The Case for the Real Jesus
Page 16
THE QUR’AN VERSUS THE BIBLE
I picked up my well-worn copy of the Qur’an from the coffee table. “You say Jesus was killed by crucifixion, but on the contrary, Muslims believe Jesus never really died on the cross,” I said to Licona. Finding the fourth surah, I read aloud verses 157–58:
That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;—but they did not kill him, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they did not kill him;—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise…2
I closed the book and continued. “There seem to be two possibilities: either someone was made to look like Jesus and the Romans killed that person, or Jesus was on the cross but Allah made it appear he died when he really didn’t. They put him in a tomb, Allah healed him, and he was taken to heaven. Aren’t those possible scenarios?”
Licona’s posture straightened. “Well, anything is possible with God,” Licona said, “but the real question is where does the evidence point? In other words, the question does not concern what God can do, but what God did. And the Qur’an is not a very credible source when it comes to Jesus.”
“You don’t believe the Qur’an has good credentials?”
“The Qur’an provides a test for people to verify its divine origin: gather the wisest people in the world and call upon the jinn, which are similar to demons but without necessarily all the negative connotations, and try to write a surah, or chapter, that’s as good as one in the Qur’an. The implication, of course, is that this can’t be done.”
“Do you think it can be?”
“I think so, rather easily. One person who speaks Arabic wrote what he calls The True Furqan, in which he maintains the style of the Qur’an in Arabic but with a message that’s more Christian than Islamic.3 Some Muslims heard portions of it read and were convinced that it was the Qur’an! One scholar in Arabic dialects told me that some of the classical Arabic in The True Furqan was much more beautiful than anything he had read in the Qur’an. So I guess the test has been passed. For those of us who can’t read Arabic—which, by the way, includes about 80 percent of the Muslim world—we can perform a test by comparing the first surah of the Qur’an to Psalm 19 of the Bible.”
Licona reached over and picked up my Qur’an to read the first surah out loud:
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
You do we worship, and Your aid do we seek.
Show us the straight way.
The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who do not go astray.4
Closing the Qur’an, he then used his laptop computer to access Psalm 19 and read it:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.
By them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Who can discern his errors?
Forgive my hidden faults.
Keep your servant also from willful sins;
may they not rule over me.
Then will I be blameless,
innocent of great transgression.
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight,
O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.
Licona turned to face me. “Both the surah and the psalm talk about the goodness and holiness of God,” he said. “But when you read them—well, the psalm seems much more pregnant with meaning and much more beautiful to me. Granted, the Arabic surah has a poetic rhythm; however, so does the Hebrew psalm, which is actually a song.”
“But,” I pointed out, “Muslims would say you’ve got to read the surah in Arabic because it’s got a particularly beautiful flow in that language.”
“I’d reply, ‘Can you read Hebrew?’” said Licona. “If not, how do you know that the Arabic is better than the Hebrew song, which has a flowing rhythm similar to the surah? It really comes down to what language sounds best to you, sort of like choosing between McDonalds and Burger King. It’s very subjective, don’t you think? That’s why it’s not a good test of the Qur’an’s divine nature.
“In contrast, Jesus provided a historical event—his resurrection—as the test by which we can know his message is true. Now, that’s a good test, because a resurrection isn’t going to happen unless God does it.”
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE QUR’AN
I agreed with Licona—the supposed lyrical quality of the Qur’an was unavoidably a subjective test. “That’s why you don’t believe the Qur’an is credible?” I asked.
“That’s only the beginning of the Qur’an’s problems when it comes to Jesus,” Licona said. “In addition, the Qur’an is fifth-hand testimony at best—the original Qur’an in heaven allegedly coming to us through an angel, then Muhammad, then those who recorded what Muhammad told them, then what was selected by Uthman. Thus, it’s quite hypocritical of Muslims when they complain that two of the Gospels, Mark and Luke, weren’t written by eyewitnesses. On top of that, you’ve got the Islamic catch-22.”
“The what?”
“Let me explain it,” he replied. “We can establish historically that Jesus predicted his own imminent and violent death.”
“How so?” I asked.
“We find this reported in Mark, which is the earliest Gospel, and it’s multiply attested in different literary forms, which is really strong evidence in the eyes of historians. Also, consider the criterion of embarrassment: A lot of times when Jesus predicts his death, the disciples say, no, this can’t happen, or they don’t understand. This makes them look like knuckleheads, so it’s embarrassing to the disciples who are the leaders of the church to put this in the Gospel. This indicates that this is authentic, because you certainly wouldn’t make up something that puts the apostles in a bad light. Consequently, there are good historical reasons for believing Jesus did actually predict his imminent and violent demise.”
“Okay, I think that’s pretty clear,” I said. “But where does the Islamic catch-22 come in?”
