Matthew: Part I (Week 17)

Last week’s study focused more on Jesus as a man of history, so I made only passing allusions to Jesus as the messiah where those allusions provided further support the notion of a real, historical Jesus. As we study the gospels, however, I would do a serious injustice to the writer’s descriptions of Jesus if I did not address their records of Jesus’ claims and “miracles”.

Jesus the Christ

As I look at the individual gospels and other New Testament works, I think it’s important to ask what the motivation would be to write these stories if they are, in fact, not true (or not at least believed to be true). If you’ve read as many novels or watched as many crime dramas as I have, you know that “motive and opportunity” – while not proof by themselves – are big players. So, what might be the motive for concocting a messiah, especially a messiah as described in the New Testament?

Secondary fame (I know that guy!)
Prestige
Adoration
Power
Wealth
Glory in martyrdom
Credibility
Heaven (remember, they would be blaspheming)
A disdain for family life
Avoidance of embarrassment (if they believed Jesus until He died)

The “reward” for the disciples was predictable. It’s beyond comprehension to think that the disciples spread such a falsehood as a selfish venture; there was just so very little to gain and so very much to lose. It’s exceedingly more plausible that the disciples and the gospel authors believed Jesus to be the messiah. They suffered imprisonment, torture, and death rather than relinquish these beliefs. I think it is disingenuous to allege that the disciples were simply deceivers; there is simply no conceivable reason for so many to remain so resolute.

Last week I made the claim that “liars make poor martyrs.” One thing that I did not address was the fact that martyrdom is not linked solely to Christianity. So, what does the martyrdom of the disciples prove, then? To me, it simply equates to belief. I firmly believe, for instance, that the perpetrators of September 11th trusted that they would be welcomed into heaven as a result of their actions. I can see no evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe that the Heavens Gate cult trusted that they would be welcomed aboard a spaceship nesting behind a comet. A willingness to die (especially to die a torturous death) is a clear demonstration of belief. Does belief necessarily equal truth? Absolutely not! Certainly, people can follow blindly or be deceived. So, what is it about the disciples that sets them apart?

1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.

In a nutshell, they attested to things that cannot, when viewed together, be attributed to a deceptive Jesus.

A Poor Way to Construct a Legend

When historians look at records from antiquity, there are certain elements that can help them to ascertain whether the record was biased (and hence less reputable). Does the story portray the writer as a hero? Was it commissioned by an emperor? Did it paint the picture the public wanted to see? This formula really hasn’t changed since antiquity. If a professional athlete is accused of taking drugs, and his agent denies the allegations, most take this with a grain of salt. If a documentary talks of the evil George Bush, there’s an element of catering to public opinion that should be weighed. On the other hand, let’s look at a book like Ball Four. The contents of Ball Four flew in the face of the “codes” of baseball and led to Jim Bouton being ostracized from a game he loved. He paid a price for revealing certain truths about the game of baseball, and there’s no doubt that his book gained credibility when the public saw what he surrendered to bring the truth. The disciples surrendered much, much more and gained far less.

We should consider the type of story one would concoct around the turn of the millennium if one wished to be taken seriously. If the disciples constructed a lie, they did a really bad job of it (if their collective goal was to build Christianity during their lifetimes).

They don’t generally tend to paint themselves in the best light.
They don’t portray Jesus as the messiah expected by the Jews.
They laud tax collectors and other generally-despised figures while speaking ill of the sages and accepted religious leaders.
They incorporate witnesses who were generally considered to be untrustworthy (e.g. women).
They include the Gentiles.
They speak against accepted law as handed down by oral traditions.

This simply isn’t a formula for success.

Matthew: Part I

Most would not describe Matthew as their “favorite” gospel; however, for our purposes, his writings help to tie the NT works back to the OT ideas of the messiah. Matthew also tries diligently to show how he believes Jesus fills that particular role, so we’ll be able to use Matthew in a back-and-forth study. This week, I want to examine a few facts and assumptions regarding the author himself and I want to outline key things Matthew wrote about Jesus. I’ll try as well to address a number of general objections to Matthew’s writings (though I’ll save objections to the gospels as a whole for several weeks… it will help a great deal to examine each of the four before discussing them as a whole).

