Jesus and Scholarly Arrogance
Heather Whipps (interesting name) posted an article on April 10, 2009, which she titled, "Who Was Jesus, the Man?" She says (fairly) that scholars are divided over elements of Jesus' life, and she accurately states that there are no "eyewitness accounts" about Him during His lifetime. The remainder of the article is, however, skewedy writer or by the "scholars" cited.
The reader has only to get to the third sentence of this short look at Jesus' life to read that historians have had to rely on "interpretations of the four main canonical gospel texts, mostly scrawled several decades after his [sic] death." Scrawled? The definition of scrawl is: "to write hastily or illegible; to write in a sprawling irregular manner." The image created by this particular word is that of an apostle lying on the ground with a scroll, a quill, and a spilled bottle of ink feverishly trying to complete the gospel before he dies of wounds inflicted by the enemy.
So far as anyone knows, none of the apostles were in the least rushed when recording the life of Jesus. Also, it should be pointed out that most biographies are not written while the subject of it is alive (although a few have been). Most do not appear until after death, and some of them are written decades afterward. It is estimated that Jesus died around A.D. 33 and that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written in the early 60s, which is thirty years later.
Why were they not penned sooner? The answer is (and Ms. Whipps provides no explanation) so many eyewitnesses were alive during that period. Those who had been healed by Jesus remained alive and could verify what He had done. But with the rise of a new generation, living evidence would be dying off; a record needed to be left behind. John may have waited until later to write his gospel because three were already in existence. He could therefore, concentrate on a later heresy. These factors sufficiently explain the delay.
The writer asserts that "untangling the man from the myth is a delicate undertaking," but she never delineates how the "scholars" she quotes were able to do that. She assures her readers that these "scholars" "often make a distinction between the man and the religious figure depicted in the scriptures." Okay, how do they do that, Ms. Whipps? What other sources do they have besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Although she cites three "scholars," nothing they provide in the way of information is documented. All that we have is their word for it, and, frankly, their credentials are not nearly so impressive as Matthew and John, who were disciples of Jesus, or Mark and Luke, who also wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These "scholars" were not inspired and lived centuries, rather than decades, after Jesus. Why should they have any credence? Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would call to mind the things that He said to them (John 14:25-26). What is the claim of accuracy for the "scholars"?
One of those cited is a doctoral candidate at a university in Sweden, but most of the information comes from Marcus Borg, "a retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University and current fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of preeminent academics" Well, whoop-de-doo! Oh, yes, they are premiere academicians, all right. Just ask them! The Jesus Seminar is the group who went through the New Testament, deciding what Jesus said, what He might have said, and what He definitely didn't say. And that was based on what? Manuscript evidence? No; they were merely opinions. But who is going to challenge such authorities of academia?
Borg provides a list of facts, the first of which is that Jesus came from Nazareth and his father was a carpenter. Where does that information come from? Did someone find school records? Did someone publish Who's Who in Nazareth, where His father's occupation was listed? Or does that come from the Bible? Now notice the second "fact":
Jesus was raised Jewish and he [sic] remained deeply Jewish all of his [sic] life. His intention was not to create a new religion. Rather, he [sic] saw himself as doing something within Judaism.
Poppycock! This assertion does not even make for good nonsense! He never dreamed of starting a new religion? How about when He said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28)? He did not say to go to the Father under the Law of Moses. What about: " or if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24)? Where was that in the Law?
What did Jesus mean when He said: " on this rock I will build My church" (Matt. 16:18)? Was the church not new and different from the Old Testament? What about the Great Commission He gave in Matthew 28:18-20? The apostles were to make disciples of Jesus (not Moses), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They were to preach the gospel in all the worldwhich focuses on JesusHis death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection. Those who believe (in Jesus) and are baptized will be saved; those who do not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Not only did Jesus intend to start a new religion; His apostles preached Him as the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18), which is that new religion. The "scholars'" statement is absurd to the nth degree.
Other "Facts" About Jesus
Another so-called "fact" about Jesus was that, after His baptism by John, He "likely experienced some sort of vision." How does likely fit together with the word fact? Facts deal with reality; likely with possibility. None of the gospel writers mention a vision of Jesus after His baptism; what is the historical source for this claim?
