Godless (44 page)
There is a fragment of a personal letter from a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son in prison, of uncertain date, probably second or third century, that mentions that the Jews of that time had killed their “wise king.” However, the New Testament reports that the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus. The Jews had killed other leaders; for example, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. If this truly is a report of a historical event rather than the passing on of folklore, it could have been a reference to someone else. It is worthless as evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, yet it can be found on the lists of some Christian scholars as proof that Jesus existed.
A second-century satirist named Lucian wrote that the basis for the Christian sect was a “man who was crucified in Palestine,” but this is equally worthless as historical evidence. He is merely repeating what Christians believed in the second century. Lucian does not mention Jesus by name. This reference is too late to be considered historical evidence, and since Lucian did not consider himself a historian, neither should we.
All of these “confirmations” of Jesus are at best second-hand hearsay of what others were thought to have believed. They would be worthless in a court of law. It would be like a witness to a murder saying, “I did not see the act itself, but I read in a letter from someone who is now dead that they heard from a probably reliable source that someone actually believed that a person with the same or similar name committed the crime.”
In addition to Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and the others, there are a handful of highly questionable, so-called evidences that some Christians have put forward. These include Tertullian (197 C.E.), Phlegon (unknown date), Justin Martyr (about 150 C.E.) and portions of the Jewish Talmud (second through fifth centuries) that mention Jesus in an attempt to discredit Christianity, supposedly showing that even the enemies of Jesus did not doubt his existence. Though all of these late opinions are flimsy, some Christians make a showy point of listing them with little elaboration in their books of apologetics. Ministers can rattle off these “historical confirmations” with little fear that their congregations will take the time to investigate their authenticity.
I include one other very silly attempt here—the
Archko Volume
—not because it has ever come up in any of my debates or has been used by serious Christian apologists, but because it shows the lengths to which some believers will go to “prove” Christianity and how eagerly some gullible believers swallow such nonsense. And these are modern believers, supposedly more informed and sophisticated than the ancient writers.
Archko Volume
—not because it has ever come up in any of my debates or has been used by serious Christian apologists, but because it shows the lengths to which some believers will go to “prove” Christianity and how eagerly some gullible believers swallow such nonsense. And these are modern believers, supposedly more informed and sophisticated than the ancient writers.
A Christian actually mailed me a copy of the
Archko Volume.
This “eyewitness testimony” supposedly reports authentic, first-hand accounts of Jesus from the early first century. It includes letters from Pilate to Rome, glowing interviews of the shepherds outside Bethlehem who visited the baby Jesus at the manger after being awakened by angels, and so on. Its flowery King James prose makes entertaining reading, but it is not considered authentic by any scholar. It was written in the 19th century by a traveling salesman who said he translated it from original documents found in the basement of the Vatican. The “translations” were mailed overseas in installments, after payment for each one was received. No one has ever seen the original documents.
Archko Volume.
This “eyewitness testimony” supposedly reports authentic, first-hand accounts of Jesus from the early first century. It includes letters from Pilate to Rome, glowing interviews of the shepherds outside Bethlehem who visited the baby Jesus at the manger after being awakened by angels, and so on. Its flowery King James prose makes entertaining reading, but it is not considered authentic by any scholar. It was written in the 19th century by a traveling salesman who said he translated it from original documents found in the basement of the Vatican. The “translations” were mailed overseas in installments, after payment for each one was received. No one has ever seen the original documents.
In
Evidence That Demands a Verdict,
Josh McDowell makes an argument that is common among apologists: “There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the
Iliad
by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.” Do you see how he is piling on numbers? What do the 10,000 Latin Vulgate copies have to do with original Greek manuscripts? This information might cause believers to applaud with smugness, but it misses the point. What does the number of copies have to do with authenticity?
Evidence That Demands a Verdict,
Josh McDowell makes an argument that is common among apologists: “There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the
Iliad
by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.” Do you see how he is piling on numbers? What do the 10,000 Latin Vulgate copies have to do with original Greek manuscripts? This information might cause believers to applaud with smugness, but it misses the point. What does the number of copies have to do with authenticity?
If a million copies of this book are printed, does it make it any more truthful? Are the “historical” facts reported in the
Iliad
considered reliable? There are currently hundreds of millions of copies of the Koran in existence, in many forms and scores of translations. Does the sheer number of copies make it more reliable than, say, a single inscription on an Egyptian sarcophagus? This argument is a smokescreen. There are no original manuscripts (autographs) of the bible in existence, so we all agree that we are working from copies of copies. Critics might agree that some current translations of the New Testament are based on a reasonably accurate transcription of variations from early forms of some of the Greek documents, but what does this have to do with authenticity, reliability or truthfulness? And why are there variations at all? Yes, scribes sometimes made minor copying errors, but few believers realize how many discrepancies there are among the manuscripts. Bart Ehrman, in
Misquoting Jesus
, reminds us that there are more variants among the ancient documents than there are words in the New Testament.
