In 2012, a religious document made the rounds of the
popular media (Morris) . The claim was that
this secretive document, worth $14 million, denied the crucifixion of Jesus and
supposedly reported that Jesus prophesied that the prophet Muhammad was to
come, as a Messiah type. Recently, I have seen this document make the rounds on
social media. It is curious that after some very mild hype in 2012, this story
has suddenly come back to life, for no apparent reason. This is usually the
case when it comes to Christian history and the possibility of some sort of
cover up.
This post is meant to take a clear look at the claims, and see if this document, as well as the reporting of the document and Christian history, holds up to basic scrutiny. I will break my argument into three sections:
This post is meant to take a clear look at the claims, and see if this document, as well as the reporting of the document and Christian history, holds up to basic scrutiny. I will break my argument into three sections:
- Reliability of the document. Here I will examine the documents age, its language, the details surrounding its secrecy and non-biased examination, and the relation of Muslim theology to this document
- Reporting on the document, and Christian History. In this section, I will look at the reporting surrounding this document. More specifically, I will look at many of the supposed ‘facts’ surrounding popular belief about Christian history, and the formation of doctrine and the Canon.
- Evidence for the Crucifixion. Since the document in case denies the crucifixion of Christ, it only seems right to counter the underlying premise of the document.
By the end of this post, I hope to lay out the case that this document is fraudulent, and not verified by any scholarly institution. Instead, it is peddled by Muslims who deny the historicity of the Crucifixion, and by those who do not have a clear grasp on Christian history. All of this runs contrary to accepted historical evidence and should be put to rest.
Reliability of the Document
The first major flaw that we see with the claims of this document is the purported dating to 1500 years old. This presents a few issues. If dated to 1500 years of age, this would make it around 400 years after the New Testament documents were penned. This would be akin to someone at the end of NEXT century writing a document stating the George Washington was never President of the United States. Why would we trust a document from a later in history, when it contradicts primary sources (those who were there, or knew someone there)?
Can you imagine taking a history course where they ignore
the writings of soldiers and citizens during the American Civil War, and
instead use the book “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”? That would never stand.
Yet, when it comes to Christian history, this sort of thing is allowed to
stand. It is quite perplexing.
There is a more important issue at hand, however, regarding the dating of this document. It has been widely reported that this document is 1500 years old. This is NOT the case! Some of the pictures released of the document raised immediate eyebrows among the Neo-Aramaic (also known as modern Assyrian) speaking community. According to Assyrian International News Agency (AINA News) :
There is a more important issue at hand, however, regarding the dating of this document. It has been widely reported that this document is 1500 years old. This is NOT the case! Some of the pictures released of the document raised immediate eyebrows among the Neo-Aramaic (also known as modern Assyrian) speaking community. According to Assyrian International News Agency
“The bottom inscription, which is the most clearly visible from the published photos, says the following:
Transliteration: b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b'sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran
Translation: In the name of our Lord, this book is written on the hands of the monks of the high monastery in Nineveh, in the 1,500th year of our Lord.”
Did you notice that? Assyrians
can read the inscriptions and it clearly says that this book was written in the
1500s CE, not 1500 years ago. This is 1400 years after the original New
Testament was penned.
AINA continues by saying :
“There are spelling errors that are immediately noticeable.…
The bottom sentence uses the word ktawa (“book”) to refer to the book, but in Assyrian the Bible is never referred to as a “book.”
One says awreta (Old Testament), khdatta (New Testament), or ktawa qaddeesha (holy book). Given this, since no one has seen the inside of this “Bible,” we cannot be sure if it is in fact a Bible.
Most significantly, this writing is in Modern Assyrian, which was standardized in the 1840s. The first bible in Modern Assyrian was produced in 1848. If this book were written in 1500 A.D. it should have been written in Classical Assyrian.”
