I just finished reading Bill O'Reilly's best selling book*, Killing Jesus. I did learn a few things, which I will double-check against other sources...just to be sure. But more importantly, this book became a source of some powerful arguments against Christianity which I, as a Buddhist waging war against the Abrahamic traditions, hope to use to full advantage.
I will deal with the following questions:
- What about the incident between Jesus and the Temple's money changers, and the larger issue of graven images?
- What about the curious incident of the bronze snake?
- Did Jesus make a mistake when answering this question: "What is the greatest commandment in the law?"
- Did Jesus travel to India?
- Did Jesus feel anything when he was scourged and crucified?
- "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
- At the end of this essay, I will include a few miscellaneous thoughts.
The money changers and graven images
I open with a quote from page 121 of Killing Jesus, with my highlights in yellow:
QUOTE:
Tables piled with coins line one wall, in the shade of the Temple awnings, lorded over by scheming men known as shulhanim, "money changers." In long lines, out-of-towners await their chance to exchange their meager wealth in the form of coins minted by agents of Rome. The Roman coins are adorned with images of living things such as gods or with portraits of the emperor. But this coinage must be converted into [shekels], the standard currency of Jerusalem. In keeping with the Jewish law forbidding graven images, these special coins are decorated with images of plants and other nonhuman likenesses.
:UNQUOTE.
This is contained within the 10 Commandments, according to the King James Version of the Bible:
"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..."
There is some debate over what was meant by "graven image," with some translations saying, "carved image" instead. However, the commandment is broader than that when it says "...or any likeness..." The ban wasn't only against statues but included all images ("likeness[es]"). And that makes sense since, for example, the Egyptians (using, as a foundation, their pictorial writing - hieroglyphics) could have painted a picture (that is, an "image") of one of their gods on a scroll and worshipped that. Surely the commandment would have banned the worship of such a painting.
It's important to keep in mind that there are two separate "thou shalt nots" in the above-cited commandment. It's not okay to make such images, and it's not okay to worship them. That first "thou shalt not," if followed literally, would mean (for instance) that the Mona Lisa and other great works of portraiture would have to be destroyed. More than that, the photo of your wife on your desk should never have been taken.
Personally, I like the use of the word "graven," especially as it applies in a modern context. That is, when metal plates are engraved so as to enable the printing of paper money. Paper money didn't exist in Jesus's time nor anywhere on earth until the Chinese introduced such currency after 600 AD. But lo and behold, the modern shekel (in its paper form) is adorned with human likenesses, which (according to O'Reilly as quoted above) is forbidden by Jewish law. For instance, the old shekel's 10,000 unit bill is adorned with an image of Golda Meir.
So much for adhering only to "non-human likenesses," as mentioned by O'Reilly above.
About that bronze snake
This incident was not mentioned in Killing Jesus. However, I include it since it's interesting in and of itself and was something I stumbled across while researching the "graven image" theme in O'Reilly's book. I'll start with a quote:
Source: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," (Wikipedia article title):
QUOTE:
The Book of Numbers contains a narrative in which God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake as part of addressing a plague of venomous snakes that had broken out among the Israelites as a punishment for sin. The bronze snake is mentioned again in 2 Kings 18; however, rather than remaining a memorial of God's providence, it became an idol that the people named and worshiped. Thus the bronze snake was destroyed in King Hezekiah's reforms.[39]
:UNQUOTE.
I find it interesting that God tells Moses to make a graven image, which is in violation of one of the Ten Commandments I cited above. Equally interesting? If God wanted to address "a plague of venomous snakes," He surely wouldn't have needed Moses's help to do so. God could have merely willed that they be gone and not have involved the making of a bronze snake. As for choosing a snake (instead of, say, a mongoose), how ironic that God would choose the symbol of Satan. Yeah, things like this bother me in that nobody seems to question them; surely Moses didn't object at the time.
The Greatest Commandment?
QUOTE [Page 205 of Killing Jesus]:
Soon the Pharisees step forward to take their turn. "Teacher," asks their leader, a man known for being an expert in the law, "what is the greatest commandment in the law?"
Under the teachings of the Pharisees, there are 613 religious statutes. Even though each carries a designation marking it as either great or little, the fact remains that each must be followed. Asking Jesus to select one is a clever way of pushing him into a corner, making him defend his choice.
