Prophecy Historicized vs. History Prophesied
Secular Biblical scholarship is premised on the notion that
prophecy is simply not possible. Thus, if a Bible text contains a recognizable description of
events subsequent to the author's time, why, then, the putative author could not have written it.
Thus we hear of 'Deutero-Isaiah'; since Isaiah is a historic figure contemporary with
Hezekiah, remarks about Cyrus cannot have been written by him. How, after all, can Isaiah possibly
have known anything about Cyrus, a historical figure born centuries later?
Bible believers do not share this assumption. Indeed,
Isaiah marked out as the dividing line between the True God and the pagan nothings, that God knew, and
could communicate to man, the future: "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no
other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from
ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My
pleasure,'..." (Isaiah 46:9-10).
God foreknows not only what will happen, but everything
that could have happened but never did. It seems to be beyond human comprehension how He could
know an infinity of possible worlds, but when you look at scripture, it has to be that way.
First of all, He knows what will be: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of
the world." (Acts 15:18).
But not only that, He knows what might have happened...but didn't. For
instance, He answers David, "Then said David, O LORD God of Israel,
thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to
destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up
into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God
of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He
will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me
and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver
thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose
and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And
it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to
go forth." (1 Samuel 23:10-13; Matthew 11:21).
So God told David what people would do...except that they
didn't do it, because forewarned by the prophecy, David skipped town. So His foreknowledge is
so complete as to include those things which would have happened under other circumstances, but never
actually happened. He foreknows all events of all possible worlds.
We, finite creatures bound by time, are like a caterpillar crawling along a twig. Beneath
our myopic gaze lies one little segment; we can only guess at what lies ahead, and reminisce about
what lies behind. But God does not grovel along the twig; He sees the whole complete: the
"end from the beginning".
God's foreknowledge does not in and of itself constrain
anyone, any more than my perceiving that 'You are sitting in your arm chair' constrains you to sit in
the arm chair. To Him, the entire continuum of past, present and future lies open to gaze.
This is precisely what He foreknows, our freely chosen actions: "If then our freedom is
preserved, however vast the number of inclinations it has to virtue or to vice and, again, to what is
becoming or to what is unbecoming, it, along with everything else from creation and from the
foundation of the world will be known to God before it comes to be for what sort of freedom it will
be...And so, God's foreknowledge is not the cause of everything that will come to be, even of our
freedom when we are made active by our own impulse...But if God takes the order for the
governance of the universe from His foreknowledge, then all the more is our individual freedom useful
for the ordering of the world." (Origen, On Prayer, Part One, B. VI.3).
It's a free country, and scholars are certainly entitled
to reject the very possibility of God communicating future events to man. Great caution should be
exercised, however, to avoid circular 'arguments' in which conclusions about dating drawn from the
presupposition that prophecy is impossible are then used to rebut the possibility of prophecy; e.g.,
'Second Isaiah lived contemporaneously with the events he 'prophesied', therefore there is no such
thing as prophecy'. This begs the question, since the theory that there is such a party as
'Deutero-Isaiah' is premised upon the denial that prophecy is possible.
The assumption that prophecy is simply not possible is
indeed quite widespread in the world of unbelieving Bible scholarship; thus, so far at least the
authors are correct in saying, "The scholarship represented by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar is
the kind that has come to prevail in all the great universities of the world." (The Five Gospels, p. 35).
But wait -- the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar are fully
prepared to take it to the next level! Not only can prophets have no special insight into the
future, but actual historic events cannot correspond with prophesy even by
coincidence, nor by intent. So, the manner of Christ's entry into Jerusalem having
been prophesied, Jesus cannot have so entered Jerusalem, even though there's nothing supernatural
about it at all: "Entry into Jerusalem. The account of Jesus' entry
into Jerusalem is based on Zech 9:9 and Ps 118:26. The story was conceived to fit the prophecies."
(The Five Gospels, p. 228).