Authorship

Matthew is so named because it is generally attributed to Matthew the apostle (tax-collector and one of the “Twelve”). This ascription stems mainly from the early church, though confirming historical documentation is somewhat lackluster (i.e. Eusebius). The main reason for upholding the early patristic tradition is that the qualities of the gospel fit a Jewish tax-collector-turned-Christian:

The author is fluent in Hebrew and Greek (qualities a tax-collector must possess), in a time where the majority of people were illiterate.
The author conveys the message of Jesus’ ostracism rather nicely (again, something a tax-collector would be intimately familiar with).
There is an abundance of references to tax collection and money matters.
Evidence does not point elsewhere.

Overall, without the early patristic tradition, there is no direct evidence to link Matthew to the gospel, so authorship is based almost exclusively on the early church’s assessment.

Date

As with most any documents from antiquity, there is some debate regarding exactly when the gospel was first authored. Most modern scholars believe that the Mark pre-dates Matthew. This notion stems largely from the thought that Matthew appears to build upon many of Mark’s passages. Countering this idea, however, is the Griesbach Hypothesis, which asserts that Mark is actually an intentionally-condensed form of Matthew and Luke (likely for the benefit of Gentile readers). Either of these theories generally place Matthew somewhere between the 50s and 80s AD.

Then Was Fulfilled

Matthew takes great care in linking Jesus to the Scripture. From the Semitic language of the ancient texts, it is clear that he has a full understanding of Jewish language and traditions, and it appears that his primary audience was Israel (as in “the nation of”), so providing reference to the Scripture would have been paramount in calling Jews to Jesus. From his references of Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 21:4, 27:9), there can be little doubt that Matthew is attesting to the fact that Jesus is indeed the messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew

1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.*
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.*
6. He was a prophet.*
7. He was crucified. *
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.*
* - Part of next week’s discussion

The Virgin Mary

1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ Miracles

4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

8:1-4
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."

8:5-13
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed…. And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

8:14-16
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.

8:23-27
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"

9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

9:18-26
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.

9:27-34
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.

As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons."

I didn’t include all of the reported miracles, but this gives a good idea of what Matthew claimed Jesus had done. Coupled with the resurrection, the list of miracles doesn’t leave room for the assumption that Jesus simply deceived the disciples or that He was a wise sage who taught them a better understanding of the Scripture. According to Matthew, He cured the incurable, healed from afar, commanded the seas, made the blind see, and raised the dead. The acts described are well beyond David Copperfield or Benny Hinn.

The Disciple’s Powers

Matthew 10:1-4
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Matthew 10 makes it extraordinarily clear that there is no room for “Jesus the Deceiver.”

Jesus’ Authority

7:28-29
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

The authority of Jesus is really what Matthew is all about. Authority to rebuke the words of the Pharisees lies with God alone. The moral authority that Jesus clearly feels belongs to Him is an authority that only belongs to God. This verse is just another way of saying that Jesus is God and that He does have this authority.

Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural.

Next Week

In the interest of not allowing this week’s post to exceed last week’s, I’ll be addressing Matthew in two parts. Mark, Luke, and John will likely not meet the same fate, since a lot of the things addressed this week and next will pertain to all of the gospels.

The Jesus of History (Week 16)

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” – John Dominic Crossan (co-founder of the Jesus Seminar)

The more you study religion, the more theories you will inevitably encounter. Although the theory that Jesus never really existed at all is not widely accepted, it has cropped up from time to time (see below), so I want to take this week to reveal the evidence that I have encountered to support the historical Jesus. If there does exist a good deal of latent doubt regarding Jesus’ existence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin an in-depth study of the New Testament until I first establish that Jesus was a real historical figure.

“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

(Dr. G.A. Wells actually taught German at the University of London, but I’m sure he presents a strong case.)

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

In a critical examination of the veracity of Biblical text, there is a certain inclination to toss out the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al because there is a lack of objectivity inherent in any persuasive literature (and the New Testament certainly qualifies as such). Such a sentiment is certainly understandable; while there is a great deal of biographical information in the New Testament, the authors are definitely attempting to persuade the reader to regard Jesus’ teachings as truth. There are a few things to be considered, though, before setting aside the most comprehensive sources:

1. The dates of the accounts (and the subsequent implications)
2. The potential motivation of the authors
3. The imprisonment and martyrdom of Jesus’ followers
4. The transformation of Saul

This week, I want to set aside any notions of the Bible having been inspired by God or infallible. I simply wish to review the text as a historical document. In their writings, the New Testament authors clearly speak of Jesus’ life and crucifixion. The accounts are purported to be first-hand accounts of either Jesus or His apostles. To a historian, these writings are a rare treasure. With any historical texts, there are certain subtleties that can help scholars to ascertain whether the documents were legitimate. I’ll examine below a few of the nuances that lead the vast majority of scholars to believe Jesus was real.

