The Mistakes of Jesus Part 1

The Mistakes of Jesus.

by William Floyd.

FOREWORD

The tradition regarding Jesus is so glamorous that it is difficult to review his life and character with an unbiased mind. While Fundamentalists and Modernists differ regarding the divinity of Christ, all Christians and many non-Christians still cling to preconceived notions of the perfection of Jesus. He alone among men is revered as all-loving, omniscient, faultless--an unparalleled model for mankind.

This convention of the impeccability of Jesus is so firmly established that any insinuation of error on his part is deemed a blasphemy.

Doubting Jesus is more impious than mocking G.o.d Almighty. Jehovah may be exposed to some extent with impunity; a G.o.d who destroyed 70,000 of his chosen people because their king took a census[1] is too illogical for any but theologians to wors.h.i.+p. But the Son of G.o.d, or Son of man, is sacrosanct. Jesus is reverenced as the one man who has lived unspotted by the world, free from human foibles, able to redeem mankind by his example.

Respect for the principles of Jesus is so inbred in American people of all faiths that an attempt to disparage his worth is denounced as bad taste. The detractor is suspected of being an immoral person, no matter how convincing may be the proof which he presents. A conspiracy of silence is directed against any system of ethics advanced as superior to the Sermon on the Mount. In popular opinion Jesus never made a mistake; all his teachings were infallible; no other view is tolerated.

_Face the Facts_

This unwillingness to acknowledge the shortcomings of Jesus is partially due to fear of sustaining a great loss. The familiar answer to heretical arguments is that faith should not be destroyed unless something can be put in its place--ignoring the fact that something always may be subst.i.tuted for beliefs destroyed. That subst.i.tute is faith in the world as it really is. And our modern world, with all its shortcomings, is infinitely preferable to the earth, or even the heaven, of the first century. We now know that man can do more to eradicate sorrow than Jesus ever thought of. We can have greater confidence in the world as revealed today than in the doubtful traditions of Biblical times.

But suppose there were nothing to subst.i.tute for the myth destroyed, should that deter the Truthseeker from continuing his investigation?

Scientists do not hesitate in their research because the result of a new discovery may be disastrous. They seek the facts regardless of consequences; they want to know the Truth about the physical world.

Ethicists should have a similar desire concerning the metaphysical world. They should have confidence that the Supreme Intelligence (as Edison called it) will lead on to better things.

_The True Jesus_

If Jesus was what his followers believe, no arguments will destroy their faith in him; but if Jesus was not perfect, according to modern standards, it is important that his status as G.o.d, or man, should be revised. Loss of confidence in an erring idol is not loss of a true ideal.

When an iconoclast a.s.serts that Jesus lacked supreme intelligence, the natural question is, "How do you know that you are right in your appraisal, 'lest haply ye be found even to fight against G.o.d'?" The answer is that we do not claim omniscience, but merely request everyone to use his or her own judgment, with intellectual honesty, examining each act or saying of Jesus without regard to presupposed ideas or tradition.

_Scriptures Unauthentic_

The consensus of scholars.h.i.+p has rejected the creation of the universe in six days in 4004 B.C., science having proved the existence of the world for millions of years. Higher Critics refuse to credit the book of Genesis, according to the first chapter of which the trees, beasts and fowls were created before man, but according to the second chapter after man. It is not a.s.suming too much for the humblest writer to say that Moses was mistaken concerning many things he described in the Pentateuch. It follows that if one important portion of the Bible is untrustworthy, other parts of that same book may not be the infallible Word of G.o.d. The New Testament, as well as the Old, may be examined critically, and if the gospels contain numerous contradictions, the statements of the authors on any point, including the life of Jesus, are open to question. A conscientious person should reach conclusions based upon the best knowledge obtainable from all sources.

If anyone is convinced that Jesus made mistakes, he is not necessarily compelled to become an atheist. All other G.o.ds that have been wors.h.i.+pped by men have been found imperfect. The oft exposed errors of Jehovah do not prevent Christians and Jews from professing belief in G.o.d. Those who require support from outside themselves cling to the symbol of deity though not thoroughly crediting any personality ever described in any sacred scriptures. Except Jesus.