This seems to be a generalization of the principle, 'A
watched pot never boils.' It's the same type of magical thinking people employ when they say, 'It
didn't rain because I brought my umbrella'. It's as if my saying, 'The Yanks will win the
World Series', will 'jinx' them so that they cannot win the World
Series, though this otherwise is not an impossible nor a supernatural outcome. The Fellows of
the Jesus Seminar actually believe that, Christ's humble entry into Jerusalem having been prophesied,
He cannot have so entered Jerusalem...even though that's actually a more
economical alternative to entering the city on a richly caparisoned war-horse!
Brick by Brick
"The Fellows generally follow the rule: the simplest is the earliest."
(The Five Gospels, p. 63).
Secular Bible study starts from an evolutionary perspective
that would have gladdened the hearts of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. Grain by painful grain,
the trickling water wears away the stone, until inexorable uniform processes slowly produce visible
results. Thus the Fellows' rule, "the simplest is the earliest."
Even in the fields where that postulate originated, it's been superseded
by punctuated equilibrium, the gaps in the fossil record having proven
unbridgeable. And what business did it ever have in the field of
religious history, where new sects and movements spring forth like Athena
fully formed from the brow of Zeus! No such brick-laying process is observable
with those new sects whose origination is open to history. Did Mary
Baker Eddy first timidly propose that folks should pray about sprains;
then the successor generation, gaining boldness, recommended prayer for
the flu; finally producing the painfully won gains of the third generation,
commending prayer for cancer? Of course not; either you have the whole
project complete, or not at all. Who would even have paid attention
to a lady commending prayer for sprains?
The common historical perspective assumes a new sect is
built brick by brick, as a bricklayer would lay a course of bricks, one element at a time. This is
the reason they try to spread out the writing of the New Testament over as long a period as
possible; to give themselves the several generations which correlate with the vast ages of
Lyell and Darwin.
But what evidence is there that it ever works this way? The
'prophet' Elijah Muhammad made the bold claim that Wallace D. Fard was Allah walking around on the
street. Such a bold claim must have taken several generations to work up to, right? Well, no;
Fard himself made that claim: "On Wednesday morning, November 23, Fard was apprehended while
leaving his hotel room at 1 West Jefferson Street...According to police and press transcripts,
Fard identified himself as the 'supreme being on earth' and claimed responsibility for starting the
Nation of Islam, assisted by Ugan Ali, who was also arrested." (An Original Man: the Life and Times of
Elijah Muhammad, Claude Andrew Clegg III, p. 31). Far from advancing Elijah Muhammad's more
esoteric teachings after his death, the sect he founded made a lunge for the Islamic mainstream
under his son's leadership.
Is there any reason why the Holy Spirit cannot be as bold and quick as His imitators?
Cynicism
"Jesus appears to have much in common with the Cynic teachers who wandered
about in the ancient world, offering their sage advice." (p. 317).
Everything old is new again, they say. But to those who love the Lord,
it's less than obvious that He has "much" in common with Cynics like Diogenes: "Diogenes was a
primitivist: happiness, he taught, means 'living according to Nature' -- that is, satisfying one's
simplest 'natural' wants in the simplest manner. Desire for anything beyond the minimal bodily
satisfactions should be condemned as 'unnatural'; so, too, should any convention that inhibits the
satisfaction of the basic requirements...Diogenes conveyed his principles by bon-mots and drastic
action (for example, by masturbating in public to show how simply one's sexual desires can be
satisfied)." (Anthony Flew, A Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 82). Perhaps the 'Fellows'
understand the Cynics to have been hippies, and thus soul-mates to their "party animal" Jesus.
Jesus inculcated piety toward God: "Jesus answered him, 'The first
of all the commandments is: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the
LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."'"
(Mark 12:29). The Cynics distrusted and even mocked the gods, whom they
assumed to be plural:
"It was a proper answer, then, that Antisthenes used to give them when they
asked alms of him: 'I do not support the mother of the gods; that is the gods' business.'"
(Antisthenes, Frag. 70 Mullach, Frag. phil. Graec. ii., p. 169 Loeb Edition, Clement of Alexandria).
