Anyone who has ever watched a segment concerning the Bible on the History Channel knows they are not to be trusted with the Scriptures. None of their “experts” with whom they conduct interviews actually believe that the Bible is the Word of God. What they reveal about themselves is a tremendous amount of bias, ignorance, and hypocrisy. These charges are not the attacks of an irate fundamentalist; the evidence follows which proves beyond any doubt the validity of the accusations.
The six-part series included “interviews with dozens of noted scholars in the United States and the Middle East, according to the following website: http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/bible-secrets-revealed-history-channel_n_4263055.html. This website says that the production “doesn’t break new ground in Biblical studies,” although it claims to present “mysteries” and “hidden facts” of the Old Testament. The series also boasts that it considers “provocative questions that people of faith yearn to have answered.” The website review is up front in declaring that the series will “be controversial in the eyes of viewers who take a more literal and theologically conservative reading” of the Bible. Following are just a few of the conclusions that show the bias of the series.
- The first episode posits that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to him. Instead it adopts the view that the books were put together by several men possibly over centuries.
- The documentary debates whether Adam and Eve were created together or separately. (Obviously it does not matter what the Scriptures say.)
- One of the six episodes asks, “Who actually killed Goliath?” If it wasn’t David, how about a man with a high-powered rifle transported back in time from the 20th century? Hello. Of course, David killed Goliath. The fact is that, generally speaking, those who produced this series have little respect for the Word of God. Who are the experts used on this program? Those consulted were described as those from:
Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and secular backgrounds. They include Reza Aslan, whose book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, topped bestseller charts this year after a controversial interview about his Islamic faith on Fox News, and Los Angeles-based author and Rabbi David Wolpe.
Umm, don’t several of these men have a vested interested in the Bible not being true? Jewish Rabbis and Muslims are probably not going to defend the integrity of the New Testament; in fact they might be rather prone to attack it and consider it as only a work of man. Then there is one of the consulting producers, “Robert Cargill, an archeologist and religion professor at the University of Iowa.” He commented: “We wanted the scholarship itself to be controversial, based upon the facts of what we have found in our studies.” Facts are seldom controversial; it is the way they are interpreted that brings about disagreement. Cargill was “raised as a Christian but now calls himself an agnostic.” He explains:
We look at the different approaches to the canon. There are some people who say the Bible is the Word of God, while others say, “Well, people did the best they could to believe in the Bible a long time ago, but now we accept that everything wasn’t created in six days, now we accept that there’s evolution.”
So, could they please tell us how many of the “experts” used in the show are in the first category and how many are evolutionary modernists? Those in the latter category seem to be those constantly quoted.The Real Jesus
One could write an entire book on the series; here we will just examine the segment dealing with Jesus, which appeared on television on December 4, 2013. At the outset, these words appear on the screen:
This program explores the mysteries of the Bible from a variety of historical and theological perspectives which have been debated for centuries.
Perhaps the best way to approach these words is simply to offer a translation of them so that the intent of them is not lost upon the viewer of this “documentary.” One is provided below:
This program explores some of the weirdest ideas ever concocted concerning the Bible and Jesus from a hodgepodge of unreliable sources that were discredited centuries ago.
The second description is the far more accurate one, but let’s proceed to the introduction of the topic. Watch closely how subtle the writers were:
For millions of people around the world He is known as the Son of God, the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, but who was the man simply known in his lifetime as Jesus…?
What is the implication of this statement? If a viewer were not familiar with the Scriptures, he would interpret this statement to mean that, during His lifetime, Jesus was simply known by the name given to Him at birth. All of these other names, therefore, must have been attributed to Him after His death—perhaps as legends that grew up around Him afterward. Yet all throughout the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God. The very first verse of the gospel of Mark makes this truth clear: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Thus, there is no doubt in Mark’s mind as to Jesus’ identity. John also states that this fact is at the heart of his purpose in writing his gospel account of Jesus’ life:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31).
Matthew records that one miracle Jesus did was to walk on water. Peter stepped out of the boat to join Him and also walked on water until doubt entered his mind, and he began to sink. Jesus rescued him, and they both entered the boat. The apostles who were in the boat (including Matthew, the writer of the book), worshiped Him, saying, “Truly, You are the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33). Peter made that same confession later when Jesus asked their opinion of Him (Matt. 16:16).
Luke records that the angel who appeared to Mary to announce to her the virgin birth also informed her that the “Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). John the Baptizer, after immersing Jesus, testified that He was the Son of God (John 1:34). Nathanael, upon first meeting Jesus, confessed, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the king of Israel!” (John 1:49). Jesus Himself declared His Deity several times (John 5:25; 9:35-37; 10:36; et al.). In fact, Jesus’ acknowledgment of His Deity was the very reason that the Jewish leaders demanded His death. Consider carefully this text:
But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus answered, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be worthy of death (Mark 14:61-64).
It is not the case that Jesus was only called the Son of God after His lifetime. He was given this designation before His birth and all throughout His ministry. He not only referred to Himself by this phrase, but the fact that He did so was the very purpose for the crucifixion! How dare anyone imply that Son of God was a phrase only used at a later point! To assert such a thing is to deny that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded all of these passages correctly, which would effectively destroy their credibility on any subject, period. If Jesus was never called the Son of God during His lifetime, all four of them are liars and conspirators in perpetuating fraudulent ideas. None of the New Testament would then be valid or trustworthy.