Iliad
considered reliable? There are currently hundreds of millions of copies of the Koran in existence, in many forms and scores of translations. Does the sheer number of copies make it more reliable than, say, a single inscription on an Egyptian sarcophagus? This argument is a smokescreen. There are no original manuscripts (autographs) of the bible in existence, so we all agree that we are working from copies of copies. Critics might agree that some current translations of the New Testament are based on a reasonably accurate transcription of variations from early forms of some of the Greek documents, but what does this have to do with authenticity, reliability or truthfulness? And why are there variations at all? Yes, scribes sometimes made minor copying errors, but few believers realize how many discrepancies there are among the manuscripts. Bart Ehrman, in
Misquoting Jesus
, reminds us that there are more variants among the ancient documents than there are words in the New Testament.
Another argument made by Josh McDowell and others is the close interval of time between the events or original writing and the earliest copies in our possession. Homer wrote the
Iliad
in 900 B.C.E., but our earliest copy is from 400 B.C.E.—a span of 500 years. Aristotle wrote in 384-322 B.C.E. and the earliest copy of his work dates from 1100 C.E.—a gap of 1,400 years. In contrast, the New Testament was written (McDowell says) between 40 and 100 C.E., and the earliest copy dates from 125 C.E., a time span of 25 years. Actually, the earliest copy does not date from 125 C.E.—it is the earliest fragment, a few verses from the Gospel of John, that dates from then. There is no way to verify, from those few verses, whether the rest of John or any of the remainder of the New Testament is reliable. Most of the copies of the manuscripts that we have on hand date from a millennium later, so McDowell’s implication is misleading.
Iliad
in 900 B.C.E., but our earliest copy is from 400 B.C.E.—a span of 500 years. Aristotle wrote in 384-322 B.C.E. and the earliest copy of his work dates from 1100 C.E.—a gap of 1,400 years. In contrast, the New Testament was written (McDowell says) between 40 and 100 C.E., and the earliest copy dates from 125 C.E., a time span of 25 years. Actually, the earliest copy does not date from 125 C.E.—it is the earliest fragment, a few verses from the Gospel of John, that dates from then. There is no way to verify, from those few verses, whether the rest of John or any of the remainder of the New Testament is reliable. Most of the copies of the manuscripts that we have on hand date from a millennium later, so McDowell’s implication is misleading.
All of this is important when considering the reliability of the
text
itself. A shorter interval of time allows for fewer corruptions and variants. (So, why are there so many variants, if the time was so short?) But even if the time interval were extremely brief, it has no relevance to the reliability of the
content
. If the New Testament should be considered reliable on this basis, then so should the
Book of Mormon
, which was supposedly written (copied by Joseph Smith) in 1823 and first published in 1830, a gap of only seven years. In addition to Joseph Smith, there are signed testimonies of 11 witnesses who claimed to have seen the gold tablets on which the angel Moroni wrote the
Book of Mormon
. We are much closer in history to the origin of Mormonism than to the origin of Christianity. There are millions of copies of the
Book of Mormon
and a thriving Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (with millions of members and billions of dollars in assets) to prove its veracity. Though most scholars (pro and con) agree that the current edition of the
Book of Mormon
is a trustworthy copy of the 1830 version, few Christian scholars consider it to be reliable history.
text
itself. A shorter interval of time allows for fewer corruptions and variants. (So, why are there so many variants, if the time was so short?) But even if the time interval were extremely brief, it has no relevance to the reliability of the
content
. If the New Testament should be considered reliable on this basis, then so should the
Book of Mormon
, which was supposedly written (copied by Joseph Smith) in 1823 and first published in 1830, a gap of only seven years. In addition to Joseph Smith, there are signed testimonies of 11 witnesses who claimed to have seen the gold tablets on which the angel Moroni wrote the
Book of Mormon
. We are much closer in history to the origin of Mormonism than to the origin of Christianity. There are millions of copies of the
Book of Mormon
and a thriving Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (with millions of members and billions of dollars in assets) to prove its veracity. Though most scholars (pro and con) agree that the current edition of the
Book of Mormon
is a trustworthy copy of the 1830 version, few Christian scholars consider it to be reliable history.
If we stick to the New Testament (we have no choice), how much can we know about the Jesus of history? Although the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—have been placed first in the current ordering, they were not the first books written, nor were they written in that order. The earliest writings about Jesus are those of Paul, who produced his epistles no earlier than the mid 50s C.E. Strangely, Paul, who never met Jesus, mentions very little about the life of the historical Jesus. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man. The Jesus of whom Paul writes is a disembodied, spiritual Christ, speaking from the sky, not a flesh and blood man of history. Paul never talks about Jesus’ parents or the virgin birth or Bethlehem. He never mentions Nazareth, never refers to Jesus as the “Son of man” (as commonly used in the Gospels), avoids recounting a single miracle or deed committed by Jesus (except for reciting the Last Supper ritual), does not fix any historical activities of Jesus in any time or place, makes no reference to any of the 12 apostles by name, omits the trial and fails to place the crucifixion in a geographical location. Paul rarely quotes Jesus, and this is odd since he used many other devices of persuasion to make his points. There are numerous places in the teachings of Paul where he could have and should have invoked the teachings of Jesus, but he ignores them. He contradicts Jesus’ teachings on divorce (I Corinthians 7:10), allowing for none while Jesus permitted exceptions. Jesus taught a trinitarian baptism (“in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost”), but Paul and his disciples baptized in Jesus’ name only—which makes perfect sense if the concept of the trinity was developed later. Paul never claims to have met the pre-resurrected Jesus. In fact, one of the most glaring contradictions of the bible appears in two different accounts of how Paul supposedly met the disembodied Christ for the first time (see Chapter 14).
