An Israeli scholar has discovered a document dating to the years prior to Jesus’ birth which references a “messiah” who rose from the grave after three days. How can this be? The discovery suggests, of course, that the story of Jesus’ own leap from the grave may be more mythology than fact. The authenticity of the recently-deciphered document needs to be settled, but if it is true then we will be a little closer to understanding what many have noted: that the early Christians realized that the only way to make the Jesus myth palatable to non-believers was to use (or appropriate) traditions and symbols those people were already familiar with. The messiah legend was already deeply embedded in early Jewish culture (see Daniel 9:26), so it makes sense that the followers of Jesus would feel compelled to wrap him in messianic garb. And in other areas outside of Jewish culture, it was necessary to have Jesus’ story emulate the pagan traditions that were so ingrained in those cultures, most notably Mithraism. No self-respecting Egyptian shepherd in the 5th century was going to believe in a god who couldn’t even raise himself from the dead, after all.
As expected, many Christian scholars and apologetics vigorously disagree with this theory. They must, because many Christians unfortunately continue to insist on basing their spiritual authority on the premise that everything in the Bible is literally and factually true. And so this new evidence revealing the nature of ancient Jewish culture will most likely be quietly refuted and then ignored, much like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and many other documents which could help us better understand the historical context of religious belief. If these documents are authentic, they should be used to guide an evolution of doctrine in the church, even if they are non-canonical. I’m not suggesting that the church reform its tenets every time a dusty parchment surfaces in Iran or Jerusalem. But I am saying that the church, from time to time, should examine the historical record and refine its creeds and canons to correspond with confirmed history. Wouldn’t this make it more appealing as a belief system? Wouldn’t this help the church adapt to the modern, rational world? The church has made similar adaptations many times in the past in order to preserve itself from schism and fracture. It is time for another reevaluation.
In my opinion, the Christian church should make it official doctrine that one need not believe in the historical accuracy of the entire Bible in order to be a Christian. This would correspond with the actual beliefs of many modern Christians anyway, including people like Thomas Jefferson. This would be a radical step that would probably cause dramatic upheavals, but in the end I believe it would do much to remedy the crisis of faith commonly faced by many believers. This would admittedly take Christianity a step towards secular humanism, but as long as the church emphasizes Jesus’ singular role in distilling human ethics into what Jefferson called the “most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,” things should be okay. The church would still celebrate and worship Jesus (and Mary, if you’re Catholic), but would simply acknowledge a new focus on Jesus’ symbolic status and power rather than his historical origins.
I know the odds of this ever happening are extremely, extremely low, but I’m sure of one thing–it would have absolutely no effect on the power of the church to continue to teach ethical, Jesus-like behavior. I don’t believe for a second that a person acts morally because they believe the events described in the Bible are factual. Which takes us back to the issue of the newly-discovered document mentioned at the beginning of this increasingly bloviated post: Does it really matter whether Jesus was the only messiah and actually rose from the grave? Does this really have anything to do with a person’s daily decision as to which moral principles he or she will follow?
How the church became so dependent on the historicity of Christ is the result of hundreds of years of complex human history, and is a subject I would love to learn about someday. But for now it seems relevant to ask this question: Did Jesus ever state that in order to follow his ethical teachings one must also adopt a belief in a particular religious history? The answer is obviously no. John 14:6 notwithstanding, Jesus never stated that one can only be moral by believing in Jesus’ divinity. Jesus clearly indicated that one may ‘love one’s neighbor as one would love oneself’ without any need to affirm a belief in any historical interpretation. The very idea is absurd. I imagine Jesus would feel sorely misunderstood if he were to learn that many Christians today believe that a person may lead a wholly moral life yet still suffer punishment in an afterlife because he or she refused to endorse a particular version of history.
Ah. So it goes.
December 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Where did Jesus body go?…since the Jews of the time and Roman government did not produce a body - which surely would have put to rest Jesus claim to rise from the dead, how do you explain that? They surely would have nipped it in the bud and stopped the story dead in its tracks….or, how can you explain the amazing courage of the disciples and others who went to their own death proclaiming they witnessed Jesus appearing to them after he rose from the dead? It’s all part of God’s plan for redemption…and it comes down to a matter of faith….
December 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
1. Just because a body was never “produced” does not necessarily mean that Jesus rose from the dead. We have no way of verifying what happened or didn’t happen to his body. It is significant that the entire truth of Jesus’ divinity rests on such a flimsy, unverifiable claim that his body was “never found.” Again, it is absurd that one need to believe Jesus rose from the dead in order to live a wholesome, moral life anyway. Moreover, it is not up to me to explain why Jesus body was never found. The burden of proof rests on those who claim he rose from the dead to prove it. All we have is some cryptical historical text written by a highly superstitious people–this is not proof.
2. I will always admire the courage of people who die for their convictions, but the simple fact that these people are courageous does not mean that they are factually correct in their beliefs. Many brave, courageous soldiers died fighting gallantly for the Nazi regime. Many believed in their heart of hearts that Hitler was right. But they were wrong. As for the claim that the disciples saw Jesus after he rose from the grave, I pose a question asked years ago by Mark Twain: “Which is more likely, that miracles happen, or that men lie?” This is not to call the disciples liars, but to suggest that the writers of the gospels had a particular goal: to convert their readers. In the superstitious pre-biblical times, having people rise from the dead to explain their divinity was an established convention. It was nothing new. So it is highly likely that the authors of the gospels were using conventional storytelling techniques to justify their claim. It is highly unlikely that they were telling the absolute truth, because miracles like that do not happen in Nature. We have no reason to believe, from an empirical standpoint, that the laws of nature were suspended for Jesus.
What we do know is that religion has always been a way to consolidate power. In biblical times, it was easy to unite people under a common belief–and control them. I’ll agree that Jesus was probably a real person who was quite amazing, and that he said some things that gave hope to people who lived in a world of “might makes right.” But the history of human power struggles shows that the religion was formed as a powerbase for the disenfranchised–it was a new hope for the underdogs. If the jews had been in power and free from Roman domination, Christianity would have never surfaced.
But it did surface, and it was so adaptable a belief that all of a sudden Jesus was doing everything the former gods did. He rose from the dead, he was one with God, he performed miracles, he was the savior, he blessed the righteous, he removed sin, he empowered the weak, etc. In short, Jesus was created by the needs of a suffering people, and eventually became the ultimate answer for their problems. Over the years, this powerful idea attracted the attention of people in political power, and they used the powerful idea of jesus to consolidate their politcal power. And thus the Religion was born. Now, Jesus (and the Bible) can be used to justify almost any idea or action. And now Jesus has become the ONLY way to get into heaven, which other religions don’t believe in anyway. To ask my original question–what does any of this have to do with living a good life in modern times?
nothing.