You know the most frequent comment about my book? And not just here but in general? "My, you certainly did a lot of research!" I'm not sure that this is a compliment. In fact, it's probably not.
What I did with my book, which I thought was new and controversial and oh-so-clever, was that instead of giving the characters Hebrew names (like Simon), I gave them Aramaic or Greek names, like Shlomo or Andreas. And instead of keeping the Latinized names of places, I restored the old Jewish names, like Arimathea became Ramathai. It is amazing what a change in name will do, because instead of having a white European vibe, it gives it a Middle Eastern one.
I also wrote in a style consistent with First Century literature. I have read First Century literature, mostly Roman, but since I don't speak Latin, I've read the translations, but still, I think the tone and syntax is there. This, however, makes for a difficult and clunky read unless one is willing to wade through the style. But what I wanted to do was write a book that actually seemed like it had originally been written in the First Century. A book for historians and intellectuals, as it were.
Furthermore, just to keep it consistent and true, I didn't quote the Bible. I quoted the Talmud, which was being compiled at the time. Jesus wouldn't have known squat about the New Testament, but he would have known what was going into the Talmud. (And this is not to say that I have studied the Talmud, but I do have a nifty little book entitled something like "The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud.") I wrote several chapters regarding the different religious groups of the time, and history, and what passed for "current events" in the First Century. It was, in fact, extremely well-researched and historically accurate. Better than Josephus, because unlike Josephus, I wasn't kissing up to the new Emperor. And the book makes sense. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. It's an excellent read for people with common sense who want perspective and reject the fear-and-faith-based religions.
And so far, nobody has read it.
Okay, so that's not precisely true. My son James has read it, but he did the final editing, so he pretty much had to. My friend Dorothy has read it in one of its previous incarnation, before it reached its final form, but hasn't read it since. I sent my aunt a copy, and she hasn't read it. My other son David hasn't bothered to read it, and neither has my cousin, who was, to date, the last person to actually buy a copy. My mother sent the copy that I had given her to her cousin in England, who criticized it and since my mother hadn't read it, she wasn't able to defend my work against her cousin's criticisms, not that she would have, anyway. And of course the people who published it, XLibris, haven't read it because that's not what they do. Their job was to take my money and produce a book. The quality of book-making is good, and I got two books published for the price of one, but still....
So I am back in the salt mine again, and this time, I am dumbing down the book. Characters have their old names back, or maybe their gentrified nicknames. I haven't decided about changing the place-names back to the old familiar ones. But the plan is to eliminate most of the historical perspective and descriptions, and to change the title to one less likely to piss people off. For the moment, I have settled on Messiah.
It took me ten years to finish The Heretic's Gospel, and I have about a year and a half to get the revised and re-titled version up to speed so that I can publish it without getting into trouble with XLibris. It will be more readable, like The Reader's Digest is more readable than The New Yorker. God willing, The Heretic's Gospel will still be available somewhere if one just looks for it, and God willing, people will actually want to buy and read Messiah.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Of Gods and Men
So I was watching "Atlantis" on BBC America this morning, and the King, I noticed, seemed to think that he was a god. Now, the gist of this series is this: The hero of the story, whose name escapes me, has been transported back in time to Atlantis, which bears a passing resemblance to ancient Crete and the Minoan civilization, which only makes sense since Atlantis was supposed to have been an island in the Mediterranean or possibly the Atlantic Ocean. (I, personally, think that Plato made the whole story up, but that's a whole nuther issue.) And ancient Crete did bear a passing resemblance to a combination of ancient Phoenicia and ancient Egypt. And the ancient Egyptians and ancient Phoenicians did tend to think of their kings as gods, especially the ancient Egyptians. The Babylonians, Syrians, and other Middle Eastern sorts, also tended to have kings who thought of themselves as gods and demanded to be treated as such.
The ancient Greeks, however, did not think of their kings as gods. As a matter of fact, they made a big damn deal about it. If a king, prince, or just a mortal man thought of himself as a god, or tried to emulate the gods, or set himself up to be worshiped as a god, the real gods, according to the myths, went after him big time. Not even those few demigods who were promoted to full god-head were originally kings. Princes maybe. Illegitimate off-spring of gods and mortal women or semi-mortal women or Titanesses, usually. But not kings. And even those kings who were considered, or considered themselves, the offspring of gods or goddesses did not get promoted to full god-head and go to live on Olympus with the other immortal beings.