So, even those there were claims that this document was
from 1500 years ago, cues from the text show that the document says it is from
the 1500s. Still, just from the use of modern language, we know that the text
cannot be before the 1840s. In my opinion (and likely, most serious scholars),
this is the most damning evidence against the reliability of this document. It
is clearly written in a very late date, some 1800 years after the actual events
of Jesus’ life and death.
However, there are more reasons to doubt this document.
First, it hasn’t been tested by any professional, scholarly institution. In
fact, outside of a few pictures, this document has been kept in relative
secrecy. If this document was such a big deal, why won’t they let third party
researchers test and examine it?
Finally, we have to contend with the fact that the claims
around this document seem to fit right in with a particular theology of
Muslims. In Islam, it is said that Jesus never died. Specifically, God would
never let a messenger die in way such as crucifixion. Therefore, Muslims are
left to believe one of a few things:
·
The story of the Crucifixion was made up at a
later time, and Jesus never died.
·
Jesus was going to be crucified, but God
disguised someone else to look like him, to die in his place.
·
Jesus was crucified, but never died, as he was
protected by God’s power.
So, the fact that a document proclaiming be 1500 – 2000 years
old, supposedly says that Jesus never died, is held in secret by Muslims not to
be tested by anyone else, and is only validated by the Islamic theocracy in
Iran, seems to be suspect of extreme bias. The fact that they can ignore the
lingual evidence that shows this document to be written in the l800s shows that
they do not have the intentions of sharing the honest truth about this
document. This is meant only to serve their goal of spreading their religious
beliefs.
I have no qualm with people wanting to spread their religion. I admit that, as a Christian, I also want to spread my beliefs. However, I will not knowingly spread lies to further that goal. Eventually, the lie gets out, and it makes one look like a fool. And, as Mr T said “I pity the fool…”
I have no qualm with people wanting to spread their religion. I admit that, as a Christian, I also want to spread my beliefs. However, I will not knowingly spread lies to further that goal. Eventually, the lie gets out, and it makes one look like a fool. And, as Mr T said “I pity the fool…”
Reporting on the Document in Context of Christian History
Along with the reporting of this
document has come the predictable conspiracy stories about the Vatican, and the
general ignorance of Christian history. Most Christians are used to seeing
these types of stories, especially around Christmas or Easter. This, I suppose,
is a good thing. There is now a wealth of scholarly information about Christian
history, because of these reoccurring myths.
One of the most enduring of these myths is that, as an article claims that “during the Council of Nicea (sic) the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”(Serpent) . If I had a nickel for
every time I heard a claim similar to this, I would be a very rich man.
First, let’s look at what the Council of Nicaea WASN’T. It was not a secretive meeting of the Catholic Church, where they decided to write doctrines in order to control the populace. It also was not a time period where there were many competing, equally true versions of Christianity being debated, with the current version of Christianity being the winner.
Prior to Nicaea, doctrine had spread from Jesus to the Apostles. The Apostles passed it on to the Early Church Fathers (a collection of scholars, writers, and clergy that were appointed by the Apostles). Doctrine was spread by oral and written means. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote 13 letters to various churches and friends, in order to make sure they remember to follow the things that he had taught them in person. These teachings and tradition are preserved, in part or in whole, in the later writings. This is important because it shows that the teachings of the ECFS, especially those around Nicaea, were the same teachings that the first Christians believed. Generally speaking, if you have a certain teaching, you can find out if it has an authentic source by tracing it to an earlier time. The earlier you can trace it, the more likely it is that this is an authentic belief. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is true in its substance because it is old, but at least we know it comes from a trustworthy source, as opposed to something like this fraudulent document in Turkish possession.
One of the most enduring of these myths is that, as an article claims that “during the Council of Nicea (sic) the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”
First, let’s look at what the Council of Nicaea WASN’T. It was not a secretive meeting of the Catholic Church, where they decided to write doctrines in order to control the populace. It also was not a time period where there were many competing, equally true versions of Christianity being debated, with the current version of Christianity being the winner.
