THE HOLY CONFUSION OR THE HOLY BIBLE, THE BOOK OF MAN OR THE BOOK OF GOD? In The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, Michael Biagent et al comment that it is on the strength of Mark’s account that the notion of Jesus’ humble family background originated. That said, it is clear that the two genealogies are so strikingly dissimilar that they might well be referring to two different individuals. Now, no one knows what Jesus actually looked like – his height, figure, colour of his hairs, eyes and general complexion. Of course, there is no description of him in The Holy Bible, probably because writers of the gospels who never saw Jesus face-to-face were totally in the dark about his physical features. It could also be that the story of Jesus is a fiction invented to fit in with the ideas of Pauline Christian churches, whose scribes wrote the gospels to justify their religious practices. Thus, if there was no historical Jesus, there can be no accurate description of a non- existent person. But what of the images, paintings, and statues purporting to represent the Christ? Alfred Reynolds, in Jesus versus Christianity, provides a very interesting answer. According to Reynolds, “the custom of painting a fine-looking tall man with long flowing hair and a golden beard, with blue eyes and fair complexion, is pure fantasy introduced by European painters who represented him in the likeness of their most attractive models.” Certainly, there has always been a tendency by the church to depict Jesus as a very handsome man – after all, good looks have great aesthetic propaganda advantages. An ugly Jesus would very likely be inimical to the faith of women and spoil the ornaments of the church as well as of the theatre. Moreover, if there had been Jesus and he were handsome, that fact would have become part of oral tradition that crystallised into the gospels. The truth, Reynolds conjectures, is that, aside from the circle of Jesus’ disciples deeply impressed by their teacher and a number of active opponents, nobody paid attention to the itinerant preacher – neither his contemporaries nor historians of the time. It was only when his memory had faded and merged into the image of the God Christ, the risen saviour, that the world took notice of his name. We have already identified some of the contradictions in the gospels concerning the life of Jesus. Yet there are more, for the discrepancies between the gospels go beyond the issue of ancestry and genealogy. According to Luke’s gospel, Jesus’ family were resident in Nazareth, from where they moved – because of a census, which may be fictitious – to Bethlehem where Jesus was born in a manger. Matthew’s account says something different: it states that the family of Jesus had been reasonably well-to-do residents of Bethlehem all along and that Jesus himself was born in a house. Further, Matthew claims that Herod’s persecution of the innocent compelled Jesus’ family to travel to Egypt; it was only upon their return that they began living in Nazareth. On a general note, information in the gospels about the origins of Jesus is specific and perfectly plausible. Nevertheless, the details are contradictory. Christian apologists try to gloss over or explain away the glaring contradictions by claiming that what matters is the fact that the different accounts agree that Jesus was born to Jewish parents – contradictions in the details do not really matter. Yet they do matter, because logically speaking contradictions are toxic to truth. Hence, it is impossible to reconcile the narratives as accurate historical accounts. No matter how we look at it, they constitute an exclusive disjunction: one or both stories concerning Jesus’ origins, family background and birth is false. The only reasonable alternative is to accept the possibility that the gospels are not definitive unimpugnable word of God or that they might be telling stories of not just one person but two or three different individuals which, for ecclesiastical purposes, were blended to form the fictional character named Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels also give different dates for the crucifixion. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus was crucified on the day after the Jewish festival of Passover; but the fourth gospel, that of John, says it occurred on the day before. They differ on the actual words inscribed on the crucifixion cross: In Matthew, the inscription was “This is Jesus the king of the Jews,” in Mark we read, “The King of the Jews,” while Luke reports that the superscription is, “This is the king of the Jews.” John’s gospel adds something new; it says that Pilate wrote the title “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews,” and put it on the cross. In addition, there is disagreement about Jesus’ final statement before he died. Matthew and Mark report it to be the anguished cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In Luke’s gospel it was, “Father unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” According to the gospel of John, Jesus simply uttered “It is finished,” bowed his head and gave up the ghost. I am convinced that time is ripe for Christians in Nigeria, and indeed Christians worldwide, to begin a critical reassessment of the fundamentals of their belief. This is because, given the frightening expansion of evangelical Christianity, with millions of people claiming to belong to one Christian denomination or another, the church has become a social force that can impact the society either for good or bad – these days usually the latter. They should be aware that serious scientific investigations into the life and times of Jesus, if he actually existed at all, have turned up information that are not consonant with church orthodoxy. As Biagent and his co-researchers observe, established Christian teachings, as they have been passed down through the centuries, represent only a highly selective compilation of fragments, subjected to stringent editorial work and revision. Thus the New Testament, in particular, projects an image of Jesus and his age that conforms to the needs of certain vested interests – of certain individuals and groups who had, and to a significant extent still have, an important stake in the matter. This implies that anything that could possibly jeopardise or embarrass these interests – like the “secret” gospel of Mark, for instance -has been duly expunged. It can be persuasively argued that writers of the gospels have excised so much from available documents, in fact, that a kind of vacuum has been created, thereby necessitating speculation sometimes based on incomplete evidence. To illustrate, James D. Tabor, in his book, The Jesus Dynasty, suggests that the unknown biological father of Jesus was Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, a Roman Soldier and possibly a Jew. Pantera was a native of Syria-Palestine, north of Galilee; and he was a contemporary of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Although most Christians might reject Tabor’s submission out of hand, the archaeological evidence for it, no matter how small, should not be dismissed cavalierly. It is time adherents of various religions recognise that the best way to ensure the integrity of their creed is to be open- minded and allow all the facts to be put on the table.Obdurate, dogmatic refusal to reckon with evidence and suppression of dissent is atavistic and the surest way to emasculate spiritual enlightenment. Concluded.
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:09:07 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015