By the way, as near as I can figure (thanks, Wikipedia!), in Greek mythology, only three demigods were promoted to Olympus: Asclepius, Dionysus and Heracles. The rest of them, and there were probably hundreds of them, became constellations, founded cities, founded dynasties, had poems written about them, and/or had shrines erected to them, but none of them, besides the aforementioned three, were promoted to Olympus. Of these three sons of the gods Apollo and/or Zeus, two were princes and one was a commoner, but they were so uncommon that they became the gods of healing, wine and strength, respectively.
What is interesting to note about the Greek gods and goddesses is how very human they were, themselves. They got pissed off. They got jealous. They fell in love. They fell in lust. They did not want mortals honing in on their particular specialty. They were tender with some and vindictive with others. They did not respond well to ridicule. They liked to torment some people and loved others as one would love a pet. In short, they didn't pretend to be perfect, emotionless, and as immovable as stone.
Most importantly, you could blame the gods or goddesses or Fate for whatever happened to you that you didn't deserve, and the gods and goddesses would not punish you for assigning blame to them. Furthermore, if you said the right prayers and offered the right sacrifice, you felt as though you might be able to coax them into removing their curse. I bet that the ancient Greeks were not even half as guilt-ridden and neurotic as we modern folk are wont to be.
The ancient Greeks, however, did not think of their kings as gods. As a matter of fact, they made a big damn deal about it. If a king, prince, or just a mortal man thought of himself as a god, or tried to emulate the gods, or set himself up to be worshiped as a god, the real gods, according to the myths, went after him big time. Not even those few demigods who were promoted to full god-head were originally kings. Princes maybe. Illegitimate off-spring of gods and mortal women or semi-mortal women or Titanesses, usually. But not kings. And even those kings who were considered, or considered themselves, the offspring of gods or goddesses did not get promoted to full god-head and go to live on Olympus with the other immortal beings.
By the way, as near as I can figure (thanks, Wikipedia!), in Greek mythology, only three demigods were promoted to Olympus: Asclepius, Dionysus and Heracles. The rest of them, and there were probably hundreds of them, became constellations, founded cities, founded dynasties, had poems written about them, and/or had shrines erected to them, but none of them, besides the aforementioned three, were promoted to Olympus. Of these three sons of the gods Apollo and/or Zeus, two were princes and one was a commoner, but they were so uncommon that they became the gods of healing, wine and strength, respectively.
What is interesting to note about the Greek gods and goddesses is how very human they were, themselves. They got pissed off. They got jealous. They fell in love. They fell in lust. They did not want mortals honing in on their particular specialty. They were tender with some and vindictive with others. They did not respond well to ridicule. They liked to torment some people and loved others as one would love a pet. In short, they didn't pretend to be perfect, emotionless, and as immovable as stone.
Most importantly, you could blame the gods or goddesses or Fate for whatever happened to you that you didn't deserve, and the gods and goddesses would not punish you for assigning blame to them. Furthermore, if you said the right prayers and offered the right sacrifice, you felt as though you might be able to coax them into removing their curse. I bet that the ancient Greeks were not even half as guilt-ridden and neurotic as we modern folk are wont to be.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Judaism, Now and Then
Please note that I do not pretend to be an expert on Judaism. I'm just a knowledgeable amateur, an armchair historian and cultural anthropologist, as it were. I'm not even Jewish. I'm nominally Episcopalian, but for an Episcopalian, I am probably as close to being Jewish as any Gentile is likely to get without actually converting. I considered it because I think that Judaism is a lot more forgiving and less rigid than Christianity, but the way that Israel has been behaving toward the Palestinians, I could not, in all good conscience, throw my hat in with Israel, so there goes my conversion. Anyway....
I read an article in Yahoo News today about Jewish men in prison, written by a Jewish man who had gone to prison, so I guess he would know. And he talked, in this article, about the Lubavitchers, the Bobovers, the Sephardim, the Falasha, the Satmars and the Sabras, and I am thinking, "What the hell are those???"
So I looked them up. A Lubavitcher is a follower of a certain Orthodox Hasidic sect. They are, according to the Online Dictionary, formerly Eastern European, optimistic and hospitable missionaries who stress the importance of studying the Torah and/or the Talmud. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A Bobover is a follower of another peaceful Hasidic sect who follow the teachings of a particular dynasty of rabbis from another Eastern European village. (I really should have written down which villages these sects came from, but I didn't, and my computer connection has been sketchy.) The Sephardim are Jews from Southern Europe. "Falasha" refers derogatorily to Ethiopian Jews. The Satmars follow the teachings of yet another strictly Orthodox Hasidic sect, from yet another rabbinic dynasty from yet another Eastern European village, and they tend to be very antagonistic toward other Jewish sects, anti-Zionists, and anti-assimilation.
