Who Was Jesus? Part 8

Over the centuries, numerous scholars have put forth intelligent, rational and scientific arguments that the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible could not have been written by Moses, as the Bible a.s.serts. Yet, at Luke 5:46 Jesus is depicted as a.s.serting as fact this untenable and evidently erroneous idea of Mosaic authors.h.i.+p-if Christ was truly the omniscient Lord, would he not know that Moses could not possibly have written the Pentateuch? Prior to the creation of Christianity only pious Jews would believe in the Mosaic authors.h.i.+p of the Pentateuch. Could this entire story largely represent the product of pious Jews attempting to create a messiah?

The Pre-Crucifixion Church?

At Matthew 16:18, Jesus says he will build his "church" (Greek ekklesia) upon the "rock" of Peter. Just a short while later, at Matthew 18:17, Jesus speaks of "the church" as if it already were an established ent.i.ty. An honest a.s.sessment of the situation suggests these verses were written long after the facts, when there was an established church, such that the reader would understand the reference. Such being the case, can we really trust that Matthew 18:17 records an actual verbatim remark made by Jesus, since, according to the gospel story, there was no church at that time?

Judas's Blood Money.

Another anachronism occurs in the depiction of Judas receiving his blood money of silver pieces that were "weighed out." It is claimed that at the time of the gospel story, silver pieces had been out of circulation for some 300 years!1 Moreover, currency at that time was not "weighed out." Would it not be sensible to ask whether this pa.s.sage reflects not an actual, historical event but a pericope fabricated in order to "fulfill prophecy," specifically that of Zechariah 11:12-13? In fact, when at Matthew 27:9 the evangelist claims to be quoting Jeremiah, he appears to be conflating verses from Zechariah (11:12-13) and Jeremiah (32:6-9; 18:2-3), possibly because the evangelist used the Septuagint as the source for his quote and there is in the Septuagint no corresponding scripture to Jeremiah 32:6-10; whereas, these verses at Zechariah 11:12-13 do appear in the Septuagint. In any event, Matthew's quote is incorrect, as concerns the Old Testament texts as we have them.

The same sort of scriptural conflation occurs at Mark 1:2 and was evidently recognized in ancient times to be an error. In that scripture, Mark conflates verses at Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1 with Isaiah 40:3, which altogether the evangelist quotes as being from "the prophet Isaiah." In later versions, however, sharp-eyed scribes removed the words "Isaiah" and left the verse at Mark 1:2 as "it is written in the prophets," in general, rather than Isaiah in specific.

As a further example of an error in the New Testament portrayal of the alleged time of Jesus's advent, the evangelists make the a.s.sertion that it was a custom to release a prisoner at the Pa.s.sover, but there is no evidence that there existed any such custom, Jewish or Gentile, at any time.

A number of other specifics are also evidently incorrect, including the depiction of two robbers being crucified with Jesus-robbery was apparently not an offense that called for crucifixion-and Jesus's family and friends conversing with him while he was on the cross, as the Roman authorities did not allow people to approach the crucifixion victims.

These and other inconsistencies cast doubt as to whether or not the evangelists actually knew the area and culture they were writing about and had ever lived there at any point, much less the era in question. Knowing all these facts, it would appear to the reasonable and rational mind that the matter is settled as to the obvious errancy of the Bible, and that claims to the contrary are less than honest and scientific.

Chronological Problems.

As we have seen, there are many places where the gospels do not agree with each other on the chronology of events in Jesus's life. In fact, there exist numerous chronological discrepancies in the gospels that become reconciled only by the most extreme stretches of logic, and, instead of admitting that the evangelists or subsequent copyists may have made mistakes, terms like "dislocations" are used and other excuses are given, in a seemingly deceptive manner.

As another example of a chronological problem, the baptism of Jesus by John-an illogical act, since Christ is sinless-is pivotal to the tale, particularly in the gospel of John. It is in this moment that John the Baptist and others present are astounded to see and hear the indescribable wonders that reveal Jesus not only as the messiah but also as the Son of G.o.d, with G.o.d's own voice booming from the heavens and identifying Christ as such. Yet, not only does Luke gloss over this entire extraordinary episode with a brief two-sentence mention (Lk 3:21-22), he places the baptism after John has been imprisoned (Lk 3:20), giving the impression that John did not baptize Jesus at all.

