My scholarly reading continues in the sunshine. Over the last couple of days I've been working my way through the excellent "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Geza Vermes. When it comes to Biblical scholarship he is the Geza. He wrote, "The Changing Faces of Jesus" which gave me many of my ideas for
"Christ on a Bike" and which, to be honest is probably a better starting point for anyone interested in trying to get a handle of who the real historical Jesus actually was. "The Authentic Gospel" works its way through every utterance attributed to Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke (whilst John is dismissed from this book, Vermes does quote from the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, which I much prefer - I think it includes the story of Jesus turning his childhood playmates into pigs when they piss him off) and then tries to work out the likelihood of whether the boy Christ actually said it. It's quite academic, but has given me quite a lot of ideas for comedy bits, especially about the final Judgement, making me, I believe, the world's primary eschatological comedian. I thank you. I am very pleased with this joke, even though I think only a handful of people will get it without the use of a dictionary.
Although I have not yet got to the end of the book it is a fascinating read and I would encourage anyone who is a Christian to read it, not because it will necessarily dent your faith (although it should make you question a few things), but because if you're going to sign on to a philosophy or religion you'd think you'd want to investigate it thoroughly and see if it holds up, or indeed if what you're being told has anything to do with what the person you worship actually said.
It's obvious to even the casual student of the New Testament that the Gospels were written some years after the events described and that the later ones have a different audience and spin than the earlier ones. There is also stuff clearly added in long after the event attempting to justify and bolster whatever message each Gospel writer is trying to get across. You can not take the New Testament as a solid, factual account, mainly because it is so contradictory. But, to give an example, it's very hard to reconcile the idea that Jesus forewarned his disciples of the fact that he would be crucified and rise again after three days with the reaction all the disciples gave to the news that Jesus was out and about and walking around again after crucifixion. They don't act like people who knew this was coming and surely they wouldn't have forgotten something like that. And why would Thomas be so unbelieving about Jesus' resurrection if he had witnessed him doing all the crazy shit that he'd supposedly seen (including raising Lazarus and other dead or half dead people)? Jesus himself seems surprised by the turn of events, declaring "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Has he forgotten the big plan as well or did he as Vermes argues, believe that the Kingdom of God was going to arrive on Earth in his lifetime and was confused that God was allowing him to die before this event?
Luke plays down the eschatological nature of Jesus' teachings (partly because it had become embarrassingly apparent by then that the world had not in fact ended on schedule), but it seems fairly evident that this was one of the main thrusts behind it all. He wasn't trying to create a new religion, just trying to encourage his fellow Jews to get busy and save as many souls as possible, because the end was nigh. He would, I imagine, have been right pissed off to find out that the world was still tootling along 2000 years hence and that his message was being twisted so far from its original point. Would he have got a kick out of being so famous and heralded as a God or would it have been embarrassing to him?
Vermes clearly and cleverly points out where the Gospel writers or their editors have changed the focus of the message, not it has to be said out of any wickedness - he thinks they are all sincerely trying to recreate the word of Jesus - but they have different motivations and audiences to cater for. So the parables which were perhaps intended to be secret messages passed between only those close to Jesus, have to be opened up and made less obscure for Luke's Gentile readers. And he also downplays Jesus' racism and disdain towards Samaritans, who despite what you might think, he really didn't like in the earlier Gospels.
It's fascinating if slightly academic stuff (I don't see anyone else on the beach reading Vermes, but hopefully it will convince the casual observer that I am a religious nutter and thus stop them trying to talk to me - unless they're a religious nutter too, this could backfire) and it doesn't necessarily demean the figure of Jesus (though it seems to make it clear that he wasn't a god, nor even a Christian as we'd understand it).
I did come across a story that I hadn't spotted before (or had forgotten about) which appears in Mark and Matthew which shows a crazy side to Jesus that we only really otherwise see when he chucked over all those tables in the Temple (he hated furniture), where Jesus is returning from Bethany and is all hungry and he sees a fig tree in the distance, but when he gets to it he finds there are only leaves on it (as it is not the season for figs). And then he says to it (talking to a tree, like a man heralding his superiority over the tide), "May no one ever eat from you again."
Jesus curses a fig tree for having no fruit on it, when it is not the season for figs. It seems a bit harsh. And unChristian. And not to be making any real kind of point other than to show that Jesus got a bit grumpy when he was hungry and was capable of misappropriating his magical powers by prompting vicious attacks on vegetation. It's not as funny as him turning children into pigs, but if I was magic all sorts of things would be getting blown up all over the shop, dependent on my mood, so the fact Jesus kept things under control most of the time is to be admired.
If you prefer to believe something based on faith and don't want to know anything about the person that you are worshipping as a God, then obviously don't read Vermes (or indeed the New Testament in too much detail whilst paying any attention to what it says). But if I was going to turn my whole life over to such an all encompassing philosophy I'd want to do a bit or research into it first and there are many actual facts that are discernible from such study. And you can get a reasonable shot at working out what things Jesus might actually have said or believed, in the context in which they were probably meant. Which I am quite excited about and I'm not even a Christian.
Maybe I am reading too many books that demand evidence and facts before accepting ludicrous ideas.
I don't know whether Geza Vermes will email me after this entry, but for the second time in as many months I have heard from the author of a book I have recommended. Ben Goldacre emailed me today to offer to hide in a cupboard during a Collings and Herrin podcast and then leap out to counter Collings when he's in the middle of one of his more ridiculous flights of fancy. Though I am tempted to go along with the idea (mainly, in truth, because I like the idea of Goldacre having to crouch in a cupboard for up to an hour), I respect Mr Collings far too much (as I think is clear from all I have said to him and about him) to play such a trick. But it's cool to think that academics are either reading this blog, or being alerted to it by their readers, or that they spend a lot of time googling themselves to see what people are saying about them.
If
Geza Vermes emailed me I would be a bit star-struck though. I am a massive fan of this 84 year old scholar. I suspect he has better things to be getting on with though. Unlike Goldacre who spends most of his time hiding in cupboards in the hope that he can spring out on people whose scientific rigour is not to his liking. I don't think Vermes would ever offer to hid in a cupboard, but if he wants to then he would be my number one academic to have in a cupboard, ready to counter anyone who is stupid enough not to know the truth. Followed by Mary Beard. With Goldacre coming in a miserable third.