"Diogenes the Cynic used to say of Harpalus, one of the most
fortunate villains of his time, that the constant prosperity of such a man was a kind of witness
against the Gods." (Cicero, Of the Nature of the Gods, Book III, XXXIV).
When someone drew Diogenes the Cynic's attention to the votive offerings
at Samothrace, his reply called into question the religious enterprise itself:
"When some one expressed astonishment at the votive offerings in Samothrace, his comment
was, 'There would have been far more, if those who were not saved had set up offerings.'" (Diogenes Laertius, Lives
of the Eminent Philosophers, Book VI, Chapter 2, 59)
Diogenes Laertius also reports that his Cynic namesake "advocated
community of wives" and "saw no impropriety" in "stealing
anything from a temple." (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent
Philosophers, Book VI, Chapter 2, 72-73). So here we have a 'Jesus' domesticated
for modern times, a truly modern 'Jesus' who mocks religion.
I am He
"In addition, these are I-sayings, which most of the
Fellows doubt can be attributed to Jesus: it was uncharacteristic of him to speak of himself in the
first person." (p. 343).
Thus the 'Fellows'. But to go by the recollection of Jesus'
own followers, He just couldn't stop with the "I-sayings": "You are of this world, I am not of
this world. I told you that you will die in your
sins; for if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your
sins." (John 8:24). Oh, but Jesus did not say that. And what is the evidence that Jesus did
not say that? Because it's an "I-saying", and "I-sayings" are "uncharacteristic" of Jesus.
The proof that "I-sayings" are "uncharacteristic" of Jesus is, of course, the fact
that He did not actually say all the mass of "I-sayings" reported of Him...as may be proven by
the fact that "I-sayings" are "uncharacteristic" of Him.
Harmony
"Luke invents new words for Jesus to say: 'Go and prepare the Passover so we
may eat.' This is irrefragable evidence that the evangelists do not hesitate to create words for
Jesus to speak in their narratives." (p. 387).
Skeptics find a 'Bible contradiction' wherever one author
reports Jesus as speaking words not recorded by another. A 'newspaper contradiction' of like
type might be found if, say, one paper reports Mr. Lincoln as having said, on the occasion of the
Battle of Gettysburg, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any
nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." But a rival paper runs the quote,
"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate -- we
cannot consecrate -- we cannot hallow -- this ground." Since this blatant contradiction
cannot be resolved, we are forced to conclude that Mr. Lincoln was a fictional character.
Book Market
In our contemporary book market, reminiscences by insiders are at at premium.
If I sat down and penned a book, 'The Lady Diana I Never Knew,' how likely
would I be to find a publisher? Since I never made Princess Diana's acquaintance,
I'd not have many personal anecdotes to offer the public. Biographies are
mostly written, nowadays, either by those with first-hand information about
the subject, or by professional biographers and historians thought competent
to tackle the job of sifting through the first-hand accounts.
To hear it from the 'Jesus Seminar', you'd think the ancient book market
worked in reverse. They claim the gospels were penned by people who'd never
met the Lord, nor knew anyone who did. But I can find no evidence that
the ancient book market worked any differently than does the modern in
this regard. The books about Alexander the Great were written by a.) insiders,
or b.) professional historians. Although the ancient book market was not
structured the same way economically as our own, writing a widely-read
book opened income opportunities for an author then just as now. No one
then wanted to read 'The Alexander I Never Knew,' just as no one now wants
to read 'The Diana I Never Knew.'
Very early in the second century Pliny is reporting a wide diffusion of the Christian faith: "The contagion
of that superstition has penetrated not only the cities but also the villages and country places..." (Pliny the
Younger, letter to Trajan). So there must have been a demand while the eye-witness generation was yet alive for first-hand
accounts, which were as valued in the ancient world as today. And unless 'the historical Jesus' lived alone in a cave, there
must have been people who could meet the public's demand for speakers offering first-hand reminiscences of His life.
What would stop his inner circle from availing themselves of these opportunities? Surely the apostles were not
motivated by greed in setting out on the speaking circuit; these brave men were faithful unto death, leaving no doubt
as to the purity of their motives. Nevertheless it would have taken considerable self-denial for them to choose fishing instead.