In addition, Jesus's temptation is depicted in different manners: At Matthew 4:5-8, for instance, the devil is portrayed as taking Christ first to the "pinnacle of the temple" and then to the "very high mountain." Luke (4:5-9), on the other hand, has the devil taking him "up" (to the mountain) first and then to the pinnacle of the temple. Which order was it, and who was there to report it? Christian apologist Dr. Geisler attempts to reconcile this problem with the justification that Matthew "describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climatically, that is, topically."1 This a.s.sertion seems to contradict the claim by Luke that he was carefully putting the events in the narrative in order-in his prologue in fact, Luke uses two different terms to emphasize that his narrative is "in order." Could a simpler answer not be that one or the other evangelist made a mistake? Perhaps one evangelist's account is a correction of the other, or maybe both are based on a patently mythical event?

Matthew and Luke also disagree as to the order of the healing of the demoniacs and the meeting of Matthew/Levi. In Matthew (8:32), Christ drives the demons into the swine and then calls Matthew (9:9); whereas, in Luke (5:27), Jesus meets "Levi" much earlier in the story than the healing of the demoniacs (8:33). Mark too is out of sync with the calling of Matthew, as at 2:14 he places it before Christ calms the storm (4:39), while Matthew depicts himself as being called by Jesus after calming the tempest (8:26). Luke and Mark also switch the order of the arrest of John the Baptist, as Luke (3:19-20) places it before the storm is quieted, while Mark puts John's arrest (6:17-18) after the tempest miracle.

One more instance of how the apologies for such problems seem deceptive occurs in the pericope of the cleansing of the temple, depicted at the beginning in John and at the end in the synoptics. The apologetic reasoning for this dichotomy is that Christ committed the aggressive act twice, with F.F. Bruce, for example, placing the first act of aggression some two years earlier than the second!1 It is difficult to believe that Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables even once, much less twice, since this momentous occurrence turns up nowhere in the historical record. There is no indication anywhere in the synoptic gospels that Jesus had previously cleared the temple-which one would think would have been a highly noteworthy event-no recollection by an evangelist, no bitter or critical commentary by any Jewish authorities, who surely would have been incensed by Christ's behavior. This earlier act of violence is never brought up as a reason for the authorities, Jewish or Roman, to be angry with Jesus and to justify their harsh treatment of him. Nor is there any mention of this wild and highly noticeable behavior in any non-biblical doc.u.ment-one would think that the opposing Jews would have recorded such an event, especially since they were so very fanatical about the temple, and would have offered Jesus's vandalism as a reason for persecuting him early on in the gospel story, if it had happened at that point. That there were two cleansings of the temple, during both of which Christ overturned the tables of the moneychangers, seems impossible to believe. While the efforts may be sincere for those who refuse to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, this type of conclusion appears sophistic and disingenuous to many people.

Nevertheless, this episode in the gospel story has convinced countless people that there had to be a person behind all of the fairytales they think were added to his biography, because this act of aggression does not seem to be something someone would make up. On the contrary, when Old Testament scripture is studied, it becomes evident that this part about the temple being cleared of moneychangers is a reflection of the earlier scripture at Zechariah 14:21: "...And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day." This book, Zechariah, is the penultimate before the New Testament, followed only by Malachi. It is evident that this pericope was included in the gospel story in order to make it seem that Jesus had "fulfilled prophecy," which would explain it erroneously being depicted at different times in the various gospels. Apologists use such "embarra.s.sing" moments in the gospels as to argue that the story is historical, since such episodes would not be included otherwise, as they make Christ and/or his disciples "look bad." A number of these "scriptural embarra.s.sments," however, can be explained in like manner, with such episodes reflecting the use of the Old Testament as a blueprint, rather than depicting real events.

