Godless (46 page)
5) G. A. Wells is another scholar who believes Jesus never existed as a historical person. He and others see Jesus as the personification of Old Testament “wisdom.” The Dead Sea Scrolls have Essene commentary on the Old Testament wisdom literature, and Wells has found many parallels with the life of Jesus. The book of Proverbs depicts “Wisdom” as having been created by God first, before heaven and earth. Wisdom mediates in creation and leads humans into truth. Wisdom is the governor and sustainer of the universe. Wisdom comes to dwell among men and bestows gifts. Most people reject Wisdom and it returns to heaven. Solomon’s idea of a just man is one who is persecuted and condemned to a shameful death, but then God gives him eternal life, counting him as one of the “sons of God,” giving him a crown and calling him the “servant of the Lord.” He is despised and rejected. In
The Jesus of History and Myth,
R. J. Hoffman writes: “In sum, musing on the Wisdom and on other Jewish literature could have prompted the earliest Christians to suppose that a preexistent redeemer had suffered crucifixion, the most shameful death of all, before being exalted to God’s right hand.”
The Jesus of History and Myth,
R. J. Hoffman writes: “In sum, musing on the Wisdom and on other Jewish literature could have prompted the earliest Christians to suppose that a preexistent redeemer had suffered crucifixion, the most shameful death of all, before being exalted to God’s right hand.”
6) Randall Helms in the article “Fiction in the Gospels” in
Jesus in History and Myth
presents another view
.
Helms notices that there are many literary parallels between Old Testament and New Testament stories. He calls this “self-reflexive fiction.” It is as if there are some skeletal templates into which the Jews placed their stories. One example is the comparison between the raising of the son of the widow of Nain in Luke 7:11-16 and the raising of the son of a widow of Zarephath in I Kings 17
.
Not only is the content similar, but the structure of the tale is almost identical. Other examples are the storm stories in Psalms and Jonah compared with the New Testament storm story in Mark 4:37-41, and the story of Elijah’s food multiplication with that of Jesus. The first-century Jews were simply rewriting old stories, like a movie remake. This view, in and of itself, does not completely account for the entire Jesus myth, but it does show how literary parallels can play a part in the elaboration of a fable.
Jesus in History and Myth
presents another view
.
Helms notices that there are many literary parallels between Old Testament and New Testament stories. He calls this “self-reflexive fiction.” It is as if there are some skeletal templates into which the Jews placed their stories. One example is the comparison between the raising of the son of the widow of Nain in Luke 7:11-16 and the raising of the son of a widow of Zarephath in I Kings 17
.
Not only is the content similar, but the structure of the tale is almost identical. Other examples are the storm stories in Psalms and Jonah compared with the New Testament storm story in Mark 4:37-41, and the story of Elijah’s food multiplication with that of Jesus. The first-century Jews were simply rewriting old stories, like a movie remake. This view, in and of itself, does not completely account for the entire Jesus myth, but it does show how literary parallels can play a part in the elaboration of a fable.
7) John Allegro suggested that the Jesus character was patterned after the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who was crucified in 88 B.C.E. He wrote that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Essenes interpreted the Old Testament in a way to make it fit their own messiah. Allegro writes: “When Josephus speaks of the Essene’s reverence for their ‘Lawgiver’…we may assume reasonably that he speaks of their Teacher, the ‘Joshua/Jesus’ of the Last Days. By the first century, therefore, it seems that he was being accorded semi-divine status, and that his role of Messiah, or Christ, was fully appreciated.”
(The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth)
(The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth)
8) An example of one of the many naturalistic attempts to explain the miracles is the “swoon theory” found in
The Passover Plot
by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield. This is the idea that the resurrection story is basically historically accurate but that Jesus merely fainted, and was presumed to be dead, coming back to consciousness later.
The Passover Plot
by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield. This is the idea that the resurrection story is basically historically accurate but that Jesus merely fainted, and was presumed to be dead, coming back to consciousness later.
Some of these explanations turn out to be just as difficult to believe as the miracle reports themselves, in my opinion. But they are, nevertheless, viable hypotheses that show that even if the documents are entirely reliable, the story itself can be explained in other ways. If it is possible for part of a story to be misunderstood or exaggerated, then why not the whole thing?
Prudent history demands that until all natural explanations for the origin of an outrageous tale are completely ruled out, it is irresponsible to hold to the literal, historical truth of what appears to be just another myth.
During a debate at the University of Northern Iowa, I asked my opponent, “Do you believe that a donkey spoke human language?”
“Yes, I do,” he responded.