“If Jesus did not die a violent and imminent death, then that makes him a false prophet. But the Qur’an says that he’s a great prophet, and so the Qur’an would be wrong and thus discredited. On the other hand, if Jesus did die a violent and imminent death as he predicted, then he is indeed a great prophet—but this would contradict the Qur’an, which says he didn’t die on the c
ross. So either way, the Qur’an is discredited.
“The bottom line is this: unless you’re a Muslim who is already committed to the Qur’an, no historian worth his salt would ever place the Qur’an as a more credible source on Jesus over the New Testament, which has four biographies and other writings dated shortly after Jesus and which contains eyewitness testimony. In historical Jesus studies, I don’t know of a single scholar who consults the Qur’an as a source on the historical Jesus.”
“But you have to admit,” I said, “that it would be hard to prove or disprove whether Allah substituted somebody at the last minute on the cross.”
“Listen, I could come up with a theory that says we were all created just five minutes ago with food in our stomachs from meals we never ate and memories in our minds of events that never took place. How would you disprove that? But the question is: Where does the evidence point? What seems to be the most rational belief? Again, unless you’re a Muslim who already is so predisposed to believing Islamic doctrines that you can’t look at the data objectively in any sense, no one would say that the Qur’an is a credible source when it comes to Jesus.”
“When I heard a Muslim debate this issue, he took the approach that Jesus was on the cross and Allah made him appear to be dead, even though he wasn’t,” I said. “Then he claimed Allah healed Jesus.”
“That creates another problem,” Licona replied. “Wouldn’t this make Allah a deceiver? We could understand it if he deceived his enemies who were trying to kill Jesus. But since we can know historically that Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed that he had been killed and then his corpse had been transformed into an immortal body, this makes God a deceiver of his followers as well. If Jesus never clarified matters with his disciples, then he deceived them too. Why would you deceive your followers if you knew this was going to spawn a new but false religion? And if God deceived his first-century followers, whom the Qur’an refers to as ‘Muslims,’ then how can today’s Muslims be confident that he is not deceiving them now?”
I found Licona’s logic convincing. Simply applying the tools of modern historical scholarship quickly disqualifies the Qur’an as a trustworthy text about Jesus, if for no other reason than the book’s late dating. Scholars quibble over a difference of just a few years in the dating of the New Testament, whereas the Qur’an didn’t come until six centuries after the life of Christ. I also knew, however, that the Qur’an isn’t the only book claiming that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.
I picked up a copy of the 2006 New York Times bestseller The Jesus Papers from the couch next to me. Opening it up, I prepared to question Licona about its eye-opening allegations that seek to refute the crucifixion.
DECONSTRUCTING BAIGENT
“Michael Baigent claims in The Jesus Papers that although the Jewish Zealots wanted Jesus crucified, Pontius Plate was conflicted because Jesus had been telling people to pay their taxes to Rome,” I said, flipping to page 125 and reading to Licona the text that I had highlighted with a yellow marker:
Pilate was Rome’s official representative in Judea, and Rome’s main argument with the Jews was that they declined to pay their tax to Caesar. Yet here was a leading Jew—the legitimate king no less—telling his people to pay the tax. How could Pilate try, let alone condemn, such a man who, on the face of it, was supporting Roman policy? Pilate would himself be charged with dereliction of duty should he proceed with the condemnation of such a supporter.5
“And so,” I continued, “Baigent says Pilate decided to condemn Jesus to placate the Zealots, but he took steps to ensure Jesus would survive so he wouldn’t have to report to Rome that he had killed him. After all, Mike, you’ve already conceded that it’s possible to survive a crucifixion, and Baigent speculates that Jesus had been given medication to induce the appearance of death. In fact, the Gospels indicate Jesus died pretty quickly.
“Set aside the issue of Baigent’s credibility for a moment,” I said. “Let’s just deal with the theory he offers. Doesn’t this undermine your claim that Jesus died on the cross?”
Licona sighed. “Honestly, Lee, this is just so weak,” he said. “First, Baigent claims that aloes or myrrh were used to revive Jesus after his ordeal on the cross. If these common herbs could be used to resuscitate and bring back to health a crucified individual who had been horribly scourged, then why in the world aren’t we using them today?” he asked, his tone indignant. “Why aren’t hospitals using them? They would be wonder drugs! Come on—that’s ridiculous!”
Now he was getting on a roll. “And the idea that Rome would never crucify someone who was supporting them just flies in the face of the facts. Look at Paul—he urged people to obey the governing authorities because God has placed them in charge, yet that didn’t stop Rome from executing him!