Why would these men have chosen to remain toiling at difficult and demanding physical occupations when the main chance came their
way? They brought to market just what the public wanted: first-hand accounts of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet the Jesus Seminar insists that no such accounts were ever offered to
the eager public, only accounts by people who did not know the Lord and
knew no one who had. Did the profit motive not operate in antiquity?
When Paul talked with Peter, what are they likely to have talked about
but the Lord? They can't have argued all the time: "But when Peter
was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed." (Galatians 2:11). That letter was written before any of our
four gospels was penned; some of Paul's letters are among the earliest
documents in the New Testament. Perhaps it's from Peter that Paul knew
of sayings of the Lord not recorded in our gospels, like "I have showed
you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, and
to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed
to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35).
When Paul's traveling companion Luke is preparing his gospel, he already
has access to "many" written sources: "Since many have undertaken
to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among
us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word..." (Luke 1:1).
Ancient authors talk about a book market: "He [Zeno] went up into
Athens and sat down in a bookseller's shop, being then a man of thirty."
(Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, Volume II, Book
VII, Chapter 1, 2). But modern secular Bible scholars have ascertained
that there was no ancient book market...because most everyone was illiterate!
Is this what the classical authors themselves say?
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Secular historians take denial of any possibility of
supernatural occurrences as starting premise for doing history. This has long been proposed as
the correct starting premise, not a conclusion derived
from the study of history: "In his view, historians who employ proper methods do not emerge
from the examination of history with the discovery that no miracles
have occurred, but rather bring to the study of history the certain knowledge that none has
occurred." (Raymond Martin, The Elusive Messiah, p. 31). This presumed impossibility of the
miraculous is a widespread assumption underlaying modern critical scholarship of the gospels:
"Bultmann explained that 'this closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot
be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers and that therefore there is no
"miracle" in this sense of the word.'" (Raymond Martin, The Elusive Messiah, p. 43).
While historians may begin their quest with whatever
presuppositions they like, care should be taken to avoid circularity. Often this denial of the
supernatural which is in fact the starting premise of modern critical scholarship is reported as if it were the
conclusion of the enterprise, founded on some imagined physical or documentary evidence. This is the logical fallacy
known as petitio principii, i.e., begging the question. The fuss kicked up by the Jesus Seminar's color-coding derives from
the popular assumption that 'scholars' must base their conclusions upon evidence. This assumption is unwarranted.
Modern Times
Uniformitarianism
Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth to be utterly unique:
"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
declared Him." (John 1:18).
Jesus Himself claimed to be the only way to God:
"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows
the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son,
and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. " (Matthew 11:27).
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
Me.'" (John 14:6).
The secular study of history proceeds on the premise of uniformitarianism:
that things happen today as they have ever happened. The Christian proclamation
of a unique event: the incarnation of God in a man, Jesus of Nazareth,
an event not repeated in every town, in every generation, but once for
all, does not fit easily into the historian's premise of uniformity. This
premise is the starting point from which the historian proceeds, not a
conclusion for which he can adduce proofs. This methodological principle
is not an order given by the historian to the world, because the world
cannot be expected to conform itself to orders given by historians, but
an instruction on how to proceed the historian gives to himself.
That history always follows the same course cannot be demonstrated. If
God can freely intervene in human history, then His very freedom introduces
discontinuity. But strangely enough, it would mean much progress in this
field of study if historians hewed to their own principle, instead of imagining
antiquity as a never-never land in which people behave in a way no one
has ever seen people behave.
Odd Gods
On the theme that a little more uniformitarianism would cure secular Bible study of its ills:
- “Pythagoras of Samos, the son of Mnesarchus, said that God is the unit,
and that nothing has come into being apart from this...He also commanded
his disciples to maintain silence for five years, and in the end pronounced himself a god.”
- (Epiphanius, De Fide VII, 9,12).
|
|
Certainly if God became man, there would be nothing unexpected in His saying
so. People report facts known to them all the time. This is what is open
to the historian's inspection: that the claim has been made. The background in the heavenlies is veiled to his gaze.
