Who Was Jesus? Part 7

Regarding this pericope, biblical scholar Meier casts doubt as to the inerrancy of Luke's gospel by arguing that the evangelist's a.s.sertion that Jesus was conceived six months after John (Lk 1:26-28), and is therefore a "younger relative" than John, finds no support anywhere else in the New Testament and is "of doubtful historicity."1 The whole pericope has an air of cartoonish artifice about it, and logic and honesty dictate that we ask whether or not it is fiction.

The Events of the Baptism.

The descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove represents a highly implausible part of the tale, as does the booming voice of G.o.d. Rather than being a fact, the dove motif may have come from the prevalence of doves in pre-Christian religion around the same basic area, or from a combination of Isaiah 11:2 and Isaiah 42:1, regarding the "Spirit of the Lord" resting upon G.o.d's "Servant."1 Concerning the dove motif, Meier notes: The debate over the precise meaning of the dove as the symbol of the spirit continues unresolved: allusion to the spirit of G.o.d over the waters in Gen. 1:2... [or] the dove as a symbol of a G.o.ddess in the ancient Near East or as a messenger of the G.o.ds... For supposed mythological parallels, see Bultmann, Geschichte, 264-69.2 In Paganism of the Roman Empire, scholar Ramsay MacMullen, PhD-deemed by the American Historical a.s.sociation "the greatest historian of the Roman Empire alive today"-discusses the sacred doves in the holy city of Hierapolis, described by Jewish historian Philo (1st cent ad/ce) as possessing an "enormous population of doves."3 Indeed, dove wors.h.i.+p was a.s.sociated with several pre-Christian cults, including those found in Samaria/Palestine and elsewhere: "Evidence for domestication extends back to 4500 BC in ancient Iraq, and the bird was sacred to the early Middle Eastern cultures, being a.s.sociated with Astarte, the G.o.ddess of love and fertility; later, in ancient Greece, it was sacred to Aphrodite and in Roman times to Venus."4 In any event, rather than implausibly representing history, couldn't it be that the dove motif was "borrowed" from the OT, Pagan religion or both?

Jesus's Temptation.

Implausibility occurs in the story of Jesus's temptation by the devil. In the first place, we are asked to believe that a cosmic and very powerful creature called "the devil" can appear as a human being and was needed as such in the gospel story in order to "tempt" Jesus, who himself is in reality G.o.d and who, therefore, created the devil in the first place! The Greek word for "temptation," peirasmos, is also translated as "rebellion against G.o.d." Hence, the all-powerful G.o.d causes and/or allows his own creation to rebel against him for dramatic and seemingly nonsensical purposes. It would appear to be a strange and one-sided battle, the outcome of which one would hope would have been obvious; for, if Satan had won, Satan would be G.o.d! Perhaps, it is argued, Jesus did not know himself fully as G.o.d, which seems bizarre if G.o.d is all powerful and omniscient-why separate himself out as Jesus, to forget who he is and then tempt himself? Yet, if G.o.d the Father is somewhere "out there" directing the show, would he then not be in two places at once? If not, where is G.o.d physically in relation to Jesus? This tale is extremely illogical and irrational.

Turning Water into Wine.

Still one more miracle that is difficult to believe and that makes little sense even if it could happen occurs when Christ turns water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana-a pericope found only in John. The immense amount of wine created by Jesus equaled about 100 to 160 gallons! (Jn 2:6) The guests had apparently already drunk quite a bit of wine at the time when Jesus conjured up this mind-boggling amount. If this story is true, we must ask whether or not it is a righteous and moral act to supply so much alcohol to people who've already been drinking-what would be the point of creating such an excessive amount of wine?

Moreover, providing tangible physical and archaeological evidence of a "Christian" motif in pre-Christian times, within the sanctuary of the Greek temple of Apollo at Corinth (c. 540 bce)-where Paul preached to the Corinthians-exists to this day a stone sluice used by the Corinthian Pagan priesthood to turn water into wine. At one end of this sluice water was poured in, while a priest in a hidden compartment diverted the water and poured wine out the other end. This water-to-wine contraption was created at least two centuries before the Christian era. Could it be that, rather than a "true story," the water-to-wine motif in John's gospel was based in part on this previously known "miracle," which was part of the priestly repertoire?