To continue with the chronological discrepancies, in Mark (3:22), after naming the disciples, Jesus "goes home, but the crowd is too great." Christ's "friends" grab him, and scribes from Jerusalem claim he's possessed by demons, because he can cast out demons. This last pericope of casting devils out appears earlier in Matthew, at 9:34, before Christ gives the disciples their missions.

Yet another chronological problem between the gospels occurs with the depiction of the Last Supper. In the synoptics, the Last Supper coincides with the Pa.s.sover meal; in John, Pa.s.sover begins after Jesus has already been crucified. Moreover, the events of the Last Supper become less gripping when it is realized that this type of sacred meal occurred in other legends and myths. Concerning the eucharist, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples."1 Moreover, the sayings supposedly uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper are depicted differently by all of the synoptists.

The reconciliation of the gospel narratives as concerns the crucifixion and resurrection is so problematic that some people have issued an "Easter challenge" to put the events in a proper and logical order.2 How can we claim, then, that we know the order of the events of Christ's Pa.s.sion? Or even that it really happened? Again, is it not possible that, instead of an account based on a factual resurrection, the evangelists were reworking such "prophecies" as found at Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2 and others?

As an example of the difficulties in the Pa.s.sion account, in Mark (15:25) Jesus is depicted as being crucified during the "third hour," while in John (19:14), it is around the "sixth hour." Which is it? The apology for this discrepancy is that "John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system."1 There is no evidence for this extraordinary claim, however, and a more logical a.s.sessment may be that one or the other of the evangelists made an error, particularly in consideration of the other facts regarding the genesis of the gospel story and the seemingly fictional nature of many elements therein, including and especially the pa.s.sion narrative.

Moreover, early ma.n.u.scripts of Matthew 27:49-50 depict Jesus as having a spear stuck in his side before he dies; whereas, in John (19:33-34) Christ is already dead when he is side-wounded. The phrase regarding the spear and the water and blood in Matthew is omitted from the RSV and other editions. Could there be a political reason for its inclusion?

In Matthew, Jesus says he will be dead for three days; yet, he dies on Friday afternoon and rises on Sunday morning, const.i.tuting fewer than two days. The apologist argument that Friday, Sat.u.r.day and Sunday can be counted as whole days does not account for the "sign of Jonah," which puts the messiah in the tomb for three nights as well. Clearly, Christ was not in the tomb for three nights. (Jonah 1:17; Mt 12:40) Nevertheless, the apologists feel the need to provide a highly convoluted and illogical argument in order to demonstrate that Christ did in fact remain for three nights in the tomb, despite what the texts state.2 Based on all these factors, it is reasonable to suggest that the gospels are not chronologically accurate because their writers were not infallibly inspired, and that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of G.o.d or a reliable "history book" but, rather, significantly consists of traditions, fables and myths.

Translation Errors and Language Problems.

The fact that some pa.s.sages are omitted in certain versions and translations of the New Testament demonstrates that the book has been interpolated and altered, again leading to the reasonable and scientific conclusion that the Bible as we have it could not possibly be the inerrant Word of G.o.d infallibly recorded by inspired scribes. One apologetic solution to this dilemma is to a.s.sert that all individuals involved in the construction and preservation of the New Testament texts were "filled and guided by the Holy Spirit." According to this belief, even the translators-modern day included-have been working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As Orthodox Christian Bishop Alexander remarks: "And since the ultimate author of Sacred Scripture is the Holy Spirit, the translator needs His illumination and inspiration to correctly convey His message."

Because such a position appears untenable, many Christian scholars and apologists today no longer adhere to this notion that translations themselves are inspired, claiming instead that only the "originals" are inspired. The rank-and-file believers, however, still frequently maintain-as they have been taught-that the King James translation, for one, is inerrant and its translators inspired. Regardless of whether or not trained apologists believe this claim anymore, the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant. In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault: At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the "Inerrant Bible" doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of G.o.d and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the "Alexandrian cult," and the Roman Catholic Church.1 The reality is that even today many pastors continue to promote the purported inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, there remain ministries fervently dedicated to "defending and promoting the KJV." Within these organizations, the King James Bible continues to be held up as "inerrant," despite the scholars.h.i.+p that has revealed the Textus Receptus at its basis to be flawed. One fundamentalist KJV defender, Brandon Staggs, comments on the debate thus: Almost every "fundamental" statement of faith reads that G.o.d's word is perfect and inspired in the original autographs.