And this claim is by no means uncommon. Just as Simon Magus' Samaritan
followers let on that he was the "great power of God:" "'But
there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery
in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was
someone great, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest,
saying, 'This man is the great power of God.'" (Acts 8:9-10), so in
the latter day Father Divine's devotees spoke.
Amongst claimants to deity are ranked Wallace D. Fard, who made this claim
in an interview with the Detroit Police, and Yahweh ben Yahweh, currently
incarcerated. Most of the persons who make this claim are deranged. Those
close to Jesus, going with the odds, initially thought so as well: "But
when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him,
for they said, 'He is out of His mind.'" (Mark 3:21).
A noteworthy contribution to contemporary Jesus scholarship is 'Jesus the
Jew,' by Geza Vermes, which proceeds on the principle that Jesus cannot
have claimed to be God, or indeed anything or anyone unusual, because then
He would have been atypical. Nor could His followers have made this claim
on His behalf, because then they would have been out of the ordinary:
"A final word must be said about the bridging of the gulf between
son of God and God. None of the Synoptic Gospels try to do this. Indeed, it is no
exaggeration to contend that the identification of a contemporary historical
figure with God would have been inconceivable to a first-century AD Palestinian
Jew. It could certainly not have been expressed in public, in the presence
of men conditioned by centuries of biblical monotheistic religion...Whether
Jesus himself would have reacted with stupefaction, anger or grief, can
never be known." (Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, pp. 212-213.)
The gospels records indicate that Jesus and His followers did not receive
the kind of unanimous acceptance that can reasonably be anticipated for
the ordinary and unremarkable. Jesus was crucified, Stephen was stoned,
Paul imprisoned. So perhaps Mr. Vermes does have a point in suggesting
that the claims they made were not such as would receive immediate or automatic
acceptance. To assert that no such claim can ever have been made is, of
course, unhistorical, given that such claims are made in the present day
by inheritors of "centuries of biblical monotheistic religion"
such as Father Divine and Wallace D. Fard. Jesus differs from the many
other claimants to this title known to documented history only in the truth of His claim.
Claimants to deity were of course common amongst the pagans; Herodotus records cases of outrageous imposture. They are also found
in the monotheistic fold. The Druze even call themselves 'mowahhidun,' 'monotheists:' "The main actors were
Tariq al-Hakeem, also known as al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the Caliph who claimed to be God, and Hamza bin
Ali ibn Ahmad, the main architect of the movement. It was Hamza who first
publicly proclaimed that al-Hakim was God. al-Hakeem was opposed by orthodox
Muslims for what was considered apostasy...Because the Druze considered
Tariq al-Hakeem to be the incarnation of God, they were persecuted by orthodox
Muslims, especially after al-Hakeem's death in 1021." (Wikipedia,
Article 'Druze.') Though 'official' Islam is hostile to deifying human
beings, the trend persists: "To this day there is a sect known as
the Aliallahi in Iraq and Iran that divinizes Ali." (Seyyed Hossein
Nasr, The Heart of Islam, p. 77.)
If we are expected to believe that a Jew cannot claim to be God, then what
about all the other Jews who have claimed to be God, like Jacob Frank,
the eighteenth century Polish Messianic aspirant who claimed to be the
second person of the Trinity? Sabbatai Sevi, a seventeenth century Messianic
claimant, signed letters as "the Lord your God:"
"Shabbetai Zevi signed these pronouncements as the 'firstborn son
of God,' 'your father Israel,' 'the bridegroom of the Torah,' and other
high-flown titles; even when he started signing some of his letters 'I
am the Lord your God Shabbetai Zevi' only a few of the believers seem to
have been shocked." (Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 262)
Several of these latter-day claimants, whether in imitation of Christianity
or by way of re-inventing the wheel based on Old Testament Messianic texts,
rediscovered God's triunity: "Some time before his death Shabbetai
Zevi dictated a longer version of this doctrine. . .institut[ing] a kind
of kabbalistic trinity, called in zoharic terms the 'three bonds of the
faith.' It consisted of The Ancient Holy One (Attika kaddisha), The Holy King (Malka kaddisha), also
called the God of Israel, and his Shekhinah." (Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 269). These individuals too were
"conditioned by centuries of biblical monotheistic religion."
