“The Church as the Evil Force” by National Geographic?

The May 2006 issue of National Geographic reported on the Gospel of Judas, the latest darling of academics, treasure hunters, and antiquities smugglers. For those too young to recall, there have been many artifacts discovered, held in the hands of adventurers and ne’er-do-wells, and belatedly released to or from academics. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Thomas, and many others have created much angst and so much adventure that novels have been inspired (The Word, Irving Wallace) and movies have been shot. Maybe it will sell magazines, too.

The National Geographic article lists the facts that place the Gospel of Judas in perspective.

– The manuscript is not precisely dateable. In other words, no one can say when it was written.

– Possibly, it was authored in the second century.

– The manuscript could be a copy dated from the third or fourth century. [That is a little like saying we have a manuscript dated sometime after 1806 but before 2006; it covers an enormous span of history, time and many lives.]

– The language is Coptic, an Egyptian translation of Greek, and not a language in use, but exclusively in the province of specialized academics, such that very few people will ever likely be able to read it for themselves.

– The manuscript was found in the Egyptian desert (they all seem to be found in some desert).

– The manuscript spent many years in the “netherworld of antiquities traders,” resulting in mis-handling, shuffling, and damage. By 2001, academics reported the manuscript was in the worst shape of any they had seen. The pages had been shuffled but the top section of each page, where the pages may have been numbered, had been torn away and lost.

The story reminds me of the novel by Irving Wallace, entitled The Word. It was inspired, as I recall, by the Gospel of Thomas, which seems to have come to public awareness about the same time.

National Geographic’s story, by Andrew Cockburn, also contained the usual misinformation. Possibly, the story should have been entitled “The Destroyer of Truth, A Brief History of the Church.”

Mr. Cockburn asserted that “the four Gospels, for example, treat Roman governor Pontius Pilate gently…” It will be interesting to hear Mr. Cockburn, or National Geographic, try to wash their hands, pun intended, of this subjective conclusion. Maybe Mr. Cockburn was raised in a non-western culture and has never been faced with someone washing their hands of all moral responsibility.

Mr. Cockburn asserted that “Christian thinkers found it increasingly convenient to blame the Jews…” This subjective conclusion was the same accusation leveled recently at Mel Gibson’s movie relating the passion of Christ. Bigots that claimed affiliation to Christians have always existed and have been responsible for all sorts of racial and ethnic crimes. But, such people are not, in fact, Christians. While general statements about the hundreds, if not thousands of documents that were generated by the early church, are risky, no general “blame the Jews” doctrine emerged from orthodox Christianity. Indeed, that would be impossible for a Christian that accepts the New Testament as true, because the people that accused, convicted and murdered Christ were not honestly Jewish. They were collaborators with Roman occupiers and their religious beliefs were as for sale as was their political allegiance. They were traitors to their people, their beliefs, and God. Murdering God’s son was simply one more crime among, from their perspective, the many they committed. That is part of the reason why they knew not what they did. But, National Geographic does not seem to be able to read the New Testament with sufficient attention to detail to pick up on such nuanced language.

Finally, National Geographic asserted “we cannot know how many books were lost as the Bible took shape…” That may be true. But, in the one to two hundred years between the authorship of the Gospel of Judas and the time the presently discussed manuscript was copied, it had free distribution. National Geographic does not imply that church based suppression of the Gospel of Judas came to the fore until at least the reign of Constantine in the early fourth century. If a novel, or magazine article, or a tract had been published in 1906 and freely distributed until it was suppressed in 2006, would we be legitimate in concluding that its suppression caused it to be lost? Of course not. It simply did not stand the test of time or there would be copies in every attic, garage, library, and “secret” collection. Suppression would have to be systematic using modern means of tracking ownership in order to prevent even casual ownership from continuing unabated, and modern means were not available in 313AD.

The “suppression” asserted by National Geographic was merely that the church did not accept it, and no scholarship formed to resist that rejection that withstood the test of time. There was no suppression and there is no credible evidence of suppression of this stack of papers. Mr. Cockburn’s assertion is modern era New Age bigotry coming to the fore. The Gospel of Judas was simply ignored, and by that means “lost.” How many copies of The Word, by Irving Wallace, remain on our shelves? It simply was not Shakespeare, although I remember enjoying the novel, and the Gospel of Judas was simply never accepted as canon, and both were forgotten.

The Gospel of Thomas, with its less than Hollywood ready physical description of Jesus, is still on my shelf, it is a historical artifact, but it will never be considered as part of the canon by any thoughtful person unless much more information is discovered.

Is it true that every article in the National Geographic is updated and rerun every five years such that if you subscribe for five years, there is no real need to subscribe for another five years? Maybe two hundred years from now someone will pick up that question in a blog restoration project and assert it for the truth of the matter asserted. Maybe that would be unfair, and maybe that would be a shame, but will it be the byproduct of modern scholarship as practiced by National Geographic today?