The Resurrection of Dead People.

The resurrection of dead people is a theme found within the Old Testament, in the story of Elijah raising the widow's son at 1 Kings 17:22, and in that of Elisha with a comparable resurrection miracle of his own at 2 Kings 4:34. In the New Testament, Christ's own resurrection is preceded by that of Jairus's daughter. In addition to these implausible tales appears that of Jesus raising a man named "Lazarus" from the dead. Not only is it difficult to believe the Lazarus-resurrection pericope in itself, but also the fact that it appears only in the gospel of John-by most accounts the latest of the gospels-makes one wonder why the first three evangelists would overlook such a momentous event! The logical suggestion may be that the raising of Lazarus did not really happen but was an afterthought by either the writer of John or a later scribe. Since the idea of the resurrection of the dead is so important to Christian doctrine, it is crucial to investigate this oversight by the synoptists more fully and not simply wave it away. Could it be that Christ's implausible resurrection was not "historical" at all but, like the water-to-wine miracle, based on a motif found in other religions within the Roman Empire?

The Raising of the Saints.

In addition to the improbable Lazarus resurrection, it also seems inconceivable that if, upon Jesus' death, the saints rose up out of their graves and went into Jerusalem, appearing to many people, the Jewish scribes-who are everywhere present in the gospel story-would not have chronicled such a supernatural phenomenon somewhere in their books. Jewish scribes were known to record practically everything significant that affected them, especially purported supernatural events. They often wrote long screeds against individuals, however minor, who may have irritated them. Surely, if Jesus had caused such a ruckus throughout their country, overturning tables in their sacrosanct temple, threatening to throw the temple itself to the ground, and then having their dead rise and walk through their holy city, the Jewish scribes would have recorded Christ somewhere! But they did not, as if Jesus never existed, and they had never heard of the story.

This bizarre and grotesque episode remains more logically explained not as a real, historical event that was somehow overlooked by everyone of the day, but as a reworking of Old Testament "messianic" scriptures: Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!... (Is 26:19) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life... (Dan 12:2) Indeed, it is evident that the gospel writers were once more using OT scriptures as a blueprint in their creation.

The Ascension into Heaven.

Another detail that makes the gospel story difficult to swallow is that the ascension-one of the most miraculous events to happen to Jesus-is not even mentioned by Matthew or John. It is stunning to consider that only the non-eyewitnesses Mark and Luke report the ascension-and, as noted earlier, both of those brief pa.s.sages are widely considered later interpolations by unknown scribes! How could Christ's faithful apostles possibly fail to relate such a momentous occurrence, if it really happened? It is clear that Matthew is very concerned about recording the major, miraculous events of Christ's life, some of which he allegedly witnessed, and that John is quite obviously interested in showing everything that could possibly be considered an indication of Christ's divinity-and the ascension is surely one of the biggest qualifications-yet, no word of it? People today become all excited and agog by alleged images of Jesus Christ in stains on a sidewalk, but Christ's ascension-the floating up into the air and disappearance of a man-somehow failed to make enough of an impression on Matthew and John for them to write about it in their gospels! This glaring omission seems very odd to the logical mind, to say the least.

To reiterate, even the accounts of the ascension in Mark and Luke are doubtful and are missing in some early ma.n.u.scripts, causing these verses to be omitted in some translations. We have seen that the pertinent verses in Mark (16:9-20) are not included in the earliest ma.n.u.scripts. In addition, Christ's ascension is absent in the RSV translation of Luke 24:51, which notes that "[o]ther ancient authorities add and was carried up into heaven." Which version is correct, and what is the original? It is sensible and honest to ask, did the ascension really happen, or was it an afterthought? Could it not be that the ascension was added later in order to explain what happened to Jesus after he was resurrected, since he was obviously not still on Earth, walking around in a state of immortality? It is not only possible but probable that any hearer of the story, being convinced of it, would excitedly want to meet the living Christ-maybe the scribes who later interpolated the ascension were basing it on traditions created by Christian preachers in response to requests to meet the Lord, in essence giving an excuse for why they could not produce him? Or perhaps there was another political reason for its inclusion?