While back in the day, two thousand years ago, there were the Sadducees (Tzaddikim), the Pharisees (Perushim), the Essenes (Hasidim), the Zealots (the Malkhut beit David), the followers of John the Baptist (Mandaeans), and the Nazarenes (Notzrim), today, there are other groups, as there are many streams that flow into the river that leads to God, and ever has it been thus. The Hasidim have changed considerably from the days when they were all New Age-y, environmentalist, and touchy-feely. Now, they are a distinctly clannish part of the Orthodox movement, which is kind of like being an extremist version of Evangelistic Christianity or radical Islam. There is also the Conservative movement, the Reform movement, the Reconstructionist movement and the Humanistic Judaism movement. All of these movements reflect certain philosophies that try to answer the question of God's existence, how people can best get close to and serve God, how to further the cause of civilization, and how to make the world a better place.
I read an article in Yahoo News today about Jewish men in prison, written by a Jewish man who had gone to prison, so I guess he would know. And he talked, in this article, about the Lubavitchers, the Bobovers, the Sephardim, the Falasha, the Satmars and the Sabras, and I am thinking, "What the hell are those???"
So I looked them up. A Lubavitcher is a follower of a certain Orthodox Hasidic sect. They are, according to the Online Dictionary, formerly Eastern European, optimistic and hospitable missionaries who stress the importance of studying the Torah and/or the Talmud. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A Bobover is a follower of another peaceful Hasidic sect who follow the teachings of a particular dynasty of rabbis from another Eastern European village. (I really should have written down which villages these sects came from, but I didn't, and my computer connection has been sketchy.) The Sephardim are Jews from Southern Europe. "Falasha" refers derogatorily to Ethiopian Jews. The Satmars follow the teachings of yet another strictly Orthodox Hasidic sect, from yet another rabbinic dynasty from yet another Eastern European village, and they tend to be very antagonistic toward other Jewish sects, anti-Zionists, and anti-assimilation.
While back in the day, two thousand years ago, there were the Sadducees (Tzaddikim), the Pharisees (Perushim), the Essenes (Hasidim), the Zealots (the Malkhut beit David), the followers of John the Baptist (Mandaeans), and the Nazarenes (Notzrim), today, there are other groups, as there are many streams that flow into the river that leads to God, and ever has it been thus. The Hasidim have changed considerably from the days when they were all New Age-y, environmentalist, and touchy-feely. Now, they are a distinctly clannish part of the Orthodox movement, which is kind of like being an extremist version of Evangelistic Christianity or radical Islam. There is also the Conservative movement, the Reform movement, the Reconstructionist movement and the Humanistic Judaism movement. All of these movements reflect certain philosophies that try to answer the question of God's existence, how people can best get close to and serve God, how to further the cause of civilization, and how to make the world a better place.
Friday, May 2, 2014
On Beer and Urine and a Little Off-Topic
So there was an article on Yahoo News yesterday, which I finally got around to reading this morning, about how scientists think that they have discovered that the stones destined for the pyramids of Giza were moved because water was poured on the sand in front of them as they were hauled along, otherwise the sand would bunch up. (And for this bit of insight, they had to earn a PhD, first.)
Yeah, but water? Water is a little hard to come by in the desert, even one that was a little wetter some 3500 years ago.
Yeah, but water? Water is a little hard to come by in the desert, even one that was a little wetter some 3500 years ago.
On the other hand, you know what was easier to come by? Beer and its byproduct, urine. Those ancient Egyptian construction workers drank lots of beer, and even went on strike because they objected to being denied their quota. The resulting urine was free, easily internally-transported by individuals until needed, and could be gathered into pots and urns and poured out at some designated place. And the thousands of Egyptian workers would produce an almost infinite amount of urine, all for free. (And we have already determined that free is good, even 3500 years ago.)
So my questions de jour are: What are the chemical effects of beer on urine; are the sands of the Egyptian desert different in chemical composition from the sands of, say, your average beach; what are the chemical effects of urine on the sands of the Egyptian desert; and would beer-laced urine, poured onto Egyptian sand, produce any chemical changes that would improve one's ability to pull heavy objects across said sand, as compared to water? If, for instance, the ammonia crystals in the urine reacts to the silicon or kaolin of the sand, does this result in a temporary binding of the crystals which makes for a smoother road, at least until the ammonia has thoroughly evaporated? If so, this could solve the riddle that has plagued Egyptologists and other interested parties for ages.
So, one at a time.
1. What are the chemical effects of beer on urine?
2. Are the sands of the Egyptian desert different in chemical composition than other kinds of sand?
3. What are the chemical effects of urine on the sands of the Egyptian desert?
4. Would beer-laced urine, poured onto Egyptian sand, produce any chemical changes that would improve one's ability to pull heavy objects across it?
