir, we mean it.”
Scott couldn't help it. He broke into a smile and burst out laughing to a squeal of feedback off the PA system. The audience laughed with him.
“A round of applause for our friends at FedEx,” Scott chuckled.
The delivery guy took off his cap and gave a bow on his way out, to the delight of the audience. Meanwhile, Scott's
assistant had dumped the package and was vaulting onto the stage.
Scott cupped his hand over the microphone. “Thanks.”
She was a bright girl, November Dryden, very bright. Very attractive. But more importantlyâvery patient. “Knock 'em dead,” she said, returning to her seat with a smile.
With his lecture back on track, Scott shared an amused jibe with the audience. “I think, on balance, ancient manuscripts are a lot easier to handle,” he said.
Another ripple of laughter bounced around the auditorium as the audience settled down and the first slide popped up onto the screen.
Scott was a linguistic and cultural anthropologist by trade. He studied social structures, law, politics, religion and technology, but his specialty was language. He was an epigraphist who spent years deciphering ancient inscriptions. Yet despite the confidence he had in his own work, he'd worried about this lecture more than any other. It might be dangerous to his health, because this was the Bible Belt. A lecture on newly discovered ancient manuscripts that called the Bible into question, wasn't going to cause lively debate, so much as explosive disagreement. And then there was the other issueâ
“To begin again,” Scott continued. “In the beginning was the word. And that word is âunbeliever.' Let me start my lecture today by being very honest about my beliefs.” He took a deep breath. “I don't believe in Jesus Christ.”
There were stunned expressions in the audience. Scott shuffled his papers.
Â
“The Gospels,” he explained, “were written in Greek. Where we have âword,' the Greeks have
logos
. But
logos
means more than just âword.' It means thought, deed, action. It means âword in action.' It's the same in Hebrew and in Aramaic. Some have recognized this dilemma and opted for the word âact.' In the beginning, there was the act. But that still doesn't convey the full meaning of
logos
. Christians wanted to attract Jews to their faith; Jesus was, after all, a Jew. So Christianityâlike all great religionsâborrowed from its
predecessors both the language and imagery of what had gone before. Hence, in the beginning was
logos
because to the Hebrews, this was nothing new. In Proverbs it's the wisdom motif.
“To entice Pagans, all they did was move into a bunch of old churches and not bother redecorating. All those vast mosaics of Christ, the bearded saviorâthose are portraits of Zeus and Jupiter. Those churches are Greco-Roman. So Christianity then, is the earliest known example of religious recycling. However, how
much
it borrowed has always been a source of debate. But today I brought the answer with me. And, if I may, I'd like to share it with you.”
Scott sipped his water. Partly to quench his thirst, but mostly to gauge his audience.
Ancient texts. They had been calling Christianity into question now for decades. The first had turned up in 1947. A shepherd boy by the name of Muhammad adh-Dhib, or Muhammad the Wolf, of the Ta'amireh tribe of Bedouin, had passed by the ancient settlement of Qumran, by the Dead Sea, and stumbled upon ancient scrolls in some clay jars in a cave. The most recent, the
Istanbul Genezah
, had been found in a chest in the roof of a mosque. A
genezah
was a collection of prayer scriptureâstored but no longer used, usually because they were worn out. These things hadn't seen the light of day in at least 1,500 years.
Throughout this time the Christian establishment had suppressed any information that questioned its religion. But since the mid-1980s a small academic fringe had seen it as their duty to reveal Christ as merely a man. It was a viewpoint Scott hadn't entirely shared to begin with, but things had changed.
“So,” he continued now, “if we've got problems with just one word, think about the sort of problems we have when we consider that the Bible contains hundreds of thousands of words, and all of them from mostly dead languages. We have to admit that our interpretations, from any point of view, are going to be open to error. For example, how many of you know somebody who speaks fluent Aramaic and uses it in everyday speech?” He let slip a smile. Time for an anecdote.
“Okay, how many of you here speak German?”
There was a flutter of hushed conversation from the assorted nervous academics.
“Don't worry, I'm not going to call you up on stage and saw you in half. Just give me a round figure. One, two? Six?” He could see a few hands slowly go up. He nodded. “Six. Right. Okayâout of an audience of maybe two hundred. In Europe, maybe a hundred million people speak German. Maybe more, I don't know. To tell you the truth, I don't care. The point is, if you wanted to know how to speak German you'd ask a German, right? I mean, they use it every day.”
Sounds of agreement.
“Which is ironic, because people still get it wrong. Even when it comes to the simplest phraseology. Like President Kennedy when he went to Berlin back in the middle of the last century. What did he do? He got up and addressed thousands of Germans, intent on telling them that he was willing to embrace Germany after all the ill-will of the Second World War. Intent on telling them he was one of them. He wanted to say that he understood them. That he too was a Berliner, you know, as opposed to a New Yorker or a Londoner. He wanted to say: I am a Berliner. So right off the cuff he announced:
Ich bin ein Berliner!”
He paused. “For those of you who don't know,
ich
means âI.'