Jesus was also called “the Messiah” during His years on the earth. Andrew told his brother, Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah” (referring to Jesus) (John 1:41). Jesus acknowledged to the woman at the well that He was the anticipated Messiah (John 4:25-26). The phrase, Prince of Peace, was not invented after Jesus’ death; it is a prophecy concerning the Lord made by Isaiah more than 700 years before His birth (Isa. 9:6-7).
From this misleading introduction concerning Jesus, the series then jumps all over the place with questions and statements, such as:
Just how accurate are the accounts as written in the Bible’s New Testament? …
His friends were prostitutes and sinners.
Jesus’ ministry was actually funded by a lot of women.
You might be surprised to learn that Jesus had siblings.
Hypocrisy
And these are related how? Comments follow in reverse order. No one who has read the Bible is surprised to learn that Jesus had brothers and sisters—not if they have read Matthew 12:46-50 or Matthew 13:55-56. Is this one of the Bible’s secrets—hidden in plain sight? The series thinks so; one “expert” proclaims: “Yes, one of the biggest kept secrets about Jesus –that he’s one of quite a large family.” Wow! How hard was that to find? The fact that some women provided money for His ministry (Luke 8:1-3) is true, but what is the purpose for mentioning it? The passage does not imply that His entire ministry was funded by women or that no men ever gave anything. What is the point? Equally curious is the fact that they emphasized He was a friend of sinners, which is true because He called on them to repent, which is an ingredient of salvation (John 8:1-11; cf. Matt. 11:19; Luke 13:3).
At the outset of the article we charged the series with hypocrisy. The reason for this assessment pertains to the previous statement questioning the Bible’s accuracy. The series questions what the Bible records at every turn, but then the narrator admits:
The fact is, pretty much everything we know about the life of Jesus comes from the four gospels of the New Testament….”
Okay. If those documents tell us pretty much everything we know, then why try to discredit them? If they are worthless, then everything we know is worthless. To look at it another way, we cannot rely upon what the Bible says in one breath and then disparage it in the next. The series relies upon the Bible to be accurate when it speaks of Jesus’ brothers and sisters—but not when it says He was born in Bethlehem (part 2 will deal with this topic). If that practice is not inconsistent and hypocritical, then what is it? One cannot have it both ways.
The Virgin Birth
Now consider the charge of ignorance. Those who produced this series decided to call into question one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity—the virgin birth. This doctrine provides the reason we know Jesus is the Son of God. He had a human mother, from which He obtained His humanness, but the Holy Spirit begot Him, from which His Deity originated. This doctrine is as fundamental as the resurrection.
The Real Jesus casts doubt upon the virgin birth, saying that only Matthew and Luke mention it. The reason is that they are the only ones who discuss Jesus’ birth and childhood. If the four writers were identical in everything they said, why would we need four? Mark begins with Jesus’ ministry but mentions His Deity in the very first verse, as shown earlier. John goes back beyond His birth: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
John showed the eternal nature of Jesus right at the outset. He adds: “And the Word was made flesh…” in 1:14. He apparently assumes that the reader knows the particulars of His birth (since John was the last gospel account to be written). He again emphasizes Jesus’ eternality in John 8:58 when he records Him as affirming: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” The case against the virgin birth falls flat with such an inadequate argument.
Then the producers of this series suggest that Matthew and Luke wrote these words to justify to Jesus’ followers their belief in Him as the Hebrew Messiah, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. This proposal accuses Matthew of being dishonest. But what is their proof?
A “scholar” discussed the giving of the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, which he affirmed was given during the time of Hezekiah (hence the earlier charge of ignorance). Maybe some of these experts should read the text. Isaiah was talking to the wicked King Ahaz (not Hezekiah, his son) when he told him: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Immanuel means “God with us,” which is precisely Who Jesus was.
Another “scholar” being interviewed said that the Hebrew word Isaiah used could mean “virgin,” but it could also mean “young woman” without respect to virginity. Well, why not look at the other six times almah is used in the Old Testament? In Genesis 24:43 it refers to Rebekah, who was a virgin prior to her marriage to Isaac. Exodus 2:8 speaks of Miriam as a “maiden” when Pharaoh’s daughter appointed her to find a nurse for the baby Moses. These first two instances ought to define what the word means elsewhere. Psalm 68:25 refers to maidens playing timbrels; nothing indicates they were not virgins. The Song of Solomon mentions virgins (1:3; 6:8), and they appear to be young, unmarried, sexually pure women. The Proverbs 30:19 reference describes the way a man courts a maiden. Not one of these indicates a non-virginal woman. So why would anyone want to cast aspersions on Isaiah 7:14?
The “scholar,” confident in his own wisdom, says that Matthew looked back at the Old Testament with “eyes of faith.” Therefore, he used parthenos when quoting Isaiah 7:14—a word which can only mean “virgin.” Really? Then perhaps he could explain why the LXX (the Septuagint version of the Hebrew translated into Greek prior to 250 B.C.) also used parthenos to translate almah. They were all Jews and had no idea when the prophecy would be fulfilled, yet without “eyes of faith” they chose the Greek word that means only “virgin.”
In fact, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament both cited the LXX. The LXX’s and Matthew’s sentences are identical except for one verb (have instead of conceive) and one verb ending (they will call instead of you will call). Thus the “scholars” chosen for Bible Secrets Revealed have shown themselves to be biased, hypocritical, and ignorant, as charged at the outset. Is this the best the History Channel can do?