There are some areas that have been so thoroughly traversed that to say much on them would border on plagiarism. In conversation I have no problem putting out dates and times, facts and figures, but in this format I have found I haven't got much to say in an original way. At the end of this post are two links that I hope you will follow if the question of the "Gospels as Fairy Tale" at all enters your mind.
So far, I have attempted to paint a clearer picture of the Gospels as representing historical fact, rather than an invented narrative, or "fairy tale." In this article, I will address the assumption that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth changed- through passage of time and multiple transmissions- into the legendary character we see him as today.
When we read the teachings of Jesus, it is safe to believe that he used the traditional rabbinical method when instructing his followers. When a teacher taught his disciples, he did so in a certain form. This was to ensure the transmission of his words would remain faithful to its original content. As Jesus taught his disciples, we can be sure he did so thoroughly, and that they were faithful to his message. The oral tradition among the Hebrew people was sacred, and any violation of its integrity by one would have been quickly snuffed out by the others.
This at least ensures that the message of Christ was preserved faithfully. As to his deeds? When faced with a text that claims historicity, the skeptic will almost certainly dismiss the claims of supernatural acts as mythical embellishment, or legend. "Yes," he/she will say, "Jesus may have existed, but these stories of healing sick people, raising the dead, walking on water, they're all just added in by leaders in the early church in order to make him seem like more than he really was."
Here's where I sit, for months trying to figure out a new and interesting way to say something that so many people have said before. I can plead for lack of motive, I can plead for strength of conviction, I can offer the criterion of embarrasment, or I could even argue intuitively that the Gospels are true because they have the ring of truth to them throughout (suspending the pre-supposed lack of God's existence) but when it comes down to it, I can do no better a job really offering textual criticism than the leading experts out there.
If you are at all interested in the facts behind the accounts of Jesus' life, as laid out by his closest followers, here are two resources I can offer:
This is an article detailing the work of Gary Habermas, who has made it his life's work to lay out what he calls "The Minimal Facts Approach." He surveys what scholars believe, finds the areas in which there is an incredibly strong consensus, and builds his case upon that.
J. Warner Wallace is another excellent resource on this subject. He is a cold-case homicide detective who actually used his expertise in the field to study the claims laid out in the Bible, and came out the other side a believer.
If you have questions, please know that you can always ask them. There are many people out there who are committed to offering you answers if you are willing to hear them. As always, thanks for reading and feel free to comment below.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Mythological Jesus (Part 2 of "Can We Dismiss The Gospels as Fairy Tale?")
You may have been told that, from a study of comparative mythologies around the world, a very common theme appears of a God being born, dying, and then rising from the dead. Nearly every ancient culture would appear to have one such story.The thing is, though, that this motif does not actually exist categorically. No matter how many times one hears the old line "Jesus was just another 'born-dying-raised' god," the fact is that he is the only one! Some Gods were killed and stayed dead, some died and rose up in one or more totally different forms. They were never reported as doing so within the frame of recorded history.
There is the Norse myth of Odin hanging himself from Yggdrasil in an effort to attain greater wisdom and power. He sacrifices himself to himself in order to do this, but he does not die. Baldur, Odin's son, is said to have been killed by a dart made of mistletoe, leading to the binding of Loki. So, there is a vague parallel here. One of the "All-Father" sacrificing himself on a tree, and the other of a god of light and beauty having his fate sealed to die. These, however, are the only similarities found in the Norse myths. Some major differences between these and the account of Jesus were that Odin did what he did because of a thirst for knowledge and wisdom, and self preservation, not out of any plan for redemption for creation; Baldur did not rise again. His body was placed on a pyre, and was launched out to sea on the Ringhorn (a large ship).
One other myth that people will often site (you may have seen the cartoon making its rounds on Facebook) is the Horus myth of ancient Egypt. In fact, none of the parallels seem to have their backing in the sources we actually have from Egyptian mythology. What we do have are fragments of different Egyptian traditions which have been "translated" to bear a striking resemblance to the account of the Gospels. A huge stretch of the imagination, not to mention downright fabrication, is the only way one could actually draw these two together in any meaningful way. I also feel it is extremely important to note that Christianity is the only account of God giving His Son in order to redeem humankind. In fact it is the only account where a God sacrifices anything on account of human beings.
There are a lot of people out there who wish to propagate this myth of myths: the story of Christ was not a new one, and was in fact just "borrowed" from other ancient cultures in order to appeal to a pagan audience. To further this cause, many changes were made to the original accounts of the life of Jesus. In order to confirm this, though, I think perhaps a demonstrable motive would have to be given. The people who first spread the word of Jesus' life and teaching had no reason to do so if it were not true. They would have been better off keeping quiet about the whole thing. The persecution of the early church was a horrible thing indeed, and they did not gain the right to worship under Roman rule until the fourth century, which was long after even the most liberal scholars' estimates for when the Bible was written.
I think CS Lewis put it best when he said, "All the myths of mankind's primitive religions were expressions of a deep yearning — the deepest yearning — in mankind's consciousness, namely that the mysterious transcendent God would come into intimate contact with mankind, and do so in such a way that He would repair the damages made by mankind's sinfulness, and would grant to mankind a safety that would last forever... Christianity, rather than being one myth alongside many others, is thus the fulfillment of all previous mythological religions. It is a myth, like the others, but this time a myth that is also a fact."
Next time I will address the nature of legend, as well as textual criticism for the New Testament. As always, thanks for reading!
There is the Norse myth of Odin hanging himself from Yggdrasil in an effort to attain greater wisdom and power. He sacrifices himself to himself in order to do this, but he does not die. Baldur, Odin's son, is said to have been killed by a dart made of mistletoe, leading to the binding of Loki. So, there is a vague parallel here. One of the "All-Father" sacrificing himself on a tree, and the other of a god of light and beauty having his fate sealed to die. These, however, are the only similarities found in the Norse myths. Some major differences between these and the account of Jesus were that Odin did what he did because of a thirst for knowledge and wisdom, and self preservation, not out of any plan for redemption for creation; Baldur did not rise again. His body was placed on a pyre, and was launched out to sea on the Ringhorn (a large ship).
One other myth that people will often site (you may have seen the cartoon making its rounds on Facebook) is the Horus myth of ancient Egypt. In fact, none of the parallels seem to have their backing in the sources we actually have from Egyptian mythology. What we do have are fragments of different Egyptian traditions which have been "translated" to bear a striking resemblance to the account of the Gospels. A huge stretch of the imagination, not to mention downright fabrication, is the only way one could actually draw these two together in any meaningful way. I also feel it is extremely important to note that Christianity is the only account of God giving His Son in order to redeem humankind. In fact it is the only account where a God sacrifices anything on account of human beings.
There are a lot of people out there who wish to propagate this myth of myths: the story of Christ was not a new one, and was in fact just "borrowed" from other ancient cultures in order to appeal to a pagan audience. To further this cause, many changes were made to the original accounts of the life of Jesus. In order to confirm this, though, I think perhaps a demonstrable motive would have to be given. The people who first spread the word of Jesus' life and teaching had no reason to do so if it were not true. They would have been better off keeping quiet about the whole thing. The persecution of the early church was a horrible thing indeed, and they did not gain the right to worship under Roman rule until the fourth century, which was long after even the most liberal scholars' estimates for when the Bible was written.
I think CS Lewis put it best when he said, "All the myths of mankind's primitive religions were expressions of a deep yearning — the deepest yearning — in mankind's consciousness, namely that the mysterious transcendent God would come into intimate contact with mankind, and do so in such a way that He would repair the damages made by mankind's sinfulness, and would grant to mankind a safety that would last forever... Christianity, rather than being one myth alongside many others, is thus the fulfillment of all previous mythological religions. It is a myth, like the others, but this time a myth that is also a fact."
Next time I will address the nature of legend, as well as textual criticism for the New Testament. As always, thanks for reading!
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Can We Dismiss the Gospel as a Fairy Tale? Part 1
There's a lot to talk about with the subject. I'll be posting in three parts.
There is a common line of thought that I heard expressed quite well in one simple statement from a coworker: "The burden is on you to prove that Cinderella was based on a true story." This concise barb illustrates one prevalent line of thought. There are many people who believe that the story contained in the Gospels is nothing more than a fairy tale, used to scare people into being good or rendering their goods and services to the Church.
Let us first note the definition of the term fairy tale as defined in the Oxford Dictionary:
1 A children’s story about magical and imaginary beings and lands.
1.1 [as modifier] Denoting something regarded as resembling a fairy story in being magical, idealized, or extremely happy:
1.2 A fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive.
A fairy story has its main power in the ability to entertain our fancy, and many of the most well known ones were told for this purpose. No one ever recited a folk tale in an effort to convince people of its literal truth, although many of them contain morals to be learned. From Cinderella to Paul Bunyan, these were fanciful tales forged to light the spirits of imagination and hope. You may be tempted to say that this is just what the Gospels seem to be, but there are important differences.
The main issue with applying this description to the Gospels is that they were written as historical events that so changed the lives of the witnesses thereof as to demand retelling. I would challenge the reader to name any movement in which the adherents thereof contrived a deliberate fallacy and then went about spreading it upon pain of death. It is important to note that many of the first Christians, the witnesses to the events and teachings they then testified of, were tortured and killed for their belief in the risen Jesus Christ. The level of commitment to the truth of the Gospel had to be a genuine one for it to have spread as powerfully as it did, and at the very least one would have to concede that the apostles believed that what they were telling was, indeed, true.
The context of historical narrative is most apparent in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, he begins by saying:
"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
This text plainly puts the testimony of Luke outside the realm of a fictional account. It underlines the fact that he is meant to be taken seriously, having "carefully investigated" the matter himself.
Luke was the companion and physician of St. Paul (once called Saul of Tarsus.) Paul is one of the most notable martyrs for the Christian faith, as he was in an elevated social position before his conversion. Born a Roman citizen, he had many rights which the Jews of Palestine did not enjoy. He was also a member of the Pharisees, a powerful religious authority at the time. He hunted and killed the followers of Christ with religious zeal, and it was on the road to Damascus that he claimed to have seen the risen Christ. For more on this event, see Acts 9.
Paul went to his death in order to spread the Gospel to the non-Jewish world. He proclaimed the experience of the risen Christ, but also confirmed everything that the original Apostles were saying about His life, and teachings. This points directly to an experience within (at the time) recent history, which was witnessed and born out with the utmost conviction.
Next week I will address the Gospels as mythology. In the meantime, maybe there are some "ok, but" questions you have that I will be glad to answer. As always, thanks for taking the time to read. Keep thinking!
There is a common line of thought that I heard expressed quite well in one simple statement from a coworker: "The burden is on you to prove that Cinderella was based on a true story." This concise barb illustrates one prevalent line of thought. There are many people who believe that the story contained in the Gospels is nothing more than a fairy tale, used to scare people into being good or rendering their goods and services to the Church.
Let us first note the definition of the term fairy tale as defined in the Oxford Dictionary:
1 A children’s story about magical and imaginary beings and lands.
1.1 [as modifier] Denoting something regarded as resembling a fairy story in being magical, idealized, or extremely happy:
1.2 A fabricated story, especially one intended to deceive.
A fairy story has its main power in the ability to entertain our fancy, and many of the most well known ones were told for this purpose. No one ever recited a folk tale in an effort to convince people of its literal truth, although many of them contain morals to be learned. From Cinderella to Paul Bunyan, these were fanciful tales forged to light the spirits of imagination and hope. You may be tempted to say that this is just what the Gospels seem to be, but there are important differences.
The main issue with applying this description to the Gospels is that they were written as historical events that so changed the lives of the witnesses thereof as to demand retelling. I would challenge the reader to name any movement in which the adherents thereof contrived a deliberate fallacy and then went about spreading it upon pain of death. It is important to note that many of the first Christians, the witnesses to the events and teachings they then testified of, were tortured and killed for their belief in the risen Jesus Christ. The level of commitment to the truth of the Gospel had to be a genuine one for it to have spread as powerfully as it did, and at the very least one would have to concede that the apostles believed that what they were telling was, indeed, true.
The context of historical narrative is most apparent in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, he begins by saying:
"1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
This text plainly puts the testimony of Luke outside the realm of a fictional account. It underlines the fact that he is meant to be taken seriously, having "carefully investigated" the matter himself.
Luke was the companion and physician of St. Paul (once called Saul of Tarsus.) Paul is one of the most notable martyrs for the Christian faith, as he was in an elevated social position before his conversion. Born a Roman citizen, he had many rights which the Jews of Palestine did not enjoy. He was also a member of the Pharisees, a powerful religious authority at the time. He hunted and killed the followers of Christ with religious zeal, and it was on the road to Damascus that he claimed to have seen the risen Christ. For more on this event, see Acts 9.
Paul went to his death in order to spread the Gospel to the non-Jewish world. He proclaimed the experience of the risen Christ, but also confirmed everything that the original Apostles were saying about His life, and teachings. This points directly to an experience within (at the time) recent history, which was witnessed and born out with the utmost conviction.
Next week I will address the Gospels as mythology. In the meantime, maybe there are some "ok, but" questions you have that I will be glad to answer. As always, thanks for taking the time to read. Keep thinking!
Sunday, January 12, 2014
On Hell, and a Loving God
How could a God that was supposed to be Love itself consign so many people to eternal punishment just because they didn't believe in the right version of Him? If you will remember from my introduction, this was the first question that I posed as a reason for rejecting God. The thought that a vast number of people would be destined to eternal conscious torment simply for having something different from the Christian view is a troubling one to many people.
I have dwelt on this topic steadily for the past two months, reading what I could about different views of Hell, talking with others on the subject, praying and meditating. It is a complex question that I don't pretend to know all of the ins and outs of. The answer comes to me in part from the verse immediately following a common memory verse in the Gospel of John, and a verse from 2 Peter:
John 3:16 "For GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:17 reads as follows: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
The question posed belies a common misconception: That God should send people to Hell because they are not Christian.
A more accurate way to describe the Christian concept of Hell is that we are all headed toward judgement as a consequence of our sinful nature. The word sin literally means "missing the mark." We sin whenever we fail to live according to the standards which God has ordained, and when we do so we go a little further off course.
Imagine you are drawing a line across a sheet of paper, and your destination is a dot on the other side. Unless you possess a latent talent for drawing straight lines, chances are you'll need a straight edge to draw across. If you try to draw the line freehand, from one side to the other, the odds of your hitting that dot perfectly will be slim. You'll likely end up near it, maybe only off by a degree or two. This doesn't seem like a big miss, but if you stretch that line out to a mile that degree is multiplied to such a large degree by the time you reach the point you thought the dot was it is nowhere in sight.
God is loving, yes; and supremely so. There is no being that can love like He can. We must understand, as well, that God is Just. There is a just penalty for stepping outside the boundaries of what God has ordained as Good, and we all do so at one point or another. One major role that Jesus Christ played was that of intermediary between God and man. God knew that we were all condemned unless he himself took the due consequence of our sin. He offered himself to himself in our place, so that all we had to do to make right with God was to recognize his gift and follow him in Faith.
Faith in Christ is an acceptance of an invitation to reconciliation to God, and an expressed willingness to walk along the "straight edge" that he offers us. It is an acknowledgement that no one is good of themselves, and that we cannot work our way into Heaven, but must take the hand that is freely offered us by our creator. Christianity is the only religion, as far as I know, that offers people this invitation. Perhaps this is why it is also the least ethnocentric. The teachings of Christ have the power to reach people of all cultures and all religions because they fulfill what people already know about God.
As far as the nature of Hell is concerned, I do not believe in eternal flames or demons flying around torturing damned souls. I also do not believe that it is an earthly state of mind. When people believe they have experienced Heaven or Hell here on earth, they are merely foretastes of the real thing. I do believe that Hell is the absence of the presence of God. The Bible describes us as being made in the image of God. That is to say that we are made to reflect His Glory. Hell is the state in which we no longer are given the privilege of that reflection. We are in a sense cut off from His Light and Goodness. It is the realization of the soul that its goodness was not of itself; that it is now cut off from that light, by its own choice, for all eternity.
I'll end with this thought by C.S. Lewis: “In the long run, the answer to those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: What are you asking God to do? To wipe out past sins and at all cost give them a fresh start? He did, on Calvary. To forgive them? They don’t ask for forgiveness. To leave them alone? This is what hell is. Only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done.’ And those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done.’ All of those in hell choose it and without that self choice, it isn’t hell.”
As always, I encourage everyone to share your thoughts. After all, one sided discussion can only get us so far into understanding ideas, especially those as controversial as this one, and often more questions are raised in answering the original ones. Thanks for reading!
Thursday, November 21, 2013
On Science and Religion
The presence of so many outspoken scientists who believe that the discoveries of science refute God's existence can be rattling for the believer, while being yet another brick in the wall between the potential seeker and faith. There are many in the scientific community with whom the religious believer loses intellectual credibility for believing in something that cannot be scientifically proven. They insist that there is no point in asserting something that cannot be placed into a test tube and dissected.
This is as incredulous to me as it would be if I were to tell an Atheist, "you can't possibly be a good person because you don't have scripture to tell you how." Now you and I may have a different opinion on what a "good person" is, (see Mark 10:18) but you get my point.
The assumption that a person who believes in an all powerful being is somehow incapable of rational thought is a slap in the face to the foundations of science itself. "Natural Philosophy", after all, has Christianity for its mother. It was successful because of the assumption that we live in an orderly and observable universe which God established with certain unchanging laws. In fact, it was (and by many still is) believed that the more we could discern from observing our universe, the more we could learn about the nature of God. After all, the Bible may tell us that God did this or that, but it leaves the how for us to discover. As we make these discoveries, Scripture is illuminated further for us.
Roger Bacon, who is credited by some as the father of modern science, was a Franciscan Friar, and a strong proponent of experimental science. 400 years later, Sir Francis Bacon (no apparent relation to Roger) and Rene Descartes, among others, made significant contributions to the establishment and development of the scientific method. Francis Bacon was a devout believer in God, and Christian. Rene Descartes' faith is debated among scholars, but he was certainly a Deist. Sir Isaac Newton, himself the father of modern physics, was a monotheist, if not necessarily Orthodox Christian. Darwin himself, was in fact a Christian, and it was after losing his daughter to illness (not after discovering the theory of natural selection) that he lost his faith. One of his closest correspondents, devout Catholic and botanist Asa Gray, also embraced Darwin's theory of natural selection. He saw Darwin's work as an explanation of how God did His work.
The concept of an old Earth was a widely accepted one at the time, and was in fact the mindset of many Christians going back to St. Augustine. The "young Earth movement" began as a fundamentalist movement by the Church of Latter Day Saints in the 1910's as a response to a movement in the atheistic portion of the scientific community to use evolution to their own philosophical ends.
A more recent example of a scientist who also happens to be a devout Christian is Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, and current head of the National Institutes of Health. His website, Biologos, is committed to promoting an understanding that one can believe in God and accept scientific discoveries at the same time.
My point in all of this name dropping? Some of the most influential scientists throughout history have also been firm believers in God. Their discoveries not only furthered our development as human beings, but also gave them a sublime sense of being able to touch on something that is outside of the "natural" world. In its beginnings, what we today refer to as Science was known as "Natural Philosophy." It was a method for seeking knowledge from our physical world, and experimentation played the key role. It was not, however, seen as being the only form of real knowledge. It was one of many "Sciences" which endeavored to explain our existence, and our place within it.
I would end on this note: If you believe that the only reality is that which you can readily grasp, measure, and empirically observe, you may wish to ask yourself whether or not you have fallen into the same snare as that which you think the religious believer has. To claim that the only true knowledge is that which can only be detected by our five senses, or that God isn't real because he won't put himself under your microscope, may be more narrow-minded and dogmatic than claiming spiritual, experiential knowledge. I believe that an honest search of "the starry heavens above and the moral law within" will lead the seeker to an acknowledgement that there is more to existence than we mere human beings may ever fully understand. There is a sense of something more in everyone, and it is the responsibility of each individual to seek that out in an honest, humble, and sincere way.
As always, thank you for reading. I encourage you to share your thoughts and ask questions. I'd love to hear what your ideas are as well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)