| OT Arguments | NT Arguments | Bedrock Issues |
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE NEW TESTAMENT
If the 'Old Testament' is largely the jewish Bible, the 'New Testament' clearly 'belongs' to the Christians. In general, it represents some historical narrative (the gospel writers), earlier greek and jewish arguments for Jesus (Paul and company), plus one man's strange vision (Revelation). There's quite a number of 'variations' in the gospels and this is what draws most of the wondering. So, let's start there.
THE GOSPEL WRITERS HAD TROUBLE REMEMBERING
BACKGROUND: Actually the criticism is a bit stronger than that. But most scholars put the earliest of the gospels in the late 60s (AD) which would be about 35 years after Jesus' death. [*] Plenty of time to forget the details and have to fill in the blanks. When I think back 30 years or so, I can easily describe the details, though I can't quote word for word. But my spouse 'kindly' differs. If you read the research, reporting accuracy declines fairly quickly unless you write it down. It's possible Mark used notes or a previous narrative. But no matter how you rationalize it, Mark, Matthew and Luke just didn't report the SAME life of Jesus. The stories were somewhat different, order was different, and one author 'forgets' to mention Jesus' re-appearance details, the primary proof of divinity. I'm not going to list out all the differences, but here's a good 'synopsis' site, where you can compare the details line by line. I would guess most Christians haven't done that. It's quite surprising.
PROBLEMS: I have to admit, this has got to be the biggest Bible mystery of all. Any 'movement' with a brain would get their stories straight. Certainly about someone who they truly believed rose from the dead and then had a relaxing barbeque fish-lunch with his men (on the beach, or in a locked room in Jerusalem depending on the story). Interestingly, the differences were noticed pretty quick in the second century. Taitian, being quite talented, put them all together into one long but consistent story called the 'Diatessaron'. It was quite popular for teaching the later Christians and indeed was translated into several languages at the time.
ISSUES: Today, most Christian writers appear to just 'keep going' or to gloss over the differences as not really important. But when asked about 'divine inspiration', they reassure us, with 'every word divinely inspired'. To be honest, I don't know how you can reconcile the two. If the words aren't quite consistent, AND there's divine inspiration, then the latter has to be closer to 'the general drift of the story'. I'm personally comfortable with 'the drift', since the early Christians risked life and limb, but happily listened to the in-consistencies. Must be ok with the divine inspirer?
THE VIRGIN MARY WAS A YOUNG WOMAN
BACKGROUND: Well, that's probably true. But what was at issue pretty early on was the word 'virgin'. As you move from the early writings of Paul to early Mark, subequent Matthew and Luke and then John and Revelation, the prophesy fulfillments and Old Testament connections tend to increase. Maybe they kept studying. In this instance, the quoted passage is from Isaiah 7:14 YLT 'Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel ...'. The hebrew word here is 'almah' which is the female version of 'elem' a young man (which in turn tracks back to 'olam' related to 'age'). Where the real problem occurs is in the greek translation of the time (called the Septuagent). The greek word 'parthenos' or virgin was used (same as the parthenon temple). Since the early Christians read the greek, 'virgin' it was. But the jews quickly dissented, saying the Christians had trouble reading hebrew, and further (close your eyes), they meanly suggested Mary's paramour was a member of the hated occupation at the time (a roman soldier!).
Tuzigoot National Monument. Sitting on a lonely hill overlooking the Verde River. For some reason they left without a trace.ISSUES: I don't doubt the possibility of the Mary story, especially if God is showing up down on earth. I just don't know why virginity is such a criticality. At the time, they thought women were largely 'incubators' (before the discovery of eggs at which point Mary's sinfulness became a question too). So instead of Joseph's seed, you have the Holy Spirit's seed. So Jesus could be the 'son of God'? If the discussion here seems to be slowly deteriorating, it's not by accident. Within the first century, both the good-to-go Christians (Jesus was a man!) and the heretics (Jesus was a spirit!) were at each other's throats. Whoa. Why would the heretical claim be a problem? Why not spirit? Because absent a death/resurrection, Jesus who? This leads us to the next problem.
