The Artifact

by Quinn, Jack

  “What would you have done?” Callaghan asked her.

  A deep frown replaced the look of suspicion on Paula’s face. “That’s why Harrington wants to...take you?”

  Callaghan leveled his hard stare at the FBI agent. “The government is afraid I’ll try

  to exonerate myself and my people by revealing I was acting under orders until we knew

  precisely what it was. Your boss doesn’t want to arrest, Agent Najarian.”

  “He wants to stop any more broadcasts before you do any more damage,” Paula told him “or based on what you just revealed, tell the world that someone at the highest level in Washington was complicit in your evasion.”

  “They kept their distance from the stolen document until we had it translated,” Geoff said. “Now they want possession to decide how to handle it.”

  “When I seemed to go rogue, rejecting their order to destroy or turn it over,” Callaghan

  continued, “and announced we’d reveal it to the great unwashed, they decided to take us out.”

  Paula was getting verification of the full picture that she had only suspected. “Since they failed to stop that, they’re going to make sure you don’t try to save your skin by incriminating the administration in the artifact theft or their intention to trash it.”

  “Harrington and his puppeteers would never believe we don’t intend to implicate the government,” Cassandra told her.

  “That would just antagonize the American people and every nation in the world,” Callaghan added.

  Paula’s tone was sarcastic. “Good, upstanding patriots.”

  “Hard habit to break,” Geoff said.

  Callaghan rose from his chair to stand before her with hands on hips, citing her options. “So you can either help us get our story out to the public and try to prevent more bloodshed. Or stay locked in a little room upstairs while we do our job.”

  CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

  New York City

  December 2005

  That evening, a panel representative of the major Christian religions convened in the studios of FOX TV that would feed the program to all other networks, affiliates, independent channels and radio stations throughout the U.S. and international broadcast outlets via satellite. The overhead lights of studio ‘A’ were dimmed as electricians adjusted their spots on the individuals seated around the semicircular table. A group of pooled media reporters crowded into a high, glassed-in VIP booth above thee production floor-crew, and were hushed by the director as the audible countdown descended from ten to one. Camera three focused on moderator Sinclair Roberts, religions editor of the New York Times, as he opened the Artifact analysis and discussion.

  Seated at the far right end of a curved table, Roberts was an atypical network anchor, distinguished, youthful journalist with sandy crew cut, gray cheviot jacket over blue chambray shirt and yellow butterfly bow tie. His appearance notwithstanding, he had matriculated from Yale Divinity School with honors and earned his masters degree in journalism at Columbia.

  He spoke to the camera on signal: “Good evening. All but three of us seated around this table tonight are devout Christians. Most of us still maintain that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the one true God, despite the irreverent postulations in the Shimon autobiography. These representatives of several major Christian religions and erudite historians feel bound to share with you our opinions of that amazing document tonight. Our faith is strong. We trust yours is, too. Please hear us out.”

  Roberts completed his opening remarks with a brief summary of the document highlights, then introduced the panelists, inviting each in their turn to offer general remarks on the document text.

  Episcopal Bishop Clarence Wooly, ruddy-cheeked, white-haired, ascetic septuagenarian, wore a black suit and shirtfront with the stiff white collar of a simple cleric. Wooly was far from that, however, having snared his position at the highest echelons of the Anglican church by dint of extensive knowledge of Christian doctrine and cogent defense of moral values, abetted by manipulation and guile.

  “Shimon seems to have discredited several biblical tenets,” Woolly began. “The most outrageous is his denial of the Resurrection. Without that singularly miraculous event, Jesus is just another itinerant rabbi, which undermines His messianic qualities as the Son of God and Christianity itself. Whatever the motives or ignorance of his self-proclaimed sibling, we must challenge that assertion vigorously.”

  University of Southern California Professor of Ancient History and cautious agnostic, Eleanor Buxton, was a matronly woman attired in a suit of green linen. Her shoulder-length graying hair was coiffed in bangs. She wore no jewelry, save a gold cross on her lapel, little makeup, and an expression of pleasant expectation. Buxton was the Chairperson of Religious Studies at USC, had authored several texts on early Christianity, and was considered one of the

  foremost scholars on the emergence of Christianity during the first five centuries of its evolution.

