Well sure, o2hose, virtually anything can be fabricated, but there must be a starting point–like a story based on a fact, however muddled in repeated tellings.
I was casually challenged (cocktail party) to find a saint whose name could be used for a new mission church. Knowing these folks’ booze of choice, I created St. Martini del Isla. Then I made a history of his life and miracles and made up the Pope needed for beatification of good old Martin. The island where he was martyrd was fictitious, as was the miracle of the olive tree which grew at the head of his grave. A proper martini requires an olive, you know!
It became a classic among my limited circle of cognescenti. The tale is now a companion piece jointly written with another smart-ass and called “In Search of a Perfect Martini in the Bible Belt.”
Easy, o2hose, but scripture, history, and experience made it possible. Hell, it may find it’s way into the Christain Lectionary some day and become TRUTH!
Wow, you had me completely enthralled. I really enjoyed that. Keep up the good work, CK!
I enjoyed reading about the historical context of the crucifixion of Jesus, and thought that the Straight Dope’s speculation about who took part in the crucifixion and why they did was very well thought out and well presented.
I thought, however, that more might be added to the traditional Christian account of the crucifixion. As I understand the gospel account, Jesus had gained the emnity of many religious authorities as a result of claiming to be the Son of God and indeed, to being God Himself.
You do vaguely touch on this subject when you are dismissing the possibility that religious authorities had Jesus arrested based on “legalistic disagreements” concerning the practice of Judaism. However, a claim of Godhood would be (and is) more than a theoretical nicety to the Jews; it is blasphemy, unless it is somehow true. Blasphemy is a far more serious offense, one which, several centuries previous to Jesus’ time, had often merited capital punishment (particularly where, as here, the offender had gathered a substantial following in the Jewish community).
If I remember correctly, the Gospels report that Jesus is threatened with stoning on at least one occasion, shortly after he gave a speech suggesting his divinity. It is only after a similar statement before the Sanhedrin that Caiaphas tears his robes and that the Sanhedrin presents Jesus to the Romans. The gospels suggest that they accuse him of insurrection as a means to effecting his death. I also had the impression that the “crowd” that spoke to Pilate was conjured and managed (in the way that “spontaneous” demonstrations often are) by those who wished to kill Jesus.
I also thought that it was this part of the story that formed the intellectual basis of the despicable blood libel against Jews in general. The Jews, and especially their religious authorities, knew the holy scriptures better than anyone. They had the guidance of the Law, knew right from wrong, and had the prophecies which Christians would later read as foretelling Jesus’s coming. If anyone in the ancient world could pick out the Son of God from a crowd, it would be the Jews. Executing Jesus for blasphemy would seem all the more heinous as a result – and one might justify a hatred of the Jews by claiming that they killed Jesus not by accident or with good intentions, but rather with malice, knowing him for the Son of God. Romans and gentiles (who under the Christian story are responsible for Jesus’s death by sinning and needing the redemption that only his sacrificial death could bring), on the other hand, might be seen as ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and thus a Jew-hater would not need to think that others were to blame as well.
One can (and many do) believe that Jesus was essentially killed for blasphemy, and even believe that some of the religious authorities might have suspected that Jesus was the Real Thing, without branding the Jews as “Christ Killers.” The Blood Libel doesn’t hold up on close inspection, which is one of the reasons why it does not have much currency among Christians today. I do not know that the blood libel has ever been an established position of the Church, and I would note that for all of the persecutions of Jews by Christians through history, Jews have flourished within Christendom to a far greater extent than they have outside of it. Even so, incidents of antisemitism have been a shameful stain on the Christian Church, and a sobering reminder of how far below Christianity’s ideals its practitioners may sink.
In any case, I wish that you had given this point more attention, since it would seem to most fully track on the gospel description of what occured as well as being one of the bases of the Blood Libel, and am a little surprised that neither your Catholic nor your Protestant sources mentioned this angle (of course, that might simply be a sign that I am off track). Overall, it is a small point, since you give such a comprehensive treatment of the subject, and did not detract from my enjoyment of your article.
