New Indian-Chennai News + more

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Bible Is Not Word of God


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Bible Is Not Word of God
Permalink  
 


Is the Bible the Word of God?

Emmett F. Fields 
1983

This essay was written to be delivered as a lecture and is worded accordingly. It was part of a two day debate with a Fundamentalist minister. For each evening there are two parts, one of thirty minutes and a conclusion of ten minutes. This essay takes the negative position.

DAY 1--PART 1

Before we can talk about the Bible we must consider another question, a deeper and a far more important question.

First we must consider God.

Throughout history mankind has sought God. Sought to find some proof, some indication, some hope, that God is; or might be.

That search goes on today.

Wisdom seeks to find a trace of God in the vastness of eternal space, seeks some indication throughout the far reaches of the cosmos--within the very heart of nature itself--that there is, or might be, some guiding intelligence--however remote--that would, perhaps, be God. Wisdom seeks, and continues to seek, a trace of God, but has not yet found that trace.

Upon this tiny, remote, speck that we call earth and home, and across the endless reaches of space, wisdom and science finds only nature and the workings of nature. Nothing more!

And yet, while wisdom seeks and searches in vain for a trace of God, ignorance found God. Or, at least, believes it has found God, Ignorance not only found God, but has direct information as to what God said and did, what God wants, what God thinks, what God likes, and what God hates.

The ignorance that found God has nothing to do with religious believers today. God, or the illusion of God, was found long ago; in the childhood of the human race. Ignorance found God long before mankind found science; even before the wheel was invented, or fire was captured and made a friend of man. In that barren, cold, dangerous world stood our remote ancestors. Humanity was in its infancy, struggling to understand the forces of nature, to escape its enemies, to feed itself, and to reproduce its kind. The human mind was emerging from the darkness of animal instincts into the beginnings of reason. Its only thought: Survival! It was a dangerous world with enemies, everywhere and always.

"How great and powerful was our leader who was killed last season" they would think. "If only his might was with us now, we would easily destroy this enemy."

"Oh great leader help us in this time of our greatest need!"

And so ignorance created faith in the face of necessity.

And God was born!

This God that ignorance found, or formed, looks a great deal like a man. They tell us it has a face, hands, bowels, a foot (maybe two). They tell us it has nostrils and likes to smell the burnt offerings upon the primitive altar.

[NOTES: Face: Ex. 33:11,20,23; Num. 14:15. Hands: Ps. 28:5. Bowels: Jer. 31:20. Foot: Is. 37:25. Maybe two feet: Ps. 18:9. Nostrils: 2 Sam. 22:9,16. Smell burnt offerings: Gen. 8:2]

This God, that ignorance found or formed, also has remarkably human desires and emotions. It hates, it loves, it feels anger and it feels compassion. It has favorite individuals, and a chosen people. This God is definitely of the male sex, and has definite male tendencies. It is often angry, easily enraged, swears, destroys things, pouts, shouts, deceives, and often rests.

Any wife would recognize God.

[NOTES: Hates: Mal. 1-2,3, Rom. 9:11-13. Love: Deut. 7:13. Anger: Ex. 4:14. Compassion: Ps. 111:4. Favorite: Ex. 3:21. Chosen people: Is. 44:2. Angry: Deut. 9:20, 1 Kin. 11:9, etc. Enraged: 1 Sam. 6:19. Swears: Gen. 12:3. Destroys things: Gen. 6:17. Pouts: Ex. 32:9-10. Shouts: Ps. 47:5. Deceives: Jer. 20:7. Rests: Gen. 2:2]

This God that was found by a primitive and ignorant people some thousands of years ago, just happened to have the same world outlook, and the same beliefs about nature as the people who found him. This God thought the sun revolved around the earth, and that a day could be made longer by simply stopping the sun for a while. It is truly amazing, the number of similarities there are between the beliefs of God, and the beliefs of the people who discovered God.

[NOTE: Stopping the sun: Josh. 10:12]

Those people, though primitive, possessed skills, and so did the God they found. This God gave instructions for building a boat, he designed clothes for the priests, gave the formula for a perfume, was a tailor and made coats of skins. This God also made many simple, often foolish, laws that are called "Commandments." And God did many other things very human, and very peculiar to the time and people who first discovered God.

[NOTES: Boat: Gen. 6:14-18. Designed clothes for the priests: Ex. 28:39. Formula for perfume: Ex. 30:34-35. Made coats of skin: Gen. 3:21]

But of all the human-like things that God is said to have done, the most important thing of all, we are told, was to write books, or to guide the hand and mind of those who wrote. It is the books that God is said to have written, or caused to be written, that are to be considered tonight.

The story I have told about the discovery of God is not unique. Anthropologists agree it has happened many times, and in many different places. Whenever primitive people needed a God they have always found a God, tailor made. It was their own God, and always resembled them a great deal. The God always had the same enemies and the same morals, as the people who found him, and many of those Gods were authors; They wrote books.

I would have no trouble, if I were in a Moslem part of the world, convincing the people there that the Christian Bible is not "the word of God." If I were addressing Buddhist, Hindus, or people of any other religion I would have no trouble proving, to their satisfaction, that the Christian Bible is not the inspired word of God.

But I am in a Christian dominated part of the world. And being in a Christian part of the world, I feel that I would have no trouble convincing most of you that the Moslem holy books are false, that those books are not the true word of God. You would tend to agree that all those other people, who have other Gods and other religious books, are mistaken. You might agree that they have been misinformed, or even deceived. It would seem that people in other parts of the world are so easily made to believe whatever is accepted in their part of the world. They so easily believe in false idols. Only we, who happen to be born in the Christian part of the world, have the "true truth." Well, most of us do. There are, of course, the Jews, and those terrible old Atheists, and many others who refuse to accept the "truth" of the Christian Bible .... but they don't count.

Let us ignore the non-Christians among us and assume the Christian religion--and Bible, is totally accepted in this part of the world. The point is simply this: is truth geographical? Should not the same things that are true in Iran be also true in India, Japan, Africa, Canada, and in the rest of the world? It would seem so, doesn't it? Scientific truths are universal, why are religious truths not universal? Is it reasonable to assume that we alone are right and all the rest of the world wrong? That we are the ones, the only ones, who have the true God and the true "word of God" book?

Can the simple God of the Christian Bible, that is so like a man, that is so like the people who first found God, can that God be the God that wisdom seeks? Wisdom is well aware of the God that the primitive mind has found. Wisdom is aware of the Bible, and of all the other God books, and is aware of the religions built upon those books and those Gods; and yet wisdom and reason continue to seek God, or even a trace of God.

Once the God idea was established in a tribe it was passed along from generation to generation, the children were taught to believe as the parents believed, and the children's children were in turn taught to believe. Just as we were taught to believe what our parents believed. Children have always been taught to believe, but never to question.

And so God became a self perpetuating assumption.

In our part of the world the Christian Bible dominates. In these countries there are many people who believe the Bible is "the inspired word of God." They have been taught to believe that book is the foundation of our laws, the essence of justice, the source of our liberty and even of our civilization. They believe it promises to defeat death and gives hope of another world where happiness will be theirs for all eternity.

I wish it were true.

Those people have not read the Bible, or they have read it with a closed mind. They have failed to see the ignorance, the injustice, the hatred of liberty, the religious intolerance, the persecutions, and the gross immorality that is in the Bible.

They remember the heaven, but they forget the hell.

It is not lightly that I take the task of proving the Bible cannot be the word of God. If the promises, though false, were helpful to mankind, I would pass over them in silence. But they are not beneficial! "Holy books" have never been a help to humanity, and can never be. In fact they are becoming more dangerous every day. The honest historian knows that religious books are, and have always been, a great burden to mankind. And in spite of all our modern knowledge those old books continue to cause hatred and wars today.

So we must examine the Christian Bible, not because it is greatly different from other religious books, of other nations and of other Gods, but because it is the one book that is made to dominate our society by indoctrination. We are taught to believe it in childhood, and forbidden to question it in adulthood. It endangers our modern world, it prevents intellectual maturity and limits the scope of our thoughts to primitive legends.

Is the Christian Bible "The inspired word of God"? Let us think carefully what that claim must mean. With that claim comes the obvious conclusion that the Bible must be "God perfect." That is to say the Bible must be far more perfect than any mere human minds could possibly have made it. Any mistake in that book, any error or contradiction, in fact or form, would prove that book could not be "God's inspired word."

Not only would the Bible be perfect in itself, but it would be equally plain and understandable to every human mind, and every person would understand it exactly the same.

Perhaps you feel that I demand too much of a mere book. That a God who could create the human understanding, could not be expected to produce a book that would agree with that creation.

Personally, I believe it is asking too much of us to believe that God would write, or inspire, a book that mankind could not agree upon. A book that has caused endless wars, persecutions, torture, bigotry and hatred. A book that is so unintelligible that not only do "non-believers" reject it, but those who believe it to be the true word of God cannot agree upon its interpretation. There are hundreds of different Christian sects in the United States alone, and that does not include the countless thousands of private individuals who have their own, personal, interpretations of the Bible.

The very fact of this debate, or any debate about the Bible, is irrefutable proof that the Bible cannot be "the word of God."

It is often claimed by theologians that the original scriptures were perfect, but that the Bible has lost is perfection through copy errors and by being translated through several languages. Impossible! There could not be an imperfect copy or translation of a perfect book that was perfectly understood by the translator. God would not permit it!

If there is a God.

There are many versions of the Christian Bible and there are many conflicting interpretations of each version. Not only by the ordinary Christian believers and clergymen, but by those scholars who have spent their entire lives studying the scriptures. Such confusion is not the work of God.

From the evil and confusion the Bible has caused, and continues to cause, and from the primitive, foolish and contradictory nature of that book, it is self-evident that the Bible cannot represent the word of God. I will quote a few passages, from one of the many versions of the Bible to show why I reject the Bible. I will quote the King James version, as I read and understand it. I am not foolish enough to believe what I understand the Bible to say, is what the Bible says. Considering the numerous versions and interpretations of the Bible, I am amazed that there is any person on earth foolish enough to believe his, or her, interpretation of the Bible is the correct one; that he or she alone, somehow, has stumbled upon the true meaning of the Bible, while all the other believers, non-believers, ministers, priests, scholars and infidels have misinterpreted, and misunderstood, the Bible.

Some people say there are over two thousand self- contradictions in the Bible, some other people say they cannot find even one. All I can do at this time, is to point out a few, of the many, that seem contradictory to me.

I will begin with the first commandment that God gave to man; the one that no fundamentalist Christian has ever broken.

Genesis 2: verses 16-17 reads: "And the Lord God, commanded the man, saying "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

According to the Bible, the man, Adam, did not die in the day that he ate from the forbidden tree. For the Bible says that Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and; Genesis 5: verse 5 reads: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."

But, as I understand the Bible, there is yet another contradiction to Genesis 2: verse 16-17.

In Genesis 3: verse 22-23 God seems to be talking to some other Gods and I read it to say: (22) "And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil--lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; (23) therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken."

In Genesis 2:16-17, God said "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat but of the tree of knowledge." Now, in Genesis 3:22-23 we find that there is yet another tree in the garden that was forbidden; the tree of life.

As I read the Bible, it does appear that God's word cannot be relied upon as in this, apparent, contradiction:

Exodus 33: verse 20, God is said to have said: "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."

Exodus 33: verse 11 reads: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speakest unto his friend."

That seems like a self-contradiction to me, but as I have said, the Bible is obviously incomprehensible, and you may not see anything strange about the two statements at all. I could spend the rest of the evening giving contradictions that are to be found in the Old Testament, so I must skip over the rest.

How about the New Testament, are there contradictions in that too? Well, some say there obviously are many contradictions in the New Testament, and there are others who say there are none at all. I can only tell you what that book says to me.

As I read the New Testament I find the first contradiction in the very first verse, of the very first chapter, of the very first book of the New Testament.

In Matthew 1: verse 1, I read.--"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And after that verse comes a long line of "begats" until we come to verse 16, that reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Now if Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, but only the husband of Mary, as Matthew 1:16 says, then Matthew 1, 1 to 16, is not, cannot be, "the origin of Jesus Christ," as is stated in the first chapter, first verse of Matthew.

But if Joseph is the natural father of Jesus, as is implied in other verses of the Bible, then the story of Jesus being born of a virgin is the contradiction. That legend is in Matthew 1:18 and reads: "Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."