a.s.suming we accept that miracles can and do happen, we must nevertheless ask ourselves why the miracles of Jesus are more significant and truthful than those of other individuals throughout history. As Dr. Meier remarks: In the ancient Mediterranean world, most people readily granted the possibility and reality of miracles. But precisely because of this, sociology and anthropology raise a question many believers may find uncomfortable: is there any justification for seeing a significant distinction between the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and the magical practices widely reflected in Greco-Roman writings, including magical papyri and popular novels? Are these magical practices anything more than the "bad" miracles of pagans, while the Gospel miracles are simply the "good" magical practices of Jesus? In other words, is there any real difference between magic and miracle? Or is the only difference in the eye of the beholder who happens to be a Christian apologist?1 In further discussing the miracles of Jesus as reflections of the "literary forms, themes, and motifs found in the Pagan and Jewish miracles stories circulating in the Mediterranean world around the turn of the era," Meier states that there is a "great deal of truth to this claim," although he follows this remark with a caution that "distinctions are in order" and "respect for the differences" must be kept in mind.1 Yet, Meier also comments that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories."2 In reality, if all these miracles were true, and Jesus displayed numerous such wonders and signs of divinity, as well as fulfilling so many characteristics and prophecies of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures, it is impossible to fathom how Christ could possibly be rejected by the Jews in the end. Rather than serving as an exhibition of Jewish folly in rejecting Christ, the lack of notice by the "chosen people" and the many difficulties surrounding the gospel story must make one wonder-based on honesty and logic-whether or not the story is fiction, explaining precisely why the Jews did not believe it: They could not, obviously, if it didn't happen! In fact, the Jews of "this generation," i.e., the time of Jesus's purported advent, would not have been aware of the existence of the story even as fiction, since, in such a scenario, the tale would not have been composed yet. In all fairness to the Jewish culture, and with an eye to the honesty and integrity claimed to be hallmarks of religion, we must inspect these beliefs scientifically and not take them simply on faith.

When scrutinized scientifically, the entire gospel story demonstrates a profoundly artificial feel about it, including the fact that the whole tale could be compressed into a timeframe of a week or two, coming across more as a play than a factual biography or history. Even removing the natural-law-bending miracles, the tale reads not as if it were "history" or "biography" but as if it were fiction. Instead of engaging in illogical machinations involving supernatural events that go against the laws of physics, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes were writing fictional, and not historical, accounts.

Failed Prophecies.

Continuing with the miraculous events, when the material is a.n.a.lyzed, it becomes difficult to claim that any of the purported "prophecies" in the gospels have been fulfilled, including the destruction of the temple, which is accepted by numerous mainstream scholars as having occurred before it was discussed in the New Testament. As one more glaring example of failed prophecy, many people point to Christ's a.s.sertions that he would be coming back "soon" and that certain other incredible events would take place, before "this generation" would pa.s.s away. Jesus said that there were some present who "will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes." (Mt 10:23) He also stated that they would not "taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:28) So far, there has been no "Second Coming," if ever there was a first. Indeed, none of these things have happened yet, and these people are all long dead. Certainly, one could argue that, per Christ's "predictions" at Matthew 24:7, etc., nation has risen up against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there have been famines and earthquakes, as well as wars, "rumors of wars" and the rest supposedly prophesied in the New Testament. Such vague predictions about the already obvious nature of this world and of mankind would be about as earth- shattering as "prophesying" that tomorrow someone's car will break down somewhere.

Contradictions and Inconsistencies.

Like the miracles and failed prophecies, there are enough contradictions and inconsistencies in the gospels to warrant questioning their historical value. Yet, in the frantic effort to maintain the tale as credible and inerrant history, we are asked to subscribe to some irrational and illogical gyrations in order to harmonize or reconcile these many problems. For example, the names in the genealogies differ between gospels: In his genealogy, Matthew lists 28 generations from King David to Jesus Christ, while in Luke (3:23-38) the number is 43 generations. Also, if Jesus is not related to Joseph, who is not his real father, he cannot be considered a genetic "son of David," one of the main qualifications for messiahs.h.i.+p. Apologists attempt to reconcile these difficulties by tracing Jesus through Mary to King David, although the genealogy lists in Matthew and Luke clearly trace Christ to David through Joseph-in fact, in Matthew (1:7) Joseph descends from David's son Solomon, while in Luke (3:31) Joseph is descended from David's son Nathan! In addition to this contradiction of the evangelists' claims, there is no precedent in the Bible for a female genealogy. In this manner, a significant amount of ink has been spilled in order to reconcile these lists, but a simpler and more logical solution would be to ask, perhaps somebody made mistakes? Or, maybe these lists are not historical in the first place but contrived to show that Jesus fulfilled prophecy?

