U. S. News & World Report has published a “Collector’s Edition” of what they call “Secrets of Christianity,” which sells for $7.99 and is on sale until July 13, 2010. The reader should save his money, unless he just likes to waste it. The front cover promises articles on “The Real Jesus” (apparently, it never dawned on them to read the New Testament), “Miracles,” “The Lost Gospels” (did it ever occur to U. S. News that these document were discarded for a reason—a lack of value, perhaps?), “The Three Marys,” “Judas,” “Exorcisms,” “The Inquisition,” and “Apocalypse 2012.” As Art Roberts of WLS used to say, “Ooh, wafu, wafu” (in other words, how underwhelming).
The introduction, “Decoding Christianity,” informs us at the outset that “some of the most cherished beliefs about early Christianity are collapsing, and fresh ideas are replacing them” (5). Those familiar with liberalism will recognize the language used here. All of the beliefs that most people have held for centuries are stale and stifling; something new and (usually) goofy is always termed fresh. Whether or not it makes any sense is another matter.
So that the material presented will be taken seriously, a smattering of “scholarly and scientific research” is included early on, along with “new archaeological finds” (5). The reader is now prepared for the marvelous revelations that will follow. But first a history lesson is provided concerning those who have questioned whether Jesus ever lived, a challenge that some in the “Enlightenment” (obviously misnamed) came up with.
Among the skeptics listed is Bruno Bauer (no relation to Jack), a German theologian, who maintained that Jesus never existed. One wonders what arguments he will use when Jesus is sitting in judgment on him (2 Cor. 5:10). No list would be complete without Bertrand Russell, who is known for his famous essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, written in 1927. Most of these men possess no shortage of arrogance; Russell had enough for two or three “scholars,” proclaiming that “historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him” [sic] (6). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provided all the information about Jesus that Mr. Russell needed; he just didn’t like what he heard.
One of the modern deniers of Jesus cited is Christopher Hitchens, the atheist, author of the book god IS NOT GREAT. (see “Debate on Atheism” in Spiritual Perspectives (9-27-09). He claims that there is no proof for the Jesus of the Gospel writers existing that is unassailable. Of course, anyone can be a critic; the question is: “How good is his evidence?” Many, close to the time in which He lived, have mentioned Jesus, not the least of which is the Jewish historian Josephus.
C.E.
Although most of us grew up with the abbreviations of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, Latin for “in the year of our Lord”), scholars, academics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses now prefer using B.C.E. (before the common era) and C.E. (common era). They have deliberately changed the terminology to which all are accustomed because they have no respect for even the initials that honor Christ. It is simply another means of trying to remove all references to Christianity from the public forum. Ironically, the publication under review chooses to use the bland terminology rather than that which honors God. Does this choice say something about their philosophy?
The Gospel of Thomas
In 1945 several manuscripts were found “near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt” (6). One of these was a complete manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas, which was deemed heretical by Christians writing in the second, third, and fourth centuries (7). The reader might expect that what would follow would be the astute observation that the heretical work was nevertheless still based upon the fact that Jesus existed. That someone tried to pervert the truth concerning Him demonstrates that He did live and was making such an impact upon people that His influence needed to be undercut.
But, no, the article turns in another direction entirely—toward Q (not the gadget inventor of the James Bond series, although it is equally a work of fiction). The writer of this introductory article assures the reader that this Gospel of Thomas (rejected by early Christians) “proved conclusively” that the “Lost Gospel Q” did, in fact, exist (7). The reader is directed to page 41 for more information.
The Story of Q
Q stands for the German word, quelle. The fact that German “scholars” mostly invented Modernism, together with the fact that quelle (meaning “source”) was named by a German professor, should be a tipoff that something in this allegation is probably going to contradict the Scriptures. Q was the figment of German rationalistic scholars’ imaginations. They presume that Matthew and Luke copied from this document—before it mysteriously disappeared. Imagine that! An entire gospel account of Jesus’ life was written by an unknown person, copied by Matthew and Luke, and then it inexplicably just vanished! It reminds one of those golden plates from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon. After he completed the work, they disappeared, too. Should we develop a theory about aliens invading us from outer space and stealing all of our source documents just to throw everyone into confusion? It would make as much sense!
The German scholars convinced themselves that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark but they must have had some other source to copy (apparently, they were too stupid to be original; only Mark and Q had any brains). Humor and sarcasm aside, however, the fact is that Q is based on nothing but conjecture. There is not now, nor has there ever been any tangible evidence of Q. The Gospel of Thomas contains some of the same sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke have. Therefore, the “scholars” conclude, the author of that work must have copied from Q, also, thus confirming the existence of Q—still in the absence of any actual physical evidence. Apparently, it never dawned on the “scholars” that whoever wrote the spurious Gospel of Thomas copied from Matthew and Luke! Hello!
Rationalism
One of the bits of information that every Christian needs to know about modern Biblical scholarship is that no one regarded as a “scholar” by the academic world believes that the Scriptures comprise the inspired Word of God. They believe that the Scriptures are attempts of men (perhaps sincere) who tried to communicate God to us. They do not believe that the Scriptures are true—only that they contain truth. For that reason the “Jesus Seminar” could decide which statements of Jesus were true, as well as which utterances were probably not His.
They do not believe what Paul wrote to Timothy—that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). They do not believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth or that He would bring to their remembrance all things that Jesus taught them (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). They believe in Q, a non-existent document that no one has ever seen. Is that rational? To them it is. They do not believe that Matthew and Luke could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit; they had to copy someone. One must wonder where Luke got his material for the book of Acts. To theorize that he obtained it from Q2 would make just as much sense as the other theory.