I think o2hose’s point about putting the Bible on his “fiction” shelf is interesting, because I assume it is joined there by all other allegedly non-fiction books written before . . . video, I guess (although of course that may not be any more reliable, as I’ll get to in a minute). How do we know that Julius Caesar lived, or King Alfred, or Montezuma or, for that matter, George Washington? If the mere fact that people who lived at or near the same time described their lives isn’t enough to go on–and maybe it’s not–then it casts much of political and social history into doubt.
And o2hose’s frustration that our knowledge of Jesus’ life and crucifiction is based entirely on the reports of those who did not personally know him and had particular political agendas to advance does not, I believe, justify his classification of the Bible as fiction, unless he is willing to put most reports of most famous historical figures there as well, who–as the Straight Dope has explained over the years–have also generally been placed into history by those with particular reasons for doing so. (That sentence is much too long, and if my mother reads this, I’m sorry).
I think the subtext of o2hose’s letter is interesting, but not on target. The question of how can we know things we haven’t personally experienced (how can we know things we HAVE experienced, for that matter, though that at least is a different question), especially when, now, even media we once thought were reliable (photographs, signatures) are now so easily manufactured and fabricated, is not any more pertinent for a discussion of Jesus’ life than it is of Neil Armstrong’s trip to the moon. (Remember Capricorn One?).
But, o2hose, either we posit that there’s some kernel of truth to works that their creators claim to be true, and work from there, or we throw our hands up in the air about everything. I don’t see how one position is more defensible than the other, but I personally obtain much more pleasure learning what I can about what may have happened in the past than washing my hands of it all (pun intended, given today’s topic) and watching another Brittany Spears video (Mozart or not, she does exist, I’m sure, because I saw her on Saturday Night Live once, and how could they fake that?).
My two cents. A fascinating and sensible article, Dex. Thanks.
ok… A thought to ponder and desire to read yours.
Paper, keyboards, and monitors stand still. We can type anything we desire on them, but that does not make the words true, correct?
Is there any record from the Romans about Christ? It would appear that if a man like Christ was to stand before any Roman Courts, there should be records. Did they not record everything that went on in their world(s)?
The Book. Is it truth? Truth, truth! You can’t handle the truth! It would bore you to tears!
I feel that there is very little truth to the Bible. Few would read it and even less would believe it if it was totaly truth. Did you ever sit around a campfire with friends? Now tell me how much of what they say is truth? You gotta have a little spice in the story for folks to hang their teeth on. What was that one story in the Bible about some guy who saw a valley of bones and UFO’s?
Don’t get me wrong. I feel that there is a bunch of great information to gleen from the Bible. But to gleen wheat (thruth) you must sift through the chaft (B.S.).
One more thought…
Do we have any “real” proof that Christ was here? If so how much and how true is it?
My paper stands still so I write whatever I wish upon it.
And thats the truth!!
Truth.
You don’t seek truth. You seek justification. You speak one way, and live another way. You don’t pursue the life hereafter with God, but desire the rewards of this world.
The time of Revelation is at hand. Listen to all who hear my words. Read and obey. This that follows is the true will of the Lord.
Go to your churches, synagogues and temples and tell all of the people you find there as I tell you now. All of you should listen to this word of God and heed it now. Disperse and never worship together again. For only when you are free of artifice and only in the privacy of your own heart will God reveal to you his true meaning and personal message. Seek the truth from inside of yourself and not from the words of others. You do not know if the words that they speak are true or the deeds they perform are good for all.
Let everyone who would follow the New Way of the Lord look to the sprit of God and to that ALONE for counsel and guidance in your life. Don’t trust the written word from man as perceived of God, as paper is still and men will print whatever they desire on it. Never trust the words or convictions of others, or their teachings of the world religions. They are all corrupted and can never really know what God has planned for you personally.
For each child born there is a separate way to everlasting life. And for each child born there is a holy enlightenment to find the true way of God. Don’t look to your neighbor for your answers. Look deep inside your heart. For you alone must work to clear the obstacles in your own path of life.
You, who call yourselves spiritual leaders, hear this message of the Lord that you may know His will and obey His command.