Appearing later in his gospel than in Matthew's, Luke's genealogy, in fact, plainly breaks the narrative and was interpolated into the text in the midst of the pericope about Jesus at the Jordan. Oddly enough, Luke's mundane genealogical digression directly follows the astounding events of the baptism by John, during which the Holy Spirit descends on Christ, the heavens open up, and the voice of G.o.d p.r.o.nounces Jesus his own Son. The insertion at this point of Jesus's earthly pedigree appears to have been done to abrogate G.o.d's genealogy, instead demonstrating that Christ nevertheless possesses the divine right to rule by being a descendant of King David. This situation is unrealistic, evidently reflecting not actual "history" but political propaganda and a deliberate attempt at depicting Christ as having "fulfilled prophecy."

Another apparent contradiction warranting commentary emerges at John 1:18, where it is said, "No one has ever seen G.o.d"; yet, in the same chapter (Jn 1:32) John the Baptist is depicted as seeing "the Spirit" as a dove descending upon Jesus. The original Greek word for "Spirit" is -pneuma-for which Strong's gives the first definition as: 1) the third person of the triune G.o.d, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son Hence, despite earlier declaring that no one has ever seen G.o.d, the evangelist then claims that John the Baptist has seen G.o.d. It has been proposed that this pericope serves to impress that only John had seen G.o.d, by emphasizing that, previously, no one else had ever seen G.o.d. John also portrays Jesus as saying that, because he and the Father are one, by knowing Christ his disciples to "have seen" the Father. Even so, one would think that such a mind-boggling bending of biblical doctrine and natural law would merit more than one brief mention, if it really happened!

In the temptation accounts, Matthew depicts the temptation as occurring at the end of the 40-day fast, while Luke portrays the devil as tempting Jesus throughout the period. Oddly enough, Mark doesn't portray Jesus as fasting at all during the 40 days when he is in the desert, and John does not even report on this all-important event in Christ's life! Bizarrely, the battle between Jesus and the devil is composed of quotes from the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and Psalms 91.1 If this strange and incredible occurrence really happened, why would the characters involved be recorded as quoting little else but the Old Testament? Is this story realistic? Regarding this peculiar pericope, Dr. Meier remarks, "Granted the paucity of sources and their conflicting presentations of the temptation of Jesus, any judgment about a historical event is extremely difficult."1 Rather than serving as a "historical event," is it not more plausible that this episode represents a fictional account cobbled together from scriptures and mythical motifs?2 At John 3:13, Christ says, "No man has ascended into heaven..." This a.s.sertion appears to contradict the claim in the Old Testament that Elijah had ascended into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). The apology for this apparent contradiction speculates that Jesus is saying that he is the only one who has ever come back from heaven to speak of it from "firsthand knowledge."3 The calling by Jesus of his disciples is also portrayed in various manners in the different gospels. The variances are such that it is impossible to insist that all of the evangelists recorded the scene correctly, if they are indeed depicting an historical event. Therefore, one or more of the accounts must be incorrect.

Moreover, in Matthew 5 and 6, Christ first advises his followers to "let their light s.h.i.+ne before men"-i.e., in public-so that others can see their "good works." Later, Jesus admonishes that we should pray and give alms in secret. Which are we to do? Why do we pray aloud in church, when Christ makes much ado about praying in secret in a room with the door shut?

At one point (Mt 5:22), Jesus admonishes us not be angry with our brother, but he also says that our foes will be those of our own household, including our brothers. Christ later states that we should confront our brother for sinning against us. Can we do both of these things? Is it rational and compa.s.sionate to force us to forgive our brother, no matter what he has done? This verse provides yet another ill.u.s.tration of how biblical texts have been changed, as some ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament insert "without cause" or "without a cause" into the admonition that we should not be angry with our brother, making this scripture more sensible.