But isn't that a statement of unbelief? What good is G.o.d's word if it only exists in ma.n.u.scripts which no longer exist? Why would G.o.d inspire Scripture just to let it wither to dust?

Many modern scholars believe that the real ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and that we can not be certain how Mark concluded his Gospel. And yet these same scholars will boldly declare belief in G.o.d's preservation of Scripture.1 Evangelicals like David Sorenson, in fact, go so far as to deem "apostates" those who follow the "critical text," such as the RSV, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the "Received Text," i.e., the basis for the KJV.2 Continuing with his apology for the KJV, Staggs states: It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is G.o.d's word in the English language without admixture of error.

Despite this indoctrination of inerrancy, an investigation of the translations of the New Testament into English reveals much as to whether or not they could possibly be considered "inerrant" works by "infallibly" inspired scribes.

The Kings James Bible.

Prior to the discovery of the most complete, ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament-the Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vatica.n.u.s-we possessed only much later copies in Greek. One of the most important translations of the Bible, the King James Version, was based not on these earliest ma.n.u.scripts but on the later Greek texts, as well as on the preceding English editions such as the Tyndale, Great, Geneva and Catholic Bibles, the latter of which was in turn founded upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

Claimed by many Christian fundamentalists to be the only inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible into English, the King James Version, also called the "Authorized Version," possesses an interesting history, in that it was composed over several years from 1604 to 1609 by six groups comprising upwards of 40 translators. Each translator's section was edited by the other members of the group, then pa.s.sed around to the other groups, and so on, until a finalized version was accepted and was subsequently published in 1611. This complex history provokes several questions, including why the Holy Spirit needed so many minds and hands to work on G.o.d's Word. Wouldn't it have been much faster and less fraught with the chance for error if only one person infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit had translated the texts? Common sense indicates that only if the individuals involved were relying on their own intellectual faculties and erudition would there need to be a committee of the sort used in the translation of the King James Bible.

Concerning the KJV, Dr. Ehrman remarks: ...The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century ma.n.u.script that is one of the worst of the ma.n.u.scripts that we now have available to us!...

...The King James was not given by G.o.d but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.1 Centuries after the KJV became the "n.o.blest monument of English prose," in fact, there arose a clear need for a new, updated translation. As the "Preface" to the Revised Standard Version relates: ...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many ma.n.u.scripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation....2 Hence, despite the esteem by evangelical Christians, it is understood by various scholars that the King James Bible was not "given by G.o.d" and possesses "grave defects." In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, "hastily compiled" by Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other ma.n.u.script portions, producing the "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text." Not finding the last six verses of the New Testament, from the book of Revelation, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to translate the pertinent verses back into Greek. Hence, these particular scriptures were not rendered from the original or even early Greek texts but are the retranslations from a Latin translation of a Greek copy of the New Testament. It is upon this defective translation that the King James Bible is based in large part, further demonstrating the tenuousness and frailty of maintaining that the KJV was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, the translation of the KJV was not confined to the Greek texts but also used previous English translations, including the Tyndale Bible. One of the earliest translators of the Bible into English, William Tyndale (d. 1536), was burned at the stake for "heresy." Yet, Tyndale's translation has been used in the creation of every significant English rendition of the Bible since his time, including the King James Version.1 Was Tyndale inspired? If so, why would G.o.d let him be hideously killed? If he was not inspired, how can the English translations such as the KJV, based in considerable part on his work, themselves be considered inspired?

As one example of where the differences between ancient ma.n.u.scripts/authorities have led to some "grave defects" in the translation, in Mark 9, verses 44 and 46 are omitted from the RSV, which says they are likewise omitted from "the best ancient authorities." RSV gives its reason for excluding these verses as the fact that they are "identical with verse 48." These three identical verses are reproduced three times in the King James Version as: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Hence, some of these ancient authorities carelessly reproduced verses in the same paragraph, which was not very difficult in consideration of the run-on Greek text they were originally using. Or, if these repet.i.tions were originally intended, how could the editors of the RSV (and others) remove these verses? One or both of these editions must not be correct.