The Dates

The gospels and Paul’s letters are a rarity, historically speaking. With regards to the early centuries AD, to find written biographies/accounts within several hundred years of the people/events themselves is to find a veritable gold mine of information. For instance, the earliest broad accounts of titanic historical figures like Alexander the Great and Hannibal were written centuries after the fact. In contrast, even conservative figures place Paul’s letters and the gospel writings within the first century AD (though some believe John was written closer to 110 AD) or within about 70 years of Jesus’ death and a majority of Biblical scholars believe that most of the works were written prior to 70 AD*.

* This dating stems largely from the content of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Many scholars believe that there is a sort of deafening silence in that there is no mention of hugely significant events that would have helped the Christian cause or would have had a great deal of historical significance to Christians, such as the fall of the temple that was prophesized in the Old Testament (c. 70-75 AD) or the death of Paul (c. 65-70 AD). Paul’s letters, of course, cannot have been written after his death c. 65-70AD.

Why are these dates significant? Writing and circulating accounts (or speaking to accounts, for that matter) that could easily be discredited (if untrue) amongst those who would wish to discredit the apostles would have been a serious detriment to the Christian movement. Jesus is purported to have traveled the countryside and to have spoken to numerous crowds. The books mention specific events and specific locations (most any modern Bible will contain a map showing Jesus’ journey based solely from the New Testament writings). Jesus supposedly performs wondrous acts in full view of the public. By all accounts, Jesus’ execution was a very public event. The authors write of an “empty tomb”. Could the gospels or Paul’s letters have been convincing if Jesus never existed or if He was never crucified?

Let’s examine a few quick and easy ways people of Jesus’ time could have nipped that pesky Christian cult in the bud:

Hypothetical Conversation 1

Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!

Person in crowd: Je-who?

Hypothetical Conversation 2

Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!

Executioner: We only kill thieves and criminals. I think I would have remembered executing someone because he claimed to be God. You say he was the subject of abject humiliation? A crown of what? Thorns? I’m sure I would have remembered that! Pilate only ruled here for about 10 years!

Hypothetical Conversation 3

Disciple: Jesus healed the sick and the lame. He brought Lazarus of Bethany back from the dead!

Bethanian: Lazarus of Bethany? I’ve lived in Bethany my whole life. I knew Lazarus and his sisters… Mary and Martha. He died, but I think I would have known if some Jesus fellow came around saying he could reanimate him. Plus, he’s still dead!

Hypothetical Conversation 4

Disciple: Remember that Jesus fed the crowd of thousands with only a few loaves and fishes! He is indeed the Son of God!

Person in crowd: When was this? You’re saying that thousands of people went to some big field to watch a guy perform miracles? I live a kilometer from there. I never saw a huge crowd walking through my grass. Je-who?

Hypothetical Conversation 5: The early disciples recruit the first Christians

Disciple 1: Behold! I tell you that there existed a man named Jesus who was born to a virgin, who roamed the countryside performing miracles, who was crucified, but who arose from the dead three days later! And, I have NINE other guys who can corroborate this story! Yes, that’s right, NINE!

Person in crowd: Where are the nine other guys?

Disciple 2: Some may already be dead and others have spread out throughout the countryside to spread the good news.

Person in crowd: Um, so there’s only two of you here?

Disciples: Yes, but we swear that are NINE others spreading the good news elsewhere; look, I have a letter from one of them!

Person in crowd: I can’t read. So, you say that this Jesus fellow performed miracles in front of thousands of people?

Disciples: Yes!

Person in crowd: Can I talk to one of them?

Disciples: They’re in faraway lands. But you should stop doing all of the things that you’re doing, because you are being sinful.

Person in crowd: I’ve never heard of this Jesus. Did you say that he performed miracles? And, there’s only nine people who will attest to this?

Potential Motivation

If we are to believe that Jesus did not exist at all, there are two possible conclusions that stem from this with regards to the disciples:

Jesus’ disciples thought they were following Jesus for a number of years, but were mistaken. They also thought they saw Him crucified, but were mistaken. Further, they thought they saw Him perform great, mysterious acts (we’re not yet calling them miracles… let’s assume for now that they were just impressive displays), but were mistaken.
Jesus’ disciples were liars.