Bin
means âam.' You know,
ein, zwei, drei
âone, two, three. Well,
ein
also means âa.' And âBerliner' does indeed mean âcoming from Berlin.' So on the surface of it Kennedy said exactly what he wanted to say, right?” There was murmuring, but these were academics. They knew they had been led into a trap. And some of them were old enough to remember the trap the first time around. But for the gullible in the audience, Scott carried it through. He let his face fall. Let his voice go very quiet.
“Except that it doesn't quite take into account the nuance of German grammar. By placing
ein
in front of
Berliner
, President Kennedy turned Berliner into a noun instead of an adjective. He'd already said âA Berliner' by using
bin
. But by using the word
ein
it turned
Berliner
into a thing, not a place. And a Berliner is a very different âthing' to the capital of Germany.
“What President Kennedy actually proclaimed, when he
stood up in front of the world's media that day, was:
I am a doughnut
.
“I leave it to you to decide which of the two statements was more accurate.”
Â
The slide up on the screen was of a small fragment of papyrus.
“This was found in 1920 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt,” Scott told his audience. “It dates from 100-150 of the Common Era, or C.E. I use C.E. instead of A.D. and B.C.E. in place of B.C. I don't think dates should hinge on the birth of Christ.” The audience definitely did not like that. “So what does this papyrus tell us? In short, that John's Gospel was written at least fifty years
after
the death of Jesus. It's therefore not an eyewitness account, and must be suspect.
“Think about it ⦠all that. From one tiny piece of papyrus.”
For Scott it also confirmed that John was written at a time when the Roman Empire was considering adopting Christianity to maintain its grip on power by representing the masses. John, therefore, was probably written by a Roman, since it was fundamental in describing Jesus's role, and the rules governing Catholicismâa Rome-orientated institution. As a religion it looked to Scott like it had very little to do with God and a lot to do with politics.
“The Nag Hammadi scrolls are interesting because among them was found a complete Gospel of Thomas consisting of one hundred sayings of Jesusâa Gnostic text that pre-dates the Gospels yet the Catholic Church has branded it heretical. Historical fact is
heretical
?
“Okay, since there are freshmen in the auditorium today, you'll forgive me if I over-explain terminology. âGnostic' is Greek and means âhidden knowledge'âusually, hidden knowledge of the divine. Why do we know there's hidden knowledge? Because the language of the text has quite clearly been manipulated. It uses imagery as its weapon. After all, this was a new religion. In order to lure in new worshippers they needed to make them feel comfortable. So when, for example, Jesus ChristâChrist simply being Greek for âMessiah' and Jesus being Greek for the name Joshuaâwhen
Joshua
walks in the wilderness or walks on
water ⦠there's only one other guy who ever did stuff like that, and he too was a prophet. He was never played up to be supernatural although he
was
played by Charlton Heston. I am, of course, referring to Moses. So what better way to enhance your power than by being likened to the bestâthat went
before
you?”
Scott took another sip of water and eyed the audience. A couple of people were walking out. He wasn't surprised. He was, however, surprised that there hadn't been more. He waited for the door to close gently behind them. People had a peculiar habit of conveniently forgetting even the most widely accepted facts. After all, hadn't the Egyptian goddess Isis promised an afterlife that was better than this life, thousands of years before Christ?
Scott smiled, warmly. This was where the fun began. “The Nag Hammadi scrolls are also interesting because they're Copticâwritten in the later form of Egyptian which used a Greek alphabet. But Joshua and his contemporaries spoke Aramaic, so was it unusual for people who spoke Aramaic to write everything down in Greek? Well, actually no. If we think about present-day Belgium, no one writes in Dutch or Flemish, they write in German or French, or more often than not, English.
“Although none of the Gospels are written in Aramaic, we know the writers spoke that language because Aramaic language structures are hidden within the text. Remember my point about German grammar?”
He keyed the machine and another slide popped up into viewâan ancient scroll covered neatly in ordered brown script. “But, that,” he said, “is the opening page of a lost book. One I think you'll all find quite fascinating.
“For years there's been speculation about a lost book of Q, or Quelle, which was extensively researched by John Kloppenborg in the mid-1980s. Kloppenborg believed that somewhere, there must be the original first-hand account of Jesus before the writers of the Gospels had their say. The consensus was that
The Book of Q
, which has shaped our culture, was a
verbal
history, which may initially have been written in Aramaic.
“But that page,” he pointed to the screen, “proves something else entirely. It is not, and I stress
not, The Book of Q.
It's much older, as indicated by Chlorine 36 isotope tests. The genetic deterioration shows it was written on the skin of a very old goat. And it proves for the very first time that Christ borrowed his ideas
from the cult of Mithras.
This book dates from four to five hundred years before any such Jesus Christ was ever born. Yet the New Testament shares its imagery and its symbolism almost perfectly, almost word for word. It is
not
a Mithraic text, and it is
not
Christian. It's a combination of the two. It's the proverbial missing link. And it was written in Aramaic.”