But Jesus does not choose from one of the established laws. Instead, he articulates a new one: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment."
The Pharisees stand silent. How could anyone argue with that? Only, Jesus goes on to add a second law: "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
Jesus has now defeated the sharpest minds in the Temple. ...
:UNQUOTE.
I'll now expand on the three items I highlighted above:
Asking Jesus to select one is a clever way - No, it isn't. Jesus was reputed to have been quite capable of holding his own when discoursing with the rabbis of the Temple when he was 12-years-old. So He should have been quite capable of being able to answer such a question and defend his choice. That's what scholarly rabbis do - they debate. And this question isn't really difficult at all.
Instead, he articulates a new one: -
Jesus either erred in his statement of the Greatest Commandment or else He created a new one by replacing one word at the very end. This is how it appears in Deuteronomy 6:4-5:
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
Instead of "might," Jesus says "mind." In the Gospels, there's a bit of inconsistency. Matthew substitutes "mind" for "might" as O'Reilly claims Jesus did. Mark and Luke insert "mind" but keep "strength" as well. In any event, the Temple lawyers let Jesus's version fly right over their heads - they should have challenged His addition of the word "mind." They could have scolded Him for an inaccurate statement of the commandment and given Him a chance to correct Himself. If he said, "I meant what I said," then the Pharisees could have challenged Him, "And who are you to add even one extra word to the Holy Text?"
[In the next section, I'll explain why (in my opinion) Jesus added the word "mind."]
It would have been interesting (though it didn't happen) if the Pharisee repeated the Greatest Commandment and asked a follow-up question (note my highlights):
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might - so sayeth the Law. But answer me this: If all of our love is to go to God, wouldn't that leave us with none left for our wives and children?" Now that would have been a worthy question.
And here's an even worthier question: "How can it be that a Commandment was issued to 'love the Lord your God?' For how can anyone order others to love him? Behind every Commandment is an implied threat - for example, to violate 'thou shalt not murder' invites eternal damnation. But if someone doesn't love God but is virtuous in every other way, is he to be similarly damned? The answer appears to be yes, for 'I am a jealous and angry God [and if you don't love me, I'll damn you to eternal torment].' What would that make such a God, but an insecure entity who would deserve the title of Universe's Greatest Terrorist?"
Yeah, I just said that, and I meant every word. So, would I be afraid if it turns out that there really is such a God about to cast me into a lake of fire? No doubt about it - I'd shit my pants for sure. But I've already got my reply to the question He'll surely ask, "And what do you have to say for yourself?" My response: "Instead of making me suffer for eternity, why don't you simply dis-create me? That is, undo me, body and soul, so that I no longer exist. I came from nothing and You created me; return me to nothingness by dis-creating me."
[If more people considered the power of this response, we'd go a long way toward dialing down the fear element our Christian priests like to overwhelm us with.]
Jesus goes on to add a second law - O'Reilly's wording makes it seem that Jesus created a second law, when it fact it comes straight from Leviticus 19:34:
"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God" - King James Version.
I can only conclude that O'Reilly was wearing the hat of the propagandist when he wrote as he did on page 205 or that he was being very sloppy in his writing.
Why Jesus included "mind" in the Greatest Commandment
There are about 18 years in the life of Jesus of which there is no historical record - from age 12 to 30. Of course there is some speculation, including that He went to India and learned some very useful Buddhist teachings. Perhaps He was attracted to India in the first place because He'd heard of the Buddha - which is plausible - and was amazed at teachings that stressed compassion and almsgiving - teachings in short supply among the Pharisees and their Roman overlords.
Buddhists, because of their emphasis on meditation, place a great deal of emphasis on the power of the mind. Maybe that's where Jesus got the idea to include "mind" in the Greatest Commandment. You might remember stories of monks who doused themselves with gasoline and self-immolated during the Vietnam War. I remember those images well, especially how they appeared so calm and devoid of pain. That's just one example of the power of the mind at work.
That would be a useful skill to posses - how to negate pain through meditation (or a deep trance, if you prefer) - if one knew that, one day, one was going to be scourged and crucified for one's beliefs.
Another useful belief would be reincarnation. I remember having read a book by a tenth-generation rabbi named Benjamin Blech: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism. In it, he addresses the topic of reincarnation by saying (words to this effect) - One can either believe in reincarnation or not and still be a good Jew. From that, I'll take it that Jesus planned on coming back at least one more time.
