Posted on 03/21/2005 6:30:05 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
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.
come on, don't ya know the Jews have 4,000 years of history compared to your measley 2,000.
spoken as the true suppercessionist that you seem to be.
He did? Did He tell you that? Was it like God sort of left the picture during the crusades and inquisitions? Please explain.
Sure they can be inconsistent. And I don't even belong to either of those groups. I don't even hate you. You are special. If somebody disagrees with you its hate or anti-catholic. You're wound up tight dude.
I'd also recommend Hyam Maccoby, Revolution In Judaea.
Best....
Thanx. I've read Maccoby's "Mythmaker", The Apostle Paul's invention of Christianity. Very good book.
Hail, O virgin Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the savior and redeemer of our souls.
Matthew does not include Mary in the narrative at the cross. Mark does not include Mary. Luke does not inlude Mary. She is not named as being at the cross in 3 out of 4 gospels....hence the reviewers comment that these omissions hardly justify her cult following. You are choosing to read her presence into their accounts. She is not mentioned. My inclination is to think she would have been there...but that is not in the synoptic accounts....hence the "cult" comment. (OTOH, if you consider Mary, mother of James, to be the same as the "Virgin Mary", then she was mentioned. But then you run into trouble in other ways.)
Regarding: "1) Again: There is no inconsistency, and 2) The information surrounding Mary is perfectly sufficient to justify the hyperdulia which over a billion Christians accord her: a) She is the Mother of God; b) She was present at the most significant moments of the Gospel; c) She is repeatedly called "blessed" and "blessed among women", even from God's own lips; d) She is never recorded sinning, but always is a paragon of Christian virtue; e) She was the first human being to believe that Jesus was the Christ; f) She was one of only 13 people present at Pentecost; g) If she had said "no" to God, all humanity would have been lost; h) Alone among Christian saints, Tradition dictates that she was assumed bodily into Heaven after death; i) The Revelation of John teaches that she is inextricably linked with the 2nd Coming of Christ; j) She has appeared in many apparitions and miracles since her Son's Ascension, attested to by many non-Christian, atheist and even anti-Christian witnesses."
1)We disagree about consistency. 2)Protestants and anyone else outside of Catholicism would disagree. a)She is the mother of God for those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. b)she is not specifically mentioned in the first 3 gospel accounts w/regard to the cross. She is not mentioned after the resurrection, which the Pope seemed to find noteworthy. c)"Repeatedly"? Anywhere besides twice in the Gospel of Luke? (neither of which is from "God's lips" BTW) d)There is very little biblical info about her at all. Because we are not told about the sins of certain biblical characters does not make them sinless. e) She must have been unaware in Luke 2:39 - 50. f) Do we venerate the other 12 in the same way? g)That's according to those who believe the virgin birth story, which has, at least, another postful of problems associated with it. h) I know..it's a catholic thing, i) refresh me on that one j)Many people claim to see apparitions of all kinds of things.
Yes, it is very sad.
Pain and beauty in this life are inextricable.
Have you noticed a marked increase in the attacks on the Blessed Mother lately?
The remedy to Original Sin being, of course, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Yet still, the right-wing-liberal Americanist Catholics can't seem to perceive the engine which drives our present crisis... can't see past the lies of theories of invincible ignorance which in and of themselves arise out of a denial or suppression of the reality of Original Sin. Illustrating yet again that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.
"I am at your side and within you, provided that your faith is the light which shines upon you in these unhappy days. May your zeal make you famished for the glory and the honor of Jesus Christ. Fight, children of light, you, the few who can see. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends."
O Mary, conceived without Original Sin, pray for us sinners who have recourse to thee.
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.