Also, and most important, if Jesus were born of a virgin and was not the descendant of David, then the words of Peter in Acts 2:29-30 are false. In Acts 2:29-30 Peter says: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (30) therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"

Now we have a pretty kettle of fish. If Jesus is the son of God through the "Holy Spirit," as is stated in Matthew 1:18-20, then either he is not the Christ, or God has "sworn with an oath" a lie to David. Or else, Jesus is the son of Joseph, son of David, son of Abraham, and thus might be the "Christ"; but then he cannot be the son of God by the Holy Spirit, and could not have been born of a virgin.

Again I could spend the entire evening going through the apparent contradictions in the New Testament. But as we are speaking of a book that is said to be the word of God, we need only one contradiction, anywhere in the Bible to prove it is not the word and work of God.

If there is a God.

The Bible cannot be true as it constantly contradicts itself. Yet it might be an inspiration to good morals and proper conduct. So let us see what the Bible says about goodness, justice, kindness, morality and respect for family, friend and neighbor.

Let us look at some of the sexual morals that are in the Bible. I will begin with Genesis 19. As I read the story, two "angels" are guests in Lot's house when "the men of the city" come to the house and Genesis 19:5-8 reads: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) and Lot went out the door unto them and shut the door after him: (7) and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing, for therefore they came under the shadow of my roof."

Naturally, I cannot know what that says to anyone else, but to me it seems to say: "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known men; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes;"

What kind of father would offer his children to a mob to be used as they see fit? I will be honest with you, if you were a guest in my house, I would protect you with all my might, but if it came to the point of it being either you or my children, it would be you. And I would expect the same, if it were your choice between your children or me. If it were God himself, if there is a God, he would go before my children. I am not a Christian. I am very pro- family, my innocent children come first.

But that is not the end of the story, it goes on and gets worse. In Genesis 19:31-32, Lot's daughters are talking: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our Father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come unto us after the manner of all the earth: (32) come let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

There are many stories in the Christian Bible that I believe are immoral, pure filth. but that one will serve as an example for the rest. After all, we are considering the Bible as "the word of God," we need only one "bad" story, only one contradiction, only one untruth or injustice, to prove the Bible is not "the word of God."

Let us consider God's justice as recorded in the Bible.

King David obtained one of his many wives through kidnap, rape and murder. The story is in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11, and verse 4 reads: "And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him and he lay with her . . ." I hope you will forgive me for repeating such filthy stories, but that is what the Bible says. The story goes on and Bathsheba is pregnant. David has her husband, Uriah, killed and in verse 26 and 27 we read: "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. (27) And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."

Good! Now we will have a chance to see God's justice in action. How did God punish David for those most awful crimes? How do you think such a terrible man should be punished? Well, God's punishment for David's crimes can be read in the second book of Samuel, chapter 11: verse 15, it reads: "And the Lord struck the child, that Unah's wife bore unto David, and it was very sick." and verse 18 reads: "And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died." Believe it or not; God's idea of justice for the murder of Bathsheba's husband, was for God himself to murder Bathsheba's innocent baby. That is God's justice according to the Christian Bible.

I don't know what that story says to a believing Christian, but if what I understand the Bible to say, is what it says, it would take a very deprived mind to believe the Bible is "the word of God."

Let us consider the Commandments of God, according to the Bible. There are not just ten Commandments, as many people seem to believe, but hundreds. There are no less than 73 chapters filled with the Commandments of God. And a God being what a God is, every Commandment must receive the same obedience as every other Commandment. Now, let us see what God hath Commanded.

Exodus 22:18 reads: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." When Christianity had power these eight words caused hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be tortured and burned alive. That Commandment is of the same group as one version of the, so called, Ten Commandments.

God's Commandment in Exodus 21:2 reads "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go free for nothing." Exodus 21:4 reads "If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself." Remember, these are God's Commandments, and God's justice, according to the Bible. Exodus 21:5-6 reads "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children: I will not go out free: (6) Then the master shall bring him unto the judges . . . and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever."

The Bible always upholds slavery, and has always been the greatest obstacle to justice and human progress in the world.

Another of God's Commandments is Deuteronomy 13:6-8, it reads: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother. Or thy son, or thy daughter, or thy wife of thy bosom. Or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve other Gods which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; (7) namely, of the Gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth unto the other end of the earth (8) thou shalt not consent unto him, nor harken unto him; neither shalt thou conceal him (9) but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. (10) and thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."

Who said God was pro-life?

I have often pointed out to Christians that Christianity has caused untold suffering in the world. That history is so filled with Christian wars, persecutions, torture, burning and hate that no gentle and kind person would call himself a Christian if they knew the truth of Christian history.

The answer is always the same: "How can I, or any Christian today, be held responsible for what people, who called themselves Christians, have done in the past?" And yet, according to the second Commandment God holds the children responsible for the mistakes, or crimes of their parents, "even unto the third and fourth generation." In fact the entire concept of Christianity is based upon "original sin," the ultimate in unjust hereditary guilt. I do not believe in hereditary guilt. The very idea that we, the human race are born in sin because of some small misdeed that Adam was said to have done is foolish. No! It is more than foolish, it is insane. Such insanity is not of God.

The very idea that God would have to be born to a virgin, or anything else, and then have to be murdered by mankind, in order to forgive mankind, is very insane. I believe a God would do just as you would do if your child had been naughty, and you had became angry for a while. You would not say to that child: Bringeth thou me a hammer and hitteth thou me upon thine hand, hard, that I mayeth forgive thee thy naughtiness that thou hath done."

No! You would go to the child, and you would take that child into your arms, and you would tell your child that you love him/her with all your heart, and that you could never really be angry with him. That he/she means more to you than your own life. That is what you would do, or should do: That is what I would do, and any book that says God would do any less simply cannot be the word of God.

We must not be a slave to a primitive superstition. We must not be afraid to think, to question and to investigate. We must set our minds free: Get up off your knees and stand upon your own two feet, raise your head, open your eyes and start to use your mind. The use of the human mind has risen us above all the other animals and has made mankind master of the entire earth. The human mind--reason--is the only hope we have of surviving in our modern, atomic, world. We must learn to use our minds.

There is good news tonight: Spread the good news!

Our minds are now free to reason;



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

DAY 1--PART 2

We are, without doubt, one of the most indoctrinated and deceived nations on earth; at least, at very least, in the area of religion. Today there is no greater threat to our nation, and to our liberty than Christianity. No other force could have silenced and changed American history as Christianity has done. And no other force could have so completely deceived the American public as Christianity has done.

The Christian aggression against America, against the rights of non-Christians, is based on the delusion that the Bible is "the word of God." Let us look at the terrible history of that delusion.

If you know any history at all, you know Christianity and the Bible has not only failed to maintain peace, you know they have been entirely responsible for the most bloody and unnecessary wars of history. You know all the Crusades were pure Christian aggressions. You know the crusaders, in spite of their devout faith in the Bible, in prayer, in Christianity, and in their God, failed again and again to recapture the "Holy land." And true to their Bible the Crusaders slaughtered men, women and children whenever they captured a city.

And yet Christians call the Bible "the word of God," and themselves "moral"!!

If you know any history at all you know the Dark Ages was a time of the absolute establishment of the Christian Bible and the Christian religion. You know it was a time of the greatest poverty, ignorance, oppression and superstition, and you know there was never a more evil and immoral age. You know the torture and burning of heretics was justified by the Bible. You know the Bible was the excuse for the Holy Inquisition, for the torture and burning of witches, for robbing orphans and widows. You know the Bible has caused more hate and persecution than any other book; more suffering than any other disease. And you know the Bible has always been the greatest enemy of human progress, of science, of culture and learning; the greatest enemy of morality, liberty, and justice in the world.

If you know any history at all you know America was a refuge for those who were persecuted by the Bible, and the established church in Europe. You know Bible-believing Christians have never had any concept of freedom. They have always thought freedom was their right to force their belief upon others. And you know the first concern of the Founding Fathers was to separate religion from government, and to establish a free nation, and a free people. And you know also that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians.

If you know any history at all you know when the Bible was established, and Christianity had power, Christians tortured and murdered those who doubted or disagreed with their Bible.

And whenever Christians lose the power to persecute, they slander and call "immoral" those they can no longer persecute.

And yet Christians call the Bible "the word of God," and themselves "moral"!!

Today Christianity has gained its dangerous power in America by teaching Bible, instead of nation; by confusing piety with patriotism; by calling good Americans "Communists," good patriots "traitors." They teach hate and distrust against those who uphold the great American ideals of separation of state and church and hate against the American courts that dare to uphold our nation's Constitution.

Christianity has suppressed and changed American history, has hidden quotes, facts and evidence which prove that Christianity and the Bible was recognized as the enemy of freedom by those who founded this nation. Christians have hidden the fact that the Founding Fathers struggled to insure freedom of conscience; struggled to put Christianity in its rightful place--the equal of every other religious opinion; struggled to put the Bible in its rightful place--the equal of every other book.

Today Christian history tells us one truth: Those who have murdered will also lie!

Unless you are a dedicated scholar of American history, you do not know that Deism was the direct rejection, and refutation, of the Christian Bible, the Christian religion, and the Christian God; You do not know that George Washington "was the leading statesman who advocated total separation of state and church and who saw to it that no reference to Christianity or even Deity was made in the Constitution" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 2). You do not know that the first freedom the Constitution was meant to establish is the freedom from religion. That Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and advised his young nephew to "question with boldness even the existence of a god" (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787, "Deism in the United States," pp. 222-34.) You do not know that the outspoken Deist Thomas Paine, did more to make the United States of America a free and separate nation than any other American. And you do not know a thousand other facts of American history that disprove Christian claims; facts that would keep America free.

You do not need to be a scholar to know that fundamentalist Christianity, and the forces of Bible superstition are attacking the very roots of our nation's freedom today.

And yet Christians call the Bible "the word of God," and themselves "moral."

History has proved again and again that personal morality cannot survive where people believe in divine forgiveness, believe in the Bible delusion that some "higher power" can remove the guilt from the guilty, without removing the wrong from the victim.

Religion always claims that immorality springs from a lack of religion, but the facts prove just the opposite. Christianity has never been stronger in the United States than it is today. Christians have churches in every community, they monopolize radio and television time with religious propaganda. They have forced their religion into our government, into our laws and into our lives. They have silenced all opposing facts and opinions. They are constantly acquiring more and more power, more and more property and more and more wealth. Yet they have not the basic morality to pay their honest taxes.

At the same time that Christianity has been growing every richer and ever more powerful, taxes have risen higher and higher, poverty and hunger have increased, the crime rate has been climbing ever higher and ever faster, the aged are afraid to leave their homes; narcotics have become a national plague, and our nation has been involved in more wars and international conflicts than at any time in its history.

How do Christians gain power again and again after failing constantly to establish peace, progress, prosperity and morality?

Their technique is very simple. They call their Bible "the word of God" and themselves "moral."

We must not allow organized ignorance to destroy this great nation of ours. The American people must be made aware of one simple fact:

The Bible is not, AND CANNOT BE, "the word of God."



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

DAY 2--PART 1

In the Bible, the book of Numbers, chapter 31, verse 15 reads: "And Moses said unto them, "have you saved all the women alive?"

And verses 17 and 18 reads: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (18) But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

I know the Bible is not the word of God because it tells us God is a murderer; that God killed, or caused to be killed, millions of innocent people. That God ordered, or approved of, the murder of civilians, of little children, of helpless old people, defenseless women, prisoners of war, and even livestock. It tells us that God approved the instructions to soldiers to keep the virgins for yourselves. I detest and deny such a book, and I reject and call blasphemous any book that says such is the nature of God. The Bible slanders God, and therefore the Bible cannot be the word of God.

If there is a God, the Bible is a blasphemy. If there is no God, the Bible is a myth. Either way, the Bible is not the word of God.

In Exodus 29:45-46, God is said to have said (45): "And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. (46) and they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God."

The Bible says most clearly that the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah) is "THE LORD GOD OF THE HEBREWS," the God of "the children of Israel," the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob. The Old Testament is the story of a private tribal god, whose first and only concern is for his "chosen people." It is a god created by the priests of that tribe, to justify the atrocities that tribe committed. It is the story of a simple tribal god, and like all the other tribal gods in the world at that time, the god always reflected the people who created him. If the tribe was a warlike tribe, their god was a warlike god.

The Bible tells us the Hebrew tribes were an aggressive, hostile people, and so their God reflected their heartless ferocity. That God, and the books of the Old Testament, literally drip with innocent blood, with conquered people murdered, with raped virgins--mere children, with inhuman cruelties and unspeakable crimes--All approved by the Old Testament God! We do not need such a God in our modern world.

WE ARE INDEED LUCKY THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD!