Prior to Nicaea, doctrine had spread from Jesus to the Apostles. The Apostles passed it on to the Early Church Fathers (a collection of scholars, writers, and clergy that were appointed by the Apostles). Doctrine was spread by oral and written means. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote 13 letters to various churches and friends, in order to make sure they remember to follow the things that he had taught them in person. These teachings and tradition are preserved, in part or in whole, in the later writings. This is important because it shows that the teachings of the ECFS, especially those around Nicaea, were the same teachings that the first Christians believed. Generally speaking, if you have a certain teaching, you can find out if it has an authentic source by tracing it to an earlier time. The earlier you can trace it, the more likely it is that this is an authentic belief. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is true in its substance because it is old, but at least we know it comes from a trustworthy source, as opposed to something like this fraudulent document in Turkish possession.
For example, think of the story
about Christopher Columbus. Many modern people believe that in his time, it was
common to believe the Earth was flat. If we go from the year 2014, we can go
back in time following this belief in popular culture. However, we have to stop
in 1828, the year that Washington Irving first published this myth. You cannot
go any time before this and find the claim that Columbus was a brave man that
rejected the flat earth hypothesis. No, instead, if you go back to the time
around Columbus (and even before), you will read that many people accepted that
the earth was some sort of spherical creation. Therefore, given the time
between the account and the actual event, plus contradicting contemporary
testimonies, we can deem this story to be a myth.
I don’t know if it the process of tracing a belief/story’s origin has an official name, but I would call it historical stratification, as it reminds me of geological stratification. In geology, you can usually tell which rocks are oldest, and which are newest, by how they are laid. If we were to dig up the earth some place, and find 30 layers of basalt below 10 layers of sedimentary rock, which is below many layers of soil, we can determine that the basalt is the oldest. Also, since there is no interruption in the layers, we can tell that the basalt came from the same source, whereas the sedimentary rock came from a different source. You cannot claim that sedimentary rock and basalt are from the same source. They may be hard, and buried in the ground, but they are clearly different.
Now, that takes me to the purpose of Nicaea (whew, that was a lot to say just to get to this point). Nicaea came at a time when many new teachings were starting to pop up all over the place. These teachings were not in line with what was passed along since the beginning of the Church. The official term for this is heterodoxy, but is also known as heresy.
Heresies have been around Christianity since the beginning. The first believers of Jesus had to wrestle with their identity. Did converts to Jesus have to become a Jew first? Did they need to keep the dietary laws? Would the men have to be circumcised? The apostles agreed that this was not necessary, and denounced the attempts to make Gentiles into Jews. However, this movement persisted, and worked against the Apostles; this among the first heresies. Gnosticism also began to slip into Christian churches. This is where we get many of the heresies of the first few centuries. Despite this, Christianity was relatively uniform in teaching the same doctrine.
However, the number of heresies did grow, especially when Christianity became prominent in the Roman Empire. This is why the Council of Nicaea was called. The Emperor wasn’t too learned on theology, so he relied on the bishops. In one corner, there were Bishops who continued teaching things which they had been passed. In the other corner were bishops that began to teach heresies. In all honesty, there shouldn’t have been a debate. After all, if you have clear teachings from the beginning, how can you dispute that? But the debate was allowed, which has now given rise to that famous meme “there were many equal competing Christian factions”. No, the doctrine that was set into Creed form at Nicaea was doctrine that was already taught for the past 250 years prior to Nicaea.
The other major myth is that the New Testament was ‘hand-picked’ at Nicaea. The claim is the same with the official doctrine: There were many competing books, and the powerful Church decided to pick the ones which gave it most control, therefor we cannot trust the New Testament. Again, this is false. Going back to the ECFs, we can see that they already had the writings now included in the New Testament, and did not include any of the Gnostics, such as Gospel of Barnabas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, among others.