  “Doesn’t this forum have an opportunity, an obligation to clarify any biblical disputations made by Shimon? Most of us know the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Gospels, but we have hidden them from lay Christians for two millennia. This seems like an ideal time to share them and let our faithful decide for themselves.”

  Camera three moved to Monsignor John Gallagher, S.J., arguably the leading Catholic authority on first century and biblical origins, a dark-haired, sharp-featured man in his forties with carefully trimmed Vandyke beard and alert demeanor, who wore a black soutane and mantel, the wide red sash and biretta of his office. A large gold cross hung from a gold chain around his neck. Gallagher was an American prelate on temporary assignment to the Vatican, who it was whispered had the ear of the pontiff, fluent in English, Italian, and conversant in ancient Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic.

  “That could be extremely disconcerting for a great number of Catholics. I’d warrant that most Christians wish to feel confident in the clerical interpretation of our basic doctrine and leave the more esoteric debates to us. The Resurrection is documented in all four Gospels by the empty sarcophagus on Easter Sunday and subsequent appearance of Jesus to His apostles.”

  “In direct contradiction to James’ casual explanation of the Roman rule governing crucifixions,” Moderator Roberts offered, “that the family of an executed man was prohibited from removing the corpse of their loved one from the cross, and his body left on the ground to buzzards and other carnivores after death.”

  Conrad Douglas was the reigning proponent of active atheism, his main thesis being that religions had fostered more evil in the world since recorded time, and probably before that, than any other concept or philosophy on Earth. A British subject, he had published eight books on the topic, the last three best-sellers, and roamed the western world to speak before large audiences and accept frequent invitations to be interviewed on television and radio talk shows. In his mid-fifties, Douglas sported longish, well-groomed salt and pepper hair, was attired in a conservative, Seville Row double-breasted navy pin-striped suit, white shirt, fore-in-hand rep neck tie and careless, matching silk pocket square.

  “All of which makes more sense than allowing the body of an enemy of Rome to be buried with liturgical ceremony. None of the Biblical accounts of the crucifixion are credible: if they nailed a condemned man to the crosspiece, as they admittedly did on occasion, he would die from loss of blood in minutes, instead of tied to it with rope to suffer for hours under a burning sun, as buzzards pecked away his eyes and hunks of flesh. It also makes more sense for Pilate to have conducted a clandestine trial: if he was concerned about an uprising that he believed Jesus was promoting, he would never have held a public trial or given the crowd an opportunity to pardon the mysterious Barabbas and endorse the execution of Jesus. Although minor details, the crosses were already set up on Calvary, so there was no reason for Jesus to carry one up there, nor did He seem to wear a crown of thorns. Shimon certainly would have mentioned these things, ostensibly made up by som
e bible writers to inject additional drama into the event.”

  Congregational Bishop Peter Chandler, a rotund man in his sixties with a bald head, dark skin surrounding eyes set close together, was attired in a navy pin-striped suit with Tattersall vest. The credentials of this renowned expert on ancient Middle Eastern peoples and events included his publication of the defining text spanning the five hundred years in that region from 250 B.C.E to 250 C.E.

  “There is little question that Saint Paul was a vigorous proponent of Christianity. But why does Shimon denigrate his efforts and demean the man? Jealousy? Embarrassment? Guilt?”

  “Another major contradiction by Shimon is the conception of Jesus by a virgin Mary,” Buxton said. “Religious scholars and historians have argued for centuries that the Bethlehem birth just doesn’t hold water. The biblical rationale for Mary and Joseph’s 100-kilometer journey from their home in Nazareth was for Joseph to register in the city of his birth for tax purposes. How then, would the tax collectors know to levy his taxes where he worked in Nazareth if he was registered in Bethlehem? All four gospels claim their second son was birthed under the legendary star predicted in the Old Testament. Both of which should put to rest the contention of a virgin birth.”