At Matthew 5:34, Christ admonishes his followers not to swear oaths, but he himself repeatedly states, "Amen, I say to you," which const.i.tutes an utterance of an oath.1 In fact, the word "amen," usually translated as "verily," appears over 100 times in the gospels alone, while the oath "verily I say unto you" occurs almost 70 times in quotes by Jesus! Isn't that quite a bit of oath-swearing by Jesus?

Jesus also tells us at Matthew 5:44 to "love our enemies," which sounds utopian but impossible, and which also contradicts Christ's own sentiments when he angrily excoriates the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Mt 11:21, 23). As an ill.u.s.tration of the difficulty in following this command, are Christians supposed to love those who are not Christian and who therefore deny Christ? Should we love Satan as well, since he is our biggest enemy?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ first tells us not to judge anyone, but then advises us to determine who are "dogs" and "swine," so we don't give them what is holy and throw our "pearls" before them. (Mt 7:6) How are we to decide who or what are swine, if we can't judge anyone? Isn't p.r.o.nouncing people "dogs" and "swine" judgmental?

In the pericope of the mission of the 12, in Matthew (10:10) and Luke (9:3) Jesus is quoted as telling his disciples not to take a staff with them, but Mark (6:8) relates Jesus as charging them to take a staff. Obviously, one of these accounts is wrong, unless Jesus changed his mind from one second to the next.

Yet another contradiction and implausibility occurs when Christ is pressed by the Pharisees and scribes for a "sign" that he is the messiah, in Matthew (12:38-39; 16:1-4) and Luke (11:28). Jesus replies none will be given but the "sign of Jonah"-that is, being dead and resurrected in three days.2 Providing a contradiction, Mark reports Jesus as denying the Jewish authorities and others any sign: "...no sign shall be given to this generation." (Mk 18:12) In any

event, at this point in the story Jesus had already displayed constant miracles, wonders and signs that should have sufficed to convince even the most skeptical, if it all really happened. Like many others, this pericope seems contrived and artificial.

Christ first tells his followers to hate their mother and father but later exhorts them to honor their mother and father (Mt 15:4). How can we do both?

Another contradiction appears at Mark 10:35, where it is not their mother, as in Matthew (20:20), but James and John, the sons of Zebedee, themselves who ask to sit at Jesus's right hand. Which is it?

When at Mark 12:32 Jesus is depicted as saying that no one knows when the Second Coming will be, not even himself, but only the Father, Christ appears to be saying that he himself is not the omniscient Lord. Geisler's apology for this evident contradiction is that there were times when Jesus was G.o.d and times when he was not: "We must distinguish between what Jesus knew as G.o.d (everything) and what He knew as man. As G.o.d, Jesus was omniscient (all-knowing), but as man He was limited in His knowledge."1 These remarks seem to be stating that Jesus turns off his omniscience at various times. If Christ is omnipotent, however, he can turn his omniscience back on whenever he wants, so it must be a question of him desiring not to be all knowing. Why would G.o.d play such a strange game with himself and with us? When do we know if Christ is speaking from his limited human knowledge and when he is speaking as G.o.d? If he doesn't know the time of his own coming, because he is a man, what else did he not know during his advent on Earth? Couldn't Jesus have made mistakes because of his limited knowledge?

Regarding the scriptures at Genesis 49:11 and Zechariah 9:9 about the "a.s.s and colt" that were supposedly fulfilled in Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Mark (11:1-7), Luke (19:29-35) and John (12:12-16) sensibly omit one of the animals, since Christ could hardly have ridden two a.s.ses. Matthew (21:1-7), on the other hand, depicts Jesus as riding on two a.s.ses, leaving one to wonder where was the Holy Spirit to guide the evangelists, and why, if they were recording eyewitness accounts, rather than relying on a purported "prophecy," would they not know whether or not Jesus took and rode one or two a.s.ses? It would be honest and logical to ask whether or not the evangelists made an error, thus demonstrating that the Bible is not "inerrant." What this problem also strongly suggests is that, rather than depicting an actual event that he had witnessed, Matthew-who is nevertheless claimed to have been an eyewitness-simply cut and paste scriptures supposedly having to do with the coming messiah.