From this day forward, stop talking about God’s way, for you don’t know what it is. Let the tongues of the clergy fall silent. Let the voices of the theologians be stilled also. Dispense with your hierarchies and bureaucracies. Bring home your missionaries and close down your seminaries. Preach no more to any person, but return to the world as penitents, not seeking the righteousness of others, but the sanctity of your own souls.
Don’t let another day pass by before you have accomplished all of these things. In your arrogance and hypocrisy you have angered the Lord.
And boy he is pissed!
steele100, no proselytizing. Take it to Great Debates, or go away.
[ Administrator Hat On ] Seconding Irishman. Steele, you’re new here, so you’re given a wee bit of tolerance. But that sort of sarcasm, proselytizing, or ranting has no place in this forum. If it’s sarcasm, take it to the forum called “IMHO”; if it’s proselytizing, to the forum called “Great Debates”; if it’s ranting, to the forum called “BBQ Pit.”
This forum is reserved for discussion of the subject at hand, not for flights of fancy. [ Administrator Hat Off ]
Now, as to the question you asked in your first post: <<Is there any record from the Romans about Christ? >>
I tried to make it clear in the Staff Report that no, there is no record from Rome. This is not surprising, there are in fact very few records from Rome. Although the Romans did keep detailed records, very few survived the ravages of time, invasion by Germanic tribes, etc.
The absence of evidence is not, however, evidence of absence. It is unlikely that records of a minor execution of a backwater preacher would have been sent on to Rome. So, (a) assuming the events of the gospels happened, then it’s unlikely there ever were any records sent to Rome to record it; and (b) if there WAS any such record sent to Rome, it hasn’t survived.
In fact, there is very little contemporary “evidence” of the existence of other major Roman figures – say, Julius Caesar. A few references in histories written long after, a few busts or statues or carvings.
The reason they freed Bawabbas is that they didn’t have a Woger. Or a Wodewick.
Nor did they have Thiriuth the Therial Thlayer!
He may have, or he may not have. At the risk of pointing toward (not to mention opening and strewing around the floor) a different can of worms: there is a fairly strong school of thought that the Christian community did not come to a realization of/create the idea of Jesus as Son of God until a number of years after His Crucifixion. In this scenario, we watch the development of the idea that Jesus is divine in the progression of the letters of Paul. Since the gospels were written after Paul’s death, they included scenes where Jesus discussed his divinity that may or may not have been part of the earliest Christian tradition. (This train of speculation, of course, would be in direct opposition to the notion that the Gospels were direct, factual records of events–a concept that is sure to raise objections among those who hold to biblical inerrancy.)
Without getting into that whole discussion, suffice it to say that dealing with such theories would have detracted from the point of the article while idismissing such theories could have brought a howl from a different set of readers.
From Yemar:
I think o2hose’s point about putting the Bible on his “fiction” shelf is interesting, because I assume it is joined there by all other allegedly non-fiction books written before . . . video, I guess (although of course that may not be any more reliable, as I’ll get to in a minute). How do we know that Julius Caesar lived, or King Alfred, or Montezuma or, for that matter, George Washington? If the mere fact that people who lived at or near the same time described their lives isn’t enough to go on–and maybe it’s not–then it casts much of political and social history into doubt.
Very interesting point. But allow me to retort…
George Washington you say? Are you familiar with the cherry tree incident, never tell a lie, etc? I say if a late 1700’s figure can have such mythical morality tales spun about him, what about a guy 2 thousand years ago, barely out of the B.C.'s? This was a time when things like comets were cosidered bad omens, add in the degradetion of verbal accounts from person to person, written embelishments long after the fact, and over a thousand years of tight Vatican propagandization (if such a word exsists?).
Maybe we should question our assumed “history” more? However it’s less of a stretch to imagine a historical figure with less supernatural atributes. I’m not a believer until the vampire bites my neck type of guy. Unitl that point I’m content with answering the “mystery of life/why?” questions with a firm but saucy “I don’t know”.
My pragmatic thoughts on the whole Jesus thing?
