Part 7
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
It was difficult to determine the best way to treat these concluding statements. Practically every sentence is irrelevant, illogical, misleading, or plainly false. Because of the sheer density of points to be addressed, an entire paragraph must be devoted to each of this section's twenty sentences.
Virtually every other verse in the New Testament portrays Jesus in a completely different light than that presented in the non-tract. As shown in the previous sections, even the cited verses fail to establish a "disturbing side" to his character, often showing quite the opposite when interpreted in context.
Only three sets of allegedly conflicting passages are presented in the non-tract: "Peace On Earth" vs. Matthew and Luke; Matt. 5:22 vs. Matt. 23:17; and John 5:31 vs. John 8:14. A few attempts are made to show differences between the words of Jesus and observed reality, regarding mustard seed, salt, and the Second Coming. Most of the rest of the non-tract purportedly shows an inconsistency between the popular image of Jesus and the biblical text. However, apparent conflict, even when it exists, does not "prove" contradiction. That requires irresolveable conflict. When one simply interprets these verses in their proper contexts, in the manner intended by the authors, the supposed conflicts disappear.
If it were shown that the "Golden Rule" was Jesus' only significant saying, and if it were shown that the primary reason most people honor Jesus is that he said it, and if it were shown that he was merely reiterating the words of some earlier sage from his own culture, there might be some small justification for relegating Jesus to the back pages of history. This is unnecessary, though, since the first two clauses are clearly not true and the third is not clearly shown.
In fact, the inclusion of the quote from Confucius just tends to confuse us, since it isn't equivalent to the "Golden Rule". The quote is a passive statement of refraining from harm, while the "Golden Rule" is an active statement of doing good. It is unclear whether the non-tract is trying to assert that Jesus shouldn't be honored as much as he is because he was unoriginal, or that he shouldn't be honored more than Confucius is, or perhaps both. In any case, the non-tract seems to be implying that we really have no basis for distinguishing between the two, which is clearly false. We know far more about Jesus than Confucius, from better sources. We know that their teachings were not identical. We know that Confucius made no divine claims for himself. There are many differences between the two, and the fact that they had some sayings with nearly similar meanings is clearly irrelevant to whether we worship Jesus as Son of God.
As we saw in a previous section, "Turn the other cheek", when interpreted in context, does not mean we are to invite further violence, but that we are to remain peaceable when provoked, breaking the "eye for an eye" cycle of violence. In our modern day, there are any number of public service announcements saying the same thing ("You're the one who can make the peace").
"Love thy neighbor" clearly applies to more than fellow believers. After Jesus made this statement, he was asked "Who is my neighbor?". He responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan, where one of the traditional enemies of the Jews is presented to be more loving and neighborly than a priest and a Levite. Jesus healed, helped, and socialized with people whether they were Jews or not, "sinners" or not, believe it or not. And, of course, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a quote from the Old Testament, which contained many other commands to treat "aliens" the same as one's fellow Jews (e.g. Leviticus 19:33-34). The clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments is that everyone in need is a "neighbor", not just fellow believers.
While the parenthesized statement is true when taken in isolation, it is not relevant to the preceding point. Certainly, the Jews and Jesus both denounced false religions. Jesus even denounced the man-made excesses of Judaism. However, if it is not loving to show people that their faith is misplaced, then one might say Jesus is no worse in this area than the Freedom From Religion Foundation itself, since that appears to be the purpose of the non-tract. In fact, judging from other material on their website, it is a secondary purpose of their organization.
To state that biblical morality is "not based on respect for human life or values" is preposterous. The whole point of Jesus' existence is that human beings are so incredibly precious to God that He was willing to live and die as a human so that we could live with Him eternally. The way we are to treat each other is based on the idea that human life was created in the image of God and is extremely valuable. We are told that those who show love to others will be honored, but the reason for that love is to be born of our love of God, not some selfish hope of future reward.