1. The Delusional Disciples

How can we reasonably assume that there was no Jesus, but that the disciples experienced some sort of mass hallucination complete with false memories never witnessed in any other psychological/sociological experiments? I don’t think we can. The much more reasonable conclusion would be that if Jesus did not exist, the disciples must have simply made it up.

2. The Liars

Could the entirety of Christianity have been a product of 11 conspirators (who obviously offed Judas when he wouldn’t go along)? Let’s discuss.

”Three can keep a secret if two are dead.” - Benjamin Franklin

”The vanity of being known to be trusted with a secret is generally one of the chief motives to disclose it.” - Samuel Johnson

”Nothing weighs on us so heavily as a secret.” – Jean de la Fontaine

I want to start with a simple premise: Liars make poor martyrs.

If Jesus did not exist, Jesus’ followers went to a lot of trouble to prove otherwise. Here you have a group of Jews who would have decided to contrive a false messiah (even though the officials of the Jewish community strongly objected to this messiah), and who would devote their lives to convincing others of this “truth”. Furthermore, they would leave their families and endure beatings, imprisonment, and even upside-down crucifixion rather than utter the real truth….

The much, much more reasonable conclusion is that they believed what they were preaching! They believed that Jesus was the Son of God. And, for this belief to be possible, they must have known Jesus to be a real, historical figure.

Imprisonment and Martyrdom

Something else we can glean from the suffering of the early Christians is that they were enemies of the establishment. Neither the Jewish leaders nor the Romans of the time wished to see the teachings of Jesus perpetuated. Furthermore, the first martyr (Stephen) was killed only a few years after Jesus’ death, so within a very short span of time we can see evidence that the administrators of the time saw Christians as a threat. Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) was, in fact, charged with rounding up the early Christian leaders in attempt to stop the movement prior to what he describes as an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

I spoke above about the ease with which the early Christians could have been discredited, and here we have evidence that it would have been beneficial to the leaders of the time to do so. The Romans and the Jews saw Christians as a threat. So, why not stop the movement at its earliest stages by simply presenting the counter-evidence to Jesus’ existence? The Romans spent a considerable amount of time and resources imprisoning Christians, when it would have been much easier to simply discredit them. If we assume, however, that Jesus did walk the earth and did perform wondrous acts, word of Jesus would have spread (just as the Bible tells us) and Rome would lose all credibility if an attempt was made to deny Jesus’ existence.

The Transformation of Saul

“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about [Saul] and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” - Acts 9.

Saul was known to the Christians. Accounts of his mistreatment of the Christians don’t stem solely from his own letters. He was feared by his enemies and lauded by his peers; not only that, but Saul described himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”. According to his own testimony, he believed at the time that what he was doing – stopping the actions of those preaching a false messiah – was righteous. So, why stop? Guilt for doling out punishment to Christians? Christians who were converting his fellow Jews to follow a false idol whose very existence could not be confirmed?

Whether you believe Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus, there is little doubt that something happened. He went from one of Christianity’s most fearsome opponents to its most cherised proponent in a matter of days. Even if you do believe Paul simply had a change of heart, this doesn’t explain why he would turn to a non-existent Jesus.

SECULAR SOURCES

CORNELIUS TACITUS

c. 110 AD: "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

c. 94 AD: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ"

JUSTIN MARTYR

c 150 AD: Described Jesus’ crucifixion in detail, including reference to Pilate.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA

c. 120-180 AD: Jesus "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine".

MARA BAR-SERAPION

c. 73 AD – third century: Refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

PLINY THE YOUNGER

c. 61-113 AD: Referred to Christians singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".

SUETONIUS

c. 69-122 AD: Refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'.

TERTULLIAN

c. 155-220 AD: "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."

In total, there are 10 secular sources (not all shown here) that refer to Christ within the first and second centuries and from these sources, we can piece together the following information:

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceaser.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to the the messiah.
6. He was crucufied under Pontious Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquaked occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as God.

(list taken from Turek/Geisler)

All of these secular accounts line up with the Biblical accounts.

There are few things that John Dominic Crossan and I agree upon, but I’ll use his quote once again to close the same way I opened:

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

I Can't Believe I Read the Whole Thing (Week15)

Why should Christians study the whole Bible?

