A Review of the God Delusion (Part 4)
Richard Dawkins has 448 pages crowded with material—often it could be referred to as immaterial—but no three-line syllogisms, which is precisely the point of the quote that ended last week's article. One can cite numerous sources, spend time chasing rabbits, include a multitude of anecdotes, yet never make an argument, the conclusion of which is, "There is no God." Below is an analysis of the way he tries to "argue." He states:
Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world (118).
Dawkins does not describe the rise of higher criticism and modernism. These same reliable scholars developed the J-E-D-P theory of the way that the Bible was put together. One writer of the first five books of the Old Testament used the name of Jehovah; he became the J source. The writer who used Elohim for God was known as E. The author who wrote Deuteronomy was termed D, and the one who wrote about the priests was P. All of these main writers were than subdivided so that eventually maybe 30 or 40 people were in on writing the Pentateuch. It was nothing but educated hogwash. Moses wrote those books, just as the Bible declares. This documentary hypothesis, as it was called, was so over-the-top that, if Shakespeare had written a play about it, he would have had to title it, An Extreme Amount of Ado About Nothing.
Yet most of the elite theologians fell for it because anyone who denied it probably would have been designated as ignorant (about like one who denies evolution today). Scholars such as J. W. McGarvey refuted such nonsense but were largely ignored. But the "modernists" were not done; they had to insist that David didn't write the psalms, either, and that the New Testament was written, maybe 200-300 years later than estimated. It won't do for Dawkins to claim that an overwhelming case has been made. He wrote 468 pages; why didn't he make the case? At any rate, most commentaries date all of the New Testament books as being written within the first century; apparently, few are buying into the "overwhelming case" any longer.
Where Was Jesus Born?
When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew where he was born (118).
And Dawkins knows that, how? Does he have affadavits from those living at the time? He keeps harping on the value of evidence, with which we agree, but he fails to notice that he himself does not supply proof for his allegations. After citing Micah's prophecy (5:2), he specifically says that John said people were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem (118).
What? This comment shows that people who do not read the Bible to see what it actually says should not discuss it. He is tremendously confused. First, we should observe the significance of Micah 5:2. It describes Jesus as coming out of Bethlehem to be Ruler in Israel, "Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting" (meaning He is eternal). Jesus agrees that He is the eternal one, the I AM (John 8:58). Of course, Dawkins ignores this "coincident."
Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem, and Matthew cites Micah 5:2, which fulfills the prophecy (Matt. 2:6). Dawkins tried to get Luke to contradict this fact. Of course, he does not mention where any of the passages are, but he refers to John 7:52, where some of Jesus' detractors argued: "Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee." Notice that they did not argue that Jesus was born in Galilee—only that he had lived there, which He had from a young age. They might have even assumed that Jesus was born there, but they did not say that—only that He was from there. If a person was born in Memphis but lived in New York City from the age of 3, most people would figure that the person in question was from New York City.
But where is the proof that Joseph and Mary always lived in Bethlehem? The first time Matthew mentions the city, is in Matthew 2:1—after Jesus was born. He does not say they lived there before Jesus' birth. Luke records Joseph going from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4). Later, when they returned from Egypt, the family went back to Nazareth (Matt. 2:23). Nothing even close to a contradiction can be found in these passages. Besides, Jesus' critics were wrong; Isaiah prophesied of Jesus coming from Galilee (Isa. 9:1-2, cf. 3-7; Matt. 4:13-16).
Luke Under Assault
First, Dawkins finds fault with Joseph being required to go to the city of David, his ancestor, to register (119). He thinks it is unreasonable for someone to be identified with a person who lived one thousand years earlier. Since America wasn't settled until the 1600s, that may seem like a valid point, but Israel had dwelt in the land for more than 1,400 years, and they had strict inheritance laws. Every Jew knew from what tribe he was descended; each tribe's territory was described in the Book of Joshua. Although the captivities had intervened, each Jew would know what city was associated with his tribe; so, the demand of the Romans was not unreasonable.
Second, Dawkins says the Quirinius (not Augustus) authorized a local census—but did so in A.D. 6—not at the time Jesus was born (119). Most alleged "contradictions" can be resolved in the Scriptures, but for some we need to go to secular history.