Flatly to rule out the possibility that persons in the past declared themselves
divine cannot be reconciled with a uniformitarian approach to history.
It isn't to discredit Jesus that I bring up the numerous also-rans. The existence of counterfeit money does not prove there is no
real money, but the contrary. Rather, when author Geza Vermes rules out the possibility that Jesus claimed what contemporary observers
report He did claim, he is not writing as a historian, but as a devotee. History does not record that men "conditioned by centuries
of biblical monotheistic religion" cannot claim to be God. This author, however, finds the claim inappropriate.
One well-known contemporary figure who has been dipping his toe in the
divinization pool is the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who has made eye-catching
claims both on behalf of a son who died in an auto accident and on his
own behalf: "The Reverent Moon's hubris culminated later that year
in a secret ceremony in which he actually crowned himself and Hak Ja Han
Moon as Emperor and Empress of the Universe. Preparations for the lavish,
clandestine event at Belvedere took months and hundreds of thousands of
dollars." (In the Shadow of the Moons, Nansook Hong, p. 148). It is
unclear in what tradition Rev. Moon should be classed; perhaps those who
found their own assemblies, like Rev. Moon,--or, for that matter, like
Jesus,--are most efficiently classed under their own new religion.
A Cat Can Look at a King
My late cat Velma was a huntress. Her interest in this activity surfaced
very early in life; in fact I named her 'Velma' after Velma Barfield, the
notorious serial killer. Bowing to necessity, I made no effort to impede
her safaris; my only request was that she not drag her triumphs into the
home. 'Nature red in tooth and claw' belongs outdoors, I explained, not
in the living room. By dint of much yelling and screaming I succeeded in
communicating to Velma my feelings on the matter; but these feelings Velma
was not willing to honor. In spite of having every reason to respect the
opinions of the humans about her, who controlled her food supply, her living
conditions, and were much bigger than she, Velma stuck to her guns. Her
only concession to my sentiments was to adopt the rubric, 'don't do it
while she's looking.'
Perhaps Velma looked to the day when Mom would finally 'get' how cool it
was to drag a still-warm, bloody rodent on triumphal march across the living
room rug. In any case it never occurred to her to subordinate her opinions
in the matter to mine. This independence of judgment, claimed by the pea-brained
cat, is denied by Bible scholars to those human beings who lived and struggled
in Bible times. For example, Moses cannot have been a monotheist, they
explain, because most of the people who lived in that day were polytheists.
If Moses were a monotheist, he would have differed from the norm. Therefore,
those monotheist sayings the Bible ascribes to Moses' authorship cannot
have been spoken by him, but by latter-day scribes whose identity is unknown.
(It is a curious corollary of this concept that, while originality is denied
root and branch to those persons you may have heard of, such as Jesus,
Paul, Moses, etc., no amount of originality is denied to persons no one
has heard of: the anonymous scribes who are proposed by this theory as
the source of all novelty.)
We all have known enthusiasts who insisted up to their last breath that
the income tax is unconstitutional, that Anastasia lives, that the great
tragedy of history is that Trotsky was assassinated, etc. My own late father
alleged that people from outer space had built the pyramids, information
which, he claimed, he had seen on TV. According to Bible scholars, no such
persons existed in Bible times. We also know those resembling the New Yorker
cartoon character who, amidst passers-by wearing t-shirts proclaiming causes
like 'Save the Whales,' sported a t-shirt reading 'I Couldn't Agree More.'
According to Bible scholars, this Mr. Milquetoast-type was the only form
of humanity found in Bible times; the wayward juvenile, the child throwing
a temper tantrum, the crank, did not exist; the only existent humans sought
to conform their views to prevailing currents.
