"The Passion" by Geza Vermes

One hallmark of modern-day Christian fundamentalists is their insistence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are literally true in every detail and a blueprint for legislators. Yet there must be moments when even these zealots notice that the four evangelists often contradict each other on facts and morals. Some may wish it to be otherwise, but the Gospels are quite simply not gospel.

At the other end of the faith spectrum, the evident disharmony between the quartet of accounts is often used to dish the whole idea of a historical Jesus. That, too, misunderstands these ancient texts. They have an undoubted historical worth, but only if you first accept that they are hearsay accounts, written between 20 and 60 years after Christ’s death by individuals who were not among his close associates. There is a core of history in there, but it is buried beneath many other layers — the teachings of figures such as Paul and Peter, polemics against the opponents of the early church, references back to the Hebrew Scriptures inserted to give Jesus a divine seal of approval, and the tinkering of later generations of Christian translators and editors.

Many academics have diligently worked away on the gospels separating the wheat from the chaff, but few can rival Geza Vermes, Professor Emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford. His background gives him a certain objectivity. As a former Catholic priest who has returned to his Jewish roots, he tends to see the events described without party political bias. He is also a populariser, unafraid to challenge and unwilling to patronise. Over the past four decades, Vermes has been picking away with forensic skill at the Gospels to reveal them in a truer light. In The Passion, he distils that accumulated wisdom into a brief, punchy and thought-provoking account of Jesus’s last hours.

He works his way through his own 13 Stations of the Cross to show that many familiar details of the Good Friday story rest on the say so of only one of the four Gospel writers. The Virgin Mary’s presence at the foot of the Cross, for instance, is only detailed by John. The others have Jesus abandoned by her — hardly the stuff on which to build the cult that now surrounds her in Catholicism. Only Luke has Jesus utter the celebrated words “ Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (often quoted by Christians as evidence that forgiveness is the distinguishing virtue of their faith) and only Matthew dwells on Judas, his receipt of 30 pieces of silver and his subsequent suicide.

Vermes also contrasts what the Gospels tell us with other surviving accounts of the Holy Land in the first century. These cast doubt, for instance, on the annual amnesty that saw Barabbas freed (Vermes shows that a mistranslation has left him in the popular mind a murderous monster rather than a Jewish revolutionary). They paint a different picture of a tough, unpleasant Pilate from the generally non-judgmental account of him in the Gospels. And they contradict the account of the Jewish legal process given by all four Gospel writers.

Here, Vermes’s detective work takes on a bigger context. Did all the Gospel writers distort their account to blame the Jews rather than the Roman colonisers for the death of Jesus? It would seem so. It was therefore arguably these writers who gave rise to 2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism.

The central tension that Vermes highlights is that between history and faith. How can a historical document also be the basis of a religion? The Gospels try to square the circle by both recording events and shaping them to determine readers’ response. While absolute objectivity may be impossible, this biased approach has left them increasingly scorned in our secular age. Which, Vermes states, is a loss.

To get into this beguiling book, you will need first to overlook a rather clumsy play by the publisher for the same audience who saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The subtitle of the book and its glossy jacket ape the feel of “book of the film” editions. But once you are inside the pages, you realise it is the polar opposite of Gibson’s muddled literalism and gore. This is subtle, teasing and erudite stuff. It may be ultimately inconclusive, as of course it has to be, but it will give Easter a whole new dimension for all but the most closed of minds.

Start with no assumptions. Just read each individual text on its own. Is Mary included, by name, at the cross, in Matthew, Mark, or Luke? The answer is no. I am not saying that she wasn't there...however, it is reasonable for someone to note she has a large "cult" following despite no mention of her in 3 of the 4 passion scenes. And I would guess Geza Vermes gets into greater comparative detail about her roll (vs the silence on her roll) in the differing accounts.

Other groups that believe Jesus was the messiah, but not part of a trinity, here:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=113

http://www.torahofmessiah.com/

http://www.sabbatarian.com/

http://www.tcpc.org/about/the_8_points_english.html

RE: "The changes he made to Protestant theology to justify founding a new church went against over 1600 years of interpretation by his direct fathers in faith."

That's pretty much what the Jews say about Christians who read their own version of truth into ancient Jewish scripture, totally negating the original meaning.

RE: "Protestantism is a small minority of Christianity worldwide"

The number of people in a group does not determine whether or not something is true.

RE:"She is indeed mentioned after the Resurrection, in particular at Pentecost."

Sorry, i meant "at" the resurrection as discussed in 31 and 33....with this link to Vatican commentary:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/resurrection.asp

All the blessed verses w/regards to Mary are in Luke as you point out. Look again at the last one you quoted (quoting Jesus) . Here's the KJV:

"27) And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28)But he said, YEA, RATHER BLESSED [ARE] THEY THAT HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND KEEP IT.

and the NLT version: 27) As he was speaking, a woman in the crowd called out, "God bless your mother-the womb from which you came, and the breasts that nursed you!"
28) He replied, "But EVEN MORE BLESSED are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."

I went over Luke 1 26-56.
Instead of saying she was "unaware" in Luke 2: 39 -50, i should have said it looks like she "forgot".

RE:"It's recorded by two Gospel narratives and is an explicit sign of the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesy."

If you are referring to Isaiah 7:14...that would be a perfect example of reading another version of truth into the ancient scripture, and totally negating the the original meaning. This article discusses it in context of Dead Sea Scroll discoveries...and the Vatican take on it: http://www.lightwatcher.com/spirit_stars/bible_scrolls.html

RE:" But if you won't believe in God, then this would naturally be difficult to accept."

You assume that if one does not accept the Virgin birth story then he/she must not believe in God? Many people believe in God, just not in the same way you do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.