The hard evidence indicates that many people have found most of Jesus' words "worthwhile", and that only a relative few have reached the opposite conclusion. Billions of people have spent their lives trying to study, honor, and follow the words of Jesus. The Bible is by far the most popular, most quoted, and most studied set of writings in history.
As stated previously, Jesus didn't introduce the idea of Hell. It was a well-developed concept before Jesus' time. In fact, Jesus' statements in Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10 are a direct response to a Pharisaic saying that there was rejoicing in Heaven over every sinner destroyed by God in Hell. To say that he introduced nothing new to ethics may be true as a general statement, but that was not his intent. The moral and ethical statements he made were intended to remind the people that morality was from God, and was to be based on love for God and love for others. In doing so, he introduced something new to the ethics of his culture, which is now, generally speaking, our culture. No one else was saying "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors", or "Turn the other cheek", or any of the other phrases derided as unwise. In the "online caveat", some credence is given to the ideas of the Jesus Seminar. One of their basic criteria for "redness", or likelihood that a statement can be genuinely attributed to Jesus, is that a quote must run counter to the prevailing wisdom of the time. In their eyes, if a quote doesn't express something new, startling, and thought-provoking, Jesus likely didn't say it. Even though only 15% of the words of Jesus in the Bible are marked red by the Seminar, that still must be considered more than "nothing".
I suppose it can be reasonably construed as true that Jesus did not institute any "social programs". It was the disciples that first formed the Church, which has been the foundation of more charitable acts than any other organization in history. On the other hand, it's not likely that all those good deeds would have been done if Jesus hadn't said to "Love your neighbor as yourself", "do unto the least of these", "let your light so shine before men", etc., and exemplified loving service to others. That aside, it's difficult to see how this is relevant to whether Jesus should be emulated or honored. At the end of this section, mothers and scientists are lifted up as examples of people who have "contributed to humanity", but I'm sure that the vast majority of them have not founded any social programs either.
It is a matter of theological debate as to whether Jesus was fully omniscient during his life on earth. It is certainly true that he did not always display omniscience, and we know that Jesus would only have revealed that which his father allowed him to reveal. Still, it is difficult to determine where in the Bible Jesus expressed any ignorance of modern science or medicine, or displayed any need for such knowledge. The parenthetical comment offers a fascinating perspective on the Jesus "problem". The introduction to the non-tract merely alluded to the idea that Jesus never actually existed. It is more pointed here. I think most people considering Jesus' seeming ignorance would simply have said something like, "He apparently had no more knowledge of science or medicine than anyone else living at the time", rather than insinuating that Jesus was a fictional invention.
In the next sentence, we find a sure sign of a weak hand. "Many scholars" believe many things. It is very difficult to find any position in any area of knowledge which is not held by "many scholars". Both "many" and "scholar" are so ambiguous that their combination is nearly meaningless, intended only to add a veneer of academic prestige to the issue being discussed. While the "Jesus-myth" view has gained a certain amount of popular press, it is held by only a small percentage of those with relevant credentials.
Albert Schweitzer was a learned and accomplished man, but he and his "time" are long past. His book, The Quest For The Historical Jesus was written in 1906. The scholarship on which it is based has not withstood intervening archaeological discovery. We are vastly more certain now of the biblical text and its context. Many of the areas of uncertainty with which Dr. Schweitzer had to struggle have been addressed. Even so, he was not attempting to say that Jesus did not exist as a person, simply that we could know little or nothing about that person. Citing Dr. Schweitzer in support here, and doing it inaccurately, only emphasizes the fact that, again, relatively few modern scholars adopt the "Jesus-myth" view.