An Evolutionist pa.s.ses beyond the negative denial of G.o.d to the construction of a new philosophy in which Truth is his guide, Truth being the nearest approximation to reality obtainable with our present knowledge. Belief in the world as it is now, and as it is going to be, is a sufficient creed.

_Faith in Jesus_

With Jesus entrenched in popular opinion, there is small probability that faith in him will be shaken unless there is a preponderance of evidence against his divinity. No one need abandon faith in Jesus until convinced that something better has been found. No one should even expose himself to heretical arguments unless he is a devotee of Truth.

Then only can he rejoice at a revelation of error in confidence that the more nearly the universe is understood the better can man adjust himself to his surroundings. A wors.h.i.+pper of Truth fears no destruction of false G.o.ds, nor any facts that may cause him to throw over treasured superst.i.tions. He is willing to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. He rejoices when his idol is shattered, knowing that he is approaching nearer to the true way of living, a way that Jesus did not adequately explain.

Any attempt to censure the character of Jesus will meet with the ridicule it deserves unless substantiated by doc.u.mentary evidence. The mere improbability of events contrary to natural laws does not destroy the ethical value of the teachings of the Nazarene. Anything might have happened in the eerie days of old; the critic must do more than deny the historicity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Bible. To be convincing he must derive from the scriptures in which Christians believe whatever proof can be deduced to unveil the superst.i.tion of a redeeming Savior.

_Doc.u.mentary Evidence_

The doc.u.ments most generally accepted by Christians are those collected in the King James Version of the Bible. The Apocrypha and other early ma.n.u.scripts are unreliable. None of the thirty or more writers who described events around Jerusalem in Jesus' time gives any account of his teachings. The only life of Jesus is found in the four gospels; the numerous biographers of Christ have had no other reliable source of information. It is deceptive for the publishers of revised editions of the Bible to claim that "original ma.n.u.scripts" have been consulted. Not one of the original ma.n.u.scripts is in existence, the earliest extant dating from the fourth century A.D., while the most ancient portion of the New Testament in any museum was transcribed in the sixth century.

Accepting, therefore, the King James Version of the New Testament as the most reliable source of information, the question arises as to what portion of the chapters therein may be considered authentic. Scholars have rejected the entire gospel of John as less reliable than the synoptic gospels; and the sixteenth chapter of Mark as an addition after the original papyrus had broken off. Modernists, being confronted, in spite of these deletions, with inconsistencies in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, have a.s.sumed the further privilege of rejecting any verses which appear at variance with their beliefs. Liberals of this cla.s.s contend that the supernatural side of Jesus may be disregarded and yet that Jesus will remain Our Lord. They reject certain evangelistic pa.s.sages that conflict with modern thought, but accept other statements by the same authors as authoritative.

As the Christian churches have not accepted any abbreviation of the Bible as a subst.i.tute for the King James Version, it seems proper for the critic to have recourse to that translation as the most authentic description of the life and teachings of Jesus. He is justified, moreover, in considering every word in the supposedly inspired gospels as equally reliable. His only concern should be to interpret each verse as nearly as possible as the original writers intended their words to be understood, allowing for Eastern hyperbole and the custom of the times.

_Retain the Good_

In preparing a critical a.n.a.lysis of the character of Jesus, it is freely admitted that many of the thoughts attributed to the son of Mary are superlatively fine. They will live forever whether the personality of Jesus be rejected as a divinity or not. That these beautiful preachments are ignored here is not due to any desire to belittle admirable sentiments or to disparage right living. The loving side of Jesus has been emphasized again and again and will be borne in mind by the reader when other less admirable traits are criticized. The intent of this criticism is not to destroy idealism but to a.s.sist the spirit of true progress.

_Christianity Must Go_

The significance of this investigation lies in the changes that would have to be made in religious thought if it should be found that Jesus was not perfect. If Jesus was in error concerning conditions of his own time and exhibited no knowledge of our modern problems, his authority will be lessened. Searchers after the true way of life will not continue to wors.h.i.+p a person whose conception of the physical and spiritual world was erroneous. If Jesus made mistakes, he is neither the Son of G.o.d nor an infallible man.