The Bible tells us that God is small, that the Bible God is not the God of the endless Cosmos. He is not even the God of the entire Earth--small as that is; but is the God of some remote and primitive tribe, of some obscure area of our little Earth, during a limited period of time, long after the evolution of man. Such a concept of God is an insult, and is absolutely false! I might believe in a God that is incomprehensibly great, but I could never believe in a God that is disgustingly small.

It is certain that the true God of the endless Universe could not be small. The Bible describes a God too insignificant for intelligent belief.

When I was a Christian the very thought that there could be a lie in the Bible was repulsive to me, just as it would be to any believing Christian. I had been taught that the Bible was the word of God. I had been taught to believe--to believe blindly and to worship without question.

Being the word of God, I knew there could not be one single lie in the Bible, I knew deep within me that God did not lie. I still believe that! If there is a God that God would not lie. It never occurred to me that the Bible was not the word of God, that it might be a forgery, the product of human deception.

There came a time when I determined to read the Bible again, this time just as I would read the books of some strange and foreign religion, to see it with the eyes of a thinking infidel. Would the infidel see our Bible as reasonable, as moral, and as a force for human good? It was then that I found the lie, and looking further I found another lie, then other lies and still more. To me it was a revelation; it was as if a bandage had been taken from my eyes and I was seeing the truth for the first time. We all know that a book containing lies cannot be the word of God. We all know that, regardless of what concept we have of God.

The Bible is not the word of God because the Bible contains lies.

The Bible says in Exodus 10, verse 27, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go." Then in verse 29; we read "And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

That is a lie!

The God of the endless Universe would not murder innocent children. It is a lie that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so God would have an excuse to murder little babies. That is a lie and a blasphemy!

In the Bible (Deut. 28, verse 16) God is made to say: "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."

That is a lie!

The God of the endless cosmos never told savages to slaughter defenseless, defeated people, "to save alive nothing that breatheth." It is the lie of savages to justify their robbing and murdering their neighbors.

The Bible is not the word of God.

In the Bible (Josh. 10, verse 12-13) "Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and said in the sight of Israel, sun, stand thou still upon Gideon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. (13) and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."

That is a lie!

The God of our endless universe never stopped the sun (That is to say, stopped the turning of the Earth) so one bunch of savages could slaughter another bunch of savages.

It is a lie!

In the Bible (1 Samuel 6, verse 19) "And He smote the men of Bethsemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with great slaughter."

That is a lie!

The God of the endless universe would not slaughter the men of one savage tribe because they peeped at the superstitious paraphernalia of another savage tribe.

We could go on and on quoting these primitive lies from the Bible, all of which prove but one thing: The Bible is not the word of God.

All I ask is that you read the Bible. Read it with an open mind, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, believed the Bible was the word of God.

Even some believers have seen the bad that is in the Old Testament. I know they have sworn not to think about the Bible, not to judge--but only to believe. Yet they have moved, some of them, a little, ever so little, away from the Old Testament. They won't admit it but some Christian believers wish the Old Testament had not been written. They are ashamed of it; they are ashamed of the old God--and the slaughter.

There they were, on their knees, eyes closed tight, hands clasped, head bowed, brain off. But, with innocent blood rushing by, the screams of women being murdered, of little children being raped, something slipped. They thought, just a little, but they thought. Evolution and natural morality had built an over-ride switch into their brain and, in spite of themselves, in spite of their religion, they thought.

Somehow they knew there was something wrong about the Old Testament! They didn't know just what, but there seemed to be something that was not just right. And so they moved. In spite of themselves, they moved--they created a new God: Jesus!

A-Men, there is yet hope for mankind!

We now come to the New Testament, and although the New Testament has Jesus say, in Matthew 5, verse 17-18; "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (18) For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." In spite of such claims, the New Testament is the religious philosopher's attempt to create a new God idea, and to escape the evil bloody God Tyrant of the Old Testament.

What kind of God is this new God? We know the oldest gospel in the New Testament was written after 78 A.D., and the other gospels are even more recent. So we know that the quotes of the new God, Jesus, were only legends for at least one generation, and in most cases for several generations.

Let us see 'what it is said' this new God said according to the New Testament.

Jesus is said to have said: (Luke 14:26) "If any man come to me and hate not his father, his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

That cannot be the words of God!

Jesus is said to have said: (Matthew 10:34-37) "Think not that I am come to send peace to earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword. (35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in- law against her mother-in-law. (36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (37) He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

That cannot be the words of God!

How can we ever find peace with gods like that running around in people's minds? Jesus is said to have said: (Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29) "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters; or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

These are not the words of God!

Jesus is said to have said: (Mark 9:43-48) "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (44) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (45) And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (46) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (47) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (48) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Those are not the words of God: Those are words of insanity!

Jesus is said to have said: (Luke 12:5) "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; I say unto you, fear him." Christianity is founded upon fear--and is perpetuated by fear. That would not be the way of the true God, the great God of this endless universe.

In the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, we could go on and on quoting cruel, foolish, un-Godlike sayings from the new God. Sayings that we know are the words of men--of cruel, mean, heartless, small minded men. Words of hate and vengeance! words to frighten and oppress! They are words to give power to the priest, the church and the religion. They are words to destroy reason and to make the human mind a slave.

We now know that the Jesus myth of the New Testament was taken from the story of the founder of the Essene cult. The founder of the Essenes was named Jesus, he was crucified in 88 B.C.E. and everything good that Jesus of Nazareth is said to have said was written almost a hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived.

From the Essenian cult of the old Jewish religion, has evolved a new God, a new myth, a new religion and a New Testament.

But the good work of the religious philosophers who created the New Testament God has been corrupted by organized religion. The Jesus myth of the New Testament no longer resembles the kind and just leader of the Essenes who lived, suffered and died just a little over two thousand years ago.

In the New Testament we find a God that evolved during the first few hundred years of the Christian era. Christianity developed through religious hate. The weak were called heretics and their teachings were brutally suppressed, and so the Christianity that survived is the orthodoxy of the strong and the ruthless. Orthodoxy destroyed the meek and filled Christianity with hate, fire and fury.

The Christian layman and the unscholarly T.V. preachers, who have so much influence and emotional appeal today, are unaware of the deterioration that occurred in Christianity during its formation. The good in the original story was pushed aside and the bad took hold. The idea of eternal torment, as well as the idea of easy forgiveness of sins became established and soon fossilized into dogma and doctrine.

In the New Testament there evolved a God much worse than the Old Testament God. As much worse in fact, as endless torture is worse than endless sleep, as much worse as eternal burning is worse than simple annihilation.

Unlike the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament was not happy when his victims lay dead and broken before him. The Son of God has not only carried on the family tradition, but has exceeded the wildest expectations of the father.

If we are heartless enough to believe the Bible, we must believe the God of the New Testament pursues the dead into death. This God, we are told, has found a way to torture even those who have paid "the final penalty."

The New Testament God has set up his torture chamber where there can be no escape, where death cannot be a welcome release. Everlasting torture, eternal burning; this terrible belief, this evil everlasting injustice, has become the heart and foundation of the Christian religion. People believe, NOT through reason, NOT through any desire to goodness or piety, NOT through any hope of making the world better, or mankind better, or themselves better, but through FEAR--simple, devastating, mind-numbing FEAR. They believe because they are afraid to think, afraid to question. They keep their minds as little children--afraid to be adult men and women. They believe simply because they are afraid not to believe!

Those who believe in hell can never know truth, for they are blinded by fear. The idea of hell was invented to establish a religious dictatorship and those who believe live under a tyranny far greater than any human tyrant could ever establish. They believe they are always under the eye of the tyrant! They believe their every word is recorded, their every action noted, even their innermost thoughts are known and judged by their cruel master of endless, unmerciful punishment. To such believers every act and thought is the result of fear. They are to be pitied.

That terrible dogma of hell has destroyed the very foundations of morality. The basic force of morality is "the power of sympathy"; feeling the hurt of others--and caring. The dogma of hell has destroyed that foundation. The mother, it is believed, could sit joyfully in heaven for all eternity and watch her wayward son or daughter burning and suffering in hell.

I detest a belief that can make people so heartless. I could never be a Christian! I could never be happy in a heaven knowing there are people suffering in a hell. I have great sympathy for people, their pain, their suffering, their feelings, their losses, and their hopes.

I deny that hell exists! I deny that a vengeful God exists! And I deny that any book that tells the lie that such a gross, everlasting injustice as hell exists could be the word of God!

About the turn of this century there were over a hundred studies made, and published, which questioned the historicalness of Jesus. Was Jesus a real historic person or was he a myth? One of the most famous books on the subject was Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus." The book was first published in 1906. Schweitzer concluded that, "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence." (p. 398).

History and scholarship tell us that Jesus was not a god but a myth; a Jesus of Nazareth did not live at the time that Jesus is said to have lived, and no one at that time did the things that Jesus is said to have done. We now know where the myth of Jesus came from and how it originated.

The discovery of the truth about the New Testament is one of the greatest miracles of the modern world. It is as if there were a God and that God had said: "Enough of this myth that has caused so much hate and trouble, so much war and persecution, so much torture and suffering in the world! I will put a stop to it before it destroys the entire earth."

What were the "miracles" that revealed the truth about the origin of the myth of Jesus, of Christianity and of the New Testament?

In December, 1945, there was discovered in upper Egypt a group of 52 Gnostic scrolls that dated from about 148 A.D. These first scrolls tell about the conflicting doctrines and the uncertainty in early Christianity.

In 1947 there was another unbelievable discovery. In Qumran, on the shore of the Dead Sea about 15 miles from Jerusalem, another great number of ancient scrolls were discovered. These scrolls are known as "the Dead Sea Scrolls." The impression given the public was that there were only a few scrolls found, just those found in the first cave. But there have been discovered hundreds of scrolls, these scrolls are about a thousand years older than any previously known copy of the Bible, and they contain all of the books of the Old Testament except Esther. There are also other scrolls that date almost a hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived. They contain almost every myth in the New Testament; they contain "The sermon on the Mount," and other bits of goodness and wisdom attributed to Jesus. They do not contain the evil sayings of Jesus. Those have been added later.

These old scrolls simply destroy the credibility of the historical foundations of Christianity by proving the New Testament evolved from the uninspired, historical, writings of man.

These scrolls have not been honestly presented to the public. It is strange that what God seeks so forcefully to reveal, the men of God are so determined to conceal!

Religion is big business, and those who hold positions of profit and prestige in that business will not allow mere truth to become a threat to religion.

What kind of a God do you think there would be if there were a God? A God would be just, kind, good, helpful, intelligent and wise. In short, God would be all the things the Bible God is not.

A true God would be better than the best of us, not worse than the worst of us.

If there were a God there would not be war, there would not be evil, there would not be starvation, overpopulation, pollution, misery, religion, plague and disease; there would not be dogmas and doctrines and creeds. There would be no need to believe foolishness and there would be no fear of thinking. Why even science, philosophy and reason would be respectable--if there were a God.

Honestly now! Who could worship a God like the God of the Bible? Not a thinking person! Certainly not a kind and gentle person, not a just person nor a loving person. It would have to be a frightened person. A person so afraid that he doesn't think, he just falls down and grovels before a tyrant. Only a coward could blindly worship the murderous, bloody, vengeful tyrant that the Bible describes as "God."

I will NOT worship such a God!

I cannot and will not believe in such a God. It is a lie. It is a blasphemy and a slander against the very idea of God.

The Bible is not the word of God!

With a God like the God in the Bible we don't need a Devil. When we look at the Bible we must seriously question if we have not been misled into worshiping the evil elements of nature instead of the good. We must seriously question if belief is not the wrong end, and doubt the right end, of religion. After all, it has always been the kindest, the gentlest, the most moral and the most respectable people who have eaten deeply of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the very tree the Bible demands that we avoid.

Or, has the world advanced so far that what seemed good to those who wrote the Bible is seen as evil now? Let's think about that! If the Bible is not the word of God, and of course it is not, then let us consider who did write the Bible and why.

The Bible was written by primitive priests, but those primitive priests were the learned men of that day. They were the thinkers and the law-givers. They derived their authority by claiming to speak for God. Primitive people are easily fooled, and often the old priests fooled themselves--just as honest ministers fool themselves today.

The priests who wrote the Bible stood upon their tippy-toes and reaching just as high as they could reach, they drove their spike. That spike is the Bible. It represents their best knowledge, their best morals, their most advanced understanding and world view. It was as high as they could think! And they thought it was as high as anyone would ever be able to think. So they drove the spike of their knowledge just as high as they could reach and they called it "The word of God."

That spike, that was as high as those old priests could reach, is less than knee high to modern man. Humanity has advanced during the thousands of years since the Bible was written and our modern knowledge and higher moral understanding, tells us that the spike, the Bible, is not "the word of God."