If anybody with knowledge of chemistry should happen to know the answers to these questions, I would be happy to hear from you in the comment section.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Questions, I get questions
So people ask me, "Gabe, what is so heretical about your book?" And so I give them the following reasons: (Spoiler Alert.) "In my book...."
1. Jesus was not conceived as the result of a union between God or an archangel or the Holy Spirit or some unknown Roman soldier and a virgin. He was conceived the old-fashioned way, as the result of a union between a lawfully married husband and wife. Yes, Joseph and Mary, who were Jewish, were married before Jesus was conceived, and he was the firstborn son of Joseph, not God, and he was Jewish, too. On the other hand, it is quite possible that he was conceived on the night that Joseph and Mary got married, and that up until the honeymoon, Mary was a virgin. That does happen sometimes, that women keep their virginity until after the wedding ring is securely on their fingers. But that does kind of takes the magic out of it, doesn't it?
2. Jesus was not an only child. (Actually, many Protestants already know this.) He had brothers and probably sisters, and all five brothers were named in the canonical gospels. Ergo, Mary did not stay a virgin after he was conceived. If there really were a real "Virgin Mary," it would be Miriam, Jesus' fiancee, who waited for thirteen years to marry him.
3. There was no Slaughter of the Innocents. King Herod had other troubles than with tiny peasant boys. Several of his grown sons tried hard to usurp his throne and he had to have them executed. There were factions that campaigned against him, and they had to be put down. Five would-be Messiahs rose up during his last few years on the throne, and they and their thousands of followers had to be executed. What were a handful of little peasant toddlers going to do to him, that he should call for their extermination?
4. Jesus was educated, had gone to school, knew how to read and write, and knew his scriptures and his Oral Law which was made into the Talmud. In fact, I have a little book called The Wisdom of the Talmud and many of the sayings written therein were things that Jesus was said to have quoted in the regular Bible. Since it is highly unlikely that Jewish scholars would have quoted Jesus, Jesus would have quoted them.
5. The Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes were actually Essenic hymns, not things that originated with Jesus. Actually, very little of what was written in the Bible are things that originated with Jesus. He was a great quoter.
6. Judah did not betray Jesus. Jesus asked him to turn him in to the Jewish authorities if the Romans were going to arrest him for treason, because he stood a better chance of getting a fair trial if he went before Jewish judges than Roman ones. Judah did what Jesus asked, and has taken the heat for the "betrayal" ever since.
7. It was not Jesus' intention to die for our sins. Judaism already had mechanisms in place for the expiation of sins. It was Jesus' intention to, if necessary, trade his life for the lives of his followers, friends, disciples and loved ones, since, if you cut off the head of a snake, the body will die. King Herod, when he was alive, had a nasty habit of executing all of the would-be Messiahs' followers, but by the time his son, Prince Antipas, came to rule Judea, dissidents were imprisoned, not executed, and he was still in power when Jesus rose to prominence. However, it was entirely possible that the thousands of people who followed Jesus would be put to death if he led an uprising against the Herodians, the Romans and the Status Quo, and Jesus wanted to avoid that. Therefore, since "it is better for one man to die for many, than for many to die for one man," Jesus was willing to offer his life, if he had to, to save the lives of thousands.
8. The Jews were not to blame for Jesus' death. They weren't even present at the time that Pilate ordered his execution. Pilate worked out of Antonia's Fortress, the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem, a place where no decent Jewish person would go, because it was made for and inhabited by the Roman military who were pagans. The people who clamored for Jesus' death were, therefore, Romans.
9. Jesus did not suffer greatly after the trial. Whether he was God's biological son or not, he was God's favorite son, and God, as his spiritual father, simply would not allow his son to suffer, any more than you or I would allow our children to suffer.
10. Jesus did not die on the cross, nor were crucifixions nearly as gruesome as they have been made out to be. The object of a crucifixion was to make the felon serve as an example to the public, and let them die slowly. Jesus "died" way too quickly, which is why I say that he was knocked out and then, through a series of amazing events (thunderstorm, earthquake, the fortuitous presence of enough people to help him, who was unconscious, down from the olive tree) he was rescued and escaped. His disciples, being frightened little men, would not have known that he escaped, would have believed the prophesy about how the Messiah was supposed to be three days in the grave before arising from the dead, and they could only write what they believed was true, whether it was really true or not. And that is how the stories began.