One post into Genesis, it is clear that the Old Testament presents difficulties. I would wager that many Christians have devoted time to studying the New Testament without ever studying the Old for a great many reasons:

- A feeling that the New Testament contains all of the information necessary to understanding Christ
- Difficulty with Old Testament language
- A desire to remain ignorant of the challenges presented by the Old Testament
- Doubts about the veracity of Old Testament writings

It is Written

I noted in week 13 that Jesus made numerous references to Scripture. When reading the New Testament, it is important to understand that Jesus Himself was a scholar of the Scripture. From a Christian viewpoint, the primary reason for believing the Scripture to be true is that Jesus confirmed Scriptural writings throughout His time on Earth. Over the next several weeks, I’ll explore a back-and-forth study of the Bible, using the evidence of the actual historical Jesus and that of His miracles as evidence for the sincerity and authenticity of His spoken words.

My primary focus will be on those specific people and places Jesus mentions as recorded throughout the gospels:

Abel
Abiathar
Abraham
Daniel
David
Elijah
Elisha
Gomorrah
Isaac
Jacob
Jonah
Lot
Moses
Naaman
Noah
Sodom
Solomon
Zarephath
Zechariah

There is a reciprocal relationship between the words of Jesus and the text of the Old Testament. If historical and archeological evidence points to a real historical figure who performed real miracles and was really raised from death, His references to Scripture must be considered evidence for the veracity of the Scripture. If Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that Scripture was the Word of God, we should expect the Scripture to be accurate and plausible. Evidence to the contrary would be evidence against Jesus as the Son of God. So, it is important in the weeks to come that we study not only the New Testament, but also the source document by which Christ Himself lived His life.

I want to apologize for taking a break from the Biblical text so quickly after Genesis 1. Genesis gives rather clearly the Biblical view of Creation and makes the connection between Big Bang and the Judeo-Christian concept of the beginning of the universe. I think, though, that it will be important to view the New Testament and the evidence for Jesus before returning to the Old Testament text, and I did not want to do so without a short intro. I’ll return to the Scripture next week and I promise there will not be another break for quite some time.

(14 Week) בְּרֵאשִׁית

There is an inescapable difficulty that we have to face when reading the scripture. Especially in the Old Testament, many of the stories simply cannot be proven through science (because there are no measurable data or because the events took place when there were no additional sources for comparison) and many of the stories report supernatural intervention that, by definition, must fly in the face of natural processes. So, how can we possibly look at the Bible in a critical way? Truthfully, there is not a great deal that can be gleaned scientifically from reading most of the Old Testament. The moment of Creation is prehistoric by definition. If there was indeed a great flood as described in the Bible, there were fewer than 10 human eyewitnesses, so any accounts would be based on oral tradition and passed down through generations. The stories themselves are rapid-fire accounts often containing minimal detail lest a mostly-illiterate populous lose their ability to transfer the stories orally.

Adherents to the literal interpretation of the Bible speak to the idea that if anything is possible through God, there is no reason to doubt Biblical history simply because something described therein was naturally impossible. Many also see little merit in seeking archaeological clues to verify/cast doubt upon Biblical stories. While I don’t look to the Bible as literal truth (due mostly to the fact that it contains rather apparent metaphors and that I have never read it as it was originally written), I can’t fault the logic that says a supernatural being could do things that are supernatural. Still, I would not expect anyone who has no other reason to believe in God to garner such a belief by reading the Pentateuch; in fact, I would expect quite the opposite. The stories of the Old Testament are sensational. Numerous acts described in the Old Testament cannot be conceived of without divine intervention. Further, historical accounts of many events were written thousands (or billions, in the case of the Creation) of years after the events themselves.

I wrote in earlier posts about the inception of the universe, and I am fascinated by the fact that the universe came to be. Even more fascinating is that Einstein’s equations tell us the facets of the universe – time and space – cannot have existed (at least as we know them presently) ontologically before the universe because they are interlinked with one another and with the whole of the universe. We are left then with a few irrational prospects (e.g. the non-existent universe caused itself, the universe existed for an immeasurable time obeying different physical laws and spontaneously came to obey the alternative laws we know today, or the universe stemmed from nothingness) or the prospect of a causer of the universe. Within the first 10 words of the Biblical account of Earth’s history we are introduced to the Judeo-Christian causer. According to the Bible, God created the entirety of the universe. If we accept this story, any act following such a feat would pale in comparison.