If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God (or has a partly divine nature), he wouldn't have needed to exercise powers of the mind to avoid physical pain. Of course, we mortal human beings are supposed to identify with Jesus because he could feel pain and suffer just like any mortal man. That would make us more sympathetic to his message. However, if He had godly powers, He could have simply (to put it crudely) turned off his pain receptors and not felt a thing as He was being tortured and killed. Or, hopefully, His Heavenly Father could have done that for Him should He Himself not been able to quite manage the feat.
Since so many people need to believe in a Jesus who suffered, He might very well have put on a very good act - even though He felt absolutely no pain.
Jesus and the taxman
On page 204, this question is asked: "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" And is answered by means of this exchange:
QUOTE:
"Why are you trying to trap me? Jesus seethes. He asks for someone to hand him a denarius. "Whose portrait is this? he asks, holding up the coin. "And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they answer.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," Jesus tells them. "And to God what is God's."
...The brilliance of Jesus's words will last throughout the ages."
:UNQUOTE.
Forgive my immodesty here, but if I'd heard that I would have said, "But everything belongs to God, doesn't it? So are you saying we should render nothing unto Caesar? Even if we allow that all Roman money belongs to Caesar, the Romans could insist that we exchange all of our shekels for denarii and then proceed to pay all of this money (since it belongs to Caesar) in taxes. As for all of the shekels possessed by the Romans, they could reassure the Jews by saying, 'Oh, those belong to your God, alright, so we will render them to God as soon as He shows up to claim them.'
"Besides, any talk of not paying what Caesar demands would mean death. Just what is it that you're advocating? And please don't be so vague by talking about rendering unto Caesar whatever money we have that bears his image. Even Caesar would agree that we earned that money, just as he would insist that we pay a portion of it to him in taxes. And how much of that 'portion' could be deemed reasonable is something we're hardly in a position to negotiate. After all, we are a conquered people. I'm sure Caesar wouldn't overtax us to the point that we'd perish or else he wouldn't have any future source of income derived from taxation. I can only hope that our own priests try to keep in mind just how little we are capable of paying them."
I don't know how Jesus would have responded to my inquiry. But it does appear that O'Reilly very much likes such exchanges to be brief and to call them brilliant.
Miscellaneous Comments
- From page 205: "Once again, they try to pierce the aura of Jesus's vulnerability with a religious riddle, and once again they fail." There are two errors in this sentence, concerning "vulnerability." I'm sure O'Reilly meant to say "invulnerability," though the word "infallibility" would have been a better choice. O'Reilly was sloppy here.
- When Jesus said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," He was being at least disingenuous. For Pilate could have said, "You act like a king in this world, for you have worked to attract a following." Of course Jesus was hinting at a larger world, but this earthly world is easily part of that larger kingdom. If not, then those who predict Jesus will rise again to rule on earth would be hard pressed to answer this question: "Rule over what? Since His kingdom is not of this world."
- When the Magi brought treasure chests full of gold as a gift to baby Jesus, I can't help but wonder, "What eventually happened to all that wealth?" I hope Mary and Joseph didn't donate all of it to the Temple. Still, the fate of that money is curious.
- When I wrote about graven images (above), I couldn't help but think of Michelangelo's famous image that appears on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - "The Creation of Adam." Consider these oddities (and there are others) as you take a look at the image on this link: (1) To render an image of God must surely be blasphemous - no wonder the Muslims hate Catholicism; (2) I thought Adam was created by God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life - now that would have made for a more accurate (and interesting) version than the fingertip-to-fingertip version rendered by Michelangelo; (3) Why did the artist render Adam as having such a small penis - man, that thing is microscopic! Behold! Here's the link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=michelangelo+creation+of+adam&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aNnfUpb7NIWC2AXA8oCIBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=643#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=QwaUmQWd1fAG8M%253A%3BWErH5U_y-u4rsM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prlog.org%252F11178287-the-creation-of-adam.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prlog.org%252F11178287-why-michelangelo-is-so-famous.html%3B1404%3B924
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, Just Another Member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote:
* Bill O'Reilly wasn't the only author involved in this book - someone named Martin Dugard is the acknowledged co-author.
No comments:
Post a Comment