JESUS' POST-DEATH ASCENSION WAS A LATER ADDITION
BACKGROUND: This argument is closely associated with the various gospel writer accounts above. Mark, who is thought to be the earliest gospel writer, doesn't have an ascension account for Jesus. Well, that's not quite true. His last chapter includes material that was not in the earliest manuscripts. The earliest greek versions basically ended with a 'young man' instructing Mary of Magdala, Mary mother of James (not Jesus?), and Salome to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee. The women promptly flee. End of story. The additional verses (starting with verse 9) essentially 'start over' on the first day of the week, with Mary of Magdala alone informing the followers (who disbelieved), then the apparent Luke Emmeus story, and then Jesus appearance to the eleven apostles, with an ascension up to heaven from Jerusalem (versus Luke, from Bethany or the Mount of Olives, Matthew from a Galilean mountain, and John: none).
PROBLEMS: It does seem a bit odd. No ascension in Mark, but apparently one added later from inside Jerusalem, and not consistent with the other writers. Luke has TWO ascensions, one in the book of Luke at Bethany just outside of Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection, and another on the Mount of Olives 40 days later. And he wrote both accounts. (Bethany and the Mount are pretty close, but are not the same and clearly Luke distinguishes). Matthew is up in Galilee, also on a mountain (similar to the transfiguration), and John just sort of ends with no ascension (twice, first in chapter 20 and then again in chapter 21). Now ... think about the American mission to the moon 40 years ago. Quick. Where did it take off from?
ISSUES: I don't really have any good answer for this. There are quite a number of theories, many suggesting an earlier post-resurrection account (which also doesn't match, by the way). The gospel writers were writing 'pretty late' ... years after Paul. And still all mixed up? I would think after 40-50 years, the story would be pretty consistent among the believers. Doesn't make sense that the accounts were purposely and inconsistently 'made up'. My guess (and truly a guess) ... through the years pages were lost from the original accounts and then 're-added' by other believers. That's also my guess concerning the sudden end of Acts itself, with the last 2 verses added.
THE 'HOLY SPIRIT' WAS A CHARISMATIC ADDITION
BACKGROUND: If you love reading the Old Testament (and it IS quite interesting), you would become pretty familiar with the 'Spirit of God' (literally 'breath of God' [*]). Acting along with God himself (who also talks, walks, 'goes down', appears, and so forth), the Spirit does much to interface between the divine and the human, but it's never clear that the Spirit is separate from God (he's never discussed as an independent persona. [*]). But as a reader of the New Testament, you meet the 'Holy' Spirit almost immediately in Matthew in the story of Jesus' birth, being the source of conception. If, however, you re-sort the New Testament books by when they were likely written (Paul and Mark first, other gospels later, and non-Paul last), you get a somewhat different pattern. Earlier accounts are similar to the Old Testament (Spirit or Spirit of God), while later accounts have an increased involvement of the 'Holy' Spirit.
PROBLEMS: Mark, an early writer, cautions about speaking ill of the 'Holy Spirit' but connects it up with demons. The early 'Pauline' letters primarily involve the Holy Spirit with charismatic 'gifts' and powers. A bit later is the authority for Paul's message. By the time you arrive at the later gospels, the Holy Spirit is quite heavily involved in the theology, birthing Jesus, getting him baptized, helping him out in the desert temptations (Luke only). And then with Acts (also by Luke), the Holy Spirit is providing the apostles with both their message and authority. John (apostle John?), who presumably wrote even later, was emphatic that the 'Spirit' (no 'Holy') didn't get involved until Pentecost (John 7:39).
ISSUES: As the writings procede, the Holy Spirit takes on its own persona, as if it's separate from God. Near the 'end', comes the Holy Spirit as a seal ... more proof of the imminent return and believers living in heaven. With the death of the first witnessing generations, the authority for continued writings was in question by church leaders. And so, the Holy Spirit ended his inspiration with 2 Peter. But even today, the Holy Spirit is still with us in our daily lives (in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit for believers, but no writing, you guys). I surmise the 'Holy' part of the Spirit is the hellenistic jewish concept (eg Philo) of the older 'Spirit of God' and thus essentially 'God'. But I'm just guessing (again). Of course, then there wouldn't be a 'trinity' concept (Matthew 28:19). Hmmmm.
The 'true' mystery? The 'unforgivable' sin is to not 'speak well' of the Holy Spirit. [*]. Mark associates this with having 'demons'. Matthew eliminates the 'Holy' part of the Spirit, but tightens it up with eliminating any demon-justification. And Luke brings back the 'Holy' part of the Spirit, but tightens up the part about speaking against Jesus too. The whole sequence does appear to be quite old (pre-Paul). Makes you wonder.