Regarding the KJV, the RSV continues: The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the acc.u.mulated errors of fourteen centuries of ma.n.u.script copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval ma.n.u.scripts....

We now possess many more ancient ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text...2 One result of this need for revision is the Revised Standard Version itself, which bases its translation upon the King James Bible and "the most ancient authorities," i.e., the Greek codices. Yet, how do we know which of the Greek texts is correct, as they differ significantly? If the Holy Spirit was inspiring the translators of the KJV, why weren't they shown the most ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts instead, if these are more correct and closer to the originals of G.o.d's Word? In fact, why would the Holy Spirit allow the originals or autographs to be destroyed in the first place? Why don't we possess the pristinely and miraculously preserved texts written by the very hands of the evangelists themselves?

If these most ancient Greek texts are not more correct than the later ones, why are more modern translations based on them? It is well known that the most ancient ma.n.u.scripts "contain scribal errors of all sorts." In fact, one of the oldest MS fragments, P46, contains the "largest percentage of blunders on record!" Under these circ.u.mstances, it is surprising that anything in the New Testament can be known concretely and that definitive statements concerning biblical inerrancy can be logically and honestly made.

Moreover, the numerous Latin translations were so varied and unreliable that St. Jerome was commissioned to create an authoritative Latin text (Vulgate) from reputable Greek ma.n.u.scripts.1 Again, the KJV was also based in part on the Latin Vulgate, which few Christian evangelicals or fundamentalists would claim was inspired.

Even with the KJV revealing itself to be a large mess, fundamentalist proponents of it contradictorily claim that it does indeed represent the "originals" or autographs of the biblical texts.2 One wonders if these individuals who make such definitive declarations-expressing their own opinions, in fact-are themselves inspired such that we should take their word on it?

The King James fundamentalists also argue that the 17th-century English of the KJV is "not archaic" and that changing it const.i.tutes an "a.s.sault" on G.o.d's Word!3 What about translations into other languages, if even other English renditions are no good? Or, do all the rest of the people in the world need to learn King James English in order to be saved? Why would G.o.d make the salvation of millions of people's souls so difficult, if not impossible? It seems a rather cruel thing to do to the millions who will never learn English or who are illiterate in any language. If only the King James English translation is inspired, why bother translating the Bible into any other language? Are all the missionaries who create and pa.s.s out Bibles in hundreds of different languages completely wasting their time? Are these missionaries not sincere Christians, believing as they do in the translations they are sharing? The arrogance expressed in the KJV fundamentalist response to this quandary ranks up there with Lucifer's quest to take over heaven: "G.o.d has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job-convert the world.... Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, G.o.d chose the only language which the world would know."4 After scientifically a.n.a.lyzing the ma.n.u.script tradition and the creation of the King James Bible, it seems incredible and egregious that someone could maintain the following sentiment expressed by a KJV fundamentalist writer: The ma.n.u.scripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best ma.n.u.scripts are those used by the King James translators.1 This position strikes one as obstinate, unscientific and unreasonable, but is little different from the maintenance by other fundamentalist Christians that the Bible as a whole is inerrant, that the gospel tale is 100% factually accurate, and that Christianity is the "only true religion."

In addition, the argument maintaining "inspired originals" is not very appealing, for the reason proffered by Dr. Ehrman that we do not possess the originals. Regarding the doctrine of "inspired originals," KJV fundamentalist and evangelical Christian Daryl Coats asks: If the Bible were inspired only in the original ma.n.u.scripts, no one today has an inspired Bible. If that is true, what makes your religion any different from that of the Buddhist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Mormon?2 Indeed, is it truly honest and righteous for any one culture to insist that its "holy book" alone is the "Word of G.o.d?" In reality, none of these texts can be scientifically proved to be the "inerrant Word of G.o.d."

Born of a Virgin?