The Borders of Israel

Many Christians spend a lot of time concerned about the borders of Israel when evaluating the status of prophetic fulfillments. There are several Scriptures that address the issue. See, Numbers 34: 2-12. The boundaries meted out in Numbers measured about 160 miles by 50 miles, or less than 8,000 square miles. To put this in perspective, Oklahoma City contains over 604 square miles and Oklahoma about 69,000 square miles. Thus, even without Gaza and the West Bank, Israel’s size is once again roughly that set forth in Numbers.

The election in Israel held in March was in some respects about borders. Israel is building an electronic fence between itself and the West Bank, which Israel may turn over to the Palestinian Authority, the Parliament of which is currently dominated by Hamas. The current laws and records of land ownership may or may not be preserved when the state of Israel relinquishes the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. This dispossession may work a tragedy on the Palestinians, including disenfranchising 150,000 Arab Israeli citizens, but may be one of the many necessary steps to independent statehood for the Palestinians. Israel’s post-election government, which seems to be teetering on a knife-edge, has publicly stated its intention to relinquish the West Bank and Gaza.

As noted above, evangelicals have been critical of abandonment of Israel’s borders and those that would propose it. During the Israeli election, the ultra-orthodox, represented by the Shas party, were critical of those that would recede from the borders resulting from the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Indeed, the leader of the Shas party in Israel claimed Hurricane Katrina was a “retribution” from God levied against the United States because of US support for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Olasky, World Magazine, April 8, 2006 at 20. Apparently, Pat Robertson was not alone in his bad taste. (Robertson has apologized but the Rabbi leading Shas does not appear to be accountable, post-election to the Knesset, for being ill mannered or presumptuous.)

It should be noted that the March election in Israel was burdened by low voter turnout of 63%. Olasky, World Magazine, April 8, 2006 at 21. In a country where military service is virtually universal, terrorism is a constant threat, and the dispossession of settlements and citizenship represents deeply troubling issues, it would seem that voter apathy would be impossible. Olasky blames weariness due to unrelenting terrorism and a resulting obsession with escapism as an explanation for voter apathy. This sounds too much like a ‘60s blame game label (“sex, drugs and rock and roll”) instead of an indictment of war without victory. More likely, like in the United States, the differences between politicians, and their lobbyists, are difficult to discern, and many voters have given up trying to do so.

In any event, the borders of Israel, in isolation, represent political realities, but not necessarily Scriptural or Biblical ones. The promises and predictions concerning the state of Israel were not delivered with metes and bounds tested by sextant. Even Genesis 15:18, the so called Palestinian Covenant, the promise to Abraham of the land between “the river of Egypt” and the Euphrates, does not contain metes and bounds. What it contained, and still contains, is an idea of the location of the place described, and an idea of the thing to occupy the place, people adherent to a covenant with God.

Those people are there now, just as the Scriptures foretold, and the stage is set. The curtain could go up any moment, and is rising, even now on the Second Coming.

How Do We Get From Then to Tomorrow?

There are numerous prophecies regarding the end times, known in the Scriptures as the Day of the Lord. For nearly two thousand years, theological discussion had to include explanations accounting for Scriptures that made promises and predictions about Israel, when there was no state of Israel. One explanation popular among evangelicals was that “Israel” was now the church, and that the church was the “new Israel.”

While that was an interesting tautology, it made a shambles of consistent interpretation. The promises and predictions about Israel were a poor fit and Scriptures like Revelation 12, simply no longer fit anywhere. In Revelation 12, both the church and Israel appeared simultaneously and side by side in the prophetic record, and no other explanation would leave the text intact. Then, with the rebirth of the nation of Israel, the tautology was no longer necessary, but that did not mean that some were not slow to abandon it.

My first introduction to Revelation 12 was a sermon by Terry that I have cloned to the best of my ability several times. The sermon intrigued me so much about Revelation 12 that it launched me on an on and off quest to understand the entire Revelation, and then onto prophecy in general, that has endured for over 35 years. Of course, I am captivated by these Scriptures to the extent of my limited formal training in theology and probably contaminated by my Restoration Movement orientation, which starts from the text, treats the text as self – interpreting to the extent it is rationale to do so, and disdains interpretation by analogy or by use of extrinsic sources, unless no other alternative makes sense.

The challenge prior to 1948 for Bible scholars was how to get from prophecies about the state of Israel and promises to Israel to the fulfillment of those promises and prophecies, when, for nineteen hundred years, there was no Israel. The other challenge was to interpret the Scriptures in light of the re-establishment of Israel and then its destruction by the Roman Empire, and still make sense of Revelation 12. It was clearly unreasonable to take a prophecy most likely written by John after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Herodian Temple, and bend it backwards to fit prior events. Now, it is no longer necessary to do so.