If one is trying to preserve the original teachings, doesn’t it make sense to use writings from the people who taught those original teachings, instead of using later creations by people who were known heretics?
But, for the conspiracy minded person, this is proof of some sort of secretive power grab, despite the historical evidence showing otherwise.
I don’t know if it the process of tracing a belief/story’s origin has an official name, but I would call it historical stratification, as it reminds me of geological stratification. In geology, you can usually tell which rocks are oldest, and which are newest, by how they are laid. If we were to dig up the earth some place, and find 30 layers of basalt below 10 layers of sedimentary rock, which is below many layers of soil, we can determine that the basalt is the oldest. Also, since there is no interruption in the layers, we can tell that the basalt came from the same source, whereas the sedimentary rock came from a different source. You cannot claim that sedimentary rock and basalt are from the same source. They may be hard, and buried in the ground, but they are clearly different.
Now, that takes me to the purpose of Nicaea (whew, that was a lot to say just to get to this point). Nicaea came at a time when many new teachings were starting to pop up all over the place. These teachings were not in line with what was passed along since the beginning of the Church. The official term for this is heterodoxy, but is also known as heresy.
Heresies have been around Christianity since the beginning. The first believers of Jesus had to wrestle with their identity. Did converts to Jesus have to become a Jew first? Did they need to keep the dietary laws? Would the men have to be circumcised? The apostles agreed that this was not necessary, and denounced the attempts to make Gentiles into Jews. However, this movement persisted, and worked against the Apostles; this among the first heresies. Gnosticism also began to slip into Christian churches. This is where we get many of the heresies of the first few centuries. Despite this, Christianity was relatively uniform in teaching the same doctrine.
However, the number of heresies did grow, especially when Christianity became prominent in the Roman Empire. This is why the Council of Nicaea was called. The Emperor wasn’t too learned on theology, so he relied on the bishops. In one corner, there were Bishops who continued teaching things which they had been passed. In the other corner were bishops that began to teach heresies. In all honesty, there shouldn’t have been a debate. After all, if you have clear teachings from the beginning, how can you dispute that? But the debate was allowed, which has now given rise to that famous meme “there were many equal competing Christian factions”. No, the doctrine that was set into Creed form at Nicaea was doctrine that was already taught for the past 250 years prior to Nicaea.
The other major myth is that the New Testament was ‘hand-picked’ at Nicaea. The claim is the same with the official doctrine: There were many competing books, and the powerful Church decided to pick the ones which gave it most control, therefor we cannot trust the New Testament. Again, this is false. Going back to the ECFs, we can see that they already had the writings now included in the New Testament, and did not include any of the Gnostics, such as Gospel of Barnabas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, among others.
If one is trying to preserve the original teachings, doesn’t it make sense to use writings from the people who taught those original teachings, instead of using later creations by people who were known heretics?
But, for the conspiracy minded person, this is proof of some sort of secretive power grab, despite the historical evidence showing otherwise.
Proof of Jesus’ Crucifixion
I’ll make this section short, simply listing extra biblical non-Christian
sources that document the Crucifixion of Jesus. I could post plenty of Early
Christian sources, but I want to avoid the accusation of Christian bias. By
posting sources that are deemed hostile to Christianity, it removes the
appearance of pro-Christian bias, therefore making the argument for the
historicity of Jesus’ death more solid.
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus--Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
The Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus--Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
The Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Lucian (circa 120-after 180)
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.
Celsus (~ 178 A.D.)
"Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been."
Works Cited
AINA News.
(n.d.). Retrieved from Assyrian International News Agency:
http://www.aina.org/news/2012022916569.htm
Morris, C. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Christian Post:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/turkeys-1500-year-old-28m-bible-linked-to-gospel-of-barnabas-70148/
Serpent, T. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sons
on the Pyre:
http://sonsonthepyre.com/1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-vatican-in-awe/