Today we desperately need a new God--a God that is NOT an insult to our intelligence--a God that is as great as the endless cosmos. We need a just God that does not have chosen galaxies and a preferred life form--a life form that is told to slaughter other life forms. We desperately need a God that commands that we think, instead of believe and worship. We need a God to civilize us, not one that makes us savages.

But we must not be as foolish as the old Bible priests. We must not drive another spike, create another Bible, and say "believe." How soon would future generations find our highest morality brutish, our best intellect childish, and our world view primitive? How soon would our children's children again be divided, with future orthodox preachers insisting that our book is "the word of God," and some future heretic saying; "it is the ravings of ignorance."

We must not hold back future generations at our level. Let us stand upon our tippy-toes and make our mark, but beside that mark write "Question and Grow." Our best knowledge today is NOT the word of God, and the best wisdom of people who lived and thought thousands of years ago is not "the word of God."

There is one fact which wise men and heretics have always known, which philosophers and scholars have known for generations, a fact that even theologians know today, a fact that frees the mind and drives away the awful fear. The time has come for the victims to know that fact also:

The Bible is not the word of God!



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

DAY 2--PART 2

For two thousand years Christianity and the Bible has failed to bring peace and harmony to our world. The Bible has, in fact, been responsible for some of the most diabolical massacres and persecutions known to man. Today those historic facts are kept out of our history books.

Humanity now stands between the past and the future as it has never done before. We all know there is a great possibility that humanity will not have a future; that we will destroy ourselves.

If we are to survive this atomic age we must find a new way of thinking, we can no longer believe blindly, and hate those who believe differently. Instead we must find ways to unite mankind, ways to remove unnecessary boundaries and barriers. We must find ways to remove the causes of hate.

Much of our hate and trouble in the world is founded upon the delusion that the Bible is "the word of God." There has never been a greater source of hate than the assumption that we are doing God's work, that we have the "word of God" to guide us and that our task is to destroy some "center of evil" in the world. Throughout history that delusion has been responsible for the most terrible wars and atrocities. That delusion may destroy our world!

There is not a conflict in the world today that does not have at its roots a different of religious opinion. The Jews, Christians and Moslems are murdering each other in Lebanon, Catholics and Protestants murder each other in Ireland. And how much of our hatred for Russia, and Communism, springs from the fact that they have chosen to establish Atheism.

When we read that Moslem terrorists will drive a truck load of explosives into a building and die to kill others in their "holy war," we recognize that as a form of insanity.

When we hear a Christian fundamentalist preaching "no coexistence with Godless Communism" we should know that is equally insane in our atomic age.

When we read that a powerful Christian leader has reaffirmed the medieval dogma that birth control and contraceptives are immoral and against Bible teachings; we should realize that too is insanity in our overpopulated world.

Such teachings are of the past, a past full of hate, war and persecution; a past full of blind faith and religious delusions.

Today we are playing for keeps.

Today we must find a new way of thinking.

We can no longer stick our heads into the sands of superstition and hope "God" will protect us; that hope has failed too often. Those who study the facts of history know that. Those who knew the Bible was not "the word of God" brought about the Renaissance and saved humanity from the Dark Ages;

Those who knew the Bible was not "the word of God" had the wisdom to establish America as a free nation;

Those who knew the Bible is not "the word of God" have given us every great advance in science and reason;

And those who know the Bible is not "the word of God" are the only ones who can lead mankind to peace and human survival.

The Bible and all the other so-called "holy books" are of the past. If humanity cannot outgrow these barbaric relics that divide us and cause so much hate, we cannot hope to have a future. We cannot hope to survive another generation!

If mankind survives, future generations will know this age as "the age of propaganda," the age of hate for opinion's sake. Future generations will marvel that our age, with its modern technology and great wealth of solid scientific learning, could remain rooted in the primitive fables of past ages; they will marvel that we could not see the evil and danger of worshipping an historic failure.

If mankind survives this religious age, future generations will look upon our instruments of war and doubt our sanity, just as we look upon the torture instruments of a past religious age and doubt their sanity.

Already the delusion that the Bible is "the word of God" has dangerously corrupted America's rightful purpose in the world.

The overabundance of religious propaganda in America today would lead us to believe that the primary purpose of this nation is the preservation and expansion of the Christian religion. But that is not true.

Our nation is not, and must not become, the battleship of the Christian religion. Our struggle in the world is in defense of LIBERTY. To preserve our own, and, if possible, to help others gain and keep theirs.

This nation is not fighting "Godless Atheism" nor "Atheistic Communism," nor any other group or nation that has had Christian hate terms applied to them.

We, as a nation, are opposed to Communism because Communism, like Christianity, is an ideological force that is destructive to human rights and freedom. It is, in fact, none of our business whether another nation, or another individual, believes in a God or not. Our only concern is that every individual must have the liberty to decide just what he, or she, can and will believe. And that they have the freedom to express, publish and pursue those beliefs in perfect safety.

In short, our only concern in the world is exactly those ideals that this great nation of ours was originally founded upon.

Such a statement is in no way a concession to Communism. It is a statement of our determination to be, and to remain, a free people. Those who have tasted real freedom can never return to the mental slavery of an oppressive belief. It is entirely correct to say:

"I would rather be dead than Christian or red."

When George Washington was president in 1796 he wrote "a treaty of peace and friendship" with Tripoli. That treaty reads "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; it has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of the Musselmen (Muslims) ... no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That treaty, signed into law by President John Adams, proves the Founding Fathers recognized religion to be the source of hate and war. It also proves the United States was not, is not, and must not become, a Christian nation.

Why can we not write a treaty today that has the great wisdom that was put into the treaty with Tripoli? Why can we not say to Russia: "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; it has, in itself, no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion, or Tranquillity of the Communists (Atheists) ... no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Such a treaty today would remove the main source of hate and we could get on with the business of understanding each other and establishing a hope for peace and human survival.

The greatest obstacle to our peace and survival is the foolish, irrational, delusion that the Bible is "the word of God."

If we are to save our children and our world we must accept the fact that the Bible is not the word of God.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

Are the Gospel Accounts Historical?

 The book of Matthew appears to many to be a doctored version of the book of Mark.

By Merle Hertzler

It is difficult to convince a skeptic that God wrote the Bible, so many Christian apologists try a different tack. Their goal is to convince unbelievers to first accept that the gospels are historical. Once this is agreed to, they argue that this historical Jesus--who is said to have risen from the dead--must therefore be God, and that the sayings attributed to him in the gospels should therefore be taken seriously. They argue that this Jesus taught that the scriptures are God's word, so therefore we need to accept them as God's word. But I must stop them at their first point. Are the gospels historical? Certainly many passages in the Bible do represent historical fact, but what about the story of Jesus? I question if it is historical, for there are many problems with the four gospels and the book of Acts.

A big problem is the lack of early confirmation of Jesus outside of the New Testament accounts. Would not the world want to talk of such a man? Earl Doherty sums up the problem this way:

The non-Christian witness to Jesus is anything but supportive of his existence. Until almost the end of the first century, there is not a murmur of him in the Jewish or pagan record. The Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived until about 50 CE and wrote of unusual sects like the Therapeutae and the Essenes, has nothing to say about Jesus or Christians. Justus of Tiberias, a Jewish historian who wrote in Galilee in the 80s (his works are now lost), is reported later to have made no mention whatever of Jesus. Pliny the Elder (died 79 CE) collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary and which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, but he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem. The first Roman satirist to scorn a sect which believed in a crucified Judean founder who had been a god was not Martial at the end of the first century, nor Juvenal in the first half of the second century, but Lucian in the 160s. Reports of Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher of the early second century who preached universal brotherhood to the poor and humble masses, record no knowledge on his part of a Jewish precursor. Nor does Seneca, the empire's leading ethicist during the reign of Nero, make reference to such a figure. Other historians of the time, like Plutarch and Quintilian, are equally silent.  (fromhttp://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/postscpt.htm )

Historical Jesus Links

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Richard Carrier. Did Mark base his writings on previous epic tales? (offsite)

The Jesus of History by Gordon Stein PhD. Does history verify the gospels? (offsite)

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Where is the historical Jesus? (offsite)

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus by Jefferey Jay Lowder. Reviews the claimed secular references to Jesus.(offsite)

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ by Scott Oser. (offsite)

Why do no secular historians note that Herod killed all babies up to two years old in Bethlehem? Jesus supposedly did many miracles and preached to many. Nobody outside of the small religious group seems to have noticed. (For an offsite discussion of the supposed testimony of the historian Josephus, click here).

Matthew 27 tells us that, at the death of Jesus, many dead people came out of their graves and appeared to many. This must surely be the greatest miracle ever! Can you imagine it? Surely people must have been talking about it. Yet, no historian mentions it. None of the other gospels mention it. Did they not notice that many were seeing dead people walking? Interestingly, the book of Acts records the difficulty the apostles supposedly had in trying to convince the people of that city that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why was it hard to convince people of a resurrection? If you had just seen your grandfather rise from the dead, and your neighbor reports that he has seen his dear departed Aunt Mary and her great-grandfather, would it be hard for you to believe that Jesus also had resurrected that week? If Matthew was correct, many at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost had just seen one or more of the many dead people that had just presented themselves to many in Jerusalem weeks before. But the disciples in the book of Acts, as Luke tells the story, don't even mention it. They ignored their strongest argument. They seem to be unaware that this mass resurrection happened. Why? Apparently when Luke wrote the book of Acts, he had never heard of the story written in Matthew. So, in his account, the disciples act as though it never happened.

Somebody might argue that many events do indeed appear in more than one gospel. Does this count as confirmation? I think not. The problem is that the later gospel writers copied from the first gospel. For instance, the book of Matthew contains 90% of the verses in Mark. Often, Matthew is a word for word replica of Mark. If a student were to turn in a term paper that repeated 90% of the sentences in another student's term paper from the previous year, wouldn't you suspect that he had copied? The same thought occurs to scholars when they read Matthew. It appears that he copied Mark, with alterations as he saw necessary, and with additions such as the birth story and the Sermon on the Mount. So if Matthew repeats something that is found in Mark, that is not independent confirmation.

Scholars tell us that Matthew and Luke probably had a copy of Mark in front of them as they wrote their books. And so Matthew and Luke agree with Mark on many things. But that is not independent confirmation. When we get to the events that Mark does not mention, such as the birth and the post-resurrection appearances, we find virtually no agreement between Matthew and Luke. The Christmas story in Matthew and the story in Luke have virtually nothing in common. And then there is the book of John. This book is very different from the other gospels on almost every detail until we get to the crucifixion. But when we get to the crucifixion, it matches much of Mark and uses some of Mark's format, causing many scholars to think that John was using Mark as a source here. So we have accounts that were copied from other accounts at some places, and that fail to confirm each other where the writers were not directly copying. This does nothing to verify what was written.

Dating of the Synoptics by Paul N. Tobin. Evidence that the gospels were written after 65 AD. (offsite)

When Were the Gospels Written? I examine this issue in more detail.

A second problem is that the gospels were written some time after the events they record. Mark is generally thought to have been written after 70 AD, and the rest of the gospels were written later (see sidebar). Can we expect them to give an accurate record of events that happened 40 or more years earlier? Suppose you would try to accurately write down a conversation that took place 40 years ago (if you are old enough to remember that far back). Can you remember exactly who said what to whom 40 years ago? I doubt it. Everyday I run into people who can't remember what I told them last week. If we humans have difficulty remembering what was said last Tuesday, can you be certain that a 40-year-old memory is correct? So it seems that at least some of the details may be wrong. Are you sure that Jesus said everything that the gospels attribute to him? Are you sure he made the claims about the scriptures that you read that he made?

The fact that the gospels were written after 70 AD made it difficult for anybody to disprove them after they were written. Imagine that you had picked up Mark's gospel 40 years after the life of Christ (assuming he had actually lived). Is there any way that you could have disproved it at that point? Further, why would you even want to bother? Would you have had time to disprove every myth that you heard if you lived back then? You simply would not have had time to do that. The world was full of irrational ideas. Kooks and quacks were everywhere. So we have no reason to believe that the gospel story was ever seriously challenged by anybody who lived in Palestine at the time of Christ.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: a look into the world of the gospels  by Richard Carrier

Third, Mark may have never intended for his book to be considered history. Many have observed that his book appears to have been derived from other scriptures and from previous epic tales. How do you know that Mark intended his book to be interpreted as history? If Mark meant it as fiction, why should you and I think it is true? And if other writers expanded on his story, why should we think their accounts are true? So unless you can prove that Mark thought it was historical, some of us will have questions.