It is somewhat amusing that just three sentences after insinuating that Jesus was the "invention of writers stuck in the first century", the non-tract claims that we have no confirmation from first-century writers. It's probabaly just another careless error, but it seems to be an admission that the Gospels were written in the first century, which is rare for skeptics to do. In any case, whatever one may say about the dating of the Gospels, virtually no one asserts that Paul's writings are second-century, and they clearly speak of Jesus as the Christ who lived, died, and rose again. One might get away with saying "No first-century non-believing writer confirms the Jesus story", but neither does any deny it. That aside, there is strong internal evidence that the Gospels were written in the first century. The Book of Acts ends somewhat abruptly with Paul still alive, which indicates that Luke wrote it (and, by extension, his Gospel) before AD 65. If one maintains Mark came first, and Matthew near Luke, then only John is left to tag along. There is also the significant silence of the entire New Testament concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Given their propensity for pointing out fulfilled prophecy, it seems inconceivable that the Gospel writers would not make more of one of the most important events in Jewish history if that event had occurred by the time the Gospels were written. Finally, there is the well-established existence of the first-century Christian church, founded by people who were far closer to these "unconfirmed" events than anyone asserting Jesus was a myth.
Even if there were contradictions and errors in the New Testament, neither of which has been shown in the non-tract, these claims are not relevant to the discussion. Even if Matthew and Mark appear to contradict on some point, one is only justified in ignoring that point in Mark or Matthew, but not both. It is not valid to say that because two accounts disagree that both of them are false. If John or Peter seems to make a "historical error", one is only justified in omitting that error from consideration of the New Testament, especially when there are many, many examples of historical accuracy. If one consistently applies these rules to the gospels, epistles, and Revelation, one is then left with a very large amount of material that doesn't contradict, doesn't contain errors, and still says that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and everyone needs to trust in Him for their salvation. You're still left with page after page showing Jesus to be peaceable, compassionate, and worthy of emulation.
That the miracles and claims of Jesus are considered to be "outrageous" exposes the presuppositions which have been brought to the discussion. A large number of critics seem to start with the proposition that the Gospels and epistles cannot be trusted because miracles cannot happen, prophecies cannot be fulfilled in the normal sense, and a flesh-and-blood person cannot be the Son of God, period. No evidence is allowed to avail against this proposition. No testimony is sufficient to convince the skeptics otherwise. Ironically, these people often proclaim that open-mindedness is a paramount virtue, but it does not seem open-minded to discard all possibility of supernatural events and entities. If all these things really happened and Jesus really was the Son of God, how could that information possibly be transmitted in a way that they could accept it? They might accept as true the writings of someone who stated, "I heard all his teachings, the prophecies seem to point to him, I saw all the miracles, I saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross, but I just don't accept that he's who he says he is." It's ironic that the miracles and claims of Jesus, the very things that helped convince the Gospel writers of Jesus' identity, the very things that they expected would help convince others of that truth, are the very things which appear to convince modern scholars that it's all untrue.
The first part of the next sentence presents a view which is held only by a small minority of scholars. To state the "pagan borrowing" hypothesis as a given in this way is a misrepresentation of modern scholarship. The second part of the sentence is so completely and obviously false that I'm astounded that anyone who has spent any time studying both mythology and the Gospels could seriously state it. There is nothing remotely resembling the Gospels in terms of historical detail, narrative value, accuracy of transmission, and similarity of multiple perspectives. Nor do we have any other "story" that purports to be an account by eyewitnesses, or the close associates thereof. There is no evidence that the pagan religions of the time believed in the historicity of their myths in any way similar to the beliefs of the Jews and Christians. In other words, what we call "Greek and Roman myths" were also myths to many of the Greeks and Romans.
No case has been made for "dubious qualities", since most of what is asserted about Jesus is contradicted by an informed reading of the New Testament, and much of the rest is unsupported. Even so, it's not an either/or situation. Worshipping Jesus should not detract from the admiration and respect given to accomplished human beings. While Jesus did not give birth, he did alleviate suffering and fought injustice, which makes him at least a match for two out of the three groups mentioned here.
So concludes the text of the non-tract, but we're not quite done. Apparently, once the document gained an appreciable audience on the Web, it generated some controversy. We will deal with the response to that controversy in the next section.