Faith Meets Life: Is Christianity the greatest hoax ever told?
The recent success of the book and movie, The Da Vinci Code, raises the question of the authenticity of Christian faith. So does the publication of the Gospel of Judas earlier this year. The question is, were the stories of Jesus that we have in the Bible carefully chosen to present a slanted view of him? Both The Da Vinci Code and fans of the Gospel of Judas claim that there were many accounts of the life of Jesus.
Generally, so this thinking goes, the accounts present him quite differently from the New Testament (NT) accounts in the Christian Bible (the NT contains the accounts of Jesus in question). Those who had control over what became the Bible, by hook, crook, or other forms of manipulation, made sure that the picture of Jesus that survived fitted their agendas. In other words, the Christian church is founded on suspect information. Or, to put it more bluntly, Christianity is a hoax.
Admittedly, this view has certain advantages. The accounts of Jesus we know, and therefore Christianity, maintain that Jesus was fully God, as well as fully human. If the part about him being God can be dismissed, this will let us all off the hook. After all, it was Jesus who famously said, “Love your neighbour as yourself, even your enemies!” If he wasn't (isn't) God, then we are less obliged to listen. It becomes somewhat less urgent to resist war as much as possible, to reject date rape, to never cheat on exams, to care for our parents when they become incontinent, and to be committed to our lovers and children.
A lot, then, hangs on how we see the sources about Jesus. How can one respond to the notion that the stories that are most well known about Jesus are suspect? I'll try to make a start at a response, using comments from a friend, Tom Oosterhuis, who teaches NT at the University of Alberta.
There are many accounts of Jesus' life, more than 60. Why were (are) only four promoted by the church?
For one thing, most of the 60 were written too late. The accepted ones were written within 30 to 65 years after Jesus was active. They were written by eyewitnesses. The rejected accounts were written about 100 years later than the rest.
“Even scholars who hype Judas admit that it was probably written around 150,” writes Oosterhuis. Some scholars have disputed all this, but they have diminished in number (and reputation) as the evidence has been examined.
Second, a number of the other gospels contain outlandish elements. Some have Jesus performing magic tricks for his own gratification. In Judas there are special gods or beings for each day of the year. Characters who are seen negatively in the Bible are seen as noble in the Judas. Cain, who murdered his brother, becomes a hero. So does Judas, for his betrayal of Jesus. He helped release Jesus from his body, which was a trap.
Some of the other accounts, as does Judas, see the physical body, indeed the whole world, as a negative, limiting thing, anti-spiritual. In this, such accounts are anti Judeo-Christian. In the Jewish-Christian view, the entire material world is valuable and wonderful, because God created it.
In the end, the ancient alternative accounts of Jesus emerge as an attack on the early church. They were anti-Christian. They were an attempt to grab power from the representatives of the accepted, hard-fought, understanding of Jesus. They make the disciples of Jesus out to be ignorant and the many emerging church leaders as naïve. The many who were tortured and died, for seeing Jesus as divine as well as human, were deluded according to the views presented in the alternative accounts.
A look at the evidence allows one to draw the conclusion that it is the alternative accounts that sought to obscure the truth, not the accounts that were accepted by those who knew Jesus and the succeeding generation of believers.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
Generally, so this thinking goes, the accounts present him quite differently from the New Testament (NT) accounts in the Christian Bible (the NT contains the accounts of Jesus in question). Those who had control over what became the Bible, by hook, crook, or other forms of manipulation, made sure that the picture of Jesus that survived fitted their agendas. In other words, the Christian church is founded on suspect information. Or, to put it more bluntly, Christianity is a hoax.
Admittedly, this view has certain advantages. The accounts of Jesus we know, and therefore Christianity, maintain that Jesus was fully God, as well as fully human. If the part about him being God can be dismissed, this will let us all off the hook. After all, it was Jesus who famously said, “Love your neighbour as yourself, even your enemies!” If he wasn't (isn't) God, then we are less obliged to listen. It becomes somewhat less urgent to resist war as much as possible, to reject date rape, to never cheat on exams, to care for our parents when they become incontinent, and to be committed to our lovers and children.
A lot, then, hangs on how we see the sources about Jesus. How can one respond to the notion that the stories that are most well known about Jesus are suspect? I'll try to make a start at a response, using comments from a friend, Tom Oosterhuis, who teaches NT at the University of Alberta.
There are many accounts of Jesus' life, more than 60. Why were (are) only four promoted by the church?
For one thing, most of the 60 were written too late. The accepted ones were written within 30 to 65 years after Jesus was active. They were written by eyewitnesses. The rejected accounts were written about 100 years later than the rest.
“Even scholars who hype Judas admit that it was probably written around 150,” writes Oosterhuis. Some scholars have disputed all this, but they have diminished in number (and reputation) as the evidence has been examined.
Second, a number of the other gospels contain outlandish elements. Some have Jesus performing magic tricks for his own gratification. In Judas there are special gods or beings for each day of the year. Characters who are seen negatively in the Bible are seen as noble in the Judas. Cain, who murdered his brother, becomes a hero. So does Judas, for his betrayal of Jesus. He helped release Jesus from his body, which was a trap.
Some of the other accounts, as does Judas, see the physical body, indeed the whole world, as a negative, limiting thing, anti-spiritual. In this, such accounts are anti Judeo-Christian. In the Jewish-Christian view, the entire material world is valuable and wonderful, because God created it.
In the end, the ancient alternative accounts of Jesus emerge as an attack on the early church. They were anti-Christian. They were an attempt to grab power from the representatives of the accepted, hard-fought, understanding of Jesus. They make the disciples of Jesus out to be ignorant and the many emerging church leaders as naïve. The many who were tortured and died, for seeing Jesus as divine as well as human, were deluded according to the views presented in the alternative accounts.
A look at the evidence allows one to draw the conclusion that it is the alternative accounts that sought to obscure the truth, not the accounts that were accepted by those who knew Jesus and the succeeding generation of believers.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