The “silence of Paul” is one of the thorny problems confronting defenders of a historical Jesus. The Christ in Paul’s writings is a different character from the Jesus of the Gospels. Paul adds not a speck of historical documentation for the story. Even Paul’s supposed confirmation of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15:3-8 contradicts the Gospels when it says that Jesus first was seen of “Cephas [Peter], then of the twelve” (see Chapter 16).
The Gospels were written no earlier than 70 C.E., and most likely were written during the 90s C.E. and later. They all pretend to be biographies of Jesus. No one knows who wrote these books, the names having been added later as a matter of convenience. The writer of Matthew, for example, refers to “Matthew” in the third person. Neither Mark nor Luke appears in any list of the disciples of Jesus, and we have no way of knowing where they got their information. The general scholarly consensus is that Mark was written first (based on an earlier “proto-Mark” now lost, which shows that even the earliest Gospel contains second-hand data) and that the writers of Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, adapting and adding to it. Matthew, Mark and Luke are commonly known as the “synoptic Gospels” since they share much common material. The writer of John appears to have written in isolation, and the Jesus portrayed in his story is a different character. John contains little in common with the other three, and where it does overlap it is often contradictory.
There is very little that can be ascertained from the four Gospels about the historic Jesus. His birthday is unknown. In fact, the year of Jesus’ birth
cannot
be known. The writer of Matthew says Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” Herod died in 4 B.C.E. Luke reports that Jesus was born “when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was governor of Syria.” Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. That is a discrepancy of at least nine years. (There was no year zero.) Luke says Jesus was born during a Roman census, and it is true that there was a census in 6 C.E. This would have been when Jesus was at least nine years old, according to Matthew. There is no evidence of any earlier census during the reign of Augustus; Palestine was not part of the Roman Empire until 6 C.E. Perhaps Matthew was right, or perhaps Luke was right, but both could not have been right. (See Chapter 13 for the exact citations.)
cannot
be known. The writer of Matthew says Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” Herod died in 4 B.C.E. Luke reports that Jesus was born “when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was governor of Syria.” Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. That is a discrepancy of at least nine years. (There was no year zero.) Luke says Jesus was born during a Roman census, and it is true that there was a census in 6 C.E. This would have been when Jesus was at least nine years old, according to Matthew. There is no evidence of any earlier census during the reign of Augustus; Palestine was not part of the Roman Empire until 6 C.E. Perhaps Matthew was right, or perhaps Luke was right, but both could not have been right. (See Chapter 13 for the exact citations.)
Matthew reports that Herod slaughtered all the first-born in the land in order to execute Jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, mentions this supposed genocide, an event that should have caught someone’s attention. None of the other biblical writers mention it.
The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing (to believers) example of why the Gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting of 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph’s genealogy is relevant if he was not Jesus’ father: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. (I’d like to see the genome of the Holy Ghost’s DNA.) Matthew’s line goes from David’s son Solomon, while Luke’s goes from David’s son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been for the same person.
Matthew’s line is like this: David, Solomon, 11 other names, Josiah, Jechoniah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, six other names, Matthan, Jacob and Joseph. Luke’s line is like this: David, Nathan, 17 other names (none identical to Matthew’s list), Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, 15 other names (none identical to Matthew’s list), Matthat, Heli and Joseph.
Some defenders of Christianity assert that this is not contradictory at all because Matthew’s line is through Joseph and Luke’s line is through Mary, even though a simple glance at the text shows that they both name Joseph. No problem, say the apologists: Luke named Joseph, but he really meant Mary. Since Joseph was the legal parent of Jesus, and since Jewish genealogies are patrilineal, it makes perfect sense to say that Heli (their choice for Mary’s father) had a son named Joseph who had a son named Jesus. Believe it or not, many Christians can make these statements with a straight face. In any event, they will not find a shred of evidence to support such a notion.
Other books
High Voltage by Bijou Hunter
Totem Poles by Bruce Sterling
Submitting to Cetera by Shayla Ayers
Apres Ski by Christie Butler
Covert Intents: A Branson Family Novella by Janie Crouch
Silk on the Skin: A Loveswept Classic Romance by Cajio, Linda
No Way Home by Andrew Coburn
Elodia's Dragon by Jerry Skell
In the Heat of the Night by John Ball