When I study the Bible, I can’t help but note that the stories are explicit in outlining those instances where God exercised power that was supernatural and those in which God called upon a man to exercise faith in performing tasks that were nearly impossible. In the latter instances, I think we can presume that such feats would have to be physically possible; else, they would not be the feats of men. I think it is important to view critically those events that the Bible describes as acts of men; however, I think it is rather futile to view critically the acts of God except if science can directly contradict statements of the Bible.

If we assume that a supernatural God may exist, we cannot fall victim to arguments that evoke only naturalistic evidence to refute explicitly-stated supernatural phenomena. For example, we cannot say “snakes don’t talk, animals don’t gravitate toward boats, and bushes don’t burn without changing their chemical composition; therefore, the Bible cannot be true.” Such events are said to be supernatural in the text (inherent in that they were performed by God or demon). Still, there are some tools at our disposal.

Let’s look at the Big Bang as an example. I have spoken at length about the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe. If the Bible said that the universe is alive and that it has existed forever, we could cast doubt on such a statement by examining the contrary evidence pointing to a massive explosion that ignited the universe.

In the Beginning

(Source of Biblical text: www.biblegateway.com)

I thoroughly enjoy the text of Genesis 1 because of its simplicity and because of the interesting perspective of creation relative to the earth.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 states simply that God created all. “In the beginning” carries a special kind of significance for me when compared against the literal beginning of time. I’m not saying that there was any understanding of General Relativity contained within the opening text, but I just think it’s neat that “the beginning” is exactly what Einstein tells us the Big Bang was.

On with the story

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Sequence of the Creation

There is only One who could relay the story of Creation, and verse 2 gives some insight as to the perspective God uses when relaying the story. His spirit hovers over the earth (Genesis 1:2), so I read the Creation story as told by One who has inhabited the earth throughout its journey; accordingly, I like to picture the events taking place as being told by someone who is both viewing the earth and looking out into the universe, describing the picture as it unfolds.

(Genesis 1:1) God brings the universe into being.
(Genesis 1:2) Billions of years after the Big Bang, we find Earth journeying through the dark expanse of space, fluid in form and without life.
(Genesis 1:3-5) Earth finds itself drawn by the gravitational pull of the sun and begins its orbit for the first time, experiencing the incredible light of the sun after a long journey through darkness.
(Genesis 1:6-8) The clearly-defined atmosphere begins to develop out of the ocean.
(Genesis 1:9-10) The first continents begin to emerge.
(Genesis 1:11-13) Early vegetation that resembles modern seed-bearing plants comes into being.
(Genesis 1:14-19) The veil of the dense early atmosphere is lifted, revealing the distinct sources of Earth’s light and eventually the light of the stars.
(Genesis 1:20-23) The lesser animals we know today begin to populate the seas and the earth.
(Genesis 1:24-25) Higher animals (mammals including livestock) are first seen.
(Genesis 1:26) Man is first introduced having the ability to tame and/or preside over other creatures.

There is a nice symmetry between the Creation story and between the scientific explanations of Earth’s history that I don’t believe should be lost in the poetic delivery of Genesis. It is important to note, though, that the early Bible is not focused on “how” so extracting scientific explanations from Hebrew poetry is a dicey proposition. After all, there are 31 poetic verses to cover the entirety of the Creation. Note, too, that there are a few variances in the interpretation of some of these passages, especially those regarding “light”. The key point, however, to the Creation story is that God created all. He is immeasurably powerful and brought the earth into existence along with the entirety of the universe.

Six Days of Creation

A Creation “day” stems from the Hebrew word “yom” which carries a multitude of different meanings when translated into English. Some scholars believe in a literal 6-day creation while others maintain that “age” might be a more appropriate translation.

Why Study the Bible? (Week 13)

So, why study Christianity and not Judaism, Islam, or any other of the thousands of world religions?