An exegesis of the texts reveals that despite the claims of inerrancy, there were problems with the translation of the Bible even before it was rendered into English. For example, the a.s.sertion that Jesus's mother, Mary, was a "virgin" when she gave birth ranks, of course, as one of those miracles that less credulous people have difficulty accepting. When the scripture cited as "prophecy fulfilled" in Jesus's nativity is examined, however, it seems that Mary's virginity may be a contrivance based on an erroneous or loose translation, not on a historical fact. In the original Hebrew "prophecy" at Isaiah 7:14 to describe the individual who would conceive the son named Immanuel, the term used is almah, which means a "young woman" but not necessarily a virgin. The apology for this problem is that the word almah in the Bible invariably refers to an "unmarried woman," which automatically means she is a "virgin." Granted that in some places in ancient times the chances of that situation may have been more likely, the fact will remain that a "maiden" is not necessarily a "virgin." If almah can or should be translated every time as "virgin," why is there a separate word in Hebrew for "virgin," i.e., bethulah? According to Strong's Concordance, "virgin" is the only definition for bethulah (H1330), whereas almah (H5959) is defined as: 1) virgin, young woman a) of marriageable age b) maid or newly married From this definition, it would seem inaccurate to state that an almah is only an "unmarried woman" and/or a virgin, as is a.s.serted by Christian apologists. In this instance, the KJV translates almah as "virgin," while the RSV renders it "young woman." The three other instances in the KJV where the word almah is translated as "virgin" occur in one peculiar place regarding the mundane activity of drawing water, as in "when the virgin cometh forth to draw" (Gen 24:43), and in the very sensual Song of Songs (Sgs 1:3, 6:8). Other examples of almah are translated in the KJV as "maid" (Ex 2:8; Pro 30:19) or "damsel" (Ps 68:25). Where the term bethulah is used in the Hebrew, emphasis often is given to make certain it is understood that the individual in question had "not known man by lying with him." No such clarification is given for almah, and it appears unreasonable and unscientific to insist that it be translated as "virgin" in all instances, especially in the case of a pregnant female! Moreover, in all other uses in Isaiah (23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), the author utilizes the term bethulah to describe a "virgin"-if at verse 7:14 he also meant "virgin," why use the term almah and not bethulah?

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, does in fact render the word almah as parthenos, which means "virgin."1 As we have seen, many of the scriptures cited or quoted in the gospels came from the Septuagint, from which the evangelists evidently got their ideas, not from a factual state of virginity in a historical Mary. Moreover, the fact that the Septuagint had been in existence for at least two centuries prior to the Christian era demonstrates that the virgin-birth motif preceded Christ's purported advent. It may be that the translators of the Septuagint and those who used the Greek rendering of Isaiah 7:14 in the New Testament were attempting to compete with the claimants of virgin or divine births of other G.o.ds, kings and heroes around the Mediterranean and elsewhere.2 Rather than a.s.suming that a Jewish virgin became pregnant without intercourse and gave birth to the Almighty Lord of the cosmos, would it not be more logical and plausible to suggest that this pa.s.sage was used as part of the messianic blueprint by the creators of the gospel texts?

Indeed, we could likewise aver that the meaning in Matthew is not necessarily reflective of that in Isaiah: To wit, Matthew insists that a virginal Mary conceived and gave birth without intercourse, while, in fact, the original Isaiah says no such thing but simply that a virgin will conceive, which is quite possible. It does not say "without intercourse" or that she remained a virgin and still gave birth. Matthew's interpretation is not wholly influenced by Isaiah's scripture but appears to incorporate the tales of virgin births in other myths and legends.

"Children," "Deeds" or "Results?"

Another translation oddity occurs at Matthew 11:19, concerning the Greek term teknon, which the RSV translates as "children." Different versions render teknon variously as "children," "deeds," "results," "actions" and "works." The same pericope is related at Luke 7:35, using the same word teknon; yet, the translators uniformly render it as "children." Why, if the Holy Spirit was inspiring the translators, would the translations of the same term not be uniform, conveying the precise, same meaning, instead of leaving us to guess? If the Holy Spirit is looking over the shoulders of the translators, would not each know what word the others had used? This is but one of numerous instances where the terms chosen by translators vary-why would G.o.d or the Holy Spirit induce such discrepancies?