Fourth, we don't know who wrote the gospels. None of these authors identifies himself. Who were they? Were they honest? Did they have first-hand knowledge or accurate sources? We don't know. The first record we have of anybody clearly associating the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John with these books was Irenaeus in 180 AD, a century and a half after the reported events. Is it possible that he was mistaken or made up the names of the authors? This was a long time after the events reportedly happened. So we really have no reliable early evidence of who wrote the gospels. If we do not know the authors, how do we know they can be trusted? (We continue to use these names for the authors of the gospels by convention, but nobody knows what their real names were.)

Fifth, the accounts contradict each other. For instance, Matthew 1:16 tells us that Jacob was Joseph's father. But Luke 3:23 says that Eli was his father. Luke tells us that Jesus saw his disciples on Easter and told them to not leave Jerusalem until Pentecost. The book of Acts--probably by the same author as Luke--continues the story and says that they stayed in Jerusalem. But Matthew says that they went to Galilee, many hours away. Which book is correct? Acts 1 tell us that Judas bought a field with the betrayal money and then fell headlong and died. But Matthew 27 tells us that Judas threw the money down in the temple and then hanged himself. Which is correct? Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph made a special trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth. But Matthew tells us that Jesus' family fled to Nazareth because they were scared of Herod. Would they need danger to make them want to return to their hometown? To Luke, it would have been natural to return to the hometown of Nazareth after the trip to Bethlehem was over. But Matthew needs a reason for them to move to Nazareth. It appears that Matthew knew nothing about Nazareth being the original hometown. So the accounts conflict.

Sixth, the accounts are often implausible.  If I told you a bird just flew by, you might believe me. But if I told you a horse just flew by, you would not believe me. If the event is implausible--horses don't fly--then we want really good evidence before we believe it. That is the problem with the gospels. Much of what they record is implausible. Should we not be skeptical unless we have very clear evidence of the implausible?

The Resurrection Puzzle I compare the four gospel accounts of the resurrection, and show the contradictions.

cover

Lee Stroble makes the case for Christ.

(click the book)

 

cover

Earl Doherty skillfully dismantles Stroble's arguments.

(click the book)

 

 

For instance, in John 8 we find Jesus having a conversation with the Jews. The conversation goes back and forth. Now how could Jesus converse with a crowd? Notice how the crowd responds in John 8:52-53 :

The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"

Now wait just one minute! How can a crowd give such a detailed response? Did they speak in unison? Does anybody believe that such a conversation happened? Perhaps this passage is nothing more than a literary device. Perhaps the author was writing a drama years later, and made up this conversation to compare Jewish thought with Christian thought. It seems implausible that such a conversation ever took place between Jesus and a crowd of people. The author must have made it up.

Many other things seem implausible. How could a star lead the wise men to a particular building? Look up at the night sky, and tell me which building those stars are over. And as they move along as the night progresses, how can they continue to point to the same building? But Matthew tells us a star stood over the building where the baby Jesus was, and that it guided the wise men to this exact building. Can you understand how some people would think that this is not reasonable? Is it likely that many dead people got out of their graves and appeared to many? Is it really plausible that a swarm of demons would leave a man and enter a herd of pigs, causing the pigs to all stampede into a lake and kill themselves?

Shall we automatically reject the gospels, simply because they claim miracles and unusual events? Not necessarily. If the accounts were verified in many other sources, if the authors were well known to be reputable men that were eyewitnesses or had reliable sources, if they gave independent accounts that verified each other, if we had no reason to believe the documents were altered later, then, even though they seem implausible, we would need to consider the claim. But when we combine the doubtful nature of the sources, with the implausibility of the claims, it is natural to doubt them.

A seventh problem is that we do not know what was changed in the gospel texts after the original writing. The four gospels were apparently never widely distributed until more than 100 years after Christ, for other early documents seem to be unaware that the gospels existed. The gospels were apparently confined to a small group of communities during that time. What changes were made to them in that period? We do not know, and probably never will know. Could there have been major changes? I think so. We do not know who had custody of these books before the end of the second century. We do not know if any effort was made to keep them unaltered. But we have reasons to suspect that some people were changing them.

In fact, the book of Matthew appears to many to be a doctored version of the book of Mark. As we have seen, it contains much of the book of Mark with changes. In effect, Matthew took the liberty to rewrite the book of Mark as he saw fit. You may claim that God authorized him to do this. But how do you know he was authorized? And how do you know that other unauthorized people did not change Matthew or Mark later on? Perhaps they altered these books, and the originals did not survive. How can we be sure that the versions that were passed down to the church are correct?

cover

Evidence indicates that the New Testament as we know it differs from the original writings.

(click the book)

 

Several people have confronted me with the many available manuscripts of the New Testament, and have contended that these prove it is reliable. But they do not make the same claim about the supermarket tabloids. One could show thousands of copies of those tabloids. Does that prove they are true? No, of course not. If you make thousands of copies of false information, that information is still false. The multiple copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the Middle Ages. Thousands of copies from the Middle Ages mean nothing. The problem is with the period from 30 to 300 AD.  We don't know exactly who had custody of the documents during that time, and what changes they made. But the evidence indicates that considerable changes were made in that time period. By the fourth century, the Catholic Church hierarchy had gained centralized control and had great resources to pay for the continual copying of the version it preferred. The dominant church made thousands of copies of the winning manuscripts. The copies from the Middle Ages do not differ markedly from the copies we have found from the fourth century. But none of that has any bearing on the problem with the transmission of the text up to the fourth century, which is highly questionable.

What really happened? The gospel accounts were written too late by unknown authors with unknown sources, they conflict with known history and contradict each other, and they are often implausible. They were kept in unknown custody for years. Can you understand why some of us think they cannot be trusted as accurate history?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994)

Scott Oser

Disclaimer

This "FAQ", often referred to as the "Historicity of Jesus" FAQ, is neither exhaustive, nor does it attempt to answer the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really lived or not. In fact, in writing it I have purposely tried not to take sides on this issue. In order to do this, one should consider not only these texts, but also the canonical and non-canonical Christian texts, Jewish texts, and archeological evidence. In fact, one can be a completely orthodox Christian, perhaps even a fundamentalist, and agree with virtually everything in this document. The purpose of this document is to partially answer the question, "To what extent are the events described in the New Testament corroborated by contemporary non-Christian texts?" I argue that the answer to this question is "not much"--at the very best, some of the texts I consider support the proposition that Jesus existed and perhaps was executed by the Romans. They do not prove that he performed any miracles, rose from the dead, or did anything else ascribed to him in the New Testament. At worst, ancient texts tell us nothing new, and provide no independent support for the New Testament accounts. The question of whether the Christian sources even need independent confirmation is beyond the purview of this document--I do not argue for or against the accuracy of the New Testament accounts here.

References to Jesus of Nazareth in Ancient Non-Christian Literature

Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the writings of Josephus and on pagan writers. I have omitted discussion of references to Jesus in the Talmud and other Jewish religious writings, as well as the gnostic Christian texts. While these writings are themselves important, they tend to contradict New Testament accounts, and so are seldom cited by Christian apologists.

Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been changed by unscrupulous copyists. Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in interpreting material.

A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For example, Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign. Likewise, Josephus' account of first century Palestine devotes much more attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.

Finally, some comment must be made on the issue of "independent confirmation". Even if a reference to Jesus in a text is authentic, and not a later Christian insertion, that text may not provide any new information. For instance, if a writer is merely repeating what he was told by Christians, who in turn derive their information from the New Testament, then the text in question does not provide independent confirmation of the New Testament, as the claims involved are ultimately derived from the NT. An example of what might constitute independent confirmation would be an eyewitness account by a non-Christian author, or an entry in a Roman legal document. These sources would presumably not be mere repetitions of what Christians believed to have happened, but instead might offer actual independent confirmation.

I am indebted to Michael Martin's "The Case Against Christianity" for much of the information presented here. While I disagree with some of Martin's conclusions, his work presents a starting point for consideration of the sources. I am particularly thankful to the following alt.atheism readers, who contributed both information and criticism of this work: Geoff Arnold, Ray Ingles, Jeff LowderJames LippardJim Perryemail removedemail removedemail removed, and email removed. Any errors in this text are mine, not theirs.

Scott Oser 
8/15/1994

 


 

Josephus and Jesus

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

  1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
  2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (email removed) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.

A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.

Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.

A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:

"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.

The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

  1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
  2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.

Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.

More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:

  1. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
  2. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
  3. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

 


 

Tacitus and Jesus

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

  1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
  2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.


Suetonius and Jesus

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)

Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:

  1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
  2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
  3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.

Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.


Thallus and Jesus

In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.


Pliny the Younger and Jesus

Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

(by Dennis R. MacDonald; Yale University, 2000)

by

Richard Carrier

 


 

An Incredible Book

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means "Savior"). When I first heard of this I assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far-tantalizing, but inconclusive. What I found was exactly the opposite. MacDonald's case is thorough, and though many of his points are not as conclusive as he makes them out to be, when taken as a cumulative whole the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied. And being a skeptic to the thick, I would never say this lightly. Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself.

 

Background and Purpose of Mark

MacDonald begins by describing what scholars of antiquity take for granted: anyone who learned to write Greek in the ancient world learned from Homer. Homer wasthe textbook. Students were taught to imitate Homer, even when writing on other subjects, or to rewrite passages of Homer in prose, using different vocabulary. Thus, we can know for certain that the author of Mark's Gospel was thoroughly familiar with the works of Homer and well-trained in recasting Homeric verse into new prose tales. The status of Homer in basic education remained throughout antiquity, despite the fact that popular and intellectual sentiment had been sternly against the ethics and theology of his epics since the age of Classical Greece. Authors from Plato (400 b.c.e) to Plutarch (c. 100 c.e.) sought to resolve this problem by "reinterpreting" Homer as allegory, or by expunging or avoiding offensive passages, neither of which was a perfect solution.

For the Latin language, the opportunity was afforded for Virgil to solve this problem by recasting the Homeric epic into Roman form, exhibiting Roman ideals and creating more virtuous heroes and gods. Likewise, borrowing and recasting from Homer is evident in numerous works of fiction, which often had a religious flavor, and were proliferating in the very same period as the Gospels. One prominent example (mentioned but not emphasized by MacDonald) is the Satyricon of Petronius, which can be decisively dated prior to 66 A.D. and thus is most likely earlier than any known Gospel, and since this novel was in Latin (and a satire), it is almost certain that many undatable Greek novels, which surely originated the form, long precede this. So rewriting Homer to depict new religious ideas and values was a standard phenomenon. In MacDonald's words, "Homer was in the air that Mark's readers breathed" (p. 8), and all the more so among Mark's Gentile audience. But to smartly recast Homer into a new Greek form, reflecting contemporary Graeco-Jewish ideals, was a task simply waiting to be done. If MacDonald is right, this is what Mark set out to do. So much is clear: the motive, ability, and inspiration were certainly present, and MacDonald rapidly presents all the evidence, backing it up with copious and scholarly endnotes in chapter 1.

Why? In MacDonald's words, Mark "thoroughly, cleverly, and strategically emulated" stories in Homer and the Old Testament, merging two great cultural classics, in order "to depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus" (p. 6), and hence "the earliest evangelist was not writing a historical biography, as many interpreters suppose, but a novel, a prose anti-epic of sorts" (p. 7). In particular, the differences between Mark and Homer need no explanation: the differences are the point, the very objective of the later author. Some of those differences are also the obvious result of a change of scene from the ancient Mediterranean to near-contemporary, Roman-occupied Judaea, or of literary borrowing from Jewish texts. Some may reflect some sort of traditional or historical core story, though it is almost impossible to tell when. Instead, it is the similarities that "cry out for explanation," and contemporary apologists must now begin to address this issue.

Of particular use, for all those who want to develop (or attack) theories of literary borrowing-in the Gospels or elsewhere-is the set of six criteria for identifying textual influence outlined by MacDonald at the end of his first chapter, and demonstrated quite effectively on a passage in Acts. Though no one of these criteria alone carries very much weight, the more criteria that are met in a single instance, the stronger the case. However, one caveat MacDonald does not provide is in regard to his criterion of order. In many cases, matching sequences of passages or themes is indeed significant. However, some cases of matching sequence are such that any other sequence would be logically impossible. Therefore, correlation of this kind can in some cases be coincidence. Nevertheless, even engaging this caution, the sequential evidence MacDonald presents is very often, taken as a whole, not coincidental. Likewise, it should be known that much of Mark's use of Homer is to shape and detail an otherwise non-Homeric story, and the task of deciding what that core story is, or whether this core story in any given case is a Biblical emulation, or a historical fact, or a legend, or something of the author's deliberate creation, or any combination thereof, is not something MacDonald even intends to undertake in this book, although he makes some suggestions in his concluding paragraphs.

