Atheism 7 - Closing Arguments
Note: If you haven't already, you should read over all previous posts before proceeding. These posts build upon previous information; they do not stand alone. Starting at the end is like criticizing the selection of a hip v. gable roof without knowing anything about the walls and foundation.
So, here we are. We've so far established a logical basis for a belief in God. We've determined that if we can prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the human incarnation of God, then we can learn the nature of God by studying the nature of Jesus. We've found that legal proof should by all rights be sufficient for our needs and we've examined the historical accuracy of New Testament Scripture. One question still remains, then: can we legally prove that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the human incarnation of God?
Let us examine a passage from the Gospel of Mark that has never been questioned by anyone, either Christian, atheist, agnostic or other. I refer specifically to Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin as recorded in Mark 14:53-65. Feel free to look it up. I'm going to paraphrase a bit for the sake of clarity. I expect my theologian friends to correct any errors.
Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, the judicial council of the Jews made up of both Pharisees and Sadducees (who didn't get along very well, by the way). The charge against him is blasphemy, which did not mean then what it means now. In first-century Judea, "blasphemy" was not a catch-all term for saying anything contrary to the church's prescribed description of God. It specifically meant claiming to be God. It was one of the few crimes for which Jewish law prescribed a man's execution (Ironically, there were any number of crimes for which a woman could be executed, but very few for men. Go figure.). It should be noted that, while Jewish law allowed for a sentence of execution, the occupying Romans did not allow local governments to actually carry out such a sentence. Execution was strictly at the discretion of the Roman governor, hence the follow-up trial before Pilate.
Witnesses are brought in, but their testimony sounds like lies, even to the High Council. So, Caiaphas, the High Priest, simply asks Jesus directly "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (terms reserved in Jewish tradition for God)?" Jesus responds "I am (v. 62)." At this point, Caiaphas tears his robe - a sign that blasphemy has been committed in his presence - and dismisses all remaining witnesses, saying "what need have we of these witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy yourselves! (v. 63)" The verdict is immediate and unanimous: guilty. (This is one of at least 10 statements that are apparently overlooked by Bart D. Ehrman, et al when they say that Jesus himself never claimed to be divine.)
Note - Among the many shortcomings of the Hebrew language is its near total lack of adjectives. the phrase "son of" stands as a substitute for adjectives. A fat man may be described as a "son of girth;" a loudmouth as a "son of thunder."
So, why did Jesus say that? Why, when his own life is in the balance, would a man claim to be God? I've studied this question for 40 years and can only come up with 3 possible answers:
Let us examine each.
So, was Jesus a liar? Was he simply claiming to be God, knowing full well he was not? Many scholars before me have addressed this very question. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis concludes that claiming that Jesus was a good man, but far from divine is simply not an option that he leaves open to us. Both F.J.A. Hort (Way, Truth and the Life) and Kenneth Scott Latourette (A History of Christianity) are convinced that Jesus' teachings and personality are so inextricably intertwined that one cannot simply think of him as a great prophet and philosopher without conceding to his divinity. Josh and Sean McDowell (More Than a Carpenter) conclude that to agree that Jesus was a good man who lied about his own divinity makes him at best a hypocrite, having taught his disciples to remain honest in the face of opposition, and at worst a demon, since he had also taught them to trust him for their own salvation. My own explanation is far simpler:
When I ask non-believers why they think Jesus would lie at a moment when he knew full well that doing so would cost him his own life, whereas honesty would likely set him free, the most common response is to the effect that he knew that his death would motivate his disciples to form the church and carry on his legacy. I'm sorry, but I cry foul on this argument.
I'm certain that Tim Rice wrote this line for Pilate in the opera Jesus Christ, Superstar mostly because it fit the rhythm,but he was also being uncannily accurate when he said "you Jews produce Messiahs by the sackful." In the first-century, Judea was all but crawling with itinerant preachers claiming to be the Messiah. The official response to each was always the same - round them up, try them for blasphemy, convict them, produce a trumped up charge for the Romans and have them executed. The historic record mentions at least a half-dozen such cases (and I didn't look too hard for examples). And the end result was always the same; the "messiah's" followers quickly dispersed and the messiah himself became the smallest of historic footnotes. This was happening at the exact time Jesus was preaching. He must have been aware of it, and its implication for his own ministry. To say that he had enough command of human psychology to somehow know (in the first century, remember) that his ministry and his disciples would prove to be the sole exception to this rule - and such a spectacular exception that the debate still rages two millennia later - is to attribute to the man Jesus the very supernatural knowledge that the argument is intended to deny him. I'm sorry, but, logically speaking, this dog just won't hunt. It is a circular argument that, quite frankly, simply makes no sense.
If that answer seems too esoteric, then perhaps a simpler explanation: as any member of the Spanish Inquisition or Gestapo can attest, nobody is willing to die for a lie. If we arbitrarily conclude that Jesus is the single exception to that rule, then we either come back to the previous conclusion or must move on to the next.
Ok, so what if he was lying, but thought he was telling the truth? Well, that would be a delusion. Specifically a delusion of grandeur. One might say it is the granddaddy of delusions of grandeur. It puts my claim to be Napoleon Bonaparte to shame!😊
I've just consulted my rather dusty copy of the DSM III (a bit outdated, but I've been busy the last few decades). I only found one psychosis that lists delusions of grandeur as a symptom - schizophrenia. So, is it possible that Jesus was schizophrenic?
Arthur Noyes and Laurence Kolb, in Modern Clinical Psychology, describe the schizophrenic person as more autistic than realistic. Well, claiming to be God is pretty unrealistic! But, let us remember that we are talking about the man who spoke some of the most profound words of wisdom ever uttered. As Clark H. Pinnock states in Set Forth Your Case, "...the skill and depth of his teaching support the case only for his total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as he!" Psychologist Gary R. Collins, after reading the historic record of Jesus, concludes "I just don't see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness...He was much healthier than anyone else I know - including me!" (quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ). J.T. Fisher (A Few Buttons Missing) believes that if one took all the authoritative articles written by the most highly respected psychologists and psychiatrists in the field, combine them, refine them, remove all extraneous verbiage, you would end up with a poor imitation of the Sermon on the Mount.
Finally, we have this: When Jesus claimed before the Sanhedrin to be God, either he was telling the truth, he was lying and knew he was lying, or he was lying but thought his was telling the truth. We have eliminated the possibility of him knowingly lying as well as him lying but thinking it was true. This leaves us with only one logically valid conclusion. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Well, that's my argument. Comments or questions are welcome, should anyone actually ever read this. Please be civil, and we can explore answers together.
Pax
P.S. When I first starting working on this, I remembered having read about this "trilemma" of "liar, lunatic, Lord," but I couldn't remember where. Credit C.S. Lewis. I have also noted some criticism of the trilemma concept, mostly from people like Bart Ehrman who say that Jesus himself never claimed his own divinity or was misinterpreted. These come largely from Biblical scholars much more knowledgeable than myself, but I still can't for the life of me see how to get around the claim cited above. I'm not sure how the response "I am" could be any more definitive or any less subject to misinterpretation.
Comments