To add to the peculiarity of this view, if we adopt the consensus modern
view of chronology (somewhat later than the Bible's own dating), then Moses
flourished after Akhenaton's monotheistic reform had crashed and burned.
Moses, brought up in Pharaoh's daughter's household, must have been aware
of this signal event in Egyptian history. Some theologians in Akhenaton's
employ offered ambiguous and inadequate expressions of monotheism, others
offer perfectly acceptable expressions. This means that, to preserve the
theory of Moses as polytheist or henotheist, these Bible scholars must
assume that Moses was aware of, but made a conscious decision to reject, monotheism in favor of polytheism!
This imputation of a characteristic to the humanity of Bible times: blind
and universal conformity,-- which no living observer has reported seeing
in the humanity we see about us, is, again, an offense against the premise
of uniformitarianism.
Chaos Monster
Modern Bible scholars reveal a 'Chaos Monster' described in the Bible. One can, as Bible-believing Christians do, read the Bible
over and over again without encountering her. But she must be there, after all, because a 'Chaos Monster' is found in Babylonian
mythology, and if no 'Chaos Monster' were found in the Bible, the Bible would be different from Babylonian mythology, rather than the same.
"On occasion (Isa. 51:9-11) there is linked to a reference to the Exodus (vs. 10) an allusion to the ancient
creation myth (vs. 9), in which the god (in the Babylonian version, Marduk) cleft asunder the Chaos Monster (in the Babylonian
version, Tiamat; but here in the west Semitic form, Rahab) in order to create the world. It is as if the prophet wished to say,
in poetic language, that the struggle with primeval chaos begun at creation, and again taken up in the Exodus when God created
for himself a people, is once more to be resumed." (John Bright, The Kingdom of God, p. 140)
Strangely enough for a primeval 'Chaos Monster,' 'Rahab' is listed as a
place amongst places: "I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to
them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man
was born there." (Psalm 87:4). It is unclear how a man can be born
in a primeval 'Chaos Monster,' though a man can easily be born in a place.
Coinage shows that the crocodile, a real, not a mythological beast, was
the emblem of Egypt, much as the bear is the emblem of Russia today. Exodus
records the struggle, not between God and a primeval 'Chaos Monster,' but
between God and Egypt, whose emblem is the crocodile. Isaiah 30:7 applies
the title to Egypt: "For Egypt’s help is worthless and empty, therefore
I have called her, 'Rahab who sits still.'" (Isaiah 30:7 NRSV). Although
it certainly sounds like Rahab the crocodile is Egypt, if we so understand
her, then where is our primeval 'Chaos Monster,' without whom the Bible
would differ from Babylonian mythology?
George Washington
Raised in an irreligious environment, I grew up believing the Bible to
be a collection of childish myths. The first Bible I owned was a Jerusalem
Bible with elaborate notes. When reading a section of the Pentateuch, I
would carefully peruse the information provided explaining which of the
four authors cited had produced this material. Call me naive, I naturally
assumed there must be in existence manuscripts which include some of this
material but not the rest; why else would the editors impose upon their
readers in this fashion? Imagine my surprise when I discovered there exists
no manuscript incorporating any of this material which lacks the remainder.
Rather, the text was divvied up on the basis of the different names of God employed.
I wondered if this theory had been properly tested with modern material whose authorship could be reliably ascertained. Consider,
for instance, George Washington's First Inaugural Address, which cites, in order, "...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in
this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe...", then "In tendering
this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good...", next "No people can be bound to acknowledge and
adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men...", then "...distinguished by some token of providential
agency...", on to "...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be
expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained...",
then "...but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication...",
wrapping up with, "so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous..." (George Washington, First Inaugural
Address, delivered April 30, 1789.) This very brief address, which is not concerned with topics in theology, contains no fewer than
five distinct divine titles.
It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that theories of this sort
find a receptive audience, not because their verity is established by credible
and sufficient evidence, but because they seem very 'daring' to persons
who, unlike myself, are of a religious background. These people care passionately
about the Bible and about Jesus in a way that no scholar really cares about
Homer. The efforts of this class of scholars, of whom the Jesus Seminar
is the most egregious example, serve to manufacture a Jesus with whom they
can come to terms, who is no threat to their sense of themselves. Because
there is no reason to think that the Jesus of history was someone with
whom these people can come to terms, their efforts are properly categorized
under the head of Bad Religion rather than scholarship.
