What Did Jesus Do?

Christus_Ravenna_MosaicAdam Gopnik asks some tough questions about Jesus, “reading and unreading the Gospels,” in the New Yorker:

When we meet Jesus of Nazareth at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, almost surely the oldest of the four, he’s a full-grown man. He comes down from Galilee, meets John, an ascetic desert hermit who lives on locusts and wild honey, and is baptized by him in the River Jordan. If one thing seems nearly certain to the people who read and study the Gospels for a living, it’s that this really happened: John the Baptizer—as some like to call him, to give a better sense of the original Greek’s flat-footed active form—baptized Jesus. They believe it because it seems so unlikely, so at odds with the idea that Jesus always played the star in his own show: why would anyone have said it if it weren’t true? This curious criterion governs historical criticism of Gospel texts: the more improbable or “difficult” an episode or remark is, the likelier it is to be a true record, on the assumption that you would edit out all the weird stuff if you could, and keep it in only because the tradition is so strong that it can’t plausibly be excluded. If Jesus says something nice, then someone is probably saying it for him; if he says something nasty, then probably he really did.

So then, the scholars argue, the author of Mark, whoever he was—the familiar disciples’ names conventionally attached to each Gospel come later—added the famous statement of divine favor, descending directly from the heavens as they opened. But what does the voice say? In Mark, the voice says, “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased,” seeming to inform a Jesus who doesn’t yet know that this is so. But some early versions of Luke have the voice quoting Psalm 2: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Only in Matthew does it announce Jesus’ divinity to the world as though it were an ancient, fixed agreement, not a new act. In Mark, for that matter, the two miraculous engines that push the story forward at the start and pull it toward Heaven at the end—the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection—make no appearance at all…

[continues in the New Yorker]

, ,

  • tonyviner

    I am not a biblical scholar or anything of the sort, but I can tell you all you will ever need to know about Jesus: He never existed. They made him up to sell product after product after product. The sad thing is that it has worked without fail for two thousand years. Schmucks will buy what they're told to, I guess.

    • mcgibbo

      who are “they”

      • tonyviner

        If anyone made up Jesus of Nazareth, it would have been the author of Mark's Gospel, which appears to have been written in 70 CE. At least we know that the other New Testament gospels were based, directly or indirectly, on Mark, and that those authors knew nothing of the life and mission of Jesus apart from what they read in Mark.

        Even if Mark invented Jesus of Nazareth, Hebrews seems to predate the Gospel of Mark and yet it refers to Jesus. But Hebrews refers to Jesus as a High Priest in heaven, not as a human who lived on earth in the recent past. Arguably, the Jesus of Hebrews was not the Jesus of Nazareth whom Mark describes.

        Or, perhaps Paul is the one who invented Jesus Christ. Actually, Paul’s account is not his own invention, but the inclusion of a creedal statement that was already widely believed before he wrote his letter. Paul is “passing on what he received,” a phrase that for Jews referred especially to the faithful handing down of sacred traditions.

        Maybe it was the Piso family. The Pisos felt that they had a 'right' to make a new religion based on Judaism, because they were descendants of the Herodian/Hasmonean hierarcy that appointed the Jewish High Priests.

        Arrius Piso was called 'Mountanus' in History. His name was Arrius, which is 'Mars'. In Acts 17:22 they insert Arrius' name by mentioning 'Mars' Hill'. That is 'Arrius Pagos', by making Arrius synonomus with 'hill' they make him a small mountain. If you stood at the bottom of Mars' hill, you could call it a mountain. But then others may argue that you were “making a mountain out of a mole-hill.” Although, that's exactly what the writers of the New Testament did. The above phrase was an inner-circle reference, because the Hebrew word for 'mole' also meant 'chamelion', which Arrius Piso certainly was, as he blended himself into the background of 'history'.

        • mcgibbo

          I don't understand why a Roman family would want to make up something that wouldn't have really caught on in their lifetimes, I reckon there was some bloke that might or might not of been called Jesus that did something in that area that changed the way the world thought forever. What he did exactly I'm not too sure about I know people draw parallels between Christ and Osiris/Dioynysius and there is supposed to have been some sort of sect in the ancient world which worshipped a God man that was sacrificed based around a Osiris-Dioynysius cult, but I still think something dodgy happened with a Jew that changed the world forever. Probably one of those Jewish conspiracies for world domination, how ironic that if they'd stuck with the Nazarene they'd be kings of the world by now.

          • tonyviner

            Hindsight is always 20/20 my man.

          • justagirl

            oh, hey! sorry i'm late. (lol)

        • Tuna Ghost

          I hear this “jesus was made up by somebody” theory fairly often, and it's always backed by shitty reasoning. To decline from offering motive is a huge mistake. Motive is a huge factor. What possible motive can you posit for one man, one author, “making up” the Gospel of Mark? Also you cannot prove at all that the other Gospel authors “those authors knew nothing of the life and mission of Jesus apart from what they read in Mark”, because it most likey isn't true. Where would the non-synoptic gospel of John come from? Or the gnostic gospels? Wait, what's that? There's also a two-source theory about the gospels that you've never heard of?

          Paul had a huge impact on later Christianity, but again the motive factor falls flat–why invent a religion only to have yourself playing second fiddle (even on the human side) in it such that you have to go to such great lengths to have the effect he did? Also, why would anyone believe him in the first place if there were no corroborating stories?

          The Piso thing I have never heard of, but the reasoning you go through is so completely retarded that I feel there's really no need to go into it.

          The historicity of Christ is very murky, this I will not deny. There are many reasons for supposing that Christ did not exist, or at the least that he did not do many (or any) of the miracles with which he is associated. And there are many theories for how a cult based on a fiction could have come about and rose to power the way the Church did. You have, for some reason, neglected to mention any of these in favor of some half-thought-out Zeitgeist-style bullshit.

          You would do well to remember that, although the “Christ never existed and you have no contemporary historical documents proving he did” theme is popular right now, most scholars do still believe that it is likely that there was a Jewish teacher in Jerusalem at the time mentioned in the gospels who lived and taught something similar to what one can find in the Gospels and was eventually put to death for sedition against Rome, which was a popular charge at the time. Surely, given the history of the area that we DO know for certain, that isn't at all difficult to believe?

          • tonyviner

            You're right, I did not think it out very well, but I guess the reason is that I really don't care. It started as a joke that you guys have decided to take way too seriously. To me it all comes down to the fact that you can prove God's existence no more than I am able to prove his non-existence. That sounds like a pretty fair trade, right? Past the concept of Jesus not existing, I probably don't believe any of what I wrote, just so you know, for later.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Well no one mentioned God's existence as far as I know, so I'm not sure why that's an issue.

            Re: the hitoricity of Christ: it's an issue to be taken seriously. Aside from the fact that the Church derives its authority from the Gospels and other books from teh New Testament, stories found therein like The Passion have been used to legitimize anti-semitic behavior for the past 1500 years. If people were to realize that there is no actual historical proof for that sort of thing, it would lose some of it's power to hurt and marginalize. People would have to go back to hating a group of people for no good reason, aside from “'cuz they killed Jesus, it's HISTORY”.

  • justagirl

    i read the new yorker for the cartoons. their articles are usually very disappointing. like this one for instance.

  • justagirl

    oh, hey! sorry i’m late. (lol)

  • Dekkerfraser

    As much as I wanted to believe what you said, I can’t deny that the Gopsel of Mark does discuss the resurrection.

  • Dekkerfraser

    Ugg…how do I delete my posting