  Elizabeth Montserrat, PhD., an alluring blonde of indeterminate age, whose saffron sweater clung to rounded breasts beneath a navy blazer, fingered the small gold cross on a delicate gold chain. A professor of ancient Christian philosophy at the Harvard Divinity School, author of several texts on the subject, Montserrat was one of the most respected theologians in academia.

  “The trip itself defies logic,” she said. “A woman in the eighth or ninth month of her pregnancy riding the bony back of a donkey some sixty, seventy miles? Working in the fields to the day of her delivery would be one thing, but not two or three days bouncing on the spine of a beast of burden over an uneven dirt or even cobblestone or plate-metal road.”

  The video cut back to Conrad Douglas. “Some historians have discovered ancient tracts that refer to the young daughter of a wealthy merchant who was raped by a trusted Roman officer. The pregnant girl was then betrothed to a widowed old carpenter in order to save the girl and family from dishonor. A virgin birth constitutes a far less damaging account of Jesus’ conception than rape.”

  The obsidian face of the Reverend Thomas Lukey, Evangelical minister, scowled at the camera through gold-rimmed glasses perched mid-way down his flared nose, habitually raising and lowering his shaven head to look through and over the rectangular lenses to fix his contentious gaze on the largest television audience in the history of that or any other medium. Lukey’s obese frame was draped in a dazzling white suit, black silk shirt buttoned at the throat minus necktie and a handkerchief of black silk in his breast pocket. The dissentious revivalist was an eminently qualified, if de facto peer selection for this forum by dint of his own Sunday morning syndicated TV program and political activism.

  “That is blasphemy! I hope we are not setting our respective congregations up for an

  overthrow of the Holy Bible. This so-called autobiography may be authentic, but what about the man’s motives? Jealousy of an older brother by a crippled runt? A tired old Jew out to confuse his brother’s followers and degrade His accomplishments? Maybe he was a Roman sympathizer, or paid by the Sanhedrin to undermine the Messianic qualities of the innocent Son of God they had crucified.”

  Professor Monserrat’s retort was low-key, but insistent: “We must be prepared to admit to the central fact that many Bible stories are gross exaggerations or outright fiction. Propaganda designed to prove the claim that Jesus, the risen Christ or Messiah, is the Son of God. The enthusiasm, if you will, by well-meaning scribes, clerks, copyists and Christian saints in no way nullifies that premise. Regardless of the Shimon autobiography, these tenets will continue to be debated for centuries.”

  “Debates are for non-Christians,” Reverend Lukey said. “Like ...Islamics, Jews, Buddhists. If you’re a Christian, as most of us, you believe the word of the Lord as contained in the Holy Bible. Period, end of discussion”

  Rabbi Avram Feinstein was the ex-officio guardian of the reformed Jewish religion in America, holding sway from the Congregation Shearith Israel synagogue on central Park West in New York city, the most populous area of Jews outside Israel. The middle-aged authority on Jewish history was attired in yarmulke, horn rimmed spectacles the size of quarters, a suit of navy blue, and white shirt buttoned at the neck beneath his full black beard whose secondary purpose seemed to mask a perpetually amused smile. Feinstein was not only a confidante of the mayor of the teeming metropolis, but one of the most favored consultants to the President on domestic

  matters pertaining to his religion.

  “I believe the debates to which the Bishop refers are more historical than religious. Few as

  they might be, there are written accounts of the lives and times of first-century Palestinian Jews—

  Josephus, Eusebius....”

  REVEREND LUKEY: What do you know about it?