So long as people feel compelled to wors.h.i.+p what has been proved imperfect, or to evade important doctrines of their creeds for fear of losing faith in old traditions, their minds will not be receptive to changes in social conditions that require abandonment of established customs. Christians are imbued with a psychology derived from a completed revelation. The firmer their belief in Jesus, the greater their resistance to new ideas. Catholics are more reluctant to join progressive movements than Modernists and Modernists than Evolutionists.

Religious people are apt to be afraid of the new world; they doubt the possibility of eliminating war, poverty and injustice--customs as deeply rooted in the social world as belief in Jesus is in the religious world.

If the chief reactionary bulwark of the past is abandoned, there will be greater possibility of accepting new revelations.

What would happen if Christians should discover that their leader was not an incomparable guide? Absolutely nothing at first. Those accustomed to lead a moral life would continue to do so. Members of Christian churches are the very people who most wish to do what is right. They will not lose their character because Jesus has lost his fict.i.tious divinity. On the contrary, they will search for the most elevating principles to subst.i.tute for the personality that has been found deficient. It is difficult for people to be superior to their G.o.ds.

These same church-going individuals, when freed from the fetters of antiquated supernaturalism, will gradually learn to serve mankind with the same devotion they now render to a misunderstood G.o.d. They will no longer be limited by the defects of their paragon in their efforts to make the most of life. They will seek to solve modern problems in a rational way instead of deciding such matters as birth control, divorce, war and prohibition by reference to the scriptures, as they do now. For the first time they will make their decisions according to the best knowledge obtainable today.

Jesus was in advance of his time. He declared that such revengeful theories as an eye for an eye must be supplanted by forgiveness. But as the world has evolved, Jesus has stood still. His teachings, superior as they were to those of the ancient Israelites, are now found to be inferior to the best ethics culled from the wisdom of the ages, brought down to date. It is heartening to feel that we can appropriate the superlative principles of all time instead of wors.h.i.+pping a deified personality who was limited to the best that men of his own generation could conceive.

This examination of the life and character of Jesus will be based upon the accounts in the New Testament. Each pa.s.sage will be construed as appears to the writer to have been originally intended. The reader may subst.i.tute his own interpretation, but should in no instance pa.s.s lightly over a situation as immaterial. Every word or action of Jesus is an important link in the chain of his divinity, or of his exalted position as a moral guide. Each argument should be met by acceptance or rejection, never with indifference. No reader of the following pages should ever say, "What difference does it make?" Everything concerning Jesus is of vast consequence in determining whether he is or is not a divine Savior, or a perfect guide.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Chron. xxi.

ANTIQUATED THEOLOGY

The first event in the life of Jesus, the gospel story of his birth, is now considered unauthentic by many scholars and some theologians. The birth of a virgin, the visitation of an angel, the star in the East are phenomena contrary to natural laws and rest on insufficient authority for acceptance as credible. The probabilities are against exceptions in the laws of the universe.

_The Virgin Birth_

The original evidence for the virgin birth is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, two unknown historians, and both these evangelists implicitly deny their own tale when they trace the descent of Jesus from David through Joseph.[1] The slaughter of the children by Herod, in fear of Jesus as a rival, probably never took place. Mark, Luke and John do not mention it; Josephus, who dwelt on the crimes of Herod, knew nothing of this ma.s.sacre. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem openly soon after the supposed decree.[2]

There is dispute as to whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, and the date of his birth has been placed anywhere from 4 B.C. to 7 A.D.

Matthew says that Jesus was born "in the days of Herod", while Luke says it was "When Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Herod died in 4 B.C., while Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A.D.

The romantic story of the Christ-child is not corroborated by the historians of the time and is in opposition to the theory of evolution by natural processes. And yet it is still one of the main sources of Jesus' fame, being repeated at Christmas-tide in the churches, thus connecting Jesus with G.o.d in a superhuman manner.