 

Modeling Odysseus

The Odyssey is rife with the theme of the suffering hero, and MacDonald builds a solid case in chapter 2 for the philosophical veneration of Odysseus as the best example of a man. If Jesus could be made to one-up and even replace Odysseus, Mark would achieve a literary and moral coup. And there are in the overall story obvious if not overly-telling similarities: "Both [men] faced supernatural opposition....Each traveled with companions unable to endure the hardships of the journey, and each returned to a home infested with rivals who would attempt to kill him as soon as they recognized him," and "both heroes returned from Hades alive" (p. 17). Some parallels are a little more startling but less significant to the historian than to the literary critic: the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12:1-12), and the passage capturing the famous phrase "for you do not know when the master of the house will come" (Mk. 13:34-5), both evoke the image of Odysseus returning in disguise to surprise the suitors who have turned his house into a den of sin (MacDonald develops this theme further in chapter 5, and again in chapter 14, and in the conclusion). Do not be like them, Mark is saying to his readers. But of course Jesus himself could have said that, intending the very same allusion. Examples like these can make good material for sermons, and serve well the connoisseurs of visionary prose, yet don't really prove whether Mark has himself deliberately crafted the story. But in conjunction with what follows, this becomes part of a cumulative case for Mark's inversion of Homer.

Who knew, for instance, that Odysseus was also a carpenter? The companions are another general link with the Odyssey. MacDonald points out how Mark is the harshest evangelist in his treatment of the disciples, while the others sometimes go out of their way to omit or alter this disparagement when they borrow from Mark. Why were the disciples such embarrassing nitwits, "greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish" (p. 20)? As history, it is hardly credible. As a play on Homer, it makes perfect sense: for the companions of Odysseus were exactly like this. Homer cleverly employed the ineptitudes of the crew to highlight the virtues of Odysseus, making him appear even more the hero, enhancing his "wisdom, courage, and self-control" (p. 23). MacDonald briefly explores five other general similarities between the two "entourages" in chapter 3, including the fact that in the one story we have sailors, while in the other, fishermen-who do a lot of going about in boats, even though the vast majority of Judaea is dry land.

Chief among these similarities is the comparison between Peter and Eurylochus. Both spoke on behalf of all the followers, both challenged the "doomsday predictions" of their master to their own peril, both were accused by their leader of being under the influence of an evil demon, and both "broke their vows to the hero in the face of suffering"-in effect, both "represent[ed] the craven attitude toward life" (p. 22-3). Again, this could be a mere veneer woven through an otherwise true story by Mark, and some of MacDonald's ideas (such as developed in chapter 4) are intriguing but too weak to do much with. But it is true that both epics announce from the start a focus on a single individual, both center on a king and his son reestablishing authority over a kingdom, both involve an inordinate amount of events and travel at sea. Both works begin by summoning their own Muse: Homer, the Muse herself; Mark, the Prophet Isaiah. In both stories, the son's patrimony is confirmed by a god in the form of a bird, and this confirmation prepares the hero to face an enemy in the very next scene: Telemachus, the suitors; Jesus, Satan. And eventually the odd links keep accumulating, and compel one to question the whole thing.

 

Stark Examples

"Once the evangelist linked the sufferings of Jesus to those of Odysseus, he found in the epic a reservoir of landscapes, characterizations, type-scenes, and plot devices useful for crafting his narrative" (p. 19). Of course, all throughout MacDonald points out coinciding parallels with the Old Testament and other Jewish literature, but even these parallels have been molded according to a Homeric model in every case he examines. Consider two of the many mysteries MacDonald's theory explains, and these are even among the weakest parallels that he identifies in the book:

  • Why do the chief priests need Judas to identify Jesus in order to arrest him? This makes absolutely no sense, since many of their number had debated him in person, and his face, after a triumphal entry and a violent tirade in the temple square, could hardly have been more public. But MacDonald's theory that Judas is a type of Melanthius solves this puzzle: Melanthius is the servant who betrays Odysseus and even fetches arms for the suitors to fight Odysseus-just as Judas brings armed guards to arrest Jesus-and since none of the suitors knew Odysseus, it required Melanthius to finally identify him. MacDonald also develops several points of comparison between the suitors and the Jewish authorities. Thus, this theme of "recognition" stayed in the story even at the cost of self-contradiction. Of note is the fact that Homer names Melanthius with a literary point in mind: for his name means "The Black One," whereas Mark seems to be maligning the Jews by associating Melanthius with Judas, whose name is simply "Judah," i.e. the kingdom of the Jews, after which the Jews as a people, and the region of Judaea, were named. 

  • Why does Pilate agree to free a prisoner as if it were a tradition to do so? Such a practice could hardly have been approved by Rome, since any popular rebel leader who happened to be in custody during the festival would always escape justice. And given Pilate's reputation for callous ruthlessness and disregard for Jewish interests, it is most implausible to have him participating in such a self-defeating tradition-a tradition for which there is no other evidence of any kind, not even a precedent or similar practice elsewhere. But if Barabbas is understood as the type of Irus, Odysseus' panhandling competitor in the hall of the suitors, the story makes sense as a clever fiction. Both Irus and Barabbas were scoundrels, both were competing with the story's hero for the attention of the enemy (the suitors in one case, the Jews in the other), and both are symbolic of the enemy's culpability.

Of course, Barabbas means "son of the father," and thus is an obvious pun on Christ himself. He also represents the violent revolutionary, as opposed to the very different kind of savior in Jesus (the real "Savior"). On the other hand, Irus was a nickname derived from a goddess (Iris), and MacDonald fails to point out that her name means "rainbow," which to Mark would have meant the sign from God that there would never again be a flood (Ge. 9:12-13). Moreover, Irus' real name was Arnaeus, "the Lamb."  What more perfect model for Mark? The Jews thus choose the wrong "son of the father" who represents the Old Covenant (symbolized by the rainbow, and represented by the ideal of the military messiah freeing Israel), as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9). MacDonald's own analysis is actually confirmed by this additional parallel that he missed, and that is impressive.

MacDonald goes on to develop many similar points that not only scream of Homer being on Mark's mind, but also explain strange features of Mark. The list is surprisingly long:

Why did Jesus, who nevertheless taught openly and performed miracles everywhere, try to keep everything a secret? Why did Jesus stay asleep in a boat during a deadly storm? Why did Jesus drown two thousand pigs? Why does Mark invent a false story about John the Baptist's execution, one that implicates women? Why are the disciples surprised that Jesus can multiply food even when they had already seen him do it before? Why does Jesus curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season? How does Mark know what Jesus said when he was alone at Gethsemane? What is the meaning of the mysterious naked boy at Jesus' arrest? Why does Jesus, knowing full well God's plan, still ask why God forsook him on the cross? Why does Mark never once mention Mary Magdalene, or the other two women at the crucifixion, or even Joseph of Arimathea, until after Jesus has died? Why is the temple veil specifically torn "top to bottom" at Jesus' death? Why is Joseph of Arimathea able to procure the body of a convict so soon from Pilate? Why do we never hear of Joseph of Arimathea again?  Why does Jesus die so quickly? Why do the women go to anoint Jesus after he is buried? Why do they go at dawn, rather than the previous night when the Sabbath had already ended?

All these mysteries are explained by the same, single thesis. This is a sign of a good theory. With one theoretical concept, not only countless parallels are identified, but numerous oddities are explained. That is very unlikely to be due to chance. And there is evidence of so many plausible connections, that even though any one of them could perhaps with effort be argued away, the fact that there are so many more makes it increasingly unlikely that MacDonald is seeing an illusion. Finally, his entire theory is plausible within the context of what we can deduce to have been Mark's cultural and educational background.

 

Crescendo of Doom

MacDonald's book is built like a crescendo: as one reads on, the cases not only accumulate, they actually get better and better, clearer and clearer. In the story of the Gerasene swine (Mk. 5:1ff.) MacDonald finds that 18 verses have thematic parallels in the Odyssey, 13 of those in exactly the same order! And even with some of those out of order the order is not random but is inverted, and thus a connection remains evident. In the story of Salome and the execution of John, MacDonald finds seven thematic parallels with the Murder of Agamemnon, all of them in the same order, and on top of that he details two other general parallels. And the two food miracles, forming a doublet in Mark, contain details that match a similar doublet of feasts in the Odyssey, and contain them in the same respective order: "Details in the [first] story of Nestor's feast not found in the [second] story of Menelaus appear in the [first] feeding of the five thousand and not in its twin," while, "details in the [second] story of Menelaus not found in the [first] story of Nestor appear in the [second] feeding of the four thousand and not in the first story," so that "the chances of these correspondences deriving from accident are slim" (p. 85).

These examples of a connection between Mark and Homer are far more dense than the two examples I detailed earlier, and cannot be explained away even by the most agile of thinkers. Consider the last case, which even has the fewest parallels relative to the other two: in the first feasts, the main characters go by sea, but in the second, by land; in the first, only men attend (even though there is no explanation in Mark of why this should be), but in the second there is no distinction; in the first, the masses assemble into smaller groups, and lie on soft spots, but not in the second; more attend the first than the second (and the numbers are about the same: 5000 in Mark, 4500 in Homer). On the other hand, in the second feasts, unlike the first, someone asks the host a discouraging question and yet the host shows compassion anyway-in Mark, this is particularly strange, since after the first miracle the disciples have no excuse to be surprised that Jesus can multiply food, so the doubting question can only be explained by the Homeric parallel; finally, in the second feasts, as opposed to the first, there are two sequential courses-bread, then meat. In both authors, the feasts serve an overt educational role: in the one case to educate the hero's son about hospitality, in the other to educate the disciples about Jesus' power and compassion, drawing attention to the difference in each story's moral values. There are even linguistic parallels-Homer's feasts were called "symposia" (drinking parties) even though that word usually referred to smaller gatherings; likewise, Mark writes that the first feast was organized by "symposia," despite the fact that only food is mentioned, not water or wine. Several of these details in Mark, as noted, are simply odd by themselves, yet make perfect sense when we see the Homeric model, and therein again lies the power of MacDonald's thesis.

MacDonald does similar work illuminating the Transfiguration, the healing of Bartimaeus, the Hydropatesis (water-walk), the Marcan Apocalypse, the Triumphal Entry, the Anointing, the Passover Feast (including a definite connection with cannibalism that offers a possible ideological origin for the Eucharist as a transvaluation of Homer), the Prayer and Arrest at Gethsemane, the Crucifixion, the Burial, and some details of the Empty Tomb narrative. His theory provides an excellent reason to suppose that the naked boy at Jesus' arrest is the same as the boy the women find in the empty tomb-and he is a marker of resurrection: a type of the ill-fated Elpenor. Likewise, his theory puts a serious damper on the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea and the burial account in Mark: Joseph is a type of Priam, who rescued the body of Hector for burial in a similar way.

What I found additionally worthwhile is how MacDonald's theory illuminates the theme of "reversal of expectation" which so thoroughly characterizes the Gospels-not only in the parables of Jesus, where the theme is obvious, but in the very story itself. Though MacDonald himself does not pursue this in any detail, his book helped me to see it even more clearly. James and John, who ask to sit at the right and left of Jesus in his glory, are replaced by the two thieves at Jesus' crucifixion; Simon Peter, Jesus's right-hand man who was told he had to "deny himself and take up his cross and follow" (8:34), is replaced by Simon of Cyrene when it comes time to truly bear the cross; Jesus is anointed for burial before he dies; and when the women go to anoint him after his death, their expectations are reversed in finding his body missing. Later Gospels added even more of these reversals: for instance in Matthew Jesus' father, Joseph, is replaced by Joseph of Arimathea when the duty of burial arose-a duty that should have been fulfilled by the father; likewise, contrary to expectation, the Mary who laments his death and visits his tomb is not Mary his mother, but a prostitute; and while the Jews attack Jesus for healing and doing good on the Sabbath, they in turn hold an illegal meeting, set an illegal guard, and plot evil on the Sabbath, and then break the ninth commandment the next day. This theme occurs far too often to have been in every case historical, and its didactic meaning is made clear in the very parables of reversal told by Jesus himself, as well as, for instance, his teachings about family, or hypocrisy, and so on. These stories were crafted to show that what Jesus preached applied to the real world, real events, "the word made flesh."