THE 'TRINITY' WAS NOT A BIBICAL CONCEPT" (maybe a 'bi-nity')
BACKGROUND: I've never really understood 'the trinity'. But I don't worry too much because, judging from 2000 years of discussion, it's definitely NOT an obvious concept. One God (monotheism) but actually three! Personally I think that's not possible. If you have three, then you have three. Not one. As usual, I don't know why having one or three is absolutely crucial. The early jews were unique, since they had only one god (everyone else needed a lot more). The Israelite YHWH was so powerful, he could handle rain issues, crop issues, protecting the nation (if they were good), and even specifying extremely detailed worship requirements. Maybe when Jesus showed up with the surprise information that YHWH also had a son ... that might have been too much.
PROBLEMS: The underlieing cause is Jesus 'the son of God'. In the Old Testament a 'son of God' was simply a true believer and one very righteous. But Jesus referred to God as his 'father' and he would 'return' to live with his father. No confusion there. For a while, the human/spirit concept of Jesus on earth was a big question (thus 'gnostics'). But gospel writers had given Jesus plenty of human experiences, including getting thirsty on the cross, and eating fish after his death. No spirit there! After his return to heaven and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the next problem was how many gods were up there? From the dawn of time (Genesis), there had been just the one [*](plus his spirit). Now there were up to three (God, Christ and the Holy Spirit). It never really said there were actually 'three' gods. So in one of the final verses of Matthew (Mat 28:19), all three are listed as the basis for baptism, by Jesus himself. This, itself, had a problem. A number of early manuscripts didn't list the three, Eusebius in the 4th century didn't mention them in his quoting the section and none of the other gospel writers listed the three in equivalent passages. Another instance crept into later manuscripts (1 John 5:7): 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' So, the issue must have been a question mark for believers back then. Today, you'll only find this as a verse footnote.
ISSUES: Certainly all three are discussed in the New Testament. A good example is Paul in 2 Cor 13:14, where all three are listed with the bonus of Jesus being first. So, today, when you subscribe to 'the trinity', what are you subscribing too? All three are certainly in the New Testament. No question there. But the three as one? Not sure what that means. Oh, and what about a 'bi-nity'? Check out John 10:30.
THE GOSPEL OF PAUL WAS NOT THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
BACKGROUND: As discussed above, the gospels, although first in the New Testament, were likely written later than the Pauline letters. But the subject of the gospels (Jesus) clearly precedes Paul, since Paul says he met Jesus ('appeared'). So, when you discuss a possible transition of theology, there's possibly three parties involved ... Jesus, Paul and the gospel writers. And as you analyze the gospels, you can speculate on which is 'Jesus' and which are the gospels writers (as if you can tell). And similarly, you can speculate on which is true 'Paul' and which are later textual insertions (a fourth possible party). Frankly, I don't know if the gospels represent adjustments nor whether Paul has textual insertions. So, here I'll just deal with what we now have.
PROBLEMS: My overall impression of Jesus is a person that is quite angry at the jewish religious 'separatists' (Pharasees) and the jewish penchant for substituting religious behavior for an authentic humbleness. In many ways, his teachings are similar to the Old Testament prophets who criticized jewish sacrificial behavior versus true rightousness. The gospels (especially Mark) present his miracles as more a healing doctor, rather than evidence of divinity (often instructing those around him to 'keep quiet'). Of course, when he begins to discuss his divinity, everyone wants 'signs' (as if the miracles hadn't already occurred). At one point, he says only one sign will be given. [*] Later, John presents the miracles as numbered signs of divinity. Jesus discusses the kingdom of God, says it will be coming, says he'll be killed and says he'll return to be with his Father. If the Bible stopped here, I personally think you have a pretty believable and impressive story (including the witnesses' inability to match-up the details).
ISSUES: However (!), Paul probably precedes the above story. And ignoring Acts (which traditionally is attached to Luke), Paul's version is not even remotely the same. Indeed, when I read Paul, I'm not even sure he's talking about the same guy. The only details in common are the name, divinity, got crucified, and was raised (resurrection). There is also one sentence that adds post-resurrection witnesses though no ascension (see 1 Cor 15:5-7, but in another letter there's a really odd ascension discussion). Paul, instead of discussing the evils of religiousity, launches into why a son of God would even visit earth and get killed in the first place. He introduces many quotes from the Old Testament (their Bible) predicting Jesus (though not as specific as the gospel writers later) and goes through the logic of 'from the beginning' effectively placing Jesus right there at the time of Adam/Eve's first sin. He treats the crucifiction as a sacrifice (something well known to jews and greeks but not us), and connects it to mankind's inherent bad behavior (grace/sinfulness/atonement concepts).