For many, the sheer number of world religions is enough to dissuade them from believing that any one religion can hold the truth. Geographical location often has a tremendous impact on religion and it often seems like religion is based mostly on chance (to whom were you born?). So, it can seem as though choosing a religion is just silly. I want to address this in a couple of ways:

First, it is important to note that often times religious people inhabit lands with like-minded religious people because at some point in history, a group of people who shared a faith relocated themselves to a specific geographic location. So, it is the believers who settle a location, not a location that makes believers. That being said, when a large population shares a belief, it is easy to succumb to societal religious pressures regardless of whether you genuinely believe or not (just like any other societal pressure), so religions have a tendency to perpetuate themselves (at least outwardly). Parents and societies will always have a huge impact on their children and mistaken parents/societies will likely beget mistaken children.

Second, societal beliefs have no impact on truth regardless of the size of a society. If there is a God, and 99% of the world’s population believes in God, God exists. If there is a God, and 99% of the world’s population is atheist, God exists.

In a nutshell, it doesn’t matter what the majority believes or why they believe. The only thing that matters is what is true. Over the past weeks, I discussed what it was that led me to seek God. I have given my reasons for not giving as much credence to pantheism or polytheism. Both place constraints on gods based on universal laws and physics; as such, I think that pantheism and polytheism are basically naturalism (i.e. “gods” are of the universe and therefore natural, alien beings). I simply don’t see any reason to define a natural being as a “god”. So, that leaves monotheism.

I want to quickly touch upon the three major monotheistic religions. Each of the three is founded upon Judaism. The Bible adds to the teachings of the Torah via the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy. The Qu’ran adds to the teachings of Torah with the testament of the prophet Mohammed. Neither Judaism nor Islam recognizes the divinity of Christ. As I write on the Old Testament, I will discuss the Messianic Prophecy and will later provide reasons as to why I believe in Christ’s divinity. In short, a discussion of Biblical events will touch upon each of the three.

The direct and indirect accounts of Jesus found in the gospels are the reason that Christianity exists as it does. There is a great deal of evidence (that we will explore in late posts… now you’re probably understanding why I vacillated between beginning with the New or Old Testament) that the gospel authors wrote truthful accounts of Jesus. Might they have been deceived by the great magician, Jesus of Nazareth? That option is still on the table right now, but I believe that it is safe to say that the authors wrote (and died for) what they believed was the truth.

In these accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John note on numerous occasions Jesus referencing the scripture as truth. Indeed, there are several specific stories where Jesus refers to unambiguous passages and people in the Bible. When Jesus chastises the Pharisees, He asks why they have abandoned directives from the scriptures. He references Isaiah, Jonah, Moses, David and several other historical figures and reprimands those who claim to be knowledgeable but who do not defer to the scripture. Jesus taught that the scripture was God’s law and the true story of God’s people. In the very least we should study those people and passages referenced by Christ.
“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
“"Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (Matthew 12:3-12:4)
"He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' " (Matthew 15:3-15:5)
"…for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matthew 15:6).
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-22:32)

When reading the words of Jesus, it seems rather clear that the Pentateuch is His primary source; accordingly, it will be my primary focus as we study the Old Testament. If such stories prove to be mythology and nothing more, I think that we can safely assume that the story of Jesus was folklore as well; conversely, if we study the Bible and find evidence of its truth, Jesus is given more credence via His adherence to this truth.

Looking to the Bible (Week12)

We’ll be delving into the Bible over the next 40 weeks and I think you’ll find it enjoyable. Of course, a Biblical study can last months or years, but we’ll be focusing primarily on Biblical truths, historical reliability, archeological data, etc, so there will be portions that I do not cover as in-depth. I wavered a bit on whether to start off from the New Testament and reference the old, but in the end I have decided to take it chronologically beginning, of course, with the Creation. That being said, a Biblical discussion doesn’t do a great deal of good unless you know what you are looking for in the first place. So, I would like to take this week to discuss what exactly we should hope to glean from Biblical text.

Literal versus True

First and foremost, declaring that some or all of the Bible is true is not tantamount to saying that everything written in the Bible literally took place. As an analogy, let’s take a look at the phrase “raining cats and dogs”. The etymology of this phrase takes us back to Europe where houses were built so close together that rooftops were shared and the roofs almost became a landscape unto themselves. Stray animals would often make the rooftops their home and when rain came in torrents, it was not uncommon for the stray cats and dogs to literally rain onto the ground below when they lost their footing. When someone in suburban Oklahoma uses the phrase, however, he is not referring to cats and dogs literally raining down upon the ground; rather, he is saying that the rain is heavy. Both the Brit and the Oklahoman are speaking the truth, though one (or possibly both, depending on how you define “rain”) is not speaking a literal truth. The Bible, likewise, is wrought with metaphor. There are some who choose a literal interpretation, but I think this mindset leads to confusion and/or untruth. In my own Biblical studies, I have found that the metaphors are almost as easy to discern as they are in a Mark Twain novel, though sometimes ambiguous translations or a lack of understanding of the original language can make it more difficult. The only thing that I can guarantee as we begin to study the Bible is that I will be honest with myself and with you as we encounter metaphoric language and not-so-straight-forward terminology. In other words, the goal is not “to have [my] cake and eat it too”.