 

Death and Resurrection

MacDonald's book concludes with an analysis of how Jesus as a character in Mark is also an inversion of Hector and Achilles in the Iliad. Both Jesus and Achilles knew they were fated to die and spoke of this fate often, but whereas Achilles chose his fate in exchange for "eternal fame," and for himself alone, Jesus chose it in exchange for "eternal life," for all humankind. This is one among many examples of how Mark has updated the values in Homer, highlighting this fact by crafting his narrative in deliberate imitation of Homer's epics. In a similar fashion, while the death of Hector doomed Troy to destruction, Jesus' death doomed the Temple to destruction. According to MacDonald, these themes and others guide Mark's construction of the passion narrative, and though borrowing from the Old Testament and other Jewish texts in the passion account is far more prevalent than anywhere else in his Gospel, there is still a play on the Iliad evident in various details.

For example, MacDonald finds more than 11 parallels between Mark's account of the crucifixion and the death of Hector, all but one of those in the same order (and that one exception is in inverted order), and 11 more parallels between Mark's account of the burial of Jesus and Homer's account of the burial of Hector, all in the same order. It is notable that resurrection, anastasia, was a theme in the Iliad: the concept appears three times, twice in declarations of its impossibility, once in a metaphor for Hector's survival of certain death. It thus contained a fitting challenge that Mark was happy to answer with a simple prose epic that everywhere flaunted the fact that anastasia was indeed possible, and real. While Hector, Elpenor, and Patroclus were all burned and buried at dawn, the tomb of Jesus was empty at dawn; while the Iliad and Odyssey were epics about mortality, the Gospel was an epic about immortality.

 

The Ending of Mark

I have one point of criticism for chapter 21, where MacDonald diverges from his central thesis to explain why Mark ends his Gospel as he does. MacDonald proposes an explanation from the historical context of the author. It is quite likely that many Christians were killed, and the original Jerusalem church destroyed, in the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. MacDonald in several places relates how Mark most likely wrote his Gospel after the conclusion of the war (there are, to be sure, ample references that assume this, as well as that the world would end soon thereafter-cf. especially MacDonald's third appendix). So Mark, MacDonald argues, was faced with explaining why Jesus had not forewarned his disciples to evacuate Judaea. Mark's explanation, so the theory goes, is that Jesus did warn them, but they never heard the warning-in particular, they were supposed to go to Galilee after the resurrection to see Jesus, but the women failed to report this to the disciples and so they never went (and this tactic also allows the disciples to get off the hook: those at fault were mere fickle women).

The problem with this theory should be obvious: it is not the fact that it fails to explain how Mark could know the story if no one told it-for this did not stop him from relating what Jesus said in private when no witnesses were at hand, nor did it stop Matthew from relating secret conversations of the Jews; rather, the problem is that it fails to explain how Christianity started. Even assuming Mark is inventing this account apologetically, how did Mark imagine that the resurrection ever began to be preached if no one was ever told about the empty tomb and no one saw the risen Jesus, even in visions or dreams? Since the earliest accounts, in Paul, clearly suggest post mortem sightings of Jesus, and even tie these to the origin of the Gospel itself (and I have in mind the revelation to Paul mentioned in Galatians, and the visions to Peter and the others mentioned in 1 Corinthians), it does not seem plausible for Mark to expect his readers to reject this tradition, as would be required for his alleged hidden point even to be noticed, much less understood. I thus cannot buy MacDonald's theory on this point.

My own hypothesis is that Mark ended the Gospel thus in order to set up a pretext for why little of his particular story had been heard in the Christian community until he wrote it down. If we suppose that the resurrection as preached by Paul was of a spiritual nature, and therefore had nothing to do with empty tombs, then to suddenly disseminate such a story would raise eyebrows unless the author were ready with an explanation. And by building an explanation into his story he essentially covers himself. It is possible that Mark originally concluded his tale with an assertion that the women later reported the story to him, an ending that would be struck out and replaced to suit the new physicalist Christology that would follow, as well as in support of the new reliance on apostolic authority which seems never to have been a concern for Mark. But it is also possible that this would not have mattered. The faithful would not necessarily be too bothered about Mark's sources, since Revelation itself could always provide (in his letter to the Galatians, Paul himself claimed he learned the Gospel through direct revelation from God). Even if they were to ask, Mark or the sellers of his story could easily have provided persuasive oral explanations to satisfy any believer, who would be more than ready to believe anything that agreed with their values and doctrine and glorified and magnified the power of their beloved Lord. Ultimately, if Mark invented the empty tomb, he may also have inadvertently caused the invention of a physical resurrection-since an empty tomb, though meant as a symbol, if taken as a fact could imply a physical resurrection, leaving room for future evangelists to spin the yarn further still.

 

Conclusion

What is especially impressive is the vast quantity of cases of direct and indirect borrowing from Homer that can be found in Mark. One or two would be interesting, several would be significant. But we are presented with countless examples, and this is as cumulative as a case can get. In the end, I came away from this book with a new appreciation for Mark, whose Gospel tends to be derided as the work of a rather poor, simple Greek author. Though Mark's Greek is extremely colloquial, not at all in high literary style, this itself is surely a grand and ingenious transvaluation of Homer: whereas the great epics were archaic and difficult, only to be mastered by the educated elites, only to be understood completely by those with access to glossaries and commentaries and marked-up critical editions, Mark not only updated Homer's values and theology, but inverted its entire character as an elite masterpiece, by making his own epic simple, thoroughly understandable by the common, the poor, the masses, and lacking in the overt pretension and cleverness of poetic verse, written in plain, ordinary language. The scope of genius evident in Mark's reconstruction of Homeric motifs is undeniable and has convinced me that Mark was no simpleton: he was a literary master, whose achievement is all the greater in his choice of idiom-his "poor Greek" was deliberate and artful, as was his story.

Another theme that becomes apparent throughout this book is how quickly Christians lost touch with this allegorical meaning. Even the other Evangelists, when borrowing from Mark, stripped out the key and telling details and thus obviously missed the point; and only one other author, that of the Acts of Andrew, did anything overtly comparable in comprehensively recrafting Homer. By itself, this might be evidence against such a meaning actually being in Mark. But the evidence that this meaning is present is overwhelming on its own terms, and we can only conclude of early Christian ignorance, instead, that the real origins and message of the earliest Christians was all but lost even to the second or third generation. By the time there was a church in a significant sense, Christianity had been radically changed by the throngs of its converts, and, amidst the din of outsiders who stole the reigns, the very essence of that original Church of Jerusalem faded, powerless to survive under the mass of superstition and arrogance.

Having read this book, I am now certain that the historicity of the Gospels and Acts is almost impossible to establish. The didactic objectives and methods of the authors have so clouded the truth with literary motifs and allusions and parabolic tales that we cannot know what is fact and what fiction. I do not believe that this entails that Jesus was a myth, however-and MacDonald himself is not a mythicist, but assumes that something of a historical Jesus lies behind the fictions of Mark. Although MacDonald's book could be used to contribute to a mythicist's case, everything this book proves about Mark is still compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real "miracle worker" in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol.

However, the inevitable conclusion is that we have all but lost this history forever. The Gospels can no longer support a rational belief in anything they allege to have occurred, at least not without external, unbiased corroboration, which we do not have for any of the essential, much less supernatural details of the story. And if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. What is important is not that this can be decisively proven-nothing can, as our information is too thin, too scarce, too unreliable to decisively prove anything about the origins of Christianity. What is important is that theories like Ellegård's can't be disproven, either-it is one among many distinctly possible accounts of what really happened at the dawn of Christianity, which MacDonald's book now makes even more plausible. And so long as it remains possible, even plausible, that the bulk of Mark is fiction, the contrary belief that it is fact can never be secure.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

The Languages and Dating of the Books of the Bible?

Question:: 
This question is in two parts: (1) What languages are the oldest copies of the books of the Bible found in, and (2) what language is it believed to be originally written in? I would also like to know why many different books of the bible were written in different languages originally.
Atheist Answer: 

I’ll do my best to answer your question as precisely (and concisely) as I can. It is said that historical and literary critical scholarship “is wissenshaft, not metaphysics.” That stands true for this article. I say that because these questions are not easy to answer and involve a little bit of scholarly elbow grease to really understand. First and foremost, there is no definitive answer to either of these questions (which we’ll get into), and all the information that we have is really evidence of how much we don’t know, not how much we know. So, when compiling the answers to these questions, scholars will generally be a little liberal with their speculations and more often then not they are answering with ‘Bible-colored glasses’—especially if you look at any monograph or historical critical book before the 1970’s. But, luckily for us and all literary critical and historical critical scholars everywhere, scholars finally started to remove those ‘Bible-colored glasses’ (See my new introduction to my book posted here).

Archaeological evidence and new methods of textual criticism has lead many scholars to reevaluate what they had originally thought about the dating and authorship of Biblical texts. For several hundred years, scholars had assumed the authenticity of the Bible narratives themselves, leading many to falsely assume that the original composition of the majority of the Bible was in Hebrew and Aramaic, leaving only the New Testament (for the most part) room to have been written in Koine, or common, Greek. But recently the authorship and composition dates have been challenged, and a new, more probable conclusion on these issues has led some scholars to question the composition language of the texts, most specifically in the Old Testament. Additionally, new finds at Qumran have allowed for a great deal of revisionist thinking on scribal methods and composition language. And finally, with fresh new perspectives on Diaspora life for both Jew and Gentile, these new revisionist ideas started to fit in more broadly to the conclusions of composition language, no longer allowing scholars (specifically on the conservative side) to take this vital subject for granted.

What is now being argued, specifically by the Copenhagen school, and the incredibly brilliant scholarship of Philip R. Davies, is that the original composition was not even in Hebrew, as was previous thought, but rather it was written in Greek. This revolutionary thinking is based on a lot of very fine research, and fits in quite well with the socio-cultural settings of Hellenistic Jews. Since we do not have any copies of the Old Testament, at least in the vein of a collected group of works such as the Torah, prior to the Hellenistic Age, and so many Jews during the Hellenistic period used the Septuagint, it leaves Davies conclusions in a very compelling position. It was assumed for a long time that the composition of the Greek Old Testament was ordered by a Greek King during the period to add to his extensive library, which is part of the reason many scholars in earlier decades believed that the Greek translation came later. But this story was eventually discovered to be a product of Jewish fiction. What we know from that period is that so many Jews wrote fictions (like the story above about the Greek King), and they did so writing them in true Hellenic fashion; that is, they wrote them in Greek.

To be clear, that is not to say that these traditions did not exist prior to the Hellenistic Age, Thomas Thompson has provided a good case for (and now the majority of Old Testament scholars agree) the dating of these traditions to the Persian period (538-323 BCE roughly), but up until the Hellenistic age, these stories were not compiled or written down. Because of the new government sponsored school systems called Gymnasium, many elite Jews and wealthy Jewish families who were politically sealed with the Greek rulers, were permitted (as citizens) to attend school and receive formal training in the art of literature composition, rhetoric, and philosophy. Part of this schooling was very dependant on using older narrative models to teach basic grammar. Using these literary models is a process called imitatio or imitation—a form of mimetic learning and eventually authorship. The foundational models used by practically all schools were the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. With these Greek epics, one can clearly see the parallels found in Old Testament literature, and why so many Hellenistic Jews played with this model when writing many of the dozens of pseudepigraphical and deuterocanonical books. Even Josephus and Philo play with the themes of this Greek model when writing their own ‘histories’ of the Patriarchs and other Old Testament figures.

So, with all of this in mind, the Torah, some of the Prophetic books, and many of the wisdom books were probably originally composed in Greek, and later adapted for Jewish settlements and villages in both the Greek polis’ and the chora (rural areas in Egypt), as well as other Diaspora settings where these settlements are not fully or mostly Hellenized and still communicated in Aramaic. There are perhaps some narratives that were originally composed in Hebrew, such as 1 Maccabees, Ester (although it seems more likely composed originally in Greek, the debate continues), Ecclesiastes (although some debate on this continues, the dating ranges from the fifth – third centuries BCE), and some of the prophetic books. Virtually all of the deuterocanonical books of the Hebrew Bible were not written in a Semitic language but rather in Greek.

Additionally, New Testament scholarship had for a very long time thought that the original composition of some of the Gospels (if not all of them) was in Aramaic, reflecting eyewitness authorship which no longer is assumed. Today, it is understood that the Gospels are not the works of eyewitnesses writing on historical events, but also literary creations composed by anonymous authors with very different motivations. The Gospel narratives, like many of the Old Testament literature, were written in Greek. All of Paul’s letters and the various pseudonymous epistles and Revelations were also written in Greek. And probably most of the Gnostic literature found at Nag Hammadi were also originally composed in Greek, and then later copied into Coptic – the language we currently have most of them in today (although some Greek fragments remain for some of them). The language adaptation of the texts reflects the adaptation of the interpretation by the authors of other narratives. It is all relative, and represents the times and culture of the day.