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe wrote a book dealing with charges made against Luke by skeptics, titled, When Critics Ask. Published by Victor Books in 1992, the authors explain that a man named Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria during the time Jesus was born. He did not prove to be "a trustworthy leader," having "lost three legions of soldiers in" a forest (384)
When it came time to begin the census…Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem to the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in the matter (384-85).
But, say that this explanation, for whatever reason, was not satisfactory, think of how much arrogance it takes to accuse Luke of being a lousy historian. Nobody made such an accusation at the time he wrote it. A person would have to be fairly stupid to write a glaring falsehood at a time when the facts were easily accessible and he would be found a liar.
Actually, Sir William Ramsay, by his own admission, set about to show that Luke was in error concerning the locations mentioned in the Book of Acts. After much investigation, he concluded that Luke was a first-rate historian. The following quote is from Wikipedia:
When Ramsay first travelled to Asia Minor, the locations of many of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts were not known. Later in life Ramsay stated, "Further study...showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement…. [One] may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's.
There are dozens of towns, islands, and locations that Luke records in the Book of Acts. All have been authenticated as real places. If Luke says people went up to a certain place, they actually climbed in elevation. If they traveled down to a city, they descended in elevation. But if the historian got his facts right, it can scarcely be regarded as incredible. If he had stated things inaccurately, people would have known it. The only mystery is that critics have the hubris to think that they know more than someone who lived at the time 2,000 years ago.
Legend
Dawkins next accuses biographers of plagiarism.
Robert Gillooly shows how all the essential features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed—every last one of them—from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East religion (119-20).
Of course, he does not provide the evidence from Gillooly or tell anyone where to find it; therefore, we can only respond to what was stated. We cannot, without more information, respond to the star in the east, or the veneration of the baby by kings, but it would not be surprising if there were some legends about a star in the east or an account of the wicked witch of the west; directions like these are fairly typical, and many watched the movement of the stars. Also, for a baby to be honored by kings could easily happen anywhere. Such things do not discredit Christianity.
But what about the virgin birth? It is true that many such mythological events were written about.
Horus: The Egyptian god Horus was born to the virgin Isis.
Krishna: The Hindu god Krishna was born to a virgin.
Ra: The Egyptian sun god Ra was born to the virgin Net.
Attis: The Phrygo-Roman god Attis was born to the virgin Nana.
Dionysus: The Greek god Dionysus was born to the virgin Semele or Persephone.
Jason: The Greek hero Jason was born to the virgin Persephone.
Perictione: Plato's mother was a virgin.
Romulus and Remus: The twin founders of Rome were born to the virgin Rhea Silvia.
Garab Dorje: In Tibetan Buddhism, Garab Dorje was born to a virgin daughter of the king of Odiyana.
Qi: In Chinese myth, Qi was born to Jiang Yuan after she stepped in a giant footprint left by the supreme deity Shangdi.
The list looks impressive, does it not? Just about all of them, however, are myths. How did Persephone manage to have two virgin births? We can well imagine that it enhances a man's resume if his mother was a virgin at the time of his birth. That such would be claimed is not unexpected. But Jesus was the only one to be predicted over 700 years in advance by Isaiah the prophet (7:14). Furthermore, Mary was a human being—not a goddess. The details of His birth are far different than the others.
So, many others did miracles. Right, and Simon the Sorcerer had people in Samaria believing that he was someone great, too. But even he recognized the genuine power of God from illusions or magic (Acts 8:9-13). Dawkins should have thought of the following point himself: If these Mediterranean men performed actual miracles, why is it that he must tell us about it? After 2,000 years, the name of Jesus is still well known, as well as His miracles. Why aren't these other men worshiped today—if they were so great?
Of course, various gods were killed and came back to life, but there is no Isaiah 53 written about them 700 years in advance. Numerous eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-9). He did not die in battle, but laid down His life freely for our sins (John 10:17-18)—which many people still believe. They believed on Pentecost because His resurrection was foretold, and because eyewitnesses saw Him resurrected.