The more I look at the religion known as Christianity, the
more I realise that it is far from secure, in theological/philosophical terms,
having been built on very shaky foundations.
The Messiah – Really?
At the heart of Christianity is the preacher from Galilee
known as Jesus, to whom posterity has added the name “Christos”, meaning “the
anointed one”. That is the Greek word for the concept, the Hebrew word being
“Messiah”.
At the time that Jesus was alive the land of Palestine was
under Roman rule. Most Jews were content to knuckle under and get on with their
lives as best they could, but there were some who fervently wanted to change
things and had high hopes that a new king would arrive who would lead his
people to overthrow the Romans. Anointing with oil only applied to kings, which
is why the Messiah had to be a king.
The early Christians were convinced that Jesus was the
anointed one, but they saw the anointing as being a heavenly rather than
earthly event. He had been anointed before he was born and therefore fitted the
bill. That concept might raise a few eyebrows as it stands, as it presupposes a
certain suspension of disbelief at the outset.
Fulfilling the Prophesies
The first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels,
include many references to Old Testament passages that, according to the
writers, proved that Jesus was the Messiah. This is where things get very
suspicious indeed.
It is true that there are several references in the Old
Testament to a Messiah who will come to rescue the Jews from their oppression
and overthrow their enemies, but this figure was clearly a long way from the
character of Jesus of Nazareth. However, that did not stop the Gospel writers
from digging up dozens of references that clearly, according to them, pointed
at Jesus.
However, when these references are looked at more closely,
the case for Jesus as predicted Messiah is far from convincing.
Some of the quoted passages make absolutely no reference to
a Messiah. One of these is the very well-known Isaiah Chapter 53 (“Surely he
has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows … He was wounded for our
transgressions , he was bruised for our iniquities” and so on). There is no
indication as to who “he” is, other than “my servant”, and, although some of
this chapter seems to fit the story of Jesus reasonably well, there are verses
in this chapter that do not fit at all and are hence quietly forgotten about in
the context of Christian prophesy.
Other “prophesies” can only be regarded as such with the
application of a good dose of imagination. Passages were yanked out of context
and held to have meanings that it is highly unlikely were intended by their
writers.
An example of the latter is Matthew 2:14/15, which reads: “…
he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and
was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet, saying Out of Egypt I have called my son”. However,
the verse from Hosea (11:1) is clearly not a prophesy at all: “When Israel was
a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”. What could this
possibly be other than a reference to the Exodus led by Moses? Trying to
pretend that Hosea was predicting an incident in the life of Jesus is plainly
absurd.
Both Matthew and Luke (the gospels were written anonymously
and the names by which they are generally known were added later) were keen to
fulfill Biblical prophesy on many fronts, one of them being the birthplace of
Jesus at Bethlehem. The prophesy in this case was by Micah (5:2): “But thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel”.
The gospel writers felt compelled to use this prophesy to
convince their audience (Jewish or Gentile) that the fact of Jesus’s birth in
Bethlehem was proof that what had been predicted had come to pass. But this
leads to further difficulties. For one thing, Micah was talking about a
military leader (no mention of a Messiah) who would sort out the Assyrians who
had already devastated the northern kingdom and might well do the same to the
southern one, which was where Micah lived.
The main problem, however, was that Jesus clearly came from
Galilee and not Bethlehem (not far from Jerusalem). How could this circle be
squared? Writing independently of each other, Matthew and Luke came up with
completely different solutions. Matthew had the parents of Jesus living in
Bethlehem and then moving to Nazareth, after a sojourn in Egypt, and Luke
invented the absurd scenario of a census that forced a heavily pregnant woman
to make a long and dangerous journey to Bethlehem from her home in Nazareth.
Efforts have been made to reconcile these two accounts and
pretend that both could have happened, but these attempts are far from
convincing.
St Paul
There can be very little doubt that Christianity would not
have got going had it not been for St Paul. For one thing, it was his idea to
spread the story of Jesus beyond the realm of Judaism, which is where some
factions of the early Church thought it should stay. Without Paul, Christianity
would have been nothing other than one more sect of Judaism.
It was Paul who developed the theology of Christianity, with
the emphasis on belief as opposed to following rules or doing good works.
According to Paul, belief in the fact that Jesus was the son of God, that his
death relieved the faithful from the burden of sin, and that his resurrection
from the dead opened the way for his followers to go to Heaven, was all that
was necessary.
Given that Paul spread his message to places outside the
immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, and to people who would otherwise never have
heard of Jesus, he had free rein to tell potential converts whatever he wanted
about Jesus as Messiah, and with little risk of being challenged about the
details.
It is well known that many Jesus stories did the rounds in
the early Church, and people have always loved to hear stories, whether true or
not. The four Gospels, which were written after most of Paul’s letters had been
sent to the young churches, were needed to scotch some of the more lurid tales
and also put words into Jesus’s mouth. If people wanted something new other
than Greek mysticism and Roman emperor-worship, Paul was pushing at an open
door.
But was it all a massive confidence trick based on very
little in the way of firm foundations?
The Christian Legacy
I am far from convinced that Christianity is anything other
than a massive cloud floating on air. The very existence of Jesus is difficult
to confirm, given that the evidence outside the texts of the New Testament is
extremely sketchy and dubious.
However, the teachings of Christianity do merit serious
attention. There can surely be nothing wrong in loving one’s neighbour, acting
justly and forgiving one’s enemies. Beyond that, I find the package as offered
very hard to accept.
© John Welford
No comments:
Post a Comment