One more inconsistency occurs in the commonly held idea that Jesus was a "political rebel" fighting against the vested interests of both Judea and Rome. Despite this "freedom fighter" notion, Christ tells the people to give Caesar their tax money, to "turn the other cheek" when struck, as well as not to resist evil! "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" (Mt 22:21) Is this really something a "political rebel" or "freedom fighter" would declare?

Jesus says he came not with peace but with a sword, but then he tells Peter to put away his sword, because "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Which is it, a sword or no sword? This latter pa.s.sage is odd also for the reason that no one but John (18:10)-held by most to be the latest of the gospels-names the person who used a sword to cut off the slave's ear. The other evangelists call the armed individual "one of those who were with Jesus" (Mt 26:51); "one of those who stood by" (Mk 14:47); and "one of them" (Lk 22:50). This lack of naming the person with the weapon is all the more strange in Mark, since he is presented traditionally as "Peter's interpreter" and would thus know if the individual in question was Peter, as was a.s.serted by John. This fact confirms the unreal air of the gospels that indicates their having been written long after and far away from the purported events related in the story. Moreover, does it seem realistic that "Peter" could cut off the ear of the high priest's servant and not be arrested, especially since the authorities were looking for excuses to destroy Jesus and his following?

At Matthew 28:18, Jesus tells his disciples that he will be with them until the "end of the age/world"-or, aion in the original Greek, which also means "for ever." Earlier, in Matthew 26, Christ admonishes his followers not to worry about the cost of the ointment rubbed into his feet, saying that his disciples would always have the poor but would not always have him, their Lord. Aren't these two statements contradictory, that Christ will be with them forever but he would not be with them always? Geisler's apology for this apparent contradiction is that Jesus's admonition regarding him not being with his disciples refers to his physical presence, while his eternal presence is spiritual.1 But, why doesn't Jesus just stay with us always, physically as well? Why this cat-and-mouse game where we have to guess whether Christ is really with us? Also, if Jesus is the omniscient and omnipotent Lord of the universe, knowing fully well about the poor, why doesn't he just put an end to poverty?

A number of other contradictions and inconsistencies appear within the gospels, including Jesus commanding his followers to bother not with the Gentiles, but only with the "lost sheep of Israel"; yet, at the end, after his resurrection, Christ exhorts his disciples to go to "all the nations." Throughout the gospels Jesus is quite adamant that he has only come for Israel-why is this mission altered suddenly and dramatically in the end? Did the omniscient Lord profoundly change the reason for his mission all of a sudden?

These factual discrepancies are not simply disagreements in doctrine or dogma that can be smoothed over by theology and philosophizing. These are incongruities in supposed facts of what purportedly happened historically on Earth. No other subject in history is treated in this haphazard and kid-gloves manner, which is to accept glaring contradictions and obvious errors of fact that would otherwise be corrected by studious historians finding an accurate path. Because there exists no such accurate path, historians remain left to create countless supplemental books trying to find the "real Jesus," nevertheless largely based on these diverging and flawed texts. Unfortunately, it does not serve a civilization well to function in this less-than-honest manner. In fact, a case could be made showing that a problem of this magnitude is at the root of many of society's ills. Again, instead of engaging in mental gymnastics to reconcile the numerous problems, should we not simply ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes made mistakes, because they were writing fictionalized accounts?

Errors in Time and Place.

In addition to the many problems already noted are several others concerning anachronisms and erroneous gospel topography or geographical locations. Some of the towns mentioned in the New Testament have never been found to exist in the historical or archaeological record, and still others are evidently plucked from the Old Testament, such that their names are outdated and were not in use at the time the gospel drama supposedly took place.1 Indeed, the gospel story is anachronistically set in a time that had been long gone by the beginning of the first century, depicting, for example, archaic agriculture, and giving an impression of a vast wilderness full of sheep and shepherds, when in fact much of the small, 90-mile-long area of Palestine in question was already well developed and densely urbanized in the first century of the common era. In fact, the population of Palestine overall during this period was an estimated 500,000 to 1.5 million. Moreover, it has been evinced that Mark in particular reveals an evident ignorance of the Palestinian topography and geography, indicating the evangelist did not live there and may have never even visited the nation he is writing about. Upon inspection, the same can be said about the other evangelists as well, although apologetics waves away this a.s.sertion by using some suspect arguments.