The icing on Paul's cake is that simply by 'believing in Jesus', one can attain eternal life (presumably after dieing). James (unknown as to which James) comes back (later?) with the need for 'works' ... believing equals behavior. And 'works' are suspiciously close to 'religiousity', the original problem that Jesus was questioning. So, today, you see churches that appear to be just the opposite of Jesus and Paul, looking most like the Pharasees.
Actually, I think Paul is mainly an apologist (prover) of Jesus to the jews spread out in asia. The big challenge of converting jews was to anchor Jesus in the jewish tradition. The mystery then would be 'why didn't Paul actually discuss Jesus' main theological thrust?' Again, my guess ... the sayings of Jesus are already in common distribution and discussion. I know ... that's a really pure stretch.
You can almost see the 'divide' in theology in the early chapters of Acts. The new believers sell 'all that they had' and shared (like Jesus discussed). They discussed what they had seen and heard, with Stephan even getting stoned to death. Just like Jesus said. But then theology begins to intervene (as opposed to history-telling). 'The Gentiles appear.'. And suddenly the 'Jesus-vs-religiousity' disappears. Most commentators that I've read present Acts as a complete book of Luke. Looking at the syntax analysis, Acts is closer to Mat/Mark, not Luke. And internally, it sure appears like Acts is a digest of older writings. But I'm still not sure a theological shift occurred as result of a new audience of gentiles.
INSPIRATION WAS NOT PROVEN
Background: 'Inspiration' ... in-breathing of the spirit. The hebrew 'ruach' of the Old Testament. There's two ways you can look at inspiration. One is from God's perspective ... communication beyond just one person (meaning the ability of the person to communicate the message to the next person and have it believed). The other is from the point of view of the 'other person', dealing with someone who claims to have had messages from God. In the latter case, we tend to quickly associate the person with mental issues. And you wonder if in the times of Jesus, whether that same thought existed among jews and greeks (Jesus' family indeed thought he had a problem). But from God's point of view, inspiration is probably a real challenge ... getting the message beyond the first person. The whole process hinges on the credibility not of God, but of the first person ... so ironic. Usually this is achieved by special powers (miracles and wonders), agreement by the surrounding community (indian shamen), or the charismatic power of the claimant (Rev Jones at Jonestown).
Problems: The Old Testament essentially had two sources of validation: the agreement of the jewish community and priests, and for Christians, the New Testament writers' statements. The New Testament itself is actually quite similar: the agreement of the Christian community and its leadership. So, the selection of both Old and New Testament books is largely a trust in both communities. For example, if you trust those churches (actually their bishops) that valued the books of Jude and Revelation, then you logically trust these books.
Or do you? There's actually two layers of trust: (1) the 'book includers' just discussed and living about 300ad, and (2) the initial listeners living about 60ad. Let's say you heard from your jewish buddies about 'Christus' and his followers, and something about Christus being killed by the romans! A man named 'Paulus' is in town, and you go to the synogogue out of curiousity. Paulus is quite convincing. He's very educated and knows the 'writings' very well. You didn't really notice before, but the predicted messiah certainly appears to be Christus. Your friends are not happy at all with Paulus (blasphemer!!), and now they're not happy with you either (blasphemer!). You begin meeting with the 'hagios' (saints) and meet others convinced just like you (and probably loose all your jewish friends too). You listen to letters from Paulus, and even see some 'signs and wonders' performed (gifts). You probably won't even die! You, dear friend, have become a 'witness'. Is Paulus inspired? He says he is.
Issues: The idea of 'inspiration' is a real question. Some try to use the divine message itself as a way to compare. Hopefully the divine part will be different from the human messages. Or the consistency of multiple messages over time (hmmm, that's a two-edged argument). I base the bulk of my own belief on what Jesus argued (unique then and even more unique today). Plus the commitment of the believers themselves. The loss of family, friends and potentially their lives. I suppose I could suspect they were too quick to believe? Actually just the opposite ... the witnesses seem to be the least believing. Why?
Unless you are witness to the impossible (miracles etc), I don't think you can have proof of inspiration. Faith, yes. But not proof. You have to satisfy your own belief. And that was the act demanded for Jesus for eternal life. Ironic but truly simple.