Amidst all the speculative ideology (and in some cases, nonsense), U.S. News and World Report’s special issue on “Secrets of Christianity” (on sale through July 13th) occasionally comments on something relevant. “The Miracle Worker” was an inset in the previous article reviewed, and it shows the bias of “scholars” about as clearly as it can be seen. One of the kindest statements, for example, is this one: “…Jesus probably did perform feats that would have been perceived as miracles at the time” (18). Whoa! Be still, my heart. Such an admission!
This immense concession on the part of some professors soon degenerates. “Theologians” point out that almost every culture has stories of healing. Really? Are they ones in which everyone in a village, town, or city is healed (Mark 6:54-56)? Do they fulfill prophecy (Matt. 8:16-17)? What is the purpose for them—just to make someone look good? The miracles of Jesus authenticated His Deity and His teachings—that they were true. Jesus invited His apostles to believe Him “for the sake of the works themselves” (John 14:11). And could someone who worked all of those miracles in those other cultures get up and say, as Peter did on the Day of Pentecost, these remarks?
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you also yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).
How strange it is that with all of these other alleged healings going on in all these other cultures, no other religion has arisen from those circumstances! Could it be that a smattering of a few stories and legends scattered throughout the world cannot compare with what actually happened in Judea and Galilee 2,000 years ago? One “scholar” opined that saying that Jesus was a healer was as dull as saying He was a carpenter.
The next allegation, however, shows the “scholars” exceeding arrogance. They are willing to only give Him credit for healing psychosomatic illnesses: “rashes, lameness, and some types of blindness…” (18). Perhaps if these distinguished professors spent more time reading the Bible and less time pooling their ignorance (by talking to each other), they might see how foolish they look to anyone who possesses even a beginner’s knowledge of the Scriptures.
Jesus did not heal psychosomatic illnesses, but if He did, He was quite convincing. When the centurion came to him on behalf of his servant, who was not even present, Jesus healed him. Hmm. Perhaps the centurion just “thought” his servant was sick, and Jesus healed the centurion of his wrong-thinking. If the servant was truly psychosomatically sick, Jesus did a good job of convincing him he was healthy without ever meeting him and from quite a distance at that!
It must be supposed that the man who was blind from birth learned how to make himself psychosomatically ill from an early age (John 9). Leprosy could hardly be regarded as a rash. People in those times knew what the disease was and that lepers could not be around people because of the contagion (have the “scholars” never seen the movie, Ben-Hur?). Ten of them were healed as they went on their way to the priest, although only one returned to thank Jesus.
Besides, Jesus seldom picked the time or the place when miracles would occur. A lame man was lowered through the roof of a house where He was teaching (Mark 2). The Lord did not say, “I sure hope this illness is psychosomatically induced, or I’m going to look like an imposter.” They brought people to Him wherever He was: “…great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all” (Matt. 12:15). This must have been the most psychosomatically sick society ever! Apparently, no one had a genuine illness.
Exorcisms, Miracles of Nature, and Resurrections
Demon possession was a common belief in the first century, also, and it was not uncommon for others to cast out demons (18). The New Testament indicates that this claim is true. Jesus asked His critics, who accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, by whom “their sons” cast them out (Matt. 12:27). Later the seven sons of Sceva were trying to cast out demons, also, but they did not succeed (Acts19:14-16). Perhaps Jesus’ great confidence healed the psychosomatically demon-possessed. Maybe He was so good that, in a strange reversal of roles, He convinced a herd of swine that they had become demon-possessed, and they ran down a steep hill and drowned in the lake! Now, that would be fantastic power of persuasion (Matt. 8:28-32).
Modern “scholars” cannot bring themselves to believe in hardly anything of a supernatural nature. They dismiss Jesus walking on the water and calming the storm as being too reminiscent of the powers of Poseidon, the Greek god described by Homer in his Odyssey (19). Well, did Poseidon dwell among men or among the gods? Was he a human being born in a specific town? A mythical god controlling the seas in no way compares to Jesus. One would think that “scholars” might pick up on such things as purpose and style. Homer wrote an interesting tale which explained some of the greatness of Greece’s past, working mythology into the picture. Jesus is God in the flesh who is not controlled by gods; He is in control of every situation—even the crucifixion. The writers of the New Testament did not compose a story that would merely entertain people around a campfire; they told of a Man who came to save people from their sins. Just because certain events have some points (few) in common does not mean that the one evolved from the other.