Jesus the Carpenter?

One more translation example reveals how a story element previously determined to be part of a "biography" of a real person called Jesus Christ is in fact questionable as to whether or not it was a true characteristic of his life. To wit, when the texts are examined closely it is clear that characterizing Jesus as a "carpenter"-a widely held belief-has very little basis in the literary record, and none in the historical or archaeological records. In the first place, the Greek word commonly translated as "carpenter"-tekton-could refer to an artisan or worker in other trades as well, such as a smith, builder or mason. Per Strong's (G5045), tekton means the following: 1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder a) a s.h.i.+p's carpenter or builder 2) any craftsman, or workman a) the art of poetry, maker of songs 3) a planner, contriver, plotter a) an author We have no description in the New Testament of Jesus sawing wood or doing any other carpentry work specifically. In fact, this designation of Christ as a tekton can be found in the Bible only once, at Mark 6:3, in the pericope where Jesus returns home to astound the people he grew up with. Firstly, we would need to ask why, if some of these people were around when Jesus was born, surrounded by prodigies and wonders, including a clear designation as the messiah, they would be astonished by him as an adult. Secondly, in this same pericope Matthew (13:55) has the crowd calling Jesus the "son of the tekton," which, again, could be a carpenter, a smith, a mason or another type of worker. Luke portrays the folks as labeling Jesus simply the "son of Joseph." Furthermore, there is evidence-from the early church father Origen in the third century, for one-that this scripture about the tekton in Mark was not present in the original text. In Contra Celsus (VI, 36), Origen remarks that "in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter." Confirming Origen's a.s.sertion, this term tekton as an appellation of Jesus does not appear in the earliest ma.n.u.script of Mark (P45), dating from Origen's era.1 In that ma.n.u.script, Christ is called the "son of the carpenter," as he is in Matthew.

In any event, all of our ideas that Jesus was a humble carpenter-vividly brought to life in so many books and movies-may in fact be based on a later scribe's interpolated phrase or an erroneous translation, but not on the genuine biography of a real person. As the scriptures are examined in this manner, and the layers are peeled away, we find a number of characteristics attributed to Jesus that are evidently false or, at best, later additions that may or may not be true but certainly were not included in the originals. A picture develops of an artificial, patchwork "biography" put together piecemeal over time of the "most important man who ever lived." This idea of patching together over a period of decades and centuries what was supposed to be a biography provided by eyewitnesses of the time is perturbing to our quest in determining who Jesus really was, because we have so little to go on and so much appears to have been fict.i.tious.

A Camel or Rope?

Another difficulty in our a.n.a.lysis of the biblical texts presents itself in the nonsensical pa.s.sage at Matthew 19:24 concerning the "camel" pa.s.sing through the eye of a needle. It is theorized that the word was originally gamla in Aramaic, which evidently means both "camel" and "rope," as in a thick cable made of camel's hair. It is logical to suggest that the original word is meant to convey not "camel" but "cable rope," and that the original translators of this saying got it wrong. However, one argument avers that the term "eye of a needle" refers to a particular gate in a town or city, which would be more sensible than the eye of a real needle, as a camel can pa.s.s through a city gate.

"The End of the Age?"

At Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, "I am with you always, to the close of the age." What does that mean? Some translations state "world," rather than "age." If Jesus is with us until the end of the world or age, what happens after that? The word used for "age" or "world" is the Greek term -aion-for which Strong's Concordance gives the meaning as: 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age Again, Jesus is first depicted as saying that he will only be with his disciples a short while, whereas later he states he will be with them for eternity. The difference, apologetics claims, is one of the physical versus the spiritual, although if Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and has always been with us, it is difficult to surmise he was never "felt in anyone's heart" until after his incarnation. It is interesting to note that the word "aion" or "aeon" is a "cult" term used within Gnosticism, once a commonly accepted form of Christianity that later became "heresy." Instances of Gnostic terminology and thought can be found in a number of places in the New Testament, including and especially in some of the oldest layers of the Pauline epistles.1

Originals or Not?

