|
Readers of the 'Jesus Seminar' genre of literature are very
familiar with this tendency. The argument runs like so: ancient literature,
pagan and monotheist, makes claims modern readers find extravagant.
Since these claims are so extravagant, probably no one making these
claims ever expected them to be believed; rather, this is a
'literary device.' This is a 'scorched earth' strategy, which leaves
the abandoned claims of the pagans, which everyone discounts, in
ruins, but alongside them leaves also the scorched and blasted ruins of Christianity, because
we 'discover' by this means that the resurrection was a 'literary
device,' as was the virgin birth, etc.
A good check on this methodology is
to look at contemporary pagan societies such as India. Do the 'holy
men' who make extravagant claims intend these claims as no more than
'literary devices,' or do they expect to be believed? There is a man
who claims he has neither eaten nor drunk in more than seventy years:
"Prahlad Jani is being held in isolation in a hospital
in Ahmedabad, Gurjarat, where he is being closely monitored by
India's defence research organization, who believe he may have a
genuine quality which could help save lives. . .Mr. Jani, who claims
to have left home aged seven and lived as a wandering sadhu or holy
man in Rajasthan, is regarded as a 'breatharian' who can live on a
'spiritual life-force' alone. . . His claims have been supported by
an Indian doctor who specializes in studies of people who claim
supernatural abilities, but he has also been dismissed by others as
a "village fraud."" (The
Telegraph, Man claims to have had no food or drink for 70 years:
Indian military scientists are studying an 82-year-old who claims he
has not had any food or drink for 70 years, by Dean Nelson in New
Delhi, 11:02PM BST 28 Apr 2010.)
My 'first take' on this man is to say, like the kids do, 'Liar, liar, pants on fire.'
The Indian military may aspire to leap-frog beyond rival military
organizations by unlocking this man's ability to survive on sunshine
and air, thus making it possible to sustain an army in the field on
pennies a day. However they might enhance their effectiveness as a
deterrent force if they refrained from this type of research. Whatever one
suspects about this man's personal character, his
defenders are fully convinced and do believe very strongly that he
never eats. It is they who are challenging the skeptics to test his
claims. They regard his claims as fully falsifiable in principle; if
the man were seen on a security video scarfing down Doritos in the
check-out line at the Seven-Eleven, then their world would come
crashing down. They would turn on him and denounce him. So would the
ancient pagans had they found the hidden tubes leading from their
cult statue down to the little man in the basement who 'spoke'
through the god. Archaeologists are very familiar with the blatant
fraud and outrageous imposture that enveloped ancient paganism like a
cloud. Is it likely ancient paganism's modern Hindu cousin operates on
altogether different principles? If people of the time accepted these
untruths, then why did they have to be hidden?
Reportedly a goddess instructed him to follow his current diet: "Prahlad
Jani is a local of Ahmedabad, India, who claims that at the age of
11, the Hindu goddess Amba appeared to him and told him that he
would no longer have to eat food. He has apparently lived in a cave
since the 1970s, and claims not to have eaten anything for most of
his 81 years (as of 2012)." (recovered from
healthfreedoms.org). This is called, by those who believe in it,
'breatharianism.' One sincerely hopes 'breatharianism' is not redefined
and reinvented by the lexicographers as, 'eating very little,
because, as everyone knows, it is impossible to eat nothing.' The
intended meaning seems to be, 'eating nothing,' or as practitioners put
it, "sustaining oneself without the need for food." However, that claim
is not credible. The lexicographers should not feel any burden to make
it credible; that is not their job.
What greater cultural arrogance than
to say, 'This man's claims are so absurd that, not only do we not
believe them, but even his champions do not believe them!' This
version of 'tolerance' and 'understanding' plows the third world
village into the ground beneath our weighty and onrushing tank
treads. It not only negates the claims, but does so with such vigor
as to transfer them from the category 'claims about the world' to the
category 'fiction.' Not only do they say 'this is untrue,' they deny that anyone could possibly
ever have said or thought, 'this is true.' What arrogance! It is thus
unhelpful for lexicographers to define down god-claims to the point
where these claims become a very small, easily over-leapt hurdle: the
pagans, when they say 'Nebuchadnezzar is god,' only mean to say 'he
is a powerful ruler,' etc. It is ultimately intolerant. Better to
say, 'These claims are false—this man who lives on sunshine is eating when you are
not looking,' than to say, 'This is a literary device, he does not
mean by 'food' what you mean by 'food' nor by 'eating' what you mean
by 'eating.'' That is disrespectful and unfair: how can his champions
ever defend themselves against such a way of 'understanding' their
claims?
Humanity has richly earned its bad reputation, as the Bible underscores:
"I said in my haste, All men are liars." (Psalm 116:11). When
did the lexicographers decide it was up to them to save us from ourselves?
It may be that some untruths can be rectified by dumbing down the
meaning of the words used: 'He says he has not eaten in 70 years.
But he only means his life does not revolve around food; of course
he has eaten.' But it is not up to the lexicographers to salvage our
tattered reputation for truthfulness. What if, contrary to all
expectation, his claims are actually true? Certainly this man's
defenders think so, and they deserve the respect of a denial, not a
condescending pat on the head such as would embarrass a
kindergartner.
|