There probably was at least one guy going by the name. Given the state of Roman territories, its probably safe to assume some of the local population was less than impressed with their Italian overlords. This Jesus guy probably was a little different, maybe a tad charismatic, the Eminem of his day, and got himself a few fans. They use his name, give him supernatural powers and a divine orgin to help further the cause.(Eminem was born from a virgin mobile home, never been parked before, and he can fly!) Happens all the time.
Unless as Yemar suggests, its all a big lie, you’re all fabrications of some alien race that is trying to study me swimming around a fishbowl in a lab. Give me 2 thousands years and it will sound just as good.
Certainly one can debate whether the traditional account is accurate, as well as the qeustion of whether Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God, and indeed in the right place such debate is a welcome and excellent thing (though I think you are right to carefully avoid it here). It’s also true, as you say, that the Straight Dope is in a tricky spot in dealing with the subject. Appear to give too much credence to the gospels and Christian tradition, and some people will get irritated that the Christianity is being given legitimacy and respect (I notice some posts of this nature on this very thread); on the other hand, if the collumn gave short shrift to a theory generally accepted by believing Christians, some posters would probably dispute the accuracy of the Straight Dope or accuse it of religious bias or something worse.
So there’s good reason for caution. But the traditional account, right or wrong, is and has been believed by many, and I would expect that even academics who disagree must take time to refute it. It is also relevant since most of our accounts of Jesus’ trial and death come from Christian sources; If you are trying to “read between the lines” of a document, it is generally helpful to know the document’s apparent message.
For that and other reasons, I think that the Straight Dope collumn would have been enhanced by mentioning and analyzing the “blasphemy” angle to Jesus’ death. I don’t think it would have been politically impracticable to do so, and it would have made for a more thorough answer.
o2hose - you take a very common yet very incorrect position arguing that Biblical writings have been re-written, passed down verbally, degraded, propegandized, etc. Biblical tranlations today are done directly from the original or earliest manuscripts (namely, the dead sea scrolls) Pure, unadulturated Bible goodness.
Humanity is interesting - often not caring if something happened or not, only whether they wanted it to happen. Already people deny that the Holocaust took place. Preposterous they call it.
My argument for placing the Bible on the “non-fiction” shelf? I have a few, I’ll save them for GD. But let’s refrain from making a straw man out of a book you’ve never read, agreed?
K2Rage101, allow me to introduce you to a set of excellent Staff Reports on “Who Wrote the Bible?” Suffice it to say that there is quite a bit of evidence for oral traditions being written down and varying texts over the centuries. Here is Part 1, which links to parts 2-5. Excellent reading, as was Dex’s report that inspired the OP.
Just another useless cheerleading post.
Finally got around to reading this report - Excellent job, one and all :). These reports ( including the ones minty linked above have been among the best things I’ve seen on this website. And this includes the output our Perfect Master. Though obviously he can’t go into this kind of detail in a newspaper column.
- Tamerlane
minty green - the article you linked states that 6 old testament and possibly 4 new testament books out of 66 total books of the Bible were “possibly” or “likely” handed down orally.
It is quite clear that oral passage had to take place in some points - such as the end of the apostle’s life where he was struck with the desire to record his life’s events but was no longer physically able to, so he dictated. But to hold the supposition that it’s ALL oral story/legend is false.
I quote C.S. Lewis: (PP breaks added for reading ease)
"Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced the whatever the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends.
From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence.
In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it. "
There are lots of well-taken points here, and I’ll try to respond to a few of them.
There are dozens of theories about “what really happened?” including (1) the gospels are literal truth, (2) the whole thing was made up, and (3) Jesus’ death was faked so that he could escape (or so that he could appear as resurrected, like a David Copperfield trick.) Other theories abound. There was no way to tackle all of them.
I figured that there were several audiences, and I wanted to reach the broadest number. That meant that I needed to treat the texts (that is, the New Testament) with respect. Even if I thought parts were completely invented (which I do, being Jewish), I needed to use phrases like “embellishments for purposes of preaching.”
The hateful and harmful notion of Jews as “Christ-killers” is not dead. When I was in the Cub Scouts, I was spit on by another boy and called “Christ-killer.” The Boy Scouts had an Easter Service that we all attended together, where I heard the preacher rant on about all the nasty things that Jews did to the suffering Jesus. The congregation was in tears, so powerful was his (false) evocation. Those hideous fictions are still very much alive, and I wanted to write a document that helped present a realistic version.