Quirinius's Census?

One specific instance of apparent biblical error in time and place has been pointed out many times: To wit, the excuse in Luke of the census to place the Holy Family in Bethlehem remains unprecedented, unhistorical and illogical, in that no Roman census required people to return to their cities of birth in order to register, which would be a very costly and nonsensical requirement. The date of the census is also questionable, as Luke claims Jesus was born during the reign of Herod; yet, according to Josephus, Quirinius's census would have occurred after Herod's death, around 6/7 ad/ce, when Quirinius served as governor of Syria. Apologetics contends either that there were two Quiriniuses or that the one Quirinius served an "earlier tour of duty" 11 years prior to his governors.h.i.+p of Syria and was somehow involved in Augustus's census of 8 bce.1 The evidence for such an a.s.sertion is sketchy at best and non-existent under scrutiny. Christian apologists also argue that an Egyptian papyrus discussing a purported census by Gaius Vibius Maximus in Egypt during the second century provides evidence that Luke's claims are true. However, the text's provenance is unknown, and the terminology cannot be truthfully interpreted to confirm that such a census required people to return to their homelands, if the text is even genuinely from the pertinent era. Even so, a census calling wandering shepherds and nomads to their homes for a head count might make sense, so such an enrollment under these circ.u.mstances is possible, but not as concerns people who are living in settled areas, which const.i.tute the bulk of demographics in the pertinent areas of Palestine at the time. Moreover, a procedure that may have occurred in Egypt is not necessarily applicable to Judea/Palestine.

Regarding Quirinius-or Kyrenios in the Greek, frequently translated as "Cyrenius"-Dr. Crossan remarks: ...even if Augustus had ordained a complete census of the Roman world, and even if Quirinius had overseen its administration in Archelaus' territories, the Roman custom was to count you in the place of your domicile or work and not in that of your ancestry or birth. That is little more than common sense. Census was for taxation; to record people in their ancestral rather than their occupational locations would have const.i.tuted a bureaucratic nightmare.2 Moreover, the pa.s.sage in Josephus regarding Cyrenius/ Quirinius (Antiquities, XVIII, I, 1) indicates that the census or "taxation" under him occurred fairly recently after he was sent there by Caesar as governor-having, as Josephus says "supreme power over the Jews"3-and that the census/ taxation was a new thing at that time, reviled and resisted by the locals. Hence, it would be surprising if Quirinius had been involved in an earlier census, or even a later one, without Josephus mentioning it.

It would not have been too difficult to make such a mistake in the ancient world, so Luke cannot be severely faulted. However, claims of inerrancy for the New Testament truly seem to be more far reflective of stubborn conditioning rather than reality. Moreover, it is possible that Luke took his data from Justin Martyr, who, in his First Apology (34) mentioned the census of Quirinius: Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius [Quirinius], your first procurator in Judaea.

In the first place, the t.i.tle of procurator represents an anachronism, as officials in Judea were not deemed such until later in the first century. Secondly, if Martyr had Luke's gospel in front of him, it would be logical and in line with Justin's habit of citing scripture to mention the evangelist's work. Nevertheless, he does not, and we are left looking elsewhere for the origin of the double-census of Quirinius. Could it simply be that Luke made a mistake or based his reportage on someone else's erroneous work, such as Justin Martyr?

Abiathar or Ahimelech?

In another example of an evident error in the New Testament, Mark 2:26 portrays Jesus as saying that the high priest during David's entry into the temple depicted at 1 Samuel 21 was Abiathar, whereas the Old Testament pa.s.sage states that it was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father. Hence, either Jesus is incorrect, which casts doubt on his claim to be the all-knowing Lord, or Mark is wrong, which, again, shows that the New Testament is not inerrant. The apology offered for this verse by Geisler is that Christ refers to the "days of Abiathar," which could include the time preceding his appointment as high priest.1 In reality, the Greek for this scripture is epi abiathar tou archiereos. One of the pertinent words here is epi, a preposition that means "upon," "on" or "at," as in "at the time." The pa.s.sage could be translated as "at the time of Abiathar the high priest," clearly indicating that Jesus meant to convey that Abiathar was high priest at the time, a logical conclusion. This sort of sophistry within apologetics is proffered on numerous occasions when the New Testament seems to be incorrect.