Next Borg informs the reader that Jesus preaches a message "that the world could be transformed into a 'Kingdom of God.'" No, what He said was, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt. 4:17), which is the same message John proclaimed (Matt. 3:2). They were not talking about transforming this world into a spiritual kingdom. Instead they were prophesying of the church that was to be established, which is called the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven (see previous comments on Matthew 16:18).
The fact about Jesus becoming the most noted healer in Jewish history, as well as being a prophet and a teacher is correct. That the Lord was executed by "Roman imperial authority" is also true. Three out of six facts are correctnot bad for liberal "scholars"! However, they lose out on the tiebreaker.
The seventh "fact" declares that Jesus' followers "experienced" Him after His death. What exactly does that mean? They had "visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life." What? Okay, what's the operative word missing here? Can you say, "Resurrection?" Sure, I knew you could. But they can't bring themselves to utter the word. The Lord's disciples did not have visions of Jesus after He was raised from dead. They saw Jesus Himself!
Does anyone remember "doubting Thomas," a nickname the apostle received because he was not present the first time the disciples (as a group) saw Jesus? When the other ten told him they had seen Jesus, Thomas said, that, unless he saw in His hands the print of the nails and the wound the spear made in His side, he would not believe. Jesus appeared to all of them againthis time with Thomas being present. The Lord said to him, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing" (John 20:27). How's that for a vision! One in 3-D!!
The apostle Paul, though not present for any of these post-resurrection meetings with Jesus, lists several of them in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. One of those describes the Lord being seen by over 500 brethren at one time, the greater part of which were still alive more than two decades later. Did all 500 have the same identical vision of Jesus at the same time, or was He in their presence? Obviously, it is the second alternative. And what about the meal Jesus fixed for seven of His disciples while they came ashore from the fishing boat (John 21:1-14)? Perhaps the liberal "scholars" are accustomed to visions preparing breakfast!
The Deity of Christ
But we still have not finished with the seventh point. Borg adds: "Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be 'Lord' or 'the Son of God.'" Really? Have they not read the New Testament? We know they overlooked Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus promised to build His church, which He also referred to as "the kingdom," but they were also obviously asleep when Peter confessed in verse 16: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." When Jesus walked on the water and then calmed the storm, those in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God" (Matt. 14:33).
How did they miss John the Baptizer's conclusion concerning Jesus: "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34)? Or Nathanael's: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" (John 1:49)? When Jesus asked the blind man whom He had healed, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" he acknowledged, "Lord, I believe." Then he worshiped Him (John 9:35, 38). The "scholars" must have missed Martha's confession, also: "I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world" (John 11:27).
Has the fact escaped Borg that Jesus being the Son of God is the reason He was crucified? The Jews told Pilate: "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). Apparently, in order to be a scholar, one must be able to skip over large chunks of the New Testament, such as Mark 2:1-12 where Jesus says to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven you." He knew, and the crowd knew, that only God can forgive sins. Thus in saying these words, Jesus was claiming to possess the attribute of Deity, making Him God's Son.
Borg indicates that the resurrection of Jesus is not plausible, but the idea had significance to Jesus' followers. However, they did not lay their lives on the line for some sort of vague "significance." They had either seen the resurrected Jesus or knew reliable witnesses who had. Borg rambles on, claiming that it does not matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. How can he not see that the entire integrity of the New Testament is at stake? Matthew records the event and says that it fulfills Isaiah 7:14. Anyone who denies the virgin birth must immediately cast doubt on Matthew, as well as Luke, who also records the event. If Luke's gospel is suspect, then there goes the Book of Acts, which Luke also wrote. That's only 40% of the New Testament!
Borg then says that historically, Jesus did not "die for the sins of the world." Have these people not read the Old Testament, either (Isa. 53, for example)? When John the Baptizer first saw Jesus, he said: "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). The ignorance of these "scholars" is only exceeded by their arrogance. The Lord will set them straight at the Judgment. In the meantime, pray that readers of articles like these have more Bible sense than to accept these wild assertions.