Historical Perspective

In my own studies, I have found that the Bible compares well historically to secular texts and I will do my utmost to provide historical parallels (probably after we discuss the Creation) during each discussion. The Bible is one of the most well-preserved historical texts we have and it is important not to dismiss it as a “nice story”. Secular texts and archeological data point to a very genuine desire for historical preservation.

My View of the Bible

The Bible is true. Or it is not. There is no middle ground. Why is this? Biblical authors make the claim (within the Bible) that the Bible is the Word of God (sometimes translated “God-breathed”). Nearly all of the Biblical authors claim to have spoken directly to God or to have recorded the stories of Jesus’ apostles. So, either:
A. The Bible is a hoax (and therefore completely untrue) perpetuated by the supposed followers of God/Christ.
B. The Bible is the product of some mass delusion (and therefore cannot be relied upon to be true)
C. The Bible is true.

Lying, crazy, or truthful. I believe these are the only three options. So, as you read the Bible, I encourage you to keep these three possibilities in mind. It is important, too, to recall that we do not know what limits if any may be imposed on a God who is not of the universe.





I apologize for the break between posts, but I’ll be out of town for a time and I want to stagger two posts over three weeks.

Pink Unicorns, Teacups, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters (Week 11)

It would seem that God has many names. Over the past decade, a multitude of atheist authors (or student demonstrators, in the case of the spaghetti monster) have taken turns comparing a “mythological” God to various mythological creatures. Despite a truly creative take on Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel artwork in the case of the spaghetti monster, the comparisons have a tendency to fall well short.

To illustrate the silliness of such comparisons, it is important at some point that I take a moment to define what I mean by “God”. Ascribing a definition to a supernatural, incomprehensible being is always a fun exercise so I hope you enjoy.

As an atheist or an agnostic, it is easy to view world religions as being the same. Most religious followers believe in a supernatural being or beings. Most speak to an afterlife. Most believe in a sacred text. And so on, and so on…. When you study anthropology, you realize that every culture throughout history has had a story pertaining to a supernatural god or gods. It all begins to run together. I’ve been to college. I’ve been agnostic. I get it. There are, however, a few qualities that we can ascribe to God based on some reasonable assumptions that are not related to any specific religion. I’ll list the assumptions and reasoning for those assumptions first:

1. The universe began at some point in the distant past.

I devoted an entire post to this idea and the idea itself is based on physical principles and observations that have been validated again and again. Static universe theory at this point is all but forgotten.

2. If God is of the universe, He is a natural, material being and cannot have been responsible for the creation of the universe; conversely, if God is not of the universe, His abilities and qualities can be neither described nor confined by natural, physical principles.

Basically, if matter (and antimatter), energy, time, and space are all that exist, God would be susceptible to the physical principles that govern these four elements and would therefore simply be an extraterrestrial being.

So, what does this mean as we define God?

1. If the universe began and time is of the universe, any being(s) existing ontologically before the universe, existed / exist outside of the confines of time. If there is a God, He would fit into this category; as such, God must be eternal (i.e. not of or subject to time).

2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.

3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent.

4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true.

5. Since God is not subject to universal laws, He cannot be limited as a physical being. “Physical” is a concept that only makes sense when applied to things that are of the universe.

6. Because God is physically limitless and is not subject to time or physical law, we cannot comprehend His presence, His perception, or His power. Accordingly, the ideas of God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are meaningful relative to the universe.

7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God.

So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. The properties of God follow logically from the idea that God is not of the universe. If we ascribe these properties to any physical entity, we come back to God. In short, God is or God isn’t.

When I speak of God, I am not speaking of some being. I am speaking instead of a being who must possess certain properties or who cannot be labeled as God. To be clear, these are not Biblical descriptions of God but descriptions pertaining to a God who is supernatural (or outside of nature).

14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם

14. God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "