I do not want to take sides in the discussion about whether Jesus, as Augstein suspects, was 'an apparition synthetically woven into one from several figures and currents'.
For, to follow Professor Gunther Bornkamm [25]: 'If we were to reduce tradition critically to what can no longer be doubted on historical grounds, all we would have left would be a torso which had scarcely anything in common with the story testified to in the Gospels.'
Here I am only concerned with establishing that Jesus was a devout man, but not 'God's only begotten son', a political activist, but not a 'Redeemer'. This proved information will give the literally-minded Christian a severe shock, because doubt is a sin 'against the Holy Ghost'. Hundreds of millions of Christians have been kept at a primitive stage of religion for two thousand years by a doctrinal system based on false premises, although well informed theologians could have 'proclaimed' the truth long ago. Yet they have kept silent. Two thousand years of false instruction - that's what I call tradition.
Brought up as a Roman Catholic, I am dealing with the figure of Jesus as we all accepted it in the Christian tradition, even if 'understandably ... (we) are so caught in our own tradition, that we can scarcely approach the Gospels and the New Testament in their totality without prejudice.'
(Carmichael.)
Faith is defined as inner certainty without regard to proof, an instinctive conviction. People appeal to faith, people demand faith from those who do not know. Faith means 'trust'. This appeal, in the sense of belief in a higher power, in the incomprehensibility of 'Be!' and 'Die!', of the beginning and end of all being, is good, necessary and eternal. This faith has given consolation and help, blessing and profit to men in all ages. But such faith has not the remotest connection with religious insistence on being right. With the fanatical orders 'Thou must!', 'Thou shalt!', 'Thou shalt not!', Christian pastors and exegetes plunged into the great endless war of the faith. With their stubborn insistence on being the only preachers of the one true word of God, they made a claim with most unfortunate effects.
On the other hand it is not true as general opponents of the faith say, that 'religion' per se has brought suffering and care on mankind with persecutions, tortures, tears and blood. If believers, egged on by Zealots, had made no image of God there would never have been any religious wars. For religion in the spirit of faith in a creative and ordering power does .not claim to proclaim the ultimate truth, nor does it have multi-purpose bits of advice for sore places, or driveling adages for all occasions.
Even before the Dead Sea Qumran texts, discovered in 1947, forced Christian theologians to admit new material to the discussion, critical matter-of-fact men, who wanted accurate knowledge, had discovered irresolvable contradictions in the New Testament. There could be nothing earth-shaking about that, if it were not God's word or Jesus' word that was supposed to be involved. As father and son are consubstantial (second Council of Constantinople) they are omniscient, infinitely wise, omnipresent, without error - in short, infallible. These are the qualifications of the inspired authors which determined the standard by which the Holy Scriptures are to be judged. Is this high standard justified?
The Gospel according to St. Matthew begins with the family tree of Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (1)* Ancestors are enumerated until 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary' (16). What purpose does Joseph serve, since he cannot be the father of Jesus? The fact that his wife was supposed to be pregnant by the Holy Ghost did not satisfy the simple carpenter, who knew perfectly well the normal way of bringing children into being. 'Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily' (19). An angel in a dream saved their married happiness: Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost' (20). Joseph accepted the apparition's message.
Joseph's ancestry does not really seem to have been as clear as one would have wished and a certain scepticism as to his being the father of Jesus is hinted at in St. Luke: 'And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Eli' (Luke
3:23). Luke ascribes seventy-six progenitors to Joseph (Matthew only 42). There are obviously considerable difficulties in tracing the family tree down to Joseph.
Modern theologians [26] say that the 'immaculate conception' should not be taken to mean that Joseph had not touched his Mary. Are they twisting the meaning of the words inspired by God, because the whole process is so implausible? Matthew makes it perfectly clear: 'When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost'
(1:18). Nothing could be plainer than that.
Matthew expressly states that John baptized Jesus and how he did it. John knew whom he was dealing with '... He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose' (1:27).
'... but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear' (3:11). John addressed Jesus directly: 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?' (3:14). After the baptism the heavens opened and the spirit of God descended 'like a dove' and a voice from heaven said: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (3:17). John recognized the man he had baptized, who was even identified by heaven as the Son of God: nothing could be clearer.
----
[*] The figures in brackets refer to the verses quoted from St. Matthew's Gospel.
---- Herod Antipas (4 B.C. to A.D. 40) took John prisoner and even followed his consort's whim when she urged him to have the Baptist beheaded. John suddenly forgot Jesus in prison and sent two disciples to ask him: 'Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?' (11, 3). The impression that the Nazarene - with all his concentrated charisma - made on John during the baptismal ceremony seemed so lasting that it is difficult to understand his lapse of memory.
Let us consult Matthew, the toll collector (9:9) of the Sea of Genezareth, later an apostle and presumably an evangelist! Jesus went about 'all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues' (4:23), which housed the schools in those days. Synagogues came under priests and scribes. No one could just decide ex cathedra to teach there: he had to be examined by the scribes and recognized as one of them.
Where did Jesus get the audacity to criticize this guild on which his teaching activity depended:
'Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven' (5:20).
In his Gospel Matthew records speeches of Jesus which raise justifiable doubts about his meekness.
One recommendation from the mouth of the Son of God says: '... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.' (5.22). If all Christians who cursed when they were angry were treated like? that, hell would be one gigantic crematorium.
In Chapter 5 Matthew quotes counsels that to the best of my knowledge even the most devout Christians of any age have never followed and, although they were divine commandments, could not follow: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee (30) ... whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (39). And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (40). and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain ...' (41).
I am always amazed when distorted quotations by the master are put in the appropriate passage of a
'story taken from everyday life' and then believed as 'God's word'. I have not met a single preacher who has taken these words literally.
Jesus repeatedly urges his hearers to speak clearly, they must never be 'lukewarm': 'But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil' (8:37). The Nazarene himself certainly does not follow his own advice for he speaks in veiled parables. For example, when Jesus healed a leper by laying his hands on him, he said (8:4): 'See thou tell no man', but adds in the same breath: '... go thy way, show thyself to the priest.' The original command to keep silence was pointless, because 'great multitudes' (8:1) were present at the miraculous cure. Yea-nay?
Nea!
Jesus asserted that he had not come to summon the righteous but the sinners to repentance: 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice.'
But according to Matthew, mercy is in short supply, because Jesus threatens even for minor sins: '...
the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth'