“Think about it: if Jesus survived the crucifixion, he’d be horribly mutilated and limping. How would that convince the disciples that he’s the risen prince of life? That’s absurd. Baigent has nothing to back up his wild claims. Look at the writings on the resurrection by legitimate scholars over the past twenty years: only about one in a thousand even suggests it’s possible that Jesus survived the crucifixion. There’s a tidal wave of scholarship on the other side. This is almost in the category of denying the Holocaust!”
I jumped in. “Baigent claims the Bible itself backs up his theory,” I pointed out. “He says that in the Gospel of Mark, when Joseph of Arimathea requests Jesus’ body from Pilate, he uses the Greek word soma, which denotes a living body. In reply, Pilate uses the word ptoma for body, which means a corpse. Says Baigent: ‘In other words, the Greek text of Mark’s Gospel is making it clear that while Joseph is asking for the living body of Jesus, Pilate grants him what he believes to be the corpse. Jesus’ survival is revealed right there in the actual Gospel account.’”6
Licona shook his head in disbelief. “That’s pure rubbish,” he said with disdain.
I pointed at him. “Prove it,” I said.
“Okay,” he said, picking up the challenge. “The truth is that the word soma makes no distinction between a living or dead body. In fact, in Acts 9:37, Luke talks about the death of Tabitha. After she dies, he says they washed her soma, or her body. Obviously, it’s a corpse. In Luke 17:37, it says, ‘Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.’ Again, the word he uses is soma. There’s example after example, even in Josephus, of soma meaning corpse. So Baigent doesn’t know what he’s talking about here either.
“What’s more, Baigent is ignoring the context in Mark. The Gospel makes it clear that Jesus was dead. Mark 15:37 says Jesus ‘breathed his last’; in Mark 15:45, eyewitnesses confirmed Jesus was dead; and in Mark 15:47–16:1, Mary Magdelene and the other women watch Jesus being buried and return Sunday morning to anoint him. They surely thought he was dead. So there’s nothing at all to support Baigent’s claims.”
There was no need to go further: Baigent’s case would be instantly dismissed by any impartial judge. Licona’s first fact—that Jesus was killed by crucifixion—remained unrefuted by any credible counter-argument.
Before we moved on, however, I wanted to ask Licona his opinion about popular writers like Baigent, whose authentic-sounding theories often can be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the other side of the story. “Does it bother you that Baigent’s book was a bestseller and that thousands of people may believe it’s true?” I asked.
“What it shows,” said Licona, “is that people are not only credulous toward this sort of nonsense, but Western culture is looking for a justification for an alternative to the traditional view of Christianity.”
“Why do you think that’s so?”
“There are numerous reasons. Sometimes it’s moral issues,” came his response. “They don’t want to be constrained by the traditional Jesus, who calls them to a life of holiness. One friend of mine finally acknowledged that Jesus rose from the dead, but he still won’t become a Christian because he said he wanted to be the master of his own life—
that’s the exact way he put it. So in many cases—not all—it’s a heart issue, not a head issue.
“Some people just don’t like what Jesus is demanding of them.”
PSYCHOANALYZING PAUL
The next major category of evidence offered by Licona was the appearances of Jesus to the disciples, Paul, and James. Among the most outspoken skeptics on this issue is historian and philosopher Richard Carrier, who holds two master’s degrees in ancient history from Columbia University and is pursuing a doctorate there.
The son of “freethinking Methodists”—his mom was a church secretary—Carrier became a philosophical Taoist at age fifteen and an atheist at twenty-one. He has become a popular critic of Christianity on the Internet, and I once moderated a debate between him and a Christian on national television.
Carrier seeks to explain away the supposed appearance of Jesus to Paul by saying this was merely a “revelation” induced by Paul’s guilt over persecuting Christians and other psychological factors. Carrier writes:
I can hypothesize four conjoining factors: guilt at persecuting a people he came to admire; subsequent disgust with fellow persecuting Pharisees; and persuasion (beginning to see what the Christians were seeing in scripture, and to worry about his own salvation); coupled with the right physical circumstances (like heat and fatigue on a long, desolate road), could have induced a convincing ecstatic event—his unconscious mind producing what he really wanted: a reason to believe the Christians were right after all and atone for his treatment of them, and a way to give his life meaning, by relocating himself from the lower, even superfluous periphery of Jewish elite society, to a place of power and purpose.7
After reading Carrier’s theory to Licona, I asked for his response. “Doesn’t this account for Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus?” I said.
Licona, who had listened intently as I presented Carrier’s argument, clearly didn’t see any merit in it. “The question should be: Is this the best explanation?” he said. “I could offer another explanation—that there was a gremlin from Saturn who posed as the risen Jesus and appeared to Paul. That’s an explanation, but is it the best? I’d say, no, it’s not a very good historical hypothesis—and neither is Carrier’s.”