Sarah Palin and the Ten Commandments

On a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor, Sarah Palin suggested that the United States "create law based on the God of the Bible and the ten commandments." Since she didn't clarify which version of the Ten Commandments she was referring to, let's first take a look at the Ten Commandments Version 1.0 found in Exodus 34:11–27:

Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

A government based on laws like these almost certainly can't fail! "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." I guess Palin wants to make cheeseburgers illegal. If that's what she's planning, she'd better come up with a better plan. After all, "When cheeseburgers are outlawed, only outlaws will have cheeseburgers."

OK, let's give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume she's referring to the Ten Commandments Version 2.1 as found in Exodus 20:3–17. (I'll skip Version 2.0 (Deuteronomy 5:7–21) since it's basically the same as Version 2.1)

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Since this is the God of Israel speaking, it's pretty clear that in order to obey the First Commandment, we're all going to have to convert to Judaism. Since 98% of the U. S. population isn't Jewish, Palin's set herself a rather large goal. C'mon, Sarah! How can you expect everybody to become Jewish when you haven't even converted yourself yet?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I guess the Statue of Liberty has got to go. Mount Rushmore too. All those statues of Jesus people kneel in front of and pray to? Not allowed in Sarah Palin's America.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Some people interpret this Commandment to mean "Thou shalt not swear", but that's not what it says. According to God, you can swear all you want as long as you don't take his name in vain. My prediction is that this will be one of those laws that's on the books, but is never enforced. Really, how could you enforce it?

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

"Manservant" and "maidservant" were the King James way of saying "slave." If Palin wants to bring slavery back, she's bitten off more than she can chew. It just isn't going to happen, Sarah. As for not working on the sabbath day, does Palin seriously think that the US economy won't be devasted if all stores were required to be closed every Saturday? Then there's all those difficult questions as to whether flipping on a light switch counts as work or not. Probably be easier to just not make this a law in the first place. Just saying.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

This is all fine and good as long as you happen to have parents worthy of honoring. What about children who've been sexually abused by their parents? Is Palin going to pass a law forcing them be respectful towards their abusers? And again, how does she plan on enforcing such a law?

6. Thou shalt not kill.

Wow. I'm surprised Palin would come out as against the death penalty, but there it is. It's really brave of her to risk losing her support amongst conservatives and take the moral high road like that.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Really? Right after coming out against the death penalty, Palin is suggesting we start stoning adulterers to death. Some consistency would be nice, Sarah.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

This is already a U. S. law! Finally got one.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

People often interpret this commandment to mean "thou shalt not lie." Fortunately, the Ninth Commandment doesn't say that. As long as you're not bearing false witness against your neighbor, you can lie as much as you like! Major loophole.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

There's that uncomfortable assumption that we're all slave holders again. Enough with the slaves already, Sarah. It's just not going to happen. As far as coveting goes, be honest: how many of you have purchased something such as a pair of shoes, a cell phone, or even a car because you saw someone else had one and you wanted it? Making this a law would be the end of America. If we weren't so obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, the economy would die. Why does Sarah Palin hate American so much?

Morality

I recently listened to a podcast in which a born again Christian said he didn't know where atheists got their morals from. By way of introduction, a born again Christian is someone who cherrypicks out scriptures like Romans 3:28 (Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law) and ignore scriptures such as James 2:17 (Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone).

Born again Christians believe that if we were judged based on our actions alone, all of us would go to Hell because we're all sinners. The only way to avoid this is to accept Christ's sacrifice and all sins will be washed away. If you're the kindest, nicest, most moral person who ever lived, but you don't accept Christ, you go to Hell. If you're the rottenest, meanest, most sinful person who ever lived, but you do accept Christ, you go to Heaven.

There's no point in doing good deeds or avoiding sin. As long as you have faith that Christ died for your sins, you can do whatever you want. This idea really isn't that different from other forms of Christianity which teach that you shouldn't sin, but if you do, you can just repent and it doesn't count. The extreme form of this is the death bed confession, where an entire life of sin is forgiven at the last minute.

Why do Christians wonder where atheists get their morals, when we can just as easily ask where Christians get their morals? If repentance or even simple faith in Christ means you can do whatever you want without being punished, why be good?

Although they're not really enforced, a few states in the US have laws preventing atheists from holding public office, serving on juries, or being witnesses in a trial. If an atheist swears to tell the truth, you can't believe them. However, there's nothing to prevent a Christian from lying then repenting of it later; so in reality, you can't believe them either.

It goes without saying that every person, except for those who die very young, has committed at least one immoral act during their lifetime. It's also common knowledge that some people are more moral than others. There are moral and immoral atheists, moral and immoral Christians. Do these morals come from the Bible?

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

There are numerous scriptures in the Bible which show that slavery is acceptable (Genesis 17:13,27, Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:1-4,7-8,20-21,26-27, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Leviticus 19:20-22, Leviticus 25:39,48-53, Numbers 31:28-47, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). Yet, there are none that say the institution of slavery is bad (although keeping a fellow Jew as a slave is forbidden.) Yet, even the most orthodox believers in the truthfulness of every letter of the Bible don't practice slavery today.

If Christians get their morals from the Bible and the Bible says slavery should be practiced, how come very few Christians today believe that slavery is moral? The fact is, Christians don't get their morality from the Bible. Modern society decided that slavery was immoral despite what the Bible said.

The only way someone can get their morals from the Bible is to pick out the scriptures they agree with and ignore the scriptures they don't. Numerous passages in the Bible, such as the ones advocating slavery, are definitely not moral by modern standards. Both Christians and atheists rely on their own internal sense of right and wrong to tell them which scriptures are moral and which aren't.

Does this internal sense of what's right and wrong perhaps come from God? If so, you'd be forced to say that God changes, since our internal sense of what's right and wrong varies based on culture. Why else would God tell the ancient Israelites to keep slaves and tell modern people they shouldn't?

You might be thinking that morals really aren't different across cultures. Don't all societies believe that murder is wrong? Well, not really. Some cultures believe that killing is wrong no matter what, while others say it's OK to kill in self-defense, in defense of others, for the death penalty, during wartime, by accident, if someone has insulted your honor, etc. The Bible even says it's OK for a parent to kill a disobedient child (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

I recently attended a debate in which a Christian argued that atheists only have subjective morality. Objective morality, he claimed, came only from God. He didn't explain what he meant by objective morality, so I'm left to guess. If objective morality is the same morality found in the Bible, then it's not moral at all by today's standards. If objective morality is our own internal sense of what's right and wrong, why wouldn't atheists have it and why does it change over time? Maybe he meant that to be truly objective about morals, one has to exist outside the universe and not interact with it. If objective morality exists outside the universe, then it's a moot point whether it exists or not since we have no way of accessing it.

If this internal sense of right and wrong doesn't come from the Bible or from God, where does it come from? Part of it comes from evolution. Animals who've never read the Bible or heard of God nonetheless perform acts of kindness towards each other. An ape who steals food gets ostracized and is less likely to reproduce than an ape who shares with the community. Kindness to others ultimately derives from self interest. You're nice to other people because you expect they'll be nice to you in return. Those who don't play by the rules get shunned by society. Those who contribute to society generally get rewarded.

Atheists and born again Christians are moral not because of religion, but because our society teaches us to be moral. The functioning of society is dependent upon the majority of people in that society behaving morally. A society in which rape or murder were acceptable would tear itself apart. Societies value morality because it keeps the people in that society safe. People practice the Golden Rule in order to ensure the inverse of the Golden Rule is also observed: Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

Deconstructing Jesus

In his book, Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M. Price opens by pointing out that scholars in search of the historical Jesus often create him in their own image. Depending on what parts of the scriptural record you consider to be genuine, Jesus could have been a messianic king, a progressive Pharisee, a Galilean shaman, or a Hellenistic sage. However, if Jesus can be interpreted to be whoever you want him to be, it makes the whole question of a historical Jesus meaningless.

In order to uncover the true historical Jesus, we must take away everything which came from a different source. Price points out anachronisms in the Gospels proving certain sayings couldn't have been said during the time of Jesus. For example, there were virtually no synagogues or Pharisees in Galilee until after 70 CE. Also, the term "Rabbi" wasn't used as a title before the second century.

The mystery of what the number 153 means in John 21:11 ("Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.") is solved by turning to Pythagoras. One of the miracles of Pythagoras involved him correctly guessing the exact number of fish in a net. 153 is a significant number to Pythagoreans because it's the sum of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17. It's also what you get when you add 1+(1X2)+(1X2X3)+(1X2X3X4)+(1X2X3X4X5). Also, if you add together the cubes of the three digits in 153, you get 153. It's what Pythagoreans call a "triangular" number.

Price examines the Sufi preserved sayings of Jesus and also notes the similarities between the sayings of Jesus and aphorisms of the rabbis in the Mishnah as well as Cynic and Stoic philosophers. In a very interesting chapter, he details how Rene Girard's scapegoat theory can be applied to the story of Jesus.

Price also devotes a chapter to ancient romance novels such as Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe, Iamblichus' Babylonian Story, the Ephesian Tale of Xenophon, Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon, Longus' Daphnis and Chloe, Heliodorus' Ethiopian Story, and Apuleius' The Golden Ass. A common plot involves the heroine falling into a coma, being prematurely buried, and kidnapped by grave robbers. Her lover is shocked to find her tomb empty, eventually finds her, but gets crucified because the king wants her for himself. The lover is saved from crucifixion at the last moment and is reunited with his love, although he thinks that she's a ghost at first.

Price points out parallels between Jesus and other mythical savior figures (like Dionysus, Jesus turns water into wine and describes himself as a life-giving grapevine (John 15:1-10)). Also, he points out how parts of Jesus' story are borrowed from other messianic figures. The trial of Jesus is lifted straight from the trial of Jesus ben-Ananias as described by Josephus. The cleansing of the temple is based on Simon bar-Giora. Jesus is also based on Cleomenes, Carabbas, Theudas, Jesus ben-Sapphiah, Jesus bar-Abbas, Elymas bar-Jesus and Jesus Justus among others. Jesus is also based on Old Testament figures such as Joshua (which is a variant form of Jesus), Jonah, Elisha, and Moses. Mark's crucifixion account is taken from Psalm 22.

It's not even certain that Jesus was crucified by Pilot since there is another tradition in which Jesus is crucified by Herod. There's also a Jewish tradition that Jesus died in 100 BCE. 1 Corinthians 2:8 and Colossians 2:15 attribute the death of Jesus to spiritual entities rather than earthly rulers.

So, after we remove the borrowed stories and sayings, what are we left with? Nothing. Just as with Hercules, there might have originally been a historical figure behind the myths, but when you strip the myths away, nothing of the historical person is left. If there was an historical Jesus, no information about him survives.

Historical Jesus Criterion

It's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist. However, it's reasonable to assume they don't until evidence that they do exist surfaces. Likewise with Jesus. Until we have proof of his existence, assuming that he didn't exist is entirely reasonable.

There are some who claim that the burden of proof should be on those who claim Jesus didn't exist. After all, it's the minority opinion. The majority of scholars believe Jesus existed, so they're right. The problem with this line of thinking is that truth isn't a democracy. There was a time when the majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth. The popularity of an idea has nothing to do with how true it is. If we really want the truth, we need to examine the evidence. Simply dismissing a theory because it isn't popular is counterproductive.

Another common misconception is that we should assume Jesus existed because of Occam's Razor. It's simpler to say that Jesus existed than to say he was a hybrid Greek/Jewish god who had a biography composed of Old Testament prophecies and a list of Cynic sayings attached to him. However Occam's Razor doesn't state that the simplest explanation is the right one, it states that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is most likely the correct one. Stating that Jesus existed simply doesn't fit the evidence as well as saying he didn't exist (see previous posts).

Some try to discredit those who present evidence that Jesus didn't exist by claiming they have an agenda. An agenda is certainly at work behind recent movies such as Religulous, The God Who Wasn't There, and Zeitgeist. I find it unfortunate that when most people think of the Christ Myth theory, they think of these movies which present a highly simplified and oftentimes counterfactual version of the theory. It's easy to dismiss the theory the way these movies present it.

However, scholars who advocate the Christ Myth theory don't believe that similarities between Christ and other deities alone is evidence for his non-existence. Serious scholars don't think that Christianity was a Roman conspiracy or that it was invented from whole cloth by Paul. It was a gradual process which evolved over hundreds of years. Besides, even if mythicists do have an agenda, it doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong.

Why do scholars doubt the existence of Jesus, but not other historical figures? Actually, some scholars do doubt the existence of other historical figures such as Confucius, Muhammad, Aesop, and William Tell. Some scholars even doubt the existence of Paul and John the Baptist. Socrates is another figure which some scholars think may not have existed, but there is more evidence for his existence than for Jesus. (See http://www.dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates.html.) No one questions the motives of those who doubt Socrates' existence since scholarly curiosity is motive enough.

I could just as easily be writing a blog doubting the existence of Lao Tze, the alleged originator of Taoism. However, I choose to write about the existence of Jesus because I was raised in a predominantly Christian culture and I find the question of Christian origins fascinating. I have no axe to grind, I'm simply interested in the subject. Besides, even if I did have an axe to grind, that wouldn't invalidate the evidence. Shooting the messenger won't change the message.

Except for fundamentalists who believe everything in the Bible is literally true, everyone agrees that the Jesus portrayed in scripture is at least partly mythical. Scholars in search of an historical Jesus use a set of methods to separate the man from the myth. Miracles such as walking on water likely didn't happen, however, could there have been a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans? Since Jesus was a common name and the Romans crucified often, there were no doubt numerous crucified Jesuses, but was one or more of them the basis for the Jesus of scripture?

I don't think it's possible to know for sure one way or the other. However, some scholars think there is evidence for an historical Jesus, so let's examine some of the methods they use to look for him.

Criterion of cultural congruency: A source is more credible if it fits the culture context.

This criterion can help us rule out a lot of sources, but it doesn't help us determine if Jesus really existed.

Criterion of linguistics: Since Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek, anything that only makes sense in Greek wasn't spoken by Jesus.

Again, this is helpful to rule out sources, but not rule anything in. However, as an aside, there was a tremendous amount of Greek influence in Israel before, during, and after Jesus' time, so it's not impossible for Jesus to have spoken Greek.

Criterion of ancientess: The older the source, the more reliable it is.

Fair enough. However, most scholars assume Jesus lived during Pilate's time and this hasn't fully been established. Perhaps the historical Jesus lived further back in history than has popularly been assumed. For example, many scholars assume that Christianity predated Gnosticism, but it could just as easily be the other way around. Christianity could have evolved out of Gnosticism.

G. R. S. Mead presents compelling evidence that Jesus may have lived in 100 BC. The mingling between Jewish and Greek cultures goes back hundreds of years before that. The anachronisms in the Gospels (such as the presence of Pharisees in Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple, Jesus being born and raised in Bethlehem and Nazareth before those cities were founded, and Jesus referring to the murder of Zechariah in Matthew 23:35 long before it happened) prove they were written long after the time of Pilate. Paul provides us with scant details about the life of Jesus. For all Paul tells us, Jesus could have lived earlier than 100 BC. If the Jesus of the Gospels was based on someone who lived hundreds of years before and of whom almost nothing was known, then speaking of an historical Jesus at all is meaningless.

Criterion of embarrassment: Anything that would have been embarrassing to the early Christians must have really happened, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it.

The problem with this criterion is that we can only guess what would have been embarrassing to the early Christians. The criterion of embarrassment is often used to prove that Jesus was crucified as a criminal because early Christians would have been embarrassed to admit that. Why would the crucifixion of their leader be embarrassing? Mormons aren't embarrassed by the fact that Joseph Smith was shot to death in jail. Having a leader considered an outlaw by the authorities is far from embarrassing if you consider the authorities evil and your leader wrongfully executed.

Criterion of attestation: If two or more independent sources state the same thing, the event must predate both sources.

This is tricky, because you have to determine what is considered an independent source. Matthew and Luke were both based on Mark, so if all three say the same thing, it doesn't count as three separate witnesses, just one. Even the Gospel of John shows an awareness of the synoptics, so that can't be counted. Historical sources, such as the references to Jesus in Josephus, are questionable at best. The epistles give us no biographical information except the crucifixion, and that's also questionable. Q is often cited as an independent source, but Q is a hypothetical document and much of Q is based on Cynic writings which go back centuries. We have to find independent sources first before this criterion is useful.

Author's agenda: If something fits the author's perceived agenda, it is suspect.

This criterion can be used to rule out pretty much everything in the Gospels. The writers of the Gospels wanted Jesus to fulfill every prophecy in the Old Testament, therefore any time he does fulfill a prophecy, we should assume the author made it up. The Gospel of Mark reads like someone went through the Old Testament and combined all the prophecies together into a narrative story. When you rule out everything with an Old Testament precursor, you're not left with much besides Gnosticism and Cynic philosophy.

Could the historical Jesus have been a Gnostic or a Cynic philospher? Several scholars have advocated just that. However if we're left with no biographical information to speak of, the historical Jesus could just as easily be the collected sayings of an entire community. Proposing that all of the sayings come from a single person is unnecessary and unprovable.

Criterion of difficulty: If a character is invented, material that creates difficulty for the narration will be left out.

It's been argued that Jesus being born in Bethlehem, but raised in Nazareth fits the criterion of difficulty. Both Matthew and Luke create absurd stories to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but raised in Nazareth. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem for a highly unusual census. According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem but had to flee to Nazareth to avoid the slaughter of innocents. This account contradicts Mark and John which state that Jesus was born in Galilee where Nazareth is located (Mark 6:1, John 7:41-43).

Therefore, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, but Matthew and Luke invented stories to say he was so that he would fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2. Jesus being from Nazareth creates difficulty for the narrative, therefor Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. If Jesus had been invented, the authors would just say he was from Bethlehem to begin with and avoid any reference to Nazareth.

This criterion seems reasonable at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it's revealed to be quite silly. Consider Matthew 21:1-7 where Jesus rides both a donkey and her colt into Jerusalem at the same time. If we apply the criterion of difficulty, we'd be forced to say that Jesus really did ride upon two donkeys at once because this rodeo stunt creates serious difficulty for the narrative.

However, things make a lot more sense if we ditch the criterion of difficulty and instead say Matthew misunderstood the poetic repetition of Zechariah 9:9: "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

As for Jesus being from both Nazareth and Bethlehem, that's easily explained the same way. Matthew and Luke are trying to fulfill two contradictory prophecies: Micah 5:2 and the one referred to in Matthew 2:23 which says the savior will be a Nazorean. Difficulties in the narrative don't have to be caused by trying to fit a real person into prophecy when they can be explained more easily as an attempt to accommodate two contradictory prophecies.

Was Jesus a Cynic?

A real Cynic well prepared will not be satisfied with having been well-trained himself. He must realise that he has been sent as God's messenger to his fellow humans, to show them where they've gone astray over what is right and what is wrong. (Epictetus III xxii 23)

The material common to both Matthew and Luke (designated as Q) lacks any reference to an historical Jesus, yet some scholars believe Q is where the teachings of the genuine historical Jesus are to be found. However, as we shall see, the sayings found in Q are quite similar to the teachings of the Greek Cynic philosophers.

Cynicism was a philosophy popular between the 5th century BCE through the 5th century CE. The Cynics believed in living a life of virtue according to nature. They scorned possessions and often lived as beggars, traveling from town to town preaching their message.

The Cynics desired to do away with traditional societal structures, including the family. Luke 14:26/Mattew 10:37 expresses a very Cynic idea: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

F. Gerald Downing has compiled numerous examples of Cynic ideas found in the Gospels in his book Christ and the Cynics. I'll list a few of them below:

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)

Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13)

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Matthew 10:9-10).

Wearing only ever one shirt is better than needing two; and wearing just a cloak with no shirt at all is better still. Going bare-foot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals. (Musonius XIX)

Salute no man by the way. (Luke 10:4)

Keep to yourself, quite unsociable, exchanging greetings with no one, neither friend nor stranger. (Lucian)

Seek, and ye shall find (Luke 11:9/Matthew 7:7)

Seek and you will find. (Epictetus)

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. (Luke 12:2/Matthew 10:26)

The Cynic [...] ought to have nothing of his own that he wants to hide. Otherwise [...] he's begun to feel the need for concealment. And he couldn't possibly keep anything concealed even if he wanted to. Where or how could he possibly hide himself? (Epictetus)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. (Matthew 10:28/Luke 12:5)

What tyrant or thief or court can frighten anyone who does not care about his body or its possessions? (Epictetus)

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (Matthew 10:29/Luke 12:6)

Isn't God such that he oversees everything, and is present there with everything, and is able to be in touch, in some way, with everything? (Epictetus)

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6)

God brings into balance aspects of things that are out of true, he puts together again what has been broken apart, he hurries to press down what has started to slip out of place, he collects together again what has been scattered (Psuedo-Herclitus 6.3-4)

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? (Matthew 6:28-30)

When someone has God's kind of peace proclaimed by God through his reasoning mind (not by Caesar - how could he effect it?) hasn't he enough to satisfy him? ...Now no evil can happen to me... Another takes care to provide me with my food and my clothes, my senses, and the structures of my mind. (Epictetus III xiii 12-14)

Hunger, cold, contempt? Poverty doesn't necessitate any of these. Not hunger, for lots of things grow from the earth and can satisfy hunger; for the dumb beasts go without clothes and don't feel it. (Psuedo-Diogenes)

Practice reducing your needs, and so come as close as possible to God. (Crates 11)

And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? (Luke 12:22-24)

"Good God, that's all very well, but I'm a poor man without property. Suppose I have lots of children, where am I going to get food for them all?" "Well, where do the little birds go to get food from to feed their young, though they're much worse off than you are--the swallows and nightingales and larks and blackbirds...? Do they store away food in safe-keeping?" (Musonius)

Why not consider the beasts and the birds, and see how much more painlessly they live than humans do, how much more pleasantly and healthily. (Dio)

The philosophic wise man...without being concerned or anxious about more than the bare necessities, will give his stomach and back what's due to them. Carefree and happy, he'll laugh at people busy with their riches, and at others scurrying around trying to get rich, and he'll say, "Why postpone being yourself into the distant future?" (Seneca)

Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. (Luke 18:22/Matthew 19:21)

Crates sold up all his property--he was from a prominent family--and realized about two hundred talents. This he shared among his fellow citizens. (Diogenes Laertius)

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:20/Luke 12:33)

Our soul knows, I tell you, that wealth does not lie where it can be heaped together. It is the soul itself that we ought to fill, not our money-chest. It is the soul that we may set above all other things, and put, god-like, in possession of the universe...when it has taken itself off to the great heights of heaven. (Seneca)

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. (Luke 13:19)

However small a seed is, once it's sown in suitable ground, its potential unfolds, and from something tiny it spreads out to its maximum size... I'd say brief precepts and seeds have much in common. Great results come from small beginnings. (Seneca)

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:27/Matthew 10:38)

If you want to be crucified, just wait. The cross will come. If it seems reasonable to comply, and the circumstances are right, then it's to be carried through, and your integrity maintained. (Epictetus)

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. (Luke 17:33/Matthew 10:39)

Socrates cannot be preserved by an act that is shameful... It is dying that preserves him, not fleeing. (Epictetus)

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24/Matthew 6:2)

The King, said Diogenes, was the most wretched person there was, surrounded by all that gold, yet afraid of poverty. (Dio 6.34)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other as well... Love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return. (Luke 6:27-29/Matthew 5:39-44)

A rather nice part of being a Cynic comes when you have to be beaten like an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them. (Epictetus III xxii 54)

How shall I defend myself against my enemy? By being good and kind towards him, replied Diogenes. (Gnomologium Vaticanum 187)

Someone gets angry with you. Challenge him with kindness in return. Enmity immediately tumbles away when one side lets it fall. (Seneca, de ira II xxxiv 5)

It's a pitiably small-minded person who gives bite for bite. (Seneca, de ira 11 xxxiv 1)

Socrates said, Follow these instructions, if you are willing to listen to me at all, so that you may live happily, letting yourself look a fool to others. Let anyone who wants to, offer you insult and injury... If you want to live happily, a good man in all sincerity, let all and sundry despise you. (Seneca EM LXXI 7)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Luke 6:31/Matthew 7:12)

Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you. (Seneca EM CIII 3-4)

If you want to be loved, love. (Seneca EM IX 6)

Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39/Matthew 15:14)

You can no more have a fool as a king than a blind man to lead you along the road. (Dio 62.7)

Some people prefer to be provided with a blind guide rather than a sighted one. They're bound to take a tumble. (Philo)

For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil. (Luke 6:44-45/Matthew 7:16, 12:33-35)

Who would think to be surprised at finding no apples on the brambles in the wood? or be astonished because thorns and briars are not covered in useful fruits? (Seneca de ira II x 6)

Evil no more gives birth to good than an olive tree produces figs. (Seneca)

And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. (Luke 9:58/Matthew 8:20)

I've no property, no house, no wife nor children, not even a straw mattress, or a shirt, or a cooking pot. (Epictetus)

And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:59-60/Matthew 8:22-23)

A little while before Demonax died someone asked, "What instructions have you given about your burial?" "No need to fuss," he said. "The stink will get me buried." (Lucian)

Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. (Luke 10:3/Matthew 10:16)

Crates said that people living with flatterers were in as bad a way as calves among wolves. (Diogenes Laertius)

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)

And you, are you at liberty to examine others' wickednesses, and pass judgment on anyone...? You take note of others' pimples when you yourself are a mass of sores... It's like someone covered in foul scabs laughing at the odd mole or wart on someone of real beauty. (Seneca)

When the Athenians do philosophy in your way they are like people promising to heal others of ills they've not managed to cure in themselves. (Pseudo-Diogenes)

As you can see, the wording isn't exactly the same, but the ideas are similar. Since the Cynics preached amongst the land for centuries before Christ was allegedly born, it's not surprising that Jesus would have absorbed many of their ideas. However, isn't it also possible that the sayings attributed to Jesus were really the sayings of a community?

Alexander the Great conquered the known world in the fourth century BCE. Greek philosophy, including Platonism and Cynicism, greatly influenced Jewish culture at the time Christianity emerged. In fact the word "synagogue" (refering to a Jewish congregation) is a Greek word. By 200 BCE some Jewish worship services were actually conducted in Greek. The gospels were written in Greek, and in fact, several of Jesus' disciples had Greek names such as Andrew, Philip, and Simon.

The epistles of Paul read like they were written by a Platonic Jew, while the sayings of Jesus have more than a passing similarity to Cynicism. Jesus was both Jewish and Hellenistic. In one instance, Matthew even quotes from Aesop's fable of the Fisherman Piping ("We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced." Matthew 11:17).

In the end, Christianity seems to be nothing more than the result of Jewish and Greek cultures merging together. According to some scholars, there were 80 different factions of Jesus followers including Marcionism, Ebionism, Encratism, and Gnosticism. The fact that there were originally dozens of versions of Christianity speaks quite loudly against the single founder hypothesis. There is no need for a single great man to have started the Christian movement when the simple collision of cultures is explanation enough.

Q

Jesus quotes from the Old Testament often. For example, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Deuteronomy 8:3 & Matthew 4:4) and "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:5)

Jesus is particularly fond of quoting from the Psalms. A few examples are "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings" (Psalm 8:2 & Matthew 21:16), "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1 & Matthew 27:46) and "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1 & Matthew 22:44)

In fact, it's been estimated that 10 percent of the New Testament is composed of quotes from the Old Testament. The entire Gospel of Mark appears to be based on the Old Testament with little or no original material. Which raises the question, if Jesus had actually existed as a historical figure, why does Mark have to rely on the Old Testament so heavily? Why doesn't Mark know anything about Jesus outside the scriptures?

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are both largely based on Mark, showing their ignorance of a historical Jesus is just as profound. (The Gospel of John appears to be a gnostic document which was rewritten to cohere with the synoptics.) However, Matthew and Luke contain material not found in Mark. Could this material be derived from an actual historical Jesus? First, let's take a look at the context in which this material appears.

Compare Luke 22:30 and Matthew 19:28. Luke places the phrase "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" during the last supper, while Matthew places it during Jesus' passage into Judea.

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." In Luke (16:13), Jesus says this to the Pharisees after telling them the parable of the unjust steward. In Matthew (6:24), this is part of the sermon on the mount.

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." In Luke (11:9-10), Jesus says this after telling his disciples the parable of the friend at midnight. In Matthew (7:7-8), it's part of the sermon on the mount.

Since Matthew and Luke almost always put these sayings in different contexts, it's obvious Matthew wasn't based on Luke or vice versa. (We can also point out the contradictions between them, for example both give completely different genealogies for Jesus.) While Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark, they are independent of each other. So, how did similar sayings not found in Mark find their way into Matthew and Luke?

Scholars theorize that the sayings came from a now lost document known as Q (from the German Quelle which means "source"). The similar sayings found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark probably came from a written source since the wording between Matthew and Luke is almost exactly the same, even if the contexts are wildly different.

So if Matthew and Luke are basically two different ways of combining Mark and Q together, what exactly is the nature of Q? Q was likely a sayings document similar to the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. In fact, Q and the Gospel of Thomas have 37 sayings in common (known as the Common Sayings Tradition or CST).

I'll examine where the sayings of Q could have come from in my next post.

The Gospel Jesus

As I've already discussed in earlier posts, the references to Jesus found in the writings of pagan and Jewish historians are doubtful at best. Paul and the other Christian writers of the first century are completely ignorant of the life of Jesus with the possible exception of the crucifixion and they don't even agree with each other on the details of that. The only real evidence we have of Jesus existing as an actual historical person are the Gospels.

The Gospels were written some time between 70-130 CE. They were not eye witness accounts. This itself is a major strike against the historicity of Jesus, for if he were as important as the Gospels make him out to be, we'd expect someone to have written his story down sooner than that.

Historicists, those who believe that Jesus was based on an actual historical figure, claim that the Gospels were based on an oral tradition. However, if that's the case, why do they rely so heavily upon the Old Testament and provide so little original material?

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are so similar to each other, they're referred to as the synoptic gospels. When comparing the Gospels side by side, it's apparent that they copied from each other. Mark, being the shortest, was likely written first, since it's highly unusual for a story to get shorter rather than longer over time.

Mark was largely based upon the Old Testament. In fact, it reads as if someone went through the Old Testament, took every reference to the Messiah they could find, and combined them all together into a single narrative. The Jewish practice of combining scriptures together like this, known as midrash, was actually quite common at the time. Mark makes much more sense when viewed as a midrash than as an oral tradition that was written down.

Matthew and Luke both took the story of Mark and expanded upon it, adding additional events and sayings. It's obvious from the numerous contradictions between Matthew and Luke (for example, both give a completely different genealogy for Jesus) that they weren't aware of each other.

So if Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all ultimately derived from a single source, where did the gospel of John come from? John is quite a bit different from the synoptic gospels. In fact, it reads more like a modified gnostic gospel.

The gnostics were a group of early Christians, who some scholars believe actually predated Pauline Christianity. Their writings include such titles as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas. Many of their ideas can be found in the Gospel of John, however John appears to have been modified to fit the synoptic Gospels more closely, making it a hybrid document.

John didn't agree with the way Jesus was portrayed in the synoptics. He didn't like that Jesus showed moments of weakness, such as when he asked that the cup be passed from him:

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matt. 26:39)

John's version of Jesus carries his own cross, speaks up for himself in the presence of Pilot, and never wavers when it comes time to make his sacrifice.

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18:11)

So even if the Gospel of John is largely divergent from the synoptics, that doesn't mean John was ignorant of them as he can be seen responding to them from time to time. There's no compelling evidence that any of the Gospels were based on oral tradition.

Jesus, if he had existed, would have spoken Aramaic and Hebrew, yet the writers of the Gospels didn't know Hebrew. They were all Greek speakers who quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In fact, the virgin birth, not mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, is based on a mistranslation from Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

The word translated above as "virgin" actually means "young woman" in the original Hebrew, but Matthew didn't know that:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:22-23)