These phenomena may seem strange to those who believe the scriptures to have been authored by the names represented as their titles. But it is also important to keep in mind that there was no “canon” of scripture. The concept of “canon” was not yet developed, so the nature of reinterpretation, creation and development was not limited to what was considered “inspired” – it was all considered to be inspired. It was just not considered inspired by what churches today believe it to be. People wrote and rewrote the text in the language that reflected their communities. There was no “orthodoxy” of Jewish doctrine, that concept did not exist for another few hundred years. Even today I would hesitate to say there is one unified doctrine, especially in light of the hundreds of Abrahamic religious sects; from Judaism with its hundreds of sects, to Christianity with its tens of thousands of sects, with Islam and the interpretation of the Quran. There was never a ‘unified orthodoxy,’ nor will there be. Everyone interprets and copies the texts into their own languages, and still to this day interpret them based on their own understandings and their own communities needs, politics and demographics. This has always allowed for the continuation of redactions, reinterpretations and expressions of both ones faith and their religious texts.

In the end, it will depend greatly on the faithful to one day understand this fact, that there is no absolute answer, and there never was, and certainly the authors of the Bible didn’t believe there to be. The sooner those who believe understand this, the sooner we can all progress as a society.

The best,

Rook Hawkins



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

Claimed manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

Question:: 
Quoted from http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm. "...if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate...If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity...there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure...If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer...On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors..."
Atheist Answer: 

A falsehood doesn't become truth no matter how carefully it's preserved and distributed.

There are good reasons to place the reliability of the other writings above that of the New Testament. Among them is the fact that we generally know who the authors were (and in the case of Julius Caesar for instance, there are surviving contemporary likenesses of him on coins and statues). Another reason in some cases is the existence of other independent accounts of the same events written within thirty years of the events themselves. An obvious reason is the occurrence of physical events in the New Testament which cannot possibly be duplicated or tested today, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. (Most Christians, however, seem devoid of incredulity regarding these events, so this last reason isn't a great one to give believers.)

Setting all this aside, however, and assuming that accounts in the New Testament today are faithful to what its authors originally wrote, nothing prevents the accounts from having been false in the first place.

Sure enough, there are real places like Jerusalem and real people like Pontius Pilate. Forrest Gump met JFK in the White House, but that doesn't make Forrest Gump real.

The huge amount of surviving manuscripts is hardly surprising either. More than any secular historical document, the New Testament was made to be spread around. Even before the Gideons (and before hotel room drawers), there were groups and individuals who made the stories available to as many people as possible. The wording was critically important, as demonstrated by current theological debates over the meaning of single phrases or even words. Therefore accuracy was largely maintained, except when people intentionally skewed the meanings to suit them (for instance, in the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses).

In short, we have a book which huge numbers of people have seen as vitally important since before it was written. A book where every word is essential, a book everyone is meant to read. Its popularity flourished, its integrity was (mostly) safeguarded and it's still around today. Does that mean it contains the truth? No. It means we probably do know what some people really said happened 2000 years ago, and we still have to make up our own minds whether they were right.

- SmartLX



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

Did Jesus really exist?

Question:: 
What evidence is there to support that Jesus never existed? What about all the evidence Christian historians point to?
Atheist Answer: 

______________________________
First, I think it's important to understand the incredible amount of information one has to look over tediously before they can reach a conclusion of a historical or ahistorical nature. The truth is, I've been researching this subject for seven years and there are things I'm just starting to skim over now.

Now that that is out of the way, let's tackle your questions. You ask, "What evidence is there to support that Jesus never existed?" First and foremost, if you can provide me evidence to support that fairies don't exist, I'm all ears. One can't ask to disprove a negative, because there is nothing to disprove. One must look at the available evidence that already exists (or doesn't...as in this case) and determine if that evidence is sufficient to establish historicity.

To help you better understand this lets use an example given by Christians where they assume that we mythicists assume the historicity of somebody famous without evidence. Aristotle is usually totted around the most by some ignorant or misinformed person as having no contemporary evidence of his existence - as a standard if you will to suggest that Jesus should be considered to be on the same level of accepted historicity as Aristotle. However when comparing the list of evidences between the two, there is no compatibility. Here's a brief list of the differences between Aristotle and Jesus:

ARISTOTLE

  • 1. Facts about Aristotle’s life are not in question. We know when he was born, when he died (384-322 B.C.E), who his parents were, (Nicomachus – father – who was a physician to King Amyntas III, and Phaestis his mother) who his friends were and who his teacher was (Plato).
  • 2. Most importantly, over 45 works are attributed TO him, although some of those are said to be dictated by some of his students in one of his many schools which he taught at.
  • 3. Aristotle never claimed to be perfect, or a God, or even a son of a God. Nobody has a dogmatic philosophy on the life of Aristotle. If Aristotle didn’t exist, nobody’s world view would change.
  • 4. Aristotle changed the course of time, coming up with several new schools of thought, including new ways to look at math, science, philosophy, politics, and ethics. His original thoughts and views helped form and shape the politics of a world.
  • 5. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
  • 6. Every Greek philosopher and scientist throughout the ages has used Aristotle as a base for their works. Including Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus and Theophrastus. Even Aquinas used Aristotle.
  • 7. All of the information we have about Aristotle does not conflict with history.
  • 8. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Aristotle, because there is such a large amount of evidence for his existence, as well as nothing that conflicts with history and historical accounts of Aristotle and his life.

JESUS

  • 1. Jesus’ early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t have the year of his death. If you are claiming Jesus was just a man, of course nothing exists to prove a natural birth so this evidence is non-existent. We know nothing of his childhood, save at 12, and then he vanishes again. And we know his parents first names.
  • 2. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter.
  • 3. Jesus claimed to be all three of these attributes, and more. And over 33 million people around the world follow the idea that Jesus was these attributes and more. If Jesus was shown not to exist, his message would be lost and people would no longer be Christian (Because the definition of a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Messiah, that he died for our sins).
  • 4. None of Jesus’ supposed teachings are original. Justin Martyr also admits to Trypho that Jesus’ teachings and that of the Christians were documented earlier in the Greek philosophies of Aristotle (ironically), Socrates, and Plato. All of the teachings of Jesus can be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. In John 1:1, a similar passage can be found in Heraclitus.
  • 5. No major figure in History ever had direct contact with Jesus. No historical commentary about any major figure in history ever places them near or around Jesus in any fashion. In all the volumes of Josephus, never once does it state that Herod murdered a great multitude of infants at the birth of some savior figure. Nor does it state anywhere that Pilate killed Jesus in any Roman record.
  • 6. No great work of science or philosophy ever came from Jesus, or one of Jesus’ followers. All are void of intelligent thought, and contain evidence of following in the footsteps of servitude.
  • 7. In the trial alone of Jesus, there contains anywhere from 14-27 infractions of Sanhedrin and Roman law. This does not include a large sum of historical contradictions outside of the trial, which traverse into the hundreds.
  • 8. In every aspect of Christ’s supposed life, there is reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible, but concerning the utter lack of evidence concerning the events of his life.

And this is not the half of it. Aristotle not only wrote tomes of prose in his time, by his own hand, but also contemporary accounts exist of Aristotle. As Richard Carrier states on Aristotles contemporary accounts, "There is one fragmentary inscription dedicated to Aristotle still extant at Delphi that I believe was erected in his lifetime. We have substantial portions of the Elements of Harmonics by Aristoxenus, a contemporary of Aristotle, which mentions him briefly. Anaximenes of Lampsacus (not the presocratic of the same name), also a contemporary, wrote an Art of Rhetoric that survives, and it addresses Aristotle. Theophrastus was his pupil and contemporary and we have some few of his writings, but I don't know off hand if they mention Aristotle by name. Isocrates was his contemporary and sometimes opponent and he may have mentioned him, too, but again I can't say for sure if he ever actually names him in extant works. There was certainly a great deal of contemporary writing about Aristotle, but as far as I know little to none was preserved, except in later sources. TLG shows a few hundred contemporary, named references to Aristotle, which are cited or quoted by later authors." Carrier also suggested a book, "Lloyd's book "Aristotle" would probably say what else there is."

This is vital because we have NO accounts of contemporary evidence for Jesus. None. The earliest extant manuscripts for Jesus date to Paul, thirty years after Jesus supposedly died, written by a man who never met Jesus, knows nothing about him, or about any of his deeds, or miracles or speeches. Paul doesn't attribute any words to Jesus nor does he seem to - in any fashion - refer to Jesus in a physical, literal sense.

After Paul, we have a forty year gap of nothingness. At the very end of the first century CE, we have rumors (just rumors) of hearsay about a being Jesus. The earliest Gospel fragment we possess is the P52 fragment, and it's barely a scrap of parchment from what appears to be John. But it's too weak a source to use to compare. That is it. And when is this P52 fragment from? 130 CE and no earlier. That's a hundred years after the supposed death of Christ. Now here's the funny part, we have works from Aristotle that survived from 500 years before THAT, and yet we can't find one contemporary account of a man who is said to have walked on water, and preformed all these miracles, or even rose from the dead?

I hope that helps you understand a little bit as to the problems associated with the question of whether there can be a way to disprove a negative, and also with understanding what sorts of evidence is looked for when trying to determine historicity. Your second question is far easier to answer, as I have already written extensively on the subject.

At this link HERE you will find all you need to know about the supposed evidences for Jesus and why they hold no water. You can ALSO check out THIS LINK for additional information on the Mythicist position and the case against a historical Christ.

Oh, by the way....welcome to the campaign.

In Rationality,

Rook Hakwkins



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

The Bible and Archaeology

Question:: 
This is a somewhat detailed question and I do hope to find a satisfactory answer. I am new to atheism, having been an atheist for just over a year. I read a book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman called The Bible Unearthed that basically says that the stories in the Old Testament are mostly fiction. For example, they say there is no evidence for an Exodus from Egypt or the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua etc. Here is my question. The authors, for example say that the site for biblical Ai which fell to Joshua shows no evidence of destruction by Joshua and so it among other cities in Canaan were not destroyed by Joshua. Then Bryant Wood comes along and says they do show destruction and the site identified as biblical Ai by most archaeologists (Et-Tell) is not Ai, but another place Khirbet El-Maqatir is more likely Ai and shows evidence of destruction. Are most archaeologists looking in the wrong place? I mean, is there evidence that events like the Conquest of Canaan happened and archaeologists just weren't looking in the right spot? And what to make of this claim about Khirbet El-Maqatir being Ai, or Khirbet Nisya (made by Dr. Livingston I think) being Ai? Hope my question makes sense.
Atheist Answer: 

It's always possible that there is evidence for the events in the Bible which hasn't yet been found. That doesn't mean it's definitely out there, and the uncertainty does not imply a 50% chance either. Extraordinary claims demand lots of real evidence.

Bryant Wood is better known outside the apologist community for another claim he made in 1990. He dated the destruction of the ancient city of Jericho to a period which meant that part of the Biblical chronology is accurate.

He was up against another dating by revered archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. In the 1950s she placed it 150 years earlier. Wood's claims were immediately regarded as highly suspect, and eventually debunked completely by further discoveries in 1995. The evidence still supports Kenyon's date, which in turn supports the idea that the Old Testament is out of whack.

Wood's latest claim rejects the widely accepted site of Ai, Et-Tell, which was evidently completely unoccupied at the supposed time of its conquest, and substitutes another site where apparently there was a population and a battle around the right time. It's currently difficult to find any mention of this claim at all outside of religious books and websites, and even they are waiting for more evidence before really shouting about it.

If and when a full archaeological case for Khirbet El-Maqatir as Ai is presented for approval by the larger scientific community, other archaeologists will do their best to rip it to pieces. That's not because it's Bible-related, it's because they do that to everything. That's how they find out what truly stands up to scrutiny.

If in fact Khirbet El-Maqatir were generally accepted as Ai, and there was a battle when the Bible says there was, it would be a very general boost in credibility for the historical aspects of the Old Testament. However it wouldn't say a thing about who did the fighting, where the people went afterwards or whether God and his chosen marauders had anything to do with it. The hypothesis that the stories of conquest are mythology loosely based on real local events would likely be advanced as much as the probability of the Biblical account's veracity.

It remains to be seen whether Wood's new claim will get that far.

- SmartLX



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 24601
Date:
Permalink  
 

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.[32]
^ Fagan, Brian M., and Charlotte Beck, The Oxford Companion to Archeology, entry on the "Dead sea scrolls", Oxford University Press, 1996.


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard