SE032804
MY OWN PERSONAL JESUS
2. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up
Last week, we said that when people consider WHO Jesus REALLY WAS, there is the New Testament answer to that question, and then there’s every other answer.
- the New Testament answer is that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, that he was human AND he was one with God himself, and his life was the perfect sacrifice to pay for human sin and Jesus authenticated all of this by his miraculous resurrection from the dead.
That’s the New Testament answer. Then there’s all the other answers.
- there’s the Mormon answer which says that Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, the Devil.
- there’s the Jehovah’s Witness answer which says that Jesus is really not one with God, but rather the Archangel Michael.
- there’s the Jesus Seminar answer which says that Jesus was a witty country sage – the “merely human” Jesus.
As you might expect, in order to get a different view of Jesus you have to go to different sources. So the Mormon’s have the Book of Mormon, the Witnesses have their special Bible called the New World translation (and their Watchtower), the Jesus Seminar has writings like the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas etc.
Now, because we’re dealing with history, we have to rely on sources, and witnesses to come to a verdict about Jesus – just like we would in a court of law. And just like in a court of law, the objectivity, authenticity, and motives of our witnesses will tell us which ones to trust to find the REAL Jesus.
So we don’t have time to go into ALL the witnesses…
- we won’t look at Mormon sources
- we won’t look at the New World Translation
- but we will look in-depth into the sources for the Cynic Sage Jesus who is becoming more and more popular to believe in.
NEW JESUS
I want to focus here, because every year, we get another round of Jesus Media Blitz around Easter. The History Channel and the Learning Channel do specials on Jesus and the Newspaper runs some articles and Time and Newsweek throw a picture of Jesus on the cover to sell some magazines. (*)
Jesus sells, because remember, Jesus is the man no one dares to hate. But what REALLY sells, is not just Jesus, but a new, radically redefined Jesus. That sells!
- Like one scholar who says that Jesus celebrated and practiced homosexuality. That sells.
- Or another scholar who says that Jesus really married Mary Magdalene and moved to Spain and had kids. That sells.
But is there any proof for any of this? What sources do they use… it’s obviously not the New Testament. You might hear from time to time that scholars have recently “discovered” new sources of information about Jesus that contradict the Bible’s view.
It is claimed that works such as the Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary and “Q,” contain material about Jesus that was lost, or intentionally suppressed, when the Gospels were accepted by the early church.
It’s the tale of a conspiracy. Elaine Pagels writes, “the winners write the history,” suggesting that early Christians monkeyed with the texts, subverted those they didn’t like, added to what was there, to get just the picture of Jesus that suited them. We’re talking about maliciously foisting a false Jesus on the world.
Now, if you have seen these programs and heard these claims, you might be a little surprised: ARE there ancient books outside the Bible that speak about Jesus – and do so more accurately than the Bible does?!
New Discoveries
In light all the recent commotion, let me say as clearly as I can that there are, in fact, no “new” discoveries of documents about Jesus. In fact, two of the Five most talked about “discoveries” have never been discovered…
- “Q” and Secret Mark are actually hypothetical documents that some scholars theorize must have existed.
- Another, the Gospel of Thomas was known about for almost 2 hundred years, but a full copy was finally discovered fifty years ago in a dig at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.
- A fourth, the Gospel of Peter was discovered over a hundred years ago.
- A fifth, the Gospel of Mary was also discovered over 100 years ago.
GOSPEL OF MARY
What do these things say? Let’s look at them and start with the Gospel of Mary. If you’ve read the Da Vinci Code, the historian Teabing makes mention of Mary. He says
“Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." The gospel of Mary doesn’t have Jesus performing any miracles, and it’s Jesus believed in a sort of “Feminized Divine” that the evil, male dominated church hushed up.
Wow, is any of that true? To find out, let’s look at the Gospel of Mary like a witness in a trial. What’s it’s story; what’s it’s credibility? It’s true, the Gospel of Mary, shows Jesus treating Mary as a companion, and depicts Peter’s jealousy after Jesus gives Mary special instructions to run the Church after his crucifixion.
But now, is this a reliable witness? First, no one dates it before 150 AD. That’s as far from Jesus as we are from the Civil War. The New Testament was written between 50 and 90. Imagine you writing about the civil war, and comparing that to someone writing in the 1890’s! If there’s a discrepancy, which writing will tend to be more trustworthy?
The earlier one… the one closer to the events.
I’ll give you an example from Mary so you get a feel for the work:
"In an aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence."
That doesn’t sound like the NT Jesus does it? Sounds more like Shirley McLain. Here’s the reason. The Gospel of Mary was found in a place where a specific sect of Christianity grew up, called the Gnostics. The Gnostics blended Greek Mythology and Philosophy with the story of Jesus.
So the use of Mary Magdalene’s name is sort of a way to gain legitimacy. Why? If you’re going to replace the existing vision of Jesus as the Messiah, you have to show people on what authority you have a right to do so. So they chose a person close to Jesus, yet not part of the apostolic band. Why?
- because everyone knew what Paul and Peter thought of Jesus. It predated the Gnostic Jesus by 100 years.
So they choose Mary to overthrow Peter’s view of Jesus which everyone knew was Jesus as Son of God, Messiah, Savior. Let me read you a portion that shows just how strategically they have Peter, submitting to Mary:
"Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them. Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you."
Well, isn’t that convenient! Peter didn’t know who Jesus REALLY was, Mary did! The ironies abound.
- The biggest irony with Gnostic texts in general, is that people today look to them as proof that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. However, (even though the Gnostic texts rarely show Jesus doing miracles, or claiming to be Messiah) the Gnostics themselves believed Jesus was ALL supernatural. He didn’t really come in the flesh, that was just a phantom body. In contrast, the New Testament says Jesus was a real man:
o “The one who existed from the Beginning is the one we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands.”
- Another irony, is that it’s assumed by Dan Brown’s Teabing and others that the early Church was patriarchal and bigoted, but in fact it’s the New Testament that exalts the value of women and it was Gnostics that often were very anti-woman. Just listen to the end of the Gospel of Thomas, another Gnostic text:
o "Simon Peter said to them, ’Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ’Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven.’"
That’s NOT the Jesus of the New Testament! He treated women with value, radically broke from unfavorable cultural practices by speaking to them in public and making many a part of his extended band of disciples. And the early church followed suit, with women prophets, teachers, apostles, and leaders.
As I’m reading these so called “secret gospels”, those of you who are familiar with the straight forward, narrative of the New Testament can see how sober and unadorned they are compared to the cryptic, philosophical later Gospels. It starts to become clear why the church rejected them (canon). Now let’s talk about:
SECRET MARK
In a letter written in the late second century (190), an early church leader, Clement of Alexandria quotes a “secret Gospel” that supposedly came from Mark. This work, Clement says, was composed by Mark, shortly after he wrote the New Testament Gospel bearing his name.
The contents of the Gospel quoted in the letter show some Gnostic leanings, and some even think it shows that the early Christians practiced homosexuality as a religious rite. And Clement himself, believes the work is genuine.
There are three main problems with secret Mark
1. Clement thinks the Gospel affirms the same NT view of Jesus. He said it wasn’t Secret Mark that’s the problem, it was it abuse by the Gnostics that led to a different view of Jesus, not the work itself.
2. But here’s a bigger problem: No one has ever seen the actual copy of Clement’s letter that refers to Secret Mark! A man named Morton Smith found it in 1958 and copied it, but the original somehow mysteriously disappeared from the monastery Smith found it in!
3. Finally, Clement of Alexandria, though a guy who believed in Jesus as Christ… has proven to be a bit gullible in accepting “secret” writings that have proven to be fakes.
So, Secret Mark, then, is a non-existent work cited in a now non-existent letter by a late second century author who is known for his gullibility. On to the next witness for a New Jesus:
THE GOSPEL OF PETER
It was first found in upper Egypt in 1886, but we’ve always known about it because early church leaders quoted it and called it a forgery. Today, some have said that it’s Passion material is from an older source than the NT Gospels. It paints Jesus as saying on the cross:
“My Power, My Power why have you forsaken me…” Instead of "my God, my God." This affirms a Jesus who wasn’t the Son of God.
A couple of things to note about this Gospel:
- No matter how old it’s sources are, it wasn’t written till 150 AD.
- it has an extremely anti-Jewish attitude. Blame is thrown on the Jews solely for Jesus death, Pilate is white-washed. This shows total Gnostic flavor. Gnostics hated the O.T., thot it was the work of an evil God.
- What is more, this Gospel is full of outlandish legendary material. Now you may say, the NT is filled with talk about miracles and such, how is that not outlandish? Well just compare:
o Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, feels no pain on the cross.
o And when Christ comes out of the tomb, he is accompanied by two men whose heads extend up to the sky, while Christ himself extends up beyond the sky!
o And to top it all off, these three are followed out of the tomb by a cross that talks!!
Compare this with the Bible’s realistic accounts and you can see why I’d say that the Gospel accounts are “sober.” I find more irony here: Some reject the Jesus of the NT because he’s too "miraculous sounding". But then to prove that he wasn’t this guy, they lean on texts that have even MORE unbelievable stuff!
Next witness:
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
Until recently, this gospel was lumped in with all the other Gnostic texts I’ve mentioned that came from 150 to 190. JD Crossan, however, a Jesus Seminar guy, says that some of this material goes back to 30–60 A.D.
In other words, he thinks it’s older and more true to Jesus than the NT. What is appealing to some is that this work is just a collection of sayings of Jesus – no stories, no miracles, no narrative, no resurrection. Now, if you read this gospel, some of the sayings are actually very close to the Bible. So if you want to believe in a witty country sage Jesus, Thomas is your man.
Now, I don’t think it’s unbelievable that the Gospel of Thomas may contain authentic sayings of Jesus. But is this more authentic, than the Gospels? In other words, where they disagree about Jesus, should we side with Thomas? I say “no” for a couple of reasons:
- Few scholars think it was writing BEFORE 150 AD. That puts it 60-80 years farther from Jesus than the NT Gospels.
- the Gospel of Thomas is clearly influenced by Gnosticism from the second and third centuries. So when sayings of Jesus – which parallel sayings from the Gospels – are given a Gnostic twist, we can assume the Gospel of Thomas borrowed from the NT Gospels and not the other way around.
- And don’t forget the quote from Thomas about women. This is NOT in line with everything else we know about Jesus, but it IS in line with Gnostic Christianity which tended to be elitist and chauvinistic.
THE GOSPELS
Now, let’s compare these witnesses with the NT Witnesses. Let’s consider some things that relate to credibility and see how they stack up (Greg Boyd). First,
Incidental Details
One of the things that is most impressive about the Gospels is how much incidental detail there is. This is characteristic of eyewitness reports. Remember almost all the other Gospels are collections of sayings. They carefully stay away from details which leads us to believe they are not eye witness accounts.
John’s account has details like the number of fish caught, 153; the fact that he won a foot race with Peter to the tomb; Mark notes how Jesus would pause and look at people before speaking. This is the sort of incidental thing eyewitnesses tend to remember, and fabricators tend to leave out.
Counter-Productive Details
What’s even more significant for establishing reliability is counter productive or confusing material. The biggest thing here, is that women are at the very core of the resurrection narratives. You say, so what? Well, women were not considered reliable witnesses in the first century, so if you’re making it up, you don’t put women as your star witnesses.
But they did, suggesting that’s just the way it happened. If their motive was to portray Jesus as the Divine Messiah, there’s tons of stuff they wouldn’t have included, because it might confuse their point. For example:
- Jesus cries out on the cross, ”My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
- Or when Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
- Or when Jesus says to Mary, “don’t touch me yet, for I haven’t been to the father.”
If these Gospels are driven by agendas at the expense of real history, why would the authors include such confusing things? Or such potentially embarrassing things as Jesus’ anger, Jesus’ radical views against legalism, his laxity on fasting, his baptism, his scandalous association with prostitutes?
Or why present the disciples in embarrassing terms? If you’re making this up, and you want people to think YOU have the truth about Jesus, would you make yourself out to be unbelieving, cowardly, dull, sometimes even satanically inspired?
I doubt it. The Gospel writers do. This is not what you just throw in to spice up a story IF you’re making it up to advance YOUR version of Jesus. Remember the other gospels? In those, the key person, like Mary or Thomas is never seen in an embarrassing light… they have the all the secrets… and they never leave anything unexplained.
Archeological Accuracy
Then archeological accuracy shows credibility too. It used to be argued that a town named Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Jesus. The fact that it was never mentioned in any ancient listings was enough to prove that it was a fabrication. In the last several decades, however, archeologists have uncovered several references to this small, insignificant town.
Mark’s account of people digging a hole in the roof of a house to lower their crippled friend down to see Jesus (Mark 2:1–4) fits exactly with what we’ve learned about housing construction in first century Capernaum.
John’s long doubted reference to the “pool of Bethesda” was considered legendary, until they dug down 30 feet to find the five sided pool just as John described it.
- The details of Pilot’s court,
- Jesus’ crown of thorns and
- mode of execution.
- And the list could easily go on.
This sort of accuracy is simply not what one would expect were the Gospels “imaginative creations” of people removed from the time and the place, who didn’t know Jesus’ and who had no concern for historical truth. It is, however, exactly what one would expect if the Gospels are what they purport to be:
records of what Jesus Christ said and did.
CONCLUSION
So it comes down to this… we’re asked to accept the Jesus of these NT Gospels, by far the earliest, by far the most copies, with all the internal and external signs of authenticity OR exchange all of that, for a “real” Jesus that modern scholars tell us exists behind all of this “myth”.
And what is their evidence?
- There’s a hypothetical “secret” Gospel mentioned in a late second century letter that is now lost.
- There’s a third century account of Jesus that has talking crosses.
- There’s some second century Gnostic documents, parts of which some now want to date early.
The evidence is ALL in the favor of the NT Jesus being the real Jesus. And the only real rebuttal to that, is that the “winners write the history.” Suggesting that the church hit below the belt to snuff out the REAL Jesus. But how? The church was itself a persecuted minority for 300 years; how would they manage to MUZZLE heretics? They had no Gestapo or Goon Squads! What was their political motivation? They were dying for their vision of a unique Son of God. The Gnostics meanwhile, had a much more palatable Greekified Jesus.
The suggestion that the New Testament record should be traded in for this is not even tempting to me. And the only reason some people want to do it, is to avoid the quite uncomfortable situation that the REAL Jesus presents us with: If this man really existed and he really did claim what he claimed…
Then he was either who he said he was or a lunatic or something worse.
Next week we’ll examine those options.