Moreover, the prophecies that seemed to describe precursor events did not necessarily refer to interim historical events, but more likely to the time described in or near Revelation 12:

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deuteronomy 30:1-10 (NIV). It would not be unreasonable to “date” the “effective date” of this prophecy to a time when the Diaspora was more than just from Jerusalem to Babylon. Indeed, the Diaspora described would most likely refer to conditions immediately after World War II, when Jews were running from Nazis, Communists, and other despotic rulers.

Other texts seem to permit a similar view:

31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV). This text refers to a time of “spiritual enlightenment” when teaching and evangelism will no longer be necessary. It must be a time when the Great Commission will, from any objective view, stand fulfilled. That time is not yet and it is not a time that has ever been.

That time must be much closer than it was because the condition precedent, a house of Israel with which a new covenant can be made, came about in 1948. Thus, it appears that the Second Coming, or at least the events preceding, commenced in 1948.

But, do we live as if that is true? So many churches are so busy presenting variety shows instead of worship services, preaching self-help and New Age philosophy rather than the Gospel, and advancing the cause of materialism rather than evangelism, that references to the Second Coming are missing but not missed. Because of the time pressure, and the dead air pressure, that so many churches fear, the time to consider the events in the world and how they might relate to the Scriptures is not available.

Strangely, that sounds very familiar. See, Matthew 24:37-38.

Hollywood’s Latest Moses (and Other Great Caucasians of the Bible)

I watched the first installment of ABC’s two-part mini-series, The Ten Commandments, last night. It covered the 80-year period from baby Moses in the basket to the parting of the Red Sea. The second half, beginning after the Jews exited Egypt and culminating in Moses’ trip to the mountaintop, airs tonight.

Although the title was obviously borrowed from Cecil B. DeMille’s classic Charlton Heston vehicle — a smart marketing move, to suggest that it is a remake of the 1956 classic — I detected no direct connections between the two versions. The 2006 movie has a new script and fills in the blanks of the biblical account in different ways.

I had low expectations for this film. After all, some recent made-for-TV movies of biblical stories have been pretty pitiful. Remember the 1999 Noah’s Ark, starring Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen? It was absurd. How about the 1999 Jesus, with Jeremy Sisto as the Lord and Debra Messing as Mary Magdalene? He was the most fun-loving Jesus ever committed to film — always smiling, cracking jokes, a regular cut-up. He came off as a really nice guy, but not a Christ, the Son of the living God.

Prior to last night’s viewing of The Ten Comandments, I read a couple of reviews. Both critics complained that Moses was too weak and whiny (no Charlton Heston) and the movie too boring. So, I wasn’t expecting much.

Perhaps due to my low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised. ABC’s Moses is fairly good. I enjoyed it, and I look forward to watching the conclusion tonight. Sure, nitpickers can always point out details in a Bible movie that differ from the inspired text. But on all the important points, The Ten Commandments is in line with the Exodus account. Producer Robert Halmi Sr. said, “This will be the most biblically accurate telling of the story to date. I insisted on accuracy.” Good to know that was his goal, and he did relatively well at achieving it.

I do not think actor Dougray Scott’s Moses was wimpy. The Bible record tells us that Moses was a stammering melancholy, fearful and unsure of himself. However, he must have possessed latent leadership qualities, which God knew would emerge when circumstances required them. Scott struck the right balance, communicating Moses’ fear as well as his faith and forcefulness.

I do have two complaints, and I do not think these are minor details. First, why is Moses white (Dougray Scott was born in Scotland)? Come on. This is the 21st century. Are we still so xenophobic that we must recast every Bible character, from Jesus on down, as a Caucasian? When we will be ready to accept an Abraham, a Moses, or a Jesus who is Semitic?

(Sidebar: I came across this: “What Colour Was Jesus?” Good piece. Would you be able to bow down before and worship a Jesus who looks like this?)

Also, the Bible says Moses was 80 years old when he led his people to freedom. Dougray Scott is 40, and he looks it in this movie. At least in the 1956 version they dyed Heston’s hair and beard gray to indicate he had joined the senior class. In 2006, they just decided to skip over that little detail. Apparently the producer and director believe we want all of our Bible heroes to be middle-aged Caucasians, and they’re not going to let the facts get in the way of giving us what we want.

Despite those gripes, The Ten Commandments is worth watching, and it is certainly far better than most of the mindless junk on television. Christians who always complain about “Hollywood” should be grateful when they serve us movies like this one. The Ten Commandments is a Hallmark Entertainment production and is being broadcast by ABC.