|
Humor, Science and Logic — Part 2
By Jeff Messenger, Barkhamsted
Noel Ambery has implied that the gospel writers were untrustworthy, since they are often "inconsistent" with each other [The Crucifixion, March 29]. I maintain that they are very consistent with the central thrust of the story and its teachings. Any noted inconsistencies occur with "peripheral" details, such as how many women discovered the empty tomb, etc. Ancient writings usually aren't concerned with secondary details, only with central teachings and events. They will take liberties with situations and peripherals, as long as the central truth is maintained. This style is abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, but in the first century it was widely accepted. Modern scholars judge New Testament writings with modern standards, when they should be trying to understand the journalistic style of the first century!
Do the gospels contradict each other concerning the location of Jesus' ascension? Not at all! Luke's gospel and Acts do not contradict each other, since they were both penned by a single author, and as a single unit. Mt. Olivet is located near the town of Bethany, and no other town comes as close to this mount (according to my Amplified Bible and its map of prominent New Testament locations). Thus Mt. Olivet is safely referred to as "Bethany." The Gospel according to Mark actually has nothing to say about the location of the Ascension. Its hurried conclusion is simply a manuscript footnote that was missing from the earliest manuscripts of this gospel. Its rushed quality suggests that the author lumps Jesus' post-resurrection appearances into one meeting in Jerusalem. It's a literary device.
Concerning this need for a "flawless" gospel account, even with today's standards, take any four eyewitnesses at a modern crime scene and they would probably be more inconsistent with each other than the gospel writers are. This doesn't destroy the entire validity of their testimony—any observations they do agree on would still be considered valid in any given courtroom.
Then we have the charge that the gospel story was "borrowed" from other mythologies and "mystery religions." This popular theory gained momentum in the early 1900s, when a school of biblical scholarship called "Form Criticism" became all the rage. With the exception of the fringe "Jesus Seminar," Form Criticism has lost its "gravitas" with modern scholars. Form Critics and Mr. Ambery assume that the gospels were written much later than the Pauline letters. Recent discoveries have put that assumption to rest. The John Ryland papyrus places the writing of the Gospel of John within the first century. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the suspected "Hellenistic" phrases found in John were actually used by the very orthodox, Judaic Essenes. The Magdalan Papyrus places the Gospel of Matthew around the same time Paul was writing most of his letters! The Gospel according to Luke was a companion to the Acts of the Apostles, and Acts was written before Paul and Peter were martyred. (Thus Acts doesn't conclude with these prominent events.) And all scholars believe that the Gospel according to Mark predates the other three!
Did the Christian concepts of sacrifice, redemption and resurrection come from pagan myths? Not at all. Take the example of the cults of Cybele and Attis. Their record of blood sacrifice practices, called "the Taurobolium," record a very different "blood baptism" than the allegorical "washing of sins" of the Christian tradition. More importantly, the earliest record of the Taurobolium post-dates the New Testament by more than a century! Many pagan "mystery religion" practices actually "borrow" from Christianity, not the other way around!
What about pagan gods that die and return to life? They always do so in the context of nature: they die with winter, and they usually return to life in spring. The seasons dictate the mythology. Christian resurrection is also radically different than the simple "restorations" of the seasonal deities. A Christian resurrection isn't a "restoration" to earthly life, it's a transformation! It's the merging of the spiritual with the physical. Christianity remains unique with its resurrection concept. (Except, of course, the Jewish image of resurrection that comes from the book of Ezekiel.)
Most importantly of all, Apollo, Attis, Isis, Hercules, Mithras, Adonis, Ra, Ishtar, etc. were not real people, testified to by various historical sources. Yet the historical life of Jesus is testified to by the New Testament, the blood of the Apostles, the Church Elders, Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, and a few Rabbinic references found in the writings of the Mishnah and the Tosefta.
Lastly, Mr. Ambery illustrates the perceived illogic of the crucifixion. If a human Jesus died, this death couldn't claim any redemptive power. If a Divine Jesus died, then "God" was dead and Heaven was abandoned! Neither option defines what Christians believe. We believe that the incarnate Jesus had "emptied" himself of Divine privilege and glory (Philippians 2) and was separated from the Father during his earthly life (and especially on the cross). This basic paradox of the incarnation—that Jesus was both one with the Father and separate from the Father while he lived among us—is the cause of all Noel's confusion. A very human Jesus, with no history of human sin (the Judaic "Paschal Lamb" without blemish) suffered on our behalf. It wasn't just a redemptive "death" that Christians acknowledge, it's also a redemptive suffering on our behalf.
This distinction is important because Jesus' death was not permanent. He was transformed into new life, and was "restored" to the Divinity he had shared with the Father as the pre-existent "Word of God." (John 1:1) So we have a Messiah, once a part of the "composite unity God," who willingly separated himself from God and suffered on our behalf—as a redemptive act of love. God erases that pesky "original sin" curse for mankind. ("Original sin" to me indicates the inherent tendency that humanity has to live only for ourselves, and our relentless drive to quench our ever thirsty ego.) Personally, I can't think of a more effective way for God to demonstrate how much He loves mankind than for Him to take the consequence of our rebelliousness on Himself.
When Ambery states that there is "no evidence" to support religion, he is mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence—archaeological, historical, testimonial—that supports the historical Christ of Christianity. Whether this evidence is considered "extraordinary" is a subjective judgment. Some of this evidence has been cataloged by me in past Voice issues, articles I'd be more than happy to share with anyone who is interested. Just e-mail me at <jj915@excite.com>.
|
|