The fact is that the “scholars” reject all miraculous stories. They are just fiction to them. The more charitable ones think that the writers of the New Testament recorded “honest misunderstandings” (19). Right! And they maintained these “honest misunderstandings” up until the time they died and never renounced them. All through the persecutions they faced, they just could not bring themselves to say, “Well, uh, maybe I honestly misunderstood.” As usual, these fictional suppositions are harder to believe than the truth.
Concerning the resurrection from the dead, these learned doctors theorize that people of the time just mistakenly thought that some men and women were dead, which would explain their revival. So Lazarus was not really dead for the four days he was in the tomb? When they were wrapping him up, he should have said, “Hey! Stop what you’re doing!” When they wrapped his mouth, he should have yelled, “Mmm! Mmm!” and tried to wiggle just a little. No text says that Lazarus complained about being buried too soon. The scholars and professors are biased against what the Scriptures teach. They clearly reject it.
The two-page article on Jesus’ resurrection is rather ethereal and unintelligible for the most part; it does leave one wondering, “How does Jesus rise from the dead metaphorically?” Also, was He just killed metaphorically (22-23)?
The Extended Royal Family
Needless to say, Jesus could not have been born of a virgin. Jesus’ father is unknown, but “Joseph married her anyway…” (26). The writer, James D. Tabor, who was quoted (though not by name) from the previous article concerning his “two-Messiah” theory, does get some of Jesus’ family members right, but he says that Luke was under the influence of Paul and that he minimized the importance of Jesus’ family (260). He bases this deduction on the fact that Matthew and Mark mention their names, but Luke did not, which is absurd. John does not mention them in the way the other two writers do, but he does not stand accused of plotting against Jesus’ family. Furthermore, Luke does mention the brothers (although not by name in Acts 1:14), and he later mentions James in particular (Acts 15).
Tabor rather oddly identifies ”the disciple whom Jesus loved” as James, His brother, citing John 19:26-27. Bible commentators practically universally agree that this phrase refers to John, the only writer who uses it. Besides that, however, it is first used of what occurred during the last supper, and James was not present on that occasion. Furthermore, he was not present in what occurred in John 20:2 or 21:7 and 20. So, if Jesus was speaking to James from the cross, it is the only time in five instances that the phrase is used of someone other than John. Besides, why would Jesus tell His own brother to take care of His mother? That would go without saying as a family responsibility.
But Tabor explains further that Jesus’ brothers (James, Jude, and Simon) were part of the twelve apostles (28)! That would explain how it came to be that James was at the Last Supper. Everyone knows that Peter, Andrew, James, and John were the first four. Next are Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathanael), Thomas, and Matthew. Tabor is positive that three of the last four are the Lord’s brothers, Judas Iscariot being the last one listed. Is this allegation possible?
Jesus’ brothers are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. The same identical names are found in Mark 6:3only in a different order (Simon and Judas are reversed). Those names seem quite definite, but when it comes to the last three out of four disciples, some of them had more than one name. In Matthew’s list, those three are James, the son of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite (10:3-4). The list in Mark is the same except that only Thaddeus (the surname) is listed—not Lebbaeus (3:18-19). In Luke’s list James is still the son of Alphaeus, Simon is called the zealot, and Thaddeus is called Judas, the son of James (6:15-16). Luke’s other list (after Judas Iscariot hanged himself) is identical (Acts 1:13).
It should be quite obvious to most readers that these three apostles have their own distinctive descriptions. Simon is the zealot or the Canaanite (or Cana-nean, depending on the text); and Lebbaeus is also known as Thaddeus or Judas, the son of James. No explanation is offered for this Judas (or Jude) being the Lord’s brother. James is the son of Alphaeus, not Jesus’ brother (Levi or Matthew is also the son of Alphaeus in Mark2:14).
But Mr. Tabor theorizes that Alphaeus is a variation of Clophas (even though the similarity is vague), was Joseph’s brother and that, when Joseph died, Mary married Clophas, who raised his brother Joseph’s children (or maybe some of them were his own) (26, 28). This entire account is a strettccchhh.