The argument that Jesus proclaimed himself son of God and so was accused of blasphemy is, as tomndebb points out, highly unlikely. Most scholars reading the texts agree that these statements were added later by writers who wanted to emphasize their new religion, and that the historical human Jesus made no claim to godhood. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the historical human Jesus, being Jewish, would have been appalled at being thought of as God incarnate.
And for most Christians, too, I would think that if Jesus were divine and were AWARE of it, that he would not be fully human. Suffering on the cross becomes less suffering if he KNOWS full well that he will be resurrected, he’s not merely having a test of faith.
I therefore chose to omit the blasphemy argument from the Staff Report. Further, that argument would have had two unwanted effects:
(a) Christians might take offense that I was challenging the authenticity of the gospels, and so dismiss the rest of my case out of hand. Since believing Christians were my primary audience, I did not want to chase them off by being too cynical.
(b) It would have added enormous additional length to an already long Report. I could not just make the statement in a paragraph or two, as I can here (or as tomndebb did), it would require lengthy justification.
I therefore deliberately decided to omit that rationale. If I have time someday, I may write an appendix to the Staff Report that does the argument full justice.
It also seemed to me that the question of motivation seems secondary to the question of who deserves the blame – who ordered the execution and what process was used.
k2rage101, you are simply incorrect that the Staff Report says only “6 old testament and possibly 4 new testament books out of 66 total books of the Bible were ‘possibly’ or ‘likely’ handed down orally.” At the risk of hijacking this thread to hell and back, let’s go through “Who Wrote the Bible?” part by part:
Part 1 says “No one today knows who the initial authors were–the predominant view is that many of the stories were handed down orally for generations before being written down.” So right off the bat, the five books of the Torah are believed to have descended from oral tradition.
Part 2 says Joshua, Judges, and possibly Ruth and Esther are based on oral (or “ancient”) traditions, while the other books discussed are clearly relating history that is most likely to have been kept orally before being compiled by each book’s author.
Part 3 discusses the prophetic books. Although there is not much info on the composition of these books, the Report states that several of them were compiled years or centuries after the historical figures on which they are based, which strongly suggests they were handed down orally before being written down.
Oh, and I love the description of Proverbs as “basically a collection of unrelated, undated, bumper-sticker type thoughts, [so] it is likely that contributions were made by many authors throughout the Old Testament period.” Job is also mentioned as a “folk-story.”
When we move to the New Testament in Part 4, Dex and Euty cogenty note that:
Specifically, Matthew, Mark and Luke are thought to be based on the same (apparently unwritten) tradition (“Q”), and John is speculated to be the oral reminiscences of a very elderly associate of the J-man. After the Gospels, of course, you’re basically talking about a bunch of letters back and forth between believers, oral tradition isn’t really relevant.
So, as I asserted above, the Staff Report says the Bible has plenty of oral tradition in it, not to mention such other textual difficulties as multiple authors, interpolated texts, etc.
**
Indeed. A man shouted at me on the streets of downtown Manhattan a few months ago asking “what did I do to kill Christ today?”
**
Again, indeed. To further make the point, the closest contemporary claimant to the title of the Jewish messiah was Bar Kochba (Bar Koziva) about 100 years after Jesus. He made no claim of divinity and was actually accepted by the leading Jewish rabbinical authorities as a possible messiah. Until he was killed, that is…
In any event, the Jewish definition of “blasphemy” is much, much narrower than the Christian definition. In fact, the Jewish definition is limited to one simple statement (which I will NOT repeat here). Anything else is not considered “blasphemy” and does not merit the death penalty under Jewish law. Setting yourself up to be worshipped as a god (or son of) may run you afoul of idolatry, but, as CK pointed out, this is highly unlikely, given the expectations of the Jewish messiah (see my point about Bar Kochba, above).
As a side note, I owe CK an apology. He asked me to look over this staff report before it went live and I, unfortunately, completely missed his email with the report. After the report came out, I went back and checked my old email and realized that I had missed it.
Zev Steinhardt