To reiterate, there are many places where the evangelists do not agree with each other verbatim about what Jesus said. Ancient ma.n.u.scripts of the same gospel also record Jesus's words differently from one to the next. Not all of these versions can be correct; therefore, some of them are wrong. How can we be certain that we are in possession of Christ's precious, original words? The KJV fundamentalist argument is that G.o.d simply didn't care about the originals and let them be destroyed. If G.o.d is so careless about the originals, why should we care about them? In fact, why should we care about the Bible at all, with such a blase att.i.tude as G.o.d holds towards it? Since the originals have simply been destroyed, we must take the word of mere human beings that the King James translators of Erasmus's hastily compiled Received Text is inerrant-why should we believe them? Like King Jehoiakim and the prophet Jeremiah, who are depicted in the book of Jeremiah (36:23, 51:63) as destroying the originals of that text twice, why don't we just toss out the whole Bible?

Moreover, we cannot even look towards the original languages for an inspired Bible, say the KJV fundamentalists: "If the Bible is inspired only in the 'original languages,' it is barbaric," goes the argument!2 Based on 1 Corinthians 14:11, in which Paul discusses the difficulties of dealing in different languages, it is reasoned that a tongue foreign to one's own const.i.tutes a "barbarian" language. So, what about for those of us who do know Greek and/or Hebrew? Is King James English the only language that is not barbaric? Would English not also be barbaric to those who do not know it?

Also, why would the Holy Spirit, who is supposedly guiding the efforts of the evangelists, have them record Jesus's sayings in their own peculiar styles, rather than verbatim in proper and correct Greek? Even if Christ spoke in Aramaic, why wouldn't the Holy Spirit-who is Jesus and would therefore know exactly what he said-inspire the evangelists to translate his words all the same? Moreover, if Jesus is the omniscient Lord, who knows all languages perfectly, why would he speak Aramaic and not Greek-did Christ only come for the relatively small and isolated population of Aramaic-speaking Jews? Yet, at the end the Lord changes his mission to include Gentiles, many of whom spoke Greek, the lingua franca of the time. Wouldn't an all-knowing G.o.d realize that to reach a Gentile audience, Aramaic would be inappropriate and unhelpful? By the argument using 1 Corinthians, wouldn't Aramaic also be barbaric?

Furthermore, why is each gospel so obviously unique in style and grammar? Could it be that these are mere human beings writing these texts, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The claim of "divine inspiration" begs the question as to why the Holy Spirit did not correct the various translation problems and errors, among so many other mistakes. Logically and rationally, of course, we may simply suggest that the copyists and translators were fallible humans who made mistakes.

Also, those who chose the books of the canon, such as Church father Irenaeus, declaring these and no others to be "inspired" and canonical, must themselves have been inspired by the infallible Holy Spirit. Otherwise, mistakes could have been made, and books that were not inspired may have been incorporated into the canon, and vice versa. The idea that the selectors of the NT books must also have been inspired opens up certain difficulties, including the fact that the final canonization required a couple centuries of raucous and violent infighting, with doubt cast upon every currently canonical text. This fact begs the question of why G.o.d as the Holy Spirit would require so many individuals and so much time to iron out all these differences. This scenario would most logically and scientifically be viewed as a human endeavor and concerted effort by many individuals who were simply acting under their own power and motivation.

In addressing the concerns raised once it is determined that no translation can be considered "inerrant," Christian apologetics sometime claims that what we do have is "good enough." But are these translations "good enough?" If there are errors in them, how can we accept that everything they say is correct and accurate? If the omnipotent G.o.d/Jesus is so concerned with the salvation of our souls, why not once and for all present us with the inspired and inerrant originals, which he could easily manifest, even if they were destroyed?

What all this a.n.a.lysis means is that it would be highly questionable to a.s.sert that any translation is inerrant and that its translators were infallibly inspired by G.o.d as the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by reading any translation in English or other language one cannot attain an entirely inerrant understanding of what the original authors meant to convey. As we have seen, we do not possess the originals-apparently gleefully destroyed by G.o.d-so we are in a double bind as to why we should believe.

Illogic and Irrationality.