What we see is a literary version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Everyone is afraid to say that the whole framework of the rationalists is a fraud (that would not be scholarly); so they continue to build and add additions to the original theory, but the entire structure is built on sand. If only someone with the wisdom of a child would step forward to say, “This theory is naked and devoid of any truth!” Only someone educated in all the ways of the Egyptians, whose modernistic credentials could not be challenged, could probably do so.
All of the material in this U.S. News and World Report booklet is written by those who subscribe to the same faulty presuppositions. Anything relating to Biblical subjects on the History channel will be presented from the same point of view. The fact remains that Q was invented and does not exist. It was constructed out of the imaginations of scholars as to what they think would be in it if it did exist. Having built Q out of nothing, the scholars then tell us what is in it. Aren’t they amazing! They are sure that this invisible document presents Jesus only as a prophet, not the Messiah. The implication is that Jesus never worked miracles, which is no problem for the rationalists; they do not believe in miracles anyway.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, Et Al.
The heretical Gospel of Thomas, then, does not prove the existence of Q. Having taken an excursion to page 41, we now return to a discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much of what was contained there substantiated the writings of the Old Testament. Some have been studying these documents since their discovery in 1947. Although these documents are valuable, they do not contradict anything taught in the New Testament.
A later find was the Gospel of Judas (see 4-16-06 of Spiritual Perspectives), in which Judas was regarded as the disciple Jesus loved most (contrary to the Gospel of John). Allegedly, Jesus selected Judas to betray Him (8). Four years ago, these claims were brought to light and at that time this writer commented thus:
The very idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him is farcical. There were several times that they wanted to put Him to death; our Lord did not need any help in raising the ire of the Jews or giving them opportunities. But consider these facts (from real gospel accounts).
1. Jesus said: “The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not born” (Matt. 26:24). How hypocritical would it have been to have asked Judas to do that which he would regret eternally? There is a vast difference between God allowing men to sin and encouraging them to do so.
2. Jesus’ spiritual self did not need to be liberated. He was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14). He was so spiritual that He told Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
3. Judas did not betray Jesus to help Him, but rather for 30 pieces of silver—because he was a covetous man—a thief, who stole from the money box (John 12:4-6).
The problem with the “scholars” is that if they find anything with a view different from the Scriptures, they immediately assume that the work rejected by early Christians is correct and the Bible, attested by thousands of manuscripts, is wrong!
After a lengthy detour in the desert of uninspired documents and Q theories, the author of the article under review finally arrives at some archaeological evidence that substantiates what the writers of the Bible recorded. Among these are a dedication to “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea,” “an ossuary containing the bones” of Caiaphas, the high priest, and the “remnants of the palace of Herod Antipas (9). Of course, the hubris (for anyone else, we would use the term arrogance, but intellectuals prefer hubris), of the writer is seen in statements such as: “Jesus’ crucifixion was rendered entirely plausible when in a cave a heel bone pierced by a long nail was found” (10). Was there some doubt that the Romans practiced crucifixion before that find?
Synagogues and fishing boats have also been found, as well as the cities of “Caesarea Philippi, Shechem, and Bethany” (10). Having stopped briefly in the realm of actual evidence, however, the author takes off in another flight of fancy. Scholars, it seems, are linking everyday life in Galilee to certain events of church history, such as “the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Reformation, and more recent events” (10). Such as what? Another copy of the Rembaldi Manuscript? Oh, that’s right. That was fiction. How could anyone confuse that Italian document on Alias with true “science”? Whatever those connections are, however, appear in a related article elsewhere in the booklet.
New Revelation?
Whatever these connections to daily life are will need to wait until Part 2 of this series to be examined. The writer of this article warns that “the Crusaders were not always heroic champions of Christian virtues…” (11). Really? Historians have known that for centuries; this is scarcely a new revelation discovered in the twenty-first century. In fact Philip Schaff wrote 97 pages concerning them in Volume V of his monumental work, The History of the Christian Church, first published in 1907 (211-307). He begins by listing one-and-a-half pages of source material from several languages on the Crusades as a whole and then lists an equal amount of source material on just the First Crusade. The written material is objective, mentioning the virtues of the Crusaders, as well as their vices, such as gambling and drinking.
Louis IX of France, for example, led the Last Crusade, and Schaff comments: “His piety could not prevent the usual vices from being practiced in the camps” (283). In the accompanying footnote, he observes: “Within a stone’s throw of the king’s tent were several brothels” (283, footnote 3). Schaff likewise reported an unseemly incident in the conflict between Richard of England and Saladin of the Saracens.
A dark blot rests upon Richard’s memory for the murder in cold blood of twenty-seven hundred prisoners in the full sight of Saladin’s troops and as a punishment for the non-payment of the ransom money. The massacre, a few days before, of Christian captives, if it really occurred, in part explains but cannot condone the crime (262-630).
It is not, then, the case that we have just found out about these unflattering deeds that occurred during the Crusades. What they have to do with daily life in Palestine, however, remains to be seen.
The introduction closes with a lament that we do not have more information regarding “John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, and Judas.” Apparently, the Bible is insufficient. The author wishes we knew more concerning Jesus as well, whom she describes as “a brilliant, witty, intensely attractive, enigmatic, and visionary man” (11). Although brilliant and witty are accurate, where does intensely attractive come from? Isaiah prophesied: “He has no form or comeliness” (53:2). Jesus was not tall, dark, and handsome. Perhaps it is too hard to believe, in our material age, that the women who followed Jesus were attracted to the content of His message rather than His physical attributes.
Jesus was not enigmatic; He was totally honest about Who He was (the Son of God) and His mission (to seek and to save the lost). Neither was He a visionary. He spoke the truth God sent Him here to deliver, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The author says it seems that we can never attain “the total truth about Jesus and the history of Christianity” (11). Yet Jesus said that by continuing in His Word truth could be obtained and that it would set us free (John 8:31-32).