Gadarenes, Gerasenes or Gergesenes?

Moreover, the attempt to explain the discrepancies regarding the name of the people where the demoniac is cured, i.e., the Gadarenes, Gerasenes or the Gergesenes, does not account for the fact that in ancient ma.n.u.scripts and in translations of the same gospel the name varies from one to the other. It seems there is a mistake here, by someone a.s.serted to have been infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost, as it would be difficult to believe that the Holy Ghost did not know which of the terms was correct for the name of these people. Indeed, the infallible Holy Spirit seems to be careless and disorganized, compared to the standards to which we hold our human scholars and scientists today.

The Baptist's Death.

The beheading of John the Baptist presents a problem as well, as at Mark 6:17-29, concerning which Meier remarks, "The strongly legendary tone of the Marcan story as well as its differences with Josephus' account incline me to the view that the Marcan account contains little of historical worth, even with reference to the historical John."1 Meier continues to state that there are "indications that not every word of Mark's narrative can be taken as historically accurate." He further explains that Mark's a.s.sertion that "Antipas' second wife, Herodias, had previously been the wife of Antipas' half-brother Philip" represents an "inaccurate statement" and is "simply incorrect, as we know from Josephus's Jewish Antiquities."2 Meier also calls this mistake a "glaring historical error," remarking that the efforts by Christian fundamentalists to reconcile this error include an attempt at "salvation by conflation," combining two characters into one named "Herod Philip," whom Meier deems a "Herodian poltergeist" who "never existed outside of the minds of conservative exegetes."3 Msgr. Meier further states: Similarly, to maintain that Josephus is somehow wrong or confused would be a gratuitous a.s.sumption made to rescue Mark's accuracy at any cost. Josephus shows a much greater knowledge of Herodian genealogy than does Mark.... Indeed, Mark may have made more than one genealogical mistake in this story.... if Mark can be so wrong about the basic familial relations.h.i.+ps that are the driving engine of the plot of his story about John's execution, why should we credit the rest of his story as historical?4 In discussing the "precise place of John's execution," about which Mark and Josephus diverge, Meier remarks that there is no reason to doubt Josephus, and he concludes that "once again Mark is wrong in his presentation."5 Such remarks as Professor Meier's, found in an 1100-page scholarly work that few laymen will ever read, provide evidence that the patent errancy of the gospels is known and accepted by some within the hallowed halls of higher academia. Additionally, in his commentary about Mark's presentation of John's death, Meier raises the issue of the evangelist's apparent reliance upon not a historical account but on Old Testament narratives of other "persecuted and martyred prophets," such as Elijah and "the folkloric motifs in the Book of Esther." In discussing the influence of these earlier scenarios upon Mark's narrative, Meier states: These folkloric motifs find parallels in Greco-Roman stories of love, revenge, rash oaths, and women asking for what kings would rather not give, all in the context of royal banquets.1 This last comment suggests that Mark's account is not based on "historical fact" but on a folkloric motif: To wit, the death of John the Baptist as presented by Mark is fictional or fictionalized at best. Meier further remarks: As we have seen, the story in Mark 6:17-29 is erroneous in key historical matters (i.e., the marital problem that set off the conflict with John, the place of John's imprisonment and execution, and perhaps the ident.i.ty of the daughter) and is suffused with legendary and folkloric traits. Moreover, the links between the accounts of Mark and Josephus exist largely in the mind of the modern exegete.2 In other words, Mark is wrong in several important instances, and those who opine Mark and Josephus to be connected are fantasizing. These remarks rank as a stunning commentary from a biblical scholar and ex-Catholic priest, serving to ill.u.s.trate: 1. Mark's history, like his geography, is not entirely accurate; 2. Mark is wrong, therefore his gospel is not "inerrant"; 3. Mark's gospel is also therefore suspect as to its historical value; and 4. The other synoptics, if based on Mark's narrative, cannot likewise possibly be deemed "inerrant," and are likewise suspect as to their historical value.

Mosaic Authors.h.i.+p?