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: Quite a bit, it so happens. I am a Jew like the ancients we are talking about. Also a student of Jesus’ life and time on earth, my own ancient history of my race. Your Bible includes what you call the ‘Old Testament’ that contains our canon of scripture, our Law, Hagiographa and Prophets.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: It is well-known among Biblical scholars that during the first two hundred years of the Common Era, the various Gospel writers did go back into Jewish Scripture to validate certain facets of Jesus’ Biblical role as Messiah. His birth in Bethlehem attended by three men of great wisdom bearing gifts for the newborn Messiah under a brilliant constellation was just one of the prophesies used by Mark and other synoptic gospel editors.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: The Bible editors clearly had the advantage of looking back on Old Testament stories. It seems they used certain prophecies to validate Jesus as the Messiah. Shimon is writing in Common Era 72, only thirty-five years after his brother’s crucifixion. At that time what was known as the Jesist movement did not generally consider Him the Messiah. Nor were Jesists running off on the tangent of a new religion. Their main concern was trying to accommodate some of the more troublesome teachings of Jesus with the Laws of Judaism. In the three or four decades after His death, most people thought of Jesus—if they thought of Him at all, as just one more failed prophet of which there were literally hundreds roaming the countryside. Except for tiny Jesist coteries around Jerusalem, Jesus was regarded as a simple, country rabbi who espoused the immediacy of the Kingdom of God, which had not occurred. He had been put to the most ignominious death at the hands of the very people against whom He had preached. The most astounding miracle is how this tragic, ineffectual young Rabbi came to be the Son of God for over two billion people today.

  As for contradicting the Gospels, Shimon wrote at least twenty years before Mark, the first of the four authoritative tracts comprising the bulk of the New Testament. He apparently knew Jesus intimately, as any of us would know our own brother. I stand in awe of that relationship and Shimon’s words as written. On the other hand, it will be decades, possibly centuries, before the Catholic Church or any other decides if and how to assimilate this autobiography into Christian dogma.

  REVEREND LUKEY: We should not prepare our flock to throw 2000 years of sacred doctrine out the window at the appearance of some diatribe whose purpose is highly suspicious. The man admits he is a fighter, the very opposite of his brother’s teachings, a coward who ran away from battle to pen his memoirs. Would you believe this sycophant over the hallowed words of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John?

  DR. Monserrat: I am in a quandary over this document. I feel a great unease at what the man has written. Surely, we fervently hope that his challenges to the gospel do not undermine our critical beliefs. Yet I cannot credit his duplicity or reason for it. Remember, this document is not a biography of Jesus, but an account of Shimon’s own life. Did all Jews of the time really claim King David as a progenit
or? Does this mitigate the royal lineage allegation of Joseph the carpenter? Shimon’s references to his brothers and other family members are casual, seen through his eyes as a youngster. He does not seem to have an agenda or underlying purpose to his writing—that are extremely candid and confessional—except to expiate his soul for misdeeds. Where the unvarnished truth lies is another question.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: Jesus as described by his little brother sounds more like a modern hunk

  than the slender ascetic of parables portrayed by artists and sculptors. The most fascinating part of the autobiography we have heard is Shimon’s claim or rather James’ conclusion, that his young brother possessed what we call today, a ‘photographic memory.’ The core of the New Testament, the four Gospels, seem to have been written up to one hundred years after Jesus’ death, and in all probability underwent substantial editing by tens of thousands of subsequent copyists, translators into hundreds of languages of the time, and Jesist advocates. We all know that errors occurred in the interpretation of words and ideas from one language to another, mistakes in wording, the copyists’ understanding of the text before him, and just plain errors. What was the source of the first written account of Jesus’ life? Hearsay, hyperbole, disingenuous patrons?

  None of His contemporaries, therefore, disciples or apostles could have been the direct source of stories about or quotes attributed to Him, his parables. From an analytical standpoint, we are faced with many disturbing questions regarding these Gospels. Although they surely retold notable instances and reminiscences repeated by His closest followers, there is no evidence that anything like an oral history of Jesus’ short public life was passed on from one to another in any disciplined or systematic way. How accurate then, are the precise words attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writers? How reliable are the accounts of His miracles? Does Shimon’s flawless memory provide a more accurate picture of Jesus? Before making any judgment regarding the efficacy of Shimon’s manuscript to shed a brighter light on the real Jesus, we must carefully analyze every word and implication of his tale.