So the question on the table is, do these heretical ideas warp, ruin and otherwise destroy the story of Jesus as the Son of God.? No. Even if Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God...and on the third day he rose again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end, he was and continues to be the Son of God and God's favorite son. He might have died on the cross or olive tree, or he might have died in his sleep some thirty-three years later in Britain just before the Jewish Wars broke out. He might have bodily ascended into heaven from a mountaintop during Penacost, or his immortal soul might have floated gently up to be enveloped in the folds of the Aurora Borealis and thence become One with God on his 66th birthday. He might have been a blissed-out and benign demigod, or he might have been an average man who gives hope and divine forgiveness to other average men. We don't know. We cannot know. And that's all right. Even without the dog and pony show, the smoke and mirrors, and the ecumenical song and dance, he was and is still the spiritual Son of God and an inspiration to what we all should be.
1. Jesus was not conceived as the result of a union between God or an archangel or the Holy Spirit or some unknown Roman soldier and a virgin. He was conceived the old-fashioned way, as the result of a union between a lawfully married husband and wife. Yes, Joseph and Mary, who were Jewish, were married before Jesus was conceived, and he was the firstborn son of Joseph, not God, and he was Jewish, too. On the other hand, it is quite possible that he was conceived on the night that Joseph and Mary got married, and that up until the honeymoon, Mary was a virgin. That does happen sometimes, that women keep their virginity until after the wedding ring is securely on their fingers. But that does kind of takes the magic out of it, doesn't it?
2. Jesus was not an only child. (Actually, many Protestants already know this.) He had brothers and probably sisters, and all five brothers were named in the canonical gospels. Ergo, Mary did not stay a virgin after he was conceived. If there really were a real "Virgin Mary," it would be Miriam, Jesus' fiancee, who waited for thirteen years to marry him.
3. There was no Slaughter of the Innocents. King Herod had other troubles than with tiny peasant boys. Several of his grown sons tried hard to usurp his throne and he had to have them executed. There were factions that campaigned against him, and they had to be put down. Five would-be Messiahs rose up during his last few years on the throne, and they and their thousands of followers had to be executed. What were a handful of little peasant toddlers going to do to him, that he should call for their extermination?
4. Jesus was educated, had gone to school, knew how to read and write, and knew his scriptures and his Oral Law which was made into the Talmud. In fact, I have a little book called The Wisdom of the Talmud and many of the sayings written therein were things that Jesus was said to have quoted in the regular Bible. Since it is highly unlikely that Jewish scholars would have quoted Jesus, Jesus would have quoted them.
5. The Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes were actually Essenic hymns, not things that originated with Jesus. Actually, very little of what was written in the Bible are things that originated with Jesus. He was a great quoter.
6. Judah did not betray Jesus. Jesus asked him to turn him in to the Jewish authorities if the Romans were going to arrest him for treason, because he stood a better chance of getting a fair trial if he went before Jewish judges than Roman ones. Judah did what Jesus asked, and has taken the heat for the "betrayal" ever since.
7. It was not Jesus' intention to die for our sins. Judaism already had mechanisms in place for the expiation of sins. It was Jesus' intention to, if necessary, trade his life for the lives of his followers, friends, disciples and loved ones, since, if you cut off the head of a snake, the body will die. King Herod, when he was alive, had a nasty habit of executing all of the would-be Messiahs' followers, but by the time his son, Prince Antipas, came to rule Judea, dissidents were imprisoned, not executed, and he was still in power when Jesus rose to prominence. However, it was entirely possible that the thousands of people who followed Jesus would be put to death if he led an uprising against the Herodians, the Romans and the Status Quo, and Jesus wanted to avoid that. Therefore, since "it is better for one man to die for many, than for many to die for one man," Jesus was willing to offer his life, if he had to, to save the lives of thousands.
8. The Jews were not to blame for Jesus' death. They weren't even present at the time that Pilate ordered his execution. Pilate worked out of Antonia's Fortress, the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem, a place where no decent Jewish person would go, because it was made for and inhabited by the Roman military who were pagans. The people who clamored for Jesus' death were, therefore, Romans.
9. Jesus did not suffer greatly after the trial. Whether he was God's biological son or not, he was God's favorite son, and God, as his spiritual father, simply would not allow his son to suffer, any more than you or I would allow our children to suffer.
10. Jesus did not die on the cross, nor were crucifixions nearly as gruesome as they have been made out to be. The object of a crucifixion was to make the felon serve as an example to the public, and let them die slowly. Jesus "died" way too quickly, which is why I say that he was knocked out and then, through a series of amazing events (thunderstorm, earthquake, the fortuitous presence of enough people to help him, who was unconscious, down from the olive tree) he was rescued and escaped. His disciples, being frightened little men, would not have known that he escaped, would have believed the prophesy about how the Messiah was supposed to be three days in the grave before arising from the dead, and they could only write what they believed was true, whether it was really true or not. And that is how the stories began.
So the question on the table is, do these heretical ideas warp, ruin and otherwise destroy the story of Jesus as the Son of God.? No. Even if Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God...and on the third day he rose again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end, he was and continues to be the Son of God and God's favorite son. He might have died on the cross or olive tree, or he might have died in his sleep some thirty-three years later in Britain just before the Jewish Wars broke out. He might have bodily ascended into heaven from a mountaintop during Penacost, or his immortal soul might have floated gently up to be enveloped in the folds of the Aurora Borealis and thence become One with God on his 66th birthday. He might have been a blissed-out and benign demigod, or he might have been an average man who gives hope and divine forgiveness to other average men. We don't know. We cannot know. And that's all right. Even without the dog and pony show, the smoke and mirrors, and the ecumenical song and dance, he was and is still the spiritual Son of God and an inspiration to what we all should be.
The Animals on the Roof
So I keep hearing that people in the Middle East like to put their animals on the flat roofs of their homes instead of, say, in a barn or corral. And I am thinking, "Why on earth would you want your chickens, ducks, geese, cows, goats, donkeys and sheep up on a roof? How would they get there? The stairs? And how would they get down? The goats, I can see, because they like to climb, but cows? And how would you get your ducks and geese to stay there? Chickens, I understand, flutter, but ducks and geese can fly. It just doesn't make sense." The only reason I can think of as to why one would keep one's domesticated animals on the roof was to keep them away from predators. But if cows, sheep and donkeys can climb stairs, so can wild animals who are meat-eaters.
In my book, Hezzie the donkey lived in the workshop on the first floor, presumably safe and sound and locked in a stall. But then again, I based the town of Parazah partly on the little Jewish eastern European villages and partly on big city ghettos where people live in apartments above their shops, and there is nothing to say that it wasn't like that at all. Apartments have been around for thousands of years, and the ancient Persians invented what are basically strip malls, and who is to say that people didn't live on the second floor?
Furthermore, Jesus' mother did not strike me as the kind of girl who was particularly adept at country life. She was from the more affluent town of Arimathea, and was a suburban princess, not someone who was accustomed to gathering eggs or milking cows. This is also why shops and marketplaces were invented, because not everyone makes cheese, beheads chickens or putters around in a vegetable garden if they can possibly avoid it. The one concession I made to the country life was that Mariyam made the family's beer, because back then, that's what women did, along with making bread. But otherwise, Jesus' families were townies, and speaking as a townie, we just don't do cows and chickens and vegetable gardens, as a general rule.
In my book, Hezzie the donkey lived in the workshop on the first floor, presumably safe and sound and locked in a stall. But then again, I based the town of Parazah partly on the little Jewish eastern European villages and partly on big city ghettos where people live in apartments above their shops, and there is nothing to say that it wasn't like that at all. Apartments have been around for thousands of years, and the ancient Persians invented what are basically strip malls, and who is to say that people didn't live on the second floor?
Furthermore, Jesus' mother did not strike me as the kind of girl who was particularly adept at country life. She was from the more affluent town of Arimathea, and was a suburban princess, not someone who was accustomed to gathering eggs or milking cows. This is also why shops and marketplaces were invented, because not everyone makes cheese, beheads chickens or putters around in a vegetable garden if they can possibly avoid it. The one concession I made to the country life was that Mariyam made the family's beer, because back then, that's what women did, along with making bread. But otherwise, Jesus' families were townies, and speaking as a townie, we just don't do cows and chickens and vegetable gardens, as a general rule.
Friday, April 18, 2014
When is a Gospel is not Gospel?
Now, I don't pretend to know anything about theology or religion. I didn't go to Hebrew School or a Bible college or some kind of seminary. I didn't even go to Sunday School. In religion, there is too much fuzziness, too much debate, too much that is unknown. That is why, when I wrote The Heretic's Gospel, I concentrated on the known: archaeology, history, politics, mythology and human nature. Things you can point to and look at and hold in your hand and quantify.
Besides, if you look at the word "Gospel," you would see that one of its meanings is "God's Word." And I know that's how, for most of my life, I viewed the New Testament. To me, it was the Truth, a factual record of the actual events that occurred some, now, two thousand years ago. Like most people, I took the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at face value, as gospel, as it were, as though it were dictated by God.
And then I began to think about it.
The oldest narrative, according to Wikipedia, is the Gospel According to Mark. Mark was a "companion" of Simon Peter, so he didn't know Jesus, but only knew what Simon Peter (Shlomo) had told him. The Gospel According to Mark was written, according to scholars, between 66 AD and 70 AD. Even if Mark had written it in his middle-age, and even if Jesus had died on a cross some thirty-three years before Mark wrote his book, we are talking about a thirty-three to thirty-seven year gap between Jesus' ministry and the telling of his story. This is the year 2014. Thirty-seven years ago, it was 1977. My son David was two years old in 1977. I was there, and I don't remember much. And if I had a friend who had a friend whom he had told all about me, I seriously doubt that my friend's friend would remember all of the niggling details of my life some thirty-seven years ago.
After that, we have the Gospel According to Matthew, written between 80 AD and 90 AD. I read somewhere that Matthew had written his gospel for money, and based his book on what he had read in The Gospel According to Mark. Matthew, if he did write that book, at least knew Jesus, whom Mark had never met. Still, he also would have been in his early old-age by the time he wrote it. I'm sixty, and I have trouble remembering stuff. Unless Matthew had a fantastic memory, he probably got stuff wrong, too, which is why there are such differences between the two gospels.
Directly after Matthew's book on Jesus was published, Luke published his own book, The Gospel According to Luke. Luke was a Gentile physician, according to the stories told of him, and a friend of Paul of Tarsus, who, like Mark, had never met Jesus. So we are talking at least three degrees of separation. And Luke was an educated man, well-versed in Greek mythology, and he put many mythic flourishes in his book, probably in order to enhance sales, to tell a better story, and to appeal to the Greek Gentiles. His book was written between 80 and 100 AD.
The last canonical gospel, The Gospel According to John, was written, according to Wikipedia, in 200 AD. Obviously, if Wikipedia is correct, John didn't write it, because he would have had to have been around 183 years old when he did. So it was written by somebody else and ascribed to him. And possibly, that person knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew John who knew Jesus. Six degrees of separation. On the other hand, some experts say that the book was written in 90 AD. However, considering that John was a half-mad recluse, and was probably thirteen years old when he hung around Jesus in the early thirties, he would have been in his early seventies when he wrote his book, if indeed he did, which would be a good reason why it reads as crazy as it does.
After that, we have The Gospel According to Mary (written between 120 and 180 AD), The Gospel According to James (written in 145 AD), The Gospel According to Philip (written no earlier than 150 AD), The Gospel According to Judah (circa 180 AD), The Gospel According to Thomas (circa 340 AD) and The Gospel According to Nicodemus (written in around 350 AD.) Many of these books were found with the Gnostics, a sect that competed with Roman Catholic Christianity, and since Roman Catholicism won, the influence and theology of the Gnostics all but vanished.
So, what happens when a bunch of people who view the same event are asked to write about said event? They tend to have different viewpoints that have been influenced by where they were standing at the time, what they heard, what they smelled, how they felt, and their previous experiences. For example, let's say that six people, a nurse, a lawyer, a mechanic, a barista, a homeless person and a politician, see a car accident between a Mercedes and a Ford on the corner of Sixth and Main. The nurse, who was outside of a medical clinic on the northwest corner, would have a different view of the accident, than the lawyer standing outside his office on the southeast corner. The mechanic on the northeast corner would see, smell, hear and perceive a different reality than the barista serving her customers on the southeast corner. The homeless person may have been sitting on the curb and he would see a different accident than the politician whose limo was next to the Mercedes in question. And of course, the Mercedes driver and the Ford driver would have two entirely different and conflicting stories to tell.
Furthermore, it is likely that blame would be assigned according to the witnesses' biases. The nurse, the lawyer and the politician may see the Mercedes driver as completely innocent, just because they all tend to be well-off. The mechanic, the barista and the homeless person may see the Ford driver as completely innocent, because they all tend to have limited means. And biases affect viewpoint and memory. Which is why the evidence is so important. Evidence is like Science, and Science (theoretically) doesn't care. And that is what the cops are for, to take witness statements, but also to gather evidence by measuring the tire-marks, gathering evidence of paint and then leaving it to the experts to know what happens when a Ford hits a Mercedes and when a Mercedes hits a Ford.
So what's the point? The point is that people wrote the Gospels, and people have flawed memories and biases and agendas. So really, there are no Gospels, since the Gospels, as well as the entire Bible, were written by people and not dictated word-for-word by God.
Besides, if you look at the word "Gospel," you would see that one of its meanings is "God's Word." And I know that's how, for most of my life, I viewed the New Testament. To me, it was the Truth, a factual record of the actual events that occurred some, now, two thousand years ago. Like most people, I took the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at face value, as gospel, as it were, as though it were dictated by God.
And then I began to think about it.
The oldest narrative, according to Wikipedia, is the Gospel According to Mark. Mark was a "companion" of Simon Peter, so he didn't know Jesus, but only knew what Simon Peter (Shlomo) had told him. The Gospel According to Mark was written, according to scholars, between 66 AD and 70 AD. Even if Mark had written it in his middle-age, and even if Jesus had died on a cross some thirty-three years before Mark wrote his book, we are talking about a thirty-three to thirty-seven year gap between Jesus' ministry and the telling of his story. This is the year 2014. Thirty-seven years ago, it was 1977. My son David was two years old in 1977. I was there, and I don't remember much. And if I had a friend who had a friend whom he had told all about me, I seriously doubt that my friend's friend would remember all of the niggling details of my life some thirty-seven years ago.
After that, we have the Gospel According to Matthew, written between 80 AD and 90 AD. I read somewhere that Matthew had written his gospel for money, and based his book on what he had read in The Gospel According to Mark. Matthew, if he did write that book, at least knew Jesus, whom Mark had never met. Still, he also would have been in his early old-age by the time he wrote it. I'm sixty, and I have trouble remembering stuff. Unless Matthew had a fantastic memory, he probably got stuff wrong, too, which is why there are such differences between the two gospels.
Directly after Matthew's book on Jesus was published, Luke published his own book, The Gospel According to Luke. Luke was a Gentile physician, according to the stories told of him, and a friend of Paul of Tarsus, who, like Mark, had never met Jesus. So we are talking at least three degrees of separation. And Luke was an educated man, well-versed in Greek mythology, and he put many mythic flourishes in his book, probably in order to enhance sales, to tell a better story, and to appeal to the Greek Gentiles. His book was written between 80 and 100 AD.
The last canonical gospel, The Gospel According to John, was written, according to Wikipedia, in 200 AD. Obviously, if Wikipedia is correct, John didn't write it, because he would have had to have been around 183 years old when he did. So it was written by somebody else and ascribed to him. And possibly, that person knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew John who knew Jesus. Six degrees of separation. On the other hand, some experts say that the book was written in 90 AD. However, considering that John was a half-mad recluse, and was probably thirteen years old when he hung around Jesus in the early thirties, he would have been in his early seventies when he wrote his book, if indeed he did, which would be a good reason why it reads as crazy as it does.
After that, we have The Gospel According to Mary (written between 120 and 180 AD), The Gospel According to James (written in 145 AD), The Gospel According to Philip (written no earlier than 150 AD), The Gospel According to Judah (circa 180 AD), The Gospel According to Thomas (circa 340 AD) and The Gospel According to Nicodemus (written in around 350 AD.) Many of these books were found with the Gnostics, a sect that competed with Roman Catholic Christianity, and since Roman Catholicism won, the influence and theology of the Gnostics all but vanished.
So, what happens when a bunch of people who view the same event are asked to write about said event? They tend to have different viewpoints that have been influenced by where they were standing at the time, what they heard, what they smelled, how they felt, and their previous experiences. For example, let's say that six people, a nurse, a lawyer, a mechanic, a barista, a homeless person and a politician, see a car accident between a Mercedes and a Ford on the corner of Sixth and Main. The nurse, who was outside of a medical clinic on the northwest corner, would have a different view of the accident, than the lawyer standing outside his office on the southeast corner. The mechanic on the northeast corner would see, smell, hear and perceive a different reality than the barista serving her customers on the southeast corner. The homeless person may have been sitting on the curb and he would see a different accident than the politician whose limo was next to the Mercedes in question. And of course, the Mercedes driver and the Ford driver would have two entirely different and conflicting stories to tell.
Furthermore, it is likely that blame would be assigned according to the witnesses' biases. The nurse, the lawyer and the politician may see the Mercedes driver as completely innocent, just because they all tend to be well-off. The mechanic, the barista and the homeless person may see the Ford driver as completely innocent, because they all tend to have limited means. And biases affect viewpoint and memory. Which is why the evidence is so important. Evidence is like Science, and Science (theoretically) doesn't care. And that is what the cops are for, to take witness statements, but also to gather evidence by measuring the tire-marks, gathering evidence of paint and then leaving it to the experts to know what happens when a Ford hits a Mercedes and when a Mercedes hits a Ford.
So what's the point? The point is that people wrote the Gospels, and people have flawed memories and biases and agendas. So really, there are no Gospels, since the Gospels, as well as the entire Bible, were written by people and not dictated word-for-word by God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)