Jeane Dixon
Jeane Dixon was a self-styled 'psychic' who spoke with Parade Magazine
in 1956: "As for the 1960 election Mrs. Dixon thinks it will be dominated
by labor and won by a Democrat. But he will be assassinated or die in office
though not necessarily in his first term." (Quoted at Suburban Myths
web-site). According to the methodology used in modern Bible study, this
information cannot have been published in Parade Magazine in 1956, because
it actually happened. Therefore it was published subsequent to the assassination.
This 'discovery' in its turn 'proves' that it is impossible to predict the future.
Ms. Dixon, who fearlessly predicted this and many other events, was wrong so often as to richly satisfy the Biblical criteria
for a false prophet. Yet even a false prophet cannot be wrong all the time. A false prophet calling coin tosses cannot call
them all wrong; after all the odds are 50-50. If our false prophet draws also upon
native shrewdness, then he or she might make a career of calling President elections.
Yet, believe it or not, this is just how they do it. Suppose a text contains
a prediction that the temple at Jerusalem will be destroyed. This text
is therefore dated subsequent to 70 A.D., because this is when the temple
was in fact destroyed. Not only do these scholars not believe in prophecy,
they do not believe in statistics. They are assuming all Christian prophecy
must be 100% wrong all the time; otherwise how could a successful prediction be used as a dating device?
Yet it is simply not possible for any attempt at prophecy: not guessing
at random, not newspaper horoscopes, not Chinese fortune-cookies,-- to be 100% wrong all the time.
Criterion of Dissimilarity
- “How might we account for traditions of Jesus that clearly do not fit with
a 'Christian' agenda, that is, that do not promote the views and perspectives
of the people telling the stories? Traditions like that would not have
been made up by the Christian storytellers, and so they are quite likely
to be historically accurate. This is sometimes, confusingly, called the
'criterion of dissimilarity.' Any tradition of Jesus that is dissimilar
to what the early Christians would have likely wanted to say about him
is more likely authentic.”
- (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 154).
- “...the earliest form of a saying we can read may be regarded as authentic
if it can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of
ancient Judaism and of the early Church.”
- (The Jesus of Heresy and History, John Dart, p. 151)
|
|
No one is surprised to see hot dogs fly off the assembly line at the meat-packing
plant, because the machinery is geared to produce hot dogs. This criterion
is a machine geared to produce a 'Jesus' unrecognizable to the church.
Ernest Renan
I've added Ernest Renan's 'Life of Jesus' to the Thriceholy library, so that readers may discover in this unitarian devotional work the motives
and thought-patterns underlying modern Bible scholarship. When Renan intones
of John's gospel, "The spirit of Jesus is not there," does his
bias follow from historical evidence, or betray a theological preference?:
"Jesus never once gave utterance to the sacrilegious idea that he was God." (Chapter 5, The Life of Jesus, Ernest Renan).
A fine 'scientific' endeavor, which proceeds to deduce historical 'fact'
from what is imagined to be "sacrilegious"!
The effort to shoe-horn unitarianism into first century non-Christian Jewish thought finds no support in the surviving literary remains of that era. However first century Jewish theology is to be categorized, 'unitarian' is not it:
The Da Vinci Code
This page-turner lavishes on the reader, not only murders and car chases,
but also bad theology. This best-selling novel alleges that Jesus Christ
was promoted to the status of God at the fourth century Council of Nicaea:
- “'I don't follow. His divinity?'
- “'My dear,' Teabing declared, until that
moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.
A mortal.'
- “'Not the Son of God?'
- “'Right, Teabing said.'Jesus' establishment as "the Son of God"
was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.'
- “'Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?'”
- (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 55).
|
|
In fact, it is the Bible which establishes Jesus Christ as Son of God,
and as God:
|