Tabor also refers to James and Joses as the sons of Mary as though this is the Lord’s mother and brothers, but this allegation is easily seen to be false. In Matthew 27:55-56 there were many women who had followed Jesus and were present for the crucifixion. One of these was Mary the mother of James and Joses. Mark calls him James the Less and adds a sister, Salome (15:40). Both accounts mention that these ladies were “looking on from afar.” Mary, the mother of Jesus, however, stood by the cross (John 19:25-27). Tabor’s theory cannot stand even a little scrutiny, but this kind of conjecture often happens among scholars. Academia requires new research and explanations; scholars often invent novel ideas, which gullible fellow professors (not to mention publications, such as U.S. News and World Report) find fascinating and intriguing.
Tabor calls having three of Jesus’ brothers among His disciples “the best-kept secret in the entire New Testament” (28). Perhaps Mr. Tabor would like to en-lighten the rest of us about a conversation that Jesus’ brothers had with Him in John 7. This conversation took place well after Jesus has chosen His twelve apostles; it takes place after the feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14); Jesus selected His apostles in Matthew 10. John 7 obviously follows John 6, which is the place John recorded the feeding of the five thousand. John clearly records: “For even His brothers did not believe in Him” (v. 5). What a secret this must have been! His brothers comprised three of the twelve apostles, but they did not yet even believe and were even mocking Him. Now, that’s a well-kept secret!
Another thing that ruins Tabor’s argument is that, according to his thesis, Paul tended to exalt Jesus as Deity and minimize James as a leader of the disciples. Yet who does he quote to show that James is a leader in the early church? Paul. This admission is akin to those who desire to have women preachers. They assert out of one side of their mouths that Paul hated women and then out of the other side cite Paul as showing that all are equal in Christ. Hmm. Neither Paul nor Luke minimized James’ (the brother of the Lord) leadership role in the church in Jerusalem. Luke and Paul are the very ones who provide that information. Tabor’s theory is unprovable and erroneous.
Jesus’ Baptism
As if words were not enough to convey wrong impressions, the reader finds a picture on page 26 that is certainly enigmatic. At the bottom of the page the reader finds this information: “Artist: Francesco Trevisani(1656-1746).” He sounds a tad Italian, meaning that he was probably Roman Catholic. Underneath the picture is this caption: “Holy Water. Jesus is baptized in the River Jordan.”
The picture is quite beautiful; there is an excellent use of color. One can probably overlook the stereotypical presentation of the Father, Who is looking down from Heaven. His hair is white, as is His beard which is quite lengthy. He is viewing the scene below, but His hands are shaped in such a way that He looks like He is causing the event taking place below. There are several angels up in Heaven with Him, but they do not seem to be paying attention to the “baptism”; their faces are facing various directions. There is a dove flying underneath the Father, and it appears that three rays of light are emanating from its beak.
Below are John and Jesus, barely wearing anything. John seems to have a scarlet sash flowing around him but is bare-chested, as is Jesus. Jesus is clad only in a piece of white cloth around His waist. Some ladies behind them do not seem any more focused on the event than the angels. John is not in the River Jordan; he stands on a rock nearby. Jesus has one foot on the rock and one in the Jordan. John is holding an object that looks like a small bowl (which may be what two women are viewing), and he is pouring water over Jesus’ head. Well, at least Jesus’ foot was immersed.
How ludicrous this portrayal is! John could have baptized anywhere if he only put a little bit of water into a bowl to pour over someone’s head. Yet the Biblical text tells us that John baptized in the locations he did “because there was much water there” (John 3:23). No one needs much water if he is only using a tiny amount of it in a bowl. Obviously, the artist was influenced by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church rather than what the Scriptures teach.
Another picture carries the caption: “Deathbed. Mary the mother and brother James prepare Jesus for burial.” While this scene is very touching, it also lacks a Scriptural mandate. Jesus’ body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea; he and Nicodemus took it and prepared it for burial (John 19:38-42). Some of the women followed them and came back after the Sabbath with spices they had prepared, but Jesus was already raised. So when did Mary and James prepare His body for burial? They did not; the idea arose from someone’s (probably a “scholar’s”) imagination.
This “special issue” under review for three weeks now is loaded with errors and speculation—both in word and picture. How many people who are not familiar with the Bible may pick it up and say, “I didn’t know that; this is really interesting”? How sad.