“Yesterday, I visited the zoo,” I continued, “and a donkey spoke to me in perfect Spanish, saying, ‘Alá es el único Dios verdadero.’ Do you believe that?”
“No, I don’t,” he answered without hesitation.
“How can you be so quick to doubt my story and yet criticize me for being skeptical of yours?”
“Because I believe what Jesus tells me, not what you tell me.”
In other words, miracles are true if the bible says so, but they are not true if they appear in any other source. When questioning the miracle reports of the New Testament, this becomes circular reasoning.
The presence of miracle stories in the New Testament makes the legend highly suspect. But it is important to understand what skeptics are saying about miracles. Skeptics do not say that the miracle reports should be automatically dismissed,
a priori.
After all, there might be future explanations for the stories, perhaps something that we yet do not understand about nature.
a priori.
After all, there might be future explanations for the stories, perhaps something that we yet do not understand about nature.
What skeptics say is that if a miracle is defined as some kind of violation, suspension, overriding or punctuation of natural law, then miracles cannot be
historical
. Of all of the legitimate sciences, history is the weakest. History, at best, produces only an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all, it must adhere to a very strict assumption: that natural law is regular over time.
historical
. Of all of the legitimate sciences, history is the weakest. History, at best, produces only an approximation of truth. In order for history to have any strength at all, it must adhere to a very strict assumption: that natural law is regular over time.
Without the assumption of natural regularity, no history can be done. There would be no criteria for discarding fantastic stories. Everything that has ever been recorded would have to be taken as literal truth.
Therefore, if a miracle did happen, it would pull the rug out from history. The very basis of the historical method would have to be discarded. You can have miracles, or you can have history, but you can’t have both.
However, if a miracle is defined as a “highly unlikely” or “wonderful” event, then it is fair game for history, but with an important caveat: outrageous claims require outrageous proof. (This does not mean we need a miracle to prove a miracle. It means we need
more
proof for an outrageous claim than we do for a more credible claim.) A skeptic who does allow for the remote possibility of accurate miracle reporting in the Gospels nevertheless must relegate it to a very low probability.
more
proof for an outrageous claim than we do for a more credible claim.) A skeptic who does allow for the remote possibility of accurate miracle reporting in the Gospels nevertheless must relegate it to a very low probability.
Since the New Testament contains numerous stories of events that are either outrageous (such as the resurrection of thousands of dead bodies on Good Friday) or impossible, the story must be considered more mythical than historical.
Either in ignorance or in defiance of scholarship, preachers such as televangelist Pat Robertson continue to rattle off the list of Christian “evidences,” but most bible scholars, including most non-fundamentalist Christians, admit that the documentation is very weak. In
The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
Albert Schweitzer wrote: “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus… The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma…”
The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
Albert Schweitzer wrote: “There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus… The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma…”
To sum up: 1) There is no external historical confirmation for the Jesus story outside of the New Testament. 2) The New Testament accounts are internally contradictory. 3) There are many other plausible explanations for the origin of the myth that do not require us to distort or destroy the natural worldview. 4) The miracle reports make the story highly suspect. (In the next chapter I will discuss another argument against historicity: evidence of legendary growth.)
The Gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation accounts are scientific. They are filled with exaggerations, miracles and admitted propaganda. They were written during a context of time when myths were being born, exchanged, elaborated and corrupted, and they were written to an audience susceptible to such fables. They are cut from the same cloth as other religions and fables of the time. Taking all of this into account, it is rational to conclude that the New Testament Jesus is a myth.
Chapter Sixteen
Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?
During the 19 years I preached the Gospel, the resurrection of Jesus was the keystone of my ministry. Every Easter I affirmed the Apostle Paul’s admonition: “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.”
23
I wrote a popular Easter musical called
His Fleece Was White as Snow
with the joyous finale proclaiming: “Sing Hosanna! Christ is risen! The Son has risen to shine on me!”
24
23
I wrote a popular Easter musical called
His Fleece Was White as Snow
with the joyous finale proclaiming: “Sing Hosanna! Christ is risen! The Son has risen to shine on me!”
24
But now I no longer believe it. Many bible scholars
25
and ministers—including one third of the clergy in the Church of England
26
—reject the idea that Jesus bodily came back to life. So do 30 percent of born-again American Christians!
27
Why? When the Gospel of John portrays the postmortem Jesus on a fishing trip with his buddies and the writer of Matthew shows him giving his team a mountaintop pep talk two days after he died, how can there be any doubt that the original believers were convinced he had bodily risen from the grave?
25
and ministers—including one third of the clergy in the Church of England
26
—reject the idea that Jesus bodily came back to life. So do 30 percent of born-again American Christians!
27
Why? When the Gospel of John portrays the postmortem Jesus on a fishing trip with his buddies and the writer of Matthew shows him giving his team a mountaintop pep talk two days after he died, how can there be any doubt that the original believers were convinced he had bodily risen from the grave?
There have been many reasons for doubting the claim, but many critical scholars today agree that the story is a “legend.” During the 60 to 70 years it took for the Gospels to be composed, the original story went through a growth period that began with the unadorned idea that Jesus, like Grandma, had “died and gone to heaven.” It ended with a fantastic narrative produced by a later generation of believers that included earthquakes, angels, an eclipse, a resuscitated corpse and a spectacular bodily ascension into the clouds.
The earliest Christians believed in the “spiritual” resurrection of Jesus. The story evolved over time into a “bodily” resurrection.
As we saw in the previous chapter, the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament. Some scholars believe the whole story is a myth, and others feel it is a legend based on some simple core facts that grew over time. This chapter will show that at least the resurrection part of Jesus’ story is legend. A tale can be both myth and legend because all you need for a legend to start is a
belief
in a historical fact, whether that belief is true or not. But to most true believers, especially to fundamentalist inerrantists, there is no difference between whether the Jesus story is a complete myth or a legend based on some early facts. Either way, the New Testament loses reliability.
belief
in a historical fact, whether that belief is true or not. But to most true believers, especially to fundamentalist inerrantists, there is no difference between whether the Jesus story is a complete myth or a legend based on some early facts. Either way, the New Testament loses reliability.
Before discussing the legend hypothesis in detail, let’s look briefly at some of the other reasons for skepticism.
If the resurrection happened, it was a miracle. Philosopher Antony Flew, in a 1985 debate on the resurrection
28
, pointed out that history is the wrong tool for proving miracle reports. (It doesn’t matter that Flew, once an atheist, later devolved into deism. He did not change his opinion on miracles or the resurrection of Jesus.) “The heart of the matter,” said Flew, “is that the criteria by which we must assess historical testimony, and the general presumptions that make it possible for us to construe leftovers from the past as historical evidence, are such that the possibility of establishing, on purely historical grounds, that some genuinely miraculous event has occurred is ruled out.”
28
, pointed out that history is the wrong tool for proving miracle reports. (It doesn’t matter that Flew, once an atheist, later devolved into deism. He did not change his opinion on miracles or the resurrection of Jesus.) “The heart of the matter,” said Flew, “is that the criteria by which we must assess historical testimony, and the general presumptions that make it possible for us to construe leftovers from the past as historical evidence, are such that the possibility of establishing, on purely historical grounds, that some genuinely miraculous event has occurred is ruled out.”
When examining artifacts from the past, historians assume that nature worked back then as it does today; otherwise, anything goes. American patriot Thomas Paine, in
The Age of Reason,
asked: “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
The Age of Reason,
asked: “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret or wrongly remember events. Humans have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of
other
religions.
other
religions.
A messiah figure coming back to life—appearing out of thin air and disappearing—is a fantastic story by anyone’s standard, and that is what
makes
it a miracle claim. If dead people today routinely crawled out of their graves and went back to work, a resurrection would have little value as proof of God’s power. The fact that it is impossible or highly unlikely is what makes it a miracle.
makes
it a miracle claim. If dead people today routinely crawled out of their graves and went back to work, a resurrection would have little value as proof of God’s power. The fact that it is impossible or highly unlikely is what makes it a miracle.
And that is what removes it from the reach of history.
History is limited; it can only confirm events that conform to natural regularity. This is not an anti-supernaturalistic bias against miracles, as is sometimes claimed by believers. The miracles may have happened, but in order to
know
they happened, we need a different tool of knowledge. Yet except for faith (which is not a science), history is the only tool Christians have to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.
know
they happened, we need a different tool of knowledge. Yet except for faith (which is not a science), history is the only tool Christians have to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Other books
Fire From Heaven by Mary Renault
The New Night Novels (Book 2): Revelations (A New Night Novella) by Hawley, Ashlei D.
Margaret Fuller by Megan Marshall
Golden Filly Collection Two by Lauraine Snelling
Shine On by Jewell, Allison J.
To See the Moon Again by Jamie Langston Turner
The Dragon's Appraiser: Part One by Viola Rivard
Hunger (Seductors #2) by B. L. Wilde
Chaps and Hope (Mossy Glenn Ranch 1) by Bradford, Bailey
